[Draft] Ban on Forced Service

[Kenmoria]

“The People’s Republic of Kenmoria opposes this measure. Individual liberty is certainly a foundation of a benevolent society. However, and I mean no respect to fellow nations following anarchism when I say this, we are not all anarchists. This is because the majority of societies recognise that there is a point at which individual freedom must be limited for the good of others. Freedom is maximally protected not through a blind lifting of restrictions, but through a reasoned approach that acknowledges collective freedom, such as the freedom to partake in a democratic society.”

“This freedom, to enjoy the rights and responsibilities that emerge for good governance, can be threatened by warmongering states, yet it is a right that is among the most precious of all that we enjoy as citizens of the General Assembly. To protect this right, armed force may sometimes be required for certain member-nations. In such nations, conscription might be required. For this reason, therefore, I cannot see a justification for the prohibition of conscription where strictly defensive wars are being fought by a legitimate and lawful nation.”

“For the sake of completeness, the People’s Republic of Kenmoria would also recognise that the balance between individual and collective freedoms has been found, in my understanding, to necessitate that no individual be forced to directly kill another. He or she might be compelled to work in logistics, medicine, translation, or any other non-combative role, but not directly in combat. However, that is not quite germane to this matter.”

“What is germane is that this proposal does not recognise that collective freedom sometimes requires the abrogation of individual freedom. The protection of a legitimate and lawful society cannot be sacrificed on the alter of liberty, when liberty itself is best served through conscription. For this reason, the delegation of the People’s Republic of Kenmoria to the General Assembly finds itself in firm and unwavering opposition to this proposal. I shall seek to repeal this measure if it is passed. I also humbly encourage your Excellencies, if you care about your nations’ perpetual existences, to likewise vote against this piece of legislation.”

[IstoWalker]

I would oppose this if it came to a vote. If an armed conflict were to rise, many countries would have a extreme shortage on military personnel. This is due to how little military personnel are payed. I recognize the importance of banning this but it would be a contradiction to what my country is supporting. Although IstoWalker would be opposing this, thank you for bringing it to attention.

[Barfleur]

"Barfleur remains opposed, although we wish to clarify where exactly we stand. I think it is safe to say that conscription is wrong in most cases, and there it really can be nothing more than a government wasting the lives and wellbeing of its people for its own selfish ends. But this proposal bans 'forced service' in all cases, including where an objectively democratic nation is being invaded by an unabashedly imperialist, perhaps even genocidal non-member nation with many times its size, population, and industrial output. There, I do not think calling upon the citizens to serve their country is an unfair intrusion upon civil liberties, if it comes to that. And when combined with Second Sovereignty's other proposal, the end of which would be to declare official neutrality and forbid any type of WA military force, this would mean an open season on all member nations who suffer the misfortune of neighboring a colonizer.

"Finally, we must note our objection to the idea that only a failed state would resort to such 'forced service.' Perhaps a nation admirably decides to maintain a small military and focus its resources on peaceful development, only to come under unprovoked attack, no doubt by a tyrant emboldened by official neutrality. In that case, conscription would be freedom's last hope, sacrificing a small amount today in order to not need to tomorrow."

[Second Sovereignty]

Raxes tapped the mic, which had, at some point, acquired an odd layer of dust. Almost like the chamber had been abandoned for months over the course of the last few seconds. How strange.

"Is this thing on? Oh, I think so. Anyway, to, reply to the various points of nationalistic grandstanding and glorious death-as-heroes martyrdom, nonsense; I will invite the assembled to please remember that marching citizens into a conflict at gunpoint is a bad thing." He elected to let what he hoped was a more pointed than awkward silence settle for a moment. "Really, I'm not sure you people quite understand what war is; are you getting your ideas from, romantic histories? Heroic biopics? Something like that, clearly, with all this nonsense about small and desperate nations."

He clicked, "Look, lets be serious here, shall we? Let's the take the example posited by the Ambassadors Norfield and... Terry? Anyway; the example, to summarize: 'A small Member-State with limited military, industrial, and other associated resources, under attack by a decidedly fascistic - or otherwise disinclined to basic ethics - state, with many times its capabilities.'

Raxes tapped the podium sharply with a claw; benefits a strong exoskeleton, he didn't need to find a stick or something to get a good sound out of it. "Question for the class, don't be afraid to raise your hands; there is a man with a machine gun standing in an open field, across from a man in a mile-long fortification with a computer-guided artillery piece. Can you tell me who is going to win that fight? Does it matter if there's a hundred more men with machine guns? Does it change the answer if both sides number ten-thousand? What if after the first wave of machine-gun-men all died, they found another one, same size, to send across the field?

Second question, extra credit; is it worth it to throw lives endlessly at a conflict that will, by simple virtue of the vast gulf in preparation and equipment, ultimately be lost, simply to hold out hope for help that didn't come before or after you sent the first million lives into the hole? What number is worth it? Maybe a percentage of the total population is appropriate? Say, five percent? ten? Oh, let's stop playing games, we can't let them win; fifty percent or nothing! Honored martyrs for freedom, all. Each man at gunpoint from the man behind him. They're killing the civilians anyway when they have to bomb the cities, what's the difference? This way, they shall be remembered. Until the tanks come rolling in and that memorial service all the generals were planning ends up being for the spent shells on the other side.

Final question, this time, for the gold star; what else happens in extended conflict? I'll the stop the game now, it's cumbersome; the term is 'devastation', specifically, of infrastructure, and cities, and general safety. That already-lesser industrial capacity got a lot lower once a few craft got through a little hole in the defenses and flattened them. The cities you fought for every inch of are little more than bare inches now, so little of them stand. Good luck using any roads, or other transit infrastructure. Then we get to unexploded ordinance; if we assume the attacker is a Non-Member state there's a variety of quite unpleasant devices that are well-designed to linger, rather than just persisting as a fault of manufacture; that will be an issue for generations. Oh, and if they've used chemical attacks, or radiological devices, radioactive munitions, the like, there is now effectively permanent environmental contamination.

Finally, after all that horrible slaughter, gunpoint-marching of the people you ostensibly were fighting for, general horror, et-cetera, you've still lost, because if your allies didn't intervene when it wasn't entirely dire a few months in, then they were never going to. And if the government in question cared so little for the dangerous position it was in, with an angry, militarily superior neighbor, that it didn't seek treaty or alliance elsewhere, or, even bother to make any kind of defense or modernization program that would make them an inopportune target, then, frankly, I don't want them to have access to so final a defense as you all say conscription serves. The World Assembly ought not to be in the business of defending tyrants for whom their country's coffers are worth more than their people's lives."

OOC:
Submitting on the 25th of this month. Do speak, if you have anything to say beyond the usual drivel.

[Wallenburg]

"I am not surprised that the authoring delegation has gone so far as to dress up their pro-imperialist sympathies in the guise of defending civilians' wellbeing. My office will eagerly vote against this."

[Second Sovereignty]

"I am not surprised that the authoring delegation has gone so far as to dress up their pro-imperialist sympathies in the guise of defending civilians' wellbeing. My office will eagerly vote against this."

"Do you people really need to resort to just, making things up now? It's rude you know; international affairs have to have some form of decorum. Bald-disrespect is one thing, lies are just petty."

[Cessarea]

Minister Feathers-of-Burgundy, having spent the better part of 20 minutes listening to the discussions surrounding the relatively small proposal and then diligently listening to Raxes Sotriat's monologue. By the end, he applauded the Envoy intently with his metallic hands. Was it proper etiquette to applaud in the chambers General Assembly? Who can say? After a few moments of applause, he stood up from his seat to speak, noting the odd amount of dust and insects that escaped from under him, despite the fact that he himself was completely clean.

"When I saw this proposal and its title, 'Ban of Forced Service', as one of the day's assigned points of discussion, I could not help but incredulously think to myself: 'Ridiculous! But what about the nations that need it? What about the security of WA members in the face of non-WA members?'. That, in no small part to the Envoy's thoroughly convincing arguments, is no longer the case. It is true that Cessarea has had to previously enacted part-time conscription laws in the past - when we were still the glorious Second Order - but we survived, barely, not because of our superior numbers of civilian-turned-serviceperson. We survived because the dispositions of our modern military infrastructure served to ultimately win us a sufficient tactical and strategical victory, that no amount of extra numbers could have made better.

Those who claim that small, defenceless nations would ever be able to survive against a bigger, and more well-prepared military force are woefully disconnected from the realities of war - no matter the technological level. One must be allowed to decide for themselves whether or not they fight for their country. Simple as. I would however add that this resolution must more readily define what constitutes an 'earliest opportunity' for member nations to dismiss already-conscripted members of their militaries. I fear that some may use this wording to..." - The minister stops speaking and procures for something on his desk. He grabs a red, white, and blue book, apparently titled 'Things that happen to the United States of America's troops', and searches through its hundreds of pages, before landing on his desired page - "...stop-loss their already deployed military troops for far, far longer that would be desirable for this proposal. I would support the addition of, perhaps, time limits for nations currently at war to remove their enlisted combatants from active duty, or to add some specific requirements to ensure the expedience of this process."

The Minister stops to think for a while. Finally, he adds:

"I do suppose I would like some clarification as to whether or not the GA should (or could) consider the difference between member nations and those who are not member nations, as member nations of the WA will be forbidden from enacting drafts, whereas member nations will not. I know, it would probably fall under the arguments I have previously considered here, and that have changed my mind on this topic, but I have been recently converted to this cause, and would be more at ease with my support to this proposal if I know that has already been considered by the authors.

Finally, I will put it simply: full support in principle, and support for its current draft, even if my considerations are not taken into account. I fear this will not pass the vote, if it ever makes it pass the minimum quorum of delegate approval, but one can dream, and I will nonetheless support it."

[Picairn]

"Mr. Sotriat, you may think yourself clever to suggest cowardice (and an implicit acceptance of potential genocide) as some sort of a superior moral option compared to fighting for one's life and freedom, but I do not. In fact, I dare say it contains outright "pro-imperialist sympathies", to quote the Wallenburgian delegation.

Regarding the machine-gun-and-fortification metaphor, I assure you that no competent army will send a lone machine gunner - or a dozen - to capture a fort or an artillery piece. No, our fascist enemy will conduct artillery strikes against that fort, crewed by their conscript artillerymen raining fire until said fort is destroyed. Conscript infantrymen will then go in and clear the rest. Some equipment is superior to others, but they all require human crews to operate, and infantry still has a role in warfare for nations that have yet to develop fully-autonomous killer robots.

Saying that smaller nations should be able to defend themselves with conscription is not just "glorious matyrdom" or "heroic biopics", it is objectively good sense. Resistance is the *only* way to liberation. When has an aggressive invader agreed to retreat after begging and crying by the locals? Only cowards and collaborators would suggest to surrender and cooperate with the enemy, or to endure their oppression. In other words, the same ones who would betray their neighbours, family and friends to the fascist enemy for money, offices and power. Traitors.

Devastated infrastructure as a result of resistance can be rebuilt and recreated for the people in a free and independent nation. That is not the case for a fascist invader. They will massacre the natives, bring in their elites to rule as foreign overlords, and rebuild infrastructure to serve as their tool for resource extraction and economic exploitation of locals. Is anyone here delusional enough to believe that an occupying power would rebuild infrastructure for the good of the natives? No! The answer is self-evident.

No allies will intervene if you can not defend yourself. If you has so willingly accepted defeat and permanent occupation, then no one will stand up for you. No one wants to fight for a coward or a collaborator.

I would be happy to vote Against this terrible proposal."

OOC: Amusing that my carefully crafted reply provoked such a reaction, being called "drivel". The only drivel here is this pro-imperialist nonsense.

[Cessarea]

"Mr. Sotriat, you may think yourself clever to suggest cowardice (and an implicit acceptance of potential genocide) as some sort of a superior moral option compared to fighting for one's life and freedom, but I do not. In fact, I dare say it contains outright "pro-imperialist sympathies", to quote the Wallenburgian delegation.

Regarding the machine-gun-and-fortification metaphor, I assure you that no competent army will send a lone machine gunner - or a dozen - to capture a fort or an artillery piece. No, our fascist enemy will conduct artillery strikes against that fort, crewed by their conscript artillerymen raining fire until said fort is destroyed. Conscript infantrymen will then go in and clear the rest. Some equipment is superior to others, but they all require human crews to operate, and infantry still has a role in warfare for nations that have yet to develop fully-autonomous killer robots.

Saying that smaller nations should be able to defend themselves with conscription is not just "glorious matyrdom" or "heroic biopics", it is objectively good sense. Resistance is the *only* way to liberation. When has an aggressive invader agreed to retreat after begging and crying by the locals? Only cowards and collaborators would suggest to surrender and cooperate with the enemy, or to endure their oppression. In other words, the same ones who would betray their neighbours, family and friends to the fascist enemy for money, offices and power. Traitors.

Devastated infrastructure as a result of resistance can be rebuilt and recreated for the people in a free and independent nation. That is not the case for a fascist invader. They will massacre the natives, bring in their elites to rule as foreign overlords, and rebuild infrastructure to serve as their tool for resource extraction and economic exploitation of locals. Is anyone here delusional enough to believe that an occupying power would rebuild infrastructure for the good of the natives? No! The answer is self-evident.

No allies will intervene if you can not defend yourself. If you has so willingly accepted defeat and permanent occupation, then no one will stand up for you. No one wants to fight for a coward or a collaborator.

I would be happy to vote Against this terrible proposal."

OOC: Amusing that my carefully crafted reply provoked such a reaction, being called "drivel". The only drivel here is this pro-imperialist nonsense.

OOC: as a short comment (because I don't feel like writing an IC response yet), I'd like to know why cowardice is justification for forcing people to fight and kill, no matter how righteous the cause may be. Should we not have a right to choose what we fight for, when we do it, and how we do it? We owe no loyalty to any State - if you pay your taxes, are generally productive to that State, and follows its laws (so long as they adhere to human rights and do not attempt to actively combat science and democracy) that's all that should matter to it. Service to its armed forces is not, by any means, a moral thing for a State to impose to its civilians, no matter how horrible the cause it fights against.

If "cowardice" is the major concern, then forcing "cowards" into war will not be its solution.

[Juansonia]

Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia, begins the path of taking rhetorical questions seriously. As she begins, she does not know where the rest of Raxes' monologue will take her emotions.

"Given the rhetoric used by the authoring delegation, Strongly Opposed."

Raxes tapped the podium sharply with a claw; benefits a strong exoskeleton, he didn't need to find a stick or something to get a good sound out of it. "Question for the class, don't be afraid to raise your hands; there is a man with a machine gun standing in an open field, across from a man in a mile-long fortification with a computer-guided artillery piece. Can you tell me who is going to win that fight? Does it matter if there's a hundred more men with machine guns? Does it change the answer if both sides number ten-thousand? What if after the first wave of machine-gun-men all died, they found another one, same size, to send across the field?

"The concept of a fortification being 'mile-long' is irrelevant, so I will assume that you meant 'fortified position 1.62 clicks away' for the purposes of this exercise. Artillery is only useful if you know where to aim it, and computer guidance has no effect on target identification. If that man with a machine gun had enough knowledge to stop standing in the open and instead go prone, they could easily evade detection from ground-based eyesight. Camouflage would make evasion even easier, and it would then be a simple matter of remaining undetected until one is so close that the artillery ceases to be capable of defending itself. It should be noted that no military expects a lone infantryman to be capable of taking anything of value. Double that, and fire-and-maneuver, basic yet effective, becomes an option. In fact, even a few dozen decently-equipped infantrymen could convert a battery of howitzers into a pile of rubble. Hence the massive utility of combined arms warfare."

Second question, extra credit; is it worth it to throw lives endlessly at a conflict that will, by simple virtue of the vast gulf in preparation and equipment, ultimately be lost, simply to hold out hope for help that didn't come before or after you sent the first million lives into the hole? What number is worth it? Maybe a percentage of the total population is appropriate? Say, five percent? ten? Oh, let's stop playing games, we can't let them win; fifty percent or nothing! Honored martyrs for freedom, all. Each man at gunpoint from the man behind him. They're killing the civilians anyway when they have to bomb the cities, what's the difference? This way, they shall be remembered. Until the tanks come rolling in and that memorial service all the generals were planning ends up being for the spent shells on the other side.

"In some cases, strategic-level defeat is so unacceptable that even the slightest chance of victory is worth an effectively infinite death toll. While a true Juansonian would wait until after nuclear hellfire is ignited, many other states lack such munitions."

And if the government in question cared so little for the dangerous position it was in, with an angry, militarily superior neighbor, that it didn't seek treaty or alliance elsewhere, or, even bother to make any kind of defense or modernization program that would make them an inopportune target, then, frankly, I don't want them to have access to so final a defense as you all say conscription serves. The World Assembly ought not to be in the business of defending tyrants for whom their country's coffers are worth more than their people's lives."

"Many countries can't afford to modernise or expand their military at such a rapid pace, because limited resources must be focused on domestic needs. Many others, due to either idealism or treaty obligations, cannot join military alliances. Not everywhere has the privilege which you are so accustomed to, so watch your fucking tongue before condemning an entire people to inevitable destruction. Your implication that every disadvantaged leader is a wealth-sucking tyrant serves only to downplay the atrocities which many have suffered under such regimes."

"I am not surprised that the authoring delegation has gone so far as to dress up their pro-imperialist sympathies in the guise of defending civilians' wellbeing. My office will eagerly vote against this."

"Do you people really need to resort to just, making things up now? It's rude you know; international affairs have to have some form of decorum. Bald-disrespect is one thing, lies are just petty."

"The same criticisms could be applied to your rhetoric, to be honest."

[Imperium Anglorum]

Elsie Mortimer Wellesley. We note our opposition to this proposal.

[Cessarea]

An aide of the Minister barges into the chambers of the General Assembly, hurriedly pacing over to Feathers-of-Burgundy and handing over to him a single piece of paper. He reads it, his face showing an increasing amount of surprise as he does. Finally, as he finishes, the Minister raises from his seat and addresses the chambers:

"I believe we have forgotten a crucial piece of legislation to the validity of this proposal. I would, at this moment, like to cite GA#660, 'Protecting Objectors in Combative Military Service'. For those who do not remember it, such as myself, it states:

Believing that individuals have the right not to be forced to participate in combative roles in an armed conflict despite holding conscientious, moral, or religious objections against such participation,

Further noting that conscripted conscientious objectors not only are likely to be demoralised themselves, but also demoralise the rest of the armed force in which they are conscripts, thus providing little to no advantage as soldiers,

The World Assembly enacts as follows.

1. No member nation may coerce, require, or otherwise compel any individual to serve in any role in an armed conflict wherein said individual would be required to attempt to directly cause physical harm or injury to any other individual, should that individual have expressed a bona fide conscientious, moral, or religious objection against serving in that role.
   
   
2. Such an objection may only be voided by the individual in question. Further, no person may be penalised for expressing, holding, or failing to void, such an objection.
   
   
3. This resolution does not prohibit member nations from enforcing forced military service in compliance with Sections 1 and 2. Yet, regardless of the other provisions of this resolution, the World Assembly shall maintain the power to further restrict forced military service by resolution.

GA#660 forbids Conscious Obector from being placed in roles where their actions would directly cause harm to combatants. Be it a rifle, an artillery piece, or a tank - soldiers from WA member nations cannot be forced to operate these instruments of war. However, the requirements for being a CO are very loose, as any moral imperative against war in general, or the nation itself, would do. This means, therefore, that conscripted soldiers can only serve as medics, or engineers, non-combative roles that are protected by other WA laws on armed conflict, and are therefore not subject to being sacrificed for a nation at war, merely serving as emergency workers to aid the war efforts in ways that may, in fact, end up saving lives, or minimising casualties.

I believe that this proposal was last in discussion in... April. GA#660 was approved a month later. It seems that the relevancy of this proposal is in question, given GA#660's splendid actuation."

[Picairn]

OOC: as a short comment (because I don't feel like writing an IC response yet), I'd like to know why cowardice is justification for forcing people to fight and kill, no matter how righteous the cause may be. Should we not have a right to choose what we fight for, when we do it, and how we do it? We owe no loyalty to any State - if you pay your taxes, are generally productive to that State, and follows its laws (so long as they adhere to human rights and do not attempt to actively combat science and democracy) that's all that should matter to it. Service to its armed forces is not, by any means, a moral thing for a State to impose to its civilians, no matter how horrible the cause it fights against.

If "cowardice" is the major concern, then forcing "cowards" into war will not be its solution.

OOC: I guess it all boils down to individualist vs. collectivist ethics. I believe collective defense is the best way for survival of a people and nation, as opposed to "every man for himself". What this individualism would produce, when taken to the extreme, is the extinction of a people and nation, and scattered refugees with no roots or homes to return to. Self-preservation may save your life but it can also destroy everything you once knew.

I disagree with your premise that we are all free individuals with no loyalty to any state. We all have our own communities and cultures. If a person immigrates to a new country, becomes a citizen, and benefits from said country's support from the people, infrastructure, government, rule of law, etc. then he/she has an obligation to help defend it from aggression. Paying taxes and obeying laws aren't enough. If the enemy is going to commit genocide or oppress your people, you are going to just ditch them and run away, forgetting all the good people who have helped you? It's even worse for a native-born. Sure, it would be moral for you to refuse (or even protest) if your country was embarking on a war of aggression, but national defense - the most noble cause? No.

[Cessarea]

OOC: as a short comment (because I don't feel like writing an IC response yet), I'd like to know why cowardice is justification for forcing people to fight and kill, no matter how righteous the cause may be. Should we not have a right to choose what we fight for, when we do it, and how we do it? We owe no loyalty to any State - if you pay your taxes, are generally productive to that State, and follows its laws (so long as they adhere to human rights and do not attempt to actively combat science and democracy) that's all that should matter to it. Service to its armed forces is not, by any means, a moral thing for a State to impose to its civilians, no matter how horrible the cause it fights against.

If "cowardice" is the major concern, then forcing "cowards" into war will not be its solution.

OOC: I guess it all boils down to individualist vs. collectivist ethics. I believe collective defense is the best way for survival of a people and nation, as opposed to "every man for himself". What this individualism would produce, when taken to the extreme, is the extinction of a people and nation, and scattered refugees with no roots or homes to return to. Self-preservation may save your life but it can also destroy everything you once knew.

I disagree with your premise that we are all free individuals with no loyalty to any state. We all have our own communities and cultures. If a person immigrates to a new country, becomes a citizen, and benefits from said country's support from the people, infrastructure, government, rule of law, etc. then he/she has an obligation to help defend it from aggression. Paying taxes and obeying laws aren't enough. If the enemy is going to commit genocide or oppress your people, you are going to just ditch them and run away, forgetting all the good people who have helped you? It's even worse for a native-born. Sure, it would be moral for you to refuse (or even protest) if your country was embarking on a war of aggression, but national defense - the most noble cause? No.

