NationStates Jolt Archive

Terror in the Skies!

The Issue:
Following a series of terrorist attacks on @@NATION@@'s land-based transport network, the Bigtopian Liberation Organisation (BLO) has issued threats implying their next attacks will be in the sky.

The Debate:

Option 1: "We must boost security on all flights coming into and leaving our airports!" says your Chief of Police, @@RANDOMNAME@@. "We need more advanced metal detectors, x-ray machines, thermal imaging cameras, sky marshalls - you name it, we need it! Sure it's going to mean more and longer queues at airports and it'll cost, but can you really put a price on the safety of your subjects?"

Effect: queues for long-haul flights are often longer than the flights themselves

Stats: Police funding up, civil rights down, economy up (maybe)

Option 2: "Hey, you just can't do that!" states @RANDOMNAME@, an angry protestor who has somehow got into your inner sanctum. "These pieces of scanning equipment are an invasion of my privacy, anyway, so do we really need to do anything about it? If something happens then the passengers can take them out. Granted it won't be perfect but a few lives here and there is the cost we are going to have to pay for our freedom!"

Effect: people use umbrellas whenever they go out, as shrapnel from exploding aircraft is as common as rain

Stats: erm...

Option 3: "I am a spokesman for the BLO", says @@RANDOMNAME@@, a spokesman for the BLO. "We demand you give all Bigtopians in the land of @@NATION@@ their freedom from your oppressive rule. Then we'll have no need to blow up your precious planes. Although, you know, old habits die hard, and all that".

Effect: @@NATION@@ is the laughing stock of the international community for caving in to terrorists

Stats: economy down, military funding down, police funding down

Option 4: "You're missing the obvious", counters @@RANDOMNAME@@, a renowned environmental activist. "If there's no planes, the BLO can't B-L-O them up! Ban all air travel and this problem goes away. It won't be all bad. Think about it - no more airline meals".

Effect: luggage carousels have become the centrepieces of amusement parks across @@NATION@@

Stats: environment up, economy down, ...

Comments? Suggestions? I think option 2 needs a bit of work myself, so suggestions for that would be greatly appreciated. Plus a name for the issue, obviously.

I think it's a very good issue.

Not sure about some of the stats though, but they're less important.

"Terror from Above" as a name?

As for option 2...

Perhaps...

"Hey, you just can't do that!" states @RANDOMNAME@, an angry protestor that somehow had made their way into your office. "These pieces of scanning equipment is an invasion of my privacy, anyway, do we really need to do anything about it? If something happens then the passengers can take them out. Granted it won't be perfect but a few lives here and there is the cost we are going to have to pay for our freedom!"

On another note, one of my first issues that I have ever done I beleive is still in the queue for processing and that deals with planes too, though more on the air traffic control side of things.

You should have Political Freedoms go up if you go with Option 3.

Bazalonia;12515287']"Terror from Above" as a name?
I decided on "Terror in the Skies" eventually.

As for option 2...

Perhaps...

"Hey, you just can't do that!" states @RANDOMNAME@, an angry protestor that somehow had made their way into your office. "These pieces of scanning equipment is an invasion of my privacy, anyway, do we really need to do anything about it? If something happens then the passengers can take them out. Granted it won't be perfect but a few lives here and there is the cost we are going to have to pay for our freedom!"
Ah, that's good. I knew there was a better way of wording that one. Thanks. :)

On another note, one of my first issues that I have ever done I beleive is still in the queue for processing and that deals with planes too, though more on the air traffic control side of things.
A new lot of issues has recently been coded, so it's possible yours was rejected.

For Option Three, you might need to check the validity however, since nations that have equal rights for Bigtopians would be unlikely to have this scenario.

For Option Three, you might need to check the validity however, since nations that have equal rights for Bigtopians would be unlikely to have this scenario.
Ah, oops...

Already submitted it. Really I just wanted to make option 2 better; totally didn't think about that.

Whichever mod codes it will sort that out, though. Won't they?

The premise of the issue is a bit weak. We're being asked to weigh the risk of planes being blown up against looking through someone's luggage. I think a better issue subject is required here.

The premise of the issue is a bit weak. We're being asked to weigh the risk of planes being blown up against looking through someone's luggage. I think a better issue subject is required here.
With due respect, those are the kinds of arguments made to boost 'air security' in RL. That's why we're not allowed liquids greater than 100 mL, in clear plastic bags. It's not anywhere near as 'out there' as many other issues.

I like what the issue deals with, but think the effects should do more to our nation stats, and option two should be rewritten, but I guess you've already submitted it.

Hi Sorrocco! I thought you had resigned as a NS mod. Glad to see you back! Are you going to be coding any more issues any time soon?

In response to Emen Un: I'm not saying the arguments are faulty, I'm saying that the subject isn't a source of controversy or interest worthwhile making an issue of. If people were confronted with the choice of either risking being blown to smithereens or allowing their luggage to be checked I'm fairly sure I know what would be chosen.

I advise an issue which tackles terrorism in a broader sense, in other words: how do we tackle it? This of course brings up the rather complicated question of why the terrorists are doing what they're doing but we can deal with that when we get to it.

Ah, yep, got you now. Misreading on my part.