NationStates

'Your excellency, this delegation's issue with the proposal is not that its proposer happens to be Jean Pierre Trudeau, who we highly respect for work regarding the Nuclear Arms Protocol, it is that we do not agree with it.

Fundamentally, it comes down to the two reasons cited for the repeal, Ambassador. First, we find no issue with the definition which our colleagues from Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote. However it is communicated, it is either communicated badly, as your quote of Ms Chinmusic implies, or (as in our opinion,) it is non-existent.

Second, scientifically, we find nothing worth a repeal over regarding the definition which our colleagues from Omigodtheykilledkenny wrote. While we would push for the more scientific approach of beyond the inner magnetosphere, as this would eliminate the chance of the formation of any radiation belts, however, for a planet such as ours, a distance of twice geostationary orbit is much farther than the extent of the inner magnetosphere.

Furthermore, scientifically, there is no risk to space-travellers regarding the radiation of belts like the Van Allen Belts, as when a capsule is travelling at speeds in excess of 10 kilometres per second, the amount of time which capsule is exposed to radiation is minimal.

On top of that, Your Excellency, we disagree with the argument that even if a capsule were orbiting in the radiation belt, there would be an issue, since an understanding of orbital mechanics would mean that the chances of being able to intersect an artificial radiation belt are minimal; and even when inside a radiation belt, the amount of shielding from the capsule itself (a centimetre of aluminium) is more than enough to prevent the trapped radiation from proving any threat to the capsule.

Your Excellencies, I hope that I have shown that this delegation's objection to this bill is not politically motivated nor based on a dislike of the country which proposed it, it is based on definitions and scientific realities, as we find the grounds for this repeal as quite lacking. I yield the floor back to the ambassador from Bubba Reb.'

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:

Ainocra wrote:The Star Empire of Ainocra supports this repeal.

As expected. It would be nice if you supported the replacement as well, but I guess we can't win'em all.

The replacement actually doesn't look bad to me. It's definitely better than whats on the books now.

Your Excellencies, I hope that I have shown that this delegation's objection to this bill is not politically motivated nor based on a dislike of the country which proposed it, it is based on definitions and scientific realities, as we find the grounds for this repeal as quite lacking. I yield the floor back to the ambassador from Bubba Reb.'

Hey Bud, you make some valid points there. Defended your position real nice like. I dont reckon they is any reason to oppose the repeal though, just good points as to why you aint yankin at the bit to support it.

But look, I aint no ambassador from Bubba reb, I AM Bubba Reb. Still nice ta meet ya though.

The question aint if the one thats on the books now is ok.
The question is, can it be improved, and if ya reckon so, and think frenchies suggested replacement is an improvement, then aint it a good idea to replace a good bill with a better bill?

Hi everyone

The Socialist Republic of Stoa shall be registering a "no" vote to this repeal. We believe that this repeal falls under the logic of "the resolution isn't perfect, and is therefore bad." This faulty logic cannot be allowed in such an esteemed place.

Allow me to explain my argument clause-by-clause;

Concerned clause #1 defines nuclear testing as " usage of a nuclear weapon for research purposes, that is not targeted to destroy or affect a civilian, military, or prisoner populace", thus allowing nations to circumvent this by testing nuclear weapons connected to an actual delivery system,
While you have identified a loophole in the original resolution, as passed, this in and of itself is not grounds for repeal, in our opinion. It is true that the resolution does not explicitly ban nuclear testing when said nukes are attached to a delivery system, or "tested" on an actual civilian population. While you are correct, if this were a true concern, the proper way to broach the subject should be to propose a resolution banning the practice. Removing safeguards against testing nuclear weapons that do not target civilians, does nothing to the cause of protecting those civilian populations, and instead just make it easier to test nuclear capacity anywhere, at any time.

Confused that clause 2 states "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", while failing to take into account the magnetosphere of a celestial body, which can trap highly dangerous high energy particles, creating dangerous radiation belts,
Once again, in a similar vain, while pointing out a loophole in the original resolution, a repeal does nothing to fix the situation. Instead of nations being allowed to test nuclear weaponry in space within the magnetosphere ONLY, upon repealing this legislation they'd be allowed to test nuclear weapons in space ANYWHERE. Again, if your concern is that nuclear weapons not be tested within the magnetosphere, then writing a resolution to address that problem would have been the appropriate means to protect against this threat. By repealing the current legislation, any nation could continue to test their nukes in the magnetosphere, and also within the area currently banned. This is not a desirable outcome.

Disappointed in the lack of clear language and typos that make this resolution a travesty to international law,
While I agree that spelling and grammar are important, let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. The argument "You are correct, but you spelled it wrong, so it is incorrect" is yet another logical fallacy.

It is for the above reasons therefore that we shall be voting "no", with all due respect to the resolution's author. Again, if you are truly concerned with nuclear testing and banning the practices mentioned above, please present a resolution that would ban them explicitly, and our nation would be happy to support it.

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:OOC: Link to the replacement would always be helpful.

viewtopic.php?f=9&t=332294

While our original arguments also stand with regards to this repeal, I am heartened to see that a replacement has been proposed. I see no contradiction to having both pieces of legislation exist simultaneously, and will very gladly support the replacement once it comes to the floor.

Stoa - GA rules do not allow for two pieces of legislation on the same topic.

Having looked at the proposed replacement, I think we would be losing valuable safeguards to allow the possibility of passing an inferior piece of legislation. I urge all concerned to vote against repeal at this time.

I am nonetheless in favour of improving safeguards in this area. If a better replacement proposal were to become available in future, I would be happy to support it at that time.

Concerned clause #1 defines nuclear testing as " usage of a nuclear weapon for research purposes, that is not targeted to destroy or affect a civilian, military, or prisoner populace", thus allowing nations to circumvent this by testing nuclear weapons connected to an actual delivery system,

Couldn't we interpret "targeted" in the sense of "intended"? As in, "not intended to affect a civilian populace"?

Confused that clause 2 states "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", while failing to take into account the magnetosphere of a celestial body, which can trap highly dangerous high energy particles, creating dangerous radiation belts,

I'm no expert, but I know geosynchronous orbit is pretty high up, and we're talking about twice that altitude. Wouldn't that height be enough to spread any radiation over a wide area, and prevent tons of it from being captured?

We're still undecided on this repeal. The replacement is a bit better than the original, but is it really worth two voting sessions just to make some small improvements on the original?

Clause #2 made me uneasy about civilian spacecraft in my region's airspace which don't have the usual protections the radiation belts we would've made. So I support this.

The new fandom republic wrote:Clause #2 made me uneasy about civilian spacecraft in my region's airspace which don't have the usual protections the radiation belts we would've made. So I support this.

Your excellency, do your spacecraft have metal hulls? If so, they have the shielding necessary to protect it from a radiation belt.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

The new fandom republic wrote:Clause #2 made me uneasy about civilian spacecraft in my region's airspace which don't have the usual protections the radiation belts we would've made. So I support this.

Your excellency, do your spacecraft have metal hulls? If so, they have the shielding necessary to protect it from a radiation belt.

If you think a metal hull is enough to protect you from radiation, I have a ship to sell you.
Disregard the various partially removed vegetable labels.

Defwa wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:Your excellency, do your spacecraft have metal hulls? If so, they have the shielding necessary to protect it from a radiation belt.

If you think a metal hull is enough to protect you from radiation, I have a ship to sell you.
Disregard the various partially removed vegetable labels.

Ah, you're descriping the Apollo capsule then?

Your excellency, there are three types of radiation. Alpha, beta, and gamma. Alpha radiation is stopped by a sheet of paper. Beta radiation is stopped by a sheet of metal. Gamma radiation is light, and hence, not bent or affected by a celestial body's magnetosphere.

Our real life Apollo missions transversed the Van Allen radiation belts. According to radiation detectors on the ship, the astronauts received no undue amount of radiation (actually, less than if a person were in a reactor control room the entire trip).

Your excellency, the main danger to spacecraft is gamma radiation, which cannot be trapped by a magnetosphere after a nuclear blast, and is therefore irrelevant to the context of radiation belts.

However it is, 'the major radiation hazard is from solar flare particle events', namely, the Sun — which means that it cannot be affected by whether we limit nuclear testing or not (Source)

As promised my dear Mr Trudeau, you have my vote.

As this repeal is up for vote, it is probably appropriate, at this time to address this repeal point by point.

Concerned clause #1 defines nuclear testing as " usage of a nuclear weapon for research purposes, that is not targeted to destroy or affect a civilian, military, or prisoner populace", thus allowing nations to circumvent this by testing nuclear weapons connected to an actual delivery system,

Here we see the principle reason why weed should not be legalized, especially for people writing repeal resolutions. The notion that "not targeted to destroy or affect a civilian, military, or prisoner populace" means that any weapon on a delivery system is exempt can only be seen as logical if you are in a completely altered state of being, and I should add altered in a very bad manner.

Confused that clause 2 states "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", while failing to take into account the magnetosphere of a celestial body, which can trap highly dangerous high energy particles, creating dangerous radiation belts,

We are only primitive friars so we will have to consult Wikipedia on this one. "Circular Earth geosynchronous orbits have a radius of 42,164 km" and "On the dayside of Earth, the magnetic field is significantly compressed by the solar wind to a distance of approximately 65,000 km."

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;

Yes, it clearly bans (at least in the case of the earth) testing anywhere near the sun side portion of the magnetosphere. The earth's "firmament" is not in any danger.

Disappointed in the lack of clear language and typos that make this resolution a travesty to international law,

If there is anything I despise it's the Canadian Grammar Nazis. I'm dissapointed that this is the best you can come up with.

And no I don't want to see a replacement.

Imperium Anglorum wrote:

Defwa wrote:If you think a metal hull is enough to protect you from radiation, I have a ship to sell you.
Disregard the various partially removed vegetable labels.

Ah, you're descriping the Apollo capsule then?

Your excellency, there are three types of radiation. Alpha, beta, and gamma. Alpha radiation is stopped by a sheet of paper. Beta radiation is stopped by a sheet of metal. Gamma radiation is light, and hence, not bent or affected by a celestial body's magnetosphere.

Our real life Apollo missions transversed the Van Allen radiation belts. According to radiation detectors on the ship, the astronauts received no undue amount of radiation (actually, less than if a person were in a reactor control room the entire trip).

Your excellency, the main danger to spacecraft is gamma radiation, which cannot be trapped by a magnetosphere after a nuclear blast, and is therefore irrelevant to the context of radiation belts.

However it is, 'the major radiation hazard is from solar flare particle events', namely, the Sun — which means that it cannot be affected by whether we limit nuclear testing or not (Source)

Alpha radiation, sure. Beta radiation in high densities can (and did, in the case of Apollo) penetrate a basic metal sheet and in an environment that accumulates such things naturally, enduring nuclear testing can cause a severe problem for humans. Gamma radiation, while mostly getting out the way quickly can inspire radioactivity in other objects so while a radiation belt isn't a concern, gamma radiation in traversed areas is.

Apollo had the fortune of just passing through and out of the belts in a short time. Anything that might stay in the area longer such as objects in a stable orbit are going to be sensitive to artificial increases in alpha and beta radioactivity. Not just the people, electrical equipment is also in danger.
Then there's the risk of an artificial geomagnetic storm created by a detonation close enough to the magnetosphere or radiation belts which would endanger pretty much everything from the surface of the planet to the moon.

Defwa wrote:

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Ah, you're descriping the Apollo capsule then?

Your excellency, there are three types of radiation. Alpha, beta, and gamma. Alpha radiation is stopped by a sheet of paper. Beta radiation is stopped by a sheet of metal. Gamma radiation is light, and hence, not bent or affected by a celestial body's magnetosphere.

Our real life Apollo missions transversed the Van Allen radiation belts. According to radiation detectors on the ship, the astronauts received no undue amount of radiation (actually, less than if a person were in a reactor control room the entire trip).

Your excellency, the main danger to spacecraft is gamma radiation, which cannot be trapped by a magnetosphere after a nuclear blast, and is therefore irrelevant to the context of radiation belts.

However it is, 'the major radiation hazard is from solar flare particle events', namely, the Sun — which means that it cannot be affected by whether we limit nuclear testing or not (Source)

Alpha radiation, sure. Beta radiation in high densities can (and did, in the case of Apollo) penetrate a basic metal sheet and in an environment that accumulates such things naturally, enduring nuclear testing can cause a severe problem for humans. Gamma radiation, while mostly getting out the way quickly can inspire radioactivity in other objects so while a radiation belt isn't a concern, gamma radiation in traversed areas is.

Apollo had the fortune of just passing through and out of the belts in a short time. Anything that might stay in the area longer such as objects in a stable orbit are going to be sensitive to artificial increases in alpha and beta radioactivity. Not just the people, electrical equipment is also in danger.
Then there's the risk of an artificial geomagnetic storm created by a detonation close enough to the magnetosphere or radiation belts which would endanger pretty much everything from the surface of the planet to the moon.

'Your excellency, I have a quote from a Nasa document about radiation hazards, "In terms of hazard to crewmen in the heavy, well shielded Command Module, even one of the largest solar-particle event series on record (August 4-9, 1972) would not have caused any impairment of crewmember [sic] functions or ability of the crewmen to complete [108] their mission safely" (Source)

Your excellency, geomagnetic storms only occur with the intersection of a coronal mass ejection with the Earth's magnetosphere. If we were to create an artificial one, I would say that you would require more energy than what would be released by the entire nuclear arsenal during the Cold War. Coronal mass ejections are absolutely immense, since they are a type of solar flare (Source). I do not believe that humanity can create an explosion of 160,000,000,000 megatons of TNT equivalent anywhere at any time.

Ambassador, gamma radiation is not something which can be alleviated by us humans. Space is big place, and due to the inverse square law, there exists a very quick alleviation of gamma rays with distance. Naturally, gamma radiation is an issue which must be considered, but other than putting a shield in front of a star, there is not much which can be done. Perhaps we would contact some of our future tech allies to do this for us... You also stated that gamma radiation "mostly [gets] out the way quickly". Gamma radiation, being light, gets out of the way faster than anything in natural existence.

Also, Ambassador, it is not gamma radiation which induces radioactivity, it is neutron radiation — which, because it is made up of neutrons, is not affected by magnetic fields (Source).

About the satellites in low [x] orbit, Ambassador, the old legislation's provision that tests occur at a distance greater than twice geostationary means that the chance of residual alpha and beta radiation is minimal to the low overflying GPS, communication, etc satellites. With regards to the Starfish Prime radiation belt, one of the satellites disabled by it, the famous Telstar satellite, had an apoapsis and periapsis of about 5000 km by 900 km, respectively. By comparison, twice geostationary orbit is 71 572 km.

We would like to praise the delegation from Frustrated Franciscans's criticism of this repeal resolution. It covers all the relevant points extremely well.

Thank you, Your excellency, I yield the floor.'

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:The World Assembly,

Applauding the efforts of General Assembly Resolution #119 to protect the environment from harmful radioactive byproducts associated with nuclear testing,

Concerned clause #1 defines nuclear testing as " usage of a nuclear weapon for research purposes, that is not targeted to destroy or affect a civilian, military, or prisoner populace", thus allowing nations to circumvent this by testing nuclear weapons connected to an actual delivery system,

And what exactly is being circumvented again? Even if it is on a delivery system you still can't target people if it's a test.

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:Confused that clause 2 states "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", while failing to take into account the magnetosphere of a celestial body, which can trap highly dangerous high energy particles, creating dangerous radiation belts,

Now I'm confused, you say you're talking about clause 2 yet your argument seems to be directed at clause 3. The actual clause 2 which reads,

GAR #119 Nuclear Testing Safety wrote:RESTRICTS nuclear testing to areas where the testing and its aftereffects will not directly affect surrounding populaces;

actually serves to prove that your arguments against clause 1 are complete and utter bullshit.

Now as for your arguments about clause 3, i think other people have done a better job of proving it's complete and utter bullshit than I ever could.

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:Disappointed in the lack of clear language and typos that make this resolution a travesty to international law,

Really, you are going to complain about typos considering you made one. Methinks the pot is about to meet the kettle.

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:Hoping the World Assembly passes clear and concise guidelines that actually prevent unaffiliated persons from being affected by nuclear testing in the future,

Hereby repeals "GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION # 119 Nuclear Testing Safety".

We already did Nuclear Testing Safety says several times in several different ways, "don't test them near people," it's hard to get more clear and concise than that, and now you're trying to get rid of that.

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites is OPPOSED to this repeal for the reasons stated above and for one other reason that I wasn't even going to mention until I saw this comment.

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:Posting here as a courtesy.

When you're apparently drafting in secret, it makes me think that you're hiding something, that you have an ulterior motive. And because of that I don't trust you and it is very hard for me to vote for a resolution that is written by someone I don't trust.

Bob Flibble
WA Representative

Imperium Anglorum wrote:
Ah, you're descriping the Apollo capsule then?

Your excellency, there are three types of radiation. Alpha, beta, and gamma. Alpha radiation is stopped by a sheet of paper. Beta radiation is stopped by a sheet of metal. Gamma radiation is light, and hence, not bent or affected by a celestial body's magnetosphere.

Our real life Apollo missions transversed the Van Allen radiation belts. According to radiation detectors on the ship, the astronauts received no undue amount of radiation (actually, less than if a person were in a reactor control room the entire trip).

Your excellency, the main danger to spacecraft is gamma radiation, which cannot be trapped by a magnetosphere after a nuclear blast, and is therefore irrelevant to the context of radiation belts.

However it is, 'the major radiation hazard is from solar flare particle events', namely, the Sun — which means that it cannot be affected by whether we limit nuclear testing or not (Source)

"We would like to point out two minor flaws in this statement, which only further prove the Repeal to be inadequate. There is a fourth type of radiation; neutron radiation, which is affected by the magnetosphere infinitely less than gamma photons. As well, while betas may be able to penetrate metal in mass, there are two more layers of shielding available for our astronauts. One of which they would utilize almost all of the time, and another they would be always utilizing: Clothing and their own skin. Beta radiation, except in extreme doses which would only be generated by prohibitively large nuclear tests, does not penetrate the human skin.

As stated by Representative Flibble, we find the resistance this this information rather peculiar, as it has been presented time after time after time after time and time after time after time after time after time. I begin and wonder why you presented this or any resolutions to us at all if you did not mean to take our knowledgeable and readily plentiful advice. It rather seems a slap in the face to the World Assembly to refuse to take such advice after presenting it. You and all of the writers of these resolutions may be accomplished and competent, but not without flaws and not above the need for sound advice."

OOC: I'm fairly certain I missed a few. But the dead horse has been beaten enough now, I feel. We're trying to give you sound advice, Jean Pierre Trudeau, but you seem very reluctant to listen to it. I know you don't want anything involving an "essay" length. I understand, but also please understand you don't need technical mumbo jumbo or a Nuclear Physics Thesis to make your resolutions involving nuclear power adequate. What you need is key words and tricky phrases, not even technical ones. Just ones that are comprehensive and properly placed. As stated in in the thread of your own new resolution you wish to pass, the addition of the word "harmful" in two places would make your new one agreeable.

Pharthan wrote:I begin and wonder why you presented this or any resolutions to us at all if you did not mean to take our knowledgeable and readily plentiful advice. It rather seems a slap in the face to the World Assembly to refuse to take such advice after presenting it.

Erm. I did not place it here for advice. I placed it here as a courtesy. This was already submitted, and a campaign was damn near complete before I ever bothered to post it. The only reason I posted it, is because someone else would have if I had not. At vote resolutions need a thread, and I would rather I be the OP of it. I had no intentions of having it pulled after I submitted it, as it does address the points of the resolution in question, and repeals do not need to be factually correct. They simply need to address the original resolution, to be legal, which this one does. This is politics my good man, plain and simple. Since when has politics ever gotten to the truth of anything?

Food for though....

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:
Erm. I did not place it here for advice. I placed it here as a courtesy. This was already submitted, and a campaign was damn near complete before I ever bothered to post it. The only reason I posted it, is because someone else would have if I had not. At vote resolutions need a thread, and I would rather I be the OP of it. I had no intentions of having it pulled after I submitted it, as it does address the points of the resolution in question, and repeals do not need to be factually correct. They simply need to address the original resolution, to be legal, which this one does. This is politics my good man, plain and simple. Since when has politics ever gotten to the truth of anything?

Food for though....

"I would caution you against arguments appealing to tradition and history as a reason to continue a pattern of behavior and action. A wise man once told me, ''This is the way we've always done it,' is an awfully long time to be doing something the wrong way."

Pharthan wrote:

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:
Erm. I did not place it here for advice. I placed it here as a courtesy. This was already submitted, and a campaign was damn near complete before I ever bothered to post it. The only reason I posted it, is because someone else would have if I had not. At vote resolutions need a thread, and I would rather I be the OP of it. I had no intentions of having it pulled after I submitted it, as it does address the points of the resolution in question, and repeals do not need to be factually correct. They simply need to address the original resolution, to be legal, which this one does. This is politics my good man, plain and simple. Since when has politics ever gotten to the truth of anything?

Food for though....

"I would caution you against arguments appealing to tradition and history as a reason to continue a pattern of behavior and action. A wise man once told me, ''This is the way we've always done it,' is an awfully long time to be doing something the wrong way."

What you call the wrong way, I call the effective way. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

Jean Pierre Trudeau wrote:

Pharthan wrote:"I would caution you against arguments appealing to tradition and history as a reason to continue a pattern of behavior and action. A wise man once told me, ''This is the way we've always done it,' is an awfully long time to be doing something the wrong way."

What you call the wrong way, I call the effective way. Six of one, half a dozen of the other.

OOC: It was more a generalized cautionary tale than anything else.

It appears that this resolution is going to pass. I have passed this information to our national leader Friar Cadfail who seemed oddly enough excited. There would, naturally, be a window before any possible replacement would be passed, but that is plenty of time to get all our nuclear testing done. Apparently, they have been preparing for the this the moment it hit quorum, but no one ever tells me these things. He mentioned something about a "nuclear crusade." Personally I'm more than a bit worried about all of this, but I'll just sit back and chant "It's all your fault" while the world is reduced to nuclear rubble because of the actions of a psychotic dictator.

(Is this portable thumb working? The last time I used it I had to listen to mind numbing poetry for about 23 hours.)

Frustrated Franciscans wrote:It appears that this resolution is going to pass. I have passed this information to our national leader Friar Cadfail who seemed oddly enough excited. There would, naturally, be a window before any possible replacement would be passed, but that is plenty of time to get all our nuclear testing done. Apparently, they have been preparing for the this the moment it hit quorum, but no one ever tells me these things. He mentioned something about a "nuclear crusade." Personally I'm more than a bit worried about all of this, but I'll just sit back and chant "It's all your fault" while the world is reduced to nuclear rubble because of the actions of a psychotic dictator.

(Is this portable thumb working? The last time I used it I had to listen to mind numbing poetry for about 23 hours.)

And spears rose up across the world, a peaceful marble tinted green and blue by the magnificence of its oceans and forests, what followed were the explosions of a million heavens, shattering the quiet and peace of time immemorial. Billions of orange fires, painting the skies of Tartarus onto the peaceful heavens of the past.

In fact, I envision it a bit like this:

How were restrictions on nuclear testing the only things preventing wide spread nuclear holocaust? I wasn't aware the original resolution even mentioned it.