GA Resolution: Nuclear Testing Regulations

[Guy]

This is the discussion thread. Please go here to cast your vote.

Nuclear Testing Regulations
A resolution to slash worldwide military spending.

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Darenjo


Description: 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

[Guy]

This resolution will most likely be the next one to hit the floor -- unless it somehow fails getting 4 approvals until the next update.

[Takaram]

As it reads now, I'm pretty sure that this resolution bans all nuclear testing by WA-nations on Earth. Not exactly going to be popular, I'd imagine.

[ImperialPoland]

another nuclear testing resolution?

im STILL against

[Guy]

It doesn't ban nuclear testing, it does put a few sensible restrictions on testing though.

[Darenjo]

Okay, so this is my case.

First of all, please don't write this off just because it involves nuclear weapons, and no, it doesn't ban all testing on planet earth.

This resolution seeks to strengthen general safety regarding the testing of nuclear weapons. It does ban testing in some circumstances and does establish rules regarding how nations are to test nukes. However, these rules will make it safer for civilians for nations to test nukes, while not out-rightly banning the usage of nuclear weaponry.

The dumbed down version of the bans portion is basically this:

No testing on water because of the tsunami threat (btw, no nuke has ever been tested on water in RL, they've all been tested on islands or in space or deserts).

No testing in certain areas of space (for mt and ft nations, go twice as far as the positions of your GPS system, and you can test there).

Now you can test in airspace, just be aware of three clauses:
1. Nations have to quickly clean up radiation
2. You must have the agreement of other nations if your test will affect their populations
3. (this isn't a binding clause) nations are implored to not cause EMP blasts that would affect cities or towns in their tests

In addition, the rules basically break down like this:

You HAVE to supervise your tests. No exploding a nuke and coming back in three months to see what happened.

The first two rules under the 'airspace' clause above.

And nations must take steps to prevent the unnecessary death or injury of civilians during nuclear tests.

Now the exception to the 'other nations' rule is mild seismic activity. If some nation is going to start crying over a magnitude 3 earthquake from a nearby nuclear test, then they're just cry babies.

That pretty much sums it up. Feel free to comment.

[Takaram]

The way that the one clause reads, it seems to imply that NO nuclear testing may be done within twice the distance of geosynchronous orbit, which seems to include anything on or above the earth for quite a distance.

[Darenjo]

Sept 26, 2010 19:36:30 GMT -5 Guy said:

It doesn't ban nuclear testing, it does put a few sensible restrictions on testing though.

If you agree with it why don't you approve it haha?

[Darenjo]

Sept 26, 2010 19:42:18 GMT -5 Takaram said:

The way that the one clause reads, it seems to imply that NO nuclear testing may be done within twice the distance of geosynchronous orbit, which seems to include anything on or above the earth for quite a distance.

Oh!!!!!! No it means in outer space only the other rules make that pretty clear.

[Cerb]

That was my reaction too Tak.

I need someone with more space knowledge to help me with geo-synchronous. I thought it referred more to speed of the satellite rather than altitude. My understanding is that the object needs to match the speed of the Earth to hold it's position. I found a couple of references that give an altitude but surely this is based on cost efficiency and optimal broadcast / footprint. It seems logical you could go higher or lower in altitude.

If it is referring to the current altitudes being used by communications satellites (which seem to sit at 22300 miles above the planet), then you can't conduct a test within 44,600 miles of the equator.

My assumption is that this was written in good faith and the intent was to ensure you didn't detonate a nuke in an area where the satellites hang out.

Still, with that clause in there, I'm going to have to go with "no".

[Kanaia]

AYE
For a nuke resolution I'm actually ok with it.

Just FYI, there are no KNOWN RL water nuke tests. The Vela Incident was likely a joint South African/Israeli test somewhere in the Indian Ocean.

[Walabamba]

I like it too, I'm for.

[Takaram]

Kan, didn't Operation Crossroads involve underwater testing?

[Kanaia]

I stand corrected.

[Guy]

Not too many people voted on this one, would be good if we could establish a consensus or at least the majority of people had voted.

[Eist]

I don't really understand what this has to do with decreasing spending. That because there would be more regulations, military spending would decrese? Seems to me like it could have the opposite effect by creating more beaurocracy.
Either way, this resolution seems too vague and inspecific for me to vote for.

[Glen-Rhodes]

Sept 26, 2010 19:36:30 GMT -5 Guy said:

It doesn't ban nuclear testing, it does put a few sensible restrictions on testing though.

Please see my post here about how it does, indeed, ban all nuclear testing: forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=3393236#p3393236

In the post, I explain the geosynchronous orbit clause, for those who are having difficulty understanding it. I do actually know what it means; my character just isn't a scientist, he's a politician.

I implore everybody in 10KI to vote AGAINST this resolution.

[Unibot]

Would it not have to be above a nation's airspace to be legally defined as between the 'planet' .. not the 'land of a planet'?You're aide can say whatever the hell he wants, reasonable definitions would suggest otherwise, and only a mod ruling is definite.

I don't think that 10ki or anyone, but especially 10ki because of their obvious influence, should be judging their vote on a legality claim that isn't fully legitimized. If it turns out that your interpretation is correct, GR, then that should make it pretty dahm easy to repeal, yes?

[Glen-Rhodes]

Sept 27, 2010 16:07:14 GMT -5 Unibot said:

Would it not have to be above a nation's airspace to be legally defined as between the 'planet' .. not the 'land of a planet'?You're aide can say whatever the hell he wants, reasonable definitions would suggest otherwise, and only a mod ruling is definite.

I don't think that 10ki or anyone, but especially 10ki because of their obvious influence, should be judging their vote on a legality claim that isn't fully legitimized. If it turns out that your interpretation is correct, GR, then that should make it pretty dahm easy to repeal, yes?

See my response here: forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=3393635#p3393635

[Unibot]

Sept 27, 2010 16:30:33 GMT -5 Glen-Rhodes said:

Sept 27, 2010 16:07:14 GMT -5 Unibot said:

Would it not have to be above a nation's airspace to be legally defined as between the 'planet' .. not the 'land of a planet'?You're aide can say whatever the hell he wants, reasonable definitions would suggest otherwise, and only a mod ruling is definite.

I don't think that 10ki or anyone, but especially 10ki because of their obvious influence, should be judging their vote on a legality claim that isn't fully legitimized. If it turns out that your interpretation is correct, GR, then that should make it pretty dahm easy to repeal, yes?

See my response here: forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=3393635#p3393635

That's still a judgement call on what it affects that you really don't have the authority to make.

[Guy]

Since no-one exactly knows what this resolution does, and the vote is currently tied, I withdrew my vote. I urge everyone to abstain until the effects of this resolution are clear.

[Eist]

Sept 27, 2010 23:27:56 GMT -5 Guy said:

Since no-one exactly knows what this resolution does, and the vote is currently tied, I withdrew my vote. I urge everyone to abstain until the effects of this resolution are clear.

Agreed!

[Unibot]

Hhhm, if it actually banned nuclear testing on land, it would be very very easy to repeal, so I think it is a risk worth taking. But do what you like.

[ImperialPoland]

Unibot, no, its not a "risk" worth taking. Why approve a proposal that isn't understood fully and would be repealed the minute it would pass?

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

Maybe what is being said is that no nuclear testing is allowed to be done within twice the distance of orbiting objects like the moon above inhabited bodies in space? This would mean it bans the testing of nukes within a certain distance above the earth, as it is a celestial body (as Glen said earlier). So, it would be like, having to send a nuke 712668 Kilometers away into space to test it because doing so anywhere on the earth, again being a celestial body, would be illegal...unless you go underground?

dam, i dont know anymore, but Glen seems to know what hes talking about so...

[ImperialPoland]

thank God this didn't pass....

final count was 2,791 Against and 2,463 For