Mandatory Military Proposal

[Guvnroia]

The name says it all. See the page in the proposals for more information.

[The Emmerian Unions]

For future references it is best to also put your Proposal in with this. Here it is for the record:

Mandatory Military Resolution

A resolution to improve world security by boosting police and military budgets.


Category: International Security
Strength: Strong
Proposed by: Guvnroia

Description: RECOGNIZING that defense is an important concern for any nation.

ACKNOLEDGING that pacifism is believed to be a viable course of action

ALARMED that certain countries in the World Assembly could fall under the control of powerful, outside nations.

PROPOSING that all WA nations be required to have a sizeable military force.

ALSO PROPOSING that smaller,poorer nations that cannot afford to support a military be provided soldiers under the direct control of that nations Cheif of State

[Charlotte Ryberg]

We oppose this proposal because it is a stain on our desire for peace.

Yours,

[Rutianas]

While I can understand the need for a military, I have one concern above all others for this proposal:

ALSO PROPOSING that smaller,poorer nations that cannot afford to support a military be provided soldiers under the direct control of that nations Cheif of State

Where exactly are they going to get these soldiers? Not from the Imperial Republic! I doubt anyone else wants to give up their own soldiers either. The WA doesn't have a military, nor will we ever have a military.

My other concern is that your resolution doesn't even determine what's sizable. Is it .5% of a nations population. Or .1%? Or even .05%? All of those can be considered sizable in piece time readiness.

The Imperial Republic cannot support this proposal.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

[Osgarna]

You can stuff guns into our cold, dead fingers.

[Guvnroia]

While I can understand the need for a military, I have one concern above all others for this proposal:

ALSO PROPOSING that smaller,poorer nations that cannot afford to support a military be provided soldiers under the direct control of that nations Cheif of State

Where exactly are they going to get these soldiers? Not from the Imperial Republic! I doubt anyone else wants to give up their own soldiers either. The WA doesn't have a military, nor will we ever have a military.

My other concern is that your resolution doesn't even determine what's sizable. Is it .5% of a nations population. Or .1%? Or even .05%? All of those can be considered sizable in piece time readiness.

The Imperial Republic cannot support this proposal.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

Well yeah, that is the issue. Hmmmm. .1% would be good I think. ((OOC: Should have added that before oops.))And if there isn't enough voluntary lending of soldiers and equipmeant,I may have to add a second proposal making it mandatory.... I will say that the Peoples Republic of Guvnroia would be open to the lending of soldiers and equipment to other, smaller nations.

[The Emmerian Unions]

Well yeah, that is the issue. Hmmmm. .1% would be good I think. ((OOC: Should have added that before oops.))And if there isn't enough voluntary lending of soldiers and equipmeant,I may have to add a second proposal making it mandatory.... I will say that the Peoples Republic of Guvnroia would be open to the lending of soldiers and equipment to other, smaller nations.

If the second proposal is like an addition to the first. It will be considered illegal due to the No Amendment rule.

[Rutianas]

While I can understand the need for a military, I have one concern above all others for this proposal:

ALSO PROPOSING that smaller,poorer nations that cannot afford to support a military be provided soldiers under the direct control of that nations Cheif of State

Where exactly are they going to get these soldiers? Not from the Imperial Republic! I doubt anyone else wants to give up their own soldiers either. The WA doesn't have a military, nor will we ever have a military.

My other concern is that your resolution doesn't even determine what's sizable. Is it .5% of a nations population. Or .1%? Or even .05%? All of those can be considered sizable in piece time readiness.

The Imperial Republic cannot support this proposal.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

Well yeah, that is the issue. Hmmmm. .1% would be good I think. ((OOC: Should have added that before oops.))And if there isn't enough voluntary lending of soldiers and equipmeant,I may have to add a second proposal making it mandatory.... I will say that the Peoples Republic of Guvnroia would be open to the lending of soldiers and equipment to other, smaller nations.

So, why should nations have to weaken their own armed forces to supplement another nations? Kind of contradicts your own proposal. If we're required to have a certain amount, but then we have to give some soldiers to other nations, we're now below that amount, or we have to get more soldiers. From where?

All in all, this is a bad idea. It'd be forcing nations to have a military. What if they don't want to have a military? Their own choice.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

[Bears Armed]

Also, how many nations would trust the "loaned" foreign soldiers not to try seizing power there for their true masters?

[Meekinos]

We fundamentally object to the proposal on the grounds that a nation's military should be supported by citizens of that nation, or citizens of its colonies as the case may be.

We also feel that it's flawed to suggest that every nation keep a military of a certain size. Some nations are in regions where it is is just silly to have a large military because either your neighbours are not militant themselves or you're your own continent/world. Of course, the other problem is, 'sizable' is not defined, and if it is, it should be a percentage, something like 0.5% of the nation's total population.

[Rutianas]

We fundamentally object to the proposal on the grounds that a nation's military should be supported by citizens of that nation, or citizens of its colonies as the case may be.

We also feel that it's flawed to suggest that every nation keep a military of a certain size. Some nations are in regions where it is is just silly to have a large military because either your neighbours are not militant themselves or you're your own continent/world. Of course, the other problem is, 'sizable' is not defined, and if it is, it should be a percentage, something like 0.5% of the nation's total population.

Good point. Need for a military is rather important here. If you're forcing people into a military, then there should be a good reason for it. Otherwise, you're taking people out of the workforce and could be harming the nation. The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that if this were redrafted and approved, it should be 'at least 0.1% of the nation's total population'. That would help the situation where people are on their own continent or world or whatever.

And if there isn't enough voluntary lending of soldiers and equipmeant,I may have to add a second proposal making it mandatory.... I will say that the Peoples Republic of Guvnroia would be open to the lending of soldiers and equipment to other, smaller nations.

Also, the proposal doesn't determine exactly how the lending of soldiers should happen, or who is responsible for the cost of travel. The Imperial Republic cannot, by national law, share technology with less advanced civilizations. Therefore, we cannot lend soldiers to less advanced civilizations and we resent someone saying we have to. We would, voluntarily, toss in military support to those who are at war, should we be able to do so. If not, we have no problem providing humanitarian aid. What you should put in there is that neutral nations should provide what help they are able to when someone is at war. If that's no help, it's no help. If it's military aid, it's military aid. If it's humanitarian, then it's humanitarian. Forcing people to provide soldiers is going to weaken everyone all around. Alternatively, the whole bit about lending soldiers could be dropped.

Paula Jenner, Rutianas Ambassador

[Zemnaya Svoboda]

"While the Soyedinyonniyi Schtati believe that if you want peace, you should prepare for war, we understand that many nations do not share our view. Indeed, there are many circumstances where small nations under the protection of greater ones find an army to be a liability, a possible source of coups. Therefore, the Soyedinyonniyi Schtati will oppose this proposal if it reaches the floor and shall seek for our Delegate to oppose its nomination."

[The Palentine]

We fundamentally object to the proposal on the grounds that a nation's military should be supported by citizens of that nation, or citizens of its colonies as the case may be.

We also feel that it's flawed to suggest that every nation keep a military of a certain size. Some nations are in regions where it is is just silly to have a large military because either your neighbours are not militant themselves or you're your own continent/world. Of course, the other problem is, 'sizable' is not defined, and if it is, it should be a percentage, something like 0.5% of the nation's total population.

I agree. One of the problems I've has with some of the jeeters on the II forum was their unrealisticly large army. Logically a nation of 1 million cannot support a military of 500,000 soldiers. as you say, a percentage should be defined(I use 1% for peacetime, 2.5%-4% for War time. Anything above 10% would be unsubstainable for the long term). However this is a problem best left to individual nations to decide for themselves, so the Palentine would opposethis resolution.

[The Altan Steppes]

Description: RECOGNIZING that defense is an important concern for any nation.

Yes.

ACKNOLEDGING that pacifism is believed to be a viable course of action

Not to us, but hey, if pacifism works for some nations, more power to them.

ALARMED that certain countries in the World Assembly could fall under the control of powerful, outside nations.

It happens all the time. Not our problem.

PROPOSING that all WA nations be required to have a sizeable military force.

So, we acknowledge that pacifism "is a viable course of action", yet we're going to force pacifist nations to not be pacifist? Why, exactly? And what if they have moral objections to having a military, or can't afford it?

ALSO PROPOSING that smaller,poorer nations that cannot afford to support a military be provided soldiers under the direct control of that nations Cheif of State

Ah, one question answered at least...so we're to form some kind of military dole, where we lend soldiers to nations that frankly should be defending themselves? Nonsense. The Federation Defense Forces, and our government, work damn hard to maintain a professional and competent standing defense force for ourselves, and we're not in the business of charity.

