NationStates Jolt Archive

srry just type in ban sea mines, due to a resent loss of a lotta iv been very dizzy latky. :?

Its alright. We know what you mean and we support your resolution. :D

If landmines were banned, sea mines should too. As you point out in your resolution, the sea is expansive, far more expansive than land. Earth is made up of 2/3 water afterall.

Seamines are a nuisance. They inhibit trade as boats and cargo ships try to cross they run the danger of running into one. Fisherman, submarine tours and pleasure cruise ships ought to beware also. Seamines unlike landmines have the ability to become loose and float away, sometimes into harbors and fishing areas, causing even more destruction.

We support this resolution and will vote for it if it reaches the floor.

We would also would like to have someone else to write a resolution as an extension to this resolution, calling for a small yet affordable crew created by the UN to seek out and either disarm and cleanup or outright destroy seamines. Call it a cleanup expedition or military action if you will (to destroy landmines torpedoes will probably be used).

We will support any nation or resolution that does so.

Confederacy of the Isles Region UN Delegate
Hung Tony

The Federation of Soltak offers its support for this resolution.

The Rogue Nation of Kodic, does not support this proposal. As, The Rogue Nation Of Kodic is a pirate-based nation, living on an island with smugglers and thiefs, we do not wish to have unwelcomed guests at our docks. The Seamines are keeping Pirates Landing safe from naval forces, unwelcomed merchants, and other people(s) that can cause damage to Pirates Landing, on the sea.

As with any resolution that seeks to ban a class of weapon outright, Ithuania will oppose this but would support a resolution requiring certain actions to be taken regarding sea mines once hostilities have ceased.

The problem with banning a class of weapon outright is that it has no effect whatsoever on nations that are not UN members.

The problem with banning a class of weapon outright is that it has no effect whatsoever on nations that are not UN members.

As the UN membership is voluntary, very few resolutions have an effect on nonmember nations.

Though sea mines are great defence, if they beak away they can cause serious damage to passanger ships. We support this ban.

Though sea mines are great defence, if they beak away they can cause serious damage to passanger ships. We support this ban.

Though sea mines are great defence, if they beak away they can cause serious damage to passanger ships. We support this ban.

People still use seamines? Those are way out of date. Still, a ban couldn't hurt anyone except those who use them.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kûk‡xenisi n!ok‡x'osi xno-k‡xek‡emi.-The state only exists to serve itself.
"Oppose excessive military spending, yet believe in excessive spending on junk food and plastic surgery to make all your women look like LARDASSES!"-Sino, when I criticized excessive military spending.
http://www.sulucas.com/images/steatopygia.jpg
I'm male. Note the pic of attractive women.

The problem with banning a class of weapon outright is that it has no effect whatsoever on nations that are not UN members.

As the UN membership is voluntary, very few resolutions have an effect on nonmember nations.

Yes, that's my whole point...if a non-UN member should go to war with a UN member, the non-member will be able to use sea mines to protect his ports, but the UN member will have his hands tied as far as doing the same goes.

Rebeland hostily resents this proposal. Rebeland is an incredibly militant country, and as so we possess many explosives. Not to mention that the Militantatopian sea has more TNT in it than a chinese firework hut. Do not interpret my negativity as a ubiquitous Rebelandi hostility, simply a right to maintain a healthy defense. Good day.

Since the sea is not owned by anybody (I haven't checked if a resolution has changed that yet) it would make far more sense to ban sea mines. However I am afraid it doesn't touch the weak hearted that have to vote for it as much.

Anybody who opposed the last resolution, don't say anything, we are already know you are against :).

Oh darn....that includes me. I happen to like mines :P.

Oh yea....and I hate the word "ban" even more

Tax sounds much more appealing to me ;).

The problem with banning a class of weapon outright is that it has no effect whatsoever on nations that are not UN members.

As the UN membership is voluntary, very few resolutions have an effect on nonmember nations.

Yes, that's my whole point...if a non-UN member should go to war with a UN member, the non-member will be able to use sea mines to protect his ports, but the UN member will have his hands tied as far as doing the same goes.

Hmmm unite and kick ass :P. No amount of mines is going to help you then.

Since the sea is not owned by anybody...

Well, territorial waters are owned by the nation they are territorial waters of...

Sea mines should definitely be banned. They can cause great danger if they break away, and are very difficult to trace where they've drifted to. Nine times out of ten, sonar won't detect them until it's too late for the oncoming ship. And if they get caught in a coastal storm, the seafront will have explosives thrown at it. It could completely destroy the economy of a small fishing town.

Maybe sea mines should be allowed, but they should have systems built in that allow them to be remotley disabled when they are no longer useful.

Ban sea mines in times of peace. In war, let it be at the judgement of the nation whether or not to use them

During war time however the crisis would make you cut back on mechanisms that make the mines less harmfull or being able to remotely disarm.

Actually remotely disarm is a great idea......if only we could have the technology so the enemy could not disarm them either :-S.

I say scrap the lot. They have no practical use in modern warfare anyway...ships will anchor beofer they even get in sight of shore, and troops/planes will be transported from them to the land by air.

OOC: Actually, a lot of my spare time is spent experimenting with various encryption technologies and secure exchange methods, and this isn't too difficult.

Requiring a key be transmitted to the mine may seem like a good idea, but it is not enough. Even if the key is encrypted, all the enemy has to do is intercept the radio transmission and send the ENCRYPTED key back exactly and he will be able to get through. Instead, a challenge-response method is needed.

1) The control device sends a message to the mine telling it that it wishes to deactivate the mine. This can be sent clear or encrypted; it doesn't matter.
2) The mine sends a randomly-generated, one-time-use code back to the control device. Again, it doesn't matter whether this is sent clear or encrypted.
3) Using an asymmetric key-based encryption algorithm, the control device encrypts the code and sends it back to the mine.
4) The mine then applies the complementary key to decrypt the message it receives, verifies that the code sent back is the same as the code it generated, and if it is then proceeds to deactivate itself.

As long as the enemy does not gain access to the key used for encryption, this is secure. Even if the mine transmits the code to the control device in the clear and the enemy intercepts it, since the enemy does not have the appropriate encryption key then when the message is returned to the mine it will not decrypt to the original code.

Of course, if the enemy intercepts enough transmissions then if it finds a mine that has generated a code that has already been generated by another mine it can just send back an exact copy of the encrypted message sent to the original mine. However, this can be avoided by using a similar method for communicating between the mine and a central device that tells the mine which code to send out and then internally makes sure that it does not send the same code twice.

But that just one unlucky day for the carrier.....the fireworks makes it all worth it :twisted:

OOC: Actually, a lot of my spare time is spent experimenting with various encryption technologies and secure exchange methods, and this isn't too difficult.

Requiring a key be transmitted to the mine may seem like a good idea, but it is not enough. Even if the key is encrypted, all the enemy has to do is intercept the radio transmission and send the ENCRYPTED key back exactly and he will be able to get through. Instead, a challenge-response method is needed.

1) The control device sends a message to the mine telling it that it wishes to deactivate the mine. This can be sent clear or encrypted; it doesn't matter.
2) The mine sends a randomly-generated, one-time-use code back to the control device. Again, it doesn't matter whether this is sent clear or encrypted.
3) Using an asymmetric key-based encryption algorithm, the control device encrypts the code and sends it back to the mine.
4) The mine then applies the complementary key to decrypt the message it receives, verifies that the code sent back is the same as the code it generated, and if it is then proceeds to deactivate itself.

As long as the enemy does not gain access to the key used for encryption, this is secure. Even if the mine transmits the code to the control device in the clear and the enemy intercepts it, since the enemy does not have the appropriate encryption key then when the message is returned to the mine it will not decrypt to the original code.

Of course, if the enemy intercepts enough transmissions then if it finds a mine that has generated a code that has already been generated by another mine it can just send back an exact copy of the encrypted message sent to the original mine. However, this can be avoided by using a similar method for communicating between the mine and a central device that tells the mine which code to send out and then internally makes sure that it does not send the same code twice.

Ah well but that is the standard problem in any part of warfare. Bad day if they brake your codes. And actually, blowing up your mines is about the least of the worse things they can do with that :P

We use sea mines as a passive defense.
No one need fear them except trespassers and enemies.
Others are guided into harbor at night by our squid.

The squids know the maze that leads to safety; they are highly intelligent.

Why should we be denied this passive defense? It is not used for aggression, and is only a danger to those who threaten us.

The Rogue Nation of Kodic, does not support this proposal. As, The Rogue Nation Of Kodic is a pirate-based nation, living on an island with smugglers and thiefs, we do not wish to have unwelcomed guests at our docks. The Seamines are keeping Pirates Landing safe from naval forces, unwelcomed merchants, and other people(s) that can cause damage to Pirates Landing, on the sea.

Rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrright...