NationStates Jolt Archive

Remut Sanzu, Biotopia's Constitutional Secretary and Pazu-Lenny Kasigi-Nero, Love and esterel's UN Ambassador would like to introduce a new draft proposal:

"RFID in new Weapons"

Please let us know every comments, suggestions and critics, thanks


Here is the lattest draft:

-----
RFID in new Weapons
“International Security - Mild”

The United Nations,

-A- Convinced that improved and efficient traceability contributes to decrease illegal arms sales worldwide

-B- Affirming that, because of their destruction potential, the right to own weapons and its related privacy shall go along with some duties, as good conduct commitment and respect of dangerous products traceability

-C- Desiring to help judicial process over nationals and international criminality by more accurate, faster and cost saving tracing processes

-D- Defining a Radio Frequency Identification tag (“RFID tag”) as a generally very small electronic chip storing information about the item to which it is tagged, with an antenna which can receive and respond to radio-frequency queries from a reader - a passive RFID tag doesn't have its own power source and then doesn't send information without being requested

-E- Fully aware of the very low cost of RFID tags


-1- Urges members to legislate that a passive and read-only “RFID tag” with encrypted information (electronic product code, serial number, manufacturer and manufactured year) and read range inferior to 10cm, to be including in most new firearms built, along with most explosive weapons, incendiary weapons and others weapons widely considered heavier;

-2- Urges members to prohibit most arms imports and exports without “RFID tag” embedded;

-3- Urges members to maintain a secured and encrypted electronic database including electronic product code and owner information for any new weapon sold;

-4- Urges members to cooperate with other nations in order to provide related information, when significant national security matters are not at stake;

-5- Urges members to not provide that information to entity other than accredited national administrations in justice or law enforcement departments or other nations’ government, and to allow access to the database only by court order or national publicly established procedures;

-6- Urges members to inform weapon’s holder of the presence of the tag, at the time of the purchase, and of the presence or the use of any reader

-7- Encourages members to share RFID and computers technology with nations having not yet access to it.

Co-authored by Biotopia
-----


Here is the first draft:


-----
RFID in new Weapons
“International Security - Mild”

The United Nations,

-A- Desiring to promote a reduction in illegal arms sales worldwide

-B- Desiring to preserve the rights of people to own small weapons, for self protection use, and preserve their privacy

-C- Affirming that, because of their destruction potential, the right to own weapons shall go along with some duties, as good conduct commitment and respect of dangerous products traceability

-D- Desiring to help judicial process over nationals and international criminality by increased weapons traceability

-E- Defining an “RFID tag” as a very small electronic chip with an antenna storing some information, which can receive and respond to radio-frequency queries from a transceiver


-1- Urges members to legislate that a “RFID tag” with encrypted information (electronic product code, serial number, manufacturer and manufactured year) and read distances inferior to 10cm, to be including in every new weapon built, including but not limited to combustion-powered weapons, explosive weapons, incendiary weapons, projectile weapons

-2- Urges members to prohibit arms imports and exports without “RFID tag” embedded

-3- Urges members to maintain a secured and encrypted electronic database including electronic product code and owner information for any new weapon sold

-4- Urges members to cooperate with other nations in order to provide related information, when significant national security matters are not at stake

-5- Urges members to not provide that information to entity other than accredited national administrations in justice or law enforcement departments or other nations’ government, and to only allow law enforcement departments to search those information by electronic product code.

Co-authored by Biotopia
-----

This looks like something we might support. Two initial comments:
- this technology might not be available in all UN nations. Perhaps you could include a clause encouraging and promoting research and cooperation in the development of RFID.
- nowhere in the preamble is it explained why RFID would be conducive to accomplishing the various objectives.

Two points in addition to those made by Gruenberg:

-B- is unnecessary and will only get the anti-gun types' knickers in a twist.

Surely we should be told what RFID actually stands for?

Perhaps clause -E- ought to read like this:

-E- Defining a Remote Frequency Identification tag (“RFID tag”) as a generally very small electronic chip storing information about the item to which it is tagged, with an antenna which can receive and respond to radio-frequency queries from a transceiver

-1- Urges members to legislate that a “RFID tag” with encrypted information (electronic product code, serial number, manufacturer and manufactured year) and read distances inferior to 10cm, to be including in every new weapon built, including but not limited to combustion-powered weapons, explosive weapons, incendiary weapons, projectile weapons

bows & arrows, knives, hammers, slings, garottes, cudgels... ?

bows & arrows, knives, hammers, slings, garottes, cudgels... ?
It's only "urges". Which means you can exercise your discretion.

and read distances inferior to 10cm,
interesting choice of word...

It's only "urges". Which means you can exercise your discretion.

So, we have the option of including it in our bows & arrows, knives, hammers, slings, garottes, cudgels? :D

Perhaps clause -E- ought to read like this:

-E- Defining a Remote Frequency Identification tag (“RFID tag”) as a generally very small electronic chip storing information about the item to which it is tagged, with an antenna which can receive and respond to radio-frequency queries from a transceiver
Thanks. I've learnt something today.

This is an interesting idea and we believe it is well worth careful consideration. We concur with the comments of the distinguished representatives of Gruenberg, Ecopoeia and St Edmund. We'd commend the attention of the authors specifically to the need to more carefully define the weapon types covered and to include some explanation of how the RFID chip would contribute to achieving the proposal's goals. The language of the proposal also needs considerable editing.

We look forward to further development of this draft and will certainly consider supporting a finished proposal.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

This is why you rejoined the UN?

Abso-fucking-lutely not.

Thanks for the comments


This looks like something we might support. Two initial comments:
- this technology might not be available in all UN nations. Perhaps you could include a clause encouraging and promoting research and cooperation in the development of RFID.

Ok, we will add something about it

- nowhere in the preamble is it explained why RFID would be conducive to accomplishing the various objectives.[/QUOTE]

The preambule is about tractability, and helping judicial process over nationals and international criminality, but you right more is needed there, thanks



-B- is unnecessary and will only get the anti-gun types' knickers in a twist.

Ok, -B- is not really important

bows & arrows, knives, hammers, slings, garottes, cudgels... ?

We will search for words to put on weapons to be tagged

Perhaps clause -E- ought to read like this:

-E- Defining a Remote Frequency Identification tag (“RFID tag”) as a generally very small electronic chip storing information about the item to which it is tagged, with an antenna which can receive and respond to radio-frequency queries from a transceiver

Thanks, that's indeed better


This is why you rejoined the UN?



I don't think it was usefull, but my former withdrawn of the UN was more a temporary one, to express my protest.

We rather like this as we already use something like it in tracking pets thus it should be easy to adapt the same to be put into weapons or for that matter anything we might want to track. As we have already installed such devices in laptop computers that help prevent them from being stolen, and once taken found simply. As limiting this to just 10cm range would prevent abuse in that you could not track a person with a weapon but keep them out of places they don't need to go with one.


One problem is to insure the devices are not easy to disable, as that could be the only fault here since all one would have to do is 'shut it off'. Also the life of the device needs to be considered as we find that those simular devices put into pets have a short lifetime. Thus have to be replaced at some point. Then there is the problem of standardizing the devices so that we don't have dozen of different devices out and need a new reciever designed to detect each one. It can be worked and is a good idea.

Here is a 2nd draft, we hope our change answer to the good comments made up:

-----
RFID in new Weapons
“International Security - Mild”

The United Nations,

-A- Convinced that improved and efficient traceability contributes to decrease illegal arms sales worldwide

-B- Affirming that, because of their destruction potential, the right to own weapons and its related privacy shall go along with some duties, as good conduct commitment and respect of dangerous products traceability

-C- Desiring to help judicial process over nationals and international criminality by more accurate, faster and cost saving tracing processes

-D- Defining a Radio Frequency Identification tag (“RFID tag”) as a generally very small electronic chip storing information about the item to which it is tagged, with an antenna which can receive and respond to radio-frequency queries from a reader - a passive RFID tag doesn't have its own power source and then doesn't send information whitout being requested

-E- Fully aware of the very low cost of RFID tags


-1- Urges members to legislate that a passive and read-only “RFID tag” with encrypted information (electronic product code, serial number, manufacturer and manufactured year) and read range inferior to 10cm, to be including in every new firearms and their munitions built, along with every explosive weapons, incendiary weapons and others weapons widely considered heavier;

-2- Urges members to prohibit arms imports and exports without “RFID tag” embedded;

-3- Urges members to maintain a secured and encrypted electronic database including electronic product code and owner information for any new weapon sold;

-4- Urges members to cooperate with other nations in order to provide related information, when significant national security matters are not at stake;

-5- Urges members to not provide that information to entity other than accredited national administrations in justice or law enforcement departments or other nations’ government, and to only allow law enforcement departments to search those information by electronic product code;

-6- Encourages members to share RFID and computers technology with nations having not yet access to it.

Co-authored by Biotopia
-----



The language of the proposal also needs considerable editing.


Thanks for having let me know, I will try to check and improve

We think the key problem here is in defining the items in which the RFID tag is to be placed. We hope the authors will take the time to work out -- we hope with the aid of commenters here -- a reasonable and practical definition. We believe this idea has potential for good, and we would hate to see it rushed to submission in a form that would prohibit our support.

-1- Urges members to legislate that a passive and read-only “RFID tag” with encrypted information (electronic product code, serial number, manufacturer and manufactured year) and read distance inferior to 10cm, to be including in every new firearms and their munitions built, along with every explosive weapons, incendiary weapons and others weapons widely considered heavier;

This definition seems to say that the RFID tag would have to be placed in every round of .22 cal. ammunition manufactured. Clearly impossible. Part of the problem, we believe, is in the wording. Does "munitions" mean "ammunition," as its placement would suggest? If so, we believe the requirement is impractical across the board.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

This definition seems to say that the RFID tag would have to be placed in every round of .22 cal. ammunition manufactured. Clearly impossible. Part of the problem, we believe, is in the wording. Does "munitions" mean "ammunition," as its placement would suggest? If so, we believe the requirement is impractical across the board.
I still don't see that as a problem, given the clause is only an "urge", which means you can use some discretion. Even were it compulsory, in fact, I'm not sure it would matter, because the onus of definition of 'munition' lies with the nation.

We can see the concern for having to place a device in each round but possibly do it in a case of X round or even a box of Y rounds (where X might be 5000 and Y might be 100). As many department stores add some type security device into items they place for sale to prevent shoplifters from taking these, thus the devices are in place in some places. Also since this is probably in place in department stores in some form all that would be needed would be to adept it to include weapons and cases/boxes of ammunition. Since department stores want to keep things from being removed why would it not work to keep folks from bringing things in?

Now would only have to insure that all have access to them and use them.


Do see one problem in that while UN nations are making one weapon with these in them those nations outside the UN are making two without them. Thus we may be giving our enemy an easy way to find our weapons and ammunition. While they keep sneaking them in.. without detection. Thus should not military and police weapons be exempt from installation of these devices.

Then since it only urges this action then we can exempt them from it.

I still don't see that as a problem, given the clause is only an "urge", which means you can use some discretion. Even were it compulsory, in fact, I'm not sure it would matter, because the onus of definition of 'munition' lies with the nation.

We're simply trying to get the authors to do some work on developing a sound. technically accurate definition which would minimize the need for discretion and interpretation. We believe in allowing proper discretion to nations in determining application of laws, but we'd prefer to eliminate the need for it in terms of figuring out what the law is trying to say.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

We think the key problem here is in defining the items in which the RFID tag is to be placed. We hope the authors will take the time to work out -- we hope with the aid of commenters here -- a reasonable and practical definition. We believe this idea has potential for good, and we would hate to see it rushed to submission in a form that would prohibit our support.

You right about timing, we are not in a hurry



This definition seems to say that the RFID tag would have to be placed in every round of .22 cal. ammunition manufactured. Clearly impossible. Part of the problem, we believe, is in the wording. Does "munitions" mean "ammunition," as its placement would suggest? If so, we believe the requirement is impractical across the board.

Thanks, Yes the right word is ammunition.

RFID tags are pretty small (can be < 1 mm), cheaper and cheaper (few cents) and are embedded in such objects as ski resort pass, banking smart card, mass transportation pass... so we may change our opinion, in light of new related informations, but we don't see why ammunition are different.

One problem is to insure the devices are not easy to disable, as that could be the only fault here since all one would have to do is 'shut it off'. Also the life of the device needs to be considered as we find that those simular devices put into pets have a short lifetime. Thus have to be replaced at some point. Then there is the problem of standardizing the devices so that we don't have dozen of different devices out and need a new reciever designed to detect each one. It can be worked and is a good idea.

Thanks, It's interesting, maybe we need to add something about encouraging governement about international cooperation when establishing these standards to increase international compatibility





Do see one problem in that while UN nations are making one weapon with these in them those nations outside the UN are making two without them. Thus we may be giving our enemy an easy way to find our weapons and ammunition. While they keep sneaking them in.. without detection.

IT's why the proposal states:
passive and read-only “RFID tag” with encrypted information ... and read range inferior to 10cm

Do you think it's better to lower the read range, is 5 cm ok?

Thanks, It's interesting, maybe we need to add something about encouraging governement about international cooperation when establishing these standards to increase international compatibility





IT's why the proposal states:
passive and read-only “RFID tag” with encrypted information ... and read range inferior to 10cm

Do you think it's better to lower the read range, is 5 cm ok?

It's hard to fix any device to a limited area as have seen in simple low power radios that under certain conditions their range can exceed the normal. Then change the conditions and one would have to raise the power to even reach normal range. Thus if there is a device that can read it at 5cm there would be one to read it at 10cc, and somebody standing miles away could have a device to read either the 10cc or 5cc device and nobody know they there doing it. Thus can see it to be okay for normal citizens who carry weapons but for military and police it would be a problem. As one could simply do a scan toward them and know what type weapons they have and how many of each are in the unit. They would not have to be near them could be miles from them.


Encrypting the information would be useless in the first place due the fact all UN nations will have it and those outside the UN will pay for it and have it for a price. As most will probaly in order to sale to UN members install these in weapons they may sale to UN members to meet the rules. Otherwise they will loose customers from the UN because they can't but weapons without them in it. So you have to make it available to any nation outside UN who trades weapons and ammuntions to members. Or member nations will have to add the devices when they take delivery of any weapons or ammunitions that don't have them in it. Thus another problem here for member nations who buy weapons exclusively from non UN nations.


You end up with something like the deal with radar used to measure speeders on the highway. As somebody built a device to detect them before they get close enough to be caught thus making them have to build better guns or ban the detectors. Still folks find ways around that and thus still speed.

You right about timing, we are not in a hurry


Thanks, Yes the right word is ammunition.

RFID tags are pretty small (can be < 1 mm), cheaper and cheaper (few cents) and are embedded in such objects as ski resort pass, banking smart card, mass transportation pass... so we may change our opinion, in light of new related informations, but we don't see why ammunition are different.

We thank the honorable representative from Love and esterel for his answer to our question. We would not support a proposal which required including an RFID tag in every round of ammunition produced. The difference between ammunition and the examples the representative cites is the quantity produced. Smart cards, ski passes and transportation passes are produced in the hundreds, or perhaps thousands. Rounds of rifle and pistol ammunition are produced in the millions. We believe implanting an RFID chip in each round is simply impractical. The cost of the chip would, in many cases, exceed the cost of the item in which it's placed -- not considering the additional costs of implanting the chip during manufacture and increased quality control requirements.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

Sithya doesn't see how these tags will assist in stopping the illegal arms trade. It could very well be that arms are stolen from a legitimate purchaser or seller, and then passed on to terrorists or rogue nations. Being able to trace the manufacturer is neither here nor there...most arms traders of dubious repute don't make the weapons themselves.

We believe implanting an RFID chip in each round is simply impractical. The cost of the chip would, in many cases, exceed the cost of the item in which it's placed -- not considering the additional costs of implanting the chip during manufacture and increased quality control requirements.

Not to mention the question of whether violently accelerating the RFID chip (as in firing the weapon) having it violently decellerate along with subsequent break up of said containment vessel (da bullet) would be too much trauma for the circuit to handle. Not to mention the potential for this dense non lead object to seriously impact the safty of lead bullets.

But that's a nit pick on my part. The strange thing is that I'm actually liking this resolution. Even considering the not everyone is a UN member.

We can not support such a proposal as it would compromise the security and efficiency of our military. It is one of Adollias' most sacred rights to keep and bear arms, and we will not interfere in any way with the privacy to be maintained in doing so.

That being said, these tags would pose an immense risk for military engagements, as our troops would entirely lose any element of surprise, and any rogue nation who deems the desire to keep said tags off their weapons will gain a large advantage.

In entirety, we deem that its creation as a worldwide requirement would be an invasion of nations' privacy and trade laws, and as such we cannot support it. However, we support the existance of such tags for use amongst approving governments by approving people.

We can not support such a proposal as it would compromise the security and efficiency of our military.

That being said, these tags would pose an immense risk for military engagements, as our troops would entirely lose any element of surprise, and any rogue nation who deems the desire to keep said tags off their weapons will gain a large advantage.


The representative of Adollias apparently overlooked or did not understand the bolded portion of this provision:

-1- Urges members to legislate that a passive and read-only “RFID tag” with encrypted information (electronic product code, serial number, manufacturer and manufactured year) and read range inferior to 10cm, to be including in every new firearms and their munitions built, along with every explosive weapons, incendiary weapons and others weapons widely considered heavier;

Our Ministry of Defense advised that this resolution would pose no threat to the security or effectiveness of military operations. The Ministry for Security and Intelligence concurs.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

If it can be assured and confirmed that the tags would not serve to hinder any military technology, and could be effectively and efficiently distributed, as well as an assurance that said tags would serve an advantage, then Adollias will support this proposal.

Sithya doesn't see how these tags will assist in stopping the illegal arms trade. It could very well be that arms are stolen from a legitimate purchaser or seller, and then passed on to terrorists or rogue nations. Being able to trace the manufacturer is neither here nor there...most arms traders of dubious repute don't make the weapons themselves.

The device in the weapon or case of ammunition will be in that item. Thus when it comes in range of the devices to read it they are detected and one knows exactly what it is and how many are present. You put these in so when they pass the detector it's picked up. Thus they would have to go through a process of removing them to use them in covert funtions and if the device is installed in a manner that removing it would render the weapons useless then it stops this. This is sort of like the security strips department stores use to keep folks from shoplifting. Only here it will be use to keep folks from possibly bring in illegal weapons and ammunition to say a courthouse, government office, even an airport, or school, or sport arena.

It will not stop them from using stolen weapons with them in open actions against an enemy just prevent them from using them in covert actions. As today we have some type device to search for weapons this would only be an addition carried in/on the weapons. That would help in detecting weapons and ammunition say in shipping containers cutting time of opening all containers and searching through contents for these. If the detector reads these in the container then searches would be made and papers checked to see if folks have legal rights to bring these into an area or take them out of it.

They will not stop all of the illegal trade as with anything if one wants to beat it they will find a way to do it. This will just make it a little harder to beat the system to stop it.

If it can be assured and confirmed that the tags would not serve to hinder any military technology, and could be effectively and efficiently distributed, as well as an assurance that said tags would serve an advantage, then Adollias will support this proposal.
As noted by the concerns of Sithya and Adollias about abuse of these one can only hope that through membership working together to see that they are not abused but serve the cause intended that they will be effective and save lives. Terrorist work under no laws they make up their own thus we have to at least work together under our flawed laws to stop them from acting against us. Without life one can not be free to enjoy any rights so we must decide if we want life here or our rights buried with us.

Of course, during war you'll have to hope the enemy doesn't put detectors in the undergrowth in the same manner as mines. You get close enough, and your presence is betrayed. As you're probably near the ground, the likelihood of being detected increases.
Of course there's greater odds that you won't come across a detector, but the chance is still there.

Of course, during war you'll have to hope the enemy doesn't put detectors in the undergrowth in the same manner as mines.Assuming, of course, that they can put them within 10 centimeters of your weaponry...

The device in the weapon or case of ammunition will be in that item. Thus when it comes in range of the devices to read it they are detected and one knows exactly what it is and how many are present. You put these in so when they pass the detector it's picked up. Thus they would have to go through a process of removing them to use them in covert funtions and if the device is installed in a manner that removing it would render the weapons useless then it stops this. This is sort of like the security strips department stores use to keep folks from shoplifting. Only here it will be use to keep folks from possibly bring in illegal weapons and ammunition to say a courthouse, government office, even an airport, or school, or sport arena.

This assumes that the weapons sales that this measure is intended to stop will be subject to regular customs procedures, rather than be smuggled. This may have marginal value in interdiction operations, but the benefits as opposed to the cost seems marginal. Will there be funds available from the richer nations to pay for this?



It will not stop them from using stolen weapons with them in open actions against an enemy just prevent them from using them in covert actions. As today we have some type device to search for weapons this would only be an addition carried in/on the weapons. That would help in detecting weapons and ammunition say in shipping containers cutting time of opening all containers and searching through contents for these. If the detector reads these in the container then searches would be made and papers checked to see if folks have legal rights to bring these into an area or take them out of it.


As above. The sole value of this is to assist when weapons are being smuggled into a country which is adhering to this legislation, and has been picked up by law enforcement authorities. This would assist in a tiny fraction of intercepts of illegal arms sales.


They will not stop all of the illegal trade as with anything if one wants to beat it they will find a way to do it. This will just make it a little harder to beat the system to stop it.


The problem Sithya has is that the benefits, as described, are very small, as compared to the costs. Unless there is some funding provision included in this measure, we cannot see our way to support this.


As noted by the concerns of Sithya and Adollias about abuse of these one can only hope that through membership working together to see that they are not abused but serve the cause intended that they will be effective and save lives. Terrorist work under no laws they make up their own thus we have to at least work together under our flawed laws to stop them from acting against us. Without life one can not be free to enjoy any rights so we must decide if we want life here or our rights buried with us.

Sithya's approach is not to regard the weapons as the problem, but the funds to buy them as the problem. We favour the following measures:

1. Much tougher measures on money laundering and bank accounts held by terrorist groups.

2. Energy independence measures - many terrorist groups receive their funding from nations rich in oil. Sithya has embarked on an aggressive programme of building up our nuclear power plants to strip away this lever.

3. Greater intelligence. Sithya's Dark Order maintains extensive files on terrorist groups. We share this information with our allies in reciprocal arrangements.

4. Selective assassination. This is the most controversial measure. The Lord Protector has seen fit that the Dark Order is allowed to kill terrorist leaders.

We believe United Nations endorsements of such measures will do more to cut global crime than this proposal.

Assuming, of course, that they can put them within 10 centimeters of your weaponry...
Well, why not?

http://www.physics.brown.edu/physics/userpages/faculty/Predrag_Neskovic/images/absolutCamouflage.jpg camouflaged detector, you brush past it, less than 10cm, beep-beep!
(ooc: ok I just wanted to use that image, but a less...bottle-like structure could work, say a fake fern)

Or,
__>-o>=,--__|
_______#___.|(bad attempt as a soldier crawling, gun in front)
______/
(detector)

And if he's crawling a few centimeters to the left? You going to carpet your entire nation with detectors?

What can be done with mines can be done with detectors.
If he crawls to the left, he misses it.

I'm just saying it's a possibility. It would be a lot easier than setting up pressure-pads afterall, no worry about animals setting them off.

We will support this initiative if the money required for it will not be taken from the vaults of smaller nations. Clearly, this is a massive project, and many smaller nations, such as mine, can not afford to pay the price for such a decision.

What can be done with mines can be done with detectors.
If he crawls to the left, he misses it.

I'm just saying it's a possibility. It would be a lot easier than setting up pressure-pads afterall, no worry about animals setting them off.
It would be prohibitively expensive to install anything like the required density of detectors. I don't consider this a problem.

Of course, during war you'll have to hope the enemy doesn't put detectors in the undergrowth in the same manner as mines. You get close enough, and your presence is betrayed. As you're probably near the ground, the likelihood of being detected increases.
Of course there's greater odds that you won't come across a detector, but the chance is still there.

With all respect to our distinguished colleague from Randomea, we must pass along the opinion of our Ministry of Defense that this concern is not valid. This would be an exceptionally unreliable means of battlefield surveillance. Our tactical intelligence people say they wouldn't even bother with it. The number of sensor/transmitters needed to provide any sort of coverage (given the tiny radius of detection of the device) would be astronomical. Even then, the probability of a detection would be negligible.

Our Ministries of Security and Intelligence and Defense have confirmed their earlier statement that this proposal would have no adverse effects on the security or effectiveness of military operations.

Hurlbot Barfanger
Ambassador to the United Nations

With all respect to our distinguished colleague from Randomea, we must pass along the opinion of our Ministry of Defense that this concern is not valid. This would be an exceptionally unreliable means of battlefield surveillance. Our tactical intelligence people say they wouldn't even bother with it. The number of sensor/transmitters needed to provide any sort of coverage (given the tiny radius of detection of the device) would be astronomical. Even then, the probability of a detection would be negligible.


If the chips are going to be cheap enough to be used in such large numbers, then maybe detectors could also be mass-produced at fairly reasonable prices (in terms of military procurement budgets)?

If the chips are going to be cheap enough to be used in such large numbers, then maybe detectors could also be mass-produced at fairly reasonable prices (in terms of military procurement budgets)?
I don't think it's a question of production. Think about it: if the weapon was right on top of the detector, the chip would still have to be within 10cm. Place the chip at the top of a normal rifle, and it would much higher than 10cm, even if the soldier was lying down. Now if it wasn't directly over the chip? You would require such density of coverage as to be prohibitive, and furthermore, useless.

Of course, during war you'll have to hope the enemy doesn't put detectors in the undergrowth in the same manner as mines. You get close enough, and your presence is betrayed. As you're probably near the ground, the likelihood of being detected increases.
Of course there's greater odds that you won't come across a detector, but the chance is still there.There is nothing that says a nation has to put them in military weapons when they are ingaged in a war. Also the proposal only unges nations to do this so they have to only put them in weapons they feel should have them in it. Buy setting up a standard chip and detector beween nations it helps all.

Say somebody steals a shipment of weapons from my national arms company.. We send out and alert to all members with the information on the stolen weapons included.. You are able to possibly catch those who stole them before they might come into your nation and do harm since you have this information and will be looking for those chips in those weapons. All you would need is to detect one such chip in the container and you under most legal systems would have grounds to search deeper for the rest of those weapons. Also finding a person with a stolen weapon would possibly help capture a terrorist that might be killing citizens of your nation as well as other member nations.

Considering the numbers of contains that are entering many nations and the resources needed to search each one. Anything to help them find illegal items such as weapons and ammunition in these would help national security not hinder it. Thus this urges members to consider it and through a united effect to put these in place add one more wall to stop terrorist. We will still not stop them all but if we stop that one and save one life it will be worth it. As it might be you that is saved. As a UN delagate you are a target for terrorist who just don't like what we as UN members stand for. Thus we must do all we can to protect all our citizens... at risk.

Actually, it doesn't affect me at all. Weapons such as guns are not permitted on Randomean soil.

I'd say that this resolution needs a new clause, one which solves both the financial aspect and also implements a responsibility charge on arms producers:

Operative clause x -

Strongly Urges the financing of the production and instalment of RFID to be administered by;
a) The arms manufacturers approved by the government of the UN member state or NGO respectively, or,
b) The major arms manufacturers with the financial means necessary for a successful implementation nationwide,

With this the arms manufacturers will (if necessary) pay for the instalment of the arms they manufacture and simultaneously show their cooperation in the furthering of international security. Those corporations not willing to finance will of course be more apparent to the government as the key participants needed to bring onto "our" side.

I'd say that this resolution needs a new clause, one which solves both the financial aspect and also implements a responsibility charge on arms producers:

Operative clause x -

Strongly Urges the financing of the production and instalment of RFID to be administered by;
a) The arms manufacturers approved by the government of the UN member state or NGO respectively, or,
b) The major arms manufacturers with the financial means necessary for a successful implementation nationwide,

With this the arms manufacturers will (if necessary) pay for the instalment of the arms they manufacture and simultaneously show their cooperation in the furthering of international security. Those corporations not willing to finance will of course be more apparent to the government as the key participants needed to bring onto "our" side.

Sithya, as an arms producing nation, would like to point out that this measure is not likely to help except in an extreme minority of cases.

For example, Sithya has a policy of not supplying arms to terrorists. The punishment is death by firing squad, so there is a strong deterrent against doing so. However, Sithyan arms have ended up in the hands of terrorists. Why? Because once they leave the manufacturer, it's not going to be 100% certain where they end up. This proposal seems to put a great deal of emphasis on who made the weapon, rather than where rogue nations and terrorists actually got the weapons from. The two are not the same, and should not be considered as such.

We have not seeing anything yet that justfies the cost of putting this proposal on our manufacturers.

We have not seeing anything yet that justfies the cost of putting this proposal on our manufacturers.

What about the fact that they produce weapons which are of lethal use?
Oh sorry, that is undisputed.

What about the fact that they produce weapons which are of lethal use?
Oh sorry, that is undisputed.So do car manufactorers. What's your point?

This would assist in a tiny fraction of intercepts of illegal arms sales.Even if it stopped one gun then think who's life might be saved in the stopping of that one weapon from entering a nations borders and being used against some high level official like a UN Deligate.

The problem Sithya has is that the benefits, as described, are very small, as compared to the costs. Unless there is some funding provision included in this measure, we cannot see our way to support this.Since the larger the nation is the more risk of terrorist attacking them we see them wanting to use anything they can to protect their citizens. So why would any nation that sales weapons for legal use want to not use something like this to keep even one out of the hands of their enemy.

1. Much tougher measures on money laundering and bank accounts held by terrorist groups.Terrorist don't need money to buy weapons all the time they can steal them from easy to breech local places. So close their bank accounts, leave the gunshops open and see what they do.

2. Energy independence measures - many terrorist groups receive their funding from nations rich in oil. Sithya has embarked on an aggressive programme of building up our nuclear power plants to strip away this lever.So we see why the concern over funds as how much is it costing you to build and secure these nuclear power planets?

3. Greater intelligence. Sithya's Dark Order maintains extensive files on terrorist groups. We share this information with our allies in reciprocal arrangements.We have found that many nations tend to fear giving out to much information to others due to a lack of trust. Thus even with the best intelligence agency in place they are not always perfect.

4. Selective assassination. This is the most controversial measure. The Lord Protector has seen fit that the Dark Order is allowed to kill terrorist leaders.What of those nations that might use this and take a weapon off one of your citizens to use in the process of killing you? You're dead the owner of the weapon is dead even before anyone knows it. If all but military and police weaons had these in them then if they steal one from a citizen and enter you home or offices they are detected. Also they would have to make extra efforts to move a weapon with on in it thus adding to the chance of them not completing their assassination.

We believe United Nations endorsements of such measures will do more to cut global crime than this proposal.This proposal is not intended to cut global crime it's an effort to add another tool in detecting the illegal transfer of weapons from point a to point b to commit some crime. Then if it stops one illegal weapon, that might be used in an assassination, moved from one nation to another; then it stops a global crime.

Even if it stopped one gun then think who's life might be saved in the stopping of that one weapon from entering a nations borders and being used against some high level official like a UN Deligate.

The Lord Protector is touched by your humanity, but at the same time, it's romantic piffle. We do need to think about the costs involved and the practical benefits accrued from these costs. Furthermore, we have no proof apart from your say-so that it will save anyone.


Since the larger the nation is the more risk of terrorist attacking them we see them wanting to use anything they can to protect their citizens. So why would any nation that sales weapons for legal use want to not use something like this to keep even one out of the hands of their enemy.


You keep missing the point. It's a question of whether it's worth it or not. As it's rare that the country that manufactures a weapon and the country that misuses it are one and the same, it's not likely to be so.


Terrorist don't need money to buy weapons all the time they can steal them from easy to breech local places. So close their bank accounts, leave the gunshops open and see what they do.


You're getting emotional. Furthermore the kind of transactions that keep large terrorist operations functioning do require large sources of finance.


So we see why the concern over funds as how much is it costing you to build and secure these nuclear power planets?


"Plants", not "planets". We can do a cost benefit analysis to justify using nuclear power - as France and latterly, Britain have done. We have no such analysis for this proposal. At best, we have your assertion that it *may* save lives. Furthermore, there is no thought on your part regarding the fundamental problem - again, that the country which manufactures the arms is unlikely to be the one that misuses it, and this tagging would not likely stop any flow of illegal arms trade. Being clandestine to begin with, it's unlikely to try and slip by customs procedures which would catch such tagging.

Please do more thinking and enhance the logic of this proposal or Sithya will vote against it.


We have found that many nations tend to fear giving out to much information to others due to a lack of trust. Thus even with the best intelligence agency in place they are not always perfect.


No, but the Dark Order has a very good record.


What of those nations that might use this and take a weapon off one of your citizens to use in the process of killing you? You're dead the owner of the weapon is dead even before anyone knows it. If all but military and police weaons had these in them then if they steal one from a citizen and enter you home or offices they are detected. Also they would have to make extra efforts to move a weapon with on in it thus adding to the chance of them not completing their assassination.


This makes no sense. The arms trade occurs in large batches, not individual guns.


This proposal is not intended to cut global crime it's an effort to add another tool in detecting the illegal transfer of weapons from point a to point b to commit some crime. Then if it stops one illegal weapon, that might be used in an assassination, moved from one nation to another; then it stops a global crime.

An illegal transfer of weapons is a crime - your statement is strangely contradictory as such. You have not addressed the logical points we've raised and Sithya's concerns. Until such time as you do, we will not support this proposal.

Thank you.

Love and esterel, the United States of Lost Wankers would like to applaude you on your audacity and originality of such a bill. But, with no offense intended, the feasibilty of such a proposal is negligible on many levels.

Firstly, you mention an encrypted electronic database that will contain all information stored in each chip. Unfortuatly, even on a national level this becomes quite difficult, as the amount of data you are storing reaches the terabytes. To clairify, a terabyte is 1024 gigabytes. Internationally, the amount of data you are storing in a database increases exponetially. This database would certainly reach into the exabytes (100000 gigabytes), more than 600 times the total of the entire world wide web, i.e. the internet itself. To hold such a mass quantity of data, one would need 1,700,000+ servers (with a 60 Gb hard drive) for each country to hold such a mass quantity of data.

Secondly, inserting such chips into ammunition is hardly practical. While chips can easily be produced to withstand the shock of such an acceleration, the resulting heat intensity from the chemical reaction in each ammunition round would fry the circuits. And if the chips were stored in the bullet of each round, the chip would be destroyed whereas if the chips were in the casing itself, if you fired the bullet, the casing would still have the chip in it and could pass off as being unfired.

Thirdly, the fact in and of itself that such chips are only detectible within 10cm is ridiculous. To detect the chips themselves you would have to break open each individual case, remove the weapon, swipe each weapon till the chip is located, then replace each weapon. This would be so time consuming that it could hardly be given an opertunity to work before everyone will be clamering to have it removed.

Fourthly, these chips rely on magnetic polarization to record data. Buy polarizing individual tracks in a binary code of a 1 or 0, the data is stored into crypic messages that only computers can understand at face value. Yet a simple swipe of a magnet wipes it completely. The basis for any such tag lies in the fact that a person has no reason to erase the contents. In fact, why would you want to erase an office pass or something of the such? You need it to enter the building, etc. etc.

The United State of Lost Wankers still appreciates this proposal for what it was trying to accomplish, but we believe at this time there are several problems with such a stance, mainly in the electronic requirements, and the inspection process required.

We thank the honorable representative from Love and esterel for his answer to our question. We would not support a proposal which required including an RFID tag in every round of ammunition produced. The difference between ammunition and the examples the representative cites is the quantity produced. Smart cards, ski passes and transportation passes are produced in the hundreds, or perhaps thousands. Rounds of rifle and pistol ammunition are produced in the millions. We believe implanting an RFID chip in each round is simply impractical. The cost of the chip would, in many cases, exceed the cost of the item in which it's placed -- not considering the additional costs of implanting the chip during manufacture and increased quality control requirements.

Firstly, you mention an encrypted electronic database that will contain all information stored in each chip. Unfortuatly, even on a national level this becomes quite difficult, as the amount of data you are storing reaches the terabytes. To clairify, a terabyte is 1024 gigabytes. Internationally, the amount of data you are storing in a database increases exponetially. This database would certainly reach into the exabytes (100000 gigabytes), more than 600 times the total of the entire world wide web, i.e. the internet itself. To hold such a mass quantity of data, one would need 1,700,000+ servers (with a 60 Gb hard drive) for each country to hold such a mass quantity of data.

Secondly, inserting such chips into ammunition is hardly practical. While chips can easily be produced to withstand the shock of such an acceleration, the resulting heat intensity from the chemical reaction in each ammunition round would fry the circuits. And if the chips were stored in the bullet of each round, the chip would be destroyed whereas if the chips were in the casing itself, if you fired the bullet, the casing would still have the chip in it and could pass off as being unfired.

Ok, indeed even if I like the idea also for ammunition, it may prove not very pragmatical, and we will remove from our proposal text, thanks.

Fourthly, these chips rely on magnetic polarization to record data. Buy polarizing individual tracks in a binary code of a 1 or 0, the data is stored into crypic messages that only computers can understand at face value. Yet a simple swipe of a magnet wipes it completely. The basis for any such tag lies in the fact that a person has no reason to erase the contents. In fact, why would you want to erase an office pass or something of the such? You need it to enter the building, etc. etc.

Car plates can be removed, I don't think that one can say that car plates are innefective on the sole reason that they can be removed.


Do see one problem in that while UN nations are making one weapon with these in them those nations outside the UN are making two without them. Thus we may be giving our enemy an easy way to find our weapons and ammunition. While they keep sneaking them in.. without detection. Thus should not military and police weapons be exempt from installation of these devices.

It's hard to fix any device to a limited area as have seen in simple low power radios that under certain conditions their range can exceed the normal.

Maybe some powerful readers may read from grater distances than 10 cm, but we have to consider that an option exist for people/army wanting to hide:

some metal materials stop RFID waves

So in the same way that there will always be some people successfully cheating with their car plates, their will always be some people cheating successfully with their RFID embedded weapons.



We will support this initiative if the money required for it will not be taken from the vaults of smaller nations. Clearly, this is a massive project, and many smaller nations, such as mine, can not afford to pay the price for such a decision.

Even if computers are more expensive, RFID tags are pretty cheap (few cents), We are removing them for ammunitions in our text.
The small added cost will be I suppose be supported by consumer.
Cigarets and oil are heavily taxed in many nations, car plates are rarely free...

recommend that we make sure that gun buyers understand that their purchase can be tracked by the government

I think we will add a clause to let people know that their weapon will include a RFID tag when they buy it, and to let people know when there is a reader around which can/will read their RFID tag in their eventual weapon.


Love and esterel, the United States of Lost Wankers would like to applaude you on your audacity and originality of such a bill.

Thanks but I have to say that it's not so original, as a similar project had been projected by the virtual nation of "Honduras" in one of our most famous MMORPG (massively multiplayer online role-playing game) called "The Earth"

Firstly, you mention an encrypted electronic database that will contain all information stored in each chip. Unfortuatly, even on a national level this becomes quite difficult, as the amount of data you are storing reaches the terabytes. To clairify, a terabyte is 1024 gigabytes. Internationally, the amount of data you are storing in a database increases exponetially. This database would certainly reach into the exabytes (100000 gigabytes), more than 600 times the total of the entire world wide web, i.e. the internet itself. To hold such a mass quantity of data, one would need 1,700,000+ servers (with a 60 Gb hard drive) for each country to hold such a mass quantity of data.You are thinking today not tommorow with an effort on the part of all UN membership to improve on the idea and make it work. Look at where even the internet was 30 years ago and computers and where they are today.

Secondly, inserting such chips into ammunition is hardly practical. While chips can easily be produced to withstand the shock of such an acceleration, the resulting heat intensity from the chemical reaction in each ammunition round would fry the circuits. And if the chips were stored in the bullet of each round, the chip would be destroyed whereas if the chips were in the casing itself, if you fired the bullet, the casing would still have the chip in it and could pass off as being unfired.Again by all working on a solution to problems we can find one. Your idea of putting it in the case is one possible solution and with more imput from others perhaps we will find one that works to meet the needs.

Thirdly, the fact in and of itself that such chips are only detectible within 10cm is ridiculous. To detect the chips themselves you would have to break open each individual case, remove the weapon, swipe each weapon till the chip is located, then replace each weapon. This would be so time consuming that it could hardly be given an opertunity to work before everyone will be clamering to have it removed.Not so as if devices are in place to search people this would only be another device. Police could wave a wand over a person and not touch them. If the device said they were carring a weapon then take them asside and confirm that they are authorized to carry it. It would add something in the weapons that would say 'weapon' not just a ring or watch with metal in it that sets off many current detectors. Thus one would not have to remove change from pockets or take off rings and watches when entering a restricted area

Fourthly, these chips rely on magnetic polarization to record data. Buy polarizing individual tracks in a binary code of a 1 or 0, the data is stored into crypic messages that only computers can understand at face value. Yet a simple swipe of a magnet wipes it completely. The basis for any such tag lies in the fact that a person has no reason to erase the contents. In fact, why would you want to erase an office pass or something of the such? You need it to enter the building, etc. etc.Today maybe true but with a combined effort on the part of all something can be made to fit the needs of this. Look at what is being done with say computers today and GPS and other electronic devices. Today a pack of cigaretes is no longer that but a complete computer system doing what yesterday took something the size of a large suitcase to do...
The United State of Lost Wankers still appreciates this proposal for what it was trying to accomplish, but we believe at this time there are several problems with such a stance, mainly in the electronic requirements, and the inspection process required.We believe that the problems you see in this can be worked out if all apply their efforts to this and work to remove the bugs. Would you not rather have a say in how this is implimented than have somebody else impliment it. As under this proposal the UN membership would have input thus helping to remove problems that may be of some concern to many members. Already just in this we have talked about it and started the process of implimenting it to some point. As there will be some nations to use the idea on there on..


Here is something to fear on the abuse of such a device. Nation A sales a weapon that is much desired by citizens of the world. Nation A places a chip in these and has a satalite system that can track these weapons. Nation A tells nobody about this and so far nobody else knows about it. Now Nation A knows were all weapons it sold to Nation B are located? Do you think Nation B knows where they all are? This would be something like tojans or worms or virus in computers. You don't always know they are there but they are.

Is that a fly circling your table or...? :D

While we appreciate the incentive of this proposal, we must agree with fellow delegate Sithya. We do not see how this bill can prevent any illegal arms trades.

We also find that a small chip on each ammunition made is unfeasable, regardless of the chip cost it will still cost extra money to hire and/or train workers to know how to put the chips on the ammunition without damaging it. Not to mention the fact it's unnecessary because when a bullet is fired from a gun barrel, it leaves a distinct pattern. So, if you have the bullet, you'd be able to find out which gun it was fired from anyway with the right forensic technologies, with or without a chip.

Also, most arms have serial codes. They can be scratched off, but any crime mind will figure out how to debunk the chip. And if they chip's gone, there's no hope of finding out who the gun belongs to. At least with a serial number there's a chance they may not have scratched hard enough.

We feel this proposal is too cumbersome and is unrealistic. Therefore, we respectfully don't support this proposal.

Azazel Diener
Leader of Teufelanbetung
Join the Region of Logic and Cooperation today! (http://www.nationstates.net/56576/page=display_region)

While we appreciate the incentive of this proposal, we must agree with fellow delegate Sithya. We do not see how this bill can prevent any illegal arms trades.

We also find that a small chip on each ammunition made is unfeasable, regardless of the chip cost it will still cost extra money to hire and/or train workers to know how to put the chips on the ammunition without damaging it. Not to mention the fact it's unnecessary because when a bullet is fired from a gun barrel, it leaves a distinct pattern. So, if you have the bullet, you'd be able to find out which gun it was fired from anyway with the right forensic technologies, with or without a chip.

Thanks, we removed the ammunition reference

Also, most arms have serial codes. They can be scratched off, but any crime mind will figure out how to debunk the chip. And if they chip's gone, there's no hope of finding out who the gun belongs to. At least with a serial number there's a chance they may not have scratched hard enough.

The RFID tag is aimed at being an additional trace, not a replacment of "serial numbers"; do you think we have to say this in the proposal?

You are thinking today not tommorow

Alas, I am. But the only basis I have to compare this draft with is our current times right now. If it's explicitly stated that we have x and y and z right now, which are 100 times more powerful, or whatever than their current counterparts, I would completely agree with the proposal.


Thirdly, the fact in and of itself that such chips are only detectible within 10cm is ridiculous. To detect the chips themselves you would have to break open each individual case, remove the weapon, swipe each weapon till the chip is located, then replace each weapon. This would be so time consuming that it could hardly be given an opertunity to work before everyone will be clamering to have it removed.

Not so as if devices are in place to search people this would only be another device. Police could wave a wand over a person and not touch them. If the device said they were carring a weapon then take them asside and confirm that they are authorized to carry it. It would add something in the weapons that would say 'weapon' not just a ring or watch with metal in it that sets off many current detectors. Thus one would not have to remove change from pockets or take off rings and watches when entering a restricted area

I believe you misunderstood me there. I am refering to such actions as a weapons transfer. I was particularly refering to shipping weapons via cargo vessel in shipping containers. Customs with throw a fit in any nation at this current time. Waving a wand over it would certainly detect the chip, but are you (or you customs) willing to break open each shipment container and perform that action on each gun? I am just suggesting we make it more detectable to something like 100m. That way, you can scan an entire shipment, run the data through a computer, and have it done without having to break open a shipment. Furthurmore, this will not compromise the security and secrecy of your weapons because a 100m warning is well within engagement range.


Fourthly, these chips rely on magnetic polarization to record data. Buy polarizing individual tracks in a binary code of a 1 or 0, the data is stored into crypic messages that only computers can understand at face value. Yet a simple swipe of a magnet wipes it completely. The basis for any such tag lies in the fact that a person has no reason to erase the contents. In fact, why would you want to erase an office pass or something of the such? You need it to enter the building, etc. etc.

Today maybe true but with a combined effort on the part of all something can be made to fit the needs of this. Look at what is being done with say computers today and GPS and other electronic devices. Today a pack of cigaretes is no longer that but a complete computer system doing what yesterday took something the size of a large suitcase to do...

I completely agree with you that our technology is growing smaller and smaller. But the whole basis behind data is dealing with electromagnetics. And such digital storage hasn't changed since it's development in the sixties.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

As I stated above, if we're talking about future technology in this proposal, I can't predict the future but it will probably be possible. To claify, at this current time, the proposals you are suggesting are not feasible. If we were to combine nations, with a multi-billion dollar budget spend on technolgical development, I can almost assure you that this will be feasible. But until then.

Car plates can be removed, I don't think that one can say that car plates are innefective on the sole reason that they can be removed.
One key difference, if a cop was to see a car driving around without plates it would be suspicious. If you were to wander through a chip detector and the chip was wiped, no-one would know the gun was ever there.

I believe you misunderstood me there. I am refering to such actions as a weapons transfer. I was particularly refering to shipping weapons via cargo vessel in shipping containers. Customs with throw a fit in any nation at this current time. Waving a wand over it would certainly detect the chip, but are you (or you customs) willing to break open each shipment container and perform that action on each gun? I am just suggesting we make it more detectable to something like 100m. That way, you can scan an entire shipment, run the data through a computer, and have it done without having to break open a shipment. Furthurmore, this will not compromise the security and secrecy of your weapons because a 100m warning is well within engagement range.This is an example of why the current systems fail.. As those who are suppose to be doing this don't. How many times have you gone into a building where a metal detector has been put in place but turned off because it annoyed the operator since they had to deal with folks digging that one coin out of their pockets. That set it off. This would isolate it down to a weapon and not annoy the operator if it just a coin.

Also this would be less intrusive on people than to have to strip seach each to make sure what a metal detector reads is not a weapon.

OOC: My younger sister has metal pins in her arm and back from some surgical procedure she went through. Several years ago we were returning to US from overseas. They took her and my mother into a room and stripped searched her. She was only fourteen at the time, this was back in those days they just hijacked planes to get some place not use them for bombs.

IC: Someone noted filing down the seriel numbers on weapons as possible along with removal of these chips. Placing a chip in the right part of the weapon requiring removal of that part would prevent this as without said part the weapin would be useless. Again you might say what part would this be... and how would this process take place. I say how do you know what is in things now that you use every day that somebody might have put into them. How many cars today have computer systems in them that help track them.. believe it called ONSTAR or something like that. Also major trucking companies have systems on their onroad trucks thay allow a dispatcher to track them right down to how fast they are going and in what gear they are in at a given time. So why not something simple in a weapon to help track it as a weapon and not just a coin in someones pocket.

One key difference, if a cop was to see a car driving around without plates it would be suspicious. If you were to wander through a chip detector and the chip was wiped, no-one would know the gun was ever there.On this one if they are close enough at 10cm to use a dector then a metal detector had already alerted them that there is something metal there. What did they do get annoyed and turn that off so missed this metal gun..? This is not a replacement for current weapons detection devices just another tool to help determine it a weapon not a coin left in someones pocket and then possibly help to find out where the weapons came from should seriel numbers be filed off.

This is an example of why the current systems fail.. As those who are suppose to be doing this don't. How many times have you gone into a building where a metal detector has been put in place but turned off because it annoyed the operator since they had to deal with folks digging that one coin out of their pockets. That set it off. This would isolate it down to a weapon and not annoy the operator if it just a coin.

