Page 3 of 4

PostPosted: Sun Jul 07, 2019 8:47 am
by Araraukar
Cossack Khanate wrote:OOC: I would specify more on Clause 3b, because it may be within reason for nations to conscript, for example, Green Card holders during very dire emergencies. What are people’s thoughts on this?

OOC: ...or instituting a "serve or leave" kind of thing (and for IA and others, I'm thinking of like existential level of severity of conflict, here, where anyone not involved in the war effort being a drain on limited resources).

PostPosted: Sun Jul 07, 2019 4:53 pm
by Inhorto
Araraukar wrote:Perhaps you or author can tell me if clause 4 means that if the war lasts longer than 4 years, you can't have the soldiers/sailors serving for the duration of the war, but instead a completely arbitrarily decided 4 years?

There are always new recruits and people into the population that can be brought into the army. As people who have fully served their four years leave, a new class of recruits will be able to take their place.

Oh and does clause 5 ban "rehearsal drills"? I can't dig out the English term from my memory right now, but like, say you are conscripted right out of school, serve your time, go home, have a life, and when you turn 35, you're asked to come back for a couple of weeks to rehearse the skills you learned during your original year(s) of service. The point being that if a war does break out, your soldiering skills will be more up to date than as forgotten as what was the capital of Zaire (which, I know, doesn't exist under that name anymore)

No, it only forces nations to budget their conscription time. For example, a country could require conscription from the ages of 18 - 20 (2 years), and then require each person to return for retraining every five years (25, 30, 35, 40, etc.) for a period of, say, three months. At that rate, a country could require retraining until the person is sixty for the maximum time period to be fulfilled. I can do the math in a spreadsheet if you are unconvinced.

Of course, your arguments do not consider that there will surely be many willing citizens who will gladly take up arms to defend their nation.

Cossack Khanate wrote:OOC: I would specify more on Clause 3b, because it may be within reason for nations to conscript, for example, Green Card holders during very dire emergencies. What are people’s thoughts on this?

Otherwise, this proposal is very interesting and, I think, non-partisan. Commendable.

Thank you. I oppose the conscription of non-citizens, but I do understand where you are coming from. I will consider it.

PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2019 4:35 am
by Bears Armed
Cossack Khanate wrote:OOC: I would specify more on Clause 3b, because it may be within reason for nations to conscript, for example, Green Card holders during very dire emergencies. What are people’s thoughts on this?
OOC
'Green Card' = RL Reference, = Illegal.

PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2019 4:41 am
by Marxist Germany
"This gains my support."

PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:16 am
by Kenmoria
Bears Armed wrote:
Cossack Khanate wrote:OOC: I would specify more on Clause 3b, because it may be within reason for nations to conscript, for example, Green Card holders during very dire emergencies. What are people’s thoughts on this?
OOC
'Green Card' = RL Reference, = Illegal.

(OOC: I think Cossack Khanate was using that as an example, rather than suggesting adding that to the text.)

PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:41 am
by Araraukar
Inhorto wrote:
Araraukar wrote:Perhaps you or author can tell me if clause 4 means that if the war lasts longer than 4 years, you can't have the soldiers/sailors serving for the duration of the war, but instead a completely arbitrarily decided 4 years?

There are always new recruits and people into the population that can be brought into the army. As people who have fully served their four years leave, a new class of recruits will be able to take their place.

OOC: I don't think you quite appreciate the death/injury rate of new recruits compared to veterans, nor the fact that just putting a person in uniform and handing them a gun does not a soldier make. Or the fact that in small countries (think population under 5 million) you don't have an unlimited number of fresh recruits anyway, and in the cases where the actual nation's actual existence is threatened by the invading force, requiring nations to let their veterans go and replace them entirely with recruits would in essence mean the loss of the nation (or at least its independence).

No, it only forces nations to budget their conscription time. For example, a country could require conscription from the ages of 18 - 20 (2 years), and then require each person to return for retraining every five years (25, 30, 35, 40, etc.) for a period of, say, three months. At that rate, a country could require retraining until the person is sixty for the maximum time period to be fulfilled. I can do the math in a spreadsheet if you are unconvinced.

So it's the total (not counting war) time, then, not a "single serving". That makes a bit more sense, but still, why 4 years? What is the logic based on?

Of course, your arguments do not consider that there will surely be many willing citizens who will gladly take up arms to defend their nation.

See the bit about small nations above. And yes I'm sure many/most would be willing, but this is likely going to be problematic for you when this gets to voting stage.

Cossack Khanate wrote:OOC: I would specify more on Clause 3b, because it may be within reason for nations to conscript, for example, Green Card holders during very dire emergencies. What are people’s thoughts on this?

Thank you. I oppose the conscription of non-citizens, but I do understand where you are coming from. I will consider it.

Would you consider the active wartime exception for the serving length too, please? You could even specify it for defensive war (nation being invaded) only.

PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2019 7:23 pm
by Inhorto
Araraukar wrote:[-]

The wording is clunky and I will likely rewrite it, but here is a clause making an exception for purely defensive wars:
ALLOWS Members to retain conscripted soldiers for an indefinite amount of time if and only if that Member is fighting an exclusively defensive war wherein the territorial integrity of that Member is in grievous jeopardy;

PostPosted: Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:16 am
by Araraukar
Inhorto wrote:
Araraukar wrote:[-]

The wording is clunky and I will likely rewrite it, but here is a clause making an exception for purely defensive wars:
ALLOWS Members to retain conscripted soldiers for an indefinite amount of time if and only if that Member is fighting an exclusively defensive war wherein the territorial integrity of that Member is in grievous jeopardy;

OOC: Use "member states" instead of "Members" (and don't capitalize it), but otherwise that's a good addition. Thank you. :)

PostPosted: Wed Jul 10, 2019 3:06 pm
by Inhorto
Araraukar wrote:OOC: Use "member states" instead of "Members" (and don't capitalize it), but otherwise that's a good addition. Thank you. :)

Inhorto wrote:Separatist Peoples capitalized "Member(s)" in his edits. I thought this was odd, so I looked through UN resolutions and they capitalize "Members" as well.

PostPosted: Wed Jul 10, 2019 3:17 pm
by Araraukar
Inhorto wrote:*snip*

OOC: But we're not the UNmentionable organization for a good reason. Capitalizing Nouns that are not Names makes Text look weird.

PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 2:19 pm
by Inhorto
Araraukar wrote:
Inhorto wrote:*snip*

OOC: But we're not the UNmentionable organization for a good reason. Capitalizing Nouns that are not Names makes Text look weird.

Sorry for the late reply, but on such a matter I shall hold my position.

PostPosted: Sun Jul 14, 2019 4:40 pm
by La Montevideo
Kenmoria wrote:
La Montevideo wrote:But Aren't You Forgetting About The National Security?

(OOC: The draft explicitly permits conscription, and lots of the groups that are prohibited from conscription wouldn’t be of much use anyway: the disabled, elderly, children and sick. Only those that have dependents could fight just as well, and the war effort would still be helped by the populace being looked after by them.)


Now I See Why.

PostPosted: Wed Jul 24, 2019 7:52 pm
by Inhorto
Are there any other criticisms of this proposal?

PostPosted: Wed Jul 24, 2019 11:30 pm
by Kenmoria
“In clause 4b, I recommend adding that sailors should also be released upon reaching a friendly shore, if there is a reasonable way for them to return home from that point.”

PostPosted: Wed Jul 24, 2019 11:32 pm
by The New Nordic Union
PROHIBITS all Members from conscripting: [...]

Citizens exempted by operation of diplomatic service,


'Why should this be prohibited by international law? Sure, it would be impractical and maybe not very sensible to do so, but if a member nation wants to implement such a policy... why should they not be able to?'

PostPosted: Thu Jul 25, 2019 12:13 am
by Kenmoria
The New Nordic Union wrote:
PROHIBITS all Members from conscripting: [...]

Citizens exempted by operation of diplomatic service,


'Why should this be prohibited by international law? Sure, it would be impractical and maybe not very sensible to do so, but if a member nation wants to implement such a policy... why should they not be able to?'

“It harms international relations for one thing, and could be seen as very disrespectful if interpreted wrongly. I don’t see how the added military aid offsets the large possible global relations problems.”

PostPosted: Thu Jul 25, 2019 10:17 am
by Drystar
I’m curious how you arrived at the service time of 4 years? Also, you mention purely defensive wars, but for argument sake, let’s assume the defensive action holds out until the offensive negates itself. Are you then saying that a country that then shifts to an offensive stance to prosecute a final ending to the war has to release vast numbers of soldiers and retrain new ones to somehow fill their place?

PostPosted: Thu Jul 25, 2019 2:48 pm
by Inhorto
Drystar wrote:I’m curious how you arrived at the service time of 4 years? Also, you mention purely defensive wars, but for argument sake, let’s assume the defensive action holds out until the offensive negates itself. Are you then saying that a country that then shifts to an offensive stance to prosecute a final ending to the war has to release vast numbers of soldiers and retrain new ones to somehow fill their place?

The four-year length was drawn from the approximate length of the First World War, which lasted a few months over four years. The purpose of the purely defensive clause is to allow countries to conscript soldiers who have already served the maximum four years if and only if that country is being invaded. The purpose of any conscription after four years would then solely be in the name of defending the territorial integrity of the nation under purely defensive terms. In this situation, yes, the country who would switch from defense to offense would be obligated to release those serving involuntarily. I see this as a good point, however, as it would discourage nations from prosecuting offensive wars.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 25, 2019 3:59 pm
by Drystar
Inhorto wrote:
Drystar wrote:I’m curious how you arrived at the service time of 4 years? Also, you mention purely defensive wars, but for argument sake, let’s assume the defensive action holds out until the offensive negates itself. Are you then saying that a country that then shifts to an offensive stance to prosecute a final ending to the war has to release vast numbers of soldiers and retrain new ones to somehow fill their place?

