NationStates Jolt Archive

UNDERSTANDING the many uses of Nuclear Energy

NOTING the many dangers of Nuclear Energy (meltdown, leakage, etc.)

REMINDING that Plutonium Energy can harm people and even be used as weapons.

ASSERTING that the Plutonium Energy Industry, being the most dangerous and polluting of all nuclear power, should be dissolved immediately

THE U.N. HEREBY RESOLVES that the Plutonium Energy Industry should be terminated in all U.N. Nations and be replaced by safer, more reliable Energy Sources. This Resolution does not eliminate Uranium Mining and Energy.

[thank you very much for taking your time to read this, please add more]

It's not bad. But what category and/or strenght does this fall in?

Someone apparently doesn't like Marvin the Martain having his Pu Plutonium Space Irridator!

it would probably fall under environmental category, strength "significant"

should I add more?

it would probably fall under environmental category, strength "significant"

Environmental doesn't have strength, it has Area of Effect, try again.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

Environmental doesn't have strength, it has Area of Effect, try again.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I like it, but more details would be advisable. People can take this a lot of different ways and run with it. This would create unneccesary problems.

Robert Trent
UN Representive for the Holy Empire of Ibinius

We can't believe we're saying this, but we would be opposed to this resolution. While Plutonium is an amazingly poisonous substance, we would like to see some support for the assertions made in the preamble, which we are frankly dubious of.

Plutonium, be it pu239 or 240 or any other isotope, is present in quantities measured in thousands of tons among the nations of the UN.

If this plutonium is not to be used then surely it must be disposed of but such things are not possible with the termination of the industry.

Furthermore Plutonium creation can not be halted so long as nuclear power is still in use as the fission reactions of uranium reactors PRODUCE plutonium. The idea that Uranium is allowed while plutonium must be banned is an act of hypocrisy and ignorance that ignores the fundamentals of nuclear power.

Those who propose this also seem to fail to recognise that one of the best ways to reduce the amount of existing plutonium is by using it. Fast Breeder Reactors or reactors geared to run on MOX or Mixed Oxide Fuel offer one of the few ways in which reactor grade plutonium can actually be ELIMINATED to a large extent leading to a much smaller quantity of waste to dispose of. If such options were eliminated, as they would be by this resolution then not only would current stockpiles be frozen but new plutonium would constantly be being added through uranium fission reactors.

I would also dispute the statement made that plutonium is the most toxic and
polluting form of nuclear energy. The toxicity of plutonium is in dispute; indeed may i remind you of the low chemical toxicity of plutonium and ability of a worker to hold a kilogram brick of the material without protection. Furthermore it can be noted that Plutonium can be considered far less polluting than uranium in a way because the waste produced by reactions can then be used again as additional fuel reducing wastage and raising efficiency.

While it is acknowledged that plutonium forms the core of most modern nuclear weapons a ban on Plutonium on the basis it can be used in weapons is fundamentally flawed in its reason if it does not also advocate the destruction of the Uranium industry as this can be used to create nuclear weapons as well albeit of a completely different type. This statement is also completely irrelevant as nuclear weapons do not fall within the scope of this resolution, indeed under your resolution nations may find the best use for excess plutonium stockpiles is refinement to weapons grade and the installation in nuclear weapons.

Quite frankly i believe you are scaremongering by your use of the noting of the dangers of the nuclear energy industry. ((The fact remains that no modern, fast breeder plutonium reactor or MOX reactor has ever been subject to a nuclear accident.)) Modern design and safety standards have reduced these dangers to the point where they exist only in the minds of fanatics who would hear no reason and seek only to undermine the nuclear industry at any cost.

One does not ban all motorised transport of all kinds because an accident can lead to death or destruction, indeed such things are happening any given second among the nations that are members of the UN and yet motorised transport continues.

Let me finally remind you of just how important plutonium power is to some nations of this body. Allied Tion and its allies feed of a linked power grid, almost three billion souls hungry for energy. 94% of that power grid is sourced from massive underground reactor complexes. With the latest innovations in reactor design the efficiency we have achieved is quite remarkable producing a very low final waste output. No reactor has ever gotten beyond any recommended parameters. We have, on stockpile, enough reactor grade plutonium to see us through the next 150 years regardless of new production.

This resolution would destroy 94% of our power grid overnight.
This resolution would eliminate a clean, advanced, efficient power source.
This resolution would be the deaths of millions of jobs worldwide.
This resolution would leave nuclear scientists unemployed and likely to take employment from less savoury nations seeking a little more from their plutonium
This resolution would see the transfer of plutonium to non member nations merely expanding the industry in other nations, ones beyond your control.
Your Resolution would see further nuclear proliferation as the only economical way to exploit plutonium would be for its use not in energy but weapons.

Ladies and Gentlemen, This Resolution is built on no scientific grounding, supported only by zealots and those with no plutonium industry of note.

I was unaware that the UN would ever see a resolution proposing a crucifixion, yet before me i see a draft for one which amounts to the crucifixion of entire nations, a draft for a resolution which would quite literally plunge entire nations, nations of the civilised world, nations of this body into darkness.


I know this is a draft ladies and gentlemen, but this dangerous affront has to be nipped in the budd.

I know this is a draft ladies and gentlemen, but this dangerous affront has to be nipped in the budd.

Welcome to the United Nations. The intelligence and thoroughness that you displayed in your response will serve you well here.

For reasons similar to yours, the Federation also opposes this proposal.

Former Deputy Minister of UN Affairs
Thomas Smith

One does not ban all motorised transport of all kinds because an accident can lead to death or destruction, indeed such things are happening any given second among the nations that are members of the UN and yet motorised transport continues.

Well, actually, there is a current bill in our nation to ban all motorized transport of all kinds because an accident can lead to death or destruction.

While the President expressed that it will veto such a bill, there has been some telegram campagins by left-wing lobbyists wanting for such a ban. We would like to point that their arguments about death and destruction caused by cars are indeed pretty convicing.

Altough, we would like to note one thing:

Er...does Plutonium even exist? All I know is that it's some sort of thing I saw on a television show "Real Life", but from my miners, the only thing that can actually be used for Nuclear Power is Uranium Mining. If it doesn't exist, well, this resolution is useless.

If it does exist and this law passes, can't you redefine all Plutonium to be Pltuonium? Just rename the mineral, and you'll be fine.

It's not bad.

Yes it is. Not only is the science bad (plutonium the 'most dangerous and polluting'?) but even if it that were true the UN has no business banning it.