NationStates

Normlpeople wrote:For the Record:

Radiological Terrorism was passed 7,570 votes to 3,489.

Is this the norm?

Icatus wrote:

Normlpeople wrote:For the Record:

Radiological Terrorism was passed 7,570 votes to 3,489.

Is this the norm?

That sort of margin isn't unheard of.

Defwa wrote:

Icatus wrote:Is this the norm?

That sort of margin isn't unheard of.

I know that, I meant the listing of the result.

It's not the norm, per se, but players (or mods, if any of us are so inclined) are welcome to post the final result of the vote. Sometimes it can be useful to have that in-thread, should someone be reading through the archived record of the vote in the future.

Mousebumples wrote:It's not the norm, per se, but players (or mods, if any of us are so inclined) are welcome to post the final result of the vote. Sometimes it can be useful to have that in-thread, should someone be reading through the archived record of the vote in the future.

Cool.

Stormwind-City wrote:

Talonis wrote:Depends... do you realize that reactors are a series of rods that can be shifted? Shift them the right way, and things can be made to work. Think like this:
XXO
XOX
OXX
To:
XOX
XOX
XOX
That is obviously hyper simplified, but you get my point. All that has to happen is that things get put in place so a fizzle can happen. A button can complete a circuit to move things about inside, and things can then be made to touch in rather... unintended... ways.

No, to create a plutonium bomb, you need conventional explosives, you might create a very hot reactor that melts itself, but it won't explode. The reason why; nuclear bombs are inherently different in design than reactors. What would occur if you did that would be what happened to the reactor at Chernobyl. To demonstrate:

Fun fact: The Little Boy design would not have worked with plutonium, as plutonium has the side effect of spontaneous fission....

As for blowing apart a reactor with gunpowder? It would be far more effective to destroy the cooling systems of the cooling ponds, thus causing the water to boil, and causing the cooling pond building to explode, causing a radiological disaster.

I love when people argue shit, the know NOTHING about.

As promised, post-political-vote comment (my edits):

The Eternal Kawaii wrote:

Mosktopia wrote:<snip> The fact that this proposal - which is chiefly concerned with national disarmament of certain weapons - can be submitted under the International Security category effectively means that International Security swallows Global Disarmament. There is no reason to ever use GD if you can call a disarmament proposal a security proposal simply by including some language about beefing up security (ironically, to ensure that the disarmament goal is actually accomplished).<snip>

While we understand the Ambassador's concerns, we do not feel that such a precedent is being set here. The proposal author claims that radiological weapons have no legitimate military use,a claim we agree with. The cause of Global Disarmament is not harmed by using International Security to rid the world of weapons whose only value is to terrorists.

^Excluding the struck-out opinion, which was not mods'concern, this was pretty much our thinking on the legality requirements. Clauses 5 and 6 met the budget point and the language in the preceding clauses offered an argument that this was security (preventing largely non-state actors from gaining a weapon) rather than disarmament (removing member nations' existing weapons). It wasn’t the mods' job to decide whether the argument was convincing; that was left to the member nations. That the attempt was made was enough to let it go to vote.

While we can rule only on the actual, submitted text of a proposal, the drafting discussion that led Sciongrad to switch categories and add a clause helped point us towards the words in the text in support of his argument.

The mods are aware of, and are keeping an eye on, the distinction between International Security and Global Disarmament. We are particularly unimpressed when authors appear to have tossed a coin on category and then expect us to work out why they think there’ll be a budget boost or a budget loss (not the case here). Please remember that book-keeping is above our pay grade.

Ardchoille wrote:As promised, post-political-vote comment (my edits):

The Eternal Kawaii wrote:
While we understand the Ambassador's concerns, we do not feel that such a precedent is being set here. The proposal author claims that radiological weapons have no legitimate military use,a claim we agree with. The cause of Global Disarmament is not harmed by using International Security to rid the world of weapons whose only value is to terrorists.

^Excluding the struck-out opinion, which was not mods'concern, this was pretty much our thinking on the legality requirements. Clauses 5 and 6 met the budget point and the language in the preceding clauses offered an argument that this was security (preventing largely non-state actors from gaining a weapon) rather than disarmament (removing member nations' existing weapons). It wasn’t the mods' job to decide whether the argument was convincing; that was left to the member nations. That the attempt was made was enough to let it go to vote.

While we can rule only on the actual, submitted text of a proposal, the drafting discussion that led Sciongrad to switch categories and add a clause helped point us towards the words in the text in support of his argument.

The mods are aware of, and are keeping an eye on, the distinction between International Security and Global Disarmament. We are particularly unimpressed when authors appear to have tossed a coin on category and then expect us to work out why they think there’ll be a budget boost or a budget loss (not the case here). Please remember that book-keeping is above our pay grade.

Ard was precedent not already set for this upon passage of the CWP? The CWP could have fallen into either category much like this one.

Just underlining the point, Chester me lad. There's nothing like reiteration to keep a category flourishing.

FINALLY!

A proposal passed after a month and a half of failed ones.

Stormwind-City wrote:

Talonis wrote:Depends... do you realize that reactors are a series of rods that can be shifted? Shift them the right way, and things can be made to work. Think like this:
XXO
XOX
OXX
To:
XOX
XOX
XOX
That is obviously hyper simplified, but you get my point. All that has to happen is that things get put in place so a fizzle can happen. A button can complete a circuit to move things about inside, and things can then be made to touch in rather... unintended... ways.

No, to create a plutonium bomb, you need conventional explosives, you might create a very hot reactor that melts itself, but it won't explode. The reason why; nuclear bombs are inherently different in design than reactors. What would occur if you did that would be what happened to the reactor at Chernobyl. To demonstrate:

That's Little Boy, Talonis is referring to the very different Fat Man device.

Chester Pearson wrote:

Stormwind-City wrote:No, to create a plutonium bomb, you need conventional explosives, you might create a very hot reactor that melts itself, but it won't explode. The reason why; nuclear bombs are inherently different in design than reactors. What would occur if you did that would be what happened to the reactor at Chernobyl. To demonstrate:

Fun fact: The Little Boy design would not have worked with plutonium, as plutonium has the side effect of spontaneous fission....

As for blowing apart a reactor with gunpowder? It would be far more effective to destroy the cooling systems of the cooling ponds, thus causing the water to boil, and causing the cooling pond building to explode, causing a radiological disaster.

I love when people argue shit, the know NOTHING about.

What Talonis actually suggested, which I didn't realise first time about, was using explosives to force the formation of a critical mass using the fuel rods in the reactor - similar in concept to early nuclear devices such as Trinity and Fat Man (though notably not Little Boy).
I can't speak to the feasibility, but when you consider the fuel assembly of the RBMK-1000 reactor weighs a combined 300 tons...
There's certainly enough material for a fizzle.

Imperializt Russia wrote:What Talonis actually suggested, which I didn't realise first time about, was using explosives to force the formation of a critical mass using the fuel rods in the reactor - similar in concept to early nuclear devices such as Trinity and Fat Man (though notably not Little Boy).
I can't speak to the feasibility, but when you consider the fuel assembly of the RBMK-1000 reactor weighs a combined 300 tons...
There's certainly enough material for a fizzle.

You would still need a tamper to hold the core together long enough for the reaction to propagate, otherwise the whole thing blows itself apart....

The tamper of the Gadget device (Trinity) was supposedly around the plutonium core itself (and in a 'reactor', this could theoretically be applied to the fuel elements themselves).
Again, you could probably force a fizzle out of it. The geometry of fuel elements themselves will make it difficult to force supercritical mass. It'd be pathetically inefficient, hence fizzle, if it would work.

I did say that I was unable to speak to any kind of feasibility to the principle
http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Gadget2_sm.png

Chester Pearson wrote:

Stormwind-City wrote:No, to create a plutonium bomb, you need conventional explosives, you might create a very hot reactor that melts itself, but it won't explode. The reason why; nuclear bombs are inherently different in design than reactors. What would occur if you did that would be what happened to the reactor at Chernobyl. To demonstrate:

Fun fact: The Little Boy design would not have worked with plutonium, as plutonium has the side effect of spontaneous fission....

As for blowing apart a reactor with gunpowder? It would be far more effective to destroy the cooling systems of the cooling ponds, thus causing the water to boil, and causing the cooling pond building to explode, causing a radiological disaster.

I love when people argue shit, the know NOTHING about.

I was showing him what a nuclear bomb looks like, demonstrating how a nuke does not work the same way a reactor does.

Stormwind-City wrote:

Chester Pearson wrote:
Fun fact: The Little Boy design would not have worked with plutonium, as plutonium has the side effect of spontaneous fission....

As for blowing apart a reactor with gunpowder? It would be far more effective to destroy the cooling systems of the cooling ponds, thus causing the water to boil, and causing the cooling pond building to explode, causing a radiological disaster.

I love when people argue shit, the know NOTHING about.

I was showing him what a nuclear bomb looks like, demonstrating how a nuke does not work the same way a reactor does.

A fact and a layout I'm fully aware of.

Few nuclear weapons shared the Little Boy's gun-type design, by the way. A handful of the artillery shell projects did because of space limitations.

Imperializt Russia wrote:

Stormwind-City wrote:I was showing him what a nuclear bomb looks like, demonstrating how a nuke does not work the same way a reactor does.

A fact and a layout I'm fully aware of.

Few nuclear weapons shared the Little Boy's gun-type design, by the way. A handful of the artillery shell projects did because of space limitations.

Yes, I know, but a GT design is arguably the simplist form of nuclear weapon. Just in case he's still confused:

Stormwind-City wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:A fact and a layout I'm fully aware of.

Few nuclear weapons shared the Little Boy's gun-type design, by the way. A handful of the artillery shell projects did because of space limitations.

Yes, I know, but a GT design is arguably the simplist form of nuclear weapon. Just in case he's still confused:

I wasn't confused on the matter, I was simply illustrating a point....