[PASSED] Radiological Terrorism

[Sciongrad]

I think I'll be revisiting this now. There seems to have been some confusion regarding whether or not this affects nuclear weapons - it's clearly not meant to. I've added clause 7 for the purpose of clarification.

[Defwa]

It troubles me to the point that I do not know how to feel.
Yes radiological weapons are terrible. But so are nuclear weapons.
If we ban all but nuclear radiological weapons is it really going to reduce the likelihood of radiological warfare in the long run?
I'm in full agreement that the issue of radiological terrorism is a terrifying prospect but I don't know what this will do about that.
Are we saying that it is more acceptable to vaporize a region than to poison it?

Without concise answers, I don't feel comfortable legislating on the matter.
Also I feel there needs to be a stated exception for the transfer of radioactive spent fuel and medical waste for the purpose of long term storage or recycling where applicable.

[Separatist Peoples]

Are we saying that it is more acceptable to vaporize a region than to poison it?

Yes. We are. Because nuclear weapons don't always necessarily make a nation uninhabitable, such as with neutron bombs. Poisoning a land is much worse.

Much like nation's are allowed to kill a prisoner quickly and cleanly in an execution, but not slowly torture them to death. Interesting disparity, though, I agree.

[Sciongrad]

It troubles me to the point that I do not know how to feel.
Yes radiological weapons are terrible. But so are nuclear weapons.
If we ban all but nuclear radiological weapons is it really going to reduce the likelihood of radiological warfare in the long run?
I'm in full agreement that the issue of radiological terrorism is a terrifying prospect but I don't know what this will do about that.
Are we saying that it is more acceptable to vaporize a region than to poison it?

Without concise answers, I don't feel comfortable legislating on the matter.
Also I feel there needs to be a stated exception for the transfer of radioactive spent fuel and medical waste for the purpose of long term storage or recycling where applicable.

Your Excellency, the vast majority of radiological weapons are conventional in nature. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you're implying that most radiological weapons are nuclear, which is not the case. While radiological weapons can also be nuclear weapons, such as the case of the salted bomb, this is rarely the case. Furthermore, the most likely users of radiological weapons - terrorists - are more likely to obtain and construct conventional weapons than they are nuclear weapons. With this in mind, this resolution would indeed put a serious dent in the arsenals of terrorists around the world.

You claim that this resolution tacitly approves of "vaporizing a region" - this is not really true. It seems you're either conflating nuclear weapons and radiological weapons or you'd prefer one omnibus resolution that bans them both. If it's the former, I hope I've clarified that earlier in my rebuttal. If it's the latter, then unfortunately, I don't think it's wise to write a single resolution on such a vast and complicated topic. I would rather a piecemeal approach, if any at all.

Regarding your final point - that is already permissible under this resolution. Radiological substances cannot be traded only if there is reason to suspect they'll be used to create a radiological weapon.

[Defwa]

It troubles me to the point that I do not know how to feel.
Yes radiological weapons are terrible. But so are nuclear weapons.
If we ban all but nuclear radiological weapons is it really going to reduce the likelihood of radiological warfare in the long run?
I'm in full agreement that the issue of radiological terrorism is a terrifying prospect but I don't know what this will do about that.
Are we saying that it is more acceptable to vaporize a region than to poison it?

Without concise answers, I don't feel comfortable legislating on the matter.
Also I feel there needs to be a stated exception for the transfer of radioactive spent fuel and medical waste for the purpose of long term storage or recycling where applicable.

Your Excellency, the vast majority of radiological weapons are conventional in nature. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you're implying that most radiological weapons are nuclear, which is not the case. While radiological weapons can also be nuclear weapons, such as the case of the salted bomb, this is rarely the case. Furthermore, the most likely users of radiological weapons - terrorists - are more likely to obtain and construct conventional weapons than they are nuclear weapons. With this in mind, this resolution would indeed put a serious dent in the arsenals of terrorists around the world.

You claim that this resolution tacitly approves of "vaporizing a region" - this is not really true. It seems you're either conflating nuclear weapons and radiological weapons or you'd prefer one omnibus resolution that bans them both. If it's the former, I hope I've clarified that earlier in my rebuttal. If it's the latter, then unfortunately, I don't think it's wise to write a single resolution on such a vast and complicated topic. I would rather a piecemeal approach, if any at all.

Regarding your final point - that is already permissible under this resolution. Radiological substances cannot be traded only if there is reason to suspect they'll be used to create a radiological weapon.

I suppose you are right in all cases. Defwa will formally support this resolution.

[Sciongrad]

I feel as if this is ready to be submitted. Are there any last minute objections?

[Hakio]

We fully support this.

[Separatist Peoples]

Glad to be in support of stamping out the barbaric use of conventional radiological weapons. Dirty, useless things, the lot of 'em.

[Imperializt Russia]

Glad to be in support of stamping out the barbaric use of conventional radiological weapons. Dirty, useless things, the lot of 'em.

I don't think radiological devices are any more "barbaric" than any other bomb.

People probably wouldn't even be aware of radiation dangers of the bomb site until responders arrived to note radiation release. Even then, any dose they've received in that time is minimal.

But I completely agree with the necessity of banning such devices for a variety of reasons besides.

[Separatist Peoples]

Glad to be in support of stamping out the barbaric use of conventional radiological weapons. Dirty, useless things, the lot of 'em.

I don't think radiological devices are any more "barbaric" than any other bomb.

People probably wouldn't even be aware of radiation dangers of the bomb site until responders arrived to note radiation release. Even then, any dose they've received in that time is minimal.

But I completely agree with the necessity of banning such devices for a variety of reasons besides.

Let me rhetoricize, dammit!

[Imperializt Russia]

I'm sorry, I'm sorry!

[The Dark Star Republic]

"I still disagree with the category, but I won't be filing a legality challenge or anything as I think it can be justified in Global Disarmament; I just think it's a better fit for International Security.

"There's a typo in the preamble:

and terrorists groups,

"There should be an exception in Article 2 for decommissioning (not sure about other purposes - training, research, even forensics). But if a nation does not have the technical expertise to decommission such a weapon, then they should be permitted to transfer it to a nation that has such a capability.

"Similarly, Article 4 could maybe have an exception to permit controlled use of very small RDDs so as to research countermeasures. Probably not a huge priority, though.

"There should be a comma after 'limited to' in Article 5.

"I'm uneasy about Article 6. It makes a lot of sense for bioweapons. Less so for radiological weapons.

"Be consistent about 'use' and 'usage' (the former is probably preferable, but whichever you pick, be consistent.

"You could also allow the WADB (and the NDRO?) to liaise with nations where requested to provide assistance."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Sciongrad]

As always, your feedback is invaluable.

"I still disagree with the category, but I won't be filing a legality challenge or anything as I think it can be justified in Global Disarmament; I just think it's a better fit for International Security.

I'm not entirely opposed to making this change. I suppose that makes sense considering combating terrorism is the purpose.

"There should be an exception in Article 2 for decommissioning (not sure about other purposes - training, research, even forensics). But if a nation does not have the technical expertise to decommission such a weapon, then they should be permitted to transfer it to a nation that has such a capability.

Yes, this is an excellent suggestion. I'll change it shortly.

"Similarly, Article 4 could maybe have an exception to permit controlled use of very small RDDs so as to research countermeasures. Probably not a huge priority, though.

I'll include a provision along these lines in the next draft.

"I'm uneasy about Article 6. It makes a lot of sense for bioweapons. Less so for radiological weapons.

As you can probably tell, this lends heavily from my biological weapons resolution. But you're right, in this context, especially considering the focus of the resolution, I would be inclined to agree.

"You could also allow the WADB (and the NDRO?) to liaise with nations where requested to provide assistance."

Yes, I like this suggestion. I'll include it in the next draft as well.

[Imperializt Russia]

I would disagree on the idea of retaining them for countermeasures research.
Unlike with chemical or biological agents, the research just isn't needed, I don't think.

You can detect radiation with a basic Geiger-tube and cleanup procedures would probably not differ greatly from chemical agents.
Rather than that, maybe something like "recommends member states to offer training to CRBN units in the civil sector" or the like.

[The Dark Star Republic]

"I still disagree with the category, but I won't be filing a legality challenge or anything as I think it can be justified in Global Disarmament; I just think it's a better fit for International Security.

I'm not entirely opposed to making this change. I suppose that makes sense considering combating terrorism is the purpose.

"It also might be politically expedient. More people vote against any GD measure on spec than they do for IS.

"I guess my argument is that radiological weapons do not have military value, therefore banning them won't realistically decrease military spending - because no one would have bothered to own them anyway. However, policing counterproliferation would require some military/police spending to enforce.

I would disagree on the idea of retaining them for countermeasures research.
Unlike with chemical or biological agents, the research just isn't needed, I don't think.

You can detect radiation with a basic Geiger-tube and cleanup procedures would probably not differ greatly from chemical agents.
Rather than that, maybe something like "recommends member states to offer training to CRBN units in the civil sector" or the like.

"You may be right; it was a suggestion so as to keep the proposal reasonably flexible, really, but not a major concern."

~ Ambassador to the WA Inky Fungschlammer

[Chester Pearson]

Ambassador Santos,

If this were changed to International Security, The Federation will gladly throw its full diplomatic weight behind this.

Warmest regards,

[Sciongrad]

I've adopted the suggestions of his Excellency from the Dark Star Republic, and have made several stylistic and grammatical adjustments throughout the text as well. I've also changed the draft to an International Security proposal, at the encouragement of ambassador Fungschlammer and with the addition of clause 5c.

[Nazi Socialist America]

If we were to ban everything terrorists could use to kill others with, the world would be an empty white space with nothing in it. How about we put in place security measures that ensures terrorists cannot obtain a WMD such as the one you have stated.

[Imperializt Russia]

If we were to ban everything terrorists could use to kill others with, the world would be an empty white space with nothing in it. How about we put in place security measures that ensures terrorists cannot obtain a WMD such as the one you have stated.

Would you care to posit a suitable purpose for such a weapon?

I'll give you a hint, there isn't one.
Conventional explosives and shrapnel would be physically more effective, as would a chemical weapon. There's not point to radiological dirty bombs aside from to capitalise on how people don't understand what radiation is and the fear that term carries.

[Nazi Socialist America]

If we were to ban everything terrorists could use to kill others with, the world would be an empty white space with nothing in it. How about we put in place security measures that ensures terrorists cannot obtain a WMD such as the one you have stated.

Would you care to posit a suitable purpose for such a weapon?

I'll give you a hint, there isn't one.
Conventional explosives and shrapnel would be physically more effective, as would a chemical weapon. There's not point to radiological dirty bombs aside from to capitalise on how people don't understand what radiation is and the fear that term carries.

OK first off you need to learn proper grammar and spelling. Secondly, what weapon would be most effective in combat is opinion and therefore not a legitimate argument. If my nation deems it necessary to possess radiation weapons then it is entitled to do so. If I choose to arm terrorists or use it against civilians or another nation without proper cause then I will be subject to punishment. You simply cannot take away weapons from law abiding, peaceful nations like myself without cause, and you sir have none.

[Sciongrad]

Would you care to posit a suitable purpose for such a weapon?

I'll give you a hint, there isn't one.
Conventional explosives and shrapnel would be physically more effective, as would a chemical weapon. There's not point to radiological dirty bombs aside from to capitalise on how people don't understand what radiation is and the fear that term carries.

OK first off you need to learn proper grammar and spelling. Secondly, what weapon would be most effective in combat is opinion and therefore not a legitimate argument. If my nation deems it necessary to possess radiation weapons then it is entitled to do so. If I choose to arm terrorists or use it against civilians or another nation without proper cause then I will be subject to punishment. You simply cannot take away weapons from law abiding, peaceful nations like myself without cause, and you sir have none.

OOC: There was not a single spelling or grammatical error in his post...?

IC: Your Excellency, it is the good fortune of the ambassadors assembled here before us today that reality is dictated by fact and not opinion. You can opine that radiological weapons have a useful military application all you want - I would never think of taking away your right to do so. However, you would still be wrong. The World Assembly has an ethical responsibility to ensure that peace is kept through whatever means possible, and the whims of certain nations that like to have weapons simply for the sake of having weapons should not hamper that ethical responsibility.

[Nazi Socialist America]

OK first off you need to learn proper grammar and spelling. Secondly, what weapon would be most effective in combat is opinion and therefore not a legitimate argument. If my nation deems it necessary to possess radiation weapons then it is entitled to do so. If I choose to arm terrorists or use it against civilians or another nation without proper cause then I will be subject to punishment. You simply cannot take away weapons from law abiding, peaceful nations like myself without cause, and you sir have none.

OOC: There was not a single spelling or grammatical error in his post...?

IC: Your Excellency, it is the good fortune of the ambassadors assembled here before us today that reality is dictated by fact and not opinion. You can opine that radiological weapons have a useful military application all you want - I would never think of taking away your right to do so. However, you would still be wrong. The World Assembly has an ethical responsibility to ensure that peace is kept through whatever means possible, and the whims of certain nations that like to have weapons simply for the sake of having weapons should not hamper that ethical responsibility.

First, He spells capitalize captialise and states "There's not point to radiological dirty bombs" which is both a Grammar and a spelling mistake. Secondly, I have done anything to give u suspicion that I would incorrectly use radiation bombs? If not then I do not see why you would wish to take them away. Third, the well being and survival of my nation is a priority more important then any responsibility the WA might have, since I do not nor will I ever disturb peace I see no reason to be targeted as nation that does.

[Sciongrad]

OOC: There was not a single spelling or grammatical error in his post...?

IC: Your Excellency, it is the good fortune of the ambassadors assembled here before us today that reality is dictated by fact and not opinion. You can opine that radiological weapons have a useful military application all you want - I would never think of taking away your right to do so. However, you would still be wrong. The World Assembly has an ethical responsibility to ensure that peace is kept through whatever means possible, and the whims of certain nations that like to have weapons simply for the sake of having weapons should not hamper that ethical responsibility.

First, He spells capitalize captialise and states "There's not point to radiological dirty bombs" which is both a Grammar and a spelling mistake. Secondly, I have done anything to give u suspicion that I would incorrectly use radiation bombs? If not then I do not see why you would wish to take them away. Third, the well being and survival of my nation is a priority more important then any responsibility the WA might have, since I do not nor will I ever disturb peace I see no reason to be targeted as nation that does.

OOC: Capitalise is a legitimate way of spelling capitalize in British English. And you're right, he did use "not" instead of "no," but that's pretty obviously a typo. Although I wouldn't go around insulting the grammar skills of others when the second word of your post incorrectly capitalizes "he."

IC: The point is that radiological can't be used "correctly," to go off of what you stated, so whatever your intentions are isn't relevant. This is because radiological weapons cannot be used for defense or even legitimate military conflict - their sole use is for terrorism. With that being said, whether or not you have radiological weapons will not impact your ability to defend your nation, and this line of reasoning is confusing to me. Their military application is minimal. You're still permitted to retaliate with conventional and nuclear weapons, so I still fail to see what your actual objection is.

[Nazi Socialist America]

First, He spells capitalize captialise and states "There's not point to radiological dirty bombs" which is both a Grammar and a spelling mistake. Secondly, I have done anything to give u suspicion that I would incorrectly use radiation bombs? If not then I do not see why you would wish to take them away. Third, the well being and survival of my nation is a priority more important then any responsibility the WA might have, since I do not nor will I ever disturb peace I see no reason to be targeted as nation that does.

OOC: Capitalise is a legitimate way of spelling capitalize in British English. And you're right, he did use "not" instead of "no," but that's pretty obviously a typo. Although I wouldn't go around insulting the grammar skills of others when the second word of your post incorrectly capitalizes "he."

IC: The point is that radiological can't be used "correctly," to go off of what you stated, so whatever your intentions are isn't relevant. This is because radiological weapons cannot be used for defense or even legitimate military conflict - their sole use is for terrorism. With that being said, whether or not you have radiological weapons will not impact your ability to defend your nation, and this line of reasoning is confusing to me. Their military application is minimal. You're still permitted to retaliate with conventional and nuclear weapons, so I still fail to see what your actual objection is.

The sole purpose of this bill is to prevent radiation weapons from being used by terrorists, rather then having a blanket ban why don't we put in place measures that will prevent terrorists and
brutal regimes from obtaining these weapons. I defend my right to use all means of force including radiation weapons to defend my nation.

[Wrapper]

Secondly, I have done anything to give u suspicion that I would incorrectly use radiation bombs?

Firstly, the Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper suggest that if you wish to act as the resident, pardon the expression, grammar Nazi, you -- how did you put it? -- "need to learn proper grammar and spelling."

Secondly, we have a question: Exactly how does one correctly use radiation bombs?