Is this the norm?
Advertisement
by Defwa » Wed Apr 30, 2014 9:35 pm
by Mousebumples » Wed Apr 30, 2014 9:46 pm
by Icatus » Wed Apr 30, 2014 9:48 pm
Mousebumples wrote:It's not the norm, per se, but players (or mods, if any of us are so inclined) are welcome to post the final result of the vote. Sometimes it can be useful to have that in-thread, should someone be reading through the archived record of the vote in the future.
by Chester Pearson » Wed Apr 30, 2014 9:54 pm
Stormwind-City wrote:Talonis wrote:Depends... do you realize that reactors are a series of rods that can be shifted? Shift them the right way, and things can be made to work. Think like this:
XXO
XOX
OXX
To:
XOX
XOX
XOX
That is obviously hyper simplified, but you get my point. All that has to happen is that things get put in place so a fizzle can happen. A button can complete a circuit to move things about inside, and things can then be made to touch in rather... unintended... ways.
No, to create a plutonium bomb, you need conventional explosives, you might create a very hot reactor that melts itself, but it won't explode. The reason why; nuclear bombs are inherently different in design than reactors. What would occur if you did that would be what happened to the reactor at Chernobyl. To demonstrate:
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
by Ardchoille » Wed Apr 30, 2014 9:58 pm
The Eternal Kawaii wrote:Mosktopia wrote:<snip> The fact that this proposal - which is chiefly concerned with national disarmament of certain weapons - can be submitted under the International Security category effectively means that International Security swallows Global Disarmament. There is no reason to ever use GD if you can call a disarmament proposal a security proposal simply by including some language about beefing up security (ironically, to ensure that the disarmament goal is actually accomplished).<snip>
While we understand the Ambassador's concerns, we do not feel that such a precedent is being set here. The proposal author claims that radiological weapons have no legitimate military use,a claim we agree with. The cause of Global Disarmament is not harmed by using International Security to rid the world of weapons whose only value is to terrorists.
by Chester Pearson » Wed Apr 30, 2014 10:01 pm
Ardchoille wrote:As promised, post-political-vote comment (my edits):The Eternal Kawaii wrote:
While we understand the Ambassador's concerns, we do not feel that such a precedent is being set here. The proposal author claims that radiological weapons have no legitimate military use,a claim we agree with. The cause of Global Disarmament is not harmed by using International Security to rid the world of weapons whose only value is to terrorists.
^Excluding the struck-out opinion, which was not mods'concern, this was pretty much our thinking on the legality requirements. Clauses 5 and 6 met the budget point and the language in the preceding clauses offered an argument that this was security (preventing largely non-state actors from gaining a weapon) rather than disarmament (removing member nations' existing weapons). It wasn’t the mods' job to decide whether the argument was convincing; that was left to the member nations. That the attempt was made was enough to let it go to vote.
While we can rule only on the actual, submitted text of a proposal, the drafting discussion that led Sciongrad to switch categories and add a clause helped point us towards the words in the text in support of his argument.
The mods are aware of, and are keeping an eye on, the distinction between International Security and Global Disarmament. We are particularly unimpressed when authors appear to have tossed a coin on category and then expect us to work out why they think there’ll be a budget boost or a budget loss (not the case here). Please remember that book-keeping is above our pay grade.
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
by Ardchoille » Wed Apr 30, 2014 11:45 pm
by Elke and Elba » Wed Apr 30, 2014 11:52 pm
Ratateague wrote:NationStates seems to hate the Geneva Convention. I've lost count in how many times someone has tried to introduce something like it. Why they don't like it is a mystery to me. Probably a lot of jingoist wingnuts.
Ardchoille wrote:When you consider that (violet) once changed the colour of the whole game for one player ... you can understand how seriously NS takes its players.
by Imperializt Russia » Thu May 01, 2014 2:14 am
Stormwind-City wrote:Talonis wrote:Depends... do you realize that reactors are a series of rods that can be shifted? Shift them the right way, and things can be made to work. Think like this:
XXO
XOX
OXX
To:
XOX
XOX
XOX
That is obviously hyper simplified, but you get my point. All that has to happen is that things get put in place so a fizzle can happen. A button can complete a circuit to move things about inside, and things can then be made to touch in rather... unintended... ways.
No, to create a plutonium bomb, you need conventional explosives, you might create a very hot reactor that melts itself, but it won't explode. The reason why; nuclear bombs are inherently different in design than reactors. What would occur if you did that would be what happened to the reactor at Chernobyl. To demonstrate:
Chester Pearson wrote:Stormwind-City wrote:No, to create a plutonium bomb, you need conventional explosives, you might create a very hot reactor that melts itself, but it won't explode. The reason why; nuclear bombs are inherently different in design than reactors. What would occur if you did that would be what happened to the reactor at Chernobyl. To demonstrate:
Fun fact: The Little Boy design would not have worked with plutonium, as plutonium has the side effect of spontaneous fission....
As for blowing apart a reactor with gunpowder? It would be far more effective to destroy the cooling systems of the cooling ponds, thus causing the water to boil, and causing the cooling pond building to explode, causing a radiological disaster.
I love when people argue shit, the know NOTHING about.
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Chester Pearson » Thu May 01, 2014 6:27 pm
Imperializt Russia wrote:What Talonis actually suggested, which I didn't realise first time about, was using explosives to force the formation of a critical mass using the fuel rods in the reactor - similar in concept to early nuclear devices such as Trinity and Fat Man (though notably not Little Boy).
I can't speak to the feasibility, but when you consider the fuel assembly of the RBMK-1000 reactor weighs a combined 300 tons...
There's certainly enough material for a fizzle.
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
by Imperializt Russia » Fri May 02, 2014 3:17 am
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Stormwind-City » Sat May 03, 2014 7:24 pm
Chester Pearson wrote:Stormwind-City wrote:No, to create a plutonium bomb, you need conventional explosives, you might create a very hot reactor that melts itself, but it won't explode. The reason why; nuclear bombs are inherently different in design than reactors. What would occur if you did that would be what happened to the reactor at Chernobyl. To demonstrate:
Fun fact: The Little Boy design would not have worked with plutonium, as plutonium has the side effect of spontaneous fission....
As for blowing apart a reactor with gunpowder? It would be far more effective to destroy the cooling systems of the cooling ponds, thus causing the water to boil, and causing the cooling pond building to explode, causing a radiological disaster.
I love when people argue shit, the know NOTHING about.
by Imperializt Russia » Sun May 04, 2014 2:08 am
Stormwind-City wrote:Chester Pearson wrote:
Fun fact: The Little Boy design would not have worked with plutonium, as plutonium has the side effect of spontaneous fission....
As for blowing apart a reactor with gunpowder? It would be far more effective to destroy the cooling systems of the cooling ponds, thus causing the water to boil, and causing the cooling pond building to explode, causing a radiological disaster.
I love when people argue shit, the know NOTHING about.
I was showing him what a nuclear bomb looks like, demonstrating how a nuke does not work the same way a reactor does.
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.
by Stormwind-City » Mon May 05, 2014 5:27 pm
Imperializt Russia wrote:Stormwind-City wrote:I was showing him what a nuclear bomb looks like, demonstrating how a nuke does not work the same way a reactor does.
A fact and a layout I'm fully aware of.
Few nuclear weapons shared the Little Boy's gun-type design, by the way. A handful of the artillery shell projects did because of space limitations.
by Chester Pearson » Mon May 05, 2014 10:52 pm
Stormwind-City wrote:Imperializt Russia wrote:A fact and a layout I'm fully aware of.
Few nuclear weapons shared the Little Boy's gun-type design, by the way. A handful of the artillery shell projects did because of space limitations.
Yes, I know, but a GT design is arguably the simplist form of nuclear weapon. Just in case he's still confused:
Separatist Peoples wrote:With a lawnchair and a large bag of popcorn in hand, Ambassador SaDiablo walks in and sets himself up comfortably. Out of a dufflebag comes a large foam finger with the name "Chester Pearson" emblazoned on it, as well as a few six-packs.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot]
Advertisement