NationStates Jolt Archive

Hey, just wrote this one up and I'd like to get some feedback on it.

"The United Nations,

Aware of the waning interest in the nuclear engineering field,

Acknowledgeing the overall lack of adequately equipped and modern research centers, measurement facilities, and radiochemistry facilities,

Recognizing the necessity of properly managed nuclear facilities to achieve nuclear safety and stability,

Fully believing in the cooperation of any national or international nuclear programs with national environmental programs and the United Nations Environment Program,

Noting with grave concern the continued persistence to advance the militaristic capabilities of nuclear neaponry and ignorance of the nonproliferation of nuclear weaponry by a limited few nations.

1. Strongly supports the standardization of specialized and advanced nuclear education programs, allowing for an easy option for qualified, higher level students who wish to transfer to other facilities within participating countries;

2. Urges the modernization of reactor reseaerch facilities, radiation measurement facilities, and radiochemistry facilities, and the decommissioning of facilities deemed obsolete or inadequate by the International Atomic Energy Agency;

3. Regrets the research of upgrading and advancing militaristic capabilities as well as the education of creating nuclear weaponry aside from basic courses on the functions, mechanics, and safety procedures of nuclear weaponry;

4. Strongly supports attracting younger generations to nuclear research through scholoarship for nuclear research graduates, financial aid for nuclear research graduates, internship programs for high school students and undergraduates, and high school and undergraduate visits to research facilities;

5. Appeals to the General Assembly Fifth Committee, NGO's, and the International Atomic Energy Agency for fiscal support for, but is not limited to:
A. Scholarships
B. Intern programs
C. Promotion of pursuing a career in nuclear science
D. Modernization of facilities through the use of light water reactors and efficient waste reduction policies
E. Investment in research facilities management

6. Reaffirms its determination to influence all research facilities and nuclear power plants to update and progress their health, environmental, and waste management standards to those standards recommended by the International Atomic Agency and the United Nations Environmental Program,

7. Encourages a strict screening process be implemented for potential students as a means of keeping nuclear technology out of the hands of terrorist organizations,

8. Recommends that the aforementioned screening process include, but is not limited to:
A. Extensive background checks that would include:
I. Criminal History
II. Family History
III. Educational History
B. That the student must be a citizen of a member-state in accordance with at least one of the following:
I. The Nuclear Proliferation Treaty
II. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act (UN Resolution #151)
III. The Nuclear Energy Research Act (UN Resoultion #154)
IV. The Nuclear Terrorist Act (UN Resolution #75)"

It mainly just deals with bringing about a more qualified group of people handling and operating nuclear facilities and the modernization of those facilities. I feel it's pretty necessary, so if anyone has any questions or anything please ask away.

Category? Strength or effect?

(also, it's probably too long for the character count in the submission queue)

It's catagory is Education and Creativity and it deals with Education.
And I've already proposed it, so go vote for it if you like it. :)

First, most of the committees you refer to have never been established by the UN. We have no 'Fifth Committee', no IAEA, no UNEP. Nearest equivalent would be the Nuclear Energy Research Council. Nor does anything called the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty have any legal standing in the UN.

As to the general idea: fine. But this combines to do too much, and too little. Too much, because it seems to mix nuclear disarmament, with nuclear power, with other things. Too little, because it seems odd to focus exclusively on nuclear energy, and not engineering, science and energy in general. If it has to be so narrow in focus, at least concentrate on education about nuclear energy, and omit the assorted comments about 'militarism'.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

As a matter of fact, the UN is compromised of several different committees. They include several general assemblies, the security council, and several departments dealing with a variety of topics. The IAEA is one such agency which works under the UN. That being said, I've just begun playing nationstates, so if the intent of this virtual "UN" is to be wholly seperate from the actual UN, then I guess you've made a point. However, I was under the assumption that this UN was modelled on the actual UN, which function depends on several different offical committees.
The problem which arises if indeed you are correct then is that, without the basis of the working UN committees, there's very few ways to go about funding resolutions. If a personcan't recognize the General Assembly Fifth Committee, which is the Administrative and Budgetary committee, then from where does the budget come from? Has there been resolutions passed to establish such a committee?
Addressing your second point-- I do not feel is very valid. This is a resolution which deals with the stimulation of nuclear energy research--- peaceful means of nuclear education. Militarism is therefore very necessary to mention. If I were to omit any notion of limiting the funded research to just energetic education, then the resolution could be twisted to also fund militaristic research. Do you see? Nuclear weaponry is not something which I feel can be justifiably funded by the United Nations and that should be outlined on a resolution about encouraging nuclear research.

Next, you say that it seems odd that I focus on nuclear energy instead of mentioning nuclear engineering and science as well. This is just untrue. While the main focus of this resolution happens to be nuclear power, that is only because it is a topic gaining very much popularity in a world-- be it the real world or our virtual world-- which seems to have adopted an agreement that alternative fuels must be utilized. Nuclear energy is a very attractive prospect as it creates a lot of energy with very little active material. Not only that, but the waste can be recycled to be used again for power. It is a very important idea and I include it specifically because it is, assumingly, something many nations would be concerned about. Even so, there is much flexibility in this resolution as to where the influence may go. Clause one states that students of nuclear education programs, not nuclear energy specific programs, may choose to transfer to a better school in another participating nation. Clause two urges the modernization of reactor research facilities which, while used for energy purposes, are also used in ship and submarine propulsion, transmutation of elements, and experimental research. Clause two also urges the modernization of radiation measurement facilities, which are obviously needed for the safety of students, interns, researchers, and the general populous. Clause four, like clause one, deals with students of general nuclear research, not any field in particular, as does clause five and clause eight. Clause six is another basic clause dealing with the safety of researching students and workers within nuclear facilities.

Anyway, I'd like to hear your solution to the first issue you raised: to whom or which committee to I request funding?

OOC: Yep, this UN is different from the other one. It doesn't share the same structure, powers, committee, members, history, and so on. Doesn't mean you can't use some of the same guiding principles, but it does mean you can't assume the existence of assorted committees.
then from where does the budget come from?
A valid question, one that has coincidentally just been raised again here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=349725).

IC: Addressing your second point-- I do not feel is very valid. This is a resolution which deals with the stimulation of nuclear energy research--- peaceful means of nuclear education. Militarism is therefore very necessary to mention. If I were to omit any notion of limiting the funded research to just energetic education, then the resolution could be twisted to also fund militaristic research. Do you see?
No, mainly because this isn't what your proposal says. If the language were similar to that you've just presented here, fine (though, given the UN has guaranteed the right of nations to develop and possess nuclear weapons, denying the importance of researching safe technology in such arenas still seems silly). But instead, you simply 'regret militarism', which is of little consequence.
Next, you say that it seems odd that I focus on nuclear energy instead of mentioning nuclear engineering and science as well.
No, no I don't. I say 'it seems odd to focus exclusively on nuclear energy, and not engineering, science and energy in general'. However, the thrill of debating the issue has died a pretty terrible death on reading that wall of text, so, 'ok'.
Anyway, I'd like to hear your solution to the first issue you raised: to whom or which committee to I request funding?
So, when I mentioned the Nuclear Energy Research Council, I was just, what? Spouting random words for the sake of it? (Though, to do your job for you - it's fucking lazy not to read through past resolutions - if you want funding for educational projects, you should try the UNEAF.)

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

"So, when I mentioned the Nuclear Energy Research Council, I was just, what? Spouting random words for the sake of it? (Though, to do your job for you - it's fucking lazy not to read through past resolutions - if you want funding for educational projects, you should try the UNEAF.)"

Is it necessary to be so harsh? No, it's not. Especially considering I just learned that this UN doesn't function on the same basic principals that the actual UN doesn't. Also, it should be obvious I've read through past resolutions: read clause eight, it actually references three past resolutions, you dick.

"I say 'it seems odd to focus exclusively on nuclear energy, and not engineering, science and energy in general'."
"Next, you say that it seems odd that I focus on nuclear energy instead of mentioning nuclear engineering and science as well. "

What's the difference between these two quotes? A single word? Okay, sorry I didn't directly quote you. Can you actually explain a difference in their meaning though?

You know, I really wasn't trying to argue with you man. I was asking for your advice, not to "do my job for me". That's kind of what the UN is about, sharing ideas and engaging in diplomacy. Your shitty attitude is really discouraging in a beginning experience.

