NationStates Jolt Archive

Greetings, delegates and fellow members.

I have just put forth my first UN resolution proposal, having to do with establishing a sky marshal force to combat air terrorism.

Delegates, I would be most grateful for your approval. Members, please send telegrams and beer to your delegates to lobby for their approval of this proposal.

If you would like to discuss this issue further, please send me a telegram.

Best regards,
Administrator
The Democratic States of Lusish

I wil support this. It sounds good. I am having a big battle against terroists and the possiblity of Air-hijakings is getting to be the greatest fear among my people.

if man was meant to fly, pilots wouldn't drink. I say return to nature with your less evolved brethren. How do you even get the chance to join the UN? I know 2 or 3 countries have to vote you in but how do they gain the ability to vote you in?

:twisted: Viva La France!

Lubrian flight regulations permit commercial flights to carry a number of less than lethal arms aboard commercial flights, tasers being the most widely used. Tasers severely reduce any possible damage to the aircraft by stray fire or collateral damage to bystanders. All crew members are trained in the use of the arms. The tasers are kept in coded safes within the cabin. A second set of tasers are kept on the flight deck, which also has an override to lock out the safes in the main cabin. Lubria does not permit sky marshalls, or anyone, to carry firearms onboard commercial flights.

Lubria would rather see money put into training programs, rather than forming a UN sky marshal force. Lubria suggests a proposal requiring all member states with regular commercial airline service to fund training programs within their country to teach crew members to use less than lethal arms carried on board the planes (pepper spray, tasers, green light lasers, hypersound guns, etc), and at the member states discretion, to train sky marshals. The proposal could also include operating procedures for sky marshals.

As it stands, Lubria sees no need for establishing a dedicated sky marshal force for the entire UN, as many member states already have sky marshals and training schools in place; why reinvent the wheel?

I agree with Lubria's proposition of less than lethal arms. Guaifenasin also sees no need for marshals to bear arms on commercial flights. We are in support of a proposal to train airline crews to use such things as tasers, pepper spray, et al.

Air marshals are a fantastic idea! That way, if someone wants to hijack an airplane, all they have to do is sign up to be an air marshal and then use the fact that they're the only one with a gun to start flying planes into buildings again.

Err. Sorry, the sarcasm key was stuck. I apologize.

In all seriousness, if a resolution is passed that involves putting armed agents on international flights, Sophista will immediately cancel all international air travel into the country. Airplanes approaching will be warned to break from their heading or face the consequence. Any aircraft refusing to do so will be disabled via surface-to-air EMP weapons and allowed to make an emergency landing in the ocean.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Lubria does encourage that the proposal establish a standard type of non-lethal arm for commercial flights. This is not to say it shall be the only one, merely that it would be the required one that all crew be trained on. In Lubria's experience, pistol style tasers (example http://www.spytechs.com/stun_guns/stun_pistol.htm) are most effective for a number of reasons:

-Easy to train. Most people already have a basic understanding of how a gun works, and can be easily trained to point and shoot

-100% knockdown. The taser sends an electric charge through the body that overrides all nerve impulses, meaning it is impossible to control your muscles if you are hit. There is no way to "push through" the effect, once hit by the taser, the target will lose muscle control and fall down.

-foolproof. Unlike pepper-spray, lasers, or firearms, a taser has the same effectiveness throughout the body. A hit anywhere on the target will achieve the desired effect.

One final advantage: if a hijacker attempts to take a hostage, and is holding the hostage close to their body so they are in contact, a hit to the hostage will incapacitate both hostage and hijacker, as the electric impulse will pass through. This destroys the advantage of human shields in some instances, and the pain of the electric shock should last long enough to deliver follow up shocks to the hijacker directly, or otherwise restrain and disable him.

In all seriousness, if a resolution is passed that involves putting armed agents on international flights, Sophista will immediately cancel all international air travel into the country. Airplanes approaching will be warned to break from their heading or face the consequence. Any aircraft refusing to do so will be disabled via surface-to-air EMP weapons and allowed to make an emergency landing in the ocean.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

What if we offered some of our telepaths? They could stun anybody trying to hijack an airplane with a mindblast or better yet, trick them into thinking that the cabin door is really the cockpit ... oh never mind, that could get messy.