We're not talking about airport security or such the like. The whole reason for this chip is to detect weather or not a weapon has been stolen. If you run all of the data through the computer and none of the weapons have been listed as stolen or misplaced, the computer/system should not 'do' anything - there is no problem. The instant those stolen weapons move through your port though, you'll be alerted and can seize them. That way, many such imports that contain armaments for insurgent operations within your borders can be stopped.


To refer to airport security, the metal of a gun is irrelavent anymore. The other day, a close 'friend' of mine was able to sneak his Glock 17C onto a plane by simply removing the only substantial metal piece on the gun - the slide - and putting it in a camera bag. The remainder of the gun is fabricated from composite plastic and minute springs. Granted, he does work for the FBI, yet that is chilling that he's able to do that. Such an example would allow for security to detect a weapon entering the terminal based on the fact that such a chip was embedded. It is all irrelevant depending on how you look at it.


Lost Wankers also brought up an interesting point:

Fourthly, these chips rely on magnetic polarization to record data. Buy polarizing individual tracks in a binary code of a 1 or 0, the data is stored into crypic messages that only computers can understand at face value. Yet a simple swipe of a magnet wipes it completely. The basis for any such tag lies in the fact that a person has no reason to erase the contents. In fact, why would you want to erase an office pass or something of the such? You need it to enter the building, etc. etc.


Our whole system here is based upon a technical ability that is in many ways compromisable. What keeps the user of the weapon from removing the chip?

Just for information:
http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/rfidblocking-wallet-and-passport-case-160702.php

[OOC]
To refer to airport security, the metal of a gun is irrelavent anymore. The other day, a close 'friend' of mine was able to sneak his Glock 17C onto a plane by simply removing the only substantial metal piece on the gun - the slide - and putting it in a camera bag. The remainder of the gun is fabricated from composite plastic and minute springs. Granted, he does work for the FBIWhy on earth was he bothering with such nonsense then? If he's an agent, he can completely bypass security.

We're not talking about airport security or such the like. The whole reason for this chip is to detect weather or not a weapon has been stolen.First off a good deal of weapons are moved by plane through airports. I don't see this as only for finding a stolen weapon and as have stated in earlier post and tried to show how it could be used. If these chips are in weapons and a person who is carring a weapon comes into a building like a courthouse, they simply wave a wand over them and pick up the weapon's chip.

Your friend may have removed part of said weapon but with a chip in the right part it would not have mattered as the detector could have picked it up. Also could the weapon still fire a round in two parts, as if it couldn't they had to put it back together to use it, and with the chance that the bag with one part got lost by the air cargo folks!

Als0 if he passed the bag through a so called x-ray device or even the metal detector their can be something added to that that picks up these chips at a greater range than the 10cc thus alerting the security of the weapon or at least part of it. If a device can be made that can hear a fly fart and in a few seconds tell which way the odor is moving all from some satalite in space then why not a chip that works here.

Again many nations in NS already may have this or something near it in place and are using it effectively. As my nation has a secrity procedure in place for all weapons moved into our borders or out of them that uses something about like this proposal would put in place. However due to national security don't wish to say more on that.

To refer to airport security, the metal of a gun is irrelavent anymore. The other day, a close 'friend' of mine was able to sneak his Glock 17C onto a plane by simply removing the only substantial metal piece on the gun - the slide - and putting it in a camera bag. The remainder of the gun is fabricated from composite plastic and minute springs. Granted, he does work for the FBI, yet that is chilling that he's able to do that. Such an example would allow for security to detect a weapon entering the terminal based on the fact that such a chip was embedded. It is all irrelevant depending on how you look at it.Here perhaps we need to also restrict the materials used in weapons for personal use.. thus avoiding the so call plastic metal detector proof weapons in the hands of everyone who just want to hunt food with them or kill big ugly UN gnomes who come after their women; or hungry zombie children..

Our whole system here is based upon a technical ability that is in many ways compromisable. What keeps the user of the weapon from removing the chip?Placement of the chip in a part of the weapon in a manner that if removed disables the weapon. As shown here by the above the weapon was dissassemble to bypass metal detectors.. My question is how did they get the metal part past those metal detectors or the so called baggage x-ray devices. Had either part had a chip in it then a detector might have picked it up if it had been in place. Thus they may have only found a part of one but to me would be reason to stop the person and search for the rest of the weapons better as well as ammunition.

Also please inform your FBI agents if they are caught doing something like this entering our nation they will serve a long long time in our prison. As we already have certain devices and detectors in place and our operators don't disable them. The only way you can bring a weapon into our nation is have the proper papers to do so and thus comply with our laws on owning and holding a weapon. Even UN deligates and agents of other nations must comply or they don't come here with a weapon and if they try to slip one in and are caught then they pay the price anyone else does when caught. Read the treaties between our nation on travelers between nations that we sign with other nations and they sign with us.

OOC: We must stop thinking here Real World limits on such things.. This is sort of like trying to prove the world is round to folks with a closed mind. A lot of us have no idea what is watching and listening to us everyday. Look at what they can do from a remote satalite in space that they could not do years past. I would say walk on moon, but I have my concerns about that as can't understand if we got there why hasn't somebody built a hotel there. Guess I'm watched to many Star Trek reruns.

ooc: Sure you can use rl, just put it ooc not ic.

None of your above post stops the fact that if someone's trying to smuggle a gun through airport security a strong enough magnet will render the chip useless, so it won't be picked up, defeating the object.In fact...it would be in everyone's interest except in training camps to wipe the chip before going out.

We of Al Thera can not support this action because it places restrictions on our military assets. We oppose for the following reasons.

1) How hard would it be for our enemies to use this systems to detect how many firearms we have tasked to a combat theatre?
2) This act would signiffigantly reduce the success of any stealth based operations against hostiles that have the ability to rig a larger recieve to increase the range and destroy a tried and true military tactic.
3) Gun control only serves to keep the law abbiding from having guns. It does nothing to deter criminals from owning them. Nor does it stop enterprising people to create their own chip free firearms. Nor does it stop criminals fom simply removing the chip.

This proposal is a waste of the resources that would be needed to impliment it. Nor would it stop the billions of guns already created from still being used in a crime. This proposal is akin to building dikes in a desert ... sure one day it might pay off, but not any time soon.

We of Al Thera can not support this action because it places restrictions on our military assets. We oppose for the following reasons.No it wouldn't.

1) How hard would it be for our enemies to use this systems to detect how many firearms we have tasked to a combat theatre?Reread the Proposal. The range is limited to less than ten centimeters. As discussed above, it is completely impractical to have that kind of coverage, and anything other than full would be worthless.

2) This act would signiffigantly reduce the success of any stealth based operations against hostiles that have the ability to rig a larger recieve to increase the range and destroy a tried and true military tactic.Except that a massive receiver wouldn't increase the RFID range. It's limited by the chip, not the receiver.

3) Gun control only serves to keep the law abbiding from having guns. It does nothing to deter criminals from owning them. Nor does it stop enterprising people to create their own chip free firearms. Nor does it stop criminals fom simply removing the chip.This is... largely irrelevent to your opening complaint. And if you want to use a zipgun... well... that's a pretty big risk to avoid a chip.

To respond to two points raised:

We of Al Thera can not support this action because it places restrictions on our military assets. We oppose for the following reasons.

1) How hard would it be for our enemies to use this systems to detect how many firearms we have tasked to a combat theatre?

Not impossible. Nothing is impossible. But so absurdly difficult that no sane intelligence service would ever attempt it.

2) This act would signiffigantly reduce the success of any stealth based operations against hostiles that have the ability to rig a larger recieve to increase the range and destroy a tried and true military tactic.


It would not. If the RFID is only readable within 10 cm., that's it. The size of the detection device is irrelevant. I throw a baseball toward you. You're standing 60 feet away. I throw it 10 feet. It makes no difference how big your baseball glove is; you can't catch it.

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

1) How hard would it be for our enemies to use this systems to detect how many firearms we have tasked to a combat theatre?How hard is it for your enemies to smuggles weapons into your nation and use them to kill citizens?

2) This act would signiffigantly reduce the success of any stealth based operations against hostiles that have the ability to rig a larger recieve to increase the range and destroy a tried and true military tactic.Anything can be abused as tech advances thus also can it be improved as tech advances come in to make it work better. As this only urges it be placed in weapons then there is nothing mandating it be put in military weapons. What is does is give a means to separate guns from keys, coins, watches, and other metal objects when one enters any public building.

3) Gun control only serves to keep the law abbiding from having guns. It does nothing to deter criminals from owning them. Nor does it stop enterprising people to create their own chip free firearms. Nor does it stop criminals fom simply removing the chip.Enterprising people can work to improve this system so that it works rather than write it off as a failure because somebody might bypass it. Look at compters and all the security systems in place and stuff yet virus, worms and such still get past and mess up computers. Do you say ban computers because somebody can abuse them.

This proposal is a waste of the resources that would be needed to impliment it. Nor would it stop the billions of guns already created from still being used in a crime. This proposal is akin to building dikes in a desert ... sure one day it might pay off, but not any time soon.I understand that they do build dikes in the desert to stop sand blown about in storms. As sand can do as much damage as water with enough force behind it.

Here is the new draft with the changes in bold:


-----
RFID in new Weapons
“International Security - Mild”

The United Nations,

-A- Convinced that improved and efficient traceability contributes to decrease illegal arms sales worldwide

-B- Affirming that, because of their destruction potential, the right to own weapons and its related privacy shall go along with some duties, as good conduct commitment and respect of dangerous products traceability

-C- Desiring to help judicial process over nationals and international criminality by more accurate, faster and cost saving tracing processes

-D- Defining a Radio Frequency Identification tag (“RFID tag”) as a generally very small electronic chip storing information about the item to which it is tagged, with an antenna which can receive and respond to radio-frequency queries from a reader - a passive RFID tag doesn't have its own power source and then doesn't send information without being requested

-E- Fully aware of the very low cost of RFID tags


-1- Urges members to legislate that a passive and read-only “RFID tag” with encrypted information (electronic product code, serial number, manufacturer and manufactured year) and read range inferior to 10cm, to be including in most new firearms built, along with most explosive weapons, incendiary weapons and others weapons widely considered heavier;

-2- Urges members to prohibit most arms imports and exports without “RFID tag” embedded;

-3- Urges members to maintain a secured and encrypted electronic database including electronic product code and owner information for any new weapon sold;

-4- Urges members to cooperate with other nations in order to provide related information, when significant national security matters are not at stake;

-5- Urges members to not provide that information to entity other than accredited national administrations in justice or law enforcement departments or other nations’ government, and to allow access to the database only by court order or national publicly established procedures;

-6- Urges members to inform weapon’s holder of the presence of the tag, at the time of the purchase, and of the presence or the use of any reader

-7- Encourages members to share RFID and computers technology with nations having not yet access to it.

Co-authored by Biotopia
-----

We would like to thanks the 133 delegates who approved it, as this proposal reached quorum.

We would like to thanks the 133 delegates who approved it, as this proposal reached quorum.We thank L&E for getting this one to vote and look forward to the day it becomes and active resolution so another step can be taken to help in the detection of weapons being moved into areas they may not be wanted in. As we know it will not end weapons smuggling but will be another wall to help stop it.

"Convinced that improved and efficient traceability contributes to decrease illegal arms sales worldwide"

What exactly are the laws concerning arms sales in NS terms, could anyone direct me to relevant UN legislation?

Gwenstefani is an active arms trader, but I have to admit that we are not particularly picky in who we sell our goods too.

And it's now at vote.

Hirota congratulates the government of L&E for their work. We wholly support it. However, we do recognise one area which is of concern (not to us, and certainly will only be an issue to a small minority of nations) is that of technology. This resolution assumes that all nations have the required technology to implement the RFID technology.

This however, we note is a small issue, and alternative tech nations will have alternative technologies which would be implemented as appropiate.

One problem is to insure the devices are not easy to disable, as that could be the only fault here since all one would have to do is 'shut it off'. Also the life of the device needs to be considered as we find that those simular devices put into pets have a short lifetime. Thus have to be replaced at some point. Then there is the problem of standardizing the devices so that we don't have dozen of different devices out and need a new reciever designed to detect each one. It can be worked and is a good idea.

The implimentation of an electronic radio device like this would be unreliable at best. Any electronical device can be disabled or tampered with.
I suggest a different identification system all together, by adding a small weak radioactive isotope of some common element. This would make it possible to add the 'tag' even to single rounds, or shells. This would also help identifying an already detonated explosive devise as traces of the isotope could be found in debrise or material components of the device.

I feel I need to point out that this would not cause radioactive contamination as the isotopes used would be weak enough to not cause any harm even with long time exposure. One could also go a further step and put the element into a small shielded chamber in the weapon only openable by authorized personnel.

Avaliable suitable isotopes are plentiful enough that you could assign one isotope to each manufacturer, if not even to each factory where weapons are produced.


Or is it too late to add to/change the resolution once its at vote?

Or is it too late to add to/change the resolution once its at vote?Yes, it is.

1) How hard would it be for our enemies to use this systems to detect how many firearms we have tasked to a combat theatre?Initally I thought this unlikely. However, I did some digging.

Although RFID tags are only officially intended for short-distance use, they can be interrogated from greater distances by anyone with a high-gain antenna, potentially allowing the contents of a house to be scanned at a distance.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RFID#Vulnerabilities)

Now, to have a high-gain antenna strong enough to pick up RFID tags, it needs to be pointing right at the spot where the RFID tag is located, as high-gain antenna's are only that powerful because they need precise targeting. Moreover they need LOS (Line of sight).

Give this, it is indeed unlikely that RFID's could be easily picked up in combat operations.

The implimentation of an electronic radio device like this would be unreliable at best. Any electronical device can be disabled or tampered with.True in a sense in some nations this could be a problem of poor ERDs but many nations have such devices in place that would work in this area. As the clause to share teck on this will help to make these devices standard across the UN membership as that was also and issue mentioned earlier and now covered in the idea of sharing informing that will impove the divices..


I suggest a different identification system all together, by adding a small weak radioactive isotope of some common element. This would make it possible to add the 'tag' even to single rounds, or shells. This would also help identifying an already detonated explosive devise as traces of the isotope could be found in debrise or material components of the device.One round with one whatever amount of the R.I. might not be a problem but start counting 100 rounds a box 50 boxes to a case and however many thousands of cases shipped on board a ship... and we have a problem..

Also then you might have them stealing these items not for them being weapons but to gather R.I.... as not sure how much one might need to work here... but know that you would have to multiply it times every round you put it in.

I feel I need to point out that this would not cause radioactive contamination as the isotopes used would be weak enough to not cause any harm even with long time exposure. One could also go a further step and put the element into a small shielded chamber in the weapon only openable by authorized personnel.One reason most pills are prescribed in a certain value and over a certain time period is that more over that time period would be an overdose. Thus one round might not be a problem... a shipment of those rounds would be..


The key is that the chip would contain information on the weapon like where it was made and what type weapon it is.. Thus once the chip is read and this entered into a computer it would let folks know that this weapon is part of some stolen ones. As I would see nations reporting stolen weapons to members and thus they would be looking for any single weapon from those stolen. Thus to detect a chip from one weapon would prompt closer investigation of the whole shipment. As the chips for me could be placed on the main cargo container noting it contains (so many weapons from to and so forth). Also on the individual weapons inside it. No chip or bad chip on a sealed container and we investigate it. As there is no limit to how one can use these chips to help track things.. Even if somebody was to remove it from a place we know it should be then we'd investigate why it was removed and halt the movement of the items.

The resolution only urges it on weapons and other explosive devices but one can on their own use it anywhere they may see a need for it. Also letting others know about these will make it better for all as they will have it as one more wall to possibly stop illegal weapons being moved from point to point.. especialy into sensitive areas they should not be moved. be it one weapon or thousands.

Give this, it is indeed unlikely that RFID's could be easily picked up in combat operations.We had concern on this being picked up also in and thus give away covert military operation in times of war. Since the proposal only urges it then it's not required that all weapons have the device in them.. Thus military and police weapons could be excluded. This would only help keep ordinary citizen from moving weapons or bringing them into an area weapons are restricted. In war troops move and their weapons move with them and most times nobody stops them to check some chip that might be in them.. As this is mostly to deal with the trafficking of weapons in peacetimes... war is a new issue..

The Autarkian government opposes the proposal:

1. We feel that such equipment would seriously hurt the performance of our troops in combat, especially in situations where the regular issued weapon is lost and the troops need to use enemy weapons to defend themselves.
2. We feel that the detection system is a serious security issue in any covert mission.
3. We feel that such equipment would be a serious security issue, as there is no guarantee that hackers break the code, and send jamming signals rendering our weapons ineffective.

4. Autarkiana holds the position that such interference with national security is not within the UN Mandate. Should such a proposal be accepted, Autarkiana will have no choice but withdraw from the United Nation.

The Autarkian government votes NAY

ok i haven't voted one way or another yet so my vote is still up for grabs. right now i'm leaning toward against it mainly for the fact i think that it's only a good intention. as much as you anti-gun/anti-weaponary people hate to hear this, this will hurt honest nations more then it will the corupt ones. what is the plan for nations that don't abide by this? yes it will be illegal not to use these chips, but since when does making something illegal stop people from doing it. it doesn't. nations are still going to make and sell illegal and we wont know it because are way of dectect/IDing them is in a chip that is only being inbedded by honest nations and legal weaponry. like i said if someone can give me a good agruement that this can be solved then i'm listening.


-5- Urges members to prohibit most arms imports and exports without “RFID tag” embedded;

-6- Urges members to cooperate with other nations in order to provide related information, when significant national security matters are not at stake;

-7- Encourages members to share related RFID and computers technology with nations having not yet access to it.

the more i read this the more i dont like it. i'm not saying i hate this yet but it's leaving a bad after taste in my mouth so i'll have to mull this over abit to see were i stand.

2. We feel that the detection system is a serious security issue in any covert mission.I've already demonstrated that is not the case. read my previous post.
3. We feel that such equipment would be a serious security issue, as there is no guarantee that hackers break the code, and send jamming signals rendering our weapons ineffective.This proves you have no idea what you are talking about. RFID is not interconnected with other systems - moreover, the majority of guns are mechanical, not electronic in nature(excluding future-tech nations of course, but the nature of RFID means it is still not interconnected).
RFID, is this.
http://www.rfid-weblog.com/50226711/polyicrfidtag.gif
It's normally sticky on onside to be attached to whatever it is being used for. It is not incorporated into the item.4. Autarkiana holds the position that such interference with national security is not within the UN Mandate. Should such a proposal be accepted, Autarkiana will have no choice but withdraw from the United Nation.I've demonstrated that is not the case, and the UN can actually do whatever it wants. I'm sure someone somewhere will be terribly upset to see you go if you choose to leave. I'm too grumpy to care at the moment. But can I basgsy your office when you go? Or any office stationery?

True in a sense in some nations this could be a problem of poor ERDs but many nations have such devices in place that would work in this area. As the clause to share teck on this will help to make these devices standard across the UN membership as that was also and issue mentioned earlier and now covered in the idea of sharing informing that will impove the divices..




i did a tour back in nam and i worked on radios for the air force. the problem with and RF device, no matter how new or sophisticated, is that there can be outside interferance. masking a signal or even jamming one is suprisingly very easy.

3. We feel that such equipment would be a serious security issue, as there is no guarantee that hackers break the code, and send jamming signals rendering our weapons ineffective.This device even if it fails to work would not prevent the weapon from working... Only the removal of the device from the weaopon or that part the device is placed in would render the weapon useless.. Jamming it has no effect on the operation of the weapon..


On using a weapon they take from an enemy because they lose their own weapons. If we have devices in all our weapons what difference does it make.. You pick it up and it will not work for you only for our troops.. Also if we could put a jamming device in them then why not to prevent enemy troops from ever using them.

i did a tour back in nam and i worked on radios for the air force. the problem with and RF device, no matter how new or sophisticated, is that there can be outside interferance. masking a signal or even jamming one is suprisingly very easy.I'm Nam era Army signal so know what you are saying here. There are problems with any such device as we talk about here but considering that special efforts would have to be taken by criminals to avoid detection even if it's simple they would still have one more thing to do to hide these weapons. AS don't see this as the only measure to secure weapons being moved between point A and point B or brought into an area they don't need to be in. As seen how metal detectors work in building as most time they turn them off or down because they don't want to take time to have everyone take coins and keys from pockets so as not to set them off. This in a weapon would mean scan for it and it would tell you once read that it's a weapon.. Thus if all weapons have it in place then.. Also we are talking mainly during peacetime not wars.. which change the rules of the game.. as since the NSUN has no army don't see it here long if all out war breaks out..


Also since this is role play then how do you know that we don't already have this type device in all our weapons... even those we may have sould citizens of your nation or to you for use in your military.. As guess been reading to many of them SFI books.. or watching movies..

ok i'll except that. but this still doesn't answer the question what if the weapons don't have the chip. weapons can still be made in secret with out these chips. not to mention i highly doubt all the millions of illegal weapons out there are going to install this chip. what about thoes. there's no way we can stop them all with this resolution. all i see this being good for is making it a thousand times more difficult to steal weapons. this will ubstruct the flow of illegal weapons but only slightly.

I just don't see the point of this proposal. It doesn't actually do anything. It just urges members to, you know, maybe, um, think about it, and do something if they feel like it, and if it's, like, not to much hassle.

So I guess even if this does pass, it won't affect Gwenstefani. We can continue manufacturing and selling arms as we always have done. Except maybe we'll have a slight price advantage if our competitors decide to comply with this legislation (which is highly unlikely).

Is this proposal maybe a forerunner for something else then? Trying to take baby steps towards a goal that would fail if proposed outright?

As a major arms exporter, Gwenstefani would like to see as few regulations on the trade as possible.

I just don't see the point of this proposal. It doesn't actually do anything. It just urges members to, you know, maybe, um, think about it, and do something if they feel like it, and if it's, like, not to much hassle.I see this as following the whole "old-school" philosophy of resolutions. I can see the UN gnomes on Gwenstefani borders armed to the teeth saying, "You don't have to do this, although do you really want to find out what happens if you don't?"

You don't want to mess with those gnomes <shudder>

I see this as following the whole "old-school" philosophy of resolutions. I can see the UN gnomes on Gwenstefani borders armed to the teeth saying, "You don't have to do this, although do you really want to find out what happens if you don't?"

You don't want to mess with those gnomes <shudder>

Maybe I could shoot them with my non-RFID enhanced weapons.

Much as I would love to be able to impliment such a measure, as it would make suppression of my subjects much easier when I decide to remove all their political rights, I fear if I attempt this currently, that I will have an armed revolt.

The people, mouth-breathing watchers of Justinian Idol and Castaways Do the Stupidest Things who are barely able to make an informed decision with regards to their local school board members, will not tolerate the merest attempt at removing their ability to defend themselves against tyranny, such is my bad luck.

So, bowing to the altar of Public Relations, I must vote against this proposal.

Grand Duke Hadrian Justinian,
House Justinian

I oppose any such attempt at monitoring such weapon systems ...

What prevents someone from stealing or gaining access to the detection software.

"Liberty, Wealth, Armament."
Lord Jon the Free

-1- Urges members to legislate that a passive and read-only “RFID tag” with encrypted information (electronic product code, serial number, manufacturer and manufactured year) and read range inferior to 10cm,

Here is my issue.

The RFID tag is passive.

The reader is not.

The read range is determined by the reader, not the tag.

Encryption programs are fallible.

What is to prevent me, or rather my intelligent agencies, to devise a reader that can access the RFID tag from a distance greater than 10cm?

I’d submit that any nation using this technology is opening themselves up to a huge risk of espionage – further – any arms trading nation is potentially putting their clients at risk by including RFID tags on salable items.

The Wolfish Emissary will vote no.

I must admit that when I first came across this proposal, I was opposed. I didn't raise my voice about it, and I'm glad that I didn't. I might have missed some of the fun echanges between many of our esteemed representatives here.

Just a couple of points. Not really for or against, just points.

RFID In New Weapons does a lot of urging and not much else. Normally I would say that that's a bad thing. Under the circumstances, I don't mind. Kivisto, much like a few others here has an economy being driven by Arms Manufacturing. While the cost of individual chips and readers might be fairly small, when speaking of mass production on a massive scale, even a few cents apiece becomes millions and millions of Squees.

There are ways of detecting the tags either from range or covertly. There are also ways of masking, disguising, or jamming the signal from the tags. Those balance themselves out more or less. Those with the capacity, time, effort and desire to put forth that kind of effort are welcome to do so, realizing that there's no real way to tell beforehand if such measures will even be beneficial.

An idea to possibly solve a few issues that have been mentioned regarding the tags, the way they're read, and their vulnerabilities to electromagnetic fields. Hard-code them. The way that a UPC symbol or a compact disc is. They would no longer be susceptible to EMF, they must be actively read by a laser type device (you wouldn't be able to pick up the signal from a mile away because it gives off no signal at all), and it could be directly incorporated into the construction of the weapon somehow, similar to the serial number. It's far from perfect, merely an idea.

I haven't really decided which side of this fence I'm leaning towards at the moment. I'm tempted to support just so that nothing stronger could get through, mandating a full registration of all weaponry in the UN or something like that. On the other hand, we in Kivisto have recently started work on a cyber-carrot thingy our scientists have been talking about and might not wish to be bothered with the relegislation and reorganization of the arms industries to meet the Urges of L&E's proposal....

This is a ridiculous resolution. Totally pointless. We already put serial numbers on all our weapons. What good is adding an RFID tag besides the extra cost? While an RFID tag can be read only from 10cm or closer, I can read a serial number from any one of my, err, weather satellites.

Of course, someone could file down a serial number, but that would take some work. A swift bang with a rock would take care of any RFID technology.

To me, it seems that someone heard a buzzword, and now they think it will solve all the world's problems. Either that, or the countries supporting this must have a lot invested in this technology. Whichever way, this is not a proposal which provides anything to the world at large.

RFID will not make it easier to track weapons.
RFID will not make the world safer.
RFID is not some bleeding edge, essential to the future of mankind technology which "the good citizens" of the UN need to provide to under-developed nations.

This proposal is a waste of UN time, and those who supported it need to be investigted for ties to anyone in the RFID industry.

Official Mouthpiece of DeDamned

The Principality of Jovic would like to bring up some concearns that is has on this resolution.

-A- Convinced that improved and efficient traceability contributes to decrease illegal arms sales worldwide

Black market sellers would just be able to remove the chip, effectively rendering the weapon invisible to the detecters. There is no spot on a gun that can not be accessed to remove the chip. Also due to the fact that the primary weapon of concearn are firearms, almost all fire arms are mechanical in nature. Thus a chip would not be able to prevent the gun from firing if it was removed or disabled.

-B- Affirming that, because of their destruction potential, the right to own weapons and its related privacy shall go along with some duties, as good conduct commitment and respect of dangerous products traceability,

This I agree with. Such dangerous items should be traceable. However I don't see how this purposal would enforce how it suggests to make it easier.

-C- Desiring to help judicial process over nationals and international criminality by more accurate, faster and cost saving tracing processes,

I'm not sure that this will be the case. Setting aside the concearns I brought up with point A, the law enforcement agencies will still have the same difficulties as it does now with finding suspected weapons. In a murder investigation for example, you still need to practically be right on top of the weapon (with in 10 cms) to have a chance of detecting it. Assuming of course that it is not in a shielded container of some sort. Such R.F. shielding is availible and used commonly in sensitive areas as a standard security measure. Thus even customs open all containers as it must do so now.

-D- Defining a Radio Frequency Identification tag (“RFID tag”) as a generally very small electronic chip storing information about the item to which it is tagged, with an antenna which can receive and respond to radio-frequency queries from a reader - a passive RFID tag doesn't have its own power source and then doesn't send information without being requested,

Standard definition.

-E- Fully aware of the very low cost of RFID tags:

Only for some nations. For less devoploped nations who do not have a chip manufacturing capablities this would not always be the case. In genral however those places where Arms manufacturing takes place, will most likely have access to low cost chips. However this probably shouldn't be included in the text of the law itself since the economy may not always be able to support this claim.

-1- Urges members to legislate that a passive and read-only “RFID tag” with encrypted information (electronic product code, serial number, manufacturer and manufactured year) and read range inferior to 10cm, to be including in most new firearms built, along with most explosive weapons, incendiary weapons and others weapons widely considered heavier;

The vagueness of this point troubles me. As a theoretical arms manufacturer, I could place a chip in 50.01% of of my weapons. So if I created 10,000 hand guns 5001 could have the chip and 4999 would not and I would be compliant with the law. I also don't understand the need to encrypt the information specified in this point. The serial number is on the gun itself, and the rest of the information is generally easily found by looking at the gun or with a minimum of effort. However as it is only a suggestion, the whole point of this propsal could be ignored and it would be legal to do so.

-2- Urges members to inform weapon’s holder of the presence of the tag, at the time of the purchase, and of the presence or the use of any reader;

I agree with these stipulations if such technology usage were made mandatory.

-3- Urges members to maintain a secured and encrypted electronic database including electronic product code and owner information for any new weapon sold;

These would only cover legally sold and registered fire arms. This is already done in countries that have the capablity to maintain such a database. Illegal transactions obviously are not recorded into said databases and thus this point has no realy purpose other then to state the obvious and suggest to nations to do what most of them are doing anyway.

-4- Urges members to not provide that information to entity other than accredited national administrations in justice or law enforcement departments or other nations’ government, and to allow access to the database only by court order or reasonable and publicly established national procedures;

Again as with the previous point, nations that are already willing to do this are. Thus if they are not forced to do so, those nations that choose not to are not forced to do so.

-5- Urges members to prohibit most arms imports and exports without “RFID tag” embedded;

Again ugres members to do something, but does not force them to. A nation could easily import arms from a non-member nation that could produce 100% of its arms with out a chip, and then legaly sell them/use them.

-6- Urges members to cooperate with other nations in order to provide related information, when significant national security matters are not at stake;

Most nations will do this regardless of UN urging if they are already on friendly terms. If they are not then it becomes the whims of the government lackies who process the request to provide said information.


-7- Encourages members to share related RFID and computers technology with nations having not yet access to it.

Those nations that cannot produce the technology on their own are welcome to purchase it. Companies should not have to give up propiretiery knowlegde. I would think that mearly asking a chip manufacture to hand over its design scematics along with all related technology, which includes the techonolgy to make the chips, over to a country that cannot make it themselves would result in the owner of said company either laughing in your face or throwing you out. No company should be forced to give up its trade secrets, nor will any intelligent business man volunteerly do so.


This proposal doesn't seem to have the ablity to make what it invisions come true. At best it creates a two seperate markets. Arms with chips, and arms without chips. However since this purposal does nothing more then to suggest we do anything in it.....there is no point. This is not a law, it is a letter asking us to do something. As such there is no point in passing it into a resolution since it doesn't do anything.

The Principality of Jovic shall of course vote against this purposal, because we feel that such requests are not laws and as such should not be made into a legal request.

Chairman Ambrose or the Principality of Jovic

Lydia’s return certainly began with a bang. First day back and she walks into the barrage of the Euthanasia repeal. Few days later and tagging all members’ weapons was on the agenda. Bitter experience has taught her not to mess with members’ defence forces unless you are really sure you have covered all the bases. Unsurprisingly she’d already been emailed a synopsis from NSIS on why they’d rather not have RFID’s implemented and to add to matters the morning briefing with her boss did not go too well. Elections are looming and the government is nervous about how UN matters could influence the opinion polls.

“The government of Telidia has at this time no formal position on the current resolution” she began her opening address. “We do however have reservations and would welcome comments from our esteemed colleagues to put them at ease. As previously mentioned and eloquently demonstrated by the Wolfish delegation there are some security considerations.

Secondly we are somewhat deterred by the fact there is very limited definitions about what types of weapons should carry RFID’s. What is meant by “incendiary device” for example or “other weapons widely considered heavier”. The current wording could suggest anything from orbital weapon's platforms to battering rams.

Lastly we are concerned by the potential of article seven to be used as a measure by certain States to force members who choose for cultural or other reasons not to increase their technology levels to do so for profit or other gain.”

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

Given the ease with which an RF tag can be neutralized, using it as a means of preventing the illegal smuggling by those already committing a criminal action seems doubtful. Whether by simply wiping the tag with a magnet or by removing it, a serious smuggler will have no difficulties bypassing this system.

Likewise, although the short range of the device will prevent it from being used to “detect” weapons, and it will be used as a means of identification only, we believe that the current method of a serial number engraved in areas inaccessible to easy access is far more certain for tracing a weapon.

In addition, as a new nation, our primary duty is to the welfare of our people. Due to its circumstances, Sujereska is forced to enforce compulsorily military service, a severe tax burden on the people. Adding an additional cost, no matter how small, that the people we are sworn to serve will shoulder the burden for is contrary to our oath and goals.

