Chip the Soldiers

C. Conrad Cady

Wed Aug 23 17:55:23 -0700 2006

manage

I do not think that this is as horrid as it is made out to be.  It is simply an "under-the-skin" dog tag.

1) there is a slightly higher chance of being able to rely on the identification number it contains
2) it can only be read with a device, rather than visually
3) it has more of a possibility of being read surreptitiously
3) it poses a small, but measurable medical risk
4) it is hard to lose or remove (which has consequences, both good and bad)
5) other facts that are sure to be discussed to death

There are not really any more horrible consequences than making someone wear a dog-tag at all times.

Chip the Soldiers

complich8

Wed Aug 23 18:25:02 -0700 2006

manage

I had a discussion with a couple of directors where I work (retired military, retired police) about this stuff a while back.  It seems like the general consensus among the former commanding-officer types is that the biggest thing anyone on their side is worried about is the inevitable public reaction.

A lot of the anticipated reaction is that religious fundamentalist types will see it as the "mark of the beast" -- and identify whoever uses that policy as the agent of Satan.  And you've gotta admit, in a nation polarized by immoderate rhetoric from both sides, and where the extremes have so much pull, being heralded as the person who ok'ed the mark of the beast and ushered in the apocalypse is pretty much sure-fire political death :).

Privacy implications are important ... but I'd say, as long as the chip is locatable (which it necessarily should be), removable (which I'd think it would be, if it is dermally implanted rather than stuck somewhere inconvenient), and not readable from significant distances (say, maximum functional range in the couple-of-meter range) I think it'd be a great boon for things like battlefield medicine.  The trick is, though, I'd say if a soldier's implanted with such a thing, the military should be obliged to remove (or at least deactivate/destroy) it on the soldier's discharge.

Chip the Soldiers

zuzulo

Wed Aug 23 20:18:21 -0700 2006

manage

I see quite a few problems even when the maximum functional range is only a couple of meters. At the very least, proximity detonated mines and munitions would be a serious issue, then there are inductively based overload attacks, passive data collection points, etc. And these are just off the top of my head. I certainly wouldnt want to be in the field when the oppos know soldiers are implanted with this sort of device ...

Chip the Soldiers

Carl

Thu Aug 24 03:21:45 -0700 2006

manage

My thoughts exactly.

Unmanned chip-seeking armed vehicles, chip-seeking missiles, a scrambler so they won't recognize eachother anymore, increasing the chance of friendly fire because they have come to depend on it, the countermeasures even us two can come up with are numerous, let alone what an enemy can do. The maximum functional range is also dependent on your transceiver, so if those get better, the range increases. This is not a "mark of the beast", this is painting a bullseye on your forehead.

Chip the Soldiers

don muntean

Fri Sep 22 03:50:42 -0700 2006

manage

I don't think it is a good idea - it could compromise them at some point.

Also - I'm a victim of a forced chipping [for the last 51+ months] - please see my protest website [which has been online for 510 days] for details:

http://dental-spy-implants.blog.ca

Here is an X-ray of the implant:

http://img205.imageshack.us/img205/6889/17389b0b06a9b8clpq5.jpg

Please don't let a 'this' happen to you.