[DEFEATED] (being re-drafted) Nuclear Testing Regulations

[Darenjo]

Well, seeing as there are two or three other like proposals at the moment, and seeing that all of them have been blasted by the members of the WA, i figured, 'hey, why not give it a shot?'. So here goes.

Nuclear Arms Testing Safety

Category: Global Disarmament | Strength: Significant | Proposed by: Darenjo

ACKNOWLEDGING the vital role in national defense that nuclear weapons hold,

CONCERNED about the possible after-effects on nuclear tests including but not limited to: nuclear fallout and radiation, EMP waves and bursts, natural disasters, injury and death, and seismic activity,

BELIEVING that the unregulated and unsupervised testing of nuclear weapons poses unnecessary threats to innocent civilians,

HOPING to create greater general safety regarding nuclear testing,

The General Assembly adopts these measures:

DEFINES ‘nuclear testing’ as the usage of a nuclear weapon for research purposes, that is not targeted to destroy or affect a civilian or military populace;

RESTRICTS the testing of nuclear weapons to areas where the effects of such tests will not directly affect surrounding or nearby populations;

BANS nuclear testing within twice the distance of geosynchronous orbit - at the equator - of any inhabited celestial bodies;

DECLARES that WA-member states that who carry out nuclear tests shall be responsible for ensuring that such tests do not affect surrounding populations;

ALLOWS the testing of nuclear arms in regard to the rules of this resolution:
1. all nuclear testing be fully and thoroughly supervised by the nation carrying out the test;
2. all tests be constructed so that after-effects do not affect other nations without those nations’ consent;
3. all nations that test nuclear arms be able to quickly and efficiently clean up any and all fallout following a nuclear test;
4. all nations take as many precautions as necessary to prevent unnecessary death or injury resulting from a nuclear test;

EXEMPTS mild seismic activity that has been shown to not cause extensive damage to human settlements from the second rule above;

IMPLORES nations to locate nuclear tests in an area where EMP waves or bursts will not affect civilian populations;

ALLOWS for further and future additional regulations regarding nuclear weapons;

Co-authored by Cardoness

This is currently being redrafted: http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=73490

[Grays Harbor]

We have a problem with wanting neighboring nations to help foot the bill for clean-up of fallout. That should, and is, the responsibility of the nation doing the testing.

[Knootoss]

Knootoss shares the concerns of Grays Harbor, but supports this legislative proposal.

[Darenjo]

We have a problem with wanting neighboring nations to help foot the bill for clean-up of fallout. That should, and is, the responsibility of the nation doing the testing.

It does say 'encourages', but i can take it out of the proposal if you want.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

A little technical pointer here: the "Blocktext" tag doesn't get parsed in the real proposal. Besides, here is the result of our quick proofread. It may require further revisions.

---

The World Assembly,

ACKNOWLEDGING the vital role in national defense that nuclear weapons hold;

CONCERNED about the after-effects of nuclear tests including but not limited to: nuclear fallout and radiation, EMP waves and bursts, resulting natural disasters (including tsunamis and earthquakes), injury and death and the creation of radioactive glass fields;

BELIEVING that the unregulated and unsupervised testing of nuclear weapons poses unnecessary threats to innocent civilians;

HOPING to create greater general safety regarding nuclear testing;

Therefore:

DEFINES ‘nuclear testing’ as the usage of a nuclear weapon for research purposes, that is not aimed to destroy or affect a civilian or military populace;

BANS the testing of nuclear arms in oceans, lakes and airspace that have surrounding civilian populaces;

ALLOWS the testing of nuclear arms on celestial bodies within outer space in regard to the rules of this resolution, where:
a) All nuclear testing be fully and thoroughly supervised;
b) All tests shall be supervised to ensure that after-effects do not affect other nations without their consent, with the exception of seismic activity or tsunamis (as seismic activity is a force outside of artificial control);
c) Member countries that test nuclear arms be able to quickly and efficiently clean up any and all fallout following a nuclear test;
d) Member countries take as many precautions necessary to prevent unnecessary death or injury resulting from a nuclear test;

IMPLORES member countries to:
a) Locate nuclear tests in an area where EMP waves or bursts will not affect civilian populations;
b) Inform neighbours of upcoming nuclear tests;

ENCOURAGES surrounding nations to help in the clean-up of fallout after a nuclear test;

---

Overall the proposal has more merit than the draft to ban the detonation of nuclear weapons, so I will be following this.

