At Vote:Radiological Terrorism [Complete] [Complete]

Abacathea

Abacathea

TNPer
Radiological Terrorism
A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.


Category: International Security

Strength: Mild

Proposed by: Sciongrad​

Description: 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:

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,

Assisting member nations in recovering from the consequences of a radiological attack,

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.
 
Against! When guns Radiological weapons are outlawed; only OUTLAWS will have guns Radiological weapons.

Criminals do not care if something is illegal, SHOCK! That is why they are called CRIMINALS! Banning and creating 'x-free zones' only empowers criminals to terrorize more because they know a law abiding citizen has no recourse for defense as such is at the criminals mercy. I am stauchly opposed to any measure that seeks to remove weapons of any kind away from the hands of lawfully abiding member nations.

Without member nations being able to have these types of weapons, the terrorists still will, and in order to deter terrorism with these weapons, member nations need to be able to use the threat of responding in kind to keep them at bay. Sometimes Presence or knowledge that someone can respond to your agression with equal or greater force is enough to deter criminal persons or states from acting agressively. Without that fear a terrorist state or organization has no incentive to protect their self intrests and not attack a member nation.
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
Against! When guns Radiological weapons are outlawed; only OUTLAWS will have guns Radiological weapons.

Criminals do not care if something is illegal, SHOCK! That is why they are called CRIMINALS! Banning and creating 'x-free zones' only empowers criminals to terrorize more because they know a law abiding citizen has no recourse for defense as such is at the criminals mercy. I am stauchly opposed to any measure that seeks to remove weapons of any kind away from the hands of lawfully abiding member nations.

Without member nations being able to have these types of weapons, the terrorists still will, and in order to deter terrorism with these weapons, member nations need to be able to use the threat of responding in kind to keep them at bay. Sometimes Presence or knowledge that someone can respond to your agression with equal or greater force is enough to deter criminal persons or states from acting agressively. Without that fear a terrorist state or organization has no incentive to protect their self intrests and not attack a member nation.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, are you seriously suggesting that radiological weapons are a deterrent? "Responding in kind" by firing radiological material over your own city - that'll really show those terrorists!
 
The Threat of retaliation serves as a deterrent. If a group knows a lawfully abiding member nation has resources to respond in kind it will lessen the criminals resolve and they are less likely to bother a member nation with counter-strike capabilities.

It is akin to the use of force continuum, where sheer presence is a deterring action, if a criminal or potential criminal even sees a law enforcement uniform it decreases the chance signifigantly they will act in the officers presence. Similarly I am suggesting when citizens are armed and able to defend themselves criminals are less likely to act aggressive toward those citizens for fear of retalliation. Criminals only prey on the weak when they know there is less of a chance they will fight back.

So yes, I am using that line of thinking with radiological terrorism. I am not suggesting actually using them ourselves, though that is a members nations perrogative. But just the threat that we might and the knowledge that a member nation has them in their possesion may trigger a rogue or terrorist group or nations self preservation and they may err on the side of reason and not attack. Similarly if a member nation does not have a way to respond equally then there is nothing in place to deter a rogue entity or nation from attacking a percieved undefended weaker nation.
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
The Threat of retaliation serves as a deterrent. If a group knows a lawfully abiding member nation has resources to respond in kind it will lessen the criminals resolve and they are less likely to bother a member nation with counter-strike capabilities.

It is akin to the use of force continuum, where sheer presence is a deterring action, if a criminal or potential criminal even sees a law enforcement uniform it decreases the chance signifigantly they will act in the officers presence. Similarly I am suggesting when citizens are armed and able to defend themselves criminals are less likely to act aggressive toward those citizens for fear of retalliation. Criminals only prey on the weak when they know there is less of a chance they will fight back.

So yes, I am using that line of thinking with radiological terrorism. I am not suggesting actually using them ourselves, though that is a members nations perrogative. But just the threat that we might and the knowledge that a member nation has them in their possesion may trigger a rogue or terrorist group or nations self preservation and they may err on the side of reason and not attack. Similarly if a member nation does not have a way to respond equally then there is nothing in place to deter a rogue entity or nation from attacking a percieved undefended weaker nation.
Click to expand...
First of all, radiological weapons have not deterrent value, especially when you have nuclear weapons. This argument that without radiological weapons, you won't be able to respond is simply not grounded in sensible policy. I've already discussed in depth why radiological weapons have no use for a professional military. Terrorists will not be deterred if a nation possesses radiological weapons because of this, and chances are, rational nations will not even have radiological weapons in their possession, because they are effectively useless for anyone besides terrorists. That's the bottom line here.

Radiological weapons aren't like gun, like your analogy suggested, for several obvious reasons, but most importantly, because law-abiding nations won't want radiological weapons. They're only used by "outlaws" anyways. Your argument presupposes that law abiding nations need or want these weapons to defend themselves, but that's not true because that's not what radiological weapons are used for.
 
Can you explain to me, What they ARE USED FOR THEN? I see no distinction between a Nuclear bomb, which isnt being proposed to be eliminated here, and a conventional bomb that had been manipulated to be radioactive. Both would expose an attacked area to nuclear radition. And while some less advanced member nations may have access to uranium, they do not have the funds to all out create a nuclear warhead, and as such seeks to radiate a conventional bomb as a compromise for wanting to have nuclear defense capabilities yet not the funds or technology to all out manufacture a nuclear warhead.
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
Can you explain to me, What they ARE USED FOR THEN? I see no distinction between a Nuclear bomb, which isnt being proposed to be eliminated here, and a conventional bomb that had been manipulated to be radioactive. Both would expose an attacked area to nuclear radition. And while some less advanced member nations may have access to uranium, they do not have the funds to all out create a nuclear warhead, and as such seeks to radiate a conventional bomb as a compromise for wanting to have nuclear defense capabilities yet not the funds or technology to all out manufacture a nuclear warhead.
Click to expand...
A radiological bomb is a normal explosive meant solely to spread radiological material. The purpose is area denial, but because of the limited use of such tactics in actual warfare, they're best used by terrorists to incite chaos and mayhem. Unfortunately for member nations, area denial tactics are useless against terrorists, and thus a radiological response would have no effect. A nuclear weapon, on the other hand, will cause serious damage to the recipient (although responding to terrorists with a nuclear weapon is also not very good policy) because the weapon itself is not conventional - i.e., not a weapon of mass destruction. You're right in that both would result in some radiation, but the difference is that a radiological weapon is a conventional weapon augmented by radiological material - the explosion is still that of a normal explosive. A nuclear weapon also spreads radiation, but the explosion is obviously quite difference. The intent is also very different. The intent of a nuclear weapon is to cause destruction from the resultant explosion, while a radiological weapon's purpose is not to kill so much as it is to foment chaos.

Furthermore, radiological weapons aren't a "compromise" between nuclear and conventional weapons. As I said moments ago, the entire intent of a radiological weapon is much different from the intent of a nuclear weapon.
 
Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
Voting on this resolution has ended.

Thanks to those nations who cast their votes. Your participation is a great help to the region.

This topic has been locked and sent to the Archives for safekeeping. If you would like this topic to be re-opened for further discussion, please contact the WA Delegate, a Global Moderator, or an Administrator for assistance. Thank you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top