I was thinking, would anyone support the idea of registering .idu as an IDU internet TLD?

We could do something like blah.ce.idu for our nations, but that might get to be an infringement of natsov.

Browsing through the Jolt archives I bumped into the "Space Defense Initiative" discussion. It was the first big debate I participated in. One of my fiercest opponents: Mikitivity. I'll post it here to show how things can change

:discussion:

Mikitivity East Hackney Groot Gouda 
the office of the President of the PRoGG would like it to be known that, should this foolish resolution be passed, we will participate in the development of the SDI and veto on any use of the SDI using the final clause of the resolution, stating that the UN
"RESOLVES that in order to prevent the orbital defense platform from improper application, each use and deployment of the platform be approved by full consensus of all participating nations".[/quote]

So let's get this straight. Your nation is so convinced that there is no threat to the Earth from rogue asteroids that, should it be discovered that an asteroid is about to strike the planet, your nation will veto any attempt to destroy it, thus dooming all human life, purely because you don't like the wording of this resolution? hock:[/quote]

Yes, Gouda is being amazingly shortsighted and childish. I'm just waiting for him to scream, "We'll bury you!" and stomp out. Then we'll be able to take care of business.

10kMichael[/quote]

:discussion:

Groot Gouda East Hackney Groot Gouda 
the office of the President of the PRoGG would like it to be known that, should this foolish resolution be passed, we will participate in the development of the SDI and veto on any use of the SDI using the final clause of the resolution, stating that the UN
"RESOLVES that in order to prevent the orbital defense platform from improper application, each use and deployment of the platform be approved by full consensus of all participating nations".[/quote]

So let's get this straight. Your nation is so convinced that there is no threat to the Earth from rogue asteroids that, should it be discovered that an asteroid is about to strike the planet, your nation will veto any attempt to destroy it, thus dooming all human life, purely because you don't like the wording of this resolution? hock:[/quote]

Because it's highly unlikely that an asteroid will strike the earth within the lifetime of our president, we do not think that there are any actual dangers.

The fact that the wording of this resolution leaves this possibility open is worrying. Of course, having said that, our nation probably won't be able to do so. But there are plenty of rogue nations who could abuse that power. And there would be no possibility within this resolution to stop those nations.[/quote]

:discussion:

Groot Gouda 
Mikitivity The Eroded Washita Groot Gouda The costs simply outweigh the advantages. [/quote]

Why do you care what the costs are? The resolution clearly states:
[/quote]

Good point, but here is a better one directed to Gouda, who likes to make threats to the Earth ...

Could you show actual proof that the costs outweight the advantages? [/quote]

Considering the billions spent on the International Space Station and it costing way much more than planned, the costs for an SDI would be huge, even if all nations work together.

(see for example http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/f...-140521,00.html and http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=79vup...sk.sympatico.ca

I await your figures on likelyhood of impact and the implications of such an impact for the coming, say, 100.000 years. That period is *near certain* to contain an ice age, with desastrous consequences. (see for example http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/11/science/...bc7b165&ei=5062)

I agree, that the costs can be 0 if a nation chooses not to participate. However, considering the dangers also noted by some supporters of this proposal in terms of rogue nations and terrorists, not participating is not an option. Not participating means no influence over how this is used. If all who are against would not participate, it would leave a huge amount of power with the richer nations, whose intentions might not be world peace and defence against interstellar objects.

We have no doubt about the good intents of the proposer, however we fear the optimism about possible abuse, and the lack of measures in the proposal against such abuse.[/quote]

:discussion:

Mikitivity So far the only nation to announce that they'd participate but refuse to ever allow use of the platform was yours. If there is any nation we should be concerned against abusing the station, it is yours.

Second you've illustrated costs of the station, but you've totally failed to assess the costs of not acting.

Hazard = Risk * Loss

Let's look at this [OOC: real world] report:
http://www.nearearthobjects.co.uk/report/pdf/04.pdf

Let's assume that the risk is the inverse of the return period. From the table in this report a "sub-global" event occurs once every 25,000 years, i.e. a rock about 1 km in diameter. In this case risk would be: 0.004%.

Hazard = 0.004% * Loss

The estimated fatalities (no property damage, no loss in productivity of agricultural, not even costs associated with the wounded) are 500,000 lives.