As providing law enforcement an improved method of tracing weapons is the primary purpose of this legislation, the Republic of Sujereska cannot support this proposal, and urges that other delegates also vote against.

Respectfully,
Mark Sujereska
President, Republic of Sujereska


*phew*
Oh, this is gonna be fun. :D

Given the ease with which an RF tag can be neutralized, using it as a means of preventing the illegal smuggling by those already committing a criminal action seems doubtful. Whether by simply wiping the tag with a magnet or by removing it, a serious smuggler will have no difficulties bypassing this system.

Likewise, although the short range of the device will prevent it from being used to “detect” weapons, and it will be used as a means of identification only, we believe that the current method of a serial number engraved in areas inaccessible to easy access is far more certain for tracing a weapon.

In addition, as a new nation, our primary duty is to the welfare of our people. Due to its circumstances, Sujereska is forced to enforce compulsorily military service, a severe tax burden on the people. Adding an additional cost, no matter how small, that the people we are sworn to serve will shoulder the burden for is contrary to our oath and goals.

As providing law enforcement an improved method of tracing weapons is the primary purpose of this legislation, the Republic of Sujereska cannot support this proposal, and urges that other delegates also vote against.

Respectfully,
Mark Sujereska
President, Republic of Sujereska


*phew*
Oh, this is gonna be fun. :D

excellent first post.

*phew*
Oh, this is gonna be fun. :D

OOC:
Welcome to the NSUN, good to have you here and I second Wolfish's comment.

*phew*
Oh, this is gonna be fun.
OOC:
Welcome to the NSUN, good to have you here and I second Wolfish's comment.

OOC: "Welcome" from me, too, and I third that comment.

we're guards

we're guards

what does this have to do with anything?

As can be witnessed by the discussion, this proposal is so boring and banal, without any benefits what-so-ever, people are not even discussing it.

This motion should be immediately dismissed and replaced by something which addresses the real issues that face the world today.

Official Mouthpiece of DeDamned

The proposal seems very interesting. But there are few issues with it.
As discussed before, a 10 cm range will not be enough. Its not very effective if you need to be within the distance of 10cm from the weapon.
What would be effective is making the chips work in a much longer range. By doing that we could actually stop illigal weapon trade and use the chips to find assassins, for example.

The problem with this scanerio is the fact that its much too similar to the chip implants within a person's body. If the chip could work within a distance of a hundreds of meters, it would certainly allow the law enforcement officers to stop criminals. The problem is, that this method can be abused in order to track all weapon holders and monitor them. Let us also, not forget the fact that wheter we like it or not, people already trade weapons iligaly, and it would take many years for the implants to actually be of use.

While the creation of those chips is not too expensive (as stated in the proposal), many countries would rather fund more police stations and army bases than implanting chips on every single weapon.:sniper:

Remut Sanzu, Biotopia's Constitutional Secretary and Pazu-Lenny Kasigi-Nero, Love and esterel's UN Ambassador would like to introduce a new draft proposal:

"RFID in new Weapons"

Please let us know every comments, suggestions and critics, thanks

Here is the lattest draft:

-----
RFID in new Weapons
“International Security - Mild”

The United Nations,

-A- Convinced that improved and efficient traceability contributes to decrease illegal arms sales worldwide

-B- Affirming that, because of their destruction potential, the right to own weapons and its related privacy shall go along with some duties, as good conduct commitment and respect of dangerous products traceability

-C- Desiring to help judicial process over nationals and international criminality by more accurate, faster and cost saving tracing processes

-D- Defining a Radio Frequency Identification tag (“RFID tag”) as a generally very small electronic chip storing information about the item to which it is tagged, with an antenna which can receive and respond to radio-frequency queries from a reader - a passive RFID tag doesn't have its own power source and then doesn't send information without being requested

-E- Fully aware of the very low cost of RFID tags


-1- Urges members to legislate that a passive and read-only “RFID tag” with encrypted information (electronic product code, serial number, manufacturer and manufactured year) and read range inferior to 10cm, to be including in most new firearms built, along with most explosive weapons, incendiary weapons and others weapons widely considered heavier;

-2- Urges members to prohibit most arms imports and exports without “RFID tag” embedded;

-3- Urges members to maintain a secured and encrypted electronic database including electronic product code and owner information for any new weapon sold;

-4- Urges members to cooperate with other nations in order to provide related information, when significant national security matters are not at stake;

-5- Urges members to not provide that information to entity other than accredited national administrations in justice or law enforcement departments or other nations’ government, and to allow access to the database only by court order or national publicly established procedures;

-6- Urges members to inform weapon’s holder of the presence of the tag, at the time of the purchase, and of the presence or the use of any reader

-7- Encourages members to share RFID and computers technology with nations having not yet access to it.

Co-authored by Biotopia
-----


Here is the first draft:


-----
RFID in new Weapons
“International Security - Mild”

The United Nations,

-A- Desiring to promote a reduction in illegal arms sales worldwide

-B- Desiring to preserve the rights of people to own small weapons, for self protection use, and preserve their privacy

-C- Affirming that, because of their destruction potential, the right to own weapons shall go along with some duties, as good conduct commitment and respect of dangerous products traceability

-D- Desiring to help judicial process over nationals and international criminality by increased weapons traceability

-E- Defining an “RFID tag” as a very small electronic chip with an antenna storing some information, which can receive and respond to radio-frequency queries from a transceiver


-1- Urges members to legislate that a “RFID tag” with encrypted information (electronic product code, serial number, manufacturer and manufactured year) and read distances inferior to 10cm, to be including in every new weapon built, including but not limited to combustion-powered weapons, explosive weapons, incendiary weapons, projectile weapons

-2- Urges members to prohibit arms imports and exports without “RFID tag” embedded

-3- Urges members to maintain a secured and encrypted electronic database including electronic product code and owner information for any new weapon sold

-4- Urges members to cooperate with other nations in order to provide related information, when significant national security matters are not at stake

-5- Urges members to not provide that information to entity other than accredited national administrations in justice or law enforcement departments or other nations’ government, and to only allow law enforcement departments to search those information by electronic product code.

Co-authored by Biotopia
-----
:headbang: If people accept this than it would cause World War 3

:headbang: If people accept this than it would cause World War 3


While I do disagree with passing this proposal....isn't that a bit over dramatic? After all this proposal doesn't do anything except make a bunch of suggestions and state that chips are cheap.


hmmm if I will have to pass that on to the marketing department.

The Palentine votes no, due to the added costs involved in the production of small arms, and the retrofitting of guns already manufactured but not sold.
excelsior,
Sen. Horatio Sulla

The Rogue Nation of Flibbleites casts their vote AGAINST this resolution because we don't see a valid reason that this needs to be done.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

This proposal is sketchy at best. For example, it says that member nations should prohibit "most" imports and exports of non-tagged firearms. What is "most" supposed to mean? Also, it fails to explain what RFID is. You could look it up, but still.

This proposal is sketchy at best. For example, it says that member nations should prohibit "most" imports and exports of non-tagged firearms. What is "most" supposed to mean? Also, it fails to explain what RFID is. You could look it up, but still.


actually part D does define it.
-D- Defining a Radio Frequency Identification tag (“RFID tag”) as a generally very small electronic chip storing information about the item to which it is tagged, with an antenna which can receive and respond to radio-frequency queries from a reader - a passive RFID tag doesn't have its own power source and then doesn't send information without being requested,

and part 1 suggests what information is on said chip

*SNIP*Urges members to legislate that a passive and read-only “RFID tag” with encrypted information (electronic product code, serial number, manufacturer and manufactured year)*SNIP

I thought this was clear enough, or do I have the advantage of knowing what this technogloly was before this proposal came up for a vote?

This may be a stupid question but, what's the point? What is this suppossed to do? What conceivable reason would I have to vote for this?

To be blunt, this sounds like something out of "1984". It just seems rediculous to have chips in every weapon. And what do you tell those who use wepaons for recreational purposes? "Sorry, you have to implant your brand new bow with this chip now. Too bad you're bow will probably be totaled." The intention seems good, but there are probably much better ways to prevent weapon misusage. Besides, wouldn't people just try to remove them if they were going to do something illegal?

To be blunt, this sounds like something out of "1984". It just seems rediculous to have chips in every weapon. And what do you tell those who use wepaons for recreational purposes? "Sorry, you have to implant your brand new bow with this chip now. Too bad you're bow will probably be totaled." The intention seems good, but there are probably much better ways to prevent weapon misusage. Besides, wouldn't people just try to remove them if they were going to do something illegal?

Yeah! What he said.

This may be a stupid question but, what's the point? What is this suppossed to do? What conceivable reason would I have to vote for this?

Towrds the bottom of page 6 of this thread I have posted a point by point break down of the proposal. I know its kind of long by it should give you a good idea of why you might want to vote against this bill. At least in my opinion.

For convience, here is a link http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11166093&postcount=88

Towrds the bottom of page 6 of this thread I have posted a point by point break down of the proposal. I know its kind of long by it should give you a good idea of why you might want to vote against this bill. At least in my opinion.

For convience, here is a link http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11166093&postcount=88

Ah, very helpful. Thanks.

I vote...AGAINST

This proposal doesn't seem to have the ablity to make what it invisions come true. At best it creates a two seperate markets. Arms with chips, and arms without chips. However since this purposal does nothing more then to suggest we do anything in it.....there is no point. This is not a law, it is a letter asking us to do something. As such there is no point in passing it into a resolution since it doesn't do anything.

i know this was kinda back there but these were my sentiments excatly.

Official Message
From The
Ministry of Hospitality


Esteemed Representatives,

As the Minister of Hospitality for the Tire-Burning Torque Empire of HotRodia, I am pleased to inform you that our office will be voting AGAINST this resolution. While the resolution does no harm, it also fails to address a matter of true international importance or human rights, which our nation sees as necessary in a UN resolution.

With Respect,

Minister of Hospitality
Sam I Am

Official Message
From The
Ministry of Hospitality


Esteemed Representatives,

As the Minister of Hospitality for the Tire-Burning Torque Empire of HotRodia, I am pleased to inform you that our office will be voting AGAINST this resolution. While the resolution does no harm, it also fails to address a matter of true international importance or human rights, which our nation sees as necessary in a UN resolution.

With Respect,

Minister of Hospitality
Sam I Am

Official Message:
The Jevian UN Representatives
Office of the Deputy Presiding Jevian UN Representative

Decision: What he said.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian UN Representative

Nagapura-
I am not a he. Sorry for the misconception. :) But glad to here someone agrees with me. Have you read 1984? All of you looking at this issue might want to read it, or at least a summary.

I have read 1984, recently as a matter of fact.

And I too must vote against this proposal. There is nothing here but urges and suggestions. All of which will not do anything of consequence.

Esteemed gentlemen and ladies,

We shall also be voting against this proposal. While the Commonwealth of Cartes agrees that a more robust method of tracking arms sales would be beneficial to all UN-aligned nations, this method of doing so is not as effective as one would think.

This proposal urges that RFID chips be placed in the weapons and ammunition themselves. While this would be helpful if the tracking of an individual weapon were desired, the tracking of shipments would best be suited with a more general RFID location, such as the container or shipping unit. As other representatives have mentioned in the design phase of this proposal, other methods of tracking would be more efficient and effective if individual-unit tracking is the desired effect.

Again, this is a good idea, but the Commonwealth of Cartes cannot support this proposal, as it is written.

Curulan Angelicos
Governor-at-Arms of the Commonwealth of Cartes

I voted AGAINST this. Why? It accomplishes nothing bu urging. Even if it did actually do anything, it is up to the nation to dictate the extent of gun control. People in my nation all own guns. If someone does somthing bad with a gun, we rest assured that someone else will shoot him. And we ahve peace :D

Nagapura-
I am not a he. Sorry for the misconception. :) But glad to here someone agrees with me. Have you read 1984? All of you looking at this issue might want to read it, or at least a summary.

Oh, sorry about that. I just assumed and well, you know what happens when you assume. Anyway, I'm actually reading 1984 right now. Just started it the other day.

Official Message
From The
Ministry of Hospitality


Esteemed Representatives,

As the Minister of Hospitality for the Tire-Burning Torque Empire of HotRodia, I am pleased to inform you that our office will be voting AGAINST this resolution. While the resolution does no harm, it also fails to address a matter of true international importance or human rights, which our nation sees as necessary in a UN resolution.

With Respect,

Minister of Hospitality
Sam I AmOfficial Message:
The Jevian UN Representatives
Office of the Deputy Presiding Jevian UN Representative

Decision: What he said.

Vance Aceon
Deputy Presiding Jevian UN Representativehttp://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/omigodtheykilledkenny.jpg
Department of State
The Federal Republic of Omigodtheykilledkenny"Ditto."Sincerely,
Alex Tehrani
Secretary of State

Ah, very helpful. Thanks.

I vote...AGAINST


i know this was kinda back there but these were my sentiments excatly.


I must say that I am glad I could be of help in both deciding your stance and in formulating your sentiments. Truth be told, after a similar style of argument was all but ignored on the previous repeal's discussion I had thought there might be little I offered in these debates. I try to state look at each asspect of the issue and present what I feel are the best points either for or against, I even cede the point to my opponite if the argument justifys doing so.

Perhpas this proposal could be passed in other version, one that allows it to acomplish something more then a general letter to all nation heads publically disclosed would have done. I'm sure for a small consulting fee, the Director of Marketing and Legislation would be able asist in that endevor.

http://www.nationstates.net/images/flags/uploads/omigodtheykilledkenny.jpg
Department of State
The Federal Republic of Omigodtheykilledkenny"Ditto."Sincerely,
Alex Tehrani
Secretary of State

WHY CAN'T I EMBED THE OTHER QUOTES?!?! [Equivalent manner of outburst to Gir's "WHERE'S MY MOUTH?!"]

Official message:
Norderian Delegate
The hammock over there

We rather like the sentiment being portrayed by this proposal. We, however, fail to see what good is being done by pleas such as "urges" and "encourages." We will not outright side against this proposal, but we shan't be voting for it.

I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I abstain. With such intense eXtremeness. Not since a debate about some other topic that we had little interest in has there been such an abstaining. So puissant! So potent! So vigorous! So mighty! So intense! So flick! (That's a joke I don't expect anyone in here to get... 10 bucks if you do.) The indifference is like the tide of the oceans, save for the fact that the oceans move!

Behold, for Norderia... ABSTAINS. O! the spectacle!



Tommo the Stout
UN Ambassador of Norderia
North Sea

WHY CAN'T I EMBED THE OTHER QUOTES?!?!
You can, you just have to do it manually.

You can, you just have to do it manually.

I was looking for an "embed quotes" option in the thingie... Settings...


But forget it. If I have to do it in the future, I know how without having to type the tags in. Praise tabbed browsing.

My entire region implored me to vote no, and I agree with them. "Most" weapons? That's very vague -- 51% takes care of that. The specifications on the RFID tags are specious and ridiculous, and passive tags can be made to reveal themselves with the right frequency, allowing enemies to track your weapons.

AGAINST.

Esteemed Delegates,

This resolution has a good spirit: provide means to promote national and international security. However, the Empire is tired of saying this over and over and over again... do not propose resolutions such as this that are national issues, not international ones. Many nations decide to place controls on weapon posession and sales which should be good enough. Modern weapons with tracking systems? You are talking about military equipment, not the average citizen's gun for hunting or home protection. What if a nation goes to war? Should any nation be required to give the nation with which they are at war any intel on the whereabouts of their own military assets? A hostile nation could be detered from attacking another nation if they do not know the specifics of the defending nation's defenses. I strongly urge my fellow delegates to vote against this resolution to show that this is not an issue to be controlled by the UN and to support international security.

Emperor Brandon I

Esteemed Delegates,

This resolution has a good spirit: provide means to promote national and international security. However, the Empire is tired of saying this over and over and over again... do not propose resolutions such as this that are national issues, not international ones. Many nations decide to place controls on weapon posession and sales which should be good enough. Modern weapons with tracking systems? You are talking about military equipment, not the average citizen's gun for hunting or home protection. What if a nation goes to war? Should any nation be required to give the nation with which they are at war any intel on the whereabouts of their own military assets? A hostile nation could be detered from attacking another nation if they do not know the specifics of the defending nation's defenses. I strongly urge my fellow delegates to vote against this resolution to show that this is not an issue to be controlled by the UN and to support international security.

Emperor Brandon I


While I agree that this proposal should be voted down, I would like to question some of your reasons. I would like to know what issues would be consdiered worth having a international law for? I find it hard to believe that since a majority of arms are manufactured in a small number of countries and shipped to nations all over the world that you do not consider this to be an international issue. Not to mention the the fact that the black market routinely operates by aquiring its arms from places wher it legal to get them and selling those arms where it is illegal. Doesn't it make sense that international laws would be very helpful in this area? As for an enemy nation learning the arms and dispositions of another nation's forces, well all I have to say is lets not give this technology more power then it really has.

