[DRAFT] Repeal GAR# 119 Nuclear Testing Safety

[United Federation of Canada]

"REPEAL GA#119 NUCLEAR TESTING SAFETY"
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.

Category: Repeal | Resolution: GA# 119 | Proposed by: Chester Pearson

Description: GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 119 Nuclear Testing Safety (Category: Global Disarmament; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The World Assembly,

AGREEING that nations require nuclear testing to verify operational capacity and safety of their nuclear stockpile

APPROVING of the need for strong regulations in regards to nuclear testing,

APPALLED that GAR #119 Nuclear Testing Safety allows the testing of nuclear weapons in:

• The open atmosphere of inhabited bodies,
  
  
• Under water environments of inhabited bodies,
  
  
• Outer space, at a distance to an inhabited body, that could place such body within the danger zone of damaging electromagnetic pulse effects,

Which can cause severe damage to the test environment as well as any living beings inside the test environment,

THUS AWARE that GAR #119 Nuclear Testing Safety does very little to protect the environment or living beings from the harmful effects of nuclear weapons testing, and cannot be meaningfully enforced,

SEEKING to introduce a more comprehensive replacement

The General Assembly hereby,

REPEALS GAR #119 Nuclear Testing Safety.

Description: GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 119 Nuclear Testing Safety (Category: Global Disarmament; Strength: Significant) shall be struck out and rendered null and void.

Argument: The World Assembly,

Agreeing that nations require nuclear testing to verify the operational capacity, as well obtaining critical design data on nuclear weapons,

Approving of the need for strong regulations in regards to nuclear testing,

Appalled that GAR #119 Nuclear Testing Safety allows the testing of nuclear weapons open atmosphere, as well as underwater testing, which causes severe damage to the test environment as well as any living beings inside the test environment,

Further appalled that GAR #119 Nuclear Testing Safety allows for the testing of nuclear weapons in outer space, at a distance to a planetary body, that could place such planetary body within the danger zone of damaging electromagnetic pulse effects, and such testing could cause the formation of damaging radiation belts around said planetary body,

Concerned that the Nuclear Testing Oversight Agency was given no firm timeline to establish guidelines for the clean-up of areas following a test nuclear detonation,

Thus aware that GAR #119 Nuclear Testing Safety does very little to protect the environment or living beings from the harmful effects of nuclear weapons testing, and cannot be meaningfully enforced,

Resolving that it must be struck out and rendered null and void,

Hereby,

Repeals GAR #119 Nuclear Testing Safety.

See replacement Here

[Paper Flowers]

Appalled that GAR #119 Nuclear Weapons Testing

Further appalled that GAR #119 Nuclear Weapons Testing

Resolving that GAR #119 Nuclear Weapons Testing

Determines that GAR #119 Nuclear Weapons Testing

Might we suggest that the ambassador learn the name of the resolution he is trying to repeal? Given his previous criticisms of others for not reading carefully it would seem he needs to follow his own advice.

allows the testing of nuclear weapons allows for testing of nuclear weapons in the open atmosphere,

Again the ambassador may wish to check his literacy as this duplication is redundant.

We are unconvinced at this time that a repeal is necessary or that the offered replacement is any major improvement upon the current resolution and as such are against.

Ambassador Saunders

[United Federation of Canada]

Appalled that GAR #119 Nuclear Weapons Testing

Further appalled that GAR #119 Nuclear Weapons Testing

Resolving that GAR #119 Nuclear Weapons Testing

Determines that GAR #119 Nuclear Weapons Testing

Might we suggest that the ambassador learn the name of the resolution he is trying to repeal? Given his previous criticisms of others for not reading carefully it would seem he needs to follow his own advice.

allows the testing of nuclear weapons allows for testing of nuclear weapons in the open atmosphere,

Again the ambassador may wish to check his literacy as this duplication is redundant.

We are unconvinced at this time that a repeal is necessary or that the offered replacement is any major improvement upon the current resolution and as such are against.

Ambassador Saunders

My apologies Ambassador Saunders. The secretary preparing this draft obviously had a problem with the cut and paste functionality of her computer. These issues have been rectified.

Please explain why this repeal is not necessary? It allows for atmospheric nuclear testing, which is very difficult, if not impossible to contain, or predict. It is appalling that the WA would condone such activities, that are so destructive to the environment.

How is the replacement not an improvement? It seeks to stop atmospheric and underwater testing, and limit testing to underground, and deep space. How can any nation that actually gives a rats-ass about the environment, not get behind proposal that seeks to stop irradiating the environment?

[Anime Daisuki]

Let me try and give some (hopefully) constructive comments.

First of all, let me agree that GA 119 - Nuclear Testing Safety should be repealed. There's some mumbo jumbo and geek speak in there such as "between the edge of a populated celestial body's atmosphere and twice the distance of geosychronous orbit - measured at the equator of said celestial body" that's more appropriate for science fiction RP than for a WA resolution. A WA resolution ought to be easy for everyone to understand. If you are going to introduce words like "geosynchronous orbit", at least spell it correctly (the original was missing a 'n') and have it defined. This the author Darenjo failed to do.

So for me, at issue here is whether: 1) the repeal makes sense and 2) whether the replacement passes muster. But let's take things one at a time and look at the repeal first.

-----
In the interest of time I'll only discuss the clauses I have issues with:

Further appalled that GAR #119 Nuclear Testing Safety allows for the testing of nuclear weapons with the distance if two times the distance of geosynchronous orbit of a celestial body, which could put the said explosion within the magnetosphere of the said celestial body, thus exposing the said celestial body to the damaging effects if electromagnetic pulse,

You are repeating the same mumbo jumbo that the original did and this doesn't do you any good. Please, say it in layman terms. Otherwise, define it for us non-astronauts what you are talking about.

Concerned that the Nuclear Testing Oversight Agency does not have the mandate of assisting nations in the cleanup and neutralization of radiation and fallout if the nuclear test explosion should go awry, and the nation responsible for the test does not have the resources present to take these steps, leaving the environment contaminated,

This troubles me. Okay, let's say NTOA is given the mandate to clean up radiation, but is this really something the WA should do? If one country decides to create a nuclear wasteland within its borders, why should the World clean it up for free? If North Korea Country A doesn't have the resources for cleaning-up, then Country A shouldn't be testing nuclear weapons, period.

Saddened that the Nuclear Testing Oversight Agency must be invited by the nation carrying out the nuclear test explosion, and therefore does not have the ability to ensure compliance,

This is a given, otherwise, it's called an invasion. I don't think this argument helps you--- not in front of NatSovs.

Regards,
GRO/AD

[United Federation of Canada]

Let me try and give some (hopefully) constructive comments.

First of all, let me agree that GA 119 - Nuclear Testing Safety should be repealed. There's some mumbo jumbo and geek speak in there such as "between the edge of a populated celestial body's atmosphere and twice the distance of geosychronous orbit - measured at the equator of said celestial body" that's more appropriate for science fiction RP than for a WA resolution. A WA resolution ought to be easy for everyone to understand. If you are going to introduce words like "geosynchronous orbit", at least spell it correctly (the original was missing a 'n') and have it defined. This the author Darenjo failed to do.

So for me, at issue here is whether: 1) the repeal makes sense and 2) whether the replacement passes muster. But let's take things one at a time and look at the repeal first.

-----
In the interest of time I'll only discuss the clauses I have issues with:

Further appalled that GAR #119 Nuclear Testing Safety allows for the testing of nuclear weapons with the distance if two times the distance of geosynchronous orbit of a celestial body, which could put the said explosion within the magnetosphere of the said celestial body, thus exposing the said celestial body to the damaging effects if electromagnetic pulse,

You are repeating the same mumbo jumbo that the original did and this doesn't do you any good. Please, say it in layman terms. Otherwise, define it for us non-astronauts what you are talking about.

Concerned that the Nuclear Testing Oversight Agency does not have the mandate of assisting nations in the cleanup and neutralization of radiation and fallout if the nuclear test explosion should go awry, and the nation responsible for the test does not have the resources present to take these steps, leaving the environment contaminated,

This troubles me. Okay, let's say NTOA is given the mandate to clean up radiation, but is this really something the WA should do? If one country decides to create a nuclear wasteland within its borders, why should the World clean it up for free? If North Korea Country A doesn't have the resources for cleaning-up, then Country A shouldn't be testing nuclear weapons, period.

Saddened that the Nuclear Testing Oversight Agency must be invited by the nation carrying out the nuclear test explosion, and therefore does not have the ability to ensure compliance,

This is a given, otherwise, it's called an invasion. I don't think this argument helps you--- not in front of NatSovs.

Regards,
GRO/AD

First of all thank you for your generous feedback on this repeal. We greatly value your advice, and have took it to heart. We have made the following changes that hopefully address your concerns:

Further appalled that GAR #119 Nuclear Testing Safety allows for the testing of nuclear weapons with the distance if two times the distance of geosynchronous orbit of a celestial body, which could put the said explosion within the magnetosphere of the said celestial body, thus exposing the said celestial body to the damaging effects if electromagnetic pulse,

You are repeating the same mumbo jumbo that the original did and this doesn't do you any good. Please, say it in layman terms. Otherwise, define it for us non-astronauts what you are talking about.

We have reworded that clause to:

Further appalled that GAR #119 Nuclear Testing Safety allows for the testing of nuclear weapons in outer space, at a distance to a planetary body, that could place such planetary body within the danger zone of damaging electromagnetic pulse effects, and such testing could cause the formation of damaging radiation belts around said planetary body,

Concerned that the Nuclear Testing Oversight Agency does not have the mandate of assisting nations in the cleanup and neutralization of radiation and fallout if the nuclear test explosion should go awry, and the nation responsible for the test does not have the resources present to take these steps, leaving the environment contaminated,

This troubles me. Okay, let's say NTOA is given the mandate to clean up radiation, but is this really something the WA should do? If one country decides to create a nuclear wasteland within its borders, why should the World clean it up for free? If North Korea Country A doesn't have the resources for cleaning-up, then Country A shouldn't be testing nuclear weapons, period.

Point taken and clause has been removed.

Saddened that the Nuclear Testing Oversight Agency must be invited by the nation carrying out the nuclear test explosion, and therefore does not have the ability to ensure compliance,

This is a given, otherwise, it's called an invasion. I don't think this argument helps you--- not in front of NatSovs.

Very good point Madam Ambassador. We have since removed that clause and added these ones in its place:

Concerned that the Nuclear Testing Oversight Agency was given no firm timeline to establish guidelines for the cleanup of areas following a test nuclear detonation as defined in the following clause:

To create guidelines for the cleanup of areas following nuclear tests - Until such time as the NTOA shall establish such guidelines pertaining to environmental cleanup, all nations that test nuclear weapons must perform adequate cleanup so that background radiation is returned to within 25% of levels present before the test

Perturbed that the first clause of the rules that are to be followed for the process of testing nuclear weapons states that:

All tests must be thoroughly and fully supervised to ensure compliance with WA regulations,

Yet the third clause of the Nuclear Testing Oversight Agency mandate states:

To supervise nuclear tests upon invitation from nuclear-testing nations,

Effectively rendering the first clause of of the rules that are to be followed for the process of testing nuclear weapons unenforceable in the event such nations do not choose to invite NTOA inspectors to supervise their nuclear weapons testing program,

[United Federation of Canada]

Bumping this up for further comments.

If no nations have any firm objections to this, we intend to submit soon.

[United Federation of Canada]

If no further comments, this goes to the floor on Monday.

[United Federation of Canada]

Submitted

[United Federation of Canada]

Bumping for feedback

[United Federation of Canada]

Bump

[Point Breeze]

Is there a replacement floating around somewhere?

[United Federation of Canada]

Is there a replacement floating around somewhere?

Yes

[Free South Califas]

Starts out great, middle is great, ends tapers off a bit and starts repeating itself. I suggest you replace "Resolving...unenforceable" with a synthesis:

Code: Select all

Thus aware that GAR #119 Nuclear Testing Safety does very little to protect the environment or living beings from the harmful effects of nuclear weapons testing, and cannot be meaningfully enforced,

Resolving that it must be struck out and rendered null and void,

[United Federation of Canada]

Starts out great, middle is great, ends tapers off a bit and starts repeating itself. I suggest you replace "Resolving...unenforceable" with a synthesis:

Code: Select all

Thus aware that GAR #119 Nuclear Testing Safety does very little to protect the environment or living beings from the harmful effects of nuclear weapons testing, and cannot be meaningfully enforced,

Resolving that it must be struck out and rendered null and void,

Thank you very much for the suggestion. I have implemented that change into the draft.

Cheers,

[Ainocra]

The Star Empire of Ainocra cannot support this repeal, nor can we in good conscience support the replacement that has been floated.
The current law strikes a good balance between the rights of nations to develop and test these weapons and the environment.

The proposed replacement makes it far to difficult for developing nations to arm themselves which we suspect is the actual aim of the proposal.

[Cardoness]

THEY WANT TO WHAT?!

Lord Andreas stood in shocked disbelief at his aid. "You leave the WA to help your country through a rough patch and return to find this. Almost enough to make me wish we'd lost" he thought. He all but ran to the debate chamber.

No. Just no. NTS is a fair and balanced resolution as an honest read through the debate transcripts will show. Everything in there is there for a reason, and anything not is there is not in there for a reason. It is a good resolution that does what it is supposed to.

[Free South Califas]

Starts out great, middle is great, ends tapers off a bit and starts repeating itself. I suggest you replace "Resolving...unenforceable" with a synthesis:

Code: Select all

Thus aware that GAR #119 Nuclear Testing Safety does very little to protect the environment or living beings from the harmful effects of nuclear weapons testing, and cannot be meaningfully enforced,

Resolving that it must be struck out and rendered null and void,

Thank you very much for the suggestion. I have implemented that change into the draft.

Cheers,

You're welcome, and thanks for considering my contribution.

[United Federation of Canada]

THEY WANT TO WHAT?!

Lord Andreas stood in shocked disbelief at his aid. "You leave the WA to help your country through a rough patch and return to find this. Almost enough to make me wish we'd lost" he thought. He all but ran to the debate chamber.

No. Just no. NTS is a fair and balanced resolution as an honest read through the debate transcripts will show. Everything in there is there for a reason, and anything not is there is not in there for a reason. It is a good resolution that does what it is supposed to.

And these two clauses pretty much make it unreadable, and pointless, plus there are spelling errors in GAR 119:

BANS nuclear testing within the area between the edge of a populated celestial body's atmosphere and twice the distance of geosychronous orbit - measured at the equator of said celestial body;

SHOULD an inhabited celestial body lack an atmosphere or a well-defined, generally agreed-upon geosynchronous orbit, then nuclear-testing nations should refer to the above 'restricts' clause;

Regards,

[Cardoness]

THEY WANT TO WHAT?!

Lord Andreas stood in shocked disbelief at his aid. "You leave the WA to help your country through a rough patch and return to find this. Almost enough to make me wish we'd lost" he thought. He all but ran to the debate chamber.

No. Just no. NTS is a fair and balanced resolution as an honest read through the debate transcripts will show. Everything in there is there for a reason, and anything not is there is not in there for a reason. It is a good resolution that does what it is supposed to.

And these two clauses pretty much make it unreadable, and pointless, plus there are spelling errors in GAR 119:

BANS nuclear testing within the area between the edge of a populated celestial body's atmosphere and twice the distance of geosychronous orbit - measured at the equator of said celestial body;

SHOULD an inhabited celestial body lack an atmosphere or a well-defined, generally agreed-upon geosynchronous orbit, then nuclear-testing nations should refer to the above 'restricts' clause;

Regards,

By spelling errors I assume you mean the missing space between "heat" and "wave" in "heatwave" and "geosynchronous" instead of "geosychronous". Yes, I can see how that is detrimental to the resolution and a very good reason to repeal. Obviously I would like to see resolutions not have stupid errors in them but those are hardly a reason to get worked up about it. As for those sections you think some might find unreadable, well I don't know what help to give you. It is written in english, though maybe a little technical. I for one don't believe that resolution should be dumbd down to the lowest level of understanding for every half drunk ambassador here. Instead we should strive to raise the bar as well as the bar tab.

[Glen-Rhodes]

First of all, let me agree that GA 119 - Nuclear Testing Safety should be repealed. There's some mumbo jumbo and geek speak in there such as "between the edge of a populated celestial body's atmosphere and twice the distance of geosychronous orbit - measured at the equator of said celestial body" that's more appropriate for science fiction RP than for a WA resolution. A WA resolution ought to be easy for everyone to understand. If you are going to introduce words like "geosynchronous orbit", at least spell it correctly (the original was missing a 'n') and have it defined. This the author Darenjo failed to do.

If people in NS/II are able to understand it, people in the WA can understand it, too. If players don't understand the language, they show it by voting. I'm not sure how you would define "geosynchronous orbit" anyways, without using even more scientific jargon. We're all on the internet and have access to Wikipedia.

[United Federation of Canada]

Bump for comments...

[The Dark Star Republic]

"Given this is a repeal/replace, I think you should specifically state that: something like 'Seeking to introduce a more comprehensive replacement...' or whatever boilerplate serves.

"There also seem to be some errors in the wording: 'the operational capacity' of what?; 'open atmosphere'?; 'in regards to'.

Concerned that the Nuclear Testing Oversight Agency was given no firm timeline to establish guidelines for the cleanup of areas following a test nuclear detonation,

"I don't think this is a strong argument. Given the proposal rules' restrictions on committees, it's reasonable to assume they have a certain amount of operational discretion.

"Otherwise, without commenting on the replacement, I support this; #119 is a terrible resolution."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

OOC: Could you link to #119 or post its text, from your OP?

[Chester Pearson]

Bumping up for further feedback

[United Federation of Canada]

Have updated to a second draft.... Trimmed out the unnecessary, and cleaned up the formatting.

Feed me feedback please....

[Pacifist Chipmunks]

[list][*]The open atmosphere of inhabited bodies,

Is it just us or does this sound like it's referring to a nuclear weapons test above the head of a person possessed or a person infected with a tapeworm? The use of "bodies" is purposeless in our opinion. The beginning clauses of a repeal are for rhetorical purposes only--no legal need for precise technical language. As such, even if "body" is the correct, more inclusive term, "planet" or something similar would be more communicative to the general audience.

-Bombous Hecklesprecht