[PASSED] Radiological Terrorism

[Mousebumples]

Category: International Security | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Sciongrad

The General Assembly,

Reaffirming the right of member nations to defend themselves with a well equipped military,

Understanding, however, that radiological weapons serve no practical or effective military purpose, and that such weapons are more suitable for the goals of pariah states and terrorist groups,

Believing that banning such weapons will be conducive to international peace,

And to this end resolves;

1. "Radiological weapon" shall be defined as any conventional weapon designed or intended to spread radiological substances; furthermore, "radiological substance" shall be defined as any radioactive material with the capacity to be used in the construction of a radiological weapon;

2. Member nations shall be prohibited from constructing, developing, or possessing radiological weapons under any circumstances; the transfer of such weapons between a member nation and another party shall also be prohibited, excepting instances where the transfer is for the purpose of decommissioning said weapons;

3. Member nations shall take all measures practical and necessary to prohibit the transfer or sale of radiological substances from within their nation to another party if there is reasonable suspicion that such a party may intend on contravening the provisions and intent of this resolution;

4. The use of radiological weapons shall be prohibited under all circumstances;

5. The World Assembly Disaster Bureau shall have its mandate expanded to include the following:

1. Assisting in the process of decommissioning radiological weapons, at the request of member nations, and to facilitate and oversee the transfer of radiological weapons from member nations that lack the technological capabilities necessary to decommission such weapons to member nations that do possess such capabilities,
2. Assisting member nations in recovering from the consequences of a radiological attack,
3. Liaising with member nations, when appropriate, to develop response plans in case of a radiological attack which may include, but shall not be limited to, procedures for evacuation and decontamination and training disaster relief and response personnel;

6. Member nations shall be required to monitor and review activities within their jurisdiction when there is reason to suspect that such activities will result in the misuse of radiological weapons and shall further be required to apprehend such activities using all means necessary and practical;

7. Nothing in this resolution shall be construed as placing any limitations on the possession, development, or use of nuclear weapons.

[Albrook]

Let's stop this early. Read this first. Ga Resolution #10: NAPA

http://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pas ... =1?start=9

[Sciongrad]

Let's stop this early. Read this first. Ga Resolution #10: NAPA

http://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pas ... =1?start=9

I appreciate your Excellency's concern, however a radiological weapon is not a nuclear weapon, despite the similar effects. Radiological weapons are conventional weapons that are equipped with radioactive material, the sole purpose of which being to make an area uninhabitable.

[Albrook]

Let's stop this early. Read this first. Ga Resolution #10: NAPA

http://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pas ... =1?start=9

I appreciate your Excellency's concern, however a radiological weapon is not a nuclear weapon, despite the similar effects. Radiological weapons are conventional weapons that are equipped with radioactive material, the sole purpose of which being to make an area uninhabitable.

However, a nuclear weapon can be a radiological weapon. The converse supports my case.

[Greater Beggnig]

I support the intention, but there needs to be a stronger definition of a radiological weapon.

[Sciongrad]

I appreciate your Excellency's concern, however a radiological weapon is not a nuclear weapon, despite the similar effects. Radiological weapons are conventional weapons that are equipped with radioactive material, the sole purpose of which being to make an area uninhabitable.

However, a nuclear weapon can be a radiological weapon. The converse supports my case.

I must respectfully disagree with you, Your Excellency. As defined by this resolution, a radiological weapon must be conventional - not nuclear - to meet the definition.

[United Federation of Canada]

Let's stop this early. Read this first. Ga Resolution #10: NAPA

http://www.nationstates.net/page=WA_pas ... =1?start=9

I appreciate your Excellency's concern, however a radiological weapon is not a nuclear weapon, despite the similar effects. Radiological weapons are conventional weapons that are equipped with radioactive material, the sole purpose of which being to make an area uninhabitable.

Yes, but a neutron bomb, which is designed to kill solely by the rapid spread of high energy neutrons, and not blast damage, is a thermonuclear weapon, and thus protected by NAPA.

Please don't take my criticism out of context. I fully support a ban such as this, but this one does technically violate NAPA.

[Sciongrad]

I support the intention, but there needs to be a stronger definition of a radiological weapon.

I appreciate your Excellency's criticism. Might I ask where you think the definition needs strengthening?

I appreciate your Excellency's concern, however a radiological weapon is not a nuclear weapon, despite the similar effects. Radiological weapons are conventional weapons that are equipped with radioactive material, the sole purpose of which being to make an area uninhabitable.

Yes, but a neutron bomb, which is designed to kill solely by the rapid spread of high energy neutrons, and not blast damage, is a thermonuclear weapon, and thus protected by NAPA.

Please don't take my criticism out of context. I fully support a ban such as this, but this one does technically violate NAPA.

I must again disagree. The definition of a radiological weapon, as stated in this proposal, only includes conventional weapons equipped with radiological material. Nuclear weapons, even if their main purpose is to spread radiological material, are not conventional and thus are not included.

[Greater Beggnig]

I support this proposal, it appears that people can't read. Either that or they don't understand the word radiological.

[Albrook]

DISCLAIMER: Allright, let's try this again, only alluding to NAPA as a reference, I know radiological isn't nuclear.

NAPA understands that only WA Nations listen to the WA. Obvious fact. Say Examplestan over there makes a radiological weapon and uses it to fry your capital city. MEDIAN: I am only alluding to NAPA as a reference, I know radiological isn't nuclear. What are you going to do, bring them to the Divine WA Court (I think that was repealed...not sure...)? NAPA allows for retaliation in case of an event like this. An eye for an eye.

EXCLAIMER: I am only alluding to NAPA as a reference, I know radiological isn't nuclear.

[Greater Beggnig]

I support the intention, but there needs to be a stronger definition of a radiological weapon.

I appreciate your Excellency's criticism. Might I ask where you think the definition needs strengthening?

Yes, but a neutron bomb, which is designed to kill solely by the rapid spread of high energy neutrons, and not blast damage, is a thermonuclear weapon, and thus protected by NAPA.

Please don't take my criticism out of context. I fully support a ban such as this, but this one does technically violate NAPA.

I must again disagree. The definition of a radiological weapon, as stated in this proposal, only includes conventional weapons equipped with radiological material. Nuclear weapons, even if their main purpose is to spread radiological material, are not conventional and thus are not included.

I think the issue is the radiological material. If you defined radiological material as material such as depleted uranium, that has no purpose other than use in these sorts of weapon, I think you'd be clear of NAPA.

[Dellin]

DISCLAIMER: Allright, let's try this again, only alluding to NAPA as a reference, I know radiological isn't nuclear.

NAPA understands that only WA Nations listen to the WA. Obvious fact. Say Examplestan over there makes a radiological weapon and uses it to fry your capital city. MEDIAN: I am only alluding to NAPA as a reference, I know radiological isn't nuclear. What are you going to do, bring them to the Divine WA Court (I think that was repealed...not sure...)? NAPA allows for retaliation in case of an event like this. An eye for an eye.

EXCLAIMER: I am only alluding to NAPA as a reference, I know radiological isn't nuclear.

Yes, it allows that for nuclear weapons. What does that have to do with radiological weapons?

[Mulligan Valley]

DISCLAIMER: Allright, let's try this again, only alluding to NAPA as a reference, I know radiological isn't nuclear.

NAPA understands that only WA Nations listen to the WA. Obvious fact. Say Examplestan over there makes a radiological weapon and uses it to fry your capital city. MEDIAN: I am only alluding to NAPA as a reference, I know radiological isn't nuclear. What are you going to do, bring them to the Divine WA Court (I think that was repealed...not sure...)? NAPA allows for retaliation in case of an event like this. An eye for an eye.

EXCLAIMER: I am only alluding to NAPA as a reference, I know radiological isn't nuclear.

Yes, it allows that for nuclear weapons. What does that have to do with radiological weapons?

If I may, the same principle applies. This is an attempt to control the actions of a non-member nations by limiting the weapons capabilities of member nations. It's essentially an illogical move.

[Sciongrad]

DISCLAIMER: Allright, let's try this again, only alluding to NAPA as a reference, I know radiological isn't nuclear.

NAPA understands that only WA Nations listen to the WA. Obvious fact. Say Examplestan over there makes a radiological weapon and uses it to fry your capital city. MEDIAN: I am only alluding to NAPA as a reference, I know radiological isn't nuclear. What are you going to do, bring them to the Divine WA Court (I think that was repealed...not sure...)? NAPA allows for retaliation in case of an event like this. An eye for an eye.

EXCLAIMER: I am only alluding to NAPA as a reference, I know radiological isn't nuclear.

Your Excellency, I don't think I understand. I don't understand how NAPA is at all relevant in the situation you detailed. You described what would happen if non compliance was an issue - I'm of the opinion that non compliance is impossible. Others have different opinions, so in the proposal, it is suggested that in the event that it was an issue, member nations react accordingly. Either way, NAPA is totally irrelevant.

Yes, it allows that for nuclear weapons. What does that have to do with radiological weapons?

If I may, the same principle applies. This is an attempt to control the actions of a non-member nations by limiting the weapons capabilities of member nations. It's essentially an illogical move.

This proposal does not seek to control the actions of non-member nations, Your Excellency. The intent of this proposal is not to "control" anyone - merely to prevent the proliferation of what is, in essence, an effective method of wide scale terrorism.

[Dellin]

Yes, it allows that for nuclear weapons. What does that have to do with radiological weapons?

If I may, the same principle applies. This is an attempt to control the actions of a non-member nations by limiting the weapons capabilities of member nations. It's essentially an illogical move.

This isn't an attempt to control anything about non-member nations. It is an attempt to bring member nations together to create a more secure future. I don't at all see what you are getting at, unless you are making the same "they (non-member nations) attack us, we need to attack them" argument, but I don't buy that philosophy. Plus, the NAPA allows for that in relation to nuclear weapons.

[Christian Democrats]

"Radiological weapon" shall be defined as any conventional weapon equipped with radiological material in such a way that it may spread such a material

1. This definition would apply to nuclear weapons, which are permitted by existing international law.

2. Everything, save possibly dark matter and dark energy, emits radiation.

[Sciongrad]

"Radiological weapon" shall be defined as any conventional weapon equipped with radiological material in such a way that it may spread such a material

1. This definition would apply to nuclear weapons, which are permitted by existing international law.

2. Everything, save possibly dark matter and dark energy, emits radiation.

Your Excellency, unless I am very mistaken, nuclear weapons are not considered conventional. Therefore, this does not violate NAPA. Regarding your second point - I've changed the definition to include weapons whose purpose is to spread radiological material, rather than those that just happen to do so.

[Imperializt Russia]

Coming from a point of "realism", I would ordinarily make the point that a radiological weapon is not a "nuclear weapon" and in any case has no viable purpose to merit protection under NAPA.
I would support a possible ban (though, enforcing a ban on the moving of materials would be nigh-impossible - a radiological weapon's most obvious form is of course the Dirty Bomb - nuclear material surrounding an explosive weapon).

Though, given how ambivalent NAPA is (mercifully in some cases, I guess), this may be not be a suitable proposal.

[Sciongrad]

In an effort to establish a clear separation between nuclear weapons and radiological weapons, I've expanded the definition of radiological weapons to only include conventional weapons that do not achieve critical mass. This means that nuclear weapons are specifically excluded from the definition of radiological weapons, even if such a weapon meets the other established criteria. If anyone has any questions or concerns regarding the new definition, please do feel free to make a suggestion.

[Imperializt Russia]

In an effort to establish a clear separation between nuclear weapons and radiological weapons, I've expanded the definition of radiological weapons to only include conventional weapons that do not achieve critical mass. This means that nuclear weapons are specifically excluded from the definition of radiological weapons, even if such a weapon meets the other established criteria. If anyone has any questions or concerns regarding the new definition, please do feel free to make a suggestion.

But if that is not a requirement for the classification of "nuclear weapon" in NAPA, can that be reasonably considered a definition?
There is nothing to reasonably distinguish this from being a nuclear weapon.

[Sciongrad]

In an effort to establish a clear separation between nuclear weapons and radiological weapons, I've expanded the definition of radiological weapons to only include conventional weapons that do not achieve critical mass. This means that nuclear weapons are specifically excluded from the definition of radiological weapons, even if such a weapon meets the other established criteria. If anyone has any questions or concerns regarding the new definition, please do feel free to make a suggestion.

But if that is not a requirement for the classification of "nuclear weapon" in NAPA, can that be reasonably considered a definition?

NAPA affects only nuclear weapons, and therefore has no impact on radiological weapons. The definition of radiological weapons in this proposal explicitly excludes nuclear weapons from its scope, and therefore, there is no conflict between NAPA and this proposal.

[Imperializt Russia]

But if that is not a requirement for the classification of "nuclear weapon" in NAPA, can that be reasonably considered a definition?

NAPA affects only nuclear weapons, and therefore has no impact on radiological weapons. The definition of radiological weapons in this proposal explicitly excludes nuclear weapons from its scope, and therefore, there is no conflict between NAPA and this proposal.

But you've made a distinction where previously there was none.
Of course, this is probably more an issue with the inability to amend passed resolutions, but I'm not sure it can really be "right" to simply say "and now this is not a nuclear weapon but this is" because that potentially contradicts the resolution and sets precedent.

Again, I would be largely in favour of a ban on such weapons, I'm just expressing concerns of legitimacy.

[Sciongrad]

NAPA affects only nuclear weapons, and therefore has no impact on radiological weapons. The definition of radiological weapons in this proposal explicitly excludes nuclear weapons from its scope, and therefore, there is no conflict between NAPA and this proposal.

But you've made a distinction where previously there was none.
Of course, this is probably more an issue with the inability to amend passed resolutions, but I'm not sure it can really be "right" to simply say "and now this is not a nuclear weapon but this is" because that potentially contradicts the resolution and sets precedent.

Again, I would be largely in favour of a ban on such weapons, I'm just expressing concerns of legitimacy.

NAPA protects the right of nations to keep nuclear weapons, this is fact. Nuclear Weapons may very well include certain types of radiological weapons. Salted bombs are a form of nuclear weapon that are also, for all intents and purposes, radiological weapons. However, I have zero intention of ever repealing NAPA, so this resolution specifically affects radiological weapons that are not nuclear weapons. If it is not a nuclear weapon, it's not affected by NAPA. And therefore, this proposal does not conflict with NAPA, as far as I can see.

[Albrook]

If we're having so much trouble understanding the proposal now, given we're all brain-dead and can't for the life of us define 'radiological weapon' in our head, is it not superfluous?

[Sciongrad]

If we're having so much trouble understanding the proposal now, given we're all brain-dead and can't for the life of us define 'radiological weapon' in our head, is it not superfluous?

Your Excellency, simply because some ambassadors cannot understand the proposal does not make it superfluous. That means I need to do a better job of clarifying its intention. A topic as serious as radiological weapons and their application against civilians by terrorists or pariah states is most certainly not superfluous, and I'm not going to drop the topic because of the fine line between radiological weapons and nuclear weapons.