The range of the technology is 10 cm, roughly the length of a laptop keyboard. If your intel guy is closes enough to scan it, then he already has a pretty good idea of what the soilder is carring and how many there are. As for the extreme long range pickups by highly sensitive attenias....well it has to be pointed right at the chip for it to work. A man standing on a hill with a pair of binocolurs would give you better intel and present a much smaller target.

So that leaves you with only one somewhat legitimate point, to which I would like the answer....what issues are, in your opinion, the domain of the UN?

The range of the technology is 10 cm, roughly the length of a laptop keyboard. If your intel guy is closes enough to scan it, then he already has a pretty good idea of what the soilder is carring and how many there are. As for the extreme long range pickups by highly sensitive attenias....well it has to be pointed right at the chip for it to work. A man standing on a hill with a pair of binocolurs would give you better intel and present a much smaller target.

So that leaves you with only one somewhat legitimate point, to which I would like the answer....what issues are, in your opinion, the domain of the UN?
It's a radio transmitter. It projects 10cm, but anyone that knows anything about radio knows that a more powerful reciever can pick up something with a short transmitting range. I made the same point before and someone else brought up range. radio waves don't magically vanish after a certain point and a better reciever can pick up weak transmissions. there isn't some magical forcefield that stops all further transmitting after the 10cm range.

there isn't some magical forcefield that stops all further transmitting after the 10cm range.

Ha! Sure there is! It's called urgency, and it works on all the cell phones I've ever used!

It's a radio transmitter. It projects 10cm, but anyone that knows anything about radio knows that a more powerful reciever can pick up something with a short transmitting range. I made the same point before and someone else brought up range. radio waves don't magically vanish after a certain point and a better reciever can pick up weak transmissions. there isn't some magical forcefield that stops all further transmitting after the 10cm range.

I said they could be picked up at extreem range, buts the same principal as a long distance microphone, it still has to pretty much be pointed at the source. so if your off by a degree or two, you could end up missing it all together. All I said that the technology to do so isn't any better then a guy with a telescope. Which is far cheaper.

There are a few limited situations with this ultra powerful, expensive as hell receiver might be better then a look out, but the thing would be so sensitive that anything up close might cause problems. Also it would have to be big. In which case your going to pick up at least one weapon.....the missle used to blow it up before the assult. RFID chips in military weapons do not give away positions. Large scale troop movements are the only thing that would risk giving away the position with RFIDs due to the sheer number of chips to pick up, but since most nations that would waste money on the recievers powerful enough to detect them have "weather" satilites that is mute point. Its also a line of sight detection. Trees, buildings, hills, tanks, and other for of cover renders the chip invisible. Thus the guy on the roof is a better choice since he can watch for people darting around and behind said cover. Now that large scale detection is out of the way, lets talk small unit detection. If a government dosn't provide its single man, or small unit covert ops with un-chipped weapons, they deserve to get caught. Its called punishment of the thoughtless.

All of this is besids the point since my post was intended to get the pro nation's rights faction to publically delcare what it thinks is a UN worthy issue. However since you needed me to clarify I have done so.


Again I'd like to state that I'm against this proposal. I just prefer that people have the correct facts and resoning on why they are doing something.

This debate is asinine.

RESOLVED - Every weapon CAN be RFID tagged. But thats alot of RFID tags considering the definition is sort of left out there in the open. Kitchen knives, china saucers, nukes...?

RESOLVED - RFID tags are cheap and able to be produced in massive quantities. But there are no measures to ensure compliance. So as one country's company is marking weapons that can be traced, another will surely harbor a company that will make just as many that won't. And considering there are more small arms floating around the world than people it will be something impossible to enforce.

The above basically puts the rest of the resolution dead in the water. If this resolution is passed, my country will surely comply. The weapon manufacturers inside our country? Well, we'll try our best. *wink*


Think about it, won't you?

Entropy requires no maintanence.



-Mr. Ponch Fire-Toes
Diplomat to the UN for the Oppressed Peoples of Rubber Tires

I see nothing but 'urges' and 'most's in this. Even if a nation did follow these 'urges' there's still far too much ambiguity in this to make it anywhere near effective.

Some regulation is better then no regulation...Cooperation from all citizens makes for a better living situation.

Some regulation is better then no regulation...Cooperation from all citizens makes for a better living situation.

If people cooperated, there would be no need for a body like the UN. You're correct in your assertion that cooperation is a nice thing to have, but cooperation is not found in abundance.

It's a radio transmitter. It projects 10cm, but anyone that knows anything about radio knows that a more powerful reciever can pick up something with a short transmitting range. I made the same point before and someone else brought up range. radio waves don't magically vanish after a certain point and a better reciever can pick up weak transmissions. there isn't some magical forcefield that stops all further transmitting after the 10cm range.

Actually I'm not sure if it would be able to be picked up, it's not transmitting constantly. It's the same kind of thing that's routinely placed in pets, you can't track your pet, it's just a device that gives information. The chances of pointing directly at the transmitter from several hundred miles away at the exact moment when someone activates a scanner near it while randomly scanning the area from a gigantic uni-directional reciever is so small as to be pointless. Like others have said, just look with your eyes, possibly aided by an IR scope, you're much more likely to find something, and you're much less likely to be destroyed in the process.

The government of Telidia’s official position is now against this resolution. We mentioned some of our concerns before and have seen nothing in this debate to refute them.

Respectfully
Lydia Cornwall, UN Ambassador
Office of UN Relations, Dept for Foreign Affairs
HM Government of Telidia

My entire region implored me to vote no, and I agree with them. "Most" weapons? That's very vague -- 51% takes care of that. The specifications on the RFID tags are specious and ridiculous, and passive tags can be made to reveal themselves with the right frequency, allowing enemies to track your weapons.

AGAINST.I've already demonstrated that your main concern is unfounded.

It's a radio transmitter. It projects 10cm, but anyone that knows anything about radio knows that a more powerful reciever can pick up something with a short transmitting range. I made the same point before and someone else brought up range. radio waves don't magically vanish after a certain point and a better reciever can pick up weak transmissions. there isn't some magical forcefield that stops all further transmitting after the 10cm range.Like I have explained in an earlier post, this is true, but has issues as well. The only practical way to have a receiver which can pick this up is to employ narrow-band technology, and then it has to be literally pointed at the item. You know those huge dishes that point into space SETI uses to listen for transmissions? They use narrowband, so can only study a small portion of the cosmos at a time. Imagine how much bigger it needs to be to cover the whole cosmos, how much more powerful.

The scales are not exactly the same, but you would still need a very large and powerful receiver to pick anything up from an effective distance, such as far enough away to constitute an early warning system.

I voted AGAINST this. Why? It accomplishes nothing bu urging. Even if it did actually do anything, it is up to the nation to dictate the extent of gun control. People in my nation all own guns. If someone does somthing bad with a gun, we rest assured that someone else will shoot him. And we ahve peace :DNo you don't have peace as if you shoot my brother I shoot you then your cousin shoots me then my uncle shoots you then your nephew shoot him and the war begins.

The ideal would be to remove all weapons then we'd be eating with our fingers and even those would need to be removed because they could be used as weapons.

First off since the resolution only urges nations to use this then it leaves it up the those nations that might want to to do so.. Those nations like mine that desire to see an end to illegal gun trafficking and help detect even on weapon being moved into an area that is restricted from them.. will use this and not worry about military weapons as they will not carry them but those weapons for hunting and sports will... as our military weapons already employee divices in them that track them.. and also render them useless to an enemy.. I know you say any security system can be broken but not if the person trying to break it dies doing so..

AS for other uses of such devices we see placing a divice of this nature in each box of ammunition as well as in each case and on containers that we ship them in. Thus we want folks to know the divices are in place and try and tamper with them..... consider how far along computers have come today and where they will be tommorrow.. so what can a simple chip do...?

Even if this is not approved those nations who feel this is a good idea will take it and use it... thus we have through it brought this to the attention of the UN membership and some out there are already moving to use this... thus regardless of how you feel about it keep an open mind on the issue. and if you see a reason to use this then do so... on your own...

I have read through most of this and I fail to see how this proposal will stop illegal arms manufacturing or sales

as been said time and again. This proposal doesn't do anything. The thing is however that it has still somehow managed to get a couple thousand votes. I'm betting those votes came from people who just glanced at the bill, like the general idea but didn't see that it doesn't do anything and voted for it.

I believe this is the case, becasuse there is no one on here arguing for the bill. :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: At least know my head has a reason to hurt

I have read through most of this and I fail to see how this proposal will stop illegal arms manufacturing or sales

Especially as there is no such thing as "illegal arms sales", internationally speaking. The only legislation on the topic outlaws biological weaponry, but there are no UN resolutions restricting the arms trade or outlawing any of its practices. Nation-states are free to sell arms to whoever they like, subject only to their own laws.

Theoretically, selling guns to babies is legal. If not moral.

Maumeeia will vote against this proposal.

-B- Affirming that... the right to own weapons and its related privacy...

There is no right to own weapons as I can recall?

as been said time and again. This proposal doesn't do anything. The thing is however that it has still somehow managed to get a couple thousand votes. I'm betting those votes came from people who just glanced at the bill, like the general idea but didn't see that it doesn't do anything and voted for it.Yeah, that happens with some proposals, but no-one has ever been able to quantify how many people do this.I believe this is the case, becasuse there is no one on here arguing for the bill. :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: At least know my head has a reason to hurtActually, I kind of am arguing for this bill. Not with a passion, but just correcting a few notions people have had about this resolution.

Especially as there is no such thing as "illegal arms sales", internationally speaking. The only legislation on the topic outlaws biological weaponry, but there are no UN resolutions restricting the arms trade or outlawing any of its practices. Nation-states are free to sell arms to whoever they like, subject only to their own laws.

Theoretically, selling guns to babies is legal. If not moral.

There are no international laws, but there are national laws that make certain types of arms sales illegal.

Jovic for example has a law dating back to its founding say it is illegal to sell right arms to left handed people ;)

Yeah, that happens with some proposals, but no-one has ever been able to quantify how many people do this.

I would think that it is a large number. but considering the delegate voting system, things are a bit to skewed to make determining it easy. A script would have to be attached to that somehow tracked who visited the forum, and compare that to who actually voted. Simple in theroy, but not always the case in implimentation

I kind of am arguing for this bill. Not with a passion, but just correcting a few notions people have had about this resolution.


My apologies then, I thought you were just clarifying facts like me. I'd rather people deside against based on acurate information, then vote with me because of wishful and/or superstious beliefes.

OK, another expensive and useless proposal. What's wrong with the serial number already stamped in most firearms? Any weapon can be traced simply by looking at the number and checking the right database. As for numbers being erasable... well, the same with chips (and eventually easier, I daresay).

That thing would be useful only to check large amounts of firearms in a short time (that's why barcodes were invented).

Frankly, it would be better and cheaper to outlaw the private posession of firearms, as it is in Datavia. But that's only for each nation to choose.

I stick to the good old serial number, you technaddicts!

There are no international laws, but there are national laws that make certain types of arms sales illegal.

Jovic for example has a law dating back to its founding say it is illegal to sell right arms to left handed people ;)

That's partly my point. The illegal arms trade exists only domestically within nations, if at all. The definition of what constitutes illegal arms trading will vary greatly from nation to nation, if they regulate it at all. To combat each of these types of criminal activity will require tailored solutions suitable to their own needs.

Internationally speaking, we cannot tackle the problem of illegal arms trading because there is no problem, there is NO illegal arms trading occurring. It doesn't exist.

If we want to stop the practices that some states would call "illegal arms trading" then we have to first define it. Perhaps before this proposal can be considered, someone should submit a proposal outlawing certain arms trading regulations.

As it stands, this proposal is pointless. It's comparable to trying to cure a disease that doesn't exist yet.

That's partly my point. The illegal arms trade exists only domestically within nations, if at all. The definition of what constitutes illegal arms trading will vary greatly from nation to nation, if they regulate it at all. To combat each of these types of criminal activity will require tailored solutions suitable to their own needs.

Internationally speaking, we cannot tackle the problem of illegal arms trading because there is no problem, there is NO illegal arms trading occurring. It doesn't exist.

If we want to stop the practices that some states would call "illegal arms trading" then we have to first define it. Perhaps before this proposal can be considered, someone should submit a proposal outlawing certain arms trading regulations.

As it stands, this proposal is pointless. It's comparable to trying to cure a disease that doesn't exist yet.


Well let's make the presumption that this proposal was mandatory instead of mearly suggestion.

While it does nothing to define illegal arms trade, nor should it, what it would have done is lay the foundation for a global database that would make it easier to track a weapon back to its source. Each weapon would contian all its own relivant information. That information could be cross refrenced in this arms database all the way back to the assembly worker who put it together (assuming it was that detailed).

That is what this proposal would have done if it were mandatory. It would be creating a global standard that would make it easier to track down illegal arms sales as defined by individual nations. It creates a tool to back track weapons, using RFID tags as a transfer medium for the information. Esentially the RFID chips serve the same purpose as a gun's serial number. The primary differnce is that the chip makes it much easier and far quicker to retrieve that information.

These is what would be the overall effct of this bill....presuming it made it's suggestions mandatory instead of voluntary.

OK, another expensive and useless proposal. What's wrong with the serial number already stamped in most firearms? Any weapon can be traced simply by looking at the number and checking the right database. As for numbers being erasable... well, the same with chips (and eventually easier, I daresay).

That thing would be useful only to check large amounts of firearms in a short time (that's why barcodes were invented).

Frankly, it would be better and cheaper to outlaw the private posession of firearms, as it is in Datavia. But that's only for each nation to choose.

I stick to the good old serial number, you technaddicts!

Again, I'm not supporting the bill, just clarifying and answering questions.


The advantage of the chip over a basic inscribed serial number is speed.

Lets delve into the imagination and look at a possible example:

A police man is driving around on partrol. He hears a shot fired. Quickly location the house from which the shot was fired, he enters it. laying on the ground next to a murdered woman is a smoking gun. The cop calls homicide, 20 minutes later the place is abuzz with activity. People are being questioned, fronesics is taking pictures, dusting for prints. Seals the gun in an evidence bag. The gun is then taken to the lab where it is given to a tech. Assuming the tech isn't on break at the time and has no other pieces of evidence that he is currently working with. He gets to work on teh gun right away. He makes note of the make and model. Maybe has to take it apart to access the serial number. Searchs the government database of firearm owners to learn that the owner of the weapon is one Will Robinson and lives only 4 blocks away from the murder scene. He finsihs up his report and presents it. An officer is dispatched to check the residence but only to find that Mr Robinson has fled. An investigation shows that Mr Robinson had used his passport to leave the country not 10 minutes before his name was put out over the radio.

That is with a standard serial number.

With a chip:
The same cop hears a gun shot. He tracks it to the same house. Seeing the smoking gun he pulls out his portable reader and scans the gun's RFID chip. A momment later he has all the information on the gun including the owner's name and address. Calling in the suspect the officer immediatly drives over to his house and catches one Will Robinson in the act of huridly packing his belongings to flee accross the border.

this is just one posibility that shows the advantage of the chip. However I don't think the technology is ready to be implimented in such a fashion right now, and any bill that wants to use these chips should make such use mandatory, not merely a suggestion.

In my opinion anyway.

I think your example illustrates my point.

The benefits of this proposal are not international in scope, but rather (slightly) help the efficiency of domestic policing. In which case, why not just leave it up to the individual nation to decide whether they need/want it or not.

There is no international criminal element to tackle since illegal international arms trading does not exist.

So why is this the UN's concern?

I think your example illustrates my point.

The benefits of this proposal are not international in scope, but rather (slightly) help the efficiency of domestic policing. In which case, why not just leave it up to the individual nation to decide whether they need/want it or not.

There is no international criminal element to tackle since illegal international arms trading does not exist.

So why is this the UN's concern?

because while illegal arms trading may not be international in scope. The source of the arms are.

To make it domesticaly easier to enforce laws, the UN could ensure that this global database is avalible through a bill such as this. If it were changed to make its provisions mandatory.

As curent People's Chairman of Zostagarai, I place my full support behind this resolution. For too long has our nation been terrorized by foreign-backed counterrevolutionary groups, and even the few lives these devices could save would be worth it.

As curent People's Chairman of Zostagarai, I place my full support behind this resolution. For too long has our nation been terrorized by foreign-backed counterrevolutionary groups, and even the few lives these devices could save would be worth it.