Hazard = 0.004% * 500,000 ==> roughly 20 lives lost this year

How much value is your society willing to place on 20 lives / year? Bear in mind this is 20 lives EVERY year. But what would your populations shock be if instead of 20 lives lost, 5,000 lives were lost (such as what happened with the World Trade Center)? Surely your "President" (though I don't see how anybody can call a leader a president if he / she issues threats to vote no on use of a station to protect the Earth out of petty reasons such as they just don't like the station) would not want the blood of 5,000 lives on his / her hands!

Now let's look at a larger event: the 5 km rock.

Fatalities: 1.5 billion
Interval: 6 million years
Risk: 1.66E-5 % (Check my math please)

Hazard = 1.5 billion * 1/6 million ===> roughly 250 lives lost per year

This doesn't consider increases in population density. But obviously these bigger rocks are worth our attention ... 20 lives vs. 250 lives.

I've not even talked about the largest rock: the global killer, which is estimated to take out 6 billion instead of 1.5 billion.

My point is, it is great and wonderful that you *think* you know that this type of event won't happen in the next 10 years. But while your nation is willing to "throw away" 20 to 250 lives per year, I would say let's agree to build your "expensive" station.

Because the truth is those lives aren't really lost until we do "win" the celestial lottery and get hit. But instead of 20, we are talking 500,000 to 6 billion lives lost. And what sort of value do you want to put on a human life then?

I'd much rather tell my government that we've started research on tracking and managing this risk, so that when one of our nation's does dected the sub-global or global killer, that we won't be spending the years to days before impact making extra body bags, but actually attempting to do something.

This of course says nothing of whatever secondary benefits will come of this project.

BTW: read your "ice age" article again. It says that climatologists don't know what will happen. Being that I happen to know one really well (HINT: you're reading his post), I would say that when that article says "some" it isn't speaking for what most climatologists are projecting when they talk about global warming and green house gases doubling scenarios.

10kMichael[/quote]

:discussion:

Groot Gouda The PRoGG admires the research done by Mikitivity. However, a few issues remain.

First of all, translating the hazard into a number of lives per year is, in our opinion, not valid statistics. Because those people aren't dying each year.

Secondly, even if we follow these numbers, the PRoGG thinks there are more pressing issues to be resolved by the UN, where lives can actually be saved. Building what appears to be a huge telescope and gun in space is no garantuee for those lives to be saved. As mentioned by other states, technology is not at a sufficient level yet. The PRoGG has no objection into further research in this field, which could lead to a better proposal.

Of course, there is a chance that we will "win", as Mikitity calls it, the "celestial lotto", and a tremendous amount of human lives will be lost. The PRoGG would not like to see this happen, and will retract the statement about vetoing all proposals regarding the SDI, seeing the unnecessary commotion this perhaps too quickly uttered statement has caused. We will of course remain cautious about any developments in this field.

We still consider the risk to be too small to prioritise an SDI, despite the disaster the would follow from an impact. We prefer non-millitary options to be researched as well, before anymore time and money is spent on a SDI which might not prevent an impact, and is still open for abuse.

And on the Ice Age: that *will* happen in the coming 100,000 years. Global warming and related processes play only a minor part in that, and might delay it or vice versa for a few thousand years at most. It is still a great and certain risk, which alas lacks the coolness of space.[/quote]

:discussion:

Groot Gouda The PRoGG has found time to read some more on the subject of NEO, specifically the report mentioned by Mikitivity.

Interestingly, it appears that there are several other possible solutions to deflect or destroy NEOs, as mentioned in this report (emphasis mine):
Quote: To try to destroy an asteroid or comet in space by a single explosive charge on or below its surface would risk breaking it uncontrollably into a number of large pieces which could still hit the Earth, doing even more damage. A more promising method would be to fly a spacecraft alongside the object, perhaps for months or years, nudging it in a controlled way from time to time with explosives or other means.This relatively gentle approach is particularly important because many asteroids and comets are held together only by their own very weak gravitational fields.The longer the time before impact, the more effective even a small nudge would be.[/quote]

The report (http://www.nearearthobjects.co.uk/report/chapter8.htm) is also sceptical of Nuclear Weapons. Not so much in usefullness, but in lack of consencus about the use of nuclear weapons. Considering the opposition to this resolution, and the clause that requires unanimity, we consider an SDI as a suboptimal solution.

The PRoGG hopes that the proposer is able to adjust his proposal, limiting it to research in this matter so a better solution can be found. The PRoGG will support such research as long as it is not biased towards using dangerous and impossible solutions.

Looking forward to the final votes on this resolution with confidence,

With kind regards,

The President of the People's Republic of Groot Gouda.[/quote]

:discussion:

I suddenly feel the need to write another UN proposal. I think Groot's success inspired me

So, I went back and looked at resolution 141: Repeal "The Law of the Sea", and remembered this:
Resolution #141 written by Gruenberg2. IMPLORES the General Assembly to ensure speedy replacement of certain admittedly important aspects of "The Law of the Sea" concerning the sovereignty of territorial waters, and its well-intentioned but ineffectively and dangerously executed attempts to combat piracy.[/quote]

I want to focus only on outlawing piracy. I think the other issues would be better dealt with in separate resolutions.

I just want to know if anyone thinks this is a good idea, or has any ideas I should incorporate. If it is, I'll start writing a rough draft soon.

Opinions/ideas please

Category: Global Disarmament
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Franxico

Description: Believing that the benefits of the peaceful application of nuclear technology should be available to all UN nations and convinced that all UN nations are entitled to participate in the exchange of scientific information for the further development of atomic energy for peaceful purposes,

Disturbed by the possibility of widespread devastation that could occur as the result of a nuclear war and determined to reduce the danger of such a war,

Believing that the proliferation of nuclear weapons increases the danger of nuclear war,

Alarmed at the potential threat posed to international security by the acquisition of nuclear weaponry by rogue states,

Defining a nuclear weapon as a weapon that relies on nuclear fusion or fission for its destructive effect. Excluded from this definition shall be any integrated guidance, safety and security systems, or any other peripheral system not directly related to the explosive payload itself, or its detonation device(s).

The General Assembly of the United Nations hereby enacts the following:

ARTICLE I. UN member nations shall not:
(1) Directly or indirectly transfer control or ownership of nuclear weapons to or from any nation.
(2) Assist or induce any nation to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or control over such weapons.
(3) Seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons, other than for the purpose of improving the safety of the weapon.

ARTICLE II: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the right of all UN nations to develop nuclear arms using their own technology and manufacturing capabilities.

ARTICLE III: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the right of all UN nations to share technology related to safety and security systems, guidance systems, delivery systems or any other peripheral systems not directly related to the design or manufacture of the nuclear weapon itself, provided such activities are in conformity with article I of this legislation.

ARTICLE IV: Nothing in this legislation shall be interpreted as affecting the right of all UN nations to research, produce and use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, or their participation in the exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for peaceful purposes, provided such activities are in conformity with article I of this legislation.

Category: International Security
Strength: Mild
Proposed by: Gruenberg

Description: The United Nations,

CONDEMNING avoidable civilian casualties,

COMMENDING previous law protecting civilians during and after military conflicts,

CONCERNED that landmines constitute a significant threat to civilians,

LAMENTING that this problem has not been adequately addressed,

DEFINING for the purposes of this resolution
- "landmine" as a self-contained explosive device, placed on or under the ground, triggered by a person, tank, other vehicle, timer mechanism, or otherwise, with the intent to deter or disable force movements,
- "minefield" as any area in which landmines are located, or believed to be located,
- "demining" as the process of safely disabling, detonating, or removing landmines, rendering them non-hazardous:

1. DECLARES the duty of member nations to reduce and, where possible, prevent civilian casualties in minefields;

2. INSTRUCTS member nations to conduct surveys determining the location and status of all minefields within their territory;

3. RECOMMENDS that member nations take all appropriate actions to prevent civilian casualties in minefields, including:
- clear marking of minefields on maps,
- posting of clearly visible signs around minefields, using warnings in all appropriate languages,
- international cooperation in raising awareness of the location of minefields,
- advising and educating citizens on methods for avoiding casualties in minefields;

4. ADVISES member nations that responsible demining is the most effective way of reducing minefield casualties;

5. ESTABLISHES the UN Demining Survey (UNDS), mandated to:
- conduct and aid demining operations, where requested under Article 8,
- research demining technology, landmine types less likely to constitute a lasting danger to civilians, and alternatives to landmine use,
- collaborate with national and international demining agencies,
- instruct civilians on landmine safety and treatment of landmine-related injuries,
- further promote landmine safety awareness through educational and informational campaigns;