I guess a better question (since this is just a draft proposal ... and a great place to discuss these issues) is what is your objection? Militiary personal on a plane or a gun? It so happens that any adult citizen from Mikitivity was at one point in time part conscripted (though most choose to harvest spice). If your objection is to a military presence would that include UN commanded Air Marshalls?

The Wiccan Theocracy of Shirresh opposes firearms aboard any aircraft within Shirresh Airspace that is not a Shirresh or ally Military vehicle. We have taken the view that all airports are to be located more than 10 miles from an Urban area and such urban areas are no fly zones for comercial aircraft larger than a helicopter. To insure our city security, we have armed surface to air missile intercept platforms.

With our security policies and extreme measures, we do not intent to support or encurage any proposal that would demand funds from our limited budget for the purpose of arming civilians onboard aircraft. Taser and other non-lethal devices and training in thier use for pilots would perhaps be a wise propostion

I guess a better question (since this is just a draft proposal ... and a great place to discuss these issues) is what is your objection?

One of the key statistics brought up in the debate for gun control is the number of times a person who is uneducated in wielding a firearm has that same weapon used against them. We feel the same would hold true for this "sky marshals" program -- the weapons become even more dangerous when they fall out of the hands of the marshal. To assume that one man (or even two) with tasers could hold off a significant enough hijacking force is absurd. In the end, with a large enough force, you'd just have a terrorist force inside the plane with weapons, as opposed to just inside the plane.

The damage is even worse if the weapon is a firearm instead of these tasers. Even a subsonic round fired into the bulkhead would lead to depressurization of the cabin and endanger all those on boards. Weapons don't belong on airplanes, fellow delegates.

If the proposal instead dealt with putting expert military personnel on the craft, trained in hand-to-hand combat we would be more than willing to issue tentative support. Sufficient security screening on the ground would prevent the hijackers from using any weapon, so you'd have a hijacker up against a couple of soldiers who graduated first in their class for ass kicking. Advantage: soldiers.

Then again, there is that issue of funding . . .

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Well, you're wrong on both counts.

On the first point, you'd have to remember that whatever the hijacking force, they have to come up the aisles. They can't avoid that. You don't just taser them, you taser them, and that makes them drop whatever weapon they're holding, scream in pain, and writhe around on the floor for about 10 seconds. In that time, either a sky marshal will restrain them with handcuffs, or passengers will hold the hijacker until a sky marshal can restrain them. So long as the hijackers are not carrying firearms, the sky marshals will have a great advantage with the tasers, which have a 15' reach. I don't think any group of passengers is going to let a plane be hijacked without a fight anymore. The tasers (and sky marshals, would be at the front of the plane, to ensure that the hijackers never get near the flight deck.

Second, a single bullet hole in either a window or the fuselage of an airplane at altitude will not cause any serious harm to the passengers. Yes, the cabin will decompress, but that’s what the masks are for. A single bullet is not going to rip the side off the airplane.

I don't think soldiers would be anymore effective than properly trained crewmembers, or on high risk flights, sky marshals.

One of the key statistics brought up in the debate for gun control is the number of times a person who is uneducated in wielding a firearm has that same weapon used against them. We feel the same would hold true for this "sky marshals" program -- the weapons become even more dangerous when they fall out of the hands of the marshal.

The damage is even worse if the weapon is a firearm instead of these tasers. Even a subsonic round fired into the bulkhead would lead to depressurization of the cabin and endanger all those on boards. Weapons don't belong on airplanes, fellow delegates.

If the proposal instead dealt with putting expert military personnel on the craft, trained in hand-to-hand combat we would be more than willing to issue tentative support. Sufficient security screening on the ground would prevent the hijackers from using any weapon, so you'd have a hijacker up against a couple of soldiers who graduated first in their class for ass kicking. Advantage: soldiers.

Then again, there is that issue of funding . . .