"I say 'it seems odd to focus exclusively on nuclear energy, and not engineering, science and energy in general'."
"Next, you say that it seems odd that I focus on nuclear energy instead of mentioning nuclear engineering and science as well. "

What's the difference between these two quotes? A single word? Okay, sorry I didn't directly quote you. Can you actually explain a difference in their meaning though?
Yep. I meant: it seems odd not to call for support for non-nuclear science and engineering. Valuable as nuclear energy is, it isn't the be-all and end-all: there's clearly worth in promoting other renewable energy sources, and in training up a new generation of researchers to develop them. Nonetheless, on consideration, I will concede the point and drop this line of argument.
You know, I really wasn't trying to argue with you man. I was asking for your advice, not to "do my job for me".
And I gave you my advice:
- use the existing NERC and UNEAF committees;
- consider changing some of the language, which seems to me misleading (when you explained the 'militarism' aspect, it made sense, so you might edit that clause appropriately);
- consider broadening the scope of the research encouragements, advice I have since recanted.

Further thoughts:
2. Urges the modernization of reactor reseaerch facilities, radiation measurement facilities, and radiochemistry facilities, and the decommissioning of facilities deemed obsolete or inadequate by the International Atomic Energy Agency;
Maybe cut this. It's a good idea and I agree with it, but I'm not sure it belongs in this proposal, which is about education; decommissioning old facilities deserves its own, separate proposal.
4. Strongly supports attracting younger generations to nuclear research through scholoarship for nuclear research graduates, financial aid for nuclear research graduates, internship programs for high school students and undergraduates, and high school and undergraduate visits to research facilities;
This is all excellent. Other ideas: public awareness courses? And what about something concerning conversion: programs to fast-track graduates in other fields whose skills and knowledge might be transferable?
5 D. Modernization of facilities through the use of light water reactors and efficient waste reduction policies

6. Reaffirms its determination to influence all research facilities and nuclear power plants to update and progress their health, environmental, and waste management standards to those standards recommended by the International Atomic Agency and the United Nations Environmental Program,
Once again, I'd suggest eliminating this, and making the focus of your proposal exclusively educational. Leave out upgrading facilities.
8 II. Family History
Meh. Not wild about the implications of that.

-- George Madison
Legislative Director
Quintessence of Dust Department of UN Affairs

Alright, a couple of further things. One, I apologise for my unnecessary attitude.

Two, in context, this proposal (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=516353) failed quite recently. Many thought it tried to do too much, and people who supported nine-tenths of it still voted against based on a couple of objectionable clauses. Hence, it's not unreasonable to hold this to the same standard. Do one thing right - get a good proposal on education in nuclear research drafted - and leave the other elements (nuclear surety, upgrading power plants, waste disposal) to another proposal.

-- George Madison

This legislation states nothing about proliferation of nuclear weapons technology. The training of nuclear engineers and building of nuclear power plants is often a first step towards the building of small atomic weapons, and eventually larger weapons of mass destruction. There is nothing in this legislation that addresses this problem. We are not going to train nuclear engineers unless there are clear safeguards and specifics put into this legislation that focus on peaceful civilian use. The idea that a terrorist is going to somehow get the nuclear training is not the problem. The problem is that a state may get the technology and threaten its neighbors or hand the technology over to terrorists. Most successful terrorism has state sponsorship.

As a matter of fact, the UN is compromised of several different committees. They include several general assemblies, the security council, and several departments dealing with a variety of topics. The IAEA is one such agency which works under the UN. That being said, I've just begun playing nationstates, so if the intent of this virtual "UN" is to be wholly seperate from the actual UN, then I guess you've made a point.

Yeah, this one's gonna have to be removed because of that misunderstanding, but I'll give you a break and forego the normal warning. You might want to hang out here for a few days and fine-tune your draft to NS standards before resubmitting.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NS Game Moderator

A minor suggestion, but you might wish to run an English spellchecker over the text. There are a few glaring misspellings, though as first drafts go we would like to congratulate you on producing something much better than average.

