In Response To Nuclear Warheads
rating: +18+x

by Ethagon

Good evening ladies and gentlemen,

I am Director Weld and this is the fourth time that I speak to the committee. I come to you today to propose the abolition of all on-site explosives. Especially regarding those of nuclear nature.

As you are all well aware, the Foundation's history with nuclear warheads is a long one. We used them since, well, since they were invented, the time of wars.

We did our best to stay out of all these wars, and yet we couldn't help but use the greatest creation for ourselves. And what did we use it for? Threaten our own staff. Nuclear warheads soon became the new method to easily resolve major security breaches. Not a normal bomb, mind you, an atomic bomb.

Unfortunately, it took years of hindsight to realize that these warheads contaminate a site with atomic radiation for the next billion years. And do you know what can still thrive in that radioactivity? Anomalies. Well some of them, but I don't have to tell you that some are too much in our line of work.

I wasn't there when the disaster of Site 21 happened. One of the biggest Keter breaches in our history, followed by the on-call of 5 of our best task forces. What stopped them? Not the Keter, they had it almost in check. What stopped them was the premature decision of someone at that site, that it would be time to bring out the last resort and blow everything up.

Now we've got a focal point of anomalies that control a still functioning site and no human can contain them, because they'd die if they entered.

And I know at most sites we do not use nuclear warheads anymore, but that's not because of the things I just said. They are only out of use because of the veil breaking that these explosions cause. After all, it is a bit difficult to hide a radioactive cloud that travels through multiple continents before dissolving.

At least the new explosives can remove a site without making a single sound outside its scope and don't leave a huge, never to be used again, crater. Incidentally, locations in more remote locations are still dependent on atomic bombs.

But do you know what really bothered me about Site 21? It's not the radioactivity it spread or the abomination it now houses, it is the fact that we lost 5 of our best task forces to that explosion. 5 task forces we could have needed that year. 5 task forces filled with young enthusiasts who could have served the Foundation for a whole lifetime.

And if those soldiers were still alive, they could have prevented a lot more of the "last resorts" that we had to use.

Now since I am speaking to the Ethics Committee here, I also want to note that knowing that you are working under the watchful eye of a bomb that could explode any minute does not help your productivity.

I also honestly never understood the argument that these explosives are our best bets against raids. Is it not the point of stopping a raid to not lose the objects and people we're housing? And surely a raid was never that extreme that it would be worth it to eradicate all personnel and other anomalies with them?

Now tell me: Who here knows one anomaly that breached containment that could have been neutralized by a nuke.

Yes, not that surprising.

Now tell me again: Which of those couldn't have been neutralized by a gunshot at the right time?

I thought as much.

Now if you don't take anything else away from today at least promise me, that you will stand against the council's decision to arm my department and other Foundation Fronts with On-Site-Explosives. I don't think the explained anomalies I house are a danger to anyone. And while the Foundation may not publicly exist we Fronts will take consequences.

We have many good Soldiers who trained their entire life to prevent breaches. Triggering a Bomb is just the easy way out and a dishonour to their jobs.

We don't have to die in the dark,
Thank you for your time.

While the council appreciates Director Weld's ongoing worry for staff, this motion can not pass. What is clearly missing from this proposal to be truly worth considering is an alternative. If I understood Weld correctly his alternative to the current solution is "We must be better" and while that certainly is a goal to gravitate towards, it is not always obtainable. After all, we're only human beings and there is only so much we can do. Then what exactly do we need to expect if these human efforts are not enough? Do we just accept that the last breach will cause a K-class scenario? Shouldn't we have done everything in our power to prevent that, even including "that last resort"?

I do want to give a bit of perspective on these "last resorts". In the last 50 years, all in all, four sites decided that there was no other option. And while we are all aware that 21 was a tragedy, stricter control was implemented afterwards for all sites, those other three incidents, in the end, saved humanity.

However, Weld is right about one thing. Atomic Bombs are extremely ineffective compared to more modern explosive devices and as such all sites still dependent on them will be replaced. That motion will pass.

The general proposal is denied by the Council.

I will not go into the psychological effects of the awareness of on-site explosives. If this is a problem, it is the duty of the ethics committee to find a solution.

~ O5-6

Ethics Committee Voting
Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License