[PASSED] Nuclear Security Convention

[Abacathea]

This still seems to involve preventing non-member states from being able to acquire any form of active aid in generating a nuclear programme.

I don't know if that's a fair assessment, but I don't really feel that when actively writing WA law, applicable only to member nations, we should be concerned overly with non member nations unless it's detrimental to us. ie: We disarm every member nation leaving only non member nations armed.

In this instance, I don't think isolating non-wa actors in this instance is really an issue. (Personal opinion only).

[Imperializt Russia]

Preventing three quarters of the world from receiving practical aid in developing a nuclear programme, or even buying the reactor systems to do so?

[Chester Pearson]

Preventing three quarters of the world from receiving practical aid in developing a nuclear programme, or even buying the reactor systems to do so?

What is stopping them from acquiring nuclear technology from other non-members? Remember NAPA enshrined that members are outnumbered three to one.....

[Imperializt Russia]

Those non-member states are not subject to international safety regulations of the WA on nuclear technologies or waste disposal.

[Chester Pearson]

Those non-member states are not subject to international safety regulations of the WA on nuclear technologies or waste disposal.

Precisely...

I am failing to see what the point of contention is here...

[Imperializt Russia]

I dunno.
Just feels irresponsible to force non-member states to procure nuclear systems that may be unsafe for not being required to be built to international standards.

[Chester Pearson]

I dunno.
Just feels irresponsible to force non-member states to procure nuclear systems that may be unsafe for not being required to be built to international standards.

I would love for them to be able to. Unfortunately we cannot force WA law on non-members. If they were to join the WA, and be bound by international safeguards, then this would not be an issue...

[Auralia]

Shouldn't the resolution distinguish between technology used for the development of nuclear power and technology used for the development of nuclear weapons?

[Imperializt Russia]

Shouldn't the resolution distinguish between technology used for the development of nuclear power and technology used for the development of nuclear weapons?

There's quite a bit of overlap.
Supposedly, it can be overcome - the Osirak reactor built in Iraq by the French was incapable of producing fissile material for nuclear warheads, if you believe independent nuclear experts rather than the US, UK and Israeli governments and intelligence agencies.

[Chester Pearson]

Shouldn't the resolution distinguish between technology used for the development of nuclear power and technology used for the development of nuclear weapons?

Why should it? Nuclear technology is nuclear technology... Some reactors require highly enriched unranium, yet so do nuclear weapons. RTG's run on plutonium, that if processed right, can be weaponized... Where do you draw the line?

The point is for member nations to keep this technology out of the hands of terrorists and rogue regimes... The fact that there is a ban on trading this tech to non-members is unfortunate, but it is the only way to ensure the resolution is capable of fulfilling its mandate.

[Auralia]

Where do you draw the line?

Well, here's one example: my understanding is that thorium fuel cannot be effectively weaponized, so technology relating to thorium-based reactors should be safe for distribution to non-member states.

Perhaps grant authority to a committee to determine which types of nuclear technology can and cannot be effectively weaponized, and only restrict distribution of the former?

[Chester Pearson]

Where do you draw the line?

Well, here's one example: my understanding is that thorium fuel cannot be effectively weaponized, so technology relating to thorium-based reactors should be safe for distribution to non-member states.

Perhaps grant authority to a committee to determine which types of nuclear technology can and cannot be effectively weaponized, and only restrict distribution of the former?

And then.... Exceptions have to be made for pretty much every radioactive isotope there is. At that point the resolution becomes so bogged down, that we run out of character space... I am trying my best to make this as ambiguous as possible, much like The Chemical Weapons Accord....

[Mousebumples]

I am trying my best to make this as ambiguous as possible, much like The Chemical Weapons Accord....

Yeah, because heaven forbid we have specific laws that aren't an ambiguous mess ...

[Imperializt Russia]

I am trying my best to make this as ambiguous as possible, much like The Chemical Weapons Accord....

Yeah, because heaven forbid we have specific laws that aren't an ambiguous mess ...

Mild regulation is significantly better than no regulation, in an environment where tough regulation is guaranteed to not pass.

[Chester Pearson]

I am trying my best to make this as ambiguous as possible, much like The Chemical Weapons Accord....

Yeah, because heaven forbid we have specific laws that aren't an ambiguous mess ...

I don't see you coming forward with any suggestions here... I post drafts for a reason, you know?

Yeah, because heaven forbid we have specific laws that aren't an ambiguous mess ...

Mild regulation is significantly better than no regulation, in an environment where tough regulation is guaranteed to not pass.

Thank you... With a position like yours, at least we can get something accomplished on these matters that are legitimate INTERNATIONAL issues, and not some blocker on circumcisions, and abortion.....

[Mousebumples]

Yeah, because heaven forbid we have specific laws that aren't an ambiguous mess ...

I don't see you coming forward with any suggestions here... I post drafts for a reason, you know?

Considering I don't think that this is an arena in which WA legislation is required, I somehow doubt you will take my suggestion to heart. But, for the record, that's my suggestion: scrap this draft/topic and move on to something different.

[Chester Pearson]

I don't see you coming forward with any suggestions here... I post drafts for a reason, you know?

Considering I don't think that this is an arena in which WA legislation is required, I somehow doubt you will take my suggestion to heart. But, for the record, that's my suggestion: scrap this draft/topic and move on to something different.

How in the name of The Force is an INTERNATIONAL mandate on nuclear security not an INTERNATIONAL issue Ambassador? What would you suggest we legislate on? The flavor of condoms?

[Mousebumples]

Considering I don't think that this is an arena in which WA legislation is required, I somehow doubt you will take my suggestion to heart. But, for the record, that's my suggestion: scrap this draft/topic and move on to something different.

How in the name of The Force is an INTERNATIONAL mandate on nuclear security not an INTERNATIONAL issue Ambassador? What would you suggest we legislate on? The flavor of condoms?

I feel that NAPA is sufficient legislation on this matter. Understandably, you disagree - which is about the reaction that I expected, to be honest. Glad to see that you are capable of responding like a rational adult when the merits of your legislation are questioned. [/sarcasm]

Just because something can be argued to be an international issue doesn't mean it should be legislated on. If you ask me, the WA has largely over-legislated on many topics that do not merit international interference or meddling. But, of course, I am a NatSov, so I don't think that this should be surprising ...

[Abacathea]

I'd like to publicly state where Iam on this.

My participation was simply the refinement of something I liked. My participation in this thread has been limited though simply because while I liked the draft, I really can't say I understand the subject matter well enough to lend anything to the argument outside of any issues with the draft that don't require specialized knowledge to touch up.

I wish my best to Chester should this come to vote and outside of that the greetings of the season to all,

Aba.

[Imperializt Russia]

How in the name of The Force is an INTERNATIONAL mandate on nuclear security not an INTERNATIONAL issue Ambassador? What would you suggest we legislate on? The flavor of condoms?

I feel that NAPA is sufficient legislation on this matter. Understandably, you disagree - which is about the reaction that I expected, to be honest. Glad to see that you are capable of responding like a rational adult when the merits of your legislation are questioned. [/sarcasm]

Just because something can be argued to be an international issue doesn't mean it should be legislated on. If you ask me, the WA has largely over-legislated on many topics that do not merit international interference or meddling. But, of course, I am a NatSov, so I don't think that this should be surprising ...

NAPA is the sovereign right to possess and create a nuclear arsenal.
This resolution would be to ensure that nuclear material sufficient for nuclear or dirty bombs lwould be unlikely to be proliferated by non-state actors. Because of course, non-state actors do not have the sovereign rights of states.

[The Black Hat Guy]

I agree with Mousebumples here: NAPA is sufficient to cover this area. Nations, with a good faith interpretation, are taking every reasonable precaution to ensure that nuclear weapons are not falling into the wrong hands, and thus I feel this resolution is unnecessary.

Even if I felt more legislation was needed, the point of this bill is to add specificity to a point already addressed by NAPA. So why in the world would the bill made to do that be ambiguous and unspecific? It's not duplication, but considering how little effect this actually has in comparison to what NAPA already does, it's dang close, and it's certainly not necessary.

[Imperializt Russia]

I agree with Mousebumples here: NAPA is sufficient to cover this area. Nations, with a good faith interpretation, are taking every reasonable precaution to ensure that nuclear weapons are not falling into the wrong hands, and thus I feel this resolution is unnecessary.

Even if I felt more legislation was needed, the point of this bill is to add specificity to a point already addressed by NAPA. So why in the world would the bill made to do that be ambiguous and unspecific? It's not duplication, but considering how little effect this actually has in comparison to what NAPA already does, it's dang close, and it's certainly not necessary.

That's completed nuclear weapons.
This is materials, data and design and engineering information.

It'd be like if Chester's Chemical Weapons Act had abolished the stockpiling of unitary and mixed binary chemical agents, but made no effort to limit the proliferation, trade, possession or security of the actual binary agents or the synthesis manuals and production facilities.

[The Dark Star Republic]

Just because something can be argued to be an international issue doesn't mean it should be legislated on. If you ask me, the WA has largely over-legislated on many topics that do not merit international interference or meddling. But, of course, I am a NatSov, so I don't think that this should be surprising ...

"To be honest, I actually think supporting some good legislation on nuclear proliferation is a pro-NatSov position.

"By the far the biggest strike against NAPA is that it's pretty ineffective at preventing proliferation. Nuclear Armaments was passed with The Nuclear Terrorism Act already in place in the NSUN (and subsequently the NNPA passed); but in the WA, no comparable legislation exists. If someone wanted to repeal NAPA - which is one of the most pro-sovereignty resolutions in the entire canon of WA law - their best bet would be to seize on the weakness of that clause.

"But if a decent counterproliferation proposal passed, it would make that argument a lot weaker, and hence solidify support for NAPA."

~ Inky Fungschlammer
Professional Contrarian

[Dooom35796821595]

[*]Nuclear energy as the use of exothermic nuclear processes to generate useful heat and electricity. - this definition includes includes fusion.


[*]Proliferation as the spread of nuclear materials, technology and information,[/list] - could be interpreted to include helium isotopes and efficiency improvements.


[*]Member nations shall take all necessary precautions to ensure nuclear manufacturing, design specifications, technology or materials are not in any way proliferated to any party not subject to this convention, - restricting advanced nations from assisting potentially struggling nations from developing a safe, clean supply of cheap energy, therefore reducing the choice to watching them die or supplying something more easily weaponised like antimatter reactors. I suggest that to avoid this, you either restrict it to uranium/plutonium fission reactors, or put an exclusionary clause on fusion power.

[Imperializt Russia]

Fusion reactors are dangerous too.
The interior surfaces of the reactor vessel become hideously poisoned by the reaction process.