"This legislation states nothing about proliferation of nuclear weapons technology. The training of nuclear engineers and building of nuclear power plants is often a first step towards the building of small atomic weapons, and eventually larger weapons of mass destruction. There is nothing in this legislation that addresses this problem. We are not going to train nuclear engineers unless there are clear safeguards and specifics put into this legislation that focus on peaceful civilian use. The idea that a terrorist is going to somehow get the nuclear training is not the problem. The problem is that a state may get the technology and threaten its neighbors or hand the technology over to terrorists. Most successful terrorism has state sponsorship."

Your concerns are very legitimate, nuclear terrorism is a very serious thing to be threatened over. However, while this issue is one I recognize in its fullness, it is not the main topic of this resolution. This is about training nuclear researchers, engineers, and scientists to a level that is adaquete and meets a high level of safety standards. The management of nuclear facilities is crucial to their functioning. What's more, there are many nations who may not feel the need or have the money to establish a strong team of nuclear personnel.
At the same time, you'll notice there are several clauses in this resolution that deal with keeping the knowledge and weapons out of terrorist hands. Clauses seven and eight both outline a strict screening process before allotting funds to nuclear research students. To your concern that the actual nation may use the knowledge of their enlightened engineers against their neighbours or perhaps sell or give the information to terrorist organizations, that is not something to be contained in this resolution. While of course I agree with the need to assess this danger, it is not necessary to rewrite what's already to passed as The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act (UN Resolution #151) and the Nuclear Terrorist Act (UN Resolution #75).

I'm trying to figure out ways to reduce the length of this resolution, Mr. Madison. My only issue is that many of the clauses you've brought into question I see as almost directly correlating with the issue of nuclear education. However, in favor of your experience, if you feel that cutting out the decommissioning and upgrading of inadequate nuclear facilities would be better served in a wholly different proposal, I won't object to writing it up. However, the matter of limiting the funds to nuclear research to only peaceful means-- reactor research, energy, and engineering aspects and specifically not weaponry is very crucial in assauging the fears of nations such as Commonalitarianism who (if I'm correct) feel that this internationally funded research may bring about some sort of militaristic no-good. Though in one of your previous posts, I think we came to some sort of consensus on this, and I'll put a more specific meaning to clause three in the redraft. Also, thanks a bunch for your suggestions, I want to put you down as a contributor in the redraft unless you object.

Other than that I really think this is a good proposal. Nuclear power is, as far as our known technologies go, one of the best energy options suitable for many different nations. If we can agree on this, then it can only come natural that the facilities containing such a technology should be properly run and safely administered.

Oh, and in the actual proposal I did run a spell check. What I copy and pasted into the forum was the original draft.

Thanks!

I just rewrote the Stimulating Nuclear Knowledge proposal. If there are any other concerns please voice them, but if not, it's on the proposal list. Support it if you realize it necessity... :p

The United Nations,

Aware of the waning interest in the nuclear engineering field,

Fully believing in the cooperation of any national or international nuclear programs with progressive national environmental programs and the United Nations Waste Disposal Authority (UNWDA),

Expressing deep appreciation for the signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act,

Noting with grave concern the continued persistence to advance the militaristic capabilities of nuclear weaponry and the ignorance of the non proliferation of nuclear weaponry by a limited few nations,

1. STRONGLY SUPPORTS the standardization of specialized and advanced nuclear education programs, allowing for an easy option for qualified, higher level nuclear students who wish to transfer to other facilities within participating nations;

2. DEPLORES the research of upgrading and advancing militaristic capabilities as well as the education in creating nuclear weaponry;

3. FURTHER SUGGESTS the halting of all militaristic nuclear research and education EXCEPT for education and research on the basic mechanics, functions, and safety procedures of nuclear weaponry;

4. STRONGLY SUPPORTS attracting younger generations to peaceful nuclear research through scholarships for nuclear research graduates, financial aid for nuclear research graduates, internship programs for high school students and undergraduates, and high school and undergraduate student visits to research facilities;

5. APPEALS to the United Nations Education Advancement Fund (UNEAF) and NGO's for fiscal support for, but is not limited to:
A. Scholarships
B. Intern programs
C. Promotion of pursuing a career in nuclear science
D. Investment in research facilities management

6. AFFIRMS its determination to influence all research facilities and nuclear power plants to research progressive means to update their health, environmental, and waste management standards to those standards recommended by the Nuclear Energy Research Council (NERC) and the UNWDA;

7. ENCOURAGES a strict screening process to be implemented in the consideration for potential students as a means of keeping nuclear technology out of the hands of terrorist organizations;

8. RECOMMENDS that the aforementioned screening process include, but is not limited to:
A. Extensive background checks that include:
I. Criminal History
II. Family History
III. Educational History
B. That the student must be a citizen of a member state in accordance with at least one of the following:
I. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act (UN Resolution #151)
II. The Nuclear Energy Research Act (UN Resolution #154)
III. The Nuclear Terrorist Act (UN Resolution #75)
C. That the screening process will be carried out by employees of the NERC.

