NationStates Jolt Archive

Especially if you liked the Tsunami Warning Center.

Natural Disaster Act
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Groot Gouda

Description: The UN,

DEEPLY REGRETTING loss of life and material damages as a result of natural disasters such as earthquakes, landslides, volcanic eruptions, typhoons, floods, blizzards, etc;

NOTING that these disasters do not stop at national borders;

OBSERVING the Tsunami Emergency Warning Center as instituted by the Tsunami Warning System (Resolution #90);

NOTING that the aforementioned Resolution #90 has limited effect for other natural disasters;

ALSO NOTING that the measures implemented by this resolution can and should be used for further research and development of natural disaster warning systems;

1. DEFINES "natural disaster" as any disaster caused by (physical) geographical, geological or meteorological processes, including but not limited to earthquakes, landslides, volcanic eruptions, tropical cyclones, floods, blizzards, etc;

2. ESTABLISHES a Natural Disaster Assessment Organisation (NDAO) which has the following tasks:
a. Conduct research on natural disasters, preventative methods and monitoring systems,
b. Coordinate international cooperation on this field, in scientific research and in practical solutions,
c. Create protocols for warning about possible disasters, evacuation plans and local disaster awareness programmes,
d. Maintain contacts with local authorities and local organisations in order to improve communication of information about possible natural disasters and how to respond to them,
e. Maintain contacts with national governments participating in the NDAO, the Tsunami Warning Center, and the UN;

3. EMPHASIZES that the NDAO is meant primarily for natural disasters with an international impact;

4. REQUESTS that member nations collect and share geological, meteorological and other relevant data with other countries and the NDAO to assist in monitoring, forecasting and researching natural disasters;

5. URGES all nations to establish and fund a National Geological Survey and a National Meteorological Office which can colelct data, contribute to the NDAO as well as work on a national or regional level on the monitoring of potentially dangerous sites and conduct research;

6. EMPHASIZES that technology alone is not enough, but warning and evacuating the population efficiently is just as important, as well as having plans for dealing with a disaster and the rebuilding of the affected region;

7. URGES all nations to contribute financially, organisationally or otherwise to the NDAO;

8. CALLS UPON all nations to provide care and assistance in case of a natural disaster, by themselves or through recognized UN organisations such as the International Red Cross;

The People's Republic of Groot Gouda would like to thank Grosseschnauzer, Mikitivity and the Nederland region for their input.

OOC:
Since tonight I'll be stuck at home applying ice to my strained hamstring, I'm going to have HOURS to help telegram for this. If you have a list and form letter (perhaps on the IDU forum), I'd like to offer to contact 100 Delegates tonight.

If there are others interested in helping us, we can give you smaller lists.

Links to prior discussions:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=408032
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=399588
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=393479


Current location of the proposal:
http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/49738/page=UN_proposal/start=70

Approved, just like every other time this has been submitted.:)

I see he hasn't really fixed the problem I brought up last time.

I'm definitely voting for if it comes to vote. This is one of the few cases where the UN is willingly screwing itself in my favor that I didn't have to do any real work to cause.

Approved, just like every other time this has been submitted.:)

Thanks for the help! :)

Currently there are only 5 endorsements, but when I get home tonight I plan to start working off my UN Delegate call lists.

I like this proposal. Cobdenia supports this, although it is unable to contribute to the telegram campaign due to the burden of the 'Diplomatic Immunity' telegram campaign. Although I think that "Global Security" might be the wrong category, I still think what the heck!

I like this proposal. Cobdenia supports this, although it is unable to contribute to the telegram campaign due to the burden of the 'Diplomatic Immunity' telegram campaign. Although I think that "Global Security" might be the wrong category, I still think what the heck!

Thanks for the positive note and best wishes on your Diplomatic Immunity proposal (my government happens to agree that it is long past time that we talked about making a unilateral agreement on that particular issue).

The reason this is proposed as an "International Security" resolution is because we are actually needing to find a means to increase the budgets for emergency response:

"A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets."

Since NationStates doesn't have a category for firefighters and doctors, the best we can do is point to the folks like the NYPD that were one of many groups that put themselves on the front line domestically when there was a disaster.

In Mikitivity, when a blizzard hits, it is in fact the Police and even defense forces, that come to the rescue of the normal citizens. We constantly boost our police budgets, because we consider disaster prevention and response programs to be in the interest of public safety.

Sandbags, food, portable generators, water, blankets, first aid kits, you name it ... they are warehoused in various locations in our beloved mountains, and we are quick to use them in times of need. In fact, the current crisis in Neo Tyr is an example of where my government hopes the local population will accept our supplies in their time of need. (See the International Incidents forum for humanitarian relief efforts in Neo Tyr.)

Greetings,

Since this resolution seeks to improve funding for dealing with disaster preparedness and mentions the IRCO, we've sent out a number of telegrams (58 at present) asking UN Delegates to endorse this proposal.

Best Wishes.



On another note, the nation of Neo Tyr has requested humanitarian aid. (See the following thread in the International Incidents forum: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=372027&page=33&pp=15) The Red Cross will be happy to coordinate relief efforts.

First of all, thanks for your support. Unfortunately being pretty busy means I have little time to to a telegramming campaign; however I try to keep it in the proposal queue more or less continuously to allow others such as Mikitivity to campaign for a proposal that is actually accessible.

Please note that this proposal is now on page 1 of the proposal queue and only a few approvals short. Do it now!

You've got my support.

We've just become the delegate; and hence we have endorsed it.

Thanks to all delegates who supported the proposal. It has just come up for vote.

I will kick off the debate by explaining why this resolution was made. As you may remember, a few months ago the Tsunami Warning Centre was created. Although my government agrees with this resolution and voted FOR, we also started to work on a resolution covering more disasters than just tsunami's. The same tectonic activity can cause much more disasters, and it is not unlikely those will affect several countries. The result is the current resolution.

Because the funding has to come from somewhere, we figured that the most likely budget was the Millitary and Police. They are after all usually involved in disaster aid. It is mild, because obviously not every country needs to be involved.

The focus of this resolution is international. Disasters crossing borders also mean crossing laws, crossing ways of helping victims, etc. For that, international cooperation is the key. The main action from this resolution is the sharing of data to be able to predict and monitor disasters better. I know it is difficult to accurately predict a natural disaster, which is why this resolution also looks at what happens after a disaster, about evacuation and international aid. For that, we urge to work together with local authorities, who are best able to communicate with the local inhabitants, while keeping the NDAO small and efficient to keep the cost low. Considering that many nations affected by natural disasters will already have an organisation for research etc, it is unnecessary to duplicate that effort. Rather, we encourage international cooperation, in the best spirit of the United Nations.

I hope you will all agree that this is a UN issue, and that this is an appropriate resolution to tackle this issue, to save human and material damage in the future resulting from natural disasters. During the debate about the infamous Sex Industry Workers Act, several nations asked whether the UN shouldn't be concerned with more important things than sex. Well, this is it.

Thank you for your time.

This is looking good. Voting has just started and it's already 1,029 for, only 207 against. Roughly a 5:1 margin. Let's keep it up! :sniper:

:sniper: :mp5: if this gets approved than anything that happens the UN will give money to eveything else ... if this approved than i want my 15% military increase approved :mp5: :sniper:

FYI, using <sniper> smilies in any UN post pretty much automatically invalidates any point you might have been trying to make. It's considered n00bishness of the first order.

Just thought you ought to know that.

Thanks to all delegates who supported the proposal. It has just come up for vote.
.

The United States of Sense and Whimsy supports this proposal and you can count on us for support.

President Belin

Since I'm aware that the principal arguments against these sorts of resolutions (International Security ones) tend to focus on the costs of these programs, I'd like to point out that two previous resolutions are similar in cost structure and scope to what the ambassador from Groot Gouda has proposed:

1. Tracking Near Earth Objects
2. Tsunami Warning System

International Security resolutions specifically increase domestic budgets for military or police. While it is popular belief to assume that security budgets translate into increases in military spending, that was not the case with the two previous resolutions. In fact, those resolutions used specific language to state that the increases in "security" budgets would be for emergency response and preparedness programs.

That said, I completely agree with the ambassador from Groot Gouda when he said, "Because the funding has to come from somewhere, we figured that the most likely budget was the Millitary and Police. They are after all usually involved in disaster aid."

Furthermore, the ambassador is correct in pointing out that the dangers posed by natural disasters is shared. Earthquakes, hurricanes, blizzards, and volcanic erruptions do not recognize our political boundaries.

The basic idea behind all of these types of resolutions is that by working together we can:

1) Learn from event specific data collected in other locations,
2) Build larger data sets to analyze,
3) Bring international experts together on a more frequent basis so they can share ideas and data collection techniques,
4) in the event of a true disaster, already have clear lines of communication esstablished in order to respond to the disaster quicker, and
5) recognize early signs of problems and move people into safer locations.

That said, the Confederated City States of Mikitivity has a long established international track record as a donor of international aid, and our accountants have assured us that it is cost effective to try to mitigate and reduce the damages caused by natural disasters, thus the City States looks forward to working with the NDAO and IRCO and most importantly to working with UN members.

I don't think anyone is seriously against this. I've already voted for it. I can't wait until it's passed.

Since I'm aware that the principal arguments against these sorts of resolutions (International Security ones) tend to focus on the costs of these programs, I'd like to point out that two previous resolutions are similar in cost structure and scope to what the ambassador from Groot Gouda has proposed:

1. Tracking Near Earth Objects
2. Tsunami Warning System
I'm sorry, but that sounds like "I know this will be expensive, but we've done other expensive things recently, so what's the problem?" It just doesn't make sense as an argument in favor of the resolution.

Solipsesia's position is that this is a futile cause for two reasons:

Natural disasters are unstoppable forces. Even if you were able to reliably predict an earthquake a day in advance, nothing could be done about it except order an evacuation, and
People will refuse to leave their homes based on such a prediction.

I recall a day in the early 1990's when the government of the Commonwealth of Kentucky was so convinced that an earthquake was imminent, they cancelled school for the day and asked everybody to find someplace safe to wait it out. Very few people left, although the students cheerfully accepted their day off. No earthquake occurred then or since, and all that came of it was large boosts in teacher grumbling and government-mocking tee-shirt sales. I don't believe the organization created by this resolution will fare any better.

I don't think anyone is seriously against this.

Some 300 people so far. But hey, more resolutions that I thought "how can anyone be against this" have failed. I'm not convinced until the 10,000 vote mark is reached. I may be wrong, but no resolution with more than 10,000 votes has failed so far, not even the controversial ones.

I'm sorry, but that sounds like "I know this will be expensive, but we've done other expensive things recently, so what's the problem?" It just doesn't make sense as an argument in favor of the resolution.

Solipsesia's position is that this is a futile cause for two reasons:

Natural disasters are unstoppable forces. Even if you were able to reliably predict an earthquake a day in advance, nothing could be done about it except order an evacuation, and
People will refuse to leave their homes based on such a prediction.

I recall a day in the early 1990's when the government of the Commonwealth of Kentucky was so convinced that an earthquake was imminent, they cancelled school for the day and asked everybody to find someplace safe to wait it out. Very few people left, although the students cheerfully accepted their day off. No earthquake occurred then or since, and all that came of it was large boosts in teacher grumbling and government-mocking tee-shirt sales. I don't believe the organization created by this resolution will fare any better.

I'm sorry you feel that I'm saying this will be expensive, because the truth is ... it will not be expensive.

Currently, some governments in NationStates (like mine) already have disaster prevention programs in place ... ranging from the stocking of supplies and emergency response plans, to weather forecasting and climate data collection sites.

Mikitivity is an alpine country in a seismic and geothermically active region, and thus we are subjected to natural disasters such as blizzards, volcanic erruptions, earthquakes, and finally flash floods.

While my government is prepared to warn its neighbors like Sober Thought, if a rainfall event is going to promote increased and early snow melt, the point behind this resolution is to acutally reduce costs by cooperating on a larger scale.

The barriers to cooperation at times are political. Typically nations that share borders (even if they have a common history) may have territorial disputes that prevent official bi-lateral communication: case in point India and Pakistan. However, a uni-lateral organization like the UN has no interest in regional level politics and thus is able to provide scientists and decision makers whom can better coordinate scientific cooperation. It sounds funny, because I am actually suggesting that "middle men" can cut costs ... but when you factor into the costs, technological advancements and analysis of sparse data sets, these middle men actually provide opportunities that don't exist under normal conditions, and that is why there is a cost savings.

Prior to being appointed the UN Ambassador from the City States, I was the head of the Office of Technology and Environment (a very high appointment in a "green state"), and my office established a number of real-time monitoring programs both at the regional and national level. While the first step is always to build a national database, by networking with my neighbors, Mikitivity's data sets were extended, allowing engineering professionals the chance to better study things like "is the earth sending us singals before Mt. Delenn errupts?" or "could we have predicted how much water would flow down the Ivanova River".

As a capitalist nation, it might seem odd that we promote increased government expenditures, but what any good small business owner can tell you, is that when it comes to large-scale activities, it is inefficient and cost-ineffective to duplicate efforts. That is why small businesses form chamber of commereces and work together.

What is good for a small family owned business is economically speaking no different for a diverse and large number of nations.

[OOC: The tsunami warning system and tracking near earth objects resolutions really have very SMALL real world costs. One system was measured in the hundreds of millions of dollars in the real world, the other was coming in in the tens of millions ... considering that Iraq is costing the US alone tens of billions of dollars, I think it incorrect to seriously advocate that sticking nerds in a room to read data from cheap instruments is gonna bankrupt anybody.]

I don't think anyone is seriously against this. I've already voted for it. I can't wait until it's passed.
There is a difference between supporting the principle assistance during natural disasters, and making such assistance a mandatory part of police and/or military budgets. Not everyone who votes "against" is voting against the concept - they may just be voting against the implementation.

"Good idea" != "Good law"

I can truly see the benefits of this resolution, however I feel there is a lack of true discussion. It is not that the honorable nation of Bellawyre refuses to support this resolution, the Natural Disaster Act, it is that Bellawyre refuses to hastely push through this resolution.

First, where is this funding to come from? Is cost to be determined by the size of the nations, or is the UN going to tax to cover this cost? Or, is this going to be a donation only process?

I'm quite certain I'm not alone when I say that I'm anxious to approve this measure without a true plan of financial support. Furthermore, I find it hard to support this measure for the following reasons:

1) If cost distribution is determined by size or economic power, then this causes not only the more successful nations to be in a way punished, but also does not take into the account that a larger country can truly afford, or wishes to shoulder the burden.

2) If the UN chooses to tax its member nations, how is this to be determined? And more importantly, are we even willing to disregard the concept of free and seperate nations?

3) If we are to rely solely on donations, then global politics and grudges can come into effect. Also, nations could forever relieve themselves out of their humane duty to help fellow nations.

As I understand the resolution as it stands, we would follow option 3. However, is this the best way to go about it? I cannot in good conscience lend my support if the economic situation of my own nation is in jeopardy, which I fear it will come to pass.

First, where is this funding to come from? Is cost to be determined by the size of the nations, or is the UN going to tax to cover this cost? Or, is this going to be a donation only process?
Natural Disaster Act
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.
It will come from your nation's budget in the form of a mandatory unfunded mandate, just like all other UN resolutions. Sorry, you're paying for this whether you want to or not. UN resolutions are never optional.

There is a difference between supporting the principle assistance during natural disasters, and making such assistance a mandatory part of police and/or military budgets. Not everyone who votes "against" is voting against the concept - they may just be voting against the implementation.

Also bear in mind that the resolution is not *just* focusing on assistance, but that the majority of the concept is in the idea of mitigation ... i.e. reducing costs before a disaster occurs.

To go back to the tsunami warning system, in the "fictional" world of Bush, Iraq, and a new Pope, there is this country called "America" which funds (in cooperation with a host of other Pacific nations) a Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, which is charged with the responsiblity of detecting and then issuing warnings of impending tsunamis.

The point of a warning is simple: to get people out of harms way BEFORE the damage can be done.

While buildings and crops are stationary and will likely be damaged, assets like people and information is not static, and can be moved if given proper warnings. The cost of moving people is often less than the cost of not moving them. (Frankly it is cheaper to have people seek shelters for a day than it is to ask another nation to send in body bags and rescue patrols.)

[OOC: My dad is a finacial "networking / transactions" consultant and for some time worked with a number of California Banks. One of the things they did was arrange contracts with local public schools where the banks would pay the schools every year for the "right" to use their gyms or lunchrooms in the event of a large California earthquake. The cost the banks gives the schools is minor, but the schools tend to use the money on much needed facilities improvements ... which in turn gives the banks a safe house to move their networks. While the details escape me, the fact that large private corporations are actively spending money on an annual basis in mitigation measures to me is the BEST arguement in favor of prevention.

My line of work is as an engineer, with a responsibility to protect short- and long-term water quality, and again, instead of always just treating water quality problems *after* they happen, we are constantly working on finding better ways to access real-time and forecasted conditions state-wide. The savings is astounding, and this isn't even factoring into things like deaths or fatalities.

In addition to reviewing data, another task I'm on call for is levee patrol duty. It is actually worth the government's time to (when there is a storm) pull me or others out in a pickup and have us drive around in the rain looking at levees to see if we can detect the early signs of errosion or seepage, because there are flood fighting techniques that allow us to save the levee without having the entire thing wash out and destroy hundreds of millions of dollars of crops.]

While with any resolution there are good reasons to vote for and against, I just wanted to STRESS that this resolution is largely about PREVENTION and MITIGATION. I feel strongly that the clause added in there to encourage nations to work with the International Red Cross is just that ... an encouragement. The key to me is the NDAO, and a good question really is can we really prevent natural diasters. If in this imaginary world, I was handing a position in the NDAO, my first task would be to say ... let's find out! :)

I understand that UN resolutions are not optional if the stipulations of said resolution require individual action among member states. However, you misread my point, which is taking money from nations with complete disregard of individual national conditions is both appalling and counterproductive to the concept of free and individual governments functioning together in a peaceful world.

My suggestion is that I won't follow the UN resolution, as you so believe, but instead that I cannot support it if the stipulation is involuntary spending of member states. I would support an amendment to this resolution if one so read "funding of NDAO is to be optional on a donation basis" or of some such wording. However, since it is obvious that members of our "sanctity" of freedom are working towards removing all sense of individuality to be replaced by a world government, which I cannot support.

One aspect that hasn't been completely articulated yet is the fact that because this resolution calls for funding it is practically a tax, which has been prohibited by previous UN resolutions.

Additionally, we can take the recent Tsunami disaster as evidence that no international organization is needed for disaster relief. The outpouring of aid was largely voluntary.

The Armed Republic of Penton Rise already has a Disaster Relief Fund which is used to help countries devastated by natural disasters and does not need a redundant international agency.

Grosseschnauzer has been occupied with regional matters, and has stayed out of the debate mostly because Groot Gouda and Mikitivity have had the discussion well in hand. But as the sponsor of record of the Tsunami Warning System resolution, we need to place a statement on the record at this point,
But make no mistake about this. We are firmly in support of this resolution. Many of the arguments against this proposal are indistingushable from those that were raised in opposition to the Tsunami Warning System resoltuon before its adoption. And the responses, likewise, are indistingushable.
Much of what this resolution seeks to do piggybacks upon existing efforts to warn and take preventive actions against imminent natural disasters. Likewise, it piggybacks upon existing system to provide emergency response should a natural disaster occur. In both senses, the overall cost to a national economy by having such systems in place is highky beneficial as compared to their absence.
We were honored to play a role as contributor to the development of the Natural Disaster Act, and we encourage all UN Delegates and Members to vote "FOR" its adoption.

This resolution fails to acknowledge the utter failure that dogs UN operations wherever they occur. After the Boxing Day tsunami, Australian aid workers were on the ground within four hours, Americans within four days, while the UN took over four weeks to deploy aid personnel. The fact is, money spent here will be diverted away not from defence, law & order or any other domestic programs, but from money already delegated for international aid. The question is not one of how much money we spend on aid, but how.

The UN has consistently shown itself to be a corrupt, ineffectual body, especially when dealing with aid crises. Our money should be given flexibly, to the leanest, meanest aid organisation at the time, not to the world's largest bureaucracy. This truly is a matter of life or death.

Natural disasters are unstoppable forces. Even if you were able to reliably predict an earthquake a day in advance, nothing could be done about it except order an evacuation, and

No, nothing can be done about. This resolution has no intention of doing something against earthquakes (there are Natural Disasters which can be prevented, though. Landslides can be prevented by not chopping down woods which hold the ground, for example). However, shouldn't evacuating be almost as important? It can save lots of lives if you have some kind of way to predict a disaster, *and* have a working evacuation plan.

Saving lives is *not* futile.

People will refuse to leave their homes based on such a prediction.
I recall a day in the early 1990's when the government of the Commonwealth of Kentucky was so convinced that an earthquake was imminent, they cancelled school for the day and asked everybody to find someplace safe to wait it out. Very few people left, although the students cheerfully accepted their day off. No earthquake occurred then or since, and all that came of it was large boosts in teacher grumbling and government-mocking tee-shirt sales. I don't believe the organization created by this resolution will fare any better.

Which is why this resolution calls for research, to be able to make better predictions. Awareness is important too: if people know there's a possible danger, they're more likely to accept occasional mistakes or testing of procedures.

This resolution fails to acknowledge the utter failure that dogs UN operations wherever they occur. After the Boxing Day tsunami, Australian aid workers were on the ground within four hours, Americans within four days, while the UN took over four weeks to deploy aid personnel. The fact is, money spent here will be diverted away not from defence, law & order or any other domestic programs, but from money already delegated for international aid. The question is not one of how much money we spend on aid, but how.

The UN has consistently shown itself to be a corrupt, ineffectual body, especially when dealing with aid crises. Our money should be given flexibly, to the leanest, meanest aid organisation at the time, not to the world's largest bureaucracy. This truly is a matter of life or death.

OOC: Do bear in mind that while there certainly is value in looking to the real world, that the NationStates UN is not the same as the real life UN ... the following is a link to an example of where I feel your complaint about the "UN" is wrong. I've tried to balance my time in playing NationStates in helping newbies write meaningful resolutions and more importantly *following through* on the promises and commitments of this body. I am not alone in my efforts, as a significant number of NationStates players have shown a strong backing of standing against genocide and also working in unilateral organizations to respond to disasters.

Please check out the International Red Cross Timeline:
http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?showtopic=40

This is a player created "roleplay", and if you *truely* believe in what you've said above, you'll join the IRCO and help us make the NationStates UN different than the slow and less responsive real world UN.

Furthermore, voting in favour of this resolution realistically gives nations that roleplay disasters and those that respond something fun to reference and guide their nations.

Though the above is just a list of disasters and is short, more often than not, NationStates players focus on war and do not call out for international disaster assistance. In part, I am optimistic that we can change that.

Anyways, I'm agreeing with your opinion about the real world ... but NationStates is not the real world. If you don't like the real UN, this is your chance to change that. Participate in international roleplaying and also support those of us that are not making real-world mistakes. :)

First, where is this funding to come from? Is cost to be determined by the size of the nations, or is the UN going to tax to cover this cost? Or, is this going to be a donation only process?

It will be funded from your millitairy/police budget.

1) If cost distribution is determined by size or economic power, then this causes not only the more successful nations to be in a way punished, but also does not take into the account that a larger country can truly afford, or wishes to shoulder the burden.

Personally, I'm in favour of the strongest shoulders carrying the burden. There is no punishment for economic strength, though.

3) If we are to rely solely on donations, then global politics and grudges can come into effect. Also, nations could forever relieve themselves out of their humane duty to help fellow nations.

The whole point of this resolution is about international cooperation. Much of what is talks about is already there - especially nations who have to deal with natural disasters will have agencies and organisations for them. All this resolution does is get them to work together, which is cheaper in the long run.

As I understand the resolution as it stands, we would follow option 3. However, is this the best way to go about it? I cannot in good conscience lend my support if the economic situation of my own nation is in jeopardy, which I fear it will come to pass.

Your economy is not in jeopardy. If this resolution will save lives, reduce material damage and make disaster monitoring more efficient, economies will benefit more than pay for it.

One aspect that hasn't been completely articulated yet is the fact that because this resolution calls for funding it is practically a tax, which has been prohibited by previous UN resolutions.

It's not a tax. It's your tax. It says that you are going to spend money from your budget, because you care for your citizens.

Additionally, we can take the recent Tsunami disaster as evidence that no international organization is needed for disaster relief. The outpouring of aid was largely voluntary.

The Armed Republic of Penton Rise already has a Disaster Relief Fund which is used to help countries devastated by natural disasters and does not need a redundant international agency.

You haven't read the resolution properly. It's not about relief funds. It's about making sure we can more accurately predict natural disasters, so we don't need big relief funds, because less people get killed and less material is damaged (due to better evacuation).

This resolution fails to acknowledge the utter failure that dogs UN operations wherever they occur. After the Boxing Day tsunami, Australian aid workers were on the ground within four hours, Americans within four days, while the UN took over four weeks to deploy aid personnel.

That's "real life" UN. Besides, that's not what this resolution is concerned with. This resolution will improve monitoring of dangerous areas, and thus predict disasters with more accuracy than now. A few hours warning can be enough to save hundres of thousands of lives.

Groot Gouda:

Indeed, the proposal itself is noble and should be supported by all humane individuals. However, my problem is still remains squarely in the area of funding. Though my country is in good economic shape at present time, who can accurately predict the future. Bellawyre is a small country and we would be more than happy to donate money to the efforts as we can, but we dislike the idea that we are required to pay even if there comes a time where monetary means are not readily available.

Which brings up another question I should have asked: what is the system for deciding how much money to allocate to this fund? As I read that resolution as it stands, it is "a resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets." However I see no system to determine how much each country should contribute.

Again, let me restate Bellawyre's official position: Although we support the moral implications of this resolution, we cannot in good conscience approve it with no plan for how money is to be taken, how it is to be distributed, and how to regulate the money coming in. Until these issues have been addressed, whether by an amendment or a new resolution, the Rogue Nation of Bellawyre cannot vote "yes."

This resolution seeks to mitigate (meaning lessen) the damages caused by natural disasters in general.

Without a doubt there are regional and local natural disasters. The scale of an event can cross international boundaries, or in some cases be limited entirely to one country (directly speaking), but still have secondary impacts in another country.

For example, if an earthquake were to strike Adam Island, a nation my government counts on for food (mountain countries like mine do not have limitless space to grow food on), then the price for food in Mikitivity would increase.

While this resolution will not prevent an earthquake from possibly distrupting trade (i.e. destroying roads and such), it is still in my country's interest that as many Adam Island farmworkers stay alive as possible. We count on them for good, low priced food!

This raises the question on how can we lessen the impact of a natural disaster. Some ambassadors have already suggested that when the big one hits, the big one is gonna hit.

By looking at one type of natural disaster, earthquakes, I hope to impress upon you that if we can predict where and when an earthquake might strike, via something like a NDOA, that we might be able to reduce the cost of that event by removing some things.

First, here is a great visual primer about earthquakes:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/4126809.stm

Now to the subject at hand ... though "fictional" (because the US doesn't exist in NationStates), the USGS is arguably one of the world's most expert authorities in the subject of geophysical processes. Here is what the USGS says about predicting earthquakes [OOC: I will add that I have the greatest respect for many USGS scientists and turn to them when I need technical advice):

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/earthq1/predict.html

The goal of earthquake prediction is to give warning of potentially damaging earthquakes early enough to allow appropriate response to the disaster, enabling people to minimize loss of life and property. The U.S. Geological Survey conducts and supports research on the likelihood of future earthquakes. This research includes field, laboratory, and theoretical investigations of earthquake mechanisms and fault zones. A primary goal of earthquake research is to increase the reliability of earthquake probability estimates. Ultimately, scientists would like to be able to specify a high probability for a specific earthquake on a particular fault within a particular year. Scientists estimate earthquake probabilities in two ways: by studying the history of large earthquakes in a specific area and the rate at which strain accumulates in the rock.

If you continue to read the paper (which I recommend), you will see that while sometimes people have claimed that earthquakes relieve pressure, that the USGS is clear in pointing out that sometimes it just *moves* pressure.

This is important here because your neighboring countries natural disaster might be a sign that you are next! :( By having an international body (kinda like the USGS) to let us know, you can begin to prepare school children for what to do in an emergency, there are ways to improve buildings and roads, there are also business plans that can be neogitated to see to it that your products can still flow to other countries and most importantly that emergency aid can still flow in.

You might not know this, but the first step in "predicting" an earthquake often can come as a general "risk" map. In the United States, local building codes are based on a US seismic survey (i.e. mapping projects).

http://eqhazmaps.usgs.gov/

A building designed to withstand high force winds of a Florida or Texas hurricane might not survive the peak ground (horizontal or vertical) accelerations associated with a California earthquake.

http://eqhazmaps.usgs.gov/images/2002US_scale.jpg

Maps like the above tell engineers that if you are building something in San Francisco, California, that your design requirements are totally different than in Houston Texas. It is economically foolish to build all buildings the exact same ...

While you can say, so why not have each country build its own map, my counter is that the maps themselves and the civil engineering design requirements come about due to more than just local earthquake info. Earthquakes aren't that frequent, and interestingly they can "slip" or "move" in different ways. The waves of energy that result from different earthquakes can be significantly different.

In short, my nation can learn a lot about other people's problems. In fact, I wouldn't even limit it to earthquake knowledge ... a design engineer in Mikitivity might not need to deal with hurricanes like a design engineer from Adam Island, but in seeing how they build their buildings and forecast storm events, my engineers can better protect Mikitivity.

The goal of the resolution is to work together and share information. That is why Groot Gouda included the following clause:

7. URGES all nations to contribute financially, organisationally or otherwise to the NDAO;

You can contribute via $$$$.
You can contribute by sending experts to help the NDAO.
You can contribute by sending data and information to the NDAO.

A good resolution is a resolution that addresses international problems, but still allows for local flexibility. You will not see many resolutions include a one-line phrase like this that gives your nation so much freedom in choosing the way it can best participate.

I strongly would like to reaffirm that Mikitivity is prepared to provide the $$$$, technical experts, and limited volcanic and climate data from the City States to the NDAO, but my government can't do this alone. We need your help and would appreciate your vote!

Thank you!

Groot Gouda:

Indeed, the proposal itself is noble and should be supported by all humane individuals. However, my problem is still remains squarely in the area of funding. Though my country is in good economic shape at present time, who can accurately predict the future. Bellawyre is a small country and we would be more than happy to donate money to the efforts as we can, but we dislike the idea that we are required to pay even if there comes a time where monetary means are not readily available.

Which brings up another question I should have asked: what is the system for deciding how much money to allocate to this fund? As I read that resolution as it stands, it is "a resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets." However I see no system to determine how much each country should contribute.

Again, let me restate Bellawyre's official position: Although we support the moral implications of this resolution, we cannot in good conscience approve it with no plan for how money is to be taken, how it is to be distributed, and how to regulate the money coming in. Until these issues have been addressed, whether by an amendment or a new resolution, the Rogue Nation of Bellawyre cannot vote "yes."

OOC:
The game rules prevent us from making amendments to resolutions. You could suggest we work on a new resolution, but as Frisbeeteria correctly pointed out ... resolutions impact all nations. It is very "tricky" for us to find a way to suggest that small nations can be "exempt" from a resolution, but Groot Gouda already tried to honestly do this:

7. URGES all nations to contribute financially, organisationally or otherwise to the NDAO;

The keyword is or. It is your government's choice how it will comply with this resolution. Trust me, Groot Gouda, as the lead nation of the International Democratic Union, is very concerned about the needs of small nations. The IDU is very optimistic that by making the entire world safer, that all our economies may flurish. :) We wouldn't want to hurt a potential ally.

Unfortunately, there are serious flaws in NationStates (the game), and one of them is that all UN resolutions really only change domestic stats and do so with only *limited* knowledge of a country's current status. This is a "mild" resolution, so we have honestly done everything we could to really keep this resolution to be just a recommendation.

It is impossible to put a price tag on this resolution. It does build on existing infrastructure, so it shouldn't cost too much, at least not that it will have an effect on your economy. We're talking mostly about cooperation between existing organisations, people who your government is already paying. A small bit will have to be added to fund the NDAO, but shared over all countries participating that shouldn't be something to worry about. It is certainly not my intention to put a burden on economically weak countries.

OOC:

Yeah I realize the limitations, but part of my character of ambassador is that he's a jerk. (well, we're basically a dictatorship, so there you go)

IC:

Unfortunately, I must still vote no on principle, but you can be sure Bellawyre will donate as much time, energy, and money as that can be handled by our small country. Again, our opposal is mainly grounded in the idea that we see no true plan to carry out some of these systems. However, we are in full support of working towards putting reliable and logical systems in place to run this NDAO, including perhaps help in drafting a resolution that will further define the abilities and infastructure of the NDAO.

One aspect that hasn't been completely articulated yet is the fact that because this resolution calls for funding it is practically a tax, which has been prohibited by previous UN resolutions.
This interpretation is raised during virtually every resolution debate. It's been ruled as incorrect by UN Moderation staff. The UN may not tax nations directly, but there are any number of indirect taxes and nation taxes that are perfectly legal.


[OOC] No matter what any given UN resolution states, UN membership will continue to hit your nation in the wallet on a fairly regular basis. It's coded that way, and resolutions will not change that. Period.

question, sry if others have said this....but what do military budget and police have to do with this resolution? it seems more like science....

OOC:
Like in most governing assemblies, it's not always the bulk and overall meaning of a motion, but the finer details that get scrutinized. If all we looked at was the overall effect, then the drafters of proposals could slip anything in. Yes, its generally about science, but we need money to finance said plans so to smaller countries (like the one I represent) this is highly important. Well, that and alot of fun.

I am very undecided on this motion because I seem to have a problem with it that I would like clarified.

I don't know if I read it wrong, but if I didn't, it appears to me that the reason for this foundation is only for a happening that affects International areas and not just a single nation.

If this is the case, I do not really see any sense in nations doing this because they would be contributing to something that would not really be a help to them if it only affected their country.

Please clarify this for me.... telrgrams would be appreciated.

I had to answer this exaxt issue earlier today at the offsite forum for the NPC-controlled The North Pacific forums, so I'm just going to quote what I said there:

Roman, this has come up before over in the Jolt NSUN forums and I will simply summarize what has been said in the past both as to the Natural Diaster proposal and the earlier Tsunami resolution.

Under the NS proposal rules, emergency response is treated as military and police functions, in particular police functions. The NS game mods have made that point clear and while the question keeps getting raised as people come into the debate, it doesn't change that particular element of the classification of the proposal when it is submitted or when it reaches the floor of the UN with a quorum.

I hope that helps.

I am very undecided on this motion because I seem to have a problem with it that I would like clarified.

I don't know if I read it wrong, but if I didn't, it appears to me that the reason for this foundation is only for a happening that affects International areas and not just a single nation.

If this is the case, I do not really see any sense in nations doing this because they would be contributing to something that would not really be a help to them if it only affected their country.

Please clarify this for me.... telrgrams would be appreciated.

Greetings Tonizeland, I'll send a telegram as well, but figured others might might to see my government's reply.

The reason Mikitivity, a capitalist society, has proposed similar legislation and tirelessly campaigned for this one (OOC: it was actually the Red Cross I was using for the majority of the telegrams) is that in order to feed ourselves we must produce trinkets and a nice relaxing ski / gambling mecca of sorts. Tourism is a major Mikitivity industry, and in order for people to visit Mikitivity we can't very well have them dying in civil wars or falling under asteroids or into volcanos. While there is only so much we can do, tourists bringing in tax dollars turns into spice melange that we can then turn around and use to purchase simple things: like rye (a Miervatian favorite) or bratwurst (another Miervatian standby). Simply put, my government can't live on just barley and oats alone ... so it is in our finacial interest to insure stability and growth in the international markets.

That and when you live in a cave, it is easy to stick your neck out from time to time to lend others a hand. It is pretty dang hard for the bullies to find your spice melange while you're out (that and the pit traps seem to really make for a safe country).

We were opposed to the Tsunami resolution because, we felt that it was timed as a knee jerk reaction to peoples nightmares, was too narrow in its scope and not cost effective.

With this wider resolution we find that help will be given and received on an almost daily basis and the operators of the aid schemes will be fully employed.

We will not be simply paying for the installation of equipment and a people to sit around collecting data for centuries just in case something happens. Also nearly as many lives are at risk from Tsunamis today as when the resolution was passed that is because as fast as higher structures are built and people are moved out of danger areas. The less well of and refugees move into the emptied space, then policing becomes expensive and creates civil tensions.

We would ask just what benefits, we the NSUN nations, received for the expense and trouble of the Tsunami Warning System?

Having made our point we now strongly support this wider resolution.

"Goes and places vote for the resolution"

I have hesitated somewhat on voting the this proposal. Partly, this is because of my unfamiliarity with UN procedure - something which is changing rapidly. However, a large part of me has been somewhat suspicious about the apparent lack of substance to the resolution itself.

I think my suspicions might have been well-founded. Accusations that this is a tax on members and that has not been allowed has met the response that "there are other ways to tax the members" or that "is it not a tax but comes out of existing taxes".

So the message to all those efficient nations that look after their people and don't choose how to spend THEIR money is:

THIS IS A COST ON MEMBER GOVERNMENTS!!!

Anything spent on this will mean that money will have to come from somewhere to pay for it. Guess where

Of course, the fact that the principal sponsors of this deal tax their citizens to death is likely to be a coincidence.

Reject this proposal until it has been

a) More clearly written
b) Accurately costed

Reject this proposal until it has been

a) More clearly written
b) Accurately costedPlayers don't set cost values. The only player choice is proposal category. If they choose a category that doesn't include cost factors on this type of legislation, the proposal would probably have been deleted for being in the wrong category. If you're going to complain about something, complain about something they can actually do something about.

The game sets all cost numbers, and there is exactly *zero* chance of anyone who didn't code the game accurately describing the exact effect this will have on all nations. This being a game of political satire, we kinda like the fact that political choices have unexpected and often unpleasant outcomes.

Anything spent on this will mean that money will have to come from somewhere to pay for it. Guess where
from the money countries are spending already on natural disaster research/aid/prevention. I very much doubt that no country has no natural disaster threatening them and because it does, they will most likely have some research on how to prevent it from happening or how to diminish the destruction when it does. Most countries will already have teams that can locate people under rubble and help clearing them out.

Basically all this does is bind those efforts into one organisation instead of 200+different ones. So you wont have 10 times the people needed on one spot and none on 9 other. So it makes the efforts more effective, which might actually lead to countries being able to spend less on research (as why do the same research twice?) and on people being trained to help (as there might be more of them than is needed if we all used them more effective).

I don't know if I read it wrong, but if I didn't, it appears to me that the reason for this foundation is only for a happening that affects International areas and not just a single nation.

If this is the case, I do not really see any sense in nations doing this because they would be contributing to something that would not really be a help to them if it only affected their country.

I myself have doubted about this, and part of me wants to go with the strict "only international disasters". However, as Mikitivity has made clear, large disasters can have all sorts of international impacts, on economy, on food supply, etc. The NDAO can provide a lot of scientifical data which can be used by countries, even if there is no risk on a truly international disaster. I could be wrong, but that is probably available due to earlier resolutions about scientific freedoms and the global library.

The most important aspect of this resolution is international cooperation. That means that if you go to the NDAO and ask for advice because your country is at risk of natural disasters, they should be able to provide research to you. If there is an international aspect to it, you can join the NDAO and both share and profit from it.

THIS IS A COST ON MEMBER GOVERNMENTS!!!

There's no such thing as a free UN. Only the sun rises for free. If you place more value on your national budget than human lives, perhaps the UN is not the place where you will find happiness.

Of course, the fact that the principal sponsors of this deal tax their citizens to death is likely to be a coincidence.

I tax my citizens to life, not death. My nation chooses quality of live over quantity of florins. Yes, my citizens pay a lot of tax. They also get excellent healthcare and education for nothing.

Reject this proposal until it has been

a) More clearly written
b) Accurately costed

As has been mentioned, I am unable to provide a budget. That is not the point, too. This is a resolution, not budget time. This resolution is basically calling out saying "we see natural disasters as a problem, we should do something about it. we suggest these are good solutions: ...". I cannot and will not set everything, including a budget, in stone. Nations are sovereign enough to fill in the details for themselves.

Given the reponses to my concerns, and possibly linked to a certain naivety as to how the UN operates, my UN representative has been told to change his no vote to one of abstention - being unable to determine which course is the best for the citizens of De Lyon.

Natural disasters of this nature, not being something for which the Grand Duchy is at any significant risk, are matters for other larger and more powerful nations to decide.

He will, however, be instructed to continue to press for a more efficient and value-for-money organisation from the point of view of the people of De Lyon.

Though many taxpayers do not need the extra burden, this is like an insurance to member nations! I'd bet you wouldn't be too happy if your capital got nailed by a disaster right after you decided to fight against this. Besides, the more nations involved decreases the ultimate cost per country.

More importantly, donations of items such as sandbags and medical supplies and other things you listed, are extremely important, and while you may have some stockpiled...I doubt it is enough to protect the entire UN.

I suggest some kind of donation or "Item Tax" is used for this resolution...I would work on it if you fancied that.

:rolleyes:

My fellow delegates:

Once again we embark on a slippery road where the rich will have to pay for the leaches.

What am I talking about, well this...Those nations that are aligned with a victomized nation will no doubt help their ally as trading practices go. The problem takes place when we have a nation that produces nothing, has nothing, and is a nothing at all suddenly crawling their way to our great delegation to beg for money and aid when they produce nothing and share nothing with the rest of the world.

We need to vote no on this resolution and adapt a resolution that will grant a nation a hearing as to the deservance of aid in time of trouble

Thank you

King
Hassan the Chop
-by my own hand

Approve the Natural Disaster Act

I'm sorry, but that sounds like "I know this will be expensive, but we've done other expensive things recently, so what's the problem?" It just doesn't make sense as an argument in favor of the resolution.

Solipsesia's position is that this is a futile cause

At last, someone who's making SENSE! Seriously, is anyone else actually READING the resolution? It proposes an international tax to prepay for relief of a disaster that hasn't happened yet. Poor countries can't afford it, and rich countries don't need it.

If all you folks have money burning holes in your pocket, just volunteer to send it over to the rest of us. Don't drag us all into your well-intentioned but ill-concieved plans.

Large aid organizations are very ineffecient at actually providing a useful ammount of aid. Less than 50 cents per dollar is actually recieved by those in need and the rest of it is lost in the beaurcracy.

This interpretation is raised during virtually every resolution debate. It's been ruled as incorrect by UN Moderation staff. The UN may not tax nations directly, but there are any number of indirect taxes and nation taxes that are perfectly legal.

...

Surely you mean "tax citizens directly"...

The Democratic States of Maverycia supports this resolution.

The international community must stand in solidarity with the impoverished nations of the world. Natural disasters affect us all, and we must establish a worldwide safety net to help our comrades abroad when disaster strikes. Not only is it a moral obligation, but it is in the interest of every person that his comrades abroad be alive and well to maintain the struggle for peace and social justice.

Are you people nuts???
If you raise more money to be used by the military there is a possibility that the armed forces will you the money for something other than protecting small defencless countries. The money could be used better if it were given straight to researchers to predict natural disarsters rather or given in aid to help the more impoverished countries, not boost military exspenditure!!!

:confused:

First of all an army is to protect your country from both external and internal problems.

The first relief from any disaster should be your army, then if you still need help that is what your allies are for--Just like if you need to war on ohhhhh some stupid country that wants your resources because they don't have enough common sense to prepare for emergencies that might happen/

You know what...These leaching countries are the ones that have the highest tax burdens because you will notice that there is no motivation to work in those countries.

--I hate leaches

PS if you agree with me I would humbly ask for an endorsement so that I can speak up in the UN more powerfully

King
Hassan the Chop
-by my own hand

I can see the usefulness of this particular proposal, but... Shouldn`t there also be a preventive aspect? I.e. once enough research has been done to be able to declare certain areas as extremely or even seriously dangerous, I propose they be made off-limits to human population. That way the environmennt gets protected against further deterioration (for instance landslides on mountain slopes made worse by buildings), and less probability of casualties. It also makes for a more efficient and cost-effective evacuation program.

I find this very important - and will only vote for if this is ammended... Although I understand I`m just representing one country. What say you about this proposal, friends?

I would like to think that this proposal is really based on helping the innocent victims of natural disasters, i would like to think that everyones intentions are honourable, BUT i cant. Open your eyes people, i think this is just a proposal to get detaild topographic informations on our countrys to ready troups for invasions by certain war mongoring states. I do beleve in solidarity of states, but handing over detailed, militarily sensitive information to anyone who happens to have been voted into the U.N. is crazy.
Financial help i will go along with, but ask yourselves why do people want the extra information.
For this reason i shall be voting against this issue untill certain clauses are removed and serious questions are asked.

Sulta Crizqo the 8th Immortal

:rolleyes:

At last, someone who's making SENSE! Seriously, is anyone else actually READING the resolution? It proposes an international tax to prepay for relief of a disaster that hasn't happened yet.

Well, for a start, you aren't reading the resolution. It's not about relief. It's about monitoring and prevention. And it's not an international tax, it's your own tax. Out of which you are already paying organisation dealing with natural disasters, something that affects *every* nation.

(OOC: It does. There is no place on earth that is free of any type of natural disaster. The scale varies, of course, but no way can anyone seriously roleplay that this doesn't affect their nation)

Poor countries can't afford it, and rich countries don't need it.

If all you folks have money burning holes in your pocket, just volunteer to send it over to the rest of us. Don't drag us all into your well-intentioned but ill-concieved plans.

I very much doubt that "rich countries don't need it". Nature doesn't strike based on income. Rich countries could even be more prone to disasters than poor countries. The costs associated with a big disaster can be too huge even for one very rich nation to carry.

Please don't drag nations into your well-intentioned but misconceived response. Read the resolution first. Think about it first.

(OOC: Think, for example, about the impact of a tsunami on New York (which is not unlikely). Or an eruption of the Vesuvius, near the Napels metropolitan area. Think of the costs for an unprepared nation)

Open your eyes people, i think this is just a proposal to get detaild topographic informations on our countrys to ready troups for invasions by certain war mongoring states.

:-|

I have been called many things, especially during the vote on Resolution #91, but never have I been put in the "war mongoring states" category.

My whole millitary consists of I.G.N.O.R.E. cannons only!

But to give you a more serious answer: if you think your topography is secret, you're probably wrong. However, you are not forced to join the NDAO, if you fear this. Don't come back and complain when your citizens are killed in a major earthquake that could have been predicted, though.

Open your eyes people, i think this is just a proposal to get detaild topographic informations on our countrys to ready troups for invasions by certain war mongoring states.

uhm you do know that there are probably one NS nation with spy sattelites for every 10 (or something similar if a nation is so advanced they dont need it). Meaning that anyones landscape is already worldwide knowledge. Off course where certain military facilities are and what building does what can still be a secret, but your topographic information is hardly a military secret.

Are you people nuts???
If you raise more money to be used by the military there is a possibility that the armed forces will you the money for something other than protecting small defencless countries. The money could be used better if it were given straight to researchers to predict natural disarsters rather or given in aid to help the more impoverished countries, not boost military exspenditure!!!

Q: Where do you think NASA or the USGS or USBR or Army Corps of Engineers (all are organizations that research physical sciences and have provided critical information necessary towards being able to better understand natural disasters).

A: Military / Defense budgets.

The first NASA astronauts were all from the military. In fact, the first NASA rocket scientists were all ... *gasp* military.

The problem with this game is, there is no easy way to boost research budgets. In fact, research budgets don't exist at all. Now if you can convince us that one of the other categories better represents funding something like the US Geological Survey or Army Corps of Engineers, you'll earn my vote against this resolution and I'll even submit a repeal on my other similar ones.

Large aid organizations are very ineffecient at actually providing a useful ammount of aid. Less than 50 cents per dollar is actually recieved by those in need and the rest of it is lost in the beaurcracy.

Prove it. I'd like to see where you're "facts" are coming from.

Furthermore, after you've finished that, I suggest you actually reread the resolution. The NDAO isn't the organization that is handing out "aid", but rather conducting research. So you might want to also generate some sort of information / opinion on the cost / benefit ratio associated with research.

Since it is clear that a many players are focusing on the very last clause of the resolution and are incorrectly assuming:

1) that there is a better way in NationStates to prevent natural disasters than by funding emergency response and research organizations, and

2) that this resolution is only about handing out humanitarian disaster relief aid,

I wanted to redirect people to the following US Geological Survey on-line report:
http://www.usgs.gov/sndr/report/index.html

The purpose of this report is to highlight ongoing Federal research efforts in this science and technology (S&T) field and to identify new and promising areas where there might be gaps in Federal support. The report is intended for internal planning purposes within the Federal agencies and as a mechanism to convey to the S&T community the types of research and research priorities being sponsored and considered by the Federal agencies. The Administration is committed to a broad range of high-priority investments (including science and technology), as well as to deficit reduction, and to a smaller, more efficient Federal Government. These commitments have created a very challenging budget environment--requiring difficult decisions and a well-thought-out strategy to ensure the best return for the Nation's taxpayers. As part of this strategy, this document does not represent the final determinant in an overall Administration budget decisionmaking process. The research programs presented in this report will have to compete for resources against many other high-priority Federal programs. If these programs compete successfully, they will be reflected in future Administration budgets.

I'd say that is a fair introduction (as taken from the report) and does actually point out that the report isn't about making "Big Government". Not in the least bit!

Rather is says that this report details what the Geologic Survey feels are important "gaps" in funding of our efforts to protect ourselves.


Can you guess how much finacial damage natural disasters caused in the United States in the 1990s?

The answer is in the USGS cover letter to the white house:
http://www.usgs.gov/sndr/report/letter.html

Between August 1992 and December 1995, the United States experienced structural losses amounting, on average, to approximately one billion dollars a week due to natural disasters.

Let's do a bit of first grade math here ...

Q: How many months between 1992-08 and 1995-12?
A: 41 months.

Q: How many weeks in that same period?
A: 2,132 weeks.

Q: How many billions of dollars were lost in that time?
A: $2.13 TRILLION dollars.


To publically come out and claim that researching and preventing natural disasters is too costly is frankly extremely ignorant of the amount of structural damages they cause. While it is true that natural disasters are difficult to predict and difficult to mitigate, anybody who have lived in a hurricane prone part of the United States will be able to recount stories from older Americans about how much worse it was before the US tracked hurricanes and issued hurricane warnings.

That brings up a very __real__ natural disaster, where there are estimates of the cost / benefit of government sponsored activities:

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/general/WWW000/nhurr00.html

We all know this, but it apparently and sadly bears repeating:

When Hurricane Andrew of 1992 came booming ashore in South Florida, it caused the United States' most expensive natural disaster-- $27 billion worth of property destroyed. Loss of life was another matter. In Miami-Dade County, Andrew killed only 15 people by direct force of wind and water. Human casualties were so light because the storm caused little flooding in populated areas and the National Hurricane Center forecast the storm track accurately. Although hurricanes are inevitable on the East Coast of North America, correct characterization of the phenomenon on all scales enables men and women to prepare effectively. Accurate forecasts of individual events give people time and motivate them to act. The climatology of the threat's occurrence and severity is the key to wise policies implemented long before the event. Intelligent responses in the years, months, days, hours and even minutes before hurricane landfall can limit human and material losses.

Now can you imagine how much Andrew would have cost had there been no warning whatsoever?

I honestly can't. But I can guess ...

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/hgx/stormsignals/vol55.htm

Here I call your attention to the 1900 Galveston, Texas hurricane. Though the amount of property damage does not compared to Florida's Hurricane Andrew, the life lost is staggering by today's standards:

Around 8,000 deaths!

Now can you imagine what 6,000 to 8,000 deaths was like back in 1900? Remember, that in 1900 the US population was ~76,094,000. The US population in 1992 was ~255,000,000!

Now add to this fact, that particular area of Houston/Galveston was virtually unpopulated in 1900, but is now much more densely populated. (I grew up right next to the Johnson Space Center in Houston, TX. Nobody lived between Houston and Galveston until the 1960s -- when oil and space were booming.)

Another major change over the last century is the tremendous growth in population in the hurricane risk areas. In 1900, most Bay Area communities numbered their populations in the 100s or less. Even in 1961, when Carla struck the area, the population was less than 1/4 what it is today. Now it has been 17 years since Alicia. Growth, combined with the highly transient nature of our population, means that a significant percentage of the population has never experienced a major hurricane.

In any event, what made the Galveston 1900 hurricane so tragic was that there was no preparation.

It is a simple matter of economics, that a large city can't afford to conduct its own hurricane tracking project. How frequently do hurricanes hit Galveston Texas? My memory as a child was about once every 5-10 years. How frequently do hurricanes look like they might hit, but change track? Often, we narrowly missed the bullet a few times ... though New Orleans got slammed pretty damn bad.

Now, thinking about this logically if you lived in Galveston and couldn't afford to track all hurricanes (even though when one hits it tends to kill a large number of your population), but you know that New Orleans has the same problem, doesn't it make sense to contact New Orleans and work together?

Of course it does. You don't have to have grown up in a natural disaster prone area to know this! Any first grader will tell you that cooperation means you can get more work done!

The purpose behind this resolution isn't to focus just on hurricanes or typhoons, but rather to provide an international mechanism and clearing house for nations to share information about natural disasters.

Let's pretend that a massive storm hits Mikitivity and my government responds to the disaster, even though we were caught somewhat unprepared. It only makes sense that we pass on a friendly warning to Sober Thought (our neighbor) ... heck, Sober Thought might appreciate this so much that they might send police and doctors to help out with the injured.

The money to track natural disasters (in Nationstates) has to come from somewhere ... is it "education"? I seriously don't think so. Police budgets make sense, since in my lifetime I've yet to see a single natural disaster where the first responders have not been police.

I'd encourage people to stop yelling at those of us who worked on this resolution, and recognize that in the "real world" there is a host of strong support for these sorts of programs for a very good reason: preventing natural disasters is cost effective.

OOC:
You should look at the "real world" as well and realize that its the small things that get the most debate in governing bodies. Its not that people don't like various things on a whole, but are opposed to who they are applied. Or money issues. Or the small things.

But oh well, I guess I didn't want to RP anyways....

OOC:
You should look at the "real world" as well and realize that its the small things that get the most debate in governing bodies. Its not that people don't like various things on a whole, but are opposed to who they are applied. Or money issues. Or the small things.

But oh well, I guess I didn't want to RP anyways....

OOC: If that is directed at me, I _work_ in the real world in this field.

In the _real world_ people don't say silly things like, "This is noneness! It costs too much!" OK, there are a few nut jobs that come to public hearings and say those things, but politicians don't listen to them. Sour grapes don't make good wines.

Instead real world policy making focuses on constructive public comments like, "Gee, how about instead of having the USGS study runoff from this rural watershed, these papers here suggest we should have the USGS focusing on urban runoff on this part of the same watershed." These comments exist, and come from people whom aren't waving their fists in a vain effort to simply be heard, but from people whom really have an honest and informed opinion on a matter.

I think you are half right ... the debate isn't on the big picture, but rather on how the details are carried out and divided up. But it isn't "who" as much as "where" and "how".

The key difference here is the negative comments I'm seeing in this thread aren't even providing alternatives or specifics. They are coming from people who just don't really have an alternative in hand and are simply complaining for the sake of complaining. While in the _real world_ that happens in the editorial sections of newspapers and blogs, the real debates actually focus on technical details.

