[SUBMITTED] Space Junk Is Bad

[Defwa]

Well... we think this is a problem, at least the way we interpret the following lines:

REQUIRES nations to take all action necessary to prevent the launch of objects into orbit that have not been certified as compliant with this resolution, allowing exceptions only when loss of life would occur as a result of such actions

CLARIFIES that this resolution will not impede or restrict the rights of nations to do battle in space so long as all damage done is part of a declared act of war against the owner of the object, the nation the object was launched from, or if the object services or benefits the enemy

Now, we the Puddle Jumping Wads of Wrapper, as you may know, are a pacifist nation, with outer colonies stationed on other planets and in deep space. As pacifists, we have no weapons, aside from our Big Honking Ignore Cannons (BHICs), which only work on forces from other WA nations (OOC: thanks to GAR #2). At some of our more remote outposts, our entire defense system consists of.... Well, have you ever heard of submarines, and their anti-torpedo countermeasures? Basically, our outpost defenses are similar -- we launch a whole lot of, for lack of a better word, junk, which can shield the outpost from many different types of attacks in a similar way. Now, when we read these definitions... well, we don't think that launching these countermeasures fit into the exception in the first quoted clause, which to us really says, prevent the launches of these objects unless doing so (that is, the act of preventing the launch) will cause death. As for the second clause, the BHICs only work when war is declared on us by a WA nation, resulting in immediate peace, but BHICs do not always work on non-WA nations, so an unprovoked, undeclared attack would mean our outpost cannot launch its countermeasures.

Is our objection making sense?

Correct me if i'm wrong.But if you were to launch said ''junk'' into a graveryard orbit righ away ,it would complie with the first resolution.
And if you were to say it's purpose was national security and that the owner was the nation it wouldn't be clasified as debris and there would be no reason to be removed(complying with the second resolution).
Of course graveyard orbits are further away from the body it orbits so you would have more area to cover for full protection.

That would be strategically unviable but it raises a good idea. I might work out a mechanism to create defense zones. Harmless deorbitting may be an issue there, though.
But considering the option should only be available when the plant is occupied by a single nation or sufficiently unified nations, I might be able to get around that

[Flamels Stone]

That would be strategically unviable but it raises a good idea. I might work out a mechanism to create defense zones. Harmless deorbitting may be an issue there, though.
But considering the option should only be available when the plant is occupied by a single nation or sufficiently unified nations, I might be able to get around that

That nation issue.It would rise anyway in Wrapper's case, (I belive) he wouldn't make a ''junk shield'' without the permition of the other nations in that body.
As for the strategic unviability, i don't have many experience but i tough of this: if possible, he could just make a ''ring'' that covers the said nations , instead of a shield that covers the whole planet.

[Defwa]

That would be strategically unviable but it raises a good idea. I might work out a mechanism to create defense zones. Harmless deorbitting may be an issue there, though.
But considering the option should only be available when the plant is occupied by a single nation or sufficiently unified nations, I might be able to get around that

That nation issue.It would rise anyway in Wrapper's case, (I belive) he wouldn't make a ''junk shield'' without the permition of the other nations in that body.
As for the strategic unviability, i don't have many experience but i tough of this: if possible, he could just make a ''ring'' that covers the said nations , instead of a shield that covers the whole planet.

Its not viable for the reason you stated. A typical graveyard orbit is way out there and an effective shield would take exponentially more material. A ring can be easily avoided by any competent space age nation and in order for it to just cover one nation, it would still need to be way out.
Any effective into shield would need to be relatively low in orbit and have wide coverage.

I think I'll write it so that WASP will assign junk orbits with the assistance of nations occupying the planet. That way input can be had to allow for defensive junk fields and ensure equitable access.

Any damage compensation from improper use will be taken care of in the removal Proposal

[Separatist Peoples]

That would be strategically unviable but it raises a good idea. I might work out a mechanism to create defense zones. Harmless deorbitting may be an issue there, though.
But considering the option should only be available when the plant is occupied by a single nation or sufficiently unified nations, I might be able to get around that

That nation issue.It would rise anyway in Wrapper's case, (I belive) he wouldn't make a ''junk shield'' without the permition of the other nations in that body.
As for the strategic unviability, i don't have many experience but i tough of this: if possible, he could just make a ''ring'' that covers the said nations , instead of a shield that covers the whole planet.

