| First Round of Negotiations on an IARNPT |
We cannot agree to these terms:
Darkstrait :ninja:
Former Justice, Former Local Councilor, Roleplayer, Former SPSF Deputy for Recruitment, Politically Active Citizen, Ex-Spammer Supreme, and Resident Geek "Hats is very fashion this year."
Alright. How about instead of a ban, we set up a cap. You can build so many nuclear weapons, but, once you reach that point, you must stop. Is that agreeable?
Officially being omnipotent via Tapatalk
An eye for an eye just makes the whole world go blind.
~Mahatma Gandhi
(05-06-2015, 05:15 PM)FederationOfTheRK Wrote: Alright. How about instead of a ban, we set up a cap. You can build so many nuclear weapons, but, once you reach that point, you must stop. Is that agreeable? That would be acceptable, as long as the cap was placed at a reasonable level. Our reason for needing nuclear weapons in space.
Darkstrait :ninja:
Former Justice, Former Local Councilor, Roleplayer, Former SPSF Deputy for Recruitment, Politically Active Citizen, Ex-Spammer Supreme, and Resident Geek "Hats is very fashion this year." (05-06-2015, 05:18 PM)Darkstrait Wrote:(05-06-2015, 05:15 PM)FederationOfTheRK Wrote: Alright. How about instead of a ban, we set up a cap. You can build so many nuclear weapons, but, once you reach that point, you must stop. Is that agreeable? How is that propulsion system a weapon? Sedunn would also like to state that using nuclear weapons before being attacked by the same weapons or in retaliation is acceptable.
(05-06-2015, 06:08 PM)Qwert Wrote: How is that propulsion system a weapon? First, it uses nuclear explosives as a system of propulsion. It would be far too easy to re-purpose the explosives for direct nuclear attack. Second, what if the nuclear explosives are used to power military vessels? Then things get legal.
Darkstrait :ninja:
Former Justice, Former Local Councilor, Roleplayer, Former SPSF Deputy for Recruitment, Politically Active Citizen, Ex-Spammer Supreme, and Resident Geek "Hats is very fashion this year." (05-06-2015, 06:32 PM)Darkstrait Wrote:(05-06-2015, 06:08 PM)Qwert Wrote: How is that propulsion system a weapon? Your concept seems extremely inefficient. It would be far less expensive to use conventional space travel technology. Officially being omnipotent via Tapatalk
An eye for an eye just makes the whole world go blind.
~Mahatma Gandhi
(05-06-2015, 06:40 PM)FederationOfTheRK Wrote:(05-06-2015, 06:32 PM)Darkstrait Wrote:(05-06-2015, 06:08 PM)Qwert Wrote: How is that propulsion system a weapon? This method produces a huge amount of thrust. However, we will not discuss this here as it is not the right place for it. To get back to the point, we are not willing to accept the term banning weapons use in space.
Darkstrait :ninja:
Former Justice, Former Local Councilor, Roleplayer, Former SPSF Deputy for Recruitment, Politically Active Citizen, Ex-Spammer Supreme, and Resident Geek "Hats is very fashion this year." (05-06-2015, 05:18 PM)Darkstrait Wrote: Our reason for needing nuclear weapons in space. As a nation of science, Scienta understands your concerns. Scienta will still push for a ban on nuclear weapons in space, but we see no reason to prohibit a nation from using nuclear devices for nuclear pulse propulsion on a non-military vehicle. If we can agree to this, then we should be able to establish a compromise that sufficiently prohibits weapons being placed in orbit, but will not hinder your nation either. For example, inspectors could inspect any craft containing explosive nuclear devices, and inspect the devices for any equipment that would allow the devices to re-enter the atmosphere, and any equipment that would allow them to target a specific location. While this of course isn't the most perfect solution, for example nuclear devices launched from a nuclear pulse propulsion craft could be used to create an electromagnetic pulse in the upper atmosphere, but it would still nonetheless reduce the threat of nuclear attack from space. Scienta would also like to point out, that even in the pursuit of propulsion, the detonation of a nuclear device in low orbit could cause an EMP that would be just as detrimental as a weaponized nuclear device. Scienta would like to know what type of precautions/rules Darkstrait has put in place to prevent this? Perhaps whatever precautions and rules your nation has put in place can be also placed into this treaty, and other nations would then follow suit. In response to the Resentine Kingdom on a proposal for a cap, Scienta would be agreeable to this. As for the previous concerns regarding nations being required to announce their nuclear status, we would like to clarify that we have no issue with nations being required to do this, in fact we encourage this being incorporated into this act. The only issue we had was the status of "nation seeking to develop nuclear weapons." Perhaps a better solution would be make more black and white, either a nation has nuclear weapons, or they don't. Based on the discussions being made, these are the current issues Scienta would like to see incorporated into this treaty:
Qvait is willing to change its stance on nuclear sharing but the outright ban of nuclear weapons is not what we are willing to accept. If that was to happen and mass disarmament had occurred in Qvait to a point where there are no more nuclear weapons, one nation may have kept one nuclear warhead and would use it against us because they know that we don't have nukes to retaliate. Qvait agrees that there should not be any nuclear weapons in space and an international ban on testing.
We are against the idea of allowing nations to place nuclear pulse propulsion weapons in space. Why use these weapons when we have drones? The only way that we would allow this weapon is only if it is shared internationally as a tool against objects like asteroids. (05-06-2015, 09:29 PM)JCRules Wrote: Qvait is willing to change its stance on nuclear sharing but the outright ban of nuclear weapons is not what we are willing to accept. If that was to happen and mass disarmament had occurred in Qvait to a point where there are no more nuclear weapons, one nation may have kept one nuclear warhead and would use it against us because they know that we don't have nukes to retaliate. Qvait agrees that there should not be any nuclear weapons in space and an international ban on testing. OOC: Perhaps I am wrong, but I think there's a misunderstanding of what nuclear pulse propulsion is. While this isn't a thread on technology, perhaps a quick primer on how this works will benefit writing this treaty. The basic concept of Nuclear Pulse Propulsion, is a spaceship is equipped with a large "pusher" plate on the back that is built upon shock absorbers. A nuclear explosive is launched out the back, and at a pre-programmed distance the device detonates. The shockwave from the explosion pushes the pusher plate, accelerating the spacecraft. The shock absorbers spread the acceleration over a large distance, keeping the crew from feeling like they are being bashed in the back of their heads by their seats. This process repeats over and over again, propelling the spacecraft forward. On the surface, it sounds inefficient, but it actually works out to be far more efficient then chemical rockets, or even ion propulsion. There are other designs that still use nuclear explosions as "propellant", but don't use conventional nuclear devices (the nuclear explosion is triggered by a high powered laser), and the explosion is internal, instead of happening in open space behind the spacecraft. The benefit of this method, is it doesn't require nuclear devices that can be weaponized. The downside is it requires a LOT of energy, while tossing nukes out the back barely requires any. |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
RP Info
![[Image: C5xhL3j.png]](https://i.imgur.com/C5xhL3j.png)
![[Image: xpCtQTW.png]](https://i.imgur.com/xpCtQTW.png)
![[Image: snqZrFA.png]](https://i.imgur.com/snqZrFA.png)
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |