NationStates

Posted: **Thu Feb 19, 2015 7:27 am**

Dustain wrote:\

"You did not answer my question. You originally stated that systems like the LTFR with next to no chance of catastrophic failure are protected by the bill and will not be under scrutiny. I'm sorry, but myself and our advisor are not seeing where that is stated. We agree with the sentiments of environmental protection, of course, but before we support this bill we wish to ensure that our future nuclear power generation projects are protected from unwarranted scrutiny, and infact your answer seemed like a round about way of saying 'Yes, this bill will, but you know, aren't you afraid of other nations nuclear systems?'."

"Allow me to clarify our issue for you. What we are even more fearful of the negitive effect a blanket bill over all fission technology will have on the global population. Due to the failings of other nations undue fear about nuclear power will grow in the public consensus, leading to more nations relying on fossil fules. We have an entire divsion dedicated to positive propaganda and quelling these undue fears about nuclear energy. This bill could undo a lot of that work."

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Then, Dustain is very lucky that Ambassador Fulton hasn't gotten his way with the Secretariat, because even the C.D.S.P., which is many times your size militarily, would rather yield to a few inspectors rather than face defeat and occupation from a significantly larger force, or economic collapse from heavy sanctions. However, it's hardly bullying when your leaders signed our nation into a contract stipulating compliance, and then promptly promise to break their own word."

"I am under no obligation to discuss what our response would be to such an invasion, nor get into dick waving contest with a nation that's no doubt going to run into logistics problems in the first hours of any conflict as their contractors extort them and their people protest, but I will assure you that any benifits gained from such a conflict will not outweigh the costs. You may see this as breaking our word, but we have a lot of resoruces devoted to nuclear power. Our first priority must be to our people, and the benifit of being part of this council will deminish significantly if this bill is ratified."

"One must also be concerned with what we in the nuclear community refer to as 'groupthink.' We must be wary of what we think to be 'without fail', lest we be the next 'Nuclear Titanic.' As perfect as we may believe a system to be, complacency, and therefor ourselves, are our worst enemy, Mrs. Katyusha.
"Furthermore, if this bill does anything to harm the local opinion, it would suggest your nuclear safety would be inadequate anyway, as our requirements are actually rather loose as it is. If anything, any pro-nuclear nation should be furthered by this resolution through the positive reinforcement that they were a benchmark nation to be modeled after due to having to do nothing to comply with the resolution.
"As for a LFTR, a typical LFTR will have active Fission Product Removal; the reactor itself has little DHG associated with it. The containment for the DHG of the fission products may need it's own DHR, but his is far less a concern due to the heavy reduction of present fissile material. This falls under clause 2b of Requirements."

Posted: **Thu Feb 19, 2015 7:30 am**

"I am under no obligation to discuss what our response would be to such an invasion, nor get into dick waving contest with a nation that's no doubt going to run into logistics problems in the first hours of any conflict as their contractors extort them and their people protest, but I will assure you that any benifits gained from such a conflict will not outweigh the costs. You may see this as breaking our word, but we have a lot of resoruces devoted to nuclear power. Our first priority must be to our people, and the benifit of being part of this council will deminish significantly if this bill is ratified."

"I notice you glossed right past the part where you agreed, in good faith, to be compliant, and doing otherwise makes the words of your leaders no better than lies, and skipped to the military aspect of what I mentioned. I also noticed that you misconstrued the difference between a multilateral effort that is completely hypothetical and impossible based on current laws, and a C.D.S.P. threat. Since neither is happening, as my nation doesn't bully small states, and it remain opposed to any such attempt against any nation, I'm sure that any phallic display is not the fault of my delegation. No, it was an observation of your hostile position being ultimately fruitless, nothing more."

Posted: **Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:05 am**

Pharthan wrote:"One must also be concerned with what we in the nuclear community refer to as 'groupthink.' We must be wary of what we think to be 'without fail', lest we be the next 'Nuclear Titanic.' As perfect as we may believe a system to be, complacency, and therefor ourselves, are our worst enemy, Mrs. Katyusha.
"Furthermore, if this bill does anything to harm the local opinion, it would suggest your nuclear safety would be inadequate anyway, as our requirements are actually rather loose as it is. If anything, any pro-nuclear nation should be furthered by this resolution through the positive reinforcement that they were a benchmark nation to be modeled after due to having to do nothing to comply with the resolution.
"As for a LFTR, a typical LFTR will have active Fission Product Removal; the reactor itself has little DHG associated with it. The containment for the DHG of the fission products may need it's own DHR, but his is far less a concern due to the heavy reduction of present fissile material. This falls under clause 2b of Requirements."

"I see where you're coming from, but we disagree. The Holy Empire of Dustain believes that this bill will damage public opinion of Nuclear Energy and doesn't target the dangers of nuclear energy specifically enough. We believe in some kind of regualtion at this level but are unsatisfied with the solution proposed. With this in mind we remain against the bill."

Separatist Peoples wrote:"I notice you glossed right past the part where you agreed, in good faith, to be compliant, and doing otherwise makes the words of your leaders no better than lies, and skipped to the military aspect of what I mentioned. I also noticed that you misconstrued the difference between a multilateral effort that is completely hypothetical and impossible based on current laws, and a C.D.S.P. threat. Since neither is happening, as my nation doesn't bully small states, and it remain opposed to any such attempt against any nation, I'm sure that any phallic display is not the fault of my delegation. No, it was an observation of your hostile position being ultimately fruitless, nothing more."

"I didn't gloss over anything, nor was my statement meant as a direct threat towards the Confederate Dominion of Separatist Peoples. As part of the administrative class our first duty is to the welfare of our people. As much as we would like to always work towards the benifit of all members of this council your needs are secondary to those of our people. In this instance we feel that this bill is a mistake for all concerned, economically, environmentally and in regards to the hearts and minds of all of our constituents. Tell me representive, if this council was going to ratify a bill that had the potental to gut your economy, salt your earth and turn your people into luddites would you keep to your word?"

Posted: **Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:13 am**

Dustain wrote: Tell me representive, if this council was going to ratify a bill that had the potental to gut your economy, salt your earth and turn your people into luddites would you keep to your word?"

"If the C.D.S.P. elected to remain a member, yes, because we keep our word. There is always the option of resignation, ambassador."

Posted: **Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:24 am**

Separatist Peoples wrote:"If the C.D.S.P. elected to remain a member, yes, because we keep our word. There is always the option of resignation, ambassador."

"If it comest to that, we will."

Posted: **Thu Feb 19, 2015 10:01 am**

The Republic of Ardena voices its support for Dustain and the hundreds, if not thousands, of countries voting against this resolution for similar reasons. Even if the resolution passes, I would stress that the increasingly-large numbers of opposition votes prove that a large portion of WA members object to the potentially invasive and punitive measures in this resolution. Safeguards are necessary, no one will argue this point. As a body, however, we must implement those safeguards in the right way, or not at all.

Posted: **Thu Feb 19, 2015 2:07 pm**

Dustain wrote:
"I see where you're coming from, but we disagree. The Holy Empire of Dustain believes that this bill will damage public opinion of Nuclear Energy and doesn't target the dangers of nuclear energy specifically enough. We believe in some kind of regualtion at this level but are unsatisfied with the solution proposed. With this in mind we remain against the bill."

"Please elaborate on how this bill would damage public opinion of nuclear power, and please elaborate on how it doesn't target the dangers of nuclear power - a meltdown and radiation exposure, both of which are covered by this or other safety regulations - specifically enough. If you want to criticize and say 'it is not good enough,' please give examples as to what is. "

Ardena wrote:The Republic of Ardena voices its support for Dustain and the hundreds, if not thousands, of countries voting against this resolution for similar reasons. Even if the resolution passes, I would stress that the increasingly-large numbers of opposition votes prove that a large portion of WA members object to the potentially invasive and punitive measures in this resolution. Safeguards are necessary, no one will argue this point. As a body, however, we must implement those safeguards in the right way, or not at all.

"And what would be the right way?" Representative Hanson rubbed his forehead. He rather felt like a doctor having his patient tell him that his diagnosis was wrong, and that the patient knew better. "Please tell me this opinion is coming out of some degree of knowledge of nuclear power, rather than wild assumptions."
Ambassador Reynolds kindly recommended Hanson take a seat, and the Ambassador took the podium. "What the Representative means to say is that while we do not expect you to trust us blindly in regards to these regulations, we would ask that any statement in regards to saying certain parts of it are 'incorrectly managed' are a bit more researched. We've already elaborated on how this regulation still does fit in all models of nuclear power plants, even those which do not need the regulation involved, without inhibiting them. These considerations took years of research. "

Posted: **Thu Feb 19, 2015 4:09 pm**

Our concern, ambassador, is not with the standards of nuclear safety that would be imposed, but with the amount of power granted to the WA over and above the sovereignty concerns of thousands of its member nations.

Posted: **Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:24 pm**

Ardena wrote:Our concern, ambassador, is not with the standards of nuclear safety that would be imposed, but with the amount of power granted to the WA over and above the sovereignty concerns of thousands of its member nations.

Clover chuckled "If you were concerned about your national sovereignty, you came to the wrong place. This basically mandates an oversight agency, with a local version you do control making the decisions, and the WA only stepping in if they arent doing thier job. Considering some other resolutions on file, this is quite minimal"

Posted: **Thu Feb 19, 2015 8:46 pm**

Hmmmm...

It seems the campaign I am running for my repeal of NAPA, has had the unintended side effect of causing people to misinterpret my telegram and vote for this instead.....

Posted: **Thu Feb 19, 2015 9:49 pm**

Ardena wrote:Our concern, ambassador, is not with the standards of nuclear safety that would be imposed, but with the amount of power granted to the WA over and above the sovereignty concerns of thousands of its member nations.

The WNRA is little more than a watchdog organization, to help ensure local organizations don't become complacent. They have little to no policing power. In short, all they can do is to inform local organizations of deficiencies and have those organizations correct them, as well as to spread knowledge.

Chester Pearson wrote:Hmmmm...

It seems the campaign I am running for my repeal of NAPA, has had the unintended side effect of causing people to misinterpret my telegram and vote for this instead.....

How will we go about fixing this?

Posted: **Fri Feb 20, 2015 12:04 pm**

Pharthan wrote:
Chester Pearson wrote:Hmmmm...

It seems the campaign I am running for my repeal of NAPA, has had the unintended side effect of causing people to misinterpret my telegram and vote for this instead.....

How will we go about fixing this?

Why would you want to bother? It has bought you a significant amount of votes.

Posted: **Fri Feb 20, 2015 12:24 pm**

Chester Pearson wrote:Hmmmm...

It seems the campaign I am running for my repeal of NAPA, has had the unintended side effect of causing people to misinterpret my telegram and vote for this instead.....

What would you say are the key differences?

Posted: **Fri Feb 20, 2015 12:24 pm**

Separatist Peoples wrote:

"Then, Dustain is very lucky that Ambassador Fulton hasn't gotten his way with the Secretariat, because even the C.D.S.P., which is many times your size militarily, would rather yield to a few inspectors rather than face defeat and occupation from a significantly larger force, or economic collapse from heavy sanctions. However, it's hardly bullying when your leaders signed our nation into a contract stipulating compliance, and then promptly promise to break their own word."[/quote]
Ambassador Burgenheimer looks at Ambassador Bell with a slightly appalled look upon his face. "Why must this always devolved to threats and doomsday? I'm frankly a little tired of this being a debate with ardent disapproval and intent to disobey being cowed by military might. Are we really willing to tick a few nations off, make them defend themselves, subsequently invade them and then force an inspection all because we have a few Ambassadors who really really want a nuclear protection act to pass?" Burgenheimer looks at the gathered assembly, this time seeming annoyed. "Lets please stop throwing our weight around because we have a few nations amongst us whom wish to ultimately define certain passion they have."

Posted: **Fri Feb 20, 2015 1:00 pm**

Affiliated South Califan Sprawls wrote:
Chester Pearson wrote:Hmmmm...

It seems the campaign I am running for my repeal of NAPA, has had the unintended side effect of causing people to misinterpret my telegram and vote for this instead.....

What would you say are the key differences?

Everything but the word "nuclear."
In other words, the Nuclear Arms Possession Act and the Nuclear Power Safeguards Act are entirely different. One is about nuclear weapons, the other about nuclear work devices.

Drewlantis wrote:Ambassador Burgenheimer looks at Ambassador Bell with a slightly appalled look upon his face. "Why must this always devolved to threats and doomsday? I'm frankly a little tired of this being a debate with ardent disapproval and intent to disobey being cowed by military might. Are we really willing to tick a few nations off, make them defend themselves, subsequently invade them and then force an inspection all because we have a few Ambassadors who really really want a nuclear protection act to pass?" Burgenheimer looks at the gathered assembly, this time seeming annoyed. "Lets please stop throwing our weight around because we have a few nations amongst us whom wish to ultimately define certain passion they have."

"Indeed." Ambassador Reynolds agreed. "Most of these threats seem to be centered around miscommunication and misunderstanding the powers given to the WA by this resolution, anyway."

Posted: **Fri Feb 20, 2015 1:10 pm**

Drewlantis wrote:
Separatist Peoples wrote:"Then, Dustain is very lucky that Ambassador Fulton hasn't gotten his way with the Secretariat, because even the C.D.S.P., which is many times your size militarily, would rather yield to a few inspectors rather than face defeat and occupation from a significantly larger force, or economic collapse from heavy sanctions. However, it's hardly bullying when your leaders signed our nation into a contract stipulating compliance, and then promptly promise to break their own word."

Ambassador Burgenheimer looks at Ambassador Bell with a slightly appalled look upon his face. "Why must this always devolved to threats and doomsday? I'm frankly a little tired of this being a debate with ardent disapproval and intent to disobey being cowed by military might. Are we really willing to tick a few nations off, make them defend themselves, subsequently invade them and then force an inspection all because we have a few Ambassadors who really really want a nuclear protection act to pass?" Burgenheimer looks at the gathered assembly, this time seeming annoyed. "Lets please stop throwing our weight around because we have a few nations amongst us whom wish to ultimately define certain passion they have."

I'm not finding any military threat in any of his statements. Bell was merely pointing out that even with a large military, there would be no point in barricading your nation to keep out some harmless nuclear inspectors (who, if I understand correctly, could be employees of your own nation's government but i admit to not having fully read this or the last few proposals). And that should certain misguided ambassadors get their way, the WA might have a military backing to already mandatory compliance.

Posted: **Fri Feb 20, 2015 1:28 pm**

Defwa wrote:I'm not finding any military threat in any of his statements. Bell was merely pointing out that even with a large military, there would be no point in barricading your nation to keep out some harmless nuclear inspectors (who, if I understand correctly, could be employees of your own nation's government but i admit to not having fully read this or the last few proposals). And that should certain misguided ambassadors get their way, the WA might have a military backing to already mandatory compliance.

"Nothing would prohibit home-grown inspectors from being used, no, but they would still be required to follow the same rules and provide the same information."

Posted: **Fri Feb 20, 2015 1:42 pm**

Drewlantis wrote:Ambassador Burgenheimer looks at Ambassador Bell with a slightly appalled look upon his face. "Why must this always devolved to threats and doomsday? I'm frankly a little tired of this being a debate with ardent disapproval and intent to disobey being cowed by military might. Are we really willing to tick a few nations off, make them defend themselves, subsequently invade them and then force an inspection all because we have a few Ambassadors who really really want a nuclear protection act to pass?" Burgenheimer looks at the gathered assembly, this time seeming annoyed. "Lets please stop throwing our weight around because we have a few nations amongst us whom wish to ultimately define certain passion they have."

“Good lord, do nations even bother ensuring that their ambassadors are capable of critical reading? I never threatened any military threat. I was pointing out, as the good Defwaen pointed out, that, should a particular ambassador’s agenda be realized, the end result is an inevitable defeat. I then proceeded to point out that, even a military force many times larger, such as our own, wouldn’t attempt that fight. It was as much a snide remark towards the supporters of a World Assembly peacekeeping force as a nod to the pyrrhic struggle that noncompliance to such a mild proposal would cause. Unbelievable…

“What I truly don’t understand is why nations are willing to ensure that the international community views them as unable to keep their word by literally breaking contract with the World Assembly to remain in compliance with passed resolutions. Resignation is simple, and prevents any international welching without losing face. And someday might even prevent an armed conflict, should the Secretariat lose their senses.”

NationStates

[PASSED] Nuclear Power Safeguards Act