NationStates

So here's the first of an issue pair I thought up last night. I think it could still use a touch of humor, but I kinda wanted to get everyone's opinions
on the concept itself and the options laid out, Hopefully it's an interesting enough one. (And yes, I did take #890 and #23 into consideration.)

I also hoped that in doing this, I could build up the lore of one of our existing nationstates. I think I came up with a good one, and made it into something not-so-good.
(made sure to suggest vat-grown citizens without flatout saying it)

Also, option 2 was originally one option, but it crossed my mind that unless you're an autarky, then you're probably already trading for Uranium.
It's very hard to word it though, and I insist this remain more flexible. Most nations have open borders, but this seems like an even bigger issue for nations with autarky.

Title: The Uranium is Always Greener
The Issue: The lack of a prominent uranium industry has left @@NAME@@ between a rock and a hard place. With a growing nuclear power sector and dwindling uranium supply, @@NAME@@ is faced with a looming energy crisis. The solution seems to be in Aldoustan, a merchant nation with a somewhat murky relationship with @@NAME@@. However, there are a few caveats...
Validity: Nuclear Power, Low Mining Industry

Validity: Non-Drugged Water Supply
Option 1a: "Have you seen how much they want to charge us?" cries logistician @@RANDOMNAME@@, crunching a calculator trying to crunch the numbers. "It's bad enough they use narcotics to control their motherless peasants, not to mention their widescale rainforest destruction. That's three strikes, we're out. We may also run out of power, but as long as we limit energy consumption and use of uranium, we should be able to last a while longer until we build some windmills or find a sustainable deposit. Hopefully."
[effect] mining for fuel is deemed too large a strain on the energy supply

Validity: Drugged Water Supply
Option 1b: "Have you seen how much they want to charge us?" cries logistician @@RANDOMNAME@@, crunching a calculator trying to crunch the numbers. "Nevermind the fact they have a smart and efficient government that knows how to properly control its populace. We'd be stupid if we let them control us! Abandon Aldoustan. We may also be abandoning power sustainability, but as long as we limit energy consumption and use of uranium, we should be able to last a while longer until we build some windmills or find a sustainable deposit. Hopefully."
[effect] mining for fuel is deemed too large a strain on the energy supply

Validity: Noautarky
Option 2a: "Shipping fees, World Assembly regulation fees, worker and worker production fees; these things cost money," says a monotone and frankly monochrome Aldoustanian uranium market spokesperson with the assigned name GM4321000, drinking soured milk. "We sit on the largest uranium deposit of any nation, and have our choice of anyone to trade with. We're simply following the law of supply and demand. You need more energy, we need more money. A lot. Don't think of it as ransom — think of it as a business negotiation. I'm sure you'll find all your worries will melt away. Hmm, hmm, hmm." You're pretty sure that was supposed to be a laugh.
[effect] it's said nuclear power costs an arm and a leg

Validity: Autarky
Option 2b: "Shipping fees, World Assembly regulation fees, worker and worker production fees; these things cost money," says a monotone and frankly monochrome Aldoustanian uranium market spokesperson with the assigned name GM4321000, drinking soured milk. "We sit on the largest uranium deposit of any nation, and have our choice of anyone to trade with. We're simply looking for the highest bidders. You need energy, we need money. A lot. What your people don't know about our practices won't hurt them. Open your market's borders to us and your impending energy crisis will melt away. Hmm, hmm, hmm." You're pretty sure that was supposed to be a laugh.
[effect] it's said nuclear power costs an arm and a leg

Option 3: "Why pay for all of that when we could use that money to create an explosion in the uranium mining business?" inquires lucrative Nukes4U spokesperson @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Let us scour the earth from border to border for uranium deposits and other rare-earth metals, and deregulate forest protection while you're at it. And I'm not saying we should have a slave force, but it would definitely help if we had some unsuspecting unpaid interns, maybe from poorer countries, to do the dirty work. The fate of @@NAME@@ depends on it!"
[effect] landscapes are so green they're practically glowing

Validity: has WMDs
Option 4: "Wait, what if the situation didn't have to look so bleak?" asks @@RANDOMNAME@@, ardent radiophobe and author of Nuclear Bomb: The Day After. "What if we decommission all of our nuclear warheads for uranium? That should give us enough time to transition towards renewable energy and achieve a nation free of Big Nuclear all-together. It would leave a massive hole in our defenses, sure, but it'll be worth it for a world free of total apocalypse."
[effect] nuclear launch codes are now used to turn on windmills

Why would anyone choose anything but option 2a?

