[DRAFT] Defensive Military Strategies

[The Nation of Ceneria]

All--

Please proofread the following draft resolution and tell me 1): Which council it should be proposed to, 2): What needs to be added/removed for it to make sense and be passed, and 3): Does it even make sense??? Many premature thanks.

Cordially,
The Nation of Ceneria

Title: Regarding Defensive Strategies and Crisis Response by Military Forces

Topic: Global Disarmament

Realizing that military forces are often viewed as the best deterrent to aggressive action.

Understanding that military forces on borders and prepared for immediate mobilization represent a perceived threat to other nations.

Recognizing that militaries are also a significant deterrent to terrorist actions and represent a response force to various crises.

Mandating that all military forces be immediately halved in strength, and that each military force operated by any member nation of the World Assembly be restricted to a maximum of 100,000 combat forces at any one time, regardless of branch and nation size or influence.

Proposing that military forces in violation of this mandate be immediately reprimanded by the nations of the World Assembly, and that they must promptly yield to said mandate.

Requiring that any military force in repeated violation of this mandate be disbanded by the nations of the World Assembly.

Authorizing nations of the World Assembly to take military action against repeated violators of this mandate in the event that diplomatic efforts fail.

Recommending that any violators of this mandate be taken before the Security Council for any punishment necessary.

Instructing that any military occupation that occurs as a result of a nation’s refusal of this mandate must be conducted quickly, with the occupying forces remaining inside the borders of the violator for less than twenty-four hours after the Security Council has made a ruling on the matter regarding said nation.

Charging the Security Council to condemn any violators of this mandate, as their insubordinate militaries pose a threat to the smaller military forces of the abiding World Assembly nations.

_____________________________________________

That's it! Hopefully, any problems will be easily fixed. Thanks again!

[Chester Pearson]

Illegal for metagaming. Nice try with a first draft though....

[Wrapper]

Don't have time to go into the detail (we suspect some of this may in fact be covered under other resolutions and/or be illegal under GAR #2), but for a start:

-- The title is too long. You are limited to 30 characters.
-- You have no operative clauses. The first three lines (realizing, understanding and recognizing) are fine as written, as they form a good preamble. If you take the rest and change the gerund to an action verb (mandates, proposes, requires, etc.), then you have your operative clauses.
-- Change the title of this thread to: [DRAFT] (your resolution title)
-- Take off the last three lines. This is the General Assembly, not the Security Council, and compliance is guaranteed by the WA Gnomes^TM, so there will be no violators.
-- Take out the "Authorizing" clause. The WA will NEVER have an army and cannot take military action against anyone. That's in the rules.

We suggest you take a look at the Q&A at the top of this forum and review the rules and GAR #2 before rewriting this. Good luck.

[The Nation of Ceneria]

Thanks, Wrapper. That was very informative. Is this any better?

P.S. (How does one change the topic title?)


Title: Defensive Military Strategies

Topic: Global Disarmament

Realizing that military forces are often viewed as the best deterrent to aggressive action.

Understanding that military forces on borders and prepared for immediate mobilization represent a perceived threat to other nations.

Recognizing that militaries are also a significant deterrent to terrorist actions and represent a response force to various crises.

Mandates/b] that all military forces be immediately halved in strength, and that each military force operated by any member nation of the World Assembly be restricted to a maximum of 100,000 combat forces at any one time, regardless of branch and nation size or influence.

[b]Proposes that military forces in violation of this mandate be immediately reprimanded by the nations of the World Assembly, and that they must promptly yield to said mandate.

Requires that any military force in repeated violation of this mandate be disbanded by the nations of the World Assembly.

[Separatist Peoples]

"WOW. This is godawful. Lets break it down."

Title: Regarding Defensive Strategies and Crisis Response by Military Forces

Topic: Global Disarmament

You mean Category, and you need a corresponding Strength.

Realizing that military forces are often viewed as the best deterrent to aggressive action.

Understanding that military forces on borders and prepared for immediate mobilization represent a perceived threat to other nations.

"Thats a gross overstatement. Plenty of nations have immediately deployable troops and they aren't necessarily considered a threat..."

Recognizing that militaries are also a significant deterrent to terrorist actions and represent a response force to various crises.

"Ok..."

Mandating that all military forces be immediately halved in strength, and that each military force operated by any member nation of the World Assembly be restricted to a maximum of 100,000 combat forces at any one time, regardless of branch and nation size or influence.

"So you expect a galactic empire with billions upon billions of citizens to be properly defended by a force of 100,000 forces? That's ridiculous."

Proposing that military forces in violation of this mandate be immediately reprimanded by the nations of the World Assembly, and that they must promptly yield to said mandate.

"Awesome, this is optional since it's being proposed and not mandated."

Requiring that any military force in repeated violation of this mandate be disbanded by the nations of the World Assembly.

"Seems like any nation targeted by such a terrible, terrible action could simply resign and be safe and sound."

Authorizing nations of the World Assembly to take military action against repeated violators of this mandate in the event that diplomatic efforts fail.

"Wow, forcing nations to go to war against a nation for starting wars...seems...ridiculous..."

Recommending that any violators of this mandate be taken before the Security Council for any punishment necessary.

"The GA and the SC are completely different entities that do not interact in any way, shape, or form."
OOC: Referencing the SC in a GA proposal makes this illegal for Metagaming.

Instructing that any military occupation that occurs as a result of a nation’s refusal of this mandate must be conducted quickly, with the occupying forces remaining inside the borders of the violator for less than twenty-four hours after the Security Council has made a ruling on the matter regarding said nation.

"You clearly have no idea whatsoever about how occupation forces work, or the logistics involved in deploying and demobilizing them."

Charging the Security Council to condemn any violators of this mandate, as their insubordinate militaries pose a threat to the smaller military forces of the abiding World Assembly nations.

"Woo! A condemnation, that's scary!!"

"All in all, this proposal seeks to destroy one of the most effective deterrents to foreign aggression...a military. Opposed, in the most extreme way possible."

[The Nation of Ceneria]

Despite the very negative tone, thank you for your reply, Separatist Peoples. I see what you mean on practically all points. Probably a good idea to have a very large rewrite.

***Terminating connection.***

[Defwa]

Also the General Assembly can never require the security council to take action in this fashion and you should avoid arbitrary numbers. 100,000 is completely unreasonable for nations with large land mass, billions of citizens, or multiple planets and it does nothing to address using non human soldiers like drones.

Its apparent a lot of work went into this and I commend that. Consider participating in some debates. Sciongrad has a really good arms trading proposal that may interest you

[Grays Harbor]

Mandating that all nations have a force of 100,000, regardless of size or population is the most simplistic garbage we have seen in some time. That is about the same as mandating that all police forces be limited to 100 officers, regardless of the size of the city.

Yeah, we get it. You think "War is Bad" and that by removing nations ability to defend themselves you are stopping that. Nope. However, as you posted here first to allow debate and didn't just submit straightaway gives us at least a glimmer of hope you are willing to listen to criticism.

[Fendon]

Can I just leave it at that? No? Fine.

Ambassador, take this from a nation with an incredibly undersized military... halving a military does nothing but cause trouble. Most militaries are in proportion to population size. In other words, you can halve the military size, but all that does is make them less effective in protecting their people. You have also failed to recognize the other main use of a military. What about offering aid to the people in cases of natural disaster? Humanitarian aid? Peace-keeping operations? Halving military sizes would reduce the potential of a nation providing a basic service to their people. I could go on, if you like, but I'd feel like I'd be beating a dead horse.

[Separatist Peoples]

:rofl:

Can I just leave it at that? No? Fine.

Ambassador, take this from a nation with an incredibly undersized military... halving a military does nothing but cause trouble. Most militaries are in proportion to population size. In other words, you can halve the military size, but all that does is make them less effective in protecting their people. You have also failed to recognize the other main use of a military. What about offering aid to the people in cases of natural disaster? Humanitarian aid? Peace-keeping operations? Halving military sizes would reduce the potential of a nation providing a basic service to their people. I could go on, if you like, but I'd feel like I'd be beating a dead horse.

"Not to mention that a properly funded and large military is often a generator of internal revenue in itself."

[The Nation of Ceneria]

Thank you all for your skeptical replies. Despite the annoying tone in several (insert throat clear), your comments make sense. Thanks for exposing (some?) of the problems. I will rewrite this and try again sometime in the next several of days. Be forewarned - The topic might change quite a bit.

Sadly,
S. McLaughlin, President and WA Representative, The Nation of Ceneria

[Wrapper]

Thank you all for your skeptical replies. Despite the annoying tone in several (insert throat clear), your comments make sense. Thanks for exposing (some?) of the problems. I will rewrite this and try again sometime in the next several of days. Be forewarned - The topic might change quite a bit.

Sadly,
S. McLaughlin, President and WA Representative, The Nation of Ceneria

You need a tough skin, Ambassador, to make it in the Festering Snakepit that is the GA. Please take our advice and read up, and we'll look forward to your next attempt. Cheers!

[The Nation of Ceneria]

Thanks, Wrapper. Snakepit, indeed!

[Bears Armed]

Mandating that all military forces be immediately halved in strength, and that each military force operated by any member nation of the World Assembly be restricted to a maximum of 100,000 combat forces at any one time, regardless of branch and nation size or influence.

So a nation that has precisely the number of troops that it considers necessary must halve that strength, regardless of circumstances, even if the current total is a lonnng way under 100'000?
Opposed.

Requiring that any military force in repeated violation of this mandate be disbanded by the nations of the World Assembly.

Authorizing nations of the World Assembly to take military action against repeated violators of this mandate in the event that diplomatic efforts fail.

Probably illegal under the "No WA Army" rule.

[Fendon]

Thank you all for your skeptical replies. Despite the annoying tone in several (insert throat clear), your comments make sense. Thanks for exposing (some?) of the problems. I will rewrite this and try again sometime in the next several of days. Be forewarned - The topic might change quite a bit.

Sadly,
S. McLaughlin, President and WA Representative, The Nation of Ceneria

Yeah, no offence is intended (usually). In general, you need a tough skin to play this game. You're going to find there are critics in every corner, including with internal affairs in regions and that sort of thing.

My general advice to newbies (I'm still a newbie myself) is to contribute to debates on resolutions before you try writing any. I've found that this has helped me with my political reasoning. Some of the points I make, I never would have dreamed of making a few months ago. I think you'll find that you understand arguments a little more if you're a part of the 'critical' side for a bit, as well.

Good luck

[Destrovia]

Uh, no.

The second you try halving my military your going to have to condemn me.

[Rotwood]

Felicia sobers up at the sight of this
"Hmmm, can the World Assembly order nations to go to war, or would that violate the 'No WA armed forces' rule? I mean, technically it isnt exactly a WA army, but they are the ones calling the shots..."
Jericho reads over Felicia's shoulder
"Forget that, we should remind the ambassador that there only just over 17,000 members of the World Assembly, in a multiversal population of almost 123,000 nations. The other 106,000 nations, they are not affected by any resolution made here in the World Assembly, meaning that cutting our forces down to that much makes it even more easier for the most hostile to steam roll over us."

[Molerats]

Mandating that all military forces be immediately halved in strength, and that each military force operated by any member nation of the World Assembly be restricted to a maximum of 100,000 combat forces at any one time, regardless of branch and nation size or influence.

Haha,not happening, simply not fair. If someone had 200.000 troops and we had 30.000 that would only put him in a more precarious position. For this to be even remotely fair we all need to have the 100.000 limit.
Also, this ignores the size of said nation and their different needs for security. Try defending a nation like Russia with the military personnel needed to defend Poland. Not that fair now, is it ?