OOC: Damn, then I guess there is no OOC discussion to be had. I simply disagree with that premise - that one must accept the possibility of committing homicide in the name of king and country. Even if it a defensive war. I do not endorse a view of "every man for himself", I simply do not believe one should be compelled by law and by the threat of monopolised violence to fight for a State. Again, no matter how righteous the cause may be - to take up arms must be a choice of the individual. I'd argue that, for a righteous cause, yes, the individual should readily come to the defence of those they love. But at no point should the State be given the authority to decide that for them, again, with the threat of violence.

I'm not a libertarian either - the State has a reason for existing, and it's not just to protect the material interests of the bourgeoisie and property rights (no, I'm not one of those people who advocates for a state being just the judiciary, the police, and the military either). I simply don't think the military of a State should meddle with forcing citizens to a call to arms. Murder is no mere task of public service.

[Relikai]

Relikan Stance : Object

"We understand that Forced Service, or Conscription, is a controversial matter among more liberal and democratic states in the Assembly, and we fully support policies of 'No Forced Service' as is the right of a nation's policymakers to do so.

"However history has shown that should a nation, especially micronations or independent city-states come under attack from stronger neighbors, they will never be able to count on foreign pledges or allies to arrive quick enough to deter, and such must be able to stand on their own right. Not for victory, but to act as a 'Poison Shrimp' to deter larger entities from free and easy annexation of their independence.

"Forced Service for such entities is the anti-thesis of Imperialism. Even after an aggressor prepares a three to one advantage in manpower, an aggressor nation will need to consider the possible cost to their own economic and social pillars after the war, if happened, is over. Every day a war is dragged on, every day the aggressor feels the pinch of manpower and population loss."

[Second Sovereignty]

"Mr. Sotriat,"

"Just Envoy Raxes, please, it's not a surname; I'd never even heard of the concept growing up."

[...] you may think yourself clever to suggest cowardice (and an implicit acceptance of potential genocide) as some sort of a superior moral option compared to fighting for one's life and freedom, but I do not. In fact, I dare say it contains outright "pro-imperialist sympathies", to quote the Wallenburgian delegation.

[...]

Regarding the machine-gun-and-fortification metaphor, I assure you that no competent army will send a lone machine gunner - or a dozen - to capture a fort or an artillery piece. No, our fascist enemy will conduct artillery strikes against that fort, crewed by their conscript artillerymen raining fire until said fort is destroyed. Conscript infantrymen will then go in and clear the rest. Some equipment is superior to others, but they all require human crews to operate, and infantry still has a role in warfare for nations that have yet to develop fully-autonomous killer robots.

Saying that smaller nations should be able to defend themselves with conscription is not just "glorious matyrdom" or "heroic biopics", it is objectively good sense. Resistance is the *only* way to liberation. When has an aggressive invader agreed to retreat after begging and crying by the locals? Only cowards and collaborators would suggest to surrender and cooperate with the enemy, or to endure their oppression. In other words, the same ones who would betray their neighbours, family and friends to the fascist enemy for money, offices and power. Traitors.

Devastated infrastructure as a result of resistance can be rebuilt and recreated for the people in a free and independent nation. That is not the case for a fascist invader. They will massacre the natives, bring in their elites to rule as foreign overlords, and rebuild infrastructure to serve as their tool for resource extraction and economic exploitation of locals. Is anyone here delusional enough to believe that an occupying power would rebuild infrastructure for the good of the natives? No! The answer is self-evident.

No allies will intervene if you can not defend yourself. If you has so willingly accepted defeat and permanent occupation, then no one will stand up for you. No one wants to fight for a coward or a collaborator.

I would be happy to vote Against this terrible proposal."

"Anyway, to the rest of that," he waved a spare hand in circles, trying to find a both appropriate and politically-proper term to use, "statement, from the Ambassador Terry, I do want to say something specific; accusing someone of implicitly backing genocide because they don't think marching people into killzone is a good idea, is, at best, quite impolite. I told that..." he wasn't actually sure who the Wallenburgian who'd spoken earlier was. "Erm, Wallenburgian Delegate, that we ought not to be lying; do I really have to say it again? What are your schools teaching your children over there? No one is saying 'lie down and die in the face of genocide', we're saying that posing to your people the demand of 'fight the people who want to kill you, or we'll kill you', is an inherently horrific thing to do, and we should perhaps not do it.

If you want people to be prepared to fight against genocide, whether it affects them or their neighbors, a comprehensive program of education regarding related matters and the establishment of a strong culture of mutual and intersectional defense in the social and military spheres, combined, perhaps, if the threat is particularly present, with a period of civilian military education during conventional education or as legal transition between the status of a minor and an adult, that will render the populace both more able and more willing to fight effectively against an invader. That's the right way to go about things. If you can't do that frankly very simple task, then I reiterate; your government, demonstrably incompetent, direly unconcerned for the wellbeing of its populace, or shockingly ignorant of the geopolitical circumstance in which it finds itself, should not have access to a tool so radical and destructive as conscription.

Doing absolutely nothing to prepare as a government and then, when the inevitable comes, throwing up your hands and saying, 'we must all do our part, by force if necessary, we have no choice!' is not something we should be inclined to reward. Tell me, will you, are the schoolchildren simply too cowardly to fight? Or is the inherent traitorous sympathies of the reprehensible little brats? They may not even make good soldiers, but it's all or nothing, and every little bit counts; all basic ethics and morality can come after victory! Next up for the cause; nuclear bombardment of our cities in enemy territory! They deserve no better; Collaborators all! Better no life at all than life under the enemy! Better slaughtered at the hands of our own honorable leaders than the foul grasp of the genocidal foe! The true patriot paints the target on his own home for the glorious missiles of freedom!"

Raxes clapped a pair of hands together in neat conclusion. "Moving on, picking apart a trivial analogy, - which, in case it wasn't clear for 'the class' was a pointed joke, a bit of illustrative tripe, not a serious suggestion of how war is carried out, - really isn't the best use of your time. As for the serious statement, all that guff about Resistance and Liberation and Traitors; let me ask another question, how much Resistance are you going to get out of people who are forced with the prison or the firing-line on one side, and the prison or the firing-line on the other? I, for one, a Sovereign certain, would very much prefer to catch whatever boat is taking us poor souls out of the battlefield, rather than, die horribly doing something I cannot imagine even attempting, and very certainly would not be very good at.

That's a chief point I've not touched on before; unwilling conscripts make miserable soldiers. It's a good way to get your command staff shot and to have suddenly lost a dozen fully-loaded armored vehicles towards whichever side isn't presently shooting at them; usually a neutral country. Or, perhaps, assuming the enemy isn't comically and suicidally evil as you seem inclined to assume they must be, they find a more willing service on the other side of the line. Maybe the enemy is just vaguely intelligent, and they offer defecting conscripts a path out to a neutral country if they lay down arms and be a little honest to the intelligence service. Either way, you've not achieved very much. Desperation does not win wars; strategy, logistics, preparation, all those wonderful things do. Masses of fodder are merely a delaying tactic, and a direly costly one."

"The concept of a fortification being 'mile-long' is irrelevant, so I will assume that you meant 'fortified position 1.62 clicks away' for the purposes of this exercise. Artillery is only useful if you know where to aim it, and computer guidance has no effect on target identification. If that man with a machine gun had enough knowledge to stop standing in the open and instead go prone, they could easily evade detection from ground-based eyesight. Camouflage would make evasion even easier, and it would then be a simple matter of remaining undetected until one is so close that the artillery ceases to be capable of defending itself. It should be noted that no military expects a lone infantryman to be capable of taking anything of value. Double that, and fire-and-maneuver, basic yet effective, becomes an option. In fact, even a few dozen decently-equipped infantrymen could convert a battery of howitzers into a pile of rubble. Hence the massive utility of combined arms warfare."
[...]
"In some cases, strategic-level defeat is so unacceptable that even the slightest chance of victory is worth an effectively infinite death toll. While a true Juansonian would wait until after nuclear hellfire is ignited, many other states lack such munitions."
[...]
"Many countries can't afford to modernise or expand their military at such a rapid pace, because limited resources must be focused on domestic needs. Many others, due to either idealism or treaty obligations, cannot join military alliances. Not everywhere has the privilege which you are so accustomed to, so watch your fucking tongue before condemning an entire people to inevitable destruction. Your implication that every disadvantaged leader is a wealth-sucking tyrant serves only to downplay the atrocities which many have suffered under such regimes."