Just some further thoughts. First, the preamble may need some work. For example:
Aware of the waning interest in the nuclear engineering field,
Really? Based on what? If anything, I'd say nuclear energy gets talked about more than it did a few years ago, though I'll admit to not having the longest frame of reference in this regard. It might be better to simply state that the nuclear engineering field deserves support, or somesuch.
Fully believing in the cooperation of any national or international nuclear programs with progressive national environmental programs and the United Nations Waste Disposal Authority (UNWDA),
Could be simplified to 'national and international environmental programs', and 'progressive' could probably be dropped.
Expressing deep appreciation for the signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act,
Because of the way NSUN legislation, this is every single UN member. There's no choice about becoming a signatory.
Noting with grave concern the continued persistence to advance the militaristic capabilities of nuclear weaponry and the ignorance of the non proliferation of nuclear weaponry by a limited few nations,
Actually, I'd guess most UN nations have nuclear weapons, given they voted in a resolution protecting that right (and twice voted down proposals taking it away).

Second, this bit needs changing:
B. That the student must be a citizen of a member state in accordance with at least one of the following:
All UN nations are in accordance with all of those, and non-members have no obligation to be in accordance with any of them. But why deny a good student from a bad nation an opportunity? It seems to me the assessment should be based on the student: their national background is only relevant if they're particularly attached to the state apparatus.

-- George Madison

All UN nations are in accordance with all of those, and non-members have no obligation to be in accordance with any of them. But why deny a good student from a bad nation an opportunity? It seems to me the assessment should be based on the student: their national background is only relevant if they're particularly attached to the state apparatus.

Whilst we aren't quite sure we agree, it has suddenly occurred to us that 8B treads close to the edge of a House of Cards violation, and it may be best to remove it anyway.

You've brought up some pretty interesting points, but I feel I can address all of them.

First of all, the first preambulatory clause I will admit is based less on fact and more on assumption. I understand what happens when one assumes, but lets first consider the facts. The last UN resolution to be passed dealing exclusively with a nuclear topic was in March of 2006 (It was the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act #151)(Which I believe to be a long time considering the amount of time NS has been around. If you want some RL instances of this waning interest, I can explain them further) . While I understand that the absence of recent resolutions doesn't necessarily equate to a "waning interest", it may bring about some concern when you really think about it: a little over a year ago a resolution was passed which promotes the peaceful applications of nuclear power and since then no other issues have been brought about concerning that peaceful application? What about all the scientists who participated in the activities specifically outlawed in Article I of resolution #151? What do you think happened to them? It can't be hard to imagine that when and if our UN member-states applied the Non Proliferation Act to their nuclear facilities, many scientists probably lost their jobs. A lot of funding was most likely cut from the nuclear field and thus, the interest in entertaining such a field as a career choice waned. Yes, I understand that this chain reaction was never officially written out, but I also realize that it is a very likely and logical chain reaction. And it's not a blanket statement. It's a declaration that, within our United Nations, there is a waning interest in the nuclear field.

Next you bring up some wording issues which I'm not sure how to assess since I've already proposed the resolution. I suppose it would've made things a bit simpler in a sense, but I liked the idea of being able to reference a specific past resolution.

"Because of the way NSUN legislation, this is every single UN member. There's no choice about becoming a signatory."

I understand what your saying. However, I've come upon the impression that if one doesn't want a resolution to effect their nation, they might resign from the UN until the resolution is passed. Given, I'm not fully aware how often this occurs, but I did read it from an FAQ. Also, while nobody actually "signs" any resolution at all, the idea behind signatures is agreement. I guess I could reword it to say "Expressing Deep appreciation to those who agree with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act", but I don't know. Signators just sounds more official.