Though I'd love to see a technical discussion take place (I find they are very educational), I've yet to see a single opponent to this measure support his or her opinion with any facts. And yet, the proponents have come under limited attack and have pointed to real world facts that support their position.

The fact remains that if we want to debate the "who", "where", "why", "what" or "how" (finer details), that we still can ... but that isn't what is happening.

Instead the con arguements have bordered on mudslinging:
Originally Posted by Crizqo
Open your eyes people, i think this is just a proposal to get detaild topographic informations on our countrys to ready troups for invasions by certain war mongoring states.

In 12-years as an engineer, 6 of those as a registered engineer / 6 as a simple graduate student researcher, I've not ONCE heard anything like the above at an engineering or policy / political debate, and I have attended many national and local level conferences related to various aspects of public works engineering (from climate change to building design). Comments like the above are frankly insulting ... not personally, but they certainly show a complete lack of respect for what has been presented ... I'd even call comments like the above silly. They aren't based in reality ... spies and war mongoring? Come on!

Bottom line: if a person is gonna throw mud around, you'd better believe that I'm gonna challenge them to actually provide facts for their opinions and I will provide my own.

Please note, I'm not accusing you of slinging mud, but some of the other comments are really not far removed from the old "Our words are backed by NUCLEAR WEAPONS!" cry from Sid Meyer's Civilization game. We can do much better than that!

They aren't based in reality ... spies and war mongoring? Come on!
I actually wouldnt doubt that someone would propose something while trieing to acomplish something else with it. Off course the ridiculous thing about what he said is that geographical information is hardly something that is a secret anymore.

also remember mikitivity that most posters dont know your history here on NS (actually I dont either), so they dont know wether they should look for a hidden agenda or not (allthough most proposals (or all?) seem to be rather straight forward). And you have to remember that in NS there is alot more war and alot more friction. So you cant really compare how nations IRL treat disaster negotiations and how it is treated in NS (for example if in 1970 the USSR had proposed something like this, I think the USA would certainly be skeptical about USSR's true intentions)

The body of the proposal talks about establishing an international disaster organization, and building on previous disaster law. However, the category/description and body of the resolution are inconsistent, and the only tangible effect of this proposal would be the increase in all member nations military and police spending.

The same applies to resolution #90 Tsunami Warning System.

The author of the current proposal contends that he was forced to categorize his proposal as International Security (increasing military spending) because there is no appropriate category available for legislation applying to international disaster prevention. Although increasing police spending does fall under military spending according to the rules, and militaries can be used for humanitarian relief, this is not the proper category for such a proposal.

According to the Endonian Protocol (which contains the official rules for proposal creation), the categories of International Security and Global Disarmament are directly opposed to each other and that Precisely what it sounds like. "International Security" increases government spending on the police and military while "Global Disarmament" reduces government spending on the police and military. Both resolutions affect the military more than they do the police, but they do affect both.

These categories can cover any kind of weaponry used by the police or military: including, but not limited to, conventional, nuclear, biological, chemical, space-based, and non-lethal.

These policies are by definintion defense policies, and the direction for countries to increase defense spending does not in any way assure that this increase will be for disaster aid or prevention.

I contend that increasing disaster aid and prevention is a social policy, not a defense policy.

If one wishes to increase spending on disaster aid and prevention, whether or not a new agency is to be created, the correct category would be Social Justice.

I propose that the first step to promoting international disaster warning, aid and prevention is defeating this proposal.

I also propose that resolution #90 be repealed.

In the future, it would be wise to draft proposals with the proper category in mind if we wish to alleviate harm from natural disasters from the international level.

My justification for this contention is as follows:

The Endonian protocols describe Social Justice as “A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.”

Natural disasters affect their victims in an unequal manner. The poorest citizens are asked to leave their homes and possessions behind, potentially losing all their tangible assets. Wealthier people will have more assets untouched by disaster. Rarely will a corporation “lose everything” in the case of a natural disaster as common people will. Also, transportation from impending disaster can facilitated when one can afford such transportation. Many common people find themselves unable to evacuate disaster areas in time because they cannot afford to. While automobiles pack the streets of a disaster area, wealthier individuals can procure airborne transportation to avoid being “trampled in the rush”. Individuals of lower means may find themselves forced to walk. Although natural disasters can harm or kill anyone regardless of class, the majority of disaster relief aid will be needed by the most unfortunate of people.

Although we would like to assume that police and military forces would help everyone equally, it is the case that police are generally more responsive in middle and upper-class neighborhoods than they are in poorer areas. I am not accusing these organizations of class favoritism, as I do not believe this is the case. Rather, I am suggesting that a military and police based answer may increase the number of individuals for disaster aid, but it will not do so as effectively as a new proposal under the social justice category would by both increasing basic welfare and reducing inequality.

According to the Endonian Protocols, Social Justice resolutions either regulate businesses “OR how much government spending goes to helping poor/sick people.” The resolution to increase spending on disaster aid and prevention should be just that, a resolution to spend on a social program, not to increase military spending.

Any organization or institution requires legitimate authority to carry out its responsibilities. Without authority, member Nations may decide to ignore the international institutions created, no real source of funding is provided and the organization is defunct from the moment of its creation.

In the case of the current proposal, the NDAO would be created as follows:

“2. ESTABLISHES a Natural Disaster Assessment Organisation (NDAO) which has the following tasks:
a. Conduct research on natural disasters, preventative methods and monitoring systems,
b. Coordinate international cooperation on this field, in scientific research and in practical solutions,
c. Create protocols for warning about possible disasters, evacuation plans and local disaster awareness programmes,
d. Maintain contacts with local authorities and local organisations in order to improve communication of information about possible natural disasters and how to respond to them,
e. Maintain contacts with national governments participating in the NDAO, the Tsunami Warning Center, and the UN”

The proposal does not identify where funding shall be obtained for the creation and maintenance of this organization. Nor is this organization granted any means of authority to impose protocols or warnings.

Once again, the only tangible effect of this proposal would be the increase in all member nations military and police spending.

To create an international institution, legitimate authority is necessary to avoid international disputes. Nations are required to comply with U.N. regulations when they join. This is an example legitimate authority, without which, the U.N. would be as powerless as the agency which this proposal would create.

Member states would give their consent for the agency to create offices within their countries and operate within their borders. This would cause a potential conflict.

An example of this issue can be found in resolution #90:

“4. AUTHORIZES the TEWC to establish a network of land-based and deep ocean buoys and sensors to monitor changes in the water surface across the network, in order to confirm possible tsunamis created by earthquakes or volcanic activity as well as to observe and identify tsunamis created by other physical processes that are undetected by seismic waves (such as landslides or large scale impacts);”

For the system of monitors to be effective, they would need to be placed in as many nations as possible. This resolution “authorizes” the TEWC to place monitoring equipment and conduct operations within the borders of member states. This does not guarantee cooperation from member nations. The increase in military spending is in no way addresses the authority to operate within a member’s borders. An increase in military spending may have an adverse result. Rather than fostering international cooperation, boosting military budgets may increase the role of the military in members government, embolden rogue states, and harm diplomacy as countries become weary of the military buildup in their neighboring nations.

In conclusion, this line of policy is misleading in its relationship between title and body as well as being a misappropriation of funds disguised as promotion of health and welfare, but ending up as defense spending, possibly building tanks and bombs… not saving people from tsunamis and other natural disasters.

To effectively prevent disasters by setting up an international institution with the equipment and authority to do so, we would need:
(1) Social policy to increase spending on prevention of and relief from natural disasters as well as;
(2) Legislation that clearly outlines how any international organization will operate within member nations and whether countries will be expected to comply with the regulations of said organization.

Thank you for your time and attention,

Chairman Hess – The United Socialist States of Hesterland

I actually wouldnt doubt that someone would propose something while trieing to acomplish something else with it. Off course the ridiculous thing about what he said is that geographical information is hardly something that is a secret anymore.

also remember mikitivity that most posters dont know your history here on NS (actually I dont either), so they dont know wether they should look for a hidden agenda or not (allthough most proposals (or all?) seem to be rather straight forward). And you have to remember that in NS there is alot more war and alot more friction. So you cant really compare how nations IRL treat disaster negotiations and how it is treated in NS (for example if in 1970 the USSR had proposed something like this, I think the USA would certainly be skeptical about USSR's true intentions)

I disagree. Even in the cold war, accusations of spying were typically limited to the imaginations of writers like Ian Flemming and his James Bond novels. The USSR didn't usually openly accuse the United States of trying to insert spies, with but a few high profile and specific exceptions:

Cuban Missile Crisis -- 1962
Iran-Contra Affair -- 1986
Gary Powers (U-2 Spy Plane Crash) -- 1960
Korean Airlines Flight 007 -- 1983

There are more examples, but the point isn't the number of items in the list, but rather that when the USSR did bother to accuse the US of warmongering, it had specific events in mind.

The Cuban Missile Crisis was a protest over the rights to influence another country. It wasn't a vague threat or idle complaint. There were very real issues for the Soviets (a trading partner, even if small) and even more real issues for the US (in the form of Soviet missiles within minutes of Miami, Florida).

Iran-Contra is another great example. There were physical reports from Lebanon about the weapons for hostages negotiations. These were real reports, not "martians in the closet" that an accusation of "war mongering" is.

Gary Powers ... there was an actual spy who was caught.

Korean Airlines is the opposite story ... instead of having a hard lead, a trigger happy Soviet pilot shot down an Korean Airliner, killing 269 passengers. I remember that day. :( It was a black day for the world.

The soviet pilot shot down KAL 007 because it happened by bad luck to follow the flight path of a routine US spy plane. It is truely a tragic mistake, but one made *because* there was again evidence of spying.


While I realize people don't know my government, to make an accusation without ANY proof is frankly STUPID. It causes those nations that know the accused to really loose respect. In the case of experienced and well established nations, if you want to *ask* if my nation is planning on spying on people, a good first step (and easy step) would be to do the following:


OOC: I'm planning on roleplaying and making my decision on this resolution based on your nation's international behavior. Do you consider your government to be opposed to my government? If so, is there a chance you could help me out in RPing and feed me something of an example to use in my debate?

But we didn't see that. Instead what we have here is the classic case of somebody having a knee-jerk reaction to a resolution and just crying wolf. It is bad form.

As for the Soviet response to something like this if the US had posted it in 1970 ... you are assuming that "Mikitivity" is a US. That is a mistake. Did you know that in 1970 that the Soviets and US both had great relationships with a number of nations. Switzerland and Hungry both come to mind. They were sort of "mediators" between east and west. That is why in the 1950s that the majority of the day-to-day UN offices were actually built in Geneva, Switzerland instead of the UN headquarters in New York City.

It is bad form for a player to just assume that another nation is a superpower. But it is good to just ask. :)

According to the Endonian Protocol (which contains the official rules for proposal creation), the categories of International Security and Global Disarmament are directly opposed to each other and that Precisely what it sounds like. "International Security" increases government spending on the police and military while "Global Disarmament" reduces government spending on the police and military. Both resolutions affect the military more than they do the police, but they do affect both.

There is nothing in the Endonian Protocols / Guidelines that suggests that International Security or Global Disarmament resolutions favor military over police. If there is, please post a link to where this is true.

However, since there is no GAME MECHANICS method of separating the two, I'd move that your discussion is out of order. The United Nations can not simply create new resolution categories to target specifically one type of budget increase.