Misery; these people really loved to respond to grade-school challenges like it proved they were experts. Maybe it was just a human thing. "You're doing it too, taking the obvious bait; 'what if we add all these factors that aren't in the original point and don't change it except on a pedantic level'. Maybe apply some of those, reading comprehension skills to listening? Surely your schools give you that much, if you're here."

He clicked, hopelessly. "If defeat is so unacceptable that you would rather literally everyone in your country die than face it, perhaps you have bigger problems. Do forgive me, I can't imagine any circumstance in which a total-kill scenario is preferable over, anything. Better to have lived badly than to have never lived at all. Fundamentally, life is all we get. Let me say, if a state decides to end a war by nuking itself to deny its territories to the enemy, I rather stop being sympathetic to that state; slaughter is slaughter, whether or not it's being done in the name of the slaughtered.

Anyway, you're starting to sound a little angry if the expletive tells me much; let me give this a final point here, if the government in question is completely unable to muster the resources to have an effective military defense plan in the face of a present threat, its going to lose anyway, no matter how many lives it shoves in front of the tanks. That's just facts, I'm not fond of it either, but it's the basic reality you have to face; the numbers do not add up. If said state has entered into an asinine ideological or treaty position where it is similarly incapable of mustering defense, then again, the same applies. You're using words like 'disadvantage' and 'privilege' as weapons rather than as tools of understanding, and, frankly, you don't understand them. Maybe do some light reading? I'm sure your country has libraries."

OOC: Amusing that my carefully crafted reply provoked such a reaction, being called "drivel". The only drivel here is this pro-imperialist nonsense.

OOC:
This just in folks, not wanting indefinite numbers of people to die horribly and pointlessly is pro-imperialist; loving the way the discourse is shaping up these days. War is good actually, and if you don't want it you're a coward and a traitor and just as bad as the fascists, if you really think about it. Many of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make, ect. ect. Cannot wait to see all you proud patriots signing up for the next World War; good luck in the trenches, be they metaphorical or Marianas!

OOC: I guess it all boils down to individualist vs. collectivist ethics. I believe collective defense is the best way for survival of a people and nation, as opposed to "every man for himself". What this individualism would produce, when taken to the extreme, is the extinction of a people and nation, and scattered refugees with no roots or homes to return to. Self-preservation may save your life but it can also destroy everything you once knew.

Okay let me lead with something here; I'm a Communist, I know the distinction between individualist and collectivist ethics, and to borrow some words from my good friend Raxes up there way back at the start of the thread, a moral obligation does not necessarily translate into a legal obligation, and we certainly cannot blame people for not wanting to fucking die. Your understanding of collectivist ethics is vulgar and absurd.

I disagree with your premise that we are all free individuals with no loyalty to any state. We all have our own communities and cultures. If a person immigrates to a new country, becomes a citizen, and benefits from said country's support from the people, infrastructure, government, rule of law, etc. then he/she has an obligation to help defend it from aggression. Paying taxes and obeying laws aren't enough. If the enemy is going to commit genocide or oppress your people, you are going to just ditch them and run away, forgetting all the good people who have helped you? It's even worse for a native-born. Sure, it would be moral for you to refuse (or even protest) if your country was embarking on a war of aggression, but national defense - the most noble cause? No.

Ooh look, I get to leverage my OOC person again; I'm Native American, (and also a Communist, hey!) the US Government committed genocide not just on my people, but on every single native culture on the landmass it has stolen from us. I don't care how many 'benefits' I get from living here, whoever it is that turns up to put this miserable colony into the dustbin of history has my vote, and I will absolutely never do a single thing for this country, whether it's carrying a rifle, or driving MREs between bases.

[Mlakhavia]

"Modern wars - bar irregular warfare, which does not utilise conscription to a standard degree - are fought with professional armies and standardized equipment." Matter-of-factly states the Mlakhavi 'ambassador', who is field-stripping an Ak-47 with all the grace and precision of a blind gorilla. "Put simply, conscription in the modern day is not necessary to fight any kind of war -- wars of national survival included. Any sufficiently regular, professional, and well-equipped force will mow through swarms of conscripts with painstaking ease, sacrificing thousands of lives to little strategic advantage." He stops, having somehow affixed the barrel of the rifle to its stock, gazing at it with a bemused expression on his face. "Ultimately, I would like to suggest that the ambassadors in opposition to this bill reflect on why they are in such opposition to the principle. Conscripts are, more often than not, ill-trained, poorly-prepared, and scared-shitless civilians forced to fight a war they may well have no stake in. Conscription is not just a humanitarian disaster -- it's bad strategy as well."

[Picairn]

"Anyway, to the rest of that," he waved a spare hand in circles, trying to find a both appropriate and politically-proper term to use, "statement, from the Ambassador Terry, I do want to say something specific; accusing someone of implicitly backing genocide because they don't think marching people into killzone is a good idea, is, at best, quite impolite. I told that..." he wasn't actually sure who the Wallenburgian who'd spoken earlier was. "Erm, Wallenburgian Delegate, that we ought not to be lying; do I really have to say it again? What are your schools teaching your children over there? No one is saying 'lie down and die in the face of genocide', we're saying that posing to your people the demand of 'fight the people who want to kill you, or we'll kill you', is an inherently horrific thing to do, and we should perhaps not do it.

If you want people to be prepared to fight against genocide, whether it affects them or their neighbors, a comprehensive program of education regarding related matters and the establishment of a strong culture of mutual and intersectional defense in the social and military spheres, combined, perhaps, if the threat is particularly present, with a period of civilian military education during conventional education or as legal transition between the status of a minor and an adult, that will render the populace both more able and more willing to fight effectively against an invader. That's the right way to go about things. If you can't do that frankly very simple task, then I reiterate; your government, demonstrably incompetent, direly unconcerned for the wellbeing of its populace, or shockingly ignorant of the geopolitical circumstance in which it finds itself, should not have access to a tool so radical and destructive as conscription.

Doing absolutely nothing to prepare as a government and then, when the inevitable comes, throwing up your hands and saying, 'we must all do our part, by force if necessary, we have no choice!' is not something we should be inclined to reward. Tell me, will you, are the schoolchildren simply too cowardly to fight? Or is the inherent traitorous sympathies of the reprehensible little brats? They may not even make good soldiers, but it's all or nothing, and every little bit counts; all basic ethics and morality can come after victory! Next up for the cause; nuclear bombardment of our cities in enemy territory! They deserve no better; Collaborators all! Better no life at all than life under the enemy! Better slaughtered at the hands of our own honorable leaders than the foul grasp of the genocidal foe! The true patriot paints the target on his own home for the glorious missiles of freedom!"

Raxes clapped a pair of hands together in neat conclusion. "Moving on, picking apart a trivial analogy, - which, in case it wasn't clear for 'the class' was a pointed joke, a bit of illustrative tripe, not a serious suggestion of how war is carried out, - really isn't the best use of your time. As for the serious statement, all that guff about Resistance and Liberation and Traitors; let me ask another question, how much Resistance are you going to get out of people who are forced with the prison or the firing-line on one side, and the prison or the firing-line on the other? I, for one, a Sovereign certain, would very much prefer to catch whatever boat is taking us poor souls out of the battlefield, rather than, die horribly doing something I cannot imagine even attempting, and very certainly would not be very good at.