[Holy Roman Confederate]

When you say this bans detonations in outer space this could cause concern for some nations. A high order detonation can be used to generate an electoro magentic pulse (EMP). I'm certain that multiple nations make use of this as a military capability. The HRC see's this as a potential roadblock to our support of this measure. We will say we appreciate a much more realistic proposal when compared to the last 4 attempts.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Also, we use nuclear weapons to demolish failed planetary social housing experiments when completely empty. You may wish to clarify that this resolution does not prohibit testing in long-deserted cities.

[Ddreigiau]

what negative effects are there when it comes to extra-orbital testing of nuclear weapons? I can't think of any...

[Charlotte Ryberg]

what negative effects are there when it comes to extra-orbital testing of nuclear weapons? I can't think of any...

I was thinking of a suggestion to the clause which would go, along with my proofread, like this:

BANS the testing of nuclear arms in oceans and lakes that have surrounding civilian populaces, and in airspace;

Submitted for consideration,

[Serrland]

BANS the testing of nuclear arms in oceans and lakes that have surrounding civilian populaces, and in outer space;

How close is "surrounding?" Serrland is next to a large ocean - would we be unable to test nuclear weapons over said ocean because there is another nation some 8,000 miles away? Perhaps some clarification over what is meant by "surrounding civilian populaces" would help the draft a bit.

All in all, though, the Serri delegation is supportive of this proposed resolution and finds it to be one of the better ones regarding nuclear weapons in past months.

[Ddreigiau]

BANS the testing of nuclear arms [content removed for clarity], and in outer space;
ALLOWS the testing of nuclear arms on celestial bodies within outer space in regard to the rules of this resolution;

is it just me, or are these two clauses contradictory?

[Knootoss]

((Empty space and celestial bodies are not the same thing.))

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

BANS the testing of nuclear arms [content removed for clarity], and in outer space;
ALLOWS the testing of nuclear arms on celestial bodies within outer space in regard to the rules of this resolution;

is it just me, or are these two clauses contradictory?

It's classic space-wank. He means you can test on land but not in space, which makes me wonder why he didn't just say that in the first place...

[Darenjo]

what negative effects are there when it comes to extra-orbital testing of nuclear weapons? I can't think of any...

I was thinking of a suggestion to the clause which would go, along with my proofread, like this:

BANS the testing of nuclear arms in oceans and lakes that have surrounding civilian populaces, and in airspace;

Submitted for consideration,

Took your suggestion, and yeah i'll have to get rid of the indents in the real proposal.

HRC, the proposal bans nuclear tests in outer space, not all detonations in general.

Also, as to the oceans/lakes question, yes, if a nation is 8000 miles away but on the same oceanic coastline as you (btw, what planet do you live on?), then you cannot test nukes on water due to the tsunami threat. If you find a tiny, useless island to test your nuke on, then go right ahead.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

I was thinking of a suggestion to the clause which would go, along with my proofread, like this:

BANS the testing of nuclear arms in oceans and lakes that have surrounding civilian populaces, and in airspace;

Submitted for consideration,

Took your suggestion, and yeah i'll have to get rid of the indents in the real proposal.

HRC, the proposal bans nuclear tests in outer space, not all detonations in general.

Also, as to the oceans/lakes question, yes, if a nation is 8000 miles away but on the same oceanic coastline as you (btw, what planet do you live on?), then you cannot test nukes on water due to the tsunami threat. If you find a tiny, useless island to test your nuke on, then go right ahead.

The improvements suggested by us are laid out here (which includes the indent correction), but basically ban nuclear weapons testing near areas of habitation or outstanding beauty only, subject to exceptions.

[Holy Roman Confederate]

For the most part tsunami's are generated thru seismic activity. So you might want to rethink that one.

[Cardoness]

Took your suggestion, and yeah i'll have to get rid of the indents in the real proposal.

HRC, the proposal bans nuclear tests in outer space, not all detonations in general.