Australian rePublic wrote:Why would anyone choose anything but option 2a?

Option 3 looks good.

Jutsa wrote:

Title: The Uranium is Always Greener
The Issue: The lack of a prominent uranium industry has left @@NAME@@ between a rock and a hard place. With a limited supply and a nuclear power shortage a looming threat, the answer seems to be in Aldoustan, a merchant nation with a somewhat murky relationship with @@NAME@@. However, there are a few caveats...

Validity: Nuclear Power, Low Uranium Mining Industry

Option 1: "Have you seen how much they want to charge us?" Cries logistician @@RANDOMNAME@@, clenching @@HIS@@ fists while crunching the numbers. (This joke doesn't seem to work very well.) "It's bad enough they use narcotics to control their motherless peasants, not to mention their widescale rainforest destruction. That's three strikes, we're out. We may also run out of power, but as long as we limit energy consumption and use of uranium, we should be able to last a while longer until we build some windmills or find a sustainable deposit. Hopefully."
[effect] @@NATION@@'s tools can't get the energy needed to mine energy (This effect line, both the previous one and the one I edited it to be, are iffy. Do you have another one in mind?)

Validity: Noautarky
Option 2a: "Shipping fees, @@REGION@@ regulation fees, worker and worker production fees; these things cost money," says a monotone and frankly monochrome Aldoustanian uranium market spokesperson, designated GM4321000, drinking soured milk. "We sit on the largest uranium deposit of any nation, and have our choice of anyone to trade with. We're simply following the law of supply and demand. You need more energy, we need more money. A lot. Don't think of it as ransom — think of it as a business negotiation. Hmm, hmm, hmm." You're pretty sure that was supposed to be a laugh.
[effect] it's said nuclear power costs an arm and a leg

Validity: Autarky
Option 2b: "Shipping fees, @@REGION@@ regulation fees, worker and worker production fees; these things cost money," says a monotone and frankly monochrome Aldoustanian uranium market spokesperson, designated GM4321000, drinking soured milk. "We sit on the largest uranium deposit of any nation, and have our choice of anyone to trade with. We're simply looking for the highest bidders. You need energy, we need money. A lot. What your people don't know about our practices won't hurt them. (FYI, don't use 'and' as your first word in a sentence.) Open your market's borders to us and your impending energy crisis will melt away. Hmm, hmm, hmm." You're pretty sure that was supposed to be a laugh.
[effect] it's said nuclear power costs three arms and four legs

Option 3: "Why pay for all of that when we could use that money to create an explosion in the uranium mining business?" Inquires lucrative Nukes4U spokesperson @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Let us scour the earth from border to border for uranium deposits and other rare-earth metals, and deregulate forest protection while you're at it - and I'm not saying we should have a slave force, but it would definitely help if we had some unsuspecting unpaid interns, maybe from other countries, to do the dirty work. The fate of @@NAME@@ depends on it!"
[effect] landscapes are so green they're practically glowing

Validity: has WMDs
Option 4: "Wait, what if the situation didn't have to look so bleak?" Asks @@RANDOMNAME@@, ardent radiophobe (Radiophobia is the fear of ionizing radiation; it seems to fit better.) and author of Nuclear Bomb: The Day After. "What if we decommission all of our nuclear warheads for uranium? That should give us enough time to transition towards renewable energy and achieve a nation free of Big Nuclear all-together. It would leave a massive hole in our defenses, sure, but it'll it be worth it for a world free of total apocalypse!"
[effect] nuclear launch codes are now used to turn on windmills

Grammar and personal edits are in red, personal comments are in green.

There's no Uranium Mining Industry to check against any more. I think that the stat that was Uranium Mining has just been Industry: Mining for years, since before I started playing this game.

References to the Uranium Mining stat might have remained in places perhaps, but there's no such stat any more, for sure.

Candlewhisper Archive wrote:References to the Uranium Mining stat might have remained in places perhaps,

It continues to be called that in the economy breakdown on your main nation page, and the rarely-used @@MAJORINDUSTRY@@ macro.

"Industry: Mining" is just the name of a World Census score, which I consider to be less of a primary source.

As I've pointed out before, the World Census is inconsistent in how it handles industries: one industry (Tourism) isn't properly measured at all (the displayed Tourism stat is on a different scale, and measures actual number of tourists which doesn't always correspond to the profit by the tourism industry), agriculture is listed as "Sector: Agriculture" rather than "Industry:" despite still being one industry as far as the game is concerned, but the similar-sounding "Sector: Manufacturing" is just an agglomeration of several industries (Automobile Manufacturing, Arms Manufacturing, Basket Weaving) that are also scored separately. World Census handling of government sectors is even worse.

Sure, but statwise, the underlying stat is treated as being mining industries in general not uranium mining.

The generated text should be seen as a way of delivering flavour, rather than serious analyses of a nation's breakdown, I think. They're generated from the nation's numbers, and will often end up with all sorts of fun and internally contradictory phrasings, but that's just part of the fun of it. Also, of course, the programming that generates those descriptions has never been updated, whereas the way those stats are used has.

For example, the stat that was beef-based agriculture is now explicitly all agriculture in the game design notes, but that front page text generation has never been changed.

In numerical terms with the primary stats, there is no backstage stat for uranium mining.

For now, just accept that uranium mining is not something we can validity check against.

Well, a nation without any mining industry at all would obviously also not have uranium mining.

I guess it's possible for a nation with decent uranium mining but no other mining whatsoever to appear to "average out" to poor mining industry overall, but that's an improbable edge case.

That was kinda why I abandoned my other draft, because mining vs. uranium mining;
but yeah, again, if you have no mining whatsoever, I think it's safe to assume you don't have uranium.

A case could also be made for coal, but, like, coal power's something I'm confident there have never been checks for.

I suppose a case could be made for any sort of mining (hence the existence of #890) or any other product for that matter
(including #301's outsourcing of electricity to Maxtopia), but I kinda feel like uranium is something special:
it's difficult to transport and rich yet necessary for machinery.

That said... I suppose I could make it about oil, though then again we have several issues about that already (though nothing exactly like this),
and it would be kinda nice to play around with both mining and nuclear power stats some more.

Jutsa wrote:A case could also be made for coal, but, like, coal power's something I'm confident there have never been checks for.

Coal is also mined.

Well, there's charcoal, but I doubt that's viable as a nationwide power source.

Jutsa wrote:I suppose a case could be made for any sort of mining (hence the existence of #890) or any other product for that matter
(including #301's outsourcing of electricity to Maxtopia), but I kinda feel like uranium is something special:
it's difficult to transport and rich yet necessary for machinery.

Eh, not that difficult. It's a metallic solid, which means it's a lot less likely to slip out of control than a liquid such as petroleum, a gas such as... umm, "natural gas", or even a more powdery solid like coal. (Coal dust inhalation causes more mining-related cancer incidents than uranium radiation.)

The high energy density of uranium means that you only need relatively small amounts of it, also making it easier to transport than something you need to fill entire ships with.

You do probably want some shielding, but that's not even essential. The radiation from natural uranium is pretty mild unless you're stupid enough to eat the stuff.

Legal issues might be more of a problem with transport, since governments are generally pretty cautious about not wanting uranium to fall into the wrong hands, what with it being used to make nuclear weapons.

Yeah, legally definitely...

in fact, actually, that could be an interesting issue too: something something uranium transportation being sabotaged.

@Coal: True, but I mean to say coal power is not checked for to my knowledge.