That's a chief point I've not touched on before; unwilling conscripts make miserable soldiers. It's a good way to get your command staff shot and to have suddenly lost a dozen fully-loaded armored vehicles towards whichever side isn't presently shooting at them; usually a neutral country. Or, perhaps, assuming the enemy isn't comically and suicidally evil as you seem inclined to assume they must be, they find a more willing service on the other side of the line. Maybe the enemy is just vaguely intelligent, and they offer defecting conscripts a path out to a neutral country if they lay down arms and be a little honest to the intelligence service. Either way, you've not achieved very much. Desperation does not win wars; strategy, logistics, preparation, all those wonderful things do. Masses of fodder are merely a delaying tactic, and a direly costly one."

OOC: Amusing that my carefully crafted reply provoked such a reaction, being called "drivel". The only drivel here is this pro-imperialist nonsense.

OOC:
This just in folks, not wanting indefinite numbers of people to die horribly and pointlessly is pro-imperialist; loving the way the discourse is shaping up these days. War is good actually, and if you don't want it you're a coward and a traitor and just as bad as the fascists, if you really think about it. Many of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make, ect. ect. Cannot wait to see all you proud patriots signing up for the next World War; good luck in the trenches, be they metaphorical or Marianas!

OOC: I guess it all boils down to individualist vs. collectivist ethics. I believe collective defense is the best way for survival of a people and nation, as opposed to "every man for himself". What this individualism would produce, when taken to the extreme, is the extinction of a people and nation, and scattered refugees with no roots or homes to return to. Self-preservation may save your life but it can also destroy everything you once knew.

Okay let me lead with something here; I'm a Communist, I know the distinction between individualist and collectivist ethics, and to borrow some words from my good friend Raxes up there way back at the start of the thread, a moral obligation does not necessarily translate into a legal obligation, and we certainly cannot blame people for not wanting to fucking die. Your understanding of collectivist ethics is vulgar and absurd.

I disagree with your premise that we are all free individuals with no loyalty to any state. We all have our own communities and cultures. If a person immigrates to a new country, becomes a citizen, and benefits from said country's support from the people, infrastructure, government, rule of law, etc. then he/she has an obligation to help defend it from aggression. Paying taxes and obeying laws aren't enough. If the enemy is going to commit genocide or oppress your people, you are going to just ditch them and run away, forgetting all the good people who have helped you? It's even worse for a native-born. Sure, it would be moral for you to refuse (or even protest) if your country was embarking on a war of aggression, but national defense - the most noble cause? No.

Ooh look, I get to leverage my OOC person again; I'm Native American, (and also a Communist, hey!) the US Government committed genocide not just on my people, but on every single native culture on the landmass it has stolen from us. I don't care how many 'benefits' I get from living here, whoever it is that turns up to put this miserable colony into the dustbin of history has my vote, and I will absolutely never do a single thing for this country, whether it's carrying a rifle, or driving MREs between bases.

"Who said anything about 'kill the people who will kill you, or we will kill you?' A state that kills its own people for not fighting sounds deeply counter-productive. Is there evidence for states enforcing this in reality?

The Wallenburgian delegation was evidently correct for concluding that your proposal is pro-imperialist. A smaller country that is deprived from much needed manpower to defend itself has a far less chance of survival than a country that isn't. No amount of your playground insults, Ambassador, will change that. It is quite rich, really, to see one complaining about decorum when he is deploying insults like a machine gun.

Virtually every state regularly teaches national history and military defense in schools and colleges, and yet they still found themselves starved of thousands of men fleeing across the border even in times of wars for national survival. Your 'perfect' education doesn't exist, except for maybe if we install chips in every human - or sapient - and command them to fight. It is ignorant, uninformed, naive, uneducated, and dare I say, outright imbecilic to suggest that mere education could magically rouse all people to fight.

Children are not compelled or encouraged to serve in our armed forces, but I have no moral objection if a child picks up arms and kills the invaders who murdered his or her parents, or a teenager who joins the local resistance chapter and helps kill the invaders. Contribution to national defense *is* a noble cause, to stop genocides and national extinction wherever possible.

Who suggested that national defense is equivalent to nuclear bombardment of one's own cities? I think you should lay off whatever it is you are smoking and stop with the hyperbole, or I shall simply ignore your rants altogether, although I must admit that they possess some comedic value. The sheer number of emphasized words, and the amount of conjured imaginary scenarios that you attempted to pin on me, is quite a masterpiece.

In any case, quantity *is* still a quality of its own. A 1-million strong conscript army against a 200 thousand volunteer army, all else being equal, will have a decisive advantage of 5 to 1. Even if a few thousands of the former are the most wretched and unmotivated conscripts imaginable, and a couple hundreds of thousands are ambivalent but still displicined soldiers, that is not good odds for the latter. The technology advantage is nullified if the enemy possesses equal or superior tech, which - let's be honest - is a strong possibility."

OOC: Wow, that's a rant. Yes, I will still call you pro-imperialist, yes I will still call your proposal cowardice, yes I will continue to laugh at your overblown hyperbole that I don't give a shit about, and no, I will not be dragged into an NSG-style debate with you over philosophy or ethics.

[Cessarea]

-snip-

OOC: I will again point out that GA#660 prohibits combat roles for Conscious Objectors. To be a Conscious Objector under GA#660 you just need to have a moral or ethical reason not to participate. The author, being a native american and having grievances with the very institution of the US would not and cannot be forced to partake in the military of the US as a combatant, according to GA#660.

This whole point is moot because "cowards" are already protected. They cannot be forced to fight. If you literally just say " I do not believe in the cause we're fighting and I do not wish to murder people" that's enough to qualify you for GA#660 protection.

Also, "imperialist"? Come on. Since when is acknowledging the cruel and ultimately horrible nature of war - and the shockingly authoritarian power of a State to force its people to murder in its name - an "Imperialist" idea? I'm sorry, but you're just labelling people to devalue their argument at that point.

EDIT: this goes to everyone here, including the author. The discussion so far is irrelevant given GA#660's existance. All this proposal would do, at the moment, is prohibt enlisted nurses, medics, engineers, and people forced to produce weapons of war in factories.

[Picairn]

-snip-

OOC: I will again point out that GA#660 prohibits combat roles for Conscious Objectors. To be a Conscious Objector under GA#660 you just need to have a moral or ethical reason not to participate. The author, being a native american and having grievances with the very institution of the US would not and cannot be forced to partake in the military of the US as a combatant, according to GA#660.

This whole point is moot because "cowards" are already protected. They cannot be forced to fight. If you literally just say " I do not believe in the cause we're fighting and I do not wish to murder people" that's enough to qualify you for GA#660 protection.

Also, "imperialist"? Come on. Since when is acknowledging the cruel and ultimately horrible nature of war - and the shockingly authoritarian power of a State to force its people to murder in its name - an "Imperialist" idea? I'm sorry, but you're just labelling people to devalue their argument at that point.

EDIT: this goes to everyone here, including the author. The discussion so far is irrelevant given GA#660's existance. All this proposal would do, at the moment, is prohibt enlisted nurses, medics, engineers, and people forced to produce weapons of war in factories.

OOC: From GA#660, "No member nation may coerce, require, or otherwise compel any individual to serve in any role in an armed conflict wherein said individual would be required to attempt to directly cause physical harm or injury to any other individual, should that individual have expressed a bona fide conscientious, moral, or religious objection against serving in that role."

This doesn't actually say anything on the conscientious objector application and judgment process. I don't see the clause in which one can say a sentence and immediately gets CO. IRL you can't simply say "I don't like war" or "I don't like this war in particular" (selective objection) and be immediately granted CO status. Having grievances against the US is also not grounds for CO. You have to extensively demonstrate that you deeply hold pacifist values that oppose all armed violence.

Regardless, I do support assigning conscientious objectors to non-violent roles if they oppose killing so strongly, as long as everyone contributes to the common defense.

Nah, it is objectively pro-imperialist and I will not budge. Nations deprived of manpower have a much less chance of survival against an aggressor. I don't understand why someone would propose to replace the cruel nature of war with the cruel nature of occupation and genocide.

[Cessarea]

OOC: I will again point out that GA#660 prohibits combat roles for Conscious Objectors. To be a Conscious Objector under GA#660 you just need to have a moral or ethical reason not to participate. The author, being a native american and having grievances with the very institution of the US would not and cannot be forced to partake in the military of the US as a combatant, according to GA#660.

This whole point is moot because "cowards" are already protected. They cannot be forced to fight. If you literally just say " I do not believe in the cause we're fighting and I do not wish to murder people" that's enough to qualify you for GA#660 protection. The author himself has manifested support for such a proposal in the future, including furthermore the banning of COs from partaking in non-combat roles.

Also, "imperialist"? Come on. Since when is acknowledging the cruel and ultimately horrible nature of war - and the shockingly authoritarian power of a State to force its people to murder in its name - an "Imperialist" idea? I'm sorry, but you're just labelling people to devalue their argument at that point.

EDIT: this goes to everyone here, including the author. The discussion so far is irrelevant given GA#660's existance. All this proposal would do, at the moment, is prohibt enlisted nurses, medics, engineers, and people forced to produce weapons of war in factories.

OOC: From GA#660, "No member nation may coerce, require, or otherwise compel any individual to serve in any role in an armed conflict wherein said individual would be required to attempt to directly cause physical harm or injury to any other individual, should that individual have expressed a bona fide conscientious, moral, or religious objection against serving in that role."

This doesn't actually say anything on the conscientious objector application and judgment process. I don't see the clause in which one can say a sentence and immediately gets CO. IRL you can't simply say "I don't like war" or "I don't like this war in particular" (selective objection) and be immediately granted CO status. Having grievances against the US is also not grounds for CO. You have to extensively demonstrate that you deeply hold pacifist values that oppose all armed violence.

Regardless, I do support assigning conscientious objectors to non-violent roles if they oppose killing so strongly, as long as everyone contributes to the common defense.

Nah, it is objectively pro-imperialist and I will not budge. Nations deprived of manpower have a much less chance of survival against an aggressor. I don't understand why someone would propose to replace the cruel nature of war with the cruel nature of occupation and genocide.

That is true, but it also has no clause against such interpretation. The author may want to force that interpretation in the future with a proposal, per Article 3's authorisation.

Also, I don't understand the frankly Jungian obsession with motivation being inferred by consequence. "If someone supports a policy that I think empowers imperialist nations, then they must themselves be imperialists! Of course! "It's just not how history, logic, or humans work.

[Second Sovereignty]

"Okay, you seem to like little snippets of points instead of a full argument; fair enough, let's break it down, shall we? Oh, I wish there was some kind of projection system here, a screen for the transcript..." No gnomes flagged him down. Alas. There really wasn't. The assembled shall simply have to use their imaginations.

"Who said anything about 'kill the people who will kill you, or we will kill you?' A state that kills its own people for not fighting sounds deeply counter-productive. Is there evidence for states enforcing this in reality?

"A bit of mild hyperbole, and frankly given the decidedly unpleasant terms you lot have taken to discussing the 'traitorous cowards' who refuse to be conscripted with, you will forgive me if I lack confidence that you aren't inclined to do exactly that. Do tell me, the situation is dire, the enemy advances day by day, and there's just not enough good, strong, men, ready to hold the line; they all want to run away. Is there room in the prisons? Time for proper arrests? What if they decide they'd rather cross lines? It'd be easy, they're not that far away now. Can you really leave them there? Take that risk? Surely the defense shall fail if you leave without them. You have to do something, yes? All for the country, all for freedom? Regardless, the point is frankly much the same, if you swap out the latter phrase, for, 'shove you in prison'. However long a prison sentence the refusal gets you, and then, assuming the long-shot of victory, the treason sentence, or whatever absurd charge you people dredge up to shove upon them. That's even longer in prison, if you ever get out at all. Might as well be offering them a bullet; a good few people would find it kinder."

The Wallenburgian delegation was evidently correct for concluding that your proposal is pro-imperialist. A smaller country that is deprived from much needed manpower to defend itself has a far less chance of survival than a country that isn't. No amount of your playground insults, Ambassador, will change that. It is quite rich, really, to see one complaining about decorum when he is deploying insults like a machine gun.

"I will remind you, I did exempt bald-disrespect from my annoyance. But here's something for you, my friend, if you can demonstrate you can do better, I will gladly retract every word. Unfortunately, you're at a bad start; those cute little little outright lies about 'pro-imperialist'. Honestly I am beginning to think you don't know what that means. A 'smaller country' isn't 'deprived' of manpower by not being allowed to force civilians into a metaphorical meat-grinder, your mistake is the presumption that the government has the absolute right to those lives to begin with. Tell me; your government, presumably, is opposed to capital punishment? The World Assembly prohibits it? Does it quite track that a Member-State is not permitted to end your life, but is permitted to decide what your life is?

And, again, to tangent a little, there are so many more factors in a such a conflict than simple manpower. Indeed, properly prepared, victory is easily achieved even when outnumbered vastly. Much harder to overwhelm preparation with sheer weight of bodies, and, I shouldn't need to tell you by now that I simply don't believe that mass, deliberate, civilian casualty is an acceptable way to 'win' a war."

Virtually every state regularly teaches national history and military defense in schools and colleges, and yet they still found themselves starved of thousands of men fleeing across the border even in times of wars for national survival. Your 'perfect' education doesn't exist, except for maybe if we install chips in every human - or sapient - and command them to fight. It is ignorant, uninformed, naive, uneducated, and dare I say, outright imbecilic to suggest that mere education could magically rouse all people to fight.

"Like I said earlier, bad start. Do you think I was talking about history and schooling? Honestly, you're in government, - maybe not legislation or any such affair, but diplomacy is governance, - you really ought to know better. Military Education; a degree of basic training and organization, preparedness, for what could very well be a very present and real threat. Of adults, if necessary, as a matter of, again, transition from minor to adult status, alongside general education in schools, the like. Social programs, adult education if school-like affairs are your preference. Encouragement of understanding firearms and their use, promulgation of defense concepts, it's not hard. Plenty of nations have done it throughout history, plenty will. If your nation is under present threat, I highly recommend it. It's not the most pleasant thing in the world, but it's hardly repressive. Your dire misanthropy doesn't change the facts; most people, given the choice, are quite willing to make steps as needs must. Suddenly bearing down on them and demanding they report to either Training Camp down the road, or the Prison Camp down the other way, one day, on the other hand, doesn't work."

Children are not compelled or encouraged to serve in our armed forces, but I have no moral objection if a child picks up arms and kills the invaders who murdered his or her parents, or a teenager who joins the local resistance chapter and helps kill the invaders. Contribution to national defense *is* a noble cause, to stop genocides and national extinction wherever possible.

"Right, let me write that one down," Raxes takes out a little tablet and does indeed begin to write, "Ambassador Norfield, representative of... The Empire of Picairn? -That explains a lot... has no moral objections... to child soldiery. Right. Will have to tell the Sovereign that... Anyway; let me say, while I'm here, any country which will let a child march along with the soldiers is a war criminal state, and its leadership will be treated, and sought, accordingly."

Who suggested that national defense is equivalent to nuclear bombardment of one's own cities? I think you should lay off whatever it is you are smoking and stop with the hyperbole, or I shall simply ignore your rants altogether, although I must admit that they possess some comedic value. The sheer number of emphasized words, and the amount of conjured imaginary scenarios that you attempted to pin on me, is quite a masterpiece.