The four-year length was drawn from the approximate length of the First World War, which lasted a few months over four years. The purpose of the purely defensive clause is to allow countries to conscript soldiers who have already served the maximum four years if and only if that country is being invaded. The purpose of any conscription after four years would then solely be in the name of defending the territorial integrity of the nation under purely defensive terms. In this situation, yes, the country who would switch from defense to offense would be obligated to release those serving involuntarily. I see this as a good point, however, as it would discourage nations from prosecuting offensive wars.


No war is “won” by being fully defensive. You have to be able to force a solution, other wise it just turns into one long bloodbath like the fore mentioned World War. I can’t see how releasing your veteran soldiers and bring up raw recruits will do anything but increase the carnage. Sort of a living (or dying) example of what not to do. Plus depending on the amount of technology involved, it takes time to train soldiers to use weapon systems properly, as a previous post mentioned, being a soldier is more then dropping them in a uniform and handing them arms. While I currently have no suggestions other the the comments I’ve made, I will watch the debate going on here, since service in my nation is a universal obligation for the majority of the population.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 25, 2019 4:19 pm
by Imperium Anglorum
You can't win a war by defending. At maximum, it would yield a white peace.

PostPosted: Thu Jul 25, 2019 9:35 pm
by Inhorto
Drystar wrote:[-]

Imperium Anglorum wrote:[-]

I don't ostensibly disagree with what either of you is saying; the only problem is that the line has to be drawn somewhere. The exception made here for defensive wars is to allow nations to garrison soldiers in situations wherein the territorial integrity of that country is under serious threat. Once the national territory is secured, if a nation wants to sue for an offensive war, that's their prerogative and their citizens are no longer obligated to fight on foreign soil if their time has already lapsed. If we just allowed all nations to conscript indefinitely during war, then this resolution would be toothless.

Once again, one must consider that there will certainly be willing citizens, arguably more than unwilling citizens, who would take up arms to protect their country. If there aren't, then I would think that that country should rethink why it is going to war in the first place, as well as what sort of authority it can actually command from its citizenry.

PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2019 6:39 am
by Drystar
Inhorto wrote:
Drystar wrote:[-]

Imperium Anglorum wrote:[-]

I don't ostensibly disagree with what either of you is saying; the only problem is that the line has to be drawn somewhere. The exception made here for defensive wars is to allow nations to garrison soldiers in situations wherein the territorial integrity of that country is under serious threat. Once the national territory is secured, if a nation wants to sue for an offensive war, that's their prerogative and their citizens are no longer obligated to fight on foreign soil if their time has already lapsed. If we just allowed all nations to conscript indefinitely during war, then this resolution would be toothless.

Once again, one must consider that there will certainly be willing citizens, arguably more than unwilling citizens, who would take up arms to protect their country. If there aren't, then I would think that that country should rethink why it is going to war in the first place, as well as what sort of authority it can actually command from its citizenry.



OOC: I’m assuming you paid enough attention to the mentioned world war that was defensive in nature on the western front. No decisions were made ultimately, which led to the next world war, where having learned their lessons, the allies demanded unconditional surrender and backed it by offensive actions. All sides used conscription because there were never enough bodies to fill the spaces, but the conscription was open ended, which gave the draftees incentive to finish the war. Only a very few want war, most want to finish it as quick as possible. By assigning a rather arbitrary time period as a limit, that promises to drag out the conflicts that you would rather not happen.

PostPosted: Sat Aug 03, 2019 2:35 am
by American Pere Housh
"My nation follows many these proposed rules. Our citizens serve 2 years of conscription and have the choice to stay voluntarily or go back to their lives. We will voting aye if this proposal comes to a vote."

PostPosted: Sun Aug 04, 2019 6:05 pm
by Liberimery
Imperium Anglorum wrote:You can't win a war by defending. At maximum, it would yield a white peace.


The US Revolutionary war, the war of 1812, and the Vietnam war were won by the team playing defense to name three wars. The Russo-Japanese war was a humiliating defeat for Russia, who declared war on the Japanese.

PostPosted: Mon Aug 05, 2019 5:00 am
by Araraukar
Liberimery wrote:
Imperium Anglorum wrote:You can't win a war by defending. At maximum, it would yield a white peace.

The US Revolutionary war, the war of 1812, and the Vietnam war were won by the team playing defense to name three wars. The Russo-Japanese war was a humiliating defeat for Russia, who declared war on the Japanese.

OOC: Also Finland in 2nd World War. (Well, "winning" is always a bit relative, but not getting annexed by Russia - which was Russia's goal - is counted as a win, despite the loss of some areas and reparations required.)