[PASSED] Radiological Terrorism

[Carcarcia]

But you've made a distinction where previously there was none.
Of course, this is probably more an issue with the inability to amend passed resolutions, but I'm not sure it can really be "right" to simply say "and now this is not a nuclear weapon but this is" because that potentially contradicts the resolution and sets precedent.

Again, I would be largely in favour of a ban on such weapons, I'm just expressing concerns of legitimacy.

I find this to have no issues in relation to NAPA. NAPA uses the word nuclear (this gives it a distinction, so there was not previously no distinction), which directly means of or relating to the center (nucleus) of an atom. Fission and fusion based weapons have direct effects on the nucleus of an atom and therefore fit the definition of nuclear. Radiological weapons do not act on the nucleus of an atom, thereby making them by definition not 'nuclear'.
As this seems very much like a ban on biological weapons in terms of the use of such weapons, I am inclined to accept and agree with your definition of radiological weapons.

Given our recent changed attitudes towards war the delegate of Carcarcia whole-heartedly supports this resolution.

[Imperializt Russia]

But you've made a distinction where previously there was none.
Of course, this is probably more an issue with the inability to amend passed resolutions, but I'm not sure it can really be "right" to simply say "and now this is not a nuclear weapon but this is" because that potentially contradicts the resolution and sets precedent.

Again, I would be largely in favour of a ban on such weapons, I'm just expressing concerns of legitimacy.

I find this to have no issues in relation to NAPA. NAPA uses the word nuclear (this gives it a distinction, so there was not previously no distinction), which directly means of or relating to the center (nucleus) of an atom. Fission and fusion based weapons have direct effects on the nucleus of an atom and therefore fit the definition of nuclear. Radiological weapons do not act on the nucleus of an atom, thereby making them by definition not 'nuclear'.
As this seems very much like a ban on biological weapons in terms of the use of such weapons, I am inclined to accept and agree with your definition of radiological weapons.

Given our recent changed attitudes towards war the delegate of Carcarcia whole-heartedly supports this resolution.

I know this.

However, the term "nuclear" is not defined under NAPA.
So potentially, the nuclear material as used in radiological weapons may still be considered "nuclear weapons".

This is where a new definition is suddenly popping from.

[Carcarcia]

I know this.

However, the term "nuclear" is not defined under NAPA.
So potentially, the nuclear material as used in radiological weapons may still be considered "nuclear weapons".

This is where a new definition is suddenly popping from.

If no definition is specified in a resolution, it must be assumed that they are using the definition that is in common use. The common use definition of nuclear is 'relating to the center of an atom'. Had they meant a more broad definition they would have needed to specify that definition in their resolution. Given that they did not, this ban on radiological weapons has no issues fitting in with NAPA.

[Imperializt Russia]

I know this.

However, the term "nuclear" is not defined under NAPA.
So potentially, the nuclear material as used in radiological weapons may still be considered "nuclear weapons".

This is where a new definition is suddenly popping from.

If no definition is specified in a resolution, it must be assumed that they are using the definition that is in common use. The common use definition of nuclear is 'relating to the center of an atom'. Had they meant a more broad definition they would have needed to specify that definition in their resolution. Given that they did not, this ban on radiological weapons has no issues fitting in with NAPA.

Then there we go.

[Socialist Republic of Andrew]

Uhh, i just have a bit of a comment/question thing here:

You said you wish to ban Radiological weapons, but yet you stated that salted bombs are nuclear weapons, but they fall under the category of radiological weapons, so wouldn't that mean if you ban these types of weapons, you are still banning a type of nuclear weapon which is what you said you weren't intending with this proposal and should also be protected by NAPA?


There are mainly two types of radiological weapons: Dirty Bombs and Salted Bombs, here are the definitions of both:

DIRTY BOMB: A dirty bomb is a radiological weapon dispersed with conventional explosives.

SALTED BOMB: A salted bomb is a theoretical nuclear weapon designed to produce enhanced quantities of radioactive fallout, rendering a large area uninhabitable.

So technically you cannot ban radiological weapons under your definition due to the salted bomb falls under both as a nuclear and radiological weapons, but only a dirty bomb is a non-nuclear radiological weapon, so i would suggest making a proposal to ban DIRTY BOMBs instead of the entire term of Radiological weapons.

[Imperializt Russia]

How are neutron bombs viewed under this proposal?
Neutron bombs can be highly valuable weapons systems with the capability to, amongst other things, engage incoming nuclear missiles and defeat them with the neutron flux.

The primary damage method of a neutron weapon is radioactive release, though not as fallout, merely energy.

[Greater Polynesia]

I agree wholeheartedly

[United Federation of Canada]

How are neutron bombs viewed under this proposal?
Neutron bombs can be highly valuable weapons systems with the capability to, amongst other things, engage incoming nuclear missiles and defeat them with the neutron flux.

The primary damage method of a neutron weapon is radioactive release, though not as fallout, merely energy.

Refer to This post.

[Ainocra]

Opposed

your less than transparent attempt to ban nuclear weapons is amusing

[Imperializt Russia]

Opposed

your less than transparent attempt to ban nuclear weapons is amusing

Radiological weapons, in the specific context of dirty bombs, serve no viable military purpose, nor any strict usefulness over conventional explosives for terrorism or military attack.

Their one capability or property is spreading fear and panic amongst the thick.

[Araraukar]

Radiological weapons, in the specific context of dirty bombs, serve no viable military purpose, nor any strict usefulness over conventional explosives for terrorism or military attack.

Depends on what kind of war you're fighting and against whom.

[Imperializt Russia]

Radiological weapons, in the specific context of dirty bombs, serve no viable military purpose, nor any strict usefulness over conventional explosives for terrorism or military attack.

Depends on what kind of war you're fighting and against whom.

Not really.
Chemical attack or cluster bombing would offer significantly better effects.

[Sciongrad]

Opposed

your less than transparent attempt to ban nuclear weapons is amusing

This is not an attempt to ban nuclear weapons... As a matter of fact, to prevent just that, the definition specifically excludes nuclear weapons. Clause 7 states that this does not affect nuclear weapons at all. Your Excellency, to prevent such misunderstandings in the future, how do you suggest I make this clearer?

[Imperializt Russia]

Opposed

your less than transparent attempt to ban nuclear weapons is amusing

This is not an attempt to ban nuclear weapons... As a matter of fact, to prevent just that, the definition specifically excludes nuclear weapons. Clause 6 states that this does not affect nuclear weapons at all. Your Excellency, to prevent such misunderstandings in the future, how do you suggest I make this clearer?

Perhaps as well as defining why 'radiological' weapons such as dirty bombs are not nuclear weapons, for clarity's sake, clarifying what you would consider a "nuclear weapon" to be?

[United Federation of Canada]

This is not an attempt to ban nuclear weapons... As a matter of fact, to prevent just that, the definition specifically excludes nuclear weapons. Clause 6 states that this does not affect nuclear weapons at all. Your Excellency, to prevent such misunderstandings in the future, how do you suggest I make this clearer?

Perhaps as well as defining why 'radiological' weapons such as dirty bombs are not nuclear weapons, for clarity's sake, clarifying what you would consider a "nuclear weapon" to be?

Hmmm... Good point.

Perhaps:

Defines a nuclear weapon, as an explosive device that derives it's energy solely from nuclear reactions,

Defines a radiological weapon, as an explosive device, using conventional chemical explosives to spread harmful radioactive material,

Would clauses such as those clear up any confusion?

Regards,

[Imperializt Russia]

Almost entirely, I'm sure.

Maybe throwing the term "dirty bomb [in common usage]" might also clear up any lingering doubts of anything.

[Araraukar]

Defines a radiological weapon, as an explosive device, using conventional chemical explosives to spread harmful radioactive material,

This one definitely sounds good to me.

[Sciongrad]

Defines a radiological weapon, as an explosive device, using conventional chemical explosives to spread harmful radioactive material,

This one definitely sounds good to me.

In an effort to clarify the difference between a radiological weapon and a nuclear weapon, we've established a new definition, drawing on elements suggested by several ambassadors: ""Radiological weapon" shall be defined as any conventional weapon, the function of which being to spread harmful radiological material, but that does not reach critical mass;"

[Shazbotdom]

"So you are attempting to ban 'Dirty Bombs' in a manner of speaking? Where it uses a conventional explosive with a radio-logical shell to spread radiation over a certain area. Interesting...."
Secretary to the WA Deligate

[Capitalist Oropia]

I would oppose.
A nation should be able to use the weapons it pleases.

[Imperializt Russia]

I would oppose.
A nation should be able to use the weapons it pleases.

Only there is no logical reason a state should use a dirty bomb, since a chemical weapon or cluster bomb would have a significantly better effect on almost any conceivable target.

[Araraukar]

Defines a radiological weapon, as an explosive device, using conventional chemical explosives to spread harmful radioactive material,

In an effort to clarify the difference between a radiological weapon and a nuclear weapon, we've established a new definition, drawing on elements suggested by several ambassadors: ""Radiological weapon" shall be defined as any conventional weapon, the function of which being to spread harmful radiological material, but that does not reach critical mass;"

Your way of putting it sounds a bit clumsy. Howabout a hybrid of "Radiological weapon shall be defined as a conventional weapon designed to spread harmful radioactive material, without a nuclear explosion". Mind you, this new definition will affect things like depleted uranium bullets, too. If you want to leave those out, you'll have to put in the "explosive device" or similar. UFoC's definition was good, imo, why the need to change it?

[Libraria and Ausitoria]

Much as we appreciate an effort to diminish the use of dirty bombs, some forms of radiation has perfectly sensible military use in knocking out enemy communications. Saturate the air with such non-lethal weapons and you can take our every computer they possess. It usually ends the war without either side needing to actually kill anyone.

As such, we do think this proposal needs some very substantial refocusing.

[The Roman Imperial Republic]

Right when we were about to test our next Weapon. Its like some people know when to anger me.

We are going ahead with it.

[Imperializt Russia]

Much as we appreciate an effort to diminish the use of dirty bombs, some forms of radiation has perfectly sensible military use in knocking out enemy communications. Saturate the air with such non-lethal weapons and you can take our every computer they possess. It usually ends the war without either side needing to actually kill anyone.

As such, we do think this proposal needs some very substantial refocusing.

Only, dirty bombs are shit at everything you could possibly want to do except incite panic.

Why not just throw some smoke artillery rockets into their HQ if you want to evacuate their communications centre? Or, alternatively, burn it out like a normal person.