In the Washington Post article ‘U.S. to sign international Arms Trade Treaty, over protests of the NRA’ written by Karen DeYoung, she states that “The treaty… requires countries to put in place a system for keeping track of transfers of conventional weapons…”
I question how this be effectively put into place. I am in favor of it because I think it is important to have records of weapons that are being transported, but isn’t one of the points of using weapons to catch people off-guard? Weapons, specifically during war, should be kept track of by the country using them, but other countries don’t necessarily know about them because then they can easily defend themselves, which reduces the point because they can prepare in advance with other weapons that they would then document and the whole battle would be predictable.
The National Rifle Association will regulate civilian weapons and to create an “unacceptable” registry of civilian firearms purchasers. This is beneficial because they can then keep an eye on these people.
The point of the association tracking the weapons is to counteract what I said earlier and to therefore protect citizens, but if countries sneak around with dangerous weapons now, it is hard to say if “stricter rules” will really stop them from doing it again.
The article states that “Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan called the weapons trade a primary source of internal and cross-border violence in Nigeria and throughout West Africa.” I agree that weapons pose a threat and cause issues that would be avoided if weapons were unavailable or had to be monitored. Am I crazy to think that this act would be difficult to monitor, though? Maybe I am undermining people’s trustworthiness.
The weapons that have to be documented are battle tanks, armored combat vehicles, large-caliber artillery systems, combat aircraft, attack helicopters, warships, missiles and missile launchers, and small arms and light weapons. This is a lot of small and big weapons and machinery that may or may not be able to be hidden.