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

What if instead the proposal were worded such that the UN Sky Marshall Program was voluntary?

I see something like this working:
Individual nations dedicate Sky Marshalls to the UN, in return the UN trains them as a group (to make sure they are equivalent), and then rotates them out on flights between nations that have volunteered to join the program. Nations that have concerns about a taser accident can simply register with the program to have the UN Sky Marshalls not be on the flight to their country.

Under such a program the cost of the program would be variable, up to individual nations choices. In the case of Mikitivity, we only have a few flights each day into Miervatia, thus we only would need to send a few Sky Marshalls into the program. The cost to my nation would be small ... like its economy.

The idea of making this a purely voluntary program transforms the proposal into a service provided by the UN. I heartily support this idea. The impact on national security would most likely be slight, but I think this is a worthwhile plan. Perhaps, after the sky marshal corp has proven itself, more nations would be willing to allow them on their flights.

I have question as to the administration of the sky marshals. Would they be under the control of Interpol, the airlines, or a special UN board?

Junter von Bek,
Rabenswald Minister of Transportation

The idea of making this a purely voluntary program transforms the proposal into a service provided by the UN. I heartily support this idea. The impact on national security would most likely be slight, but I think this is a worthwhile plan. Perhaps, after the sky marshal corp has proven itself, more nations would be willing to allow them on their flights.

I have question as to the administration of the sky marshals. Would they be under the control of Interpol, the airlines, or a special UN board?

Junter von Bek,
Rabenswald Minister of Transportation

I was thinking that the resolution would create a UN Sky Marshall Program (special UN board), that would be headed by somebody appointed by each of the nations participating in the program, nations donating more resources would get more votes in determining the program head, and the head would then appoint an administrative staff to oversee the human resources (marshalls) given to the program. As obviously administrative staffs require salaries, the program would draw upon funding from the nations (porpotional to services provided ... i.e. based on number of Marshalled flights), but budgetary votes could be put to a vote of the member nations.

Now how to word this in a proposal? Egads, that would take a while.

The obvious debate against it is going to be, "But it will cost so much for so little!" To which the reply is, it is a voluntary program, so we recommend you wait and see.

The benefit here is a number of us already have worked out bilateral agreements for transportation related protection.

Not to burst anyone's bubble, but at the moment you let nations opt out voluntarily from the program you lose any kind of solvency mechanism for the plan. That is, unless everyone does it, you're not going to end up any safer.

I'll explain. We have three nations: A, 2, and Bleem, each of which has international air service to the other two. As per the proposal, only nations that voluntarily participate get to have their flights protected. Thats fine, A and 2 volunteer, Bleem repsectfully declines. Thus, the only flights that are staffed by marshals are the ones from A to 2 and vice versa.

Now, suppose we add at third party, 3rd, to the mix. 3rd is a terrorist state, looking to make an attack on A. All they would have to do to launch such a strike would be hijack a plane traveling from A to Bleem. Since Bleem decided they didn't want marshals on inbound planes, the plane has no marshals. Now, with a plane fully loaded with fuel, the hijackers need only turn the plane around and point it at something tall.

Ergo, the proposal fails to protect while not failing to cost time, money, and effort on behalf of participatory nations and the UN as a whole.

That said, anyone who seriously wants this proposal to work should focus more on the mechanism of protection. Since this can't work unless every nation is on board (and we don't want to paralyze international air travel), you have to find something that works for everyone.

Sincerely yours,
Daniel M. Hillaker
Minister of Foreign Affairs

if man was meant to fly, pilots wouldn't drink. I say return to nature with your less evolved brethren. How do you even get the chance to join the UN? I know 2 or 3 countries have to vote you in but how do they gain the ability to vote you in?

:twisted: Viva La France!

The hell you been puffing? You simply go to the U,.N. page and select the join button thingy, I mean chase - my - aunt - Fanny - up - a - drain - pipe its that simple. Have a look see.

The Rep of Komokom.

"Why is it that, as a culture, we are more comfortable seeing two men holding guns than holding hands?" - Ernest Gaines.