[PASSED] Nuclear Testing Protocol

[We Are Not the NSA]

I'll give you your physics lesson. Gamma rays are PHOTONS.

Gamma rays are electromagnetic radiation, a high energy form of a radio wave. Radio waves are not photons, as they do not produce light, yet they do travel at the speed of light.

Gamma rays are actually classified as electromagnetic waves with high energy photons. They are not photons but they are made up of photons.

[Imperializt Russia]

Waves, photons, it's a confusing bag. "Gamma ray" is just common vernacular.
Gamma radiation is a flux of photons.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Gamma rays are electromagnetic radiation, a high energy form of a radio wave. Radio waves are not photons, as they do not produce light, yet they do travel at the speed of light.

Gamma rays are actually classified as electromagnetic waves with high energy photons. They are not photons but they are made up of photons.

You cannot have an electromagnetic wave 'with' high energy photons (though, you can have a high energy electromagnetic wave). All electromagnetic waves are photons. The wave is inherent in the particle itself, due to wave-particle duality. Again, quoting Wikipedia: 'Gamma rays [...] are therefore high energy photons'.

[We Are Not the NSA]

Gamma rays are actually classified as electromagnetic waves with high energy photons. They are not photons but they are made up of photons.

You cannot have an electromagnetic wave 'with' high energy photons (though, you can have a high energy electromagnetic wave). All electromagnetic waves are photons. The wave is inherent in the particle itself, due to wave-particle duality. Again, quoting Wikipedia: 'Gamma rays [...] are therefore high energy photons'.

That's what I meant.

[Imperium Anglorum]

You cannot have an electromagnetic wave 'with' high energy photons (though, you can have a high energy electromagnetic wave). All electromagnetic waves are photons. The wave is inherent in the particle itself, due to wave-particle duality. Again, quoting Wikipedia: 'Gamma rays [...] are therefore high energy photons'.

That's what I meant.

Ah. My apologies, good Sir. *tip of the hat*

[Pharthan]

I'll give you your physics lesson. Gamma rays are PHOTONS.

Gamma rays are electromagnetic radiation, a high energy form of a radio wave. Radio waves are not photons, as they do not produce light, yet they do travel at the speed of light.

OOC: Just because I don't feel the already dead horse was beat to death enough:

IC: "Gamma rays, like all light are both photons or waves. They are not photons and waves at the same time. That is, depending on how you look at them (seriously, depending on what experiment you perform), the light, in this case a gamma, will act as either a wave of electromagnetic radiation, or as a packet of electromagnetic radiation in the form of a photon.

Ergo, yes, radio waves are not photons. If you're performing experiments in which they must act like waves. If you're performing experiments in which they must act as photons, radio waves are indeed not actually waves, but photons.

All electromagnetic radiation is classified as "light." However, it is not all "visible light." The human eye did not develop to see anything outside of the "visible" spectrum (with the exception of small amounts of near visible infrared), but there really is no difference between any form of electromagnetic radiation; some can pass through some materials, and some can't pass through those materials but others can. For instance, visible light doesn't pass through walls, but radio waves can. Visible light can pass through glass, but infrared can't.
Well. Except that Gammas can ionize things. That's different.

Back on topic:
What sort of radiation, though?
Because spaceships are adequate shielding for anything a nuclear bomb would leave in it's wake; that is, Beta radiation and Alpha radiation. Heck, what you've got on you right now is adequate shielding for it. Skin and clothes.
The ones humans have to worry about, in this case, are gammas and neutrons. Both continue on from their point of origin and are extremely short lived. The reason why alphas and betas would, theoretically, be trapped is because they themselves are ionized. Gammas are just light, which would continue on from point of origin and not be trapped, and good luck doing anything with a neutron; also a non-issue.

So unless your astronauts are trying to eat the void of space, it's not exactly harmful to human life. Sure, the initial blast could be, and the radiation belts may harmful to the spacecraft, but not people. Van Allen belts are different."

[Araraukar]

Gammas are just light, which would continue on from point of origin and not be trapped, and good luck doing anything with a neutron; also a non-issue.

OOC: I think you mean neutrino and not neutron?

[Imperium Anglorum]

He is correct for both. Neither neutrinos nor neutrons are affected by magnetic fields. Neutrinos because they are quite weakly interacting and neutrons because they have no charge.

[Pharthan]

Gammas are just light, which would continue on from point of origin and not be trapped, and good luck doing anything with a neutron; also a non-issue.

OOC: I think you mean neutrino and not neutron?

OOC: Neutron. Neutrons are not an issue for radiation belts unless you have a significant amount of neutron-emitter isotopes remaining. The neutrons themselves cannot be trapped because they have no charge, so the only interaction they undergo is collision, which means they either lose energy rapidly or fly off away from the point of origin, depending on their surroundings. Well, usually it's actually just that they fly off rapidly.

Neutrinos are, as mentioned, a non-issue because they weakly interact. In order to be able to receive a lethal dose of radiation from neutrinos, you'd have to be inside of a star, survive, and then survive everything else as it exploded in a supernova long enough to receive said dose of neutrino radiation.
Ergo, neutrinos are literally like the last thing to worry about in every scenario.

Also, let me be the first to admit that my previous statement that light is either a particle or a wave, but not both at the same time, was wrong.
That still doesn't make Jean's egotistical lack of knowledge about physics correct, though. Actually, it makes him more incorrect.

[Ainocra]

A common sense approach with the flexibility necessary for nations to effectively test.

I see no reason to oppose this

[Pharthan]

A common sense approach with the flexibility necessary for nations to effectively test.

I see no reason to oppose this

In addition to the fact that the author is writing an article largely based around the notion that "radiation is bad," (and therefore Nuclear Weapons should be controlled), and has demonstrated a less-than-a-High-School level of knowledge about what radiation is, I've quoted more valid reasons below.

He went so far as to laugh at those who called light "a particle." I do not at all trust him with a resolution such as this when part of his act mentions "radiation belts," when he obviously does not understand what radiation is, and he is attempting to simultaneously repeal a much better written resolution by an author who obviously understands much more about the nature of nuclear weapons.

Requires nations refrain from testing nuclear weapons in open atmospheres which could lead to the contamination of the environment or harm civilians,

Every nuclear weapon tested in atmosphere will "contaminate the environment." Recommend at the word "Harmfully contaminate the environment." Contamination will exist, no matter what. It just won't always exist to a degree that will harm the environment considerably.
That, and contamination is the least of your worries.
The giant concussive wave, fireball, and using photons to burn things at close range is a bit bigger of a concern.

Prohibits nations from testing nuclear weapons at altitudes which could produce a damaging electromagnetic pulse, or create artificial radiation belts around a planet,

Should add "harmful" to "artificial radiation belt." Radiation is generically short lived, anyway, I don't see that being a huge concern. EMP, sure.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

You do realize not every resolution needs to be an essay correct? Sometimes simple, short, and sweet is the preferable option.

And before you mention that your resolution is an essay, and yet it passed, I was running a campaign for the repeal of NAPA at the exact same time, and most of the telegrams I got back indicated they had misread my telegram and voted for your resolution mistaking it for a repeal of some sorts. When I ran the numbers, my campaign actually caused your proposal to pass, as it was being crushed pretty early on.

[Pharthan]

You do realize not every resolution needs to be an essay correct? Sometimes simple, short, and sweet is the preferable option.

And before you mention that your resolution is an essay, and yet it passed, I was running a campaign for the repeal of NAPA at the exact same time, and most of the telegrams I got back indicated they had misread my telegram and voted for your resolution mistaking it for a repeal of some sorts. When I ran the numbers, my campaign actually caused your proposal to pass, as it was being crushed pretty early on.

"I do know this, but I also realize that resolutions need to not be based on blatantly wrong facts.

Your knowledge of radiation belts, and radiation in general, is quite insufficient in relation to the resolution (and the repeal) you're trying to pass.
I'm not asking you have a similar level of education to what I have, I'm asking that you at least have a High School Physic's level. When you laugh at people for calling light a particle (your considering gammas to be radio waves was rather funny, or that radio waves don't "produce light," when they themselves are light), it generally shows your level of knowledge is quite lacking on a basic level. You are, after all, basin a large amount of your repeal and resolution on what was at least partially researched. I'm asking that you do just a bit more, an to do it properly.
When you display a lack of knowledge in regards to "radiation belts" being dangerous to humans, it shows a lack of knowledge that might be covered by High School AP Physics class, or could at least be grasped a very intelligent person in a High School Physics class. Fact of the matter is that the radiation belts would not trap anything harmful to people, making your repeal inherently erroneous.

I could elaborate more on all of my reasons for disagreeing with both of these proposals, and I could do so in a more technical manner, but I get the feeling the second I start throwing out terms like "microscopic cross section of absorption" I'm going to lose your attention."

OOC:
Myself and my own delegate were also campaigning, as well as Chester (his early campaigning for another resolution caused confusion resulting in the nature of it being "crushed pretty early on", negating any affect your campaign's "up-vote" would have had), which led to the most obvious change in votes, at least, it correlated with that.
I still feel it is my duty to inform you that both your repeal and this resolution are rather misinformed. Regardless of whatever you feel I owe you.

[Almonaster Nuevo]

I came to check the potential replacement before voting on the repeal, and I have to say that what I've seen here leaves me convinced that we are better off with the current version.

[Pharthan]

OOC: Jean Pierre Trudeau, I think we would all benefit to know why this repeal/resolution combo was even written, or why you haven't gotten the repeal removed by the moderators. It's plain to see that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to radiation belts, and your only other reasoning is poorly written and illogical.
EDIT: Added OOC notation. Thank you for pointing that out.

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Jean Pierre Trudeau, I think we would all benefit to know why this repeal/resolution combo was even written, or why you haven't gotten the repeal removed by the moderators. It's plain to see that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to radiation belts, and your only other reasoning is poorly written and illogical.

The repeal can't be removed, as the Secretariat cannot remove a resolution at vote unless their is an egregious error, which there is not. Please learn how things work, before making "suggestions". Also it is pretty clear that you do not understand the agenda of The Federation. Your opinion was neither requested nor required on this matter.

OOC; I know precisely what I am talking about. I am a well educated person. The fact being that I don't conflate real life with a clearly exaggerated internet game. You are more than welcome to write your essays of resolutions all you want. I keep things short and sweet. Also if you are going to make clearly out of character comments, please use 'OOC' tags. If you can't follow those simple and easy to understand unofficial rules, please refrain from cluttering up the thread.

[Pharthan]

Jean Pierre Trudeau, I think we would all benefit to know why this repeal/resolution combo was even written, or why you haven't gotten the repeal removed by the moderators. It's plain to see that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to radiation belts, and your only other reasoning is poorly written and illogical.

The repeal can't be removed, as the Secretariat cannot remove a resolution at vote unless their is an egregious error, which there is not. Please learn how things work, before making "suggestions". Also it is pretty clear that you do not understand the agenda of The Federation. Your opinion was neither requested nor required on this matter.

OOC; I know precisely what I am talking about. I am a well educated person. The fact being that I don't conflate real life with a clearly exaggerated internet game. You are more than welcome to write your essays of resolutions all you want. I keep things short and sweet. Also if you are going to make clearly out of character comments, please use 'OOC' tags. If you can't follow those simple and easy to understand unofficial rules, please refrain from cluttering up the thread.

OOC: My apologies. That last one was written immediately after only an hour of sleep and an extremely boring watch; I was very tired at that point and simply forgot.

Look. I understand you don't want essay long resolutions, but the fact of the matter stands - your repeal is wrong, and your resolution remains prohibitively vague. As in, as it stands, no atmospheric testing would be allowed. At all. The simple fact of the matter is that every single atmospheric test of a nuclear weapon will contaminate the environment. The difference is whether or not that level of contamination will be harmful. For instance, a large swath of Japan was contaminated by Fukushima, but the vast majority of it was not contaminated to harmful levels.

I'm willing to, and would rather, keep this from escalating into a verbal shooting war. We can improve upon the past resolution you are inevitably getting repealed, yes, and you've obviously got the clout to get this resolution passed. Regardless of what happens, I want to see a good, adequate resolution get passed as well. I can give you pointers on how to make it better. And much of it only requires the addition of a word here or there. For instance, if you add the word "harmful" in front of "contamination" in the (1) of the "hereby" clause, you allow atmospheric testing once more.

Anything higher than that would produce a radiation belt, but not necessarily a harmful one.

"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;"

As far as you know what you're doing: I have no doubt you know how to write resolutions. However, the previous argument had over the nature of gamma rays, radio waves, and light in general displayed your lack of knowledge of radiation, as does the wording of your article calling the particles "highly dangerous," leading one to believe that these are dangerous to humans, rather than satellites, as is the case. Humans themselves are adequate shielding for these particles; protons, electrons, positrons, negatrons, and alphas are all too large to penetrate the dead layer of skin humans have. Spacecraft and space stations also have adequate shielding, which is intended to shield the occupants from more harmful ionizing photons, but have a nice after effect of also protecting the spacecraft from radiation belts as well. Larger tests could potentially be problematic.
However, it would be remiss to not try to protect the satellites as well, so the additional clause of, perhaps limiting orbital nuclear tests to being less than 300kt, which is the largest proven tests I've been able to find without any concerning radiation belts.

Your forte is the World Assembly. My forte is nuclear power and radiation, and you're going to have a hard time convincing me you know better than I do in that regard. Considering that, I'd like to help you get a proper, adequate, and thorough (and, as you've mentioned, brief) resolution passed. I understand your intentions. Some of them are misplaced, some are not. Why post a resolution to be reviewed if you aren't going to take educated advice? I apologize if you felt insulted by my stating your ignorance on the matter; nuclear power and radiation are some of the more technical subjects of science. I happen to know a bit about them, more than the average person, and used that to point out the flaws in your resolution.

Regardless, I don't see why you wish to repeal the last resolution, and I'm genuinely curious as to that. At this point it is inevitable, anyways. It involved a lot of perhaps unnecessary fluff that can be generally inferred in yours, yes.

IC;
"We are concerned greatly with the fact that this resolution entirely prohibits the testing of nuclear devices within atmosphere, and while we agree with the intentions of this resolution, we must oppose it. We feel that a simple addition of words, such as speaking of the duration of contamination of environment, or even just adding a few words like"harmful" to the scant few clauses could easily make this resolution more adequate and comprehensive without making it unduly heavy in wording or technicality."

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

As far as you know what you're doing: I have no doubt you know how to write resolutions. However, the previous argument had over the nature of gamma rays, radio waves, and light in general displayed your lack of knowledge of radiation, as does the wording of your article calling the particles "highly dangerous," leading one to believe that these are dangerous to humans, rather than satellites, as is the case. Humans themselves are adequate shielding for these particles; protons, electrons, positrons, negatrons, and alphas are all too large to penetrate the dead layer of skin humans have. Spacecraft and space stations also have adequate shielding, which is intended to shield the occupants from more harmful ionizing photons, but have a nice after effect of also protecting the spacecraft from radiation belts as well. Larger tests could potentially be problematic.
However, it would be remiss to not try to protect the satellites as well, so the additional clause of, perhaps limiting orbital nuclear tests to being less than 300kt, which is the largest proven tests I've been able to find without any concerning radiation belts.

OOC: Alright fair enough,

That became more unnecessarily heated than it should have, and I apologize. You have to understand, that when I broke into the WA, I tried my best to write resolutions. They all failed. In fact my first solid attempt which was the first try of the Chemical Weapons Convention, nearly banned bug spray, as it was far too technical. The second one pretty much outlawed any herbicide out there. It was a mess. It was then I finally realized, short, sweet, vague resolutions are the way to go. If they are long, and technical, people get bored, and don't read past the title. All they see is "X", and vote accordingly. Also category has a lot to do with it. Nuclear Testing Safety is a Global Disarmament: Significant resolution. In my opinion (and this is just mine I remind you, as I am not a mod) it is far to strong of a strength for something so very narrow in scope, so I want it removed. All of our military budgets will increase once the repeal is successful. That is not to say, I don't want some restrictions on nuclear testing though. Can you imagine if the test ban treaty hadn't been signed? Weapons would have grown in scope to be massive. There are already pretty clear signs that nuclear testing has long lasting effects on the planet. Just look at Castle Bravo, or Ivy Mike. Both contaminated Bikini Atoll to the point it is uninhabitable. I also want fair guidelines as well. Too restrictive, and the resolution fails. Wrong category, and the resolution fails. It is damn near like pulling teeth around here to get a GD resolution passed, so I intend this one to be International Security, as it seems like that would be the primary intention anyway. In order to do that, it actually needs to increase police, and security budgets. Too much other fluff, or unnecessary clauses, and it steps over the line into GD again, and is illegal.

I am beginning to understand your understanding of this subject, though, so I will not take that for granted again. Tell you what? You go ahead and make some changes to it, keeping in mind what I have said, and if I like those changes I will implement them, and drop you in as a co-author. Fair enough?

[Pharthan]

OOC: Alright fair enough,

That became more unnecessarily heated than it should have, and I apologize. You have to understand, that when I broke into the WA, I tried my best to write resolutions. They all failed. In fact my first solid attempt which was the first try of the Chemical Weapons Convention, nearly banned bug spray, as it was far too technical. The second one pretty much outlawed any herbicide out there. It was a mess. It was then I finally realized, short, sweet, vague resolutions are the way to go. If they are long, and technical, people get bored, and don't read past the title. All they see is "X", and vote accordingly. Also category has a lot to do with it. Nuclear Testing Safety is a Global Disarmament: Significant resolution. In my opinion (and this is just mine I remind you, as I am not a mod) it is far to strong of a strength for something so very narrow in scope, so I want it removed. All of our military budgets will increase once the repeal is successful. That is not to say, I don't want some restrictions on nuclear testing though. Can you imagine if the test ban treaty hadn't been signed? Weapons would have grown in scope to be massive. There are already pretty clear signs that nuclear testing has long lasting effects on the planet. Just look at Castle Bravo, or Ivy Mike. Both contaminated Bikini Atoll to the point it is uninhabitable. I also want fair guidelines as well. Too restrictive, and the resolution fails. Wrong category, and the resolution fails. It is damn near like pulling teeth around here to get a GD resolution passed, so I intend this one to be International Security, as it seems like that would be the primary intention anyway. In order to do that, it actually needs to increase police, and security budgets. Too much other fluff, or unnecessary clauses, and it steps over the line into GD again, and is illegal.

I am beginning to understand your understanding of this subject, though, so I will not take that for granted again. Tell you what? You go ahead and make some changes to it, keeping in mind what I have said, and if I like those changes I will implement them, and drop you in as a co-author. Fair enough?

OOC: I understand where you are coming from. I'll try to keep the changes minor enough; I don't mind so much as to be a co-author, but if you feel it warranted, okay.
I'm well aware of the effects of nuclear testing and nuclear power, and I agree with the nature of the resolution.

I will try to have something drawn up before your Repeal passes.

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

Category: International Security | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Jean Pierre Trudeau

The World Assembly,

Confirming the rights of member nations to produce and possess nuclear weapons for offensive and defense purposes,

Concerned that nuclear weapons which are not properly tested have a probability of not functioning as intended, possibly producing far higher yields than predicted,

Also realizing the need for safe and secure testing of nuclear weapons, which seeks to mitigate the damage to the environment and non-participating actors,

The General Assembly hereby:

1. Requires nations refrain from testing nuclear weapons in open atmospheres which could lead to the harmful contamination of the environment, inhabited land, or harm civilians or government personnel,
   
   
2. Prohibits nations from testing nuclear weapons at altitudes which could produce a damaging electromagnetic pulse to civilian or government facilities and vehicles, or create artificial radiation belts around a planet harmful to individuals or satellites,
   
   
3. Demands member nations take all necessary security precautions to prevent unauthorized access to nuclear testing sites, materials or confidential data surrounding nuclear tests.
   
   
4. Requires nations refrain from testing nuclear weapons in manners which could lead to harmful damage to civilians, government personnel, or their structures via artificial seismic activity.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I'd like to take the time to applaud both of you in putting aside your differences for the sake of the world.

[Pharthan]

The following includes my edits to the proposal.
"Non-involved" statements allow for testing equipment, facilities, and satellites to still be damaged as necessary for the test while preventing unnecessary damage to others.
Added and specified "harmful" contamination and "harmful" radiation belts.
Added:
"Requires nations refrain from testing nuclear weapons in manners which could directly cause harm to civilians or government personnel," as the previous iteration only prevents harm via contamination and not via direct radiation production or concussive blast.
"Requires nations refrain from testing nuclear weapons in manners which could lead to harmful damage to civilians, government personnel, or their structures via artificial seismic activity." as the previous iteration does not stop damaging earthquakes generated by underground tests.

I hope this is all agreeable.

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

Category: International Security | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Jean Pierre Trudeau

The World Assembly,

Confirming the rights of member nations to produce and possess nuclear weapons for offensive and defense purposes,

Concerned that nuclear weapons which are not properly tested have a probability of not functioning as intended, possibly producing far higher yields than predicted,

Also realizing the need for safe and secure testing of nuclear weapons, which seeks to mitigate the damage to the environment and non-participating actors,

The General Assembly hereby:

1. Requires nations refrain from testing nuclear weapons in open atmospheres which could lead to the harmful contamination of the environment, inhabited land, agricultural land, or harm civilians or government personnel,
   
   
2. Requires nations refrain from testing nuclear weapons in manners which could directly cause harm to civilians or government personnel,
   
   
3. Prohibits nations from testing nuclear weapons at altitudes which could produce a damaging electromagnetic pulse to non-involved civilian or government facilities, vehicles, or equipment or create artificial radiation belts around a planet harmful to individuals or non-involved civilian or government satellites,
   
   
4. Demands member nations take all necessary security precautions to prevent unauthorized access to nuclear testing sites, materials or confidential data surrounding nuclear tests.
   
   
5. Requires nations refrain from testing nuclear weapons in manners which could lead to harmful damage to civilians, government personnel, or their structures via artificial seismic activity.

Co-Authored by Pharthan

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

Alright, I have added your contributions, and tidied things up a little bit. New draft is now on the boards.

[Sierra Lyricalia]

I hate to be that person, but I would worry about the category. Clauses 1-5 would seem to speak mostly to disarmament or environmental concerns; only Clause 6 is really in the realm of International Security.

The best suggestion (and possibly it's hand-wavery, but so's a lot around here ) I have right this second is to rephrase everything as a positive mandate to test nuclear devices in certain places, as opposed to a prohibition on testing under certain conditions. E.g. you must test underground or above the atmosphere and magnetosphere of an inhabited planetary object, and be sure there are no nearby civlians/habitations/bases/agricultural installations/etc. prior to testing. That would clearly be a budgetary increase, where as phrased it sounds more like a decrease (as "thou shalt not test here" is often cheaper by way of not testing at all, rather than "thou shalt test over there," which requires you to spend the cash to get over there in the first place).

/my ₦0.02

[Almonaster Nuevo]

As I read clause 1...

Requires nations refrain from testing nuclear weapons in open atmospheres (which could lead to the harmful contamination of the environment, inhabited land, agricultural land, or harm civilians or government personnel,)

(my parenthesis)

..this would be an outright ban on atmospeheric testing. Is that what you intended?

[Jean Pierre Trudeau]

As I read clause 1...

Requires nations refrain from testing nuclear weapons in open atmospheres (which could lead to the harmful contamination of the environment, inhabited land, agricultural land, or harm civilians or government personnel,)

(my parenthesis)

..this would be an outright ban on atmospeheric testing. Is that what you intended?

I am guessing you missed the word excessive?