Also, as to the oceans/lakes question, yes, if a nation is 8000 miles away but on the same oceanic coastline as you (btw, what planet do you live on?), then you cannot test nukes on water due to the tsunami threat. If you find a tiny, useless island to test your nuke on, then go right ahead.

The improvements suggested by us are laid out here (which includes the indent correction), but basically ban nuclear weapons testing near areas of habitation or outstanding beauty only, subject to exceptions.

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. We generally like this proposal, but will continue to critically examine it until the matter is decided.

[Cardoness]

For the most part tsunami's are generated thru seismic activity. So you might want to rethink that one.

Seismic activity generated as a result of a nuclear test is allowed under this resolution.

[Darenjo]

Took your suggestion, and yeah i'll have to get rid of the indents in the real proposal.

HRC, the proposal bans nuclear tests in outer space, not all detonations in general.

Also, as to the oceans/lakes question, yes, if a nation is 8000 miles away but on the same oceanic coastline as you (btw, what planet do you live on?), then you cannot test nukes on water due to the tsunami threat. If you find a tiny, useless island to test your nuke on, then go right ahead.

The improvements suggested by us are laid out here (which includes the indent correction), but basically ban nuclear weapons testing near areas of habitation or outstanding beauty only, subject to exceptions.

I'll fix the indents if i submit it, but i think i'll keep it like this on the forums.

[Darenjo]

For the most part tsunami's are generated thru seismic activity. So you might want to rethink that one.

Seismic activity generated as a result of a nuclear test is allowed under this resolution.

Yes, but not tsunamis...yeah i'll be thinking about that...

how about this:
"BANS nuclear tests on water and in other areas where a tsunami is a possible aftereffect..."

[Cardoness]

[/quote]how about this:
"BANS nuclear tests on water and in other areas where a tsunami is a possible aftereffect..."[/quote]

BANS nuclear tests in areas where a tsunami is a predictable aftereffect.

[Darenjo]

how about this:
"BANS nuclear tests on water and in other areas where a tsunami is a possible aftereffect..."

BANS nuclear tests in areas where a tsunami is a predictable aftereffect.

Changed it to: "...where tsunamis are a probable aftereffect..."

btw for quoting someone else the first quote mark is [quote].

[Cardoness]

That works.

Thanks!

SHOULD a nation or nations create a tsunami that affects civilian populaces then they shall be responsible and shall have to pay at least 60% of the cost of the disaster

Ah, but what is the cost of tsunami caused disaster? How do you put a price tag on lives lost? What about crops lost, where the fields already empty are were they on their way to a bumper crop? What about the destroyed economy? Our Kingdom had a volcanic eruption and it took decades to get back to where we were; a tsunami would be just as bad if not worse. My point is that every nation hit with a tsunami is going to be looking for, and accusing others of using, nuclear devices to offset the cost. The courts will be bogged down in trying to prove this or that about secret and sensitive test, and even if a nation does step up and claim responsibility they will argue over what the cost of the damage is.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

The improvements suggested by us are laid out here (which includes the indent correction), but basically ban nuclear weapons testing near areas of habitation or outstanding beauty only, subject to exceptions.

I'll fix the indents if i submit it, but i think i'll keep it like this on the forums.

It is not just the indents but also the way the preamble was written, e.g. the recognition of after-effects could in no way be a measure by the GA, because it's there already.

[Darenjo]

That works.

Thanks!

SHOULD a nation or nations create a tsunami that affects civilian populaces then they shall be responsible and shall have to pay at least 60% of the cost of the disaster

Ah, but what is the cost of tsunami caused disaster? How do you put a price tag on lives lost? What about crops lost, where the fields already empty are were they on their way to a bumper crop? What about the destroyed economy? Our Kingdom had a volcanic eruption and it took decades to get back to where we were; a tsunami would be just as bad if not worse. My point is that every nation hit with a tsunami is going to be looking for, and accusing others of using, nuclear devices to offset the cost. The courts will be bogged down in trying to prove this or that about secret and sensitive test, and even if a nation does step up and claim responsibility they will argue over what the cost of the damage is.

Then what should I do? Should I simply ban tests where tsunamis are a possible aftereffect? I think that'll be a little hard for the conservatives to swallow.

Btw, anyone feel free to help me on this particular issue.