Bump~ Completely missed Atheris's suggestions! Sorry about that <:D

Don't 100% agree with all of them, but I believe I've fixed all of the actual grammar and spelling errors.

Not gonna lie, looking my drafts over, it seems that creating a simple, three-option no-variants issue draft is borderline impossible for me.

An alternative title could be “Uranium is now Myanium” or something like that.

Other than that, looks good! Pretty unique, gotta say.

Jutsa wrote:The Issue: The lack of a prominent uranium industry has left @@NAME@@ between a rock and a hard place. With a limited supply and a nuclear power shortage a looming threat, the answer seems to be in Aldoustan, a merchant nation with a somewhat murky relationship with @@NAME@@. However, there are a few caveats...

So I know I often tell you to split long sentences apart, but I think this is one of the less common times where your opening sentence needs a bit more to it in order to make full logical sense. You need to have both the growing nuclear power industry and the shortage of domestic uranium together for the whole "rock and a hard place" to actually work. Consider how much better the following is:

With a growing nuclear power sector and dwindling uranium supply, @@NAME@@ is faced with a looming energy crisis. Yadda yadda yadda...

I did like the little stinger there at the end to lead into the options. Gives it a bit more oomph I feel.

Jutsa wrote:cries logistician @@RANDOMNAME@@, clenching @@HIS@@ fists while crunching the numbers.

I like the idea of the joke but you need to establish what the actual thing is in order for it to really work.

Jutsa wrote:"It's bad enough they use narcotics to control their motherless peasants, not to mention their widescale rainforest destruction."

Come to think of it, it's entirely possible for the player nation to be doing all of these things.

In fact, doing even one would invalidate the "That's three strikes, we're out." argument.

Put in your suggestion, Drasnia. Also hoping that crunching the calculator is more amusing. (If not I'll think of some other joke or something.)

Come to think of it, it's entirely possible for the player nation to be doing all of these things.

In fact, doing even one would invalidate the "That's three strikes, we're out." argument.

This honestly is what took me so long. Really had to think about how to address this. >.>

I think making a variant option praising their capabilities sorta works. It's kinda less persuasive an argument,
buuut hopefully it still works? Even at the expense of now having six options? (like most of my drafts?)

Either way, bumping for more feedback.

Edit2: Hmm. Actually, option 3 doesn't really jive well if you have slavery, does it? ... I definitely don't want to throw in another niche alternate option. >.>
I think it kinda still works though?

Also, re: Option 1, forgot to mention the whole "rainforest destruction" bit; I think it's fairly normal for nations with terrible environments
to complain about other nations' environments, so hopefully that can sorta slide.

dwindling uranium supply

Perhaps a nitpick, but I feel "dwindling uranium supplies" would work better here. Can just be me tho!

crunching a calculator trying to crunch the numbers

Perhaps consider changing one "crunch" word, so as to avoid repetition.

We may also run out of power,

Remove "also". Consider changing it to "We will inevitably run out of power," seeing as how the rest of the sentence goes.

World Assembly regulation fees

At first I thought you meant @@NAME@@'s WA regulation fee, but after reading the entire sentence I realised it's about Aldoustan's fee. Perhaps consider adding "our" before "World Assembly" so as to clarify this from the start.

You're pretty sure that was supposed to be a laugh.

Consider changing this to "Your aide whispers into your ear that was supposed to be a laugh".

but it'll be worth it for a world free of total apocalypse.

Consider changing this to "but it'll be worth it for a world free of the fear of total, nuclear annihilation", or something similar to that.

There's the option of a breeder reactor. It's a proven technology, both in current and generation IV designs. Just thought I'd drop that suggestion off. Natural uranium is like... 98% uranium-238, which is breedable (e.g. EBR-II), and there's 3 or 4 times as much thorium-232 (also breedable, e.g. MSRE; Shippingport Unit 3) than there is all natural-uranium of any isotope.

Right. Ironically I was looking up various types of nuclear reactors trying to think of a nuclear reactor issue, only to completely forget about them making this draft. :rolling:

So... yeah, definitely, thorium is a viable (and imo probably better) alternative to uranium. NGL I'm actually kinda surprised this isn't in practice more but eh?.
Regardless, now that you mention it, even if you can't get uranium from this other nation, you could still probably purchase [u]plutonium[/i] and thorium.
Or, for that matter, uranium from another nation (unless all the other major uranium exporters are hostile but that's a stretch).

I guess my mind never came out of the original idea which was autarky-oriented. That could still technically work, but it'd be so niche yet similar to other autarky issues that it wouldn't be a problem.

So, in other words, I'm discarding this.

Was kinda hoping to have another issue that played on nuclear power, and in honesty I think I still have another idea that might be more workable.
Thank you for your innocent suggestion that reminded me I'm a total goofball, BCS.

Jutsa wrote:Regardless, now that you mention it, even if you can't get uranium from this other nation, you could still probably purchase plutonium and thorium.

Plutonium is harder to come by than uranium. Plutonium's half-life is too short (only some 80 million years for the longest isotope, much less for the ones with the most practical applications) for there to exist significant quantities in nature, so most of it is artificially produced by processing uranium. Furthermore, plutonium is better suited for making nuclear weapons than nuclear power plants, so governments aren't too keen on sharing it.

Thorium reactors are one of those "proponents say it works well on paper, but we've had a hard time actually building a working model" things. Could be it's just that not enough people are trying and throwing some research money at it will make the problems melt away, but I'd be wary of gambling my national GDP on it.

Jutsa wrote:Or, for that matter, uranium from another nation (unless all the other major uranium exporters are hostile but that's a stretch).

But yeah, that.

I mean, IRL the major two Uranium production areas are Kazakhstan and Canada, according to wikipedia, so if I just pretend Brancaland doesn't have uranium then we're left with dystopian vat-grown drugged Kazakhstan.
Which could still work, but even then, it's likely you could still wind up getting uranium from somewhere else, somehow.

Jutsa wrote:I mean, IRL the major two Uranium production areas are Kazakhstan and Canada, according to wikipedia, so if I just pretend Brancaland doesn't have uranium then we're left with dystopian vat-grown drugged Kazakhstan.
Which could still work, but even then, it's likely you could still wind up getting uranium from somewhere else, somehow.

I'm not seeing why it's an unreasonable assumption that this nation produces the lionshare of the world's Uranium. Kazakhstan mines three times more uranium than the runner-up (Canada).

It's possible that this nation is the only one with large enough mining operations to fill the hole in the demand that Nation has in a timely way. That could be a trade-off option, Brancaland says they got you but then proceeds to mention it'll be a couple years to scale-up their industry.

... hmm. Now that is an interesting possibility...

Course, this would then leave us with a tiny issue: too many possible options. Especially with the length they are now.

But then again, pushing for experimenting with new nuclear technology could be a nice way of keeping option 1 sufficiently distinct from option 4.
Or, it would, except... option 4 could, in theory, be removed in place of the Brancish option too. Or just kept with another Brancish option thrown in. Not certain...
but you guys have (at the moment) convinced me that maybe this draft isn't ready to be discarded just yet.

I'll try putting together a new draft soonish.

Wikipedia doesn't seem to explain why Kazakhstan has such a disproportionate share of the uranium market, but I'm sure that it's at least partly because the rest of the world doesn't mind Kazakhstan doing it. Given how many other nations have smaller shares, there's probably plenty of other untapped sources, but why bother digging them up when Kazakhstan is already producing enough and selling it affordably?

Keep in mind that, given how energy-efficient uranium is, you don't actually need that much of it.

Meh, true. There again, if you absolutely needed uranium, you'd probably go about looking for it on your own (like, say, option 3 for instance).

Hard to tell; cursory investigation suggests they've got roughly 12% of the world's deposits, and between that, mining on the steppes being less of a hassle and environmental issue than say a forest, and perhaps just happenstance in filling a global economic niche makes it ideal.

So... again, not really sure about this one. Probably will end up discarding it anyway, but I'll keep it in circulation a little bit longer anyway if anyone has any more suggestions.