"The other one, Ambassador Terry, I think; I didn't get you confused, the conflation was intentional. Proving a point, given you two seem to agree on so much. Oh but I do thank you for praise," he tapped an arm to his breast, "It really means a lot, I try, and for so little appreciation these days. Honestly I wonder why I even bother polishing the old exoskeleton sometimes." He brushed back his antenna, and quickly found yet more dust falling off of them. Misery.

In any case, quantity *is* still a quality of its own. A 1-million strong conscript army against a 200 thousand volunteer army, all else being equal, will have a decisive advantage of 5 to 1. Even if a few thousands of the former are the most wretched and unmotivated conscripts imaginable, and a couple hundreds of thousands are ambivalent but still displicined soldiers, that is not good odds for the latter. The technology advantage is nullified if the enemy possesses equal or superior tech, which - let's be honest - is a strong possibility."

"Right... and, you mean to accuse me of taking drugs? I do, mind, but only on my off hours. You might want to try that kind of restraint, it makes going home to it all the sweeter. Let's burst the bubble first of all; 'all else being equal' is not a reality you are facing between unwilling, quickly trained, and direly displeased conscripts and properly trained, volunteer, professional soldiers. Let me tell you, the Auxiliary are a well trained bunch, well equipped too, disciplined better than I could manage, but we have the Sovereign Guard for a reason, that being, that the Auxiliary, fundamentally, is neither prepared for nor capable of lengthy engagements with an actual invasion force. Your estimation of how many conscripts would be, 'wretched' to use your word, is, bluntly, laughable, and itself evidence that you simply do not know what you're talking about. You should read actual historical and military analysis, by actual experts in the field, not pop-docs written by the famous general somesuch chronicling his many stories and patriotic anecdotes.

Technological and industrial advantages, - and here I shall assume, by, 'the enemy' you mean the professional force rather than the enslaved civilian combatants, - are the means by which wars are won, - including leadership, but we can generally assume both sides' leaders are at least competent, - real wars, wars of imperial conquest and defense against it, wars against dedicated, powerful fascist states, like, say, the Menanine Conflict, in the Sovereignty's history, are not won by bravery and certainty, nor by any number of miserable bodies shoved between the real soldiers on any side. The surprise of the Sovereign Guard's arrival after they'd dealt with the local Auxillary wore off well before we turned their advance around; we had to fight in real terms. The fact that the Menanine was willing to throw millions of lives against us wasn't worth very much for them; the Sovereign Guard was better equipped, better able to resupply from any damages done against us, and any losses incurred in attack. We were the larger state, with greater reach, and greater resources. Putting aside our excellent treatment of liberated territories and defected and surrendered forces, building support in hostile territory, that is why we won, and why the invasion was doomed from the start."

OOC: Wow, that's a rant. Yes, I will still call you pro-imperialist, yes I will still call your proposal cowardice, yes I will continue to laugh at your overblown hyperbole that I don't give a shit about, and no, I will not be dragged into an NSG-style debate with you over philosophy or ethics.

OOC:
Or, in other words, you're free to accuse me of all manner of horrible things, and if I have anything to say about that, I'm ranting; if you don't want to get OOC, don't get OOC, it's that easy, really. If you decide to do so anyway, don't complain, it's what you signed up for. Don't bring up ethics if you don't want to discuss ethics. Don't posit bizarre fascistic nonsense about the duty and nobility of national defense if you don't want it called out. Et-cetera. Do have a nice day, and I sincerely hope the advice helps.

EDIT: this goes to everyone here, including the author. The discussion so far is irrelevant given GA#660's existence. All this proposal would do, at the moment, is prohibit enlisted nurses, medics, engineers, and people forced to produce weapons of war in factories.

It's not irrelevant. As Picairn says above, the definition of Conscious Objection within is woefully insufficient, and I refuse to let that be the standard.

[Cessarea]

-snip-

-snip-

To add to this, GA#660 states:

"...should that individual have expressed a bona fide conscientious, moral, or religious objection against serving in that role.

Regardless of real life judicial precedent, the WA itself makes no attempt to define what a conscientious or moral objection to service in the armed forces is. It exclusively demands that it be in good faith - dealing with the cowards you are so afraid of - and the case of our native american author would neatly and comfortably fall within the definition, and therefore be eligible to GA#660.

-snip-

I'm afraid that this stance will do you no favours in voting. The author of GA#660 has had to make several alterations to actually get support to get his proposal through - it's probably why it's not that specific. I urge you to consider forbidding COs serving in non-combat roles instead. This would, paired with a liberal interpretation of GA#660, enable anyone conscripted into service to simply object to it on moral grounds (which, again, has a very wide meaning because GA#660 makes no attempt to define it, and morality is a big subject), and be therefore exempted from duty itself. It is a loophole-y path, but one that is far easier to gather votes for than a resolution with the title "Ban on Forced Service".

Surely you can see why "Ban on Forced Service for Conscious Objectors", which carries with it the brand of advancing human rights and defending a minority, would potentially be less threatening to the average WA voter than "Ban on Forced Service", which implies a major disruption to the military systems of countries, and the removal of a war resource for many.

[Picairn]

That is true, but it also has no clause against such interpretation. The author may want to force that interpretation in the future with a proposal, per Article 3's authorisation.

Also, I don't understand the frankly Jungian obsession with motivation being inferred by consequence. "If someone supports a policy that I think empowers imperialist nations, then they must themselves be imperialists! Of course! "It's just not how history, logic, or humans work.

They can, but I doubt it'll pass with this attitude of liberally insulting the opposition and denigrating all oppositional arguments with hyperbole.

I'll simply say that banning conscription in national defense enables imperialism and genocide, and thus I'll conclude it is implicitly pro-imperialist.

[Second Sovereignty]

[...]It exclusively demands that it be in good faith [...]

OOC:
Hang on, tangent if you don't mind; has something changed since GAR #2 was repealed? I hadn't noticed anything re-implementing a good-faith mandate, in fact I vaguely remember - as unreliable as my memory is, - that attempting to do so would likely be illegal.

I'm afraid that this stance will do you no favours in voting. The author of GA#660 has had to make several alterations to actually get support to get his proposal through - it's probably why it's not that specific.

I am aware, I've been around a lot longer than this puppet would imply.

I urge you to consider forbidding COs serving in non-combat roles instead. This would, paired with a liberal interpretation of GA#660, enable anyone conscripted into service to simply object to it on moral grounds (which, again, has a very wide meaning because GA#660 makes no attempt to define it, and morality is a big subject), and be therefore exempted from duty itself. It is a loophole-y path, but one that is far easier to gather votes for than a resolution with the title "Ban on Forced Service".

It's also much less likely to work. Lack of proper definition is something that put dire and deep holes into law, and this is no different. Member-States are not obligated to, even within the bounds of good faith, take most-expansive, or most-limited definition in any case; they must simply take a definition that is in keeping with the clear purpose and text. That doesn't mean ignoring whatever their own interests or desires might be; it merely means it must be balanced with the aforementioned purpose and text in question. This creates loopholes, not closes them.

Believe me, finding and exploiting those loopholes was kinda've my whole thing for a while.

Surely you can see why "Ban on Forced Service for Conscious Objectors", which carries with it the brand of advancing human rights and defending a minority, would potentially be less threatening to the average WA voter than "Ban on Forced Service", which implies a major disruption to the military systems of countries, and the removal of a war resource for many.

Yes. I'm sure you can similarly see why I'm disinclined to so gut the proposal. I am fully confident that, despite the objections of a certain variety of true patriots, this has a good chance of passing.

They can, but I doubt it'll pass with this attitude of liberally insulting the opposition and denigrating all oppositional arguments with hyperbole.

Future reference; pronouns in the cute little OOC spoiler down in the signature.