NationStates Jolt Archive

The draft so far is:

--------------------------------

Title: Nuclear ICBM Safety Act
Category:International Security
Strength: Mild

Description:

ACKNOWLEDGING the need and/or desire for nations to defend themselves with nuclear weapons;

CONCERNED about civilian safety in case of accidents;

MANDATING extra research into the fail-safeing of nuclear weapons;

FURTHER MANDATING:

1. That nuclear weapons must by default by aimed at a location where civilian casualty would be minimal (e.g the ocean) in case of accidental launch.

2. That nuclear missile launch-platforms must be placed at a distance from settlements where loss of life would be minimal in the case of pre-launch detonation.

3. That all member nations must install a system in their nuclear missile launch-platforms where no one person can operate the facility.

4. That all W.A member nations only use nuclear weaponry that complies with safety regulations set out by the a commitee formed for this purpose.

ALLOWING nations to raise funds for such safety measures by means completely of their choice;

DISCOURAGING the use of nuclear weapons in an offensive capacity.

----------------------------------
Nations of the World Assembly: What are your objections, suggestions, and opinions?

While we would imagine that most member nations already have rules such as these, the Glen-Rhodes government fully supports this proposal so that all member nations with nuclear ambitions ensure the safety of humans and the environment during non-war times.

This isn't a "Nuclear Safety Act", this is a "Nuclear-tipped ICBMs in Silos Safety Act". You're not addressing sub-launched missiles, ship-launched missiles, aircraft nukes (including bombs and missiles), tactical man-personal battlefield nukes. You've not addressed nuclear power as shipboard propulsion of naval craft or space craft.

You're also not addressing any civilian nuclear power generation, nuclear waste, nuclear medicine, testing, fallout from testing, or anything else that is covered by the broad umbrella of "nuclear safety".

In short, I'd say you've got great unrealized potential, or you badly need a new title.

You make very valid points.

While the bill does adress all nuclear weaponry having to comply to safety standards, the title is not quite accurate.

Note that the act does adress ship-based and submarine-based nuclear weaponry by extra mandate number 1.

Perhaps a name change to ''Nuclear ICBM Safety Act''?

And a change of the word ''silo'' to ''launch-platform'' to include submarines, ships, and even sattelites in orbit.

Also, I feel the adressing of all nuclear items will have to wait for another day, as I was mainly interested in the ICBM safety.