"Actually, I'd guess most UN nations have nuclear weapons, given they voted in a resolution protecting that right (and twice voted down proposals taking it away)."

Let me state for the record that nowhere in this resolution is there any clause which attempts to impede on a nations right to possess nuclear weaponry. I feel that this is a really important note to this resolution because I understand many nations may feel threatened by the clauses dealing with militaristic research. Instead, this is just a basic recommendation that militaristic nuclear research be halted. This is not to limit a nations ability to defend itself from other nations or weaken a nation. It is simply an agreement that nuclear weapons pose a threat--- not just to individual nations but to our entire world. While the nation of Newagelund fully supports a policy of disarmament, it continues to respect the nations that don't. However, the belief that progressing the massively destructive, fatal, and globally threatening aspects of nuclear weapons somehow benefits society is a belief that, in our opinion, should not be upheld by the United Nations.

Finally, I understand your conflict with some of the criteria in the screening process Newagelund has suggested be part of this resolution, and I agree with you. I'd love to be able to support the distribution of scholarships for all-- but for the safety of this world, that is simply not a good idea. These are the base line recommendations I could come up with: Criminal history, family history, educational history, and citizenship of a nation in accordance with a peaceful nuclear treaty. Criminal and educational history is obvious. You raised a question of family history in an earlier post I noticed though. Let me state to desist any future concerns: The screening process criteria is simply for consideration. When accepting this, perhaps it is easier to accept a record of family history of each student enrolling for a scholarship. No, I don't believe members of the family of a known group of terrorist should necessarily be excluded from recieving financial aid. Should this fact be made aware however? Certainly. You also raised a question about the final citizenship criteria. And once again, I'd love to be able to strike this from the resolution. But understand, if your nation is one that openly supports the advancement of militaristic nuclear weapons, and the usage of those weapons against other nations, then it is likely that a majority-- at least a large portion of the population, would share this belief. I mean, the citizenship criteria is only asking compliance with at least one of those. If your nation doesn't agree with any of those very basic peaceful nuclear resolutions, I honestly wouldn't feel safe giving your citizens money to learn more about nuclear science. Yes, I understand that is making many people who may have compassionate and peaceful mind uneligable for this finacial aid, but at the same time I recognize it would also make many potential terrorists uneligable.

To extend on this topic, I suppose your recommendation is that this be changed from a national to an individual basis. This is indeed a good idea. But individuals citizens do not sign and comply with United Nations resolutions. Nations do. It would be very easy to an individual to lie about his or her intentions when it comes to nuclear weaponry. If a nation were to do so, it would have to include some sort of covert scandal, at least if it wanted to be a member-state of the United Nations.

Anyway, thanks if you actually read all that I had to say. I know it's a lot, but I dunno. Sorry if it was boring or anything, but I just felt it was all relevent to the issue.
Thanks again!

Whilst we aren't quite sure we agree, it has suddenly occurred to us that 8B treads close to the edge of a House of Cards violation, and it may be best to remove it anyway.

Could you please explain further?

The House of Cards rule is that no resolution may depend on the existence of another resolution. If resolution A explicitly depends on circumstances of resolution B, then if B is repealed, A becomes somewhat ill-defined. While we don't think the list of resolutions that should be considered in 8B does that (OOC: note that I'm not a mod, so that's just my opinion and not a definitive statement!), it does tread quite close to the line.

We are completely in favor of this proposal.

Lord knows we could use some good old fashioned stimulation.

The problem is that a state may get the technology and threaten its neighbors or hand the technology over to terrorists. Most successful terrorism has state sponsorship.

You seem to be overlooking the existence of resolutions #75 The Nuclear Terrorism Act (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7161716&postcount=76) and #168 UN Counterterrorism Initiative (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11434528&postcount=169)...

However, I've come upon the impression that if one doesn't want a resolution to effect their nation, they might resign from the UN until the resolution is passed. Given, I'm not fully aware how often this occurs, but I did read it from an FAQ.
OOC: That prevents the effects that the resolution's passge would otherwise have on the nation's stats, but they're still considered legally bound by the resolution -- just as they are by all other resolutions, regardless of their membership status when those were passed -- if & when they re-join the UN...

We are completely in favor of this proposal.

Lord knows we could use some good old fashioned stimulation.

OOC: I was waiting for someone to do this. I was just too bloody lazy to do it myself. :D

We will support this resolution because it has taken the time to acknowledge safeguards in nuclear research. We believe that future benefits outweigh the risks in further studies into nuclear research. The potential for both regular fusion and acoustic inertial confinement fusion are tremendous.

Nuclear fusion has tremendous potential. Low half life waste, readily available sources of fuel-- deuterium which can be potentially extracted from sea water.

On the issue of the House of Cards rule, it is not applicable in this situation. (I realize you believe this as well, Gobbannium, but for clarification's sake...) The effectiveness of clause 8B does not depend on the existance of The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Act, The Nuclear Energy Research Act, and The Nuclear Terrorist Act as United Nations resolutions. If, for some reason, these three aforementioned resolutioned became repealed, they wouldn't cease to be. They would still be effective as repealed papers, and in this case, would still be used as a guideline for recieving funds from the Stimulating Nuclear Knowledge act.
Basically, all members of the United Nations would not be legally bound to them, however anyone expecting international funds from this resolution would have to still be in accordance with at least one of them.

And secondly I wanted to comment on Antarctic:
"That prevents the effects that the resolution's passge would otherwise have on the nation's stats, but they're still considered legally bound by the resolution -- just as they are by all other resolutions, regardless of their membership status when those were passed -- if & when they re-join the UN..."
If this is so and a UN member-nation is bound to resolutions passed even if the nation was not present at its passing, then I suppose there was no previous issue to be raised by Mr. Madison. All nations are therefore agreeable "signatories" in the formal sense of the word with regards to all UN resolutions.

I'd love to see some more support for this resolution, it could really do a lot of good. If there is any issue holding back support for it, please address it to me and I'd be happy to respond.

First of all, the first preambulatory clause I will admit is based less on fact and more on assumption. I understand what happens when one assumes, but lets first consider the facts. The last UN resolution to be passed dealing exclusively with a nuclear topic was in March of 2006
No, it was late April: the Nuclear Energy Research Act. More recently, another nuclear-related proposal, Nuclear Responsibility, made quorum, but failed (probably because it mixed disarmament and energy issues). In any case, in comparison with many other important global issues such as famine relief and clean water, nuclear energy has been disproportionately favoured by proposal authors.
(Source: the very useful UN Timeline (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/UN_Timeline).)
While I understand that the absence of recent resolutions doesn't necessarily equate to a "waning interest", it may bring about some concern when you really think about it: a little over a year ago a resolution was passed which promotes the peaceful applications of nuclear power and since then no other issues have been brought about concerning that peaceful application? What about all the scientists who participated in the activities specifically outlawed in Article I of resolution #151? What do you think happened to them? It can't be hard to imagine that when and if our UN member-states applied the Non Proliferation Act to their nuclear facilities, many scientists probably lost their jobs. A lot of funding was most likely cut from the nuclear field and thus, the interest in entertaining such a field as a career choice waned. Yes, I understand that this chain reaction was never officially written out, but I also realize that it is a very likely and logical chain reaction. And it's not a blanket statement. It's a declaration that, within our United Nations, there is a waning interest in the nuclear field.
I think a lot of this analysis is fair up until the Nuclear Energy Research Act - which promoted research and presumably restored these nuclear scientists to their jobs - passed.

It's probably not worth quibbling over given it's one line that has no operative effect.
Basically, all members of the United Nations would not be legally bound to them, however anyone expecting international funds from this resolution would have to still be in accordance with at least one of them.
I find that a completely convincing argument myself.
I'd love to see some more support for this resolution, it could really do a lot of good. If there is any issue holding back support for it, please address it to me and I'd be happy to respond.
If by this you mean the low number of delegate approvals for the submitted proposal, don't be disheartened. Most proposals get around that amount when submitted without a TG campaign. (The disheartening bit is the thought of having to conduct a TG campaign.)

-- George Madison

Yeah I began doing that just a second ago but it got kind of boring... =/
Is there any easier way of TGing regional delegates aside from manual sending each one?

Yeah I began doing that just a second ago but it got kind of boring... =/
Is there any easier way of TGing regional delegates aside from manual sending each one?

There is no other way.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative