NationStates

Draft 2
Safer Space Act

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Mild

The World Assembly,

Acknowledging the need for space to be a safe territory open for exploration and free of mass destruction.

Acknowledging that many General Assembly resolutions about space have been passed and later repealed.

Hoping to pass an act that can survive the test of time and be a baseline for future space resolutions.

This act defines space as any area beyond a planet's atmosphere.

This act defines a space weapon of mass destruction as a weapon that is used from space to attack a planet's atmosphere, geography, hydrosphere, or a weapon whose main purpose is to attack a planet’s wildlife or local population.

Requirements:
I. This act requires that no space weapons of mass destruction be made or used.
II. No weapon used from space may attack a planet anywhere except for military objectives or active enemy military personnel.
III. This act sets up the Neutral Space Committee (NSC) to monitor violations and fine nations who violate clause (I) or (II) of the requirements.

This act urges:
I. nations to destroy any space weapons of mass destruction.
II. nations fund private or government space exploration.
III. Include people from other nations in space exploration missions.

This act does not impact:
I. This act does not impact weapons that are used in space to destroy other objects in space.
II. This act does not impact weapons that attack objects in space from the surface of a planet.
III. This act does not impact wars.

Hereby the General Assembly passes the Safer Space Act.

OOC: I changed the name as the act has been almost completely reworked and I believed needed to be renamed. The second draft has also been downgraded to a mild strength as it now just tries to keep planets safe from weapons in space. I think. these changes account for muti-planet or space nations and took most recommendations from the first draft.

“Although this proposal would work well for a planet-bound nation such as Kenmoria, I feel that other nations might not look upon it too kindly, given that there are many states in the WA which consist on multiple planets or indeed multiple solar systems. For these nations, therefore, mandating neutrality in space is essentially mandating neutrality in the middle of their territory, which doesn’t work for obvious reasons.

The draft itself Is quite well-written, especially for a fairly new delegation such as yourself, but this topic is one in which the rather exotic, at least when from my first impressions, nature of some of the nations here does pose an issue.”

Kenmoria wrote:“Although this proposal would work well for a planet-bound nation such as Kenmoria, I feel that other nations might not look upon it too kindly, given that there are many states in the WA which consist on multiple planets or indeed multiple solar systems. For these nations, therefore, mandating neutrality in space is essentially mandating neutrality in the middle of their territory, which doesn’t work for obvious reasons.

The draft itself Is quite well-written, especially for a fairly new delegation such as yourself, but this topic is one in which the rather exotic, at least
when from my first impressions, nature of some of the nations here does pose an issue.”

I do have to agree that the resolution could be a problem with nations that have multiple planets as it would essentially ban wars from occurring in some nations altogether. Thanks for your input as it is very valuable and I see a possible compromise. Would getting rid of clause II in the requirements and changing clause III in the requirements to a no first strike rule make it better for nations that take up multiple planets?

Tezikstan wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:“Although this proposal would work well for a planet-bound nation such as Kenmoria, I feel that other nations might not look upon it too kindly, given that there are many states in the WA which consist on multiple planets or indeed multiple solar systems. For these nations, therefore, mandating neutrality in space is essentially mandating neutrality in the middle of their territory, which doesn’t work for obvious reasons.

The draft itself Is quite well-written, especially for a fairly new delegation such as yourself, but this topic is one in which the rather exotic, at least
when from my first impressions, nature of some of the nations here does pose an issue.”

I do have to agree that the resolution could be a problem with nations that have multiple planets as it would essentially ban wars from occurring in some nations altogether. Thanks for your input as it is very valuable and I see a possible compromise. Would getting rid of clause II in the requirements and changing clause III in the requirements to a no first strike rule make it better for nations that take up multiple planets?

OOC: Clause I has to go as well. There are territorial waters and there is territorial space. Thought to be completely fair, this entire proposal is non sense in the presence of multi-planetery nations

Ardiveds wrote:

Tezikstan wrote:I do have to agree that the resolution could be a problem with nations that have multiple planets as it would essentially ban wars from occurring in some nations altogether. Thanks for your input as it is very valuable and I see a possible compromise. Would getting rid of clause II in the requirements and changing clause III in the requirements to a no first strike rule make it better for nations that take up multiple planets?

OOC: Clause I has to go as well. There are territorial waters and there is territorial space. Thought to be completely fair, this entire proposal is non sense in the presence of multi-planetery nations

OOC: I wasn't considering multi-planet nations when writing the proposal and the proposal doesn't work very well with multi-planet nations I do have to agree. I might be able to change it to a mild resolution that just urges nations to do things so that it can still work with multi-planet nations.

Tezikstan wrote:

Ardiveds wrote:OOC: Clause I has to go as well. There are territorial waters and there is territorial space. Thought to be completely fair, this entire proposal is non sense in the presence of multi-planetery nations

OOC: I wasn't considering multi-planet nations when writing the proposal and the proposal doesn't work very well with multi-planet nations I do have to agree. I might be able to change it to a mild resolution that just urges nations to do things so that it can still work with multi-planet nations.

(OOC: Because of how integral territorial space can be to certain nations, any sort of mandate for neutrality wouldn’t be feasible. Although it might be possible to rework this draft into something which covers a far less broad topic, I don’t think that doing so would be any easier than starting from scratch on a different area. Your execution is quite good, but the idea of regulating space is one that has been deliberates avoided recently because of the near-impossibility.)

Kenmoria wrote:

Tezikstan wrote:OOC: I wasn't considering multi-planet nations when writing the proposal and the proposal doesn't work very well with multi-planet nations I do have to agree. I might be able to change it to a mild resolution that just urges nations to do things so that it can still work with multi-planet nations.

(OOC: Because of how integral territorial space can be to certain nations, any sort of mandate for neutrality wouldn’t be feasible. Although it might be possible to rework this draft into something which covers a far less broad topic, I don’t think that doing so would be any easier than starting from scratch on a different area. Your execution is quite good, but the idea of regulating space is one that has been deliberates avoided recently because of the near-impossibility.)

OOC: Honestly I thought that all nations were on the same unnamed planet since it was called a world assembly but it does seem impossible to regulate space if that is not the case.

Tezikstan wrote:

Kenmoria wrote:(OOC: Because of how integral territorial space can be to certain nations, any sort of mandate for neutrality wouldn’t be feasible. Although it might be possible to rework this draft into something which covers a far less broad topic, I don’t think that doing so would be any easier than starting from scratch on a different area. Your execution is quite good, but the idea of regulating space is one that has been deliberates avoided recently because of the near-impossibility.)

OOC: Honestly I thought that all nations were on the same unnamed planet since it was called a world assembly but it does seem impossible to regulate space if that is not the case.

OOC: If all nations were on one earth sized world every nation would be about the size of Liechtenstein.

Grays Harbor wrote:

Tezikstan wrote:OOC: Honestly I thought that all nations were on the same unnamed planet since it was called a world assembly but it does seem impossible to regulate space if that is not the case.

OOC: If all nations were on one earth sized world every nation would be about the size of Liechtenstein.

OOC: Now I see why all the space GA resolutions have been repealed.

OOC: Requirement IV sounds an awful lot like it would violate GAR #2 (see Article 10).

IC:

"And what, pray tell, are we supposed to do about pirates and uranium smugglers once we've done away with spaceship armaments, ambassador? Even quaint 20th-century entertainments like Wagon Train to the Stars weren't so optimistic about the conduct of people in space. It would be nice to prioritize diplomatic solutions to interplanetary problems, certainly. This brute force measure isn't the way to go about it, however."

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:OOC: Requirement IV sounds an awful lot like it would violate GAR #2 (see Article 10).

IC:

"And what, pray tell, are we supposed to do about pirates and uranium smugglers once we've done away with spaceship armaments, ambassador? Even quaint 20th-century entertainments like Wagon Train to the Stars weren't so optimistic about the conduct of people in space. It would be nice to prioritize diplomatic solutions to interplanetary problems, certainly. This brute force measure isn't the way to go about it, however."

OOC: Maybe I need to reword it as I didn't mean for them to intervene in conflict but to just fine/punish nations that violate the act. I might reword it if anything in this act manages to survive lol.

IC: "Ambassador, I'm thinking about rewording the act to possibly being just weapons that can cause massive damage to planets. I understand that space pirates may be a problem to multiple nations and nations need ways to respond."

Tezikstan wrote:
IC: "Ambassador, I'm thinking about rewording the act to possibly being just weapons that can cause massive damage to planets. I understand that space pirates may be a problem to multiple nations and nations need ways to respond."

"Ambassador, while our nation certainly does not possess the technology to make anything that destructive, we suggest mandating that such weapons not be used against members instead of banning them. I only say this because nothing you mandate can or will effect non members and I hope you understand that a weapon that can destroy planets is a rather significant advantage in wars."

Ardiveds wrote:

Tezikstan wrote:
IC: "Ambassador, I'm thinking about rewording the act to possibly being just weapons that can cause massive damage to planets. I understand that space pirates may be a problem to multiple nations and nations need ways to respond."

"Ambassador, while our nation certainly does not possess the technology to make anything that destructive, we suggest mandating that such weapons not be used against members instead of banning them. I only say this because nothing you mandate can or will effect non members and I hope you understand that a weapon that can destroy planets is a rather significant advantage in wars."

IC: "Ambassador I understand your concern with non-member nations using weapons of mass destruction however I think that banning world assembly nations from building weapons of mass destruction in the first place will help keep the universe in a more safe environment and also many nations are nowhere near the technological level of creating weapons of mass destruction. Members being able to use weapons of mass destruction on non-member states will led to lots of destruction for the local populace that are not involved with their government being in the WA or not being in the WA and would led to lots of unnecessary suffering. Letting WA nations attack non WA nations with these weapons will led to the WA nations being as bad as the non WA nations using these weapons but that is just my opinion ambassador."

OOC: I'm thinking the second draft should be out tonight or tomorrow.

Tezikstan wrote:

Ardiveds wrote:"Ambassador, while our nation certainly does not possess the technology to make anything that destructive, we suggest mandating that such weapons not be used against members instead of banning them. I only say this because nothing you mandate can or will effect non members and I hope you understand that a weapon that can destroy planets is a rather significant advantage in wars."

IC: "Ambassador I understand your concern with non-member nations using weapons of mass destruction however I think that banning world assembly nations from building weapons of mass destruction in the first place will help keep the universe in a more safe environment and also many nations are nowhere near the technological level of creating weapons of mass destruction. Members being able to use weapons of mass destruction on non-member states will led to lots of destruction for the local populace that are not involved with their government being in the WA or not being in the WA and would led to lots of unnecessary suffering. Letting WA nations attack non WA nations with these weapons will led to the WA nations being as bad as the non WA nations using these weapons but that is just my opinion ambassador."

OOC: On the topic of "weapons of mass destruction," please see GA Resolutions #10 and #272. They can be found in the Passed Resolutions thread or by clicking the "Extant Resolutions" link in my signature below. If OTOH you literally mean weapons capable of blowing up planets, feel free to proceed but be advised the WA hasn't had much patience, historically, for resolutions dealing with too far "out there" sci-fi content (I believe #354 and #355 are the only ones that fit a setting beyond the contemporary right now timeframe, unless we passed that cloning thing).

OOC: I suggest keeping your latest draft above older drafts and also spoilering older drafts to avoid confusion.

The current title of this thread is "[Draft 2] Neutral Space Act (renamed Safer Space Act)". Could you not just be consistent in referring to this proposal as the Safer Space Act?

Tinhampton wrote:The current title of this thread is "[Draft 2] Neutral Space Act (renamed Safer Space Act)". Could you not just be consistent in referring to this proposal as the Safer Space Act?

OOC: It helps people that looked at the first draft (Neutral Space Act) know that it is the same topic page and not a new topic page with a similar name.

"Opposed. The C.D.S.P. is perfectly happy to exclusively control the space above our borders, and see no reason to share with other nations as though they have an "equal claim" to it. They would complain were we to park a carrier group off their coast. Space is no different."

OOC: You can probably leave the language regarding lawful military targets out entirely. Extant resolutions cover the topic, and the extraterrestrial nature of warfare would not change this.

Ardiveds wrote:OOC: I suggest keeping your latest draft above older drafts and also spoilering older drafts to avoid confusion.

Seconded.

Use this format:

Code: Select all

[spoiler]
Put the first draft, and other older drafts, between these spoiler tags.

Lorem ipsum!

Crispy extra, if tasty powerful cool. Challenge handcrafted effervescent golden exotic advertising any mountain extra ocean appreciate simulated satisfied. Big listen in successful blend creamy, goodbye that try triple, wherever effervescent inside. $19.95 just latest exotic fun monster goodbye grown. Get much, whenever, deserve $19.95 most, bigger deal absorbent find. Hurry, warm huggable clinically win hearty, feedback advertising feedback plush clean made, grown. Go remarkable outlasts revolutionary, very, polished sure, take mouthwatering open tasting just pure. Cool colossal this buy rosy improved, mega fast.

"Marketing" filler text generated by [url=http://andymatthews.net/code/fillertext/marketing.cfm]this page[/url].
[/spoiler]

The above contents of the Code box will yield:

Separatist Peoples wrote:"Opposed. The C.D.S.P. is perfectly happy to exclusively control the space above our borders, and see no reason to share with other nations as though they have an "equal claim" to it. They would complain were we to park a carrier group off their coast. Space is no different."

OOC: You can probably leave the language regarding lawful military targets out entirely. Extant resolutions cover the topic, and the extraterrestrial nature of warfare would not change this.

OOC: Thanks for the feedback and I will probably change this in the next draft.

Sierra Lyricalia wrote:

Ardiveds wrote:OOC: I suggest keeping your latest draft above older drafts and also spoilering older drafts to avoid confusion.

Seconded.

Use this format:

Code: Select all

[spoiler]
Put the first draft, and other older drafts, between these spoiler tags.

Lorem ipsum!

Crispy extra, if tasty powerful cool. Challenge handcrafted effervescent golden exotic advertising any mountain extra ocean appreciate simulated satisfied. Big listen in successful blend creamy, goodbye that try triple, wherever effervescent inside. $19.95 just latest exotic fun monster goodbye grown. Get much, whenever, deserve $19.95 most, bigger deal absorbent find. Hurry, warm huggable clinically win hearty, feedback advertising feedback plush clean made, grown. Go remarkable outlasts revolutionary, very, polished sure, take mouthwatering open tasting just pure. Cool colossal this buy rosy improved, mega fast.

"Marketing" filler text generated by [url=http://andymatthews.net/code/fillertext/marketing.cfm]this page[/url].
[/spoiler]

The above contents of the Code box will yield:

Put the first draft, and other older drafts, between these spoiler tags.

Lorem ipsum!

Crispy extra, if tasty powerful cool. Challenge handcrafted effervescent golden exotic advertising any mountain extra ocean appreciate simulated satisfied. Big listen in successful blend creamy, goodbye that try triple, wherever effervescent inside. $19.95 just latest exotic fun monster goodbye grown. Get much, whenever, deserve $19.95 most, bigger deal absorbent find. Hurry, warm huggable clinically win hearty, feedback advertising feedback plush clean made, grown. Go remarkable outlasts revolutionary, very, polished sure, take mouthwatering open tasting just pure. Cool colossal this buy rosy improved, mega fast.

"Marketing" filler text generated by this page.

OOC: Thanks that helped a lot.