6. URGES member nations to contribute staff, expertise, information, and funding to the UNDS;

7. MANDATES that the UNDS be respectful of territorial sovereignty of member states, and that no UNDS agent enter the territory of member nations without their explicit consent;

8. ESTABLISHES that:
- member nations may request UNDS assistance in demining minefields located solely within their jurisdiction,
- for minefields located within the jurisdiction of two or more nations, UNDS demining may be requested solely for parts of the minefield under jurisdiction of requesting nations,
- requesting nations may bar specific individuals from entering their territory to undertake UNDS operations,
- requesting nations must provide UNDS agents all available information on the location of landmines, and the UNDS may refuse involvement if risks to its personnel are deemed excessive,
- storage and disposal of removed landmines and fragments is the responsibility of requesting nations, and the UNDS may refuse involvement if the requesting nation is deemed incompetent to perform such tasks.

So, an idea has been on my mind for some time now, so I finally decided to ask all y'all what you think about this, and maybe I can start to build reputation as a valuable UN member


I've skimmed through the passed resolutions, and rather to my astonishment, there seem to be few to none concerning the rights of the disabled (or I overlooked something, which could also be the case), and one particular topic was particularly lacking... namely, the rights of deaf people.

As a hobby linguist, sign languages do quite fascinate me, and as they are the easiest and most efficient way of communication for deaf people both with other deaf people and with the hearing community (i.e., as far as I know), I think that a mandatory recognition of a national sign language in all UN nations would do much good whereas (hopefully) being not too controversial.


And, er, that's about as far as I've gotten so far. So, any input is much needed and much welcomed!

One of the reasons why I wanted to step back from regional governance was to work on a planned proposal for a UN resolution that was originally raised in the discussions and debates on the Tsunami Warning System resolution and the Natural Disaster Act resolution early last year.

This third concept dealt with having building standards for emergency preparedness/response buildings, which could serve as a model for other public and private buildings. During the role play on this forum of failed nations (American Federalist. Flankia, etc.) it also became apparent that other structures, such as temporary housing and other structures would also need a model standard in order to be effective (standardized electrical, gas, water, sewer, telephone and other utilities) as well as transportation. The complicating factor is of course, that different nations or local areas would have different types of combinations of natural disasters that they have to be prepared for (it would be rare that an area that frequently has tropical cyclones would have to prepare for blizzards, as a for instance.)

The concept that this proposal would bring forward is the idea of standardized model building standards that would apply to emergency disaster preparedness/response facilities but which could be voluntarily applying to other public and privately owned buildings.

This would have the effect of reducing costs of response and recovery. If structures are properky built, then the likelihood of damage is reduced, and the facilities would be more capable of immediate utilization in the response and recovery phase following a natural disaster. With such structures in place, then it will be easier to get aid to those who need it in the immeadiate aftermath of a disaster.

Any thoughts, ideas, suggestions, etc.?

I would like to author a resolution to increase political freedoms. But I'm not sure what is or is not already covered by UN resolutions and where to go from here. I am prepared to lobby those who need to be lobbied and such. But I would like to know where the IDUers in particular think there is room for improvement when it comes to political freedoms ...

Another topic of interest:

Quote: The United Nations:

RECOGNIZING most member states possess education programs with differing methods of instruction,

NOTING these methods of instruction generally produce equivalent standards of education across states,

REGRETTING many member states do not recognize educational standards of other nations, even where equivalent to their own,

FURTHER REGRETTING many immigrants are forced to work jobs for which they are grossly overqualified as a result of this lack of recognition,

SEEKING to coordinate education standards throughout its member nations,

DEFINING for the purpose of this resolution ?credential? as any degree, diploma, certificate or other indication of the completion of an official education program.

1. ESTABLISHES the United Nations Organization for the Standardization of Education Credentials (UNOSEC), mandated to:
a) investigate the educational programs of member states registered with UNOSEC;
b) develop standards as to the credential requirements of certain professions;
c) create a list of equivalent credentials for each registered state.
d) assist registered states in improving their education programs so that hey may meet a higher level of credentials.