"I'd be willing to bet that the Wads of Wrapper don't share many terrestrial borders with other nations..."

[Wrapper]

That nation issue.It would rise anyway in Wrapper's case, (I belive) he wouldn't make a ''junk shield'' without the permition of the other nations in that body.
As for the strategic unviability, i don't have many experience but i tough of this: if possible, he could just make a ''ring'' that covers the said nations , instead of a shield that covers the whole planet.

"I'd be willing to bet that the Wads of Wrapper don't share many terrestrial borders with other nations..."

OOC: I should do a factbook entry on all this stuff. I picture it as one of many nations on an earth-like planet, with many small outposts, bases, space stations, etc., throughout the rest of the universe, some on planets shared with others, some by ourselves, but all accessible by -- of course -- a stargate.

[Araraukar]

but all accessible by -- of course -- a stargate.

OOC: The one in the closet in the sub-basement hideout?

[Riflemoor]

Forgive me if this has already been addressed, but in the destruction of space debris as mandated by this resolution, a small cloud of debris will likely be generated.If a missile is fired at a satellite, the satellite will explode, flinging shrapnel about in much the same manner as a fragmentation grenade. This cloud of debris can reach extreme speeds and damage spacecraft not related to the debris at hand. If you don't find it too much of a micromanaging move, it may be wise to specify the method of mandated deorbiting so that we don't end up with a metal storm in orbit.

[Defwa]

Forgive me if this has already been addressed, but in the destruction of space debris as mandated by this resolution, a small cloud of debris will likely be generated.If a missile is fired at a satellite, the satellite will explode, flinging shrapnel about in much the same manner as a fragmentation grenade. This cloud of debris can reach extreme speeds and damage spacecraft not related to the debris at hand. If you don't find it too much of a micromanaging move, it may be wise to specify the method of mandated deorbiting so that we don't end up with a metal storm in orbit.

that is something that could use clarifying. I'll make a note of it.

Destruction, as I envisage it, should only be used in emergency situations when effective reorientation and deorbit is not viable.
Shrapnel would of course need to be mitigated or we havent actually done anything about Kessler syndrome. I'll expand upon what is acceptable for destruction as soon as i am able

[Defwa]

Another half draft of both resolutions is up. Still missing preamble clauses but I believe the active clauses are nearing completion.

I hope this adequately serves the needs of Wad Alaz.
The addition of the reparations article is probably going to be considered the most offensive

[Sierra Lyricalia]

If you don't find it too much of a micromanaging move, it may be wise to specify the method of mandated deorbiting so that we don't end up with a metal storm in orbit.

Destruction, as I envisage it, should only be used in emergency situations when effective reorientation and deorbit is not viable.
Shrapnel would of course need to be mitigated or we havent actually done anything about Kessler syndrome. I'll expand upon what is acceptable for destruction as soon as i am able

In my (admittedly limited) experience the Assembly tends to frown on overly-technical language, or mandates to use specific methods of achieving goals. Otherwise we'd suggest several viable alternatives to the shockingly blunt instrument of interceptor missiles (the first one coming to mind being direct rendezvous and capture by deorbiter bots or, in a true emergency, by an Orion nuclear pulse craft [those bitches are unbelievably expensive to operate, though]). I'd suggest that if you make mention of it, it be simply in the vein of "If WASP determines an orbiting object must be destroyed to avoid imminent loss of life, all possible steps must be taken to prevent or minimize the creation of [further] debris." Micromanaging methods is a death knell for a resolution.

[The Dark Star Republic]

The addition of the reparations article is probably going to be considered the most offensive

"Yeah..."

The Vice-Colonel's phone buzzes, and he silently reads a text message. Have you been the victim of falling space junk? You could be entitled to compensation! Call us now for a free consultation.

"I'm really not sure the WA should be getting into the business of settling personal injury lawsuits."

His phone goes again. Did you know that a typical settlement could net you 18,000 pounds? Here at Schyster, Schyster and Schyster we specialise in space related personal injury claims... He hurls the phone away, and it bounces off the forehead of a nearby gnome who is busy putting evidence that National Economic Freedoms ever existed into a massive incinerator.

"Moreoever, it's a little light on detail, yet going into more would take up too much space. Wouldn't it be better to leave it to another hypothetical resolution (not one you're obligated to write) which would deal with all international claims for reparation, not only space junk related, and instead simply establish in your resolution that debris injury establishes a right of restitution?"

~ Vice-Colonel Truculent Bilgewater
Ambassador to the WA

[Separatist Peoples]

He hurls the phone away, and it bounces off the forehead of a nearby gnome who is busy putting evidence that National Economic Freedoms ever existed into a massive incinerator.

OOC: Carthago delenda est, eh, Cato?

[Defwa]

The addition of the reparations article is probably going to be considered the most offensive

"Yeah..."

The Vice-Colonel's phone buzzes, and he silently reads a text message. Have you been the victim of falling space junk? You could be entitled to compensation! Call us now for a free consultation.

"I'm really not sure the WA should be getting into the business of settling personal injury lawsuits."

His phone goes again. Did you know that a typical settlement could net you 18,000 pounds? Here at Schyster, Schyster and Schyster we specialise in space related personal injury claims... He hurls the phone away, and it bounces off the forehead of a nearby gnome who is busy putting evidence that National Economic Freedoms ever existed into a massive incinerator.

"Moreoever, it's a little light on detail, yet going into more would take up too much space. Wouldn't it be better to leave it to another hypothetical resolution (not one you're obligated to write) which would deal with all international claims for reparation, not only space junk related, and instead simply establish in your resolution that debris injury establishes a right of restitution?"

~ Vice-Colonel Truculent Bilgewater
Ambassador to the WA

My problem is that since space is a bit of a lawless zone for most of us, failing to create a clear line of liability can make any action by is completely toothless.

People must be held responsible across borders for their negligence and this seemed like the simplest way to do it.
Alternatives are welcome, and if you just want us to expand on it, I do have a lot if space left in both proposals. I'll try to work on some sub clauses to deal with the issue.

Hardware can have a set value and I can have WASP just declare that nothing more than the cost be paid, but people are a little harder to work around

[Flamels Stone]

In order to reduce the quantity of potentially harmful debris in orbit, all objects launched into space must have the following abilities.

A- To Deorbit in the following fashions:
[...]
B- To Maneuver in order to avoid other objects in orbit in order to prevent damage of property
MANDATES that deorbiting must occur as described in Section A and that objects maneuver when possible to avoid damage to the property of others

So the objects MUST have the ability to do A and B and MUST perform their abilities. That sounds repetitive to me.

DEFINES Debris as any artificial object in space that:
-has failed to comply with any World Assembly regulation governing the object deployed after said regulation was put in place
-has ceased to be operational or currently serves no purpose
-has no known owner
-poses a danger to objects in orbit that are in compliance with all relevant regulation
-poses a danger to developed territory on a celestial body

Now that i think about it... aren't moons(in some cases) objects with no owners and that serve no purpose? I mean, common sense knows that a moon is no debris but is comon sense used on GA resolutions?[OOC:honestly asking, i'm new here]

[OOC:As always, corrections and non-agressive feedback is welcom]

[Separatist Peoples]

Now that i think about it... aren't moons(in some cases) objects with no owners and that serve no purpose? I mean, common sense knows that a moon is no debris but is comon sense used on GA resolutions?[OOC:honestly asking, i'm new here]

[OOC:As always, corrections and non-agressive feedback is welcom]

"No owner? Plenty of moons are owned, ambassador. There's even a bartender here who's cousin Gaila owns one all to himself!"

OOC: I realize the distinction you added, but I just had to make the joke

[Wrapper]

Now that i think about it... aren't moons(in some cases) objects with no owners and that serve no purpose? I mean, common sense knows that a moon is no debris but is comon sense used on GA resolutions?[OOC:honestly asking, i'm new here]

OOC: Not agreeing with you, but, this is exactly the kind of "out of the box" thinking that helps us make resolutions like this better, so bringing up stuff like this is a good thing (and, honestly, common sense does not always prevail).

IC: Hmmm... while a moon cannot be considered debris -- indeed, it is not "artificial", nor would it possibly fit the definition of "deployed" -- the fresh-faced ambassador from Flamels Stone has opened our eyes to something that no one has considered yet. What if... what if, say, a moon, or an asteroid or comet or meteor or some other naturally occuring celestial body, were to fragment and deorbit because of some man-made calamity inflicted upon it, such as weapons testing? Shouldn't we address the prevention and removal such debris as well, if possible?

[Flamels Stone]

''I didn't notice the ''artificial'' part...thanks for pointing that out. And about the ''natural debris''(asteroids and such) if you think about it, If this kind of debris exists near a body where there is life it might and would probably:

-serve no purpose
-have no known owner
-pose a danger to objects in orbit that are in compliance with all relevant regulation
-pose a danger to developed territory on a celestial body

[Defwa]

In order to reduce the quantity of potentially harmful debris in orbit, all objects launched into space must have the following abilities.

A- To Deorbit in the following fashions:
[...]
B- To Maneuver in order to avoid other objects in orbit in order to prevent damage of property
MANDATES that deorbiting must occur as described in Section A and that objects maneuver when possible to avoid damage to the property of others

So the objects MUST have the ability to do A and B and MUST perform their abilities. That sounds repetitive to me.
It occurred as an after thought that requiring the ability didn't require it's use.

DEFINES Debris as any artificial object in space that:
-has failed to comply with any World Assembly regulation governing the object deployed after said regulation was put in place
-has ceased to be operational or currently serves no purpose
-has no known owner
-poses a danger to objects in orbit that are in compliance with all relevant regulation
-poses a danger to developed territory on a celestial body

Now that i think about it... aren't moons(in some cases) objects with no owners and that serve no purpose? I mean, common sense knows that a moon is no debris but is comon sense used on GA resolutions?[OOC:honestly asking, i'm new here]

[OOC:As always, corrections and non-agressive feedback is welcom]

The repetition is an effect of the language. I've been contemplating ways of compacting that so it flows better and will try something new in the next draft.

Now that i think about it... aren't moons(in some cases) objects with no owners and that serve no purpose? I mean, common sense knows that a moon is no debris but is comon sense used on GA resolutions?[OOC:honestly asking, i'm new here]

OOC: Not agreeing with you, but, this is exactly the kind of "out of the box" thinking that helps us make resolutions like this better, so bringing up stuff like this is a good thing (and, honestly, common sense does not always prevail).

IC: Hmmm... while a moon cannot be considered debris -- indeed, it is not "artificial", nor would it possibly fit the definition of "deployed" -- the fresh-faced ambassador from Flamels Stone has opened our eyes to something that no one has considered yet. What if... what if, say, a moon, or an asteroid or comet or meteor or some other naturally occuring celestial body, were to fragment and deorbit because of some man-made calamity inflicted upon it, such as weapons testing? Shouldn't we address the prevention and removal such debris as well, if possible?

I would like to deal with removal of natural debris as well. Very early on, I did but it was pointed out that my definition could theoretically put satellites deorbitting and planets on equal footing. The satellite would have to be destroyed for endangering the planet and the planet would have to be destroyed for running into the satellite. In order to avoid that, I would get so heavily bogged down in definitions that I don't think I could properly accomplish it here.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Now that i think about it... aren't moons(in some cases) objects with no owners and that serve no purpose? I mean, common sense knows that a moon is no debris but is comon sense used on GA resolutions?[OOC:honestly asking, i'm new here]

OOC: Not agreeing with you, but, this is exactly the kind of "out of the box" thinking that helps us make resolutions like this better, so bringing up stuff like this is a good thing (and, honestly, common sense does not always prevail).

IC: Hmmm... while a moon cannot be considered debris -- indeed, it is not "artificial", nor would it possibly fit the definition of "deployed" -- the fresh-faced ambassador from Flamels Stone has opened our eyes to something that no one has considered yet. What if... what if, say, a moon, or an asteroid or comet or meteor or some other naturally occuring celestial body, were to fragment and deorbit because of some man-made calamity inflicted upon it, such as weapons testing? Shouldn't we address the prevention and removal such debris as well, if possible?

This is exactly the sort of thing we had in mind with our vehement support for the esteemed Ambassador from Hakio's Planetary Annihilation resolution lo these many months ago. I think it best to limit the scope of a resolution to smaller items that can be adequately described in the limited space available, rather than trying to reach too far. If it is desired to write a resolution encompassing all possible near-planetary space debris, then this proposal should be largely re-written to deal in broad terms with the necessary rights and permissions for the WASP to deploy its various ablation lasers, long-term gravity tractor holding pens, nuclear warheads, and rendezvous-capture-deorbit bots all over the sky; in order to adequately protect planets containing WA nations from all possible ballistic threats (perhaps with a clause limiting WASP involvement to observers only in the case of Type II-plus civilizations such as Ainocra, which hardly need the WA's help in this area, but which can certainly teach the rest of the WA a thing or two about avoiding dinosaur-killers).

On the contrary, I would suggest that this resolution remain limited to dealing with its stated scope of threats to: devices and craft in the orbital range, and surface assets and people, endangered by artificial objects in the near-planetary environment. More than this would, I think, be more than one resolution can chew.

[Ainocra]

In addition to the bit about declared war (which I approve of, thank you) I would like to see some language protecting peaceful blockades as well. but all in all I think this is in a good place.

[Hakio]

This is exactly the sort of thing we had in mind with our vehement support for the esteemed Ambassador from Hakio's Planetary Annihilation resolution lo these many months ago.

Sia Hedishi grumbles aloud, "Goddamn people didn't care if their goddamn planets get blown up." She takes out her flask of whiskey, "Goodbye, temporary sobriety!"

[Defwa]

In addition to the bit about declared war (which I approve of, thank you) I would like to see some language protecting peaceful blockades as well. but all in all I think this is in a good place.

If you mean use of a debris field to block vessels in space from entering the atmosphere, Wad Alaz raised that point.
In wasps duties, I have assigned it to designate junk orbits with respect to the desires and needs of relevant nations. That language needs a little more to be complete but this should allow you to create protective debris walls in those areas, and once I add a bit of clarifying language, I'll make it clear that planets with only one nation have full control of where junk orbits are

[Defwa]

The official draft 4 is up; now including preambulatory clause and a line eliminating assistance for nations that are not in compliance with all other world assembly resolutions in order to attempt to stamp out some abuse.

Still lacking a category for Debris Removal. It could be put into Intsec considering most nation's space programs are tied up someway with their military and this would make a lot of them have to do some additional work to avoid fines, but that's rather indirect.
It may not be a total fit, but Tort Reform may be an option if I add a line stating something along the lines of "no organization shall attempt to obtain reparations additional to what WASP has already charged without the consent of all involved parties."

This would remove any impact national courts would have- not that they would have any in most cases anyway considering the lack of international accountability for this sort of thing.
It would only be a secondary focus but I think it would be legal.

[Bears Armed Mission]

The official draft 4 is up; now including preambulatory clause and a line eliminating assistance for nations that are not in compliance with all other world assembly resolutions in order to attempt to stamp out some abuse.

Even resolutions where "compliance" would effectively require those non-members to grant members benefits (such as, for example, free trade) without requiring members to reciprocate, so that compliance would actively be to the non-members' disadvantage?
Opposed.

(Anyhows, there are resolutions with which non-members simply can't "comply".)

[The Dark Star Republic]

Perhaps limit it to being in compliance with this resolution.