Instead I'll suggest that we pretend (the same way we do for Social Justice and Human Rights) that since the text of the resolution makes it clear that the focus of the resolution is in preventing or mitigating the damages from natural disasters that military budget increases due to the adoption of this resolution be directly earmarked for specifically these tasks.



These categories can cover any kind of weaponry used by the police or military: including, but not limited to, conventional, nuclear, biological, chemical, space-based, and non-lethal.

Is that directly taken from the Endonian Protocols? Because if so, that to me sounds as if the category (key word) "can" include those issues, but that the larger issue of increasing the budgets of first responders is included as well.

While it might be that after a natural disaster in your nation kindergarden teachers and welfare workers are the first to go to the scene of a collapsed building in order to put out the flames and drag bodies out, in Mikitivity we use firefigthers and police officers. The advantage of using these individuals is unlike welfare workers (aka social justice resolution workers), police and firefigthers are often in better physical shape and stand a better chance of dragging a flaming child out of a building.


I contend that increasing disaster aid and prevention is a social policy, not a defense policy.

I disagree. Social policies are related to domestic social issues, meaning they are policies based on shaping the _society_. Defensive issues include anything related to maintaining health and security.

Again, I'll point to the famous fictious nation: America. While it is true that 2nd grade teachers and firefighters are both paid by government budgets, usually raised by taxes, a teacher is tasked with guiding and imparting knowledge to a child (with a secondary responsibility to prevent that child from doing something stupid at school). A firefighter is responsible for responding immediately to any threat to the life or health of an individual ... their actions are not focused on specific members of society or even on long-term considerations like giving them the ability to read or compose music, but rather, they are experts in defending people or property from danger.

The key here is property. Teachers have no obligation nor skill set to tell the world how to clear underbrush from around a building, they are focused on people and just people. Firefighters are really interested in protecting people and infrastructure. If a building is about to collapse, the focus is on saving the individual, but in the case of a building-design code (a fire code), firefighters also are given the task to voice their experiences about fires and help engineers create buildings that will PROTECT and SURVIVE.

In fact, I'd argue that there are essentially two types of defense: there are defensive programs initiated against other governments and person created disasters (like terrorism) and then there are defensive programs initiated against natural threats.

Having a supply of batteries and canned goods in case of a hurricane is NOT a social justice program. It is a program that a government might recommend because if a dirty bomb or earthquake strike, you will be without food and water for some time. The policy isn't about steering society, but defending it.


My justification for this contention is as follows:

The Endonian protocols describe Social Justice as “A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.”

Although we would like to assume that police and military forces would help everyone equally, it is the case that police are generally more responsive in middle and upper-class neighborhoods than they are in poorer areas. I am not accusing these organizations of class favoritism, as I do not believe this is the case. Rather, I am suggesting that a military and police based answer may increase the number of individuals for disaster aid, but it will not do so as effectively as a new proposal under the social justice category would by both increasing basic welfare and reducing inequality.

In conclusion, this line of policy is misleading in its relationship between title and body as well as being a misappropriation of funds disguised as promotion of health and welfare, but ending up as defense spending, possibly building tanks and bombs… not saving people from tsunamis and other natural disasters.

To effectively prevent disasters by setting up an international institution with the equipment and authority to do so, we would need:
(1) Social policy to increase spending on prevention of and relief from natural disasters as well as;
(2) Legislation that clearly outlines how any international organization will operate within member nations and whether countries will be expected to comply with the regulations of said organization.


Can you provide information supporting your opinion that police do not protect the poor? I've yet to read a single published report that says, "In the 9-11 attacks, firefighers asked people how much they made before rescuing them."

First responders are professionals. If there is an unequal response time in a nation, that will still need to be addressed by one of two logical means:

1) domestic laws to change the distribution of first responder headquarters, or

2) a increase in funding of those responsible for PROTECTING and DEFENDING people and property from immediate danger (i.e. an International Security issue).

I am rather offended that anybody would claim that first responders, people who put their lives at risk on a daily basis, would refuse to help somebody because of their social status. And I can assure you that this is NOT the case in my government.

OOC: Hesterland, just so you know ... I'm not really _mad_ here. I actually appreciate the fact that you spent some time reading the resolution and forum to find Endoia's rules. Most newbies to the forum don't do this. I do honestly believe you are wrong, but I wanted you to know I think your post is a good example of being thoughtful. My tone is because indirectly you've just insulted the Mikitivity emergency assistance programs, where in other RPs in II, I've sent in people to help citizens in governments that my government realistically wouldn't want to acknolwedge ... meaning there really isn't a bias from my own government's POV. But I do think you basic idea that poor people get less fire / police protection is another issue that could be addressed ... it just has nothing to do with this resolution. :)

First of all, I would like to congratulate Hesterland of being the first to not just criticise, but also come with alternatives. This is the kind of debate we prefer (though it would have been better at the draft stage).

We don't agree, of course.

The body of the proposal talks about establishing an international disaster organization, and building on previous disaster law. However, the category/description and body of the resolution are inconsistent, and the only tangible effect of this proposal would be the increase in all member nations military and police spending.

Well, yes. But that's if you look at the resolution in "stats" way only. That's a way of viewing it, but not the only one. The UN also involves some RP, which is just as important as how much the stats change, in my opinion. So this resolution also brings together organisations, scientists and local authorities to work on the monitoring of disasters. True, you won't see that on your nation info page, but it still happens.


These policies are by definintion defense policies, and the direction for countries to increase defense spending does not in any way assure that this increase will be for disaster aid or prevention.

It doesn't tecnically, but still, these institutions have to be funded from somewhere, and millitairy/police is a valid source for the money. But nowhere does it say what it is spent on. That goes for all money. I am spending a lot on education, but it doesn't say how. Most could go to the board of directors instead of the students. If we reason like you do, we might as well pack and go home, because someone can always claim that the money is not spent right. This resolution says that it is funded from the millitairy budget, so it is. And it is "defense", but against nature, not armies.

If one wishes to increase spending on disaster aid and prevention, whether or not a new agency is to be created, the correct category would be Social Justice.

(...)
My justification for this contention is as follows:

The Endonian protocols describe Social Justice as “A resolution to reduce income inequality and increase basic welfare.”

Natural disasters affect their victims in an unequal manner. The poorest citizens are asked to leave their homes and possessions behind, potentially losing all their tangible assets. Wealthier people will have more assets untouched by disaster.

I think you're taking an extremely broad view of Social Justice compared to an extremely narrow view of International Security. I also completely disagree with your premise that natural disasters affect their victims in an unequal manner. Rather, I would suggest that natural disasters hit all the victims equally. A disaster is not making any difference between poor and rich people. Wealthy people are hit the same way as poor people. They can both loose everything.

In fact, wealthy people might even loose more. In that case, disaster prevention works opposite to social justice, because it does not reduce the income gap.

Rarely will a corporation “lose everything” in the case of a natural disaster as common people will. Also, transportation from impending disaster can facilitated when one can afford such transportation. Many common people find themselves unable to evacuate disaster areas in time because they cannot afford to. While automobiles pack the streets of a disaster area, wealthier individuals can procure airborne transportation to avoid being “trampled in the rush”. Individuals of lower means may find themselves forced to walk. Although natural disasters can harm or kill anyone regardless of class, the majority of disaster relief aid will be needed by the most unfortunate of people.

The rich people in cars might get stuck in traffic, while the walking people get away safely. Wealthy people might refuse to leave because of their rich possessions, while poor people leave more easily because they have little to use.

According to the Endonian Protocols, Social Justice resolutions either regulate businesses “OR how much government spending goes to helping poor/sick people.” The resolution to increase spending on disaster aid and prevention should be just that, a resolution to spend on a social program, not to increase military spending.

But it isn't a social program. This would mean that the resolution has to help poor people more than rich people. It doesn't. It makes no difference between income classes, it looks at nature, not people. I'd like a moderator opinion on this, but I fail to see this as a social justice resolution. And I am pro-social-justice, mind you.

The proposal does not identify where funding shall be obtained for the creation and maintenance of this organization. Nor is this organization granted any means of authority to impose protocols or warnings.

The money comes from the millitary/police budget. It needs no authority. Why should it? It is simply providing information to its members, who have to implement it on local level. There's no NDAO official coming down saying "you have to do this!". A national representative goes to the NDAO asking "how can we monitor for earthquake activities?" or "we've noticed a faultline near a border, we should research that with the neighbouring countries". Or the NDAO contacts a local authority saying "here are some guidelines for setting up a good evacuation plan". What authority does it need? What power does it need? It's voluntary, because it's based on cooperation, not enforcement.

And resolutions are enforced, that's what the gnomes are for.

In conclusion, this line of policy is misleading in its relationship between title and body as well as being a misappropriation of funds disguised as promotion of health and welfare, but ending up as defense spending, possibly building tanks and bombs… not saving people from tsunamis and other natural disasters.

Yeah, right. It's not extremely difficult to come up with things like this for all other resolutions. It's impossible to add all sorts of legal/enforcement stuff to each resolution. A resolution provides advice, guidelines, and rarely really enforced something. Resolution #91 enforced the legalisation of prostitution, but even that can be escaped. Sick nations will get around everything if they want to. The UN shouldn't be about all that. Nations join because they want to cooperate on an international level. If they don't, they'll get around it. Or simply leave the UN. If you want 100% enforcement of everything your way, you'll run out of space for the actual point you're trying to accomplish.

To effectively prevent disasters by setting up an international institution with the equipment and authority to do so, we would need:
(1) Social policy to increase spending on prevention of and relief from natural disasters as well as;

This is more millitairy scientific policy, so that's covered.

(2) Legislation that clearly outlines how any international organization will operate within member nations and whether countries will be expected to comply with the regulations of said organization.

You can always write it as a separate resolution. But fortunately, this resolution doesn't need that, because it's based on existing organisation which are already authorized to work in their own country. All they need is to exchange information with other countries. So that point is covered as well, just different from yours.

I disagree. Even in the cold war, accusations of spying were typically limited to the imaginations of writers like Ian Flemming and his James Bond novels. The USSR didn't usually openly accuse the United States of trying to insert spies, with but a few high profile and specific exceptions:
uhm I never said accusations, I said that either nation would be skeptical about any proposition of the other that seems beneficial to both parties.

While I realize people don't know my government, to make an accusation without ANY proof is frankly STUPID. It causes those nations that know the accused to really loose respect. In the case of experienced and well established nations, if you want to *ask* if my nation is planning on spying on people, a good first step (and easy step) would be to do the following:
uhm in this case I would think that the only one who would loose respect from other nations is the person making the accusations (which isnt the accused, unless my english is failing horribly). And I never said it wasnt stupid, I was explaining that your example of how countries react to it right now, doesnt mean they will have to react the same way in the NS.

And my example of the USSR and US, was just to point out that RL nations would be skeptical about something about this aswell. Also I am actually saying that your country is the USSR and that crizqo is the US (as you are proposing this and crizqo is being skeptical).

And im not assuming you are the US or the USSR or even a superpower. Its just an example, used to explain my point and the only thing in common would be that in NS there will be nations that hate eachother, but arent at war with eachother. However they wouldnt mind seeing the other nation falling apart.

And I never said it wasnt stupid, I was explaining that your example of how countries react to it right now, doesnt mean they will have to react the same way in the NS.

And my example of the USSR and US, was just to point out that RL nations would be skeptical about something about this aswell. Also I am actually saying that your country is the USSR and that crizqo is the US (as you are proposing this and crizqo is being skeptical).


OOC:
I think it is OK to be skeptical, but I also think it is craziness to just start dropping accusations without anything to provide as a foundation for that skeptism. For example KAL 007 was shot down because it was mistaken as a military aircraft. If the US hadn't have been spying on North Korea and the Soviet Union, the Soviets would have had EVEN MORE hell to pay after they killed 269 innocent people. Sadly at least they can point to a specific US aircraft that they *thought* they were targetting. This is a tragic example (and it problably dates me) ... but in the real world people explain why they are skeptical.

this proposal makes no sense :headbang: . if something happens to a country other than mine, i dont want to be pegged with paying any money towards helping. just like i dont expect you people to help me. these problems are internal, requiring no special attention unless it takes out an entire region. the taxes in my country are high enough, thank you. i dont want to tick off the proletariets by raising their taxes to help someone in the Democratic republic of the democratic republic of ten. it makes no sense. i would, however, be more than glad to donate money towards weather control technology.

this proposal makes no sense :headbang: . if something happens to a country other than mine, i dont want to be pegged with paying any money towards helping.

You're not, so you don't need to worry about that.

just like i dont expect you people to help me.

Even if this increases the danger on death and damage for your nation, as well as neighbouring states?

OOC:
I think it is OK to be skeptical, but I also think it is craziness to just start dropping accusations without anything to provide as a foundation for that skeptism. For example KAL 007 was shot down because it was mistaken as a military aircraft. If the US hadn't have been spying on North Korea and the Soviet Union, the Soviets would have had EVEN MORE hell to pay after they killed 269 innocent people. Sadly at least they can point to a specific US aircraft that they *thought* they were targetting. This is a tragic example (and it problably dates me) ... but in the real world people explain why they are skeptical.
OOC: difference between RL and NS is that the RL people are pro's, they know if they act or express their skeptical thoughts that it could backfire (even if they are justified) and can create an international mess.
However this is a game and if someone wants create such a mess than they will or they can do this due to being inexperienced/rash or simply stupid.

I am not defending that it isnt stupid to do so, Im just saying that the skeptical thoughts also happen irl (allthough probably only 1% are ever expressed or openly acted upon).

now IC: As I stated it is laughable that the representative of Crizqo thinks that geographical information is still a secret to any nation and I find it highly unproffesional that he openly accusses the sponsor and the creator of this proposal as warmongers and that they would use the UN to help their own military intelligence.

OOC:
I am not defending that it isnt stupid to do so, Im just saying that the skeptical thoughts also happen irl (allthough probably only 1% are ever expressed or openly acted upon).


OOC: You are right of course ... but it just seems "wiser" to actually back statements with something to point to. Now to say something In Character so as not to completely hijack Gouda's thread. ;)

IC: My government is still perplexed that any nation would accuse any of the proponents of this resolution as being warmongers, since it is a matter of record that our militaries are not only small, but also that the International Democratic Union has tended to vote in favour of resolutions supporting reductions in weapons of mass destruction. I certainly know that my government's voting record is publically available.

The difference with this resolution is that it is crystal clear that the mandate of the resolution is to support research related to natural disasters, coordinating information about them with the goal of preventing them or warning about the risks related to them, and finally encouranging (not mandating) increases in first responders or their ability to respond.

As a supporter of the International Red Cross, my government finds this resolution consistent with promoting preparation and saving lives. We are thankful for the nations that have shown their support.

8. CALLS UPON all nations to provide care and assistance in case of a natural disaster, by themselves or through recognized UN organisations such as the International Red Cross;

We've analyzed the resolution and noted that the primary reference related to humanitarian aid is in the above clause. This clause is consistent with the prior resolutions that have established the IRCO and/or reiterated our goal to provide relief assistance. However, if disasters can be prevented, we firmly believe that more lives will be saved.

As an UN organization, naturally we can not vote, but we felt it important to point out that nations that wish to donate money or personel in support of international disaster relief efforts can sign up to join the contact list of the International Red Cross:

Intl Red Cross forum (open to all)
http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?c=6

Location to request aid:
http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?showforum=18

Location to volunteer to provide aid:
http://s3.invisionfree.com/UN_Organizations/index.php?showforum=11

Thank you!

I know this is late in the game, but can someone please explain to me why this is considered a security issue when there is not a single actual reference to military forces in it?

can someone please explain to me why this is considered a security issue

Please read the thread from the beginning.

:sniper: :mp5: if this gets approved than anything that happens the UN will give money to eveything else ... if this approved than i want my 15% military increase approved :mp5: :sniper:
this will spend to much money on something that each government should take care of by themselves
we do not need an orginaization that uses UN money to help liberal states, while taking this money from prepared states
VOTE NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad:

let em burn. if we had a large natural disaster would they help us? no!

i say shoot em, :mp5:
disease em, :gundge:
and laugh at em before they complaine any more! :D

I know this is late in the game, but can someone please explain to me why this is considered a security issue when there is not a single actual reference to military forces in it?

The short answer is the category impacts security, which includes foreign and domestic security. Domestic security includes first responders, like police and firefighters. When a natural disaster strikes, they are the first people to show up to save lives.

But the larger problem is better described by Grosseschnauzer in the following post:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8720162&postcount=45

Groot Gouda and I have also pointed out that while budgets will increase to help fund police and firefighters, that the major increase isn't just for these groups, but funding disaster awareness and prevention programs.

The NDAO is charged with researching natural disasters and finding ways to predict and prevent them. In the "real-world" the United States funds NOAA to go out and track hurricanes. By tracking hurricanes, events like the Galveston Texas 1900 hurricane (which happened before storms were named) killed around 8,000 people! But by issuing a warning, people avoid the beaches and can stay in shelters ... lives are saved.

The cost of tracking hurricanes isn't cheap, but it also isn't that expensive either. NOAA estimates that its current hurricane tracking projects save the United States $3 billion dollars per year! (This is a savings that takes into account NOAA's operating budget for tracking hurricanes -- I consider that amazing!) :)

http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/mag134.htm


Furthermore, according to the recently released 2004 NOAA Statistics Book, NOAA National Weather Service forecasts, warnings and associated emergency responses result in a $3 billion savings during a typical hurricane season. Two-thirds of this savings ($2 billion) is attributed to the reduction in hurricane-related deaths, and one-third of this savings ($1 billion) is attributed to a reduction in property-related damage because of preparedness actions.

While many people might find it hard to believe that $2 billion is saved in human lives, these estimates are coming from the fact that hurricanes hit the US Gulf Coast frequently in the late summer months with people tend to be outside, and 100 years ago thousands of people would die from these storms.


So the question then is, if we are already saving billions of dollars, why a resolution? Well, first in NationStates there is no all powerful United States to kindly issue warnings to neighboring nations via NOAA's Hurricane Tracking Center. This is something we need. Second, but telling people whom think they might need to worry that they are safe, NOAA saves additional money:


Recently, it has been estimated to cost up to $1 million (depending on the amount of development) to prepare each mile of coastline in a hurricane warning area. Therefore, significant value is realized if forecasters can avoid calling for unnecessary preparation when a hurricane comes close to, but does not strike a large coastal community.

The theory behind studying any natural disaster is to improve the skill and science related to forecasting.

The proposed NDOA is to focus on all disasters. If my government were appointed the head, we'd first advocate for studying the costs of all natural disasters in NationStates and then developing risk maps. From there we'd also study what we can track or mitigate and what we can't. Then using both sets of information we'd like to suggest that a system of budget priorities be established. Hurricanes we can track, earthquakes less so. So we'd want to do both, but focus first of getting a good communication network and tracking system for hurricanes, while earthquake research focus on research.

Finally my government is still planning on bringing yet another resolution to the UN in the fall on a Universal Building Code (UBC). The basic idea behind the UBC is to really bring structural and civil engineers together to share information on what sorts of structures can act as shelters. The code would focus on hospitals, police and fire stations, and schools. The idea isn't to take away your cultures preferred buildings, but to come up with universal "safe houses", that travelers and tourists alike know what they look like and can run to them in the event of danger. The UBC would be the design code, unique to each location and the dangers posed in that location, to provide that protection. While that is not included in this resolution, in time I see the NDAO being key to agreeing upon a UBC. We can't create a UBC without a knolwedge base. NDAO is how we have proposed to gain that knowledge.

*gaveling sound*

The SECRETARY-GENERAL. It having attained to the appropriate hour on the twenty-fourth day of April, 2005, voting is now closed on the resolution currently at vote. The Clerk will designate the resolution.

The READING CLERK. United Nations Resolution #100. Natural Disaster Act, proposed by Groot Gouda, a resolution to mildly improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

The SECRETARY-GENERAL. The decision of the United Nations has been rendered thusly: The resolution Natural Disaster Act was passed 12,955 votes to 3,094, and implemented in all UN member nations. The member nations of the United Nations will be immediately informed of the outcome of this vote.

Pursuant to the resolution just passed, the Natural Disaster Assessment Organisation is hereby established with the responsibilities given to it by clause 2 of resolution 100.

Given that this now marks the 100th resolution adopted by this body, my government moves that this thread be moved to the NationStates archive (forum) for historical purposes.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites seconds the motion.

Krioval is pleased to see that the one hundredth resolution to be passed by the United Nations be on a matter so critical and timely for all nations. This resolution reflects the integrity of this institution, which, while occasionally called into question, ultimately is demonstrated when issues such as international cooperation and security can be addressed in a decisive and positive way. Krioval looks forward with anticipation toward the next hundred resolutions, and hopes that all can be of such quality and benefit as the Natural Disaster Act.

Lord Koro Vartek
Director of Diplomacy and Trade
High Priest of Krioval

Lord Raijin Dekker
Commander of Krioval
High Paladin of Krioval

I Hope this resolution pass but...dude, i don't :( want my country money to finish for the military. Just maybe a little percent. :cool:

I Hope this resolution pass but...dude, i don't :( want my country money to finish for the military. Just maybe a little percent. :cool:

The resolution passed yesterday, and has already been implemented in your nation (and all other UN member states).

The president of the glorious People's Republic of Groot Gouda would like to thank all nations who helped getting this resolution passed. The fact that this is the 100th resolution accepted by this fine institution makes it an extra special occasion.

International cooperation is the main reason for the existance of the UN. Cooperation on many areas. But the most important factor in all those is, that the citizens of the NSUN should benefit. With this resolution, my government believes they do.

The republic hopes that in the future, the UN will display the same attitude towards international cooperation, and that we can play a small part in that, together with our region, known for its UN involvement.

Thank you all, and let's make the future our future!

The Democratic Federation of Grosseschnauzer, both as the sponsor of record of UN resolution 90, Tsunami Warning System, and as a contributor to UN Resolution 100, Natural Disaster Act, notes with pleasure the overwhelming support UN Resolution 100 received on the floor of the United Nations, and its adoption and implementation by the NSUN.

We look forward to the continued work in this area of concern with Mikivikity and Groot Gouda in the development of the next proposal of this series which will seek to standardize safe and secure building codes that will provide safe havens to local populations and visitors accross the NationStates world in the event they are needed as a consequence of natural disasters covered under UN Resolutions 90 and 100.