Then, ask for a serious proposal to render international weapons sales illegal, as well as to implement the measures to effectively avoid smuggling (the fight against with, IMHO, this proposal doesn't improve).

The bad news is that, if you have contrarrevolutionary groups in your land, this proposal won't help you either. Probably they are already armed with uncontrolled weapons bought in rogue non-UN countries. Fight the rebels, not the weapons! Otherwise, you will have still rebels and they will find the weapons anywhere.

Again, as someone just said, this proposal deals more with home security than with international issues. Then, why it is in the UN.

(Last poll on safest Nations showed ALL UN COUNTRIES in my region -Gaelia- at the botton; I must conclude that UN resolutions on home security stink).

Nagapura-
No worries, just trying to keep stuff straight. Glad to hear people are reading/ have read 1984.

To all-
We need this proposal to pass like we need bullet holes in our feet. Sorry, but it doesn't actually do much, and what it does easily backfires on any law-abiding citizens that choose to do this. It provides a way to track too many people, and those that actually bring in their weapons to get a chip probably are not those we need to worry about.
While there is no problem with trying to put in more gun regulation laws (to an extent anyway) we need to go a different route.

(BTW, I already voted no on this one.)

me too great book.

i think im going to withdraw my vote- i was in favour but the possibility of big brother style tracking certainly puts me off. gun laws are needed- so we now need to drop this resolution in favour of a more sensible one.

We believe that a UN resolution about use of a specific technology for weapons identification is inappropriate.
The technology itself may not be available to all countries, and it would become a business in itself, on top of the arms manufacturing. Moreover, when a new, more convenient technology emerges, such a resolution would prevent its adoption.

On the other hand, the resolution seems to bear little real benefit. RFID tags could be intentionally removed or damaged, and in the end this would amount to little more than an old-fashioned serial number. RFID tags are most useful for optimising the logistic processes of stocking and distributing big numbers of items, which is no UN concern.

For these reasons, we propose to turn down the resolution.

Another angle i did not see, but of coure it is too easy to intentionally remove.
Such reasons reinforce the need nto turn down the resolution. Such tags should only be used for distribution- their only proper use.

Logically, no state has an incentive to vote against this amendment other than the appeasement of a right-wing gun nut constituency. This amendment just makes sense- if a firearm is being used lawfully, then there is no need to use the beacon. The purpose of the beacon is to recover a gun that has been stolen, keeping in mind that the huge bulk of firearm-related murders are performed by those wielding stolen guns. This is not principally similar to other RFID cases in that a firearm is not a Wal-Mart toaster or a child or something, it is a device whose chief purpose is to kill another living creature and, in most cases, that creature is intended to be a living human being. This amendment ensures that such human beings are only burglars and thieves, and if they steal a firearm, then they put themselves at immediate risk for apprehension.

By making a stolen firearm a liability rather than an asset to criminals, nations stand to dramatically lower their crime rates. People who love guns for no reason will be appalled, people who don't like being shot will be pretty happy. I urge leaders to consider which of those two constituencies is, ultimately, larger.

Another angle i did not see, but of coure it is too easy to intentionally remove. Such reasons reinforce the need nto turn down the resolution. Such tags should only be used for distribution- their only proper use.So are you saying that it's okay to put a tag on a weapon for this reason.. thus why not use that tag in helping trace the weapon to prevent it from being used by criminals. As most of the so called tags used in stores on items help prevent criminals from removing an item from a store thus why not use the same type tag to help keep them out of schools, churches, airports, hospitals, government buildings, and other sensitive areas.. as if you are using something like this on an item in a store to keep it in then you only need to reverse the thinking to keep them from bringing them in.

Logically, no state has an incentive to vote against this amendment other than the appeasement of a right-wing gun nut constituency. This amendment just makes sense- if a firearm is being used lawfully, then there is no need to use the beacon. The purpose of the beacon is to recover a gun that has been stolen, keeping in mind that the huge bulk of firearm-related murders are performed by those wielding stolen guns. This is not principally similar to other RFID cases in that a firearm is not a Wal-Mart toaster or a child or something, it is a device whose chief purpose is to kill another living creature and, in most cases, that creature is intended to be a living human being. This amendment ensures that such human beings are only burglars and thieves, and if they steal a firearm, then they put themselves at immediate risk for apprehension.

By making a stolen firearm a liability rather than an asset to criminals, nations stand to dramatically lower their crime rates. People who love guns for no reason will be appalled, people who don't like being shot will be pretty happy. I urge leaders to consider which of those two constituencies is, ultimately, larger.
You might want to read the resolution a little bit closer, the tags have a range of 10cm, not exactly viable for tracking purposes. Plus the resolution doesn't require that the tags even be used, and the tags are easy to remove or destroy which further reduces their usefulness.

Bob Flibble
UN Representative

I don't agree with this resolution. This is more of a internal issue than an international one. There are already ways to track orders of arms sales. It's called inventories and invoices. RFID tags are too much, it's not fully defining things on weapons, and the technology still has major privacy issues to resolve before it can be accepted by the public.

I vote NAY on this resolution.

Vijay Sharma
Romabengalese Ambassador to the United Nations

What an awful awful resolution, one of the worst I've seen. I vote NAY and have urged others to do so.

Oh, there's been worse ones...

Without reading this thread through, just the proposal, I wish to share my view.

I suppose the writer of this proposal believes that the technology would decrease the possibility to smuggle guns through sea- and airports, and unveil hidden weapons in public areas like malls. That assumption is partly false, because an RFID receiver's ability to read information from a tag can be easily prevented with, for example, a metal casket (like a sea container or a special holster). Not to mention that suggested 10 cm reading range is insufficient for safety purposes.

While the writer remembers to mention low prices of the tags, the proposal does not say a word about other necessary costs in this kind of project. The system needs transceivers to read the tags, hardware and software to handle the ID data, a data network to transmit the data, personnel to install and maintain the readers and so on.

To sum my view, I'll say that the proposal suggests use of certain technology to do something that can't be done with such technology, without revealing the true cost of the project.

I voted AGAINST.

A worthless and dangerous proposal. The 10 cm reading range means one cannot track down a stolen gun. If you make the reading range larger you put troops in danger, since an enemy could aquire a reader then locate your troops by the rfid tags. Either way this proposal is worthless. I could mention other dangers such as an undercover cop carrying a backup gun. A criminal could use the reader to locate the gun then render him/her unarmed or kill the cop for carrying the gun.

VOTE NO

just vote yes whats the big deal

The one thing this proposal do is to state that;

"Affirming that... the right to own weapons and its related privacy..."

when there is no such right in the UN, and we think there should be no such affirmation on privatley owned weapons.


Andrew Carrigan
Maumeeia

Too easy to track people int heir private lives. People should be able to move about freely. and WHY is the UN voting on a law that seemingly oversteps my nation's Sovereignty

I completely agree with this resoluion and it suites my nations way of thinking. good job :D

Recently, we have been in contact with the ex-delegate from the now non-UN nation Ketessil. He raises an interesting point. Forgive me if this has already been mentioned and I simply missed it. What sort of safeguards are in place to prevent the counterfeiting of the RFID tags?

He says that Ketessil would be more than willing to monitor the status, location, and owners of counterfeit RFID tags once they have been introduced into the system. As an inpartial rogue nation, Ketessil is in a unique position to monitor the distribution and movement of any counterfeit chips.

Just a thought.

As the UN delegate for "The Shizzle Empire" I would like to extend our regions appreciation for this act, and have voted for this motion, however it seems that it wont pass.

As UN delegate for the Glamardian Principality, I have voted against. My country and Its Wealthiness the High Merchant appreciate the idea of a statistical control on the new weapons, especially like measure against the organized crime and the subversive groups. However, it has been suggested to me to vote against, for the following reasons:

1) the crime, after a short time, would copy, remove or counterfeit the chip, therefore as it succeeds to counterfeit every shape of highly technological control.

2) it would not prevent or diminish the uncontrolled proliferation of weapons, lacking an international adapted corpus of laws and endorsements, civilians and penitentiaries one.

3) they think would be counter-productive for their transactions that an easy accessible agency of public dominion decide of the production data, sale and breakup of the weapons produced and tradet from them, also assuring to UN an absolute legality of the said actions.

1) no resolution passed in the UN should EVER be voted upon based solely on what it would do for their own country, rather, resolutions should be brought forth and resolved based on the betterment of the world. Arguments blatently expressed as "this goes along with my country's view" are sad and misrepresents what the whole basis for this legislative body stands for. UNITED NATIONS is to protect certain unalienable rights of humans throughout the world. Especially in such cases of smaller nations that can not defend themselves from larger indutrial, militarized ones.

Some of us may see ways to improve both our own country and the world.

To address the nations and countries that complain about this resolution "infringing on their nation sovereignty", or that it is "attempting to make the UN an autonomous body."... please, hush up! I would like to point out to these nations that you have joined a global organization that passes resolutions that effect ALL the members of itself. Their for, if you don't want your nation to become part of the UN whole, or don't want the UN to affect your nation's sovereignty, then maybe... just maybe, you shouldn't have joined the UN.

I would like to add, that this proposal has my FULL support, as I can see and understand the thinking and reasoning of the author(s). I am sincerely sorry, that some of you cannot...

I am not sure if this has been mentioned because i havent read all 12 pages of the thread but this isnt really practible. RFID tags can be spoofed and hacked so it will NOT help in tracking illegal weapons.

And, after posting such a fantastic post about the extreme indifference that I feel about this proposal, I'm taking it back.

The Proposal is "Mild" in strength, and because the flaws being brought up are quite overstated, Norderia will vote for the legislation, simply as a show of support for LaE. The aim is an admirable one, and the result of my vote is such that it would present nothing more than a hats-off to the authors. There you have it.

With this new bill we can destroy the moralists in our nation once and for all. VOTE FOR THIS ISSUE!

i vote no

arms proliferation is a good thing [armed society is a polite society]

the problem you are trying to solve is a SYMPTOM of the real problem - people commit crimes with tools [or bare hands, etc] - trying to eiminate deaths by controlling weapons only removes an equalizing force that the weak in stature may use to protect themselves from the physically strong - remove the countervailing force and your nations devolve to rulers on top and serfs below

ymmv

:headbang: :gundge: :headbang: :gundge: :sniper: :sniper:

the problem you are trying to solve is a SYMPTOM of the real problem - people commit crimes with tools [or bare hands, etc] - trying to eiminate deaths by controlling weapons only removes an equalizing force that the weak in stature may use to protect themselves from the physically strong - remove the countervailing force and your nations devolve to rulers on top and serfs below
Did you read the Resolution at all?

:headbang: :gundge: :headbang: :gundge: :sniper: :sniper:
:rolleyes:

As the delegate for the CCSLC Empire, Lost Limeyville is voting against the proposal as we believe that the proposal:

(1) Does not accomplish its stated purpose

and

(2) Does not seem well thought out

just to add my 2cents: While I do agree with gun control, this resolution is a blind, not well thaught out, embrace of a new technology, that would serve only as a burden to small nations, and (see all bajillian previous posts saying the same thing) WOULDN'T ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING!! It's not cumpulsory (so a nation doesn't have to do it) and these tags don't actually help to track or control anything. So what if it can tell me the gun's make and model at 10 cm, I could do that by LOOKING AT IT!

:headbang:

(:headbang: Is it just me or are these resolutions getting stupider....:headbang: )

:headbang:

and (see all bajillian previous posts saying the same thing) WOULDN'T ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING!! It's not cumpulsory (so a nation doesn't have to do it)

Which is why it has a strength of "Mild."

Is it just me or are these resolutions getting stupider....

You've certainly got a lengthy period of time to base that on.



I don't much care about this Resolution, but it certainly would be nice to see some arguments that are worth a dime. There's plenty of reasons to vote against this Resolution, but I'm seeing plenty MORE reasons that aren't reasonable. I recommend that everyone be sure that they have read and understand the Resolution before making up their minds. The big argument I see is "This Resolution doesn't do anything." That's not true. It gives the UN a stance, and makes recommendations. Does it have teeth? No. But that is why it's significance is listed as "Mild."

that we shall have to disagree with our esteemed colleague from the North Sea. We of the Principality of Tharkent largely agree with the concept behind the current proposal but have chosen to vote against it precisely because it does nothing. Setting aside a stance is all well and good but the UN is ultimately a trans-national legislature, and resolutions that require nothing of members are more than toothless - they are counteractive in that they discourage the promotion of stronger proposals in the same area.

A resolution that does nothing but 'urge' members with respect to 'most' items of weaponry is, in our opinion, fatally flawed by this weakness and cannot have our support as a result. Present us with a proposal that requires such tagging on all newly-produced weaponry and we shall carefully reconsider our position.

Sincerely

Archnimbob Gulliwag III
Top Nob

Thanks go to the revered member Tharkent. Such an angle was not considered, but it is a clear and not inconsiderable point that you make.

While it is nonetheless incorrect to say that the Proposal does nothing, you are correct in your assessment of the damage that having a stance without teeth would endanger future, stronger Proposals regarding this subject.


Tommo the Stout
Norderia
Etc. etc.

His Most Holy Magnificence The Emperor of the Most Holy Empire of Mwerte El Katolikos expounds thus...

An international resolution to embed RFID into all weapons will interfere with the divine sovereignty of righteous nations such as Ours to export the tools of empire and dissent as they deem fit. As such the crusade to expunge the world/multiverse/petri-dish of Deviants will be subject to the misguided sensitivities of those UN member states who lack the gumption to Do What Must Be Done. In addition, the Holy Coffers will be adversely affected as Our burgeoning arms manufacturing industry is hobbled by excessive Foreign interference. We reserve the right to chip Our own products, for Our own divers and sanguine reasons - but not because the Coalition of the Weak require Us to!

We call on all concerned UN member states to reject this insidious proposal for what it is, an attack on Our morals and Our Most Holy Mission to Cleanse all of Deviation, and to make a Most Holy Fat Profit!

Be Vigilant!
Be Pure!
Behave!

His Sanguine Holiness
of
The Holy Empire of Mwerte El Katolikos

His Most Holy Magnificence The Emperor of the Most Holy Empire of Mwerte El Katolikos expounds thus...

At first glance, your Most Holy Magnificence appears somewhat unilateral in his approach to this issue. Your membership of the UN thus appears incongruous with this position.

Shorely shum mishtake?

To address the nations and countries that complain about this resolution "infringing on their nation sovereignty", or that it is "attempting to make the UN an autonomous body."... please, hush up! I would like to point out to these nations that you have joined a global organization that passes resolutions that effect ALL the members of itself. Their for, if you don't want your nation to become part of the UN whole, or don't want the UN to affect your nation's sovereignty, then maybe... just maybe, you shouldn't have joined the UN.

Joining an organisation whose resolutions affect all of its members does not require one to agree that it should pass resolutions about everything, or to give approval automatically to all of its proposed resolutions. There is considerable disagremeent between the active members of this forum about just how far the UN's jurisdiction should extend, as you'll see if you stay around for very long or read some of the older threads...

I would like to add, that this proposal has my FULL support, as I can see and understand the thinking and reasoning of the author(s). I am sincerely sorry, that some of you cannot...

The fact that you think this resolution would actually achieve anything worthwhile does not predispose me towards finding any arguments that you might raise about other matters worth considering...

At first glance, your Most Holy Magnificence appears somewhat unilateral in his approach to this issue. Your membership of the UN thus appears incongruous with this position.

Shorely shum mishtake?


Deviant!!!!!!

It is with great dismay that I must, as the Representative of the interest of the Republic first and foremost, rise against this Resolution, citing the unacceptable inclusion of the phrase: "the right to own weapons".

Dr Marcus Armont
Representative to the UN
Acting Ambassador Extraordinaire

Joining an organisation whose resolutions affect all of its members does not require one to agree that it should pass resolutions about everything, or to give approval automatically to all of its proposed resolutions. There is considerable disagremeent between the active members of this forum about just how far the UN's jurisdiction should extend, as you'll see if you stay around for very long or read some of the older threads... Yet, Rhelan is quite correct, what the UN should or should not legislate on is subjective, what the UN can legislate on, is absolute.

By the same token, countries that complain about this resolution "infringing on their nation sovereignty", (to quote Rhelan) does not provide them with an absolute arguement. The only absolute protection from the UN infringing on soverignty, is to not be a member of the UN. Everything else is subjective.

We take note of the vote of the UN against our proposal, and at least are satisfied that such a topic had its chance to be opened in this hall.

We would like to thanks everyone who voted for this failed proposal, and thanks also everyone who debated in this thread.

I would also want to apologize for my absence from the floor debate, as I was in RL vacations.