2. ENCOURAGES UN member states to register with UNOSEC and have its educational system investigated;

3. MANDATES all UN member states registered with UNOSEC must recognize the credentials of any individual that received equivalent credentials in other states registered with UNOSEC;

4. RECOMMENDS all UN members states registered with UNOSEC implement upgrading programs for those individuals whose credentials are not equal with the similar education offered in that state;

5. ALLOWS any UN member state registered with UNOSEC to rescind this status at any time, forfeiting all corollaries of membership;

6.URGES member states to recognize any equivalent credentials received in a foreign country, even where one or both states involved are not a part of UNOSEC.[/quote]

Roughly two years ago, a rift formed within the government of the Allied States of Xtraordinary Gentlemen over allegations of election fraud. Benjamin Bustamente was accused of orchestrating a scheme that resulted in the throwing out of massive numbers of votes in order to maintain his grip on power. Articles of impeachment were brought against him but the fraud allegations were never successfully proven, and Bustamante remained in office. Several months later, scandal again rocked the capital city of Siguatepeque as it was discovered that the nation's intelligence agency, la Direcci?n General de Inteligencia (DGI), had been violating the citizens' right to privacy and spying domestically in an attempt to uncover and foil an alleged terrorist plot. Bustamante maintained that the plot never came to fruition because of his misuse of the DGI, while detractors claimed that no such plot ever existed.

The illegality of the DGI's domestic surveillance program was unquestionable, however, and Bustamante's political opponents, having already failed once to remove him from power, jumped on the second opportunity immediately. Bustamante was promptly arrested along with all of his cabinet members who had voted in favor of the program during the secret cabinet session. A new interim government took over which withdrew the Allied States from all previous international treaties and obligations, including the United Nations and the International Democratic Union, a regional body of which the Allied States itself had been a founding member under Bustamante. This move ushered in a new era of political and economic isolationism when the interim government refused to relinquish power after the first national elections since Bustamante's arrest.

Military elements sympathetic to Bustamante's plight quietly freed him from his cell in early 2005. Bustamante demonstrated his leadership skills almost immediately, gathering what troops he could and disappearing into the Allied States' rural countryside to plan his coup. The new government responded by summarily executing all of Bustamante's previous cabinet members with the hopes of crushing the rebellion outright before it started. However, with the new government unable to locate Bustamante himself (in an ironic twist of fate, this failure was in spite of the fact that they dispatched DGI agents domestically to hunt for him), he had the element of surprise on his side and managed to win several key victories early on, including the capture of the Allied States' main seaport. This allowed Bustamante to begin receiving supply shipments from nations with whom he had previously enjoyed strong diplomatic ties, with particularly large amounts of aid coming from IDU nations such as the Confederated City States of Mikitivity, the Glorious People's Republic of Groot Gouda, and the Armed Republic of Nieuwe Munchkinland. It also drew the attention of the nation to his cause.

Many civilians who were previously content recalled how much better off they were economically prior to the isolationist policies of the new regime. Still others were outraged by the political executions and were willing to forgive Bustamante's past transgressions in the face of the latest developments. Offerings of aid in the form of safe houses, funding, and food poured in, and Bustamante soon found himself with massive popular support domestically to go along with his strong international supply chain. It would not be long from this turning point before the civil war would be over.

By early March 2006, Bustamante had regained control of virtually all strategically important locations one by one, and had surrounded Siguatepeque. Civilians were given notice to evacuate the capital immediately, and the ruling government was offered the chance to step aside peacefully and receive amnesty. The ruling party declined and the final siege was on. Bustamante's forces shelled the city with heavy artillery night and day. Automatic gunfire rang out continuously throughout the city, and in several neigborhoods the streets literally ran red with blood. Losses were heavy on both sides, but on March 12, after a week of the most intense fighting of the civil war, Bustamante's forces were victorious.

Bustamante has retaken leadership of the nation and appointed new cabinet members after the model of his previous reign. The rebuilding process has begun, both domestically and with regards to re-establishing previous international ties. March 12 is now an official holiday in the Allied States. It is a day both of remembrance and celebration; remembrance for the brave souls on both sides who gave their all for what they felt was the good of the nation, and celebration of the Allied States' return to power within the international community.