-Arjel Khazaran, Deputy Ambassador

[Civylia]

I strongly disagree. No nation should be forced to have a military if they don't want one. In some cases, it would simply be impractical. Furthermore, how can you recognize that pacifism is a viable course of action while forcing pacifict nations to not be pacifist?

[Grand Europic States]

Grand Europic States strongly opposes this proposal, we consider it to be against our ideals of peace and thus will not support it in any way shape or form.

Europic Diplomatic Corps
Grand Europic States

[Allied Governments]

Allied Governments would be fully willing to station occupa- I mean defense forces inside nations that require them, namely ones which lack a military and are high in resources.

[Ruana]

Mandatory Military? Next you will be asking for me to have Mandatory Shoe Shining. In my opionion this is a highly ridiculous proposal.
Reason being, is that each and every nation, should have the right to decided whether they have a Military Or not to have one.
If a Peaceful Nation gets invaded, it is up to the Peaceful Nation to make an alliance or strike up a friendship, with a nation that has a Military. But to ask or impose such a proposal on these nations, is highly immoral.

It is also up to the nations that have Military to offer aid or allying themself to nations that dont have the ediquite Military to support itself or Peaceful Nations.

Hasnt the W.A passed a Legislation in regards to the Military already?

[The Rotan]

I find this proposal highly objectional, not only because it is self-contradictory, but it forces an idealogical view on another. How dare we force someone to maintain a military that doesn't want it? Defense is all well and good, but there are some nations that neither need, nor desire it. Their neutrality is so well known, that targeting them is rarely even thought of, much less attempted.

Secondly, in my observations of war, there will always be those who feel the need to jump to the defense of such a nation in the event someone DOES decide to invade. The combined forces of the heroic nations should be more than enough to count as defense.

Third, as has been noted in other places, at other times, how is the WA to decide what sort of technology to share? For instance, we have researched the mysteries of Time and Space extensively, and our technology reflects that. Are you suggesting that a fleet of Arbiters be sent to someone that can't even leave their own atmosphere for defensive purposes? Or maybe some Collossi, because giant fifty foot tall war machines that can climb mountains won't be an unfair advantage against tanks that can barely climb hills at all. Even if we were to spare our basic foot soldiers, the Zealots, our unique physiology gives us a natural energy shield.

On the opposite angle, what if its decided we don't have a large enough military, do you really think your assault rifles are going to do us any good at all? Your nukes that you frown so highly upon are close to being of assistance, but still won't do any lasting damage against our enemy. How would it even get to us in the first place?

On a bit lower scale, just one of your stealth bombers could easily descimate an army from a nation that hasn't even made it to the industiral age yet, while their swords and catapults would be laughable in your wars.

No, in recognition of the staggering technological differences between some nations, and the ideological view it seeks to force upon others, I must state my opposition to this bill.

Yours,
Judicator Aldaris, Rotanian Ambassador to The World Assembly.

[Philimbesi]

So let me see, you want to take a pacifist nation and arm them, that should provide for a well trained killing machine of an army.

Plus after spending the time, money, and energy it takes to get a USoP soldier from green to trained, you think that we should donate them to a poorer nation, a nation they have no emotional ties or loyalty to, and then you want us to allow another nations leader the ability to issue orders to them. What if his order is to invade USoP?

Opposed.

Nigel S Youlkin
WA Ambassador.

[Morlago]

I strongly disagree. No nation should be forced to have a military if they don't want one. In some cases, it would simply be impractical. Furthermore, how can you recognize that pacifism is a viable course of action while forcing pacifict nations to not be pacifist?

I agree with Civylia. No nation shall be forced to have a military. I would suggest either to change it to "Encourages WA nations to have a military" or "Allows WA nations to have a military of ... men".

Yours,

[Tiesabre]

The Free Land of Tiesabre does not support this resolution on the grounds that should a peaceful nation be peaceful, that is their choice and we have no right to force them otherwise.

Now I do understand helping another nation in the event of invasion and they plead for help. But not because they simply have no military.

This proposal is opposed by the Free Land of Tiesabre.

[Doctor Cyclops]

In the words of our great and illustrious people (by which I mean myself):

Not by the hairs on our chinny-chin-chins!

[Taprobain]

I am in for this, I agree with the balance of power...when it come to military.

[Qumkent]

This resolution is nothing of the kind, it is a joke, it seems to have been written by an illiterate and a is utterly foolish. We cannot believe that it's authors can have thought this idea was practical, sensible or moral.

Yours,