[Defeated] Ban on Forced Service

[Picairn]

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.

OOC: Nah, I will continue to posit about collective defense at my pleasure. What else can I call it, aside from a "rant", for obsessively responding to every OOC comment of mine even as they are largely directed towards another player? I never called you up to discuss ethics, that was my reply to Cessarea. You impulsively quoted my posts and ranted about how I'm stupid and fascist and stuff, that's on you.

I don't have any more strength to argue with you ICly at the moment, it's night here and I'm going to sleep. I'm disinclined to reply further in the morning because of the levels of hyperbole and insults on display, I think I'll just get a seat and watch how this all comes down to.

[Picairn]

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

Are you going to stalk me or something? I'd advise you not to.

[Second Sovereignty]

OOC: Nah, I will continue to posit about collective defense at my pleasure. What else can I call it, aside from a "rant", for obsessively responding to every OOC comment of mine even as they are largely directed towards another player? I never called you up to discuss ethics, that was my reply to Cessarea. You impulsively quoted my posts and ranted about how I'm stupid and fascist and stuff, that's on you.

OOC:
These aren't your TGs, guy, this is, literally, a public forum, if you want to make inane arguments about my draft, in the drafting thread, expect to be responded to.

Are you going to stalk me or something? I'd advise you not to.

Uh huh. Normal thing to say to someone; gross, never talk to me again, yeah?

[Cessarea]

[...]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Hang on, tangent if you don't mind; has something changed since GAR #2 was repealed?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.

There is, actually. GA#654, Article 3. It also forbids unnecessary delay to the implementation of WA law, although I question how effective that is.

As for the rest of your post, I can respect your unwillingness to compromise on this issue. I'll vote for it, most likely, but I hope that your assertion on the political support for this proposal proves correct when voting comes. All the best, Comrade.

[Picairn]

OOC:
These aren't your TGs, guy, this is, literally, a public forum, if you want to make inane arguments about my draft, in the drafting thread, expect to be responded to.

Uh huh. Normal thing to say to someone; gross, never talk to me again, yeah?

Ok, then don't be surprised that I call your posts a rant.

What's gross is marking someone down for some undisclosed reason and stating it openly. Do you have an obsession or personal hatred of me?

[Iaepatius]

The People's Republic of Iaepatius recognizes the importance of individual freedoms of the People, that are holy and must be preserved and defended. However, much of this freedom relies on the Revolutionary labor and strength of the Iaepatusian People's Army, as well as the other esteemed branches of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Iaepatius!

Thus, PR Iaepatius unfortunately cannot support this measure in its current form. Conscription is a necessary measure to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the Fatherland, a view that an overwhelming amount of young Iaepatusians share. Military service is compensated generously and fairly. In closing, the Iaepatusian People are always ready and eager to defend their beloved, shining Fatherland!

[Second Sovereignty]

In closing, the Iaepatusian People are always ready and eager to defend their beloved, shining Fatherland!

"I'm sure they are; it is by sheer patriotism and love for state officials for which the people demand they show up armed at their door before they head on off to the recruitment center, yes?"

OOC:
Keeping this one alive... Clocking is ticking.

[Senterus]

MOEF Senterus:The dictatorship of Senterus strongly opposes this draft. Forced consciptions are absolutely necessary for a smaller nation to have a steady inflow of reserves in order to protect itself against stronger imperialistic powers. While some may argue this violates the rights and freedoms of individuals, we retort by saying that the main reason for the existence of such a policy is to protect the same rights and freedom of individuals by strengthening the defence forces of the state - preventing any aggressive force from trying to take over the nation thus protecting the rights of it citizens.

It is a necessary sacrifice that the citizens of a nation pay in order to get the benefits from it such as land,shelter, welfare,supplies etc. Removing such a policy would prove to be a death sentence for weaker and smaller nations. In fact, in our case the citizens would voluntarily admit themselves into the program even if we remove forced conscriptions as reviewd by the survey which estimates the percentage of people agreeing to be around 99.96 % . The survey has been fact-checked by the MOIC Senterus. (Ministry of Information Correction Senterus)

[Juansonia]

Everything I put in quotation marks is ICly from Maria-Fernanda Novo

"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."

--snipped narrator-perspective (possibly OOC) insult from Second Sovereignty--

"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."

"You asked about whether certain quantities of men with small arms would be able to defeat an enemy firing computer-guided artillery from a fortified position. If you meant for it to serve as an uncontested piece of rhetoric, phrasing it as a question - begging for people to answer it - doesn't help. Given reasonable nation theory, any military would teach even an intentionally expended conscript the principles 'don't stand in an open field' and 'use gunfire to suppress the enemy so your comrades can move somewhat safely' before the conscript left for the front. If you want me to believe that 'factors that aren't in the original point' were in my answer, point one of them out. Also, your rhetoric skills seem to be in need of improvement, given that your only response to factual-matter refutation is a tirade of ad hominems that do not prove your assumption correct."

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.

"The fact that some within this multiverse engage in slavery, settler-colonialism, and genocide is indeed a big problem. Naturally, Juansonia has a vested interest in stopping these atrocities from harming those under her protection."

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.

"What is your attitude on Euthanasia? Could the difference be that you, being a sole individual, can only think of circumstances worse than death if they are on a personal scale?"

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.

"People, and hours of labor, are resources. Conscription is a way to leverage them more effectively than relying on volunteers, and it changes whether a country can muster enough resources."

[Relikai]

"Why is it that any anti-conscription proposal assumes that the conscript is an uneducated, ignorant person on the battlefield?

"Taking examples from Earth, the South Korean, Singaporean and Israeli militaries practice conscription to maintain the bulk of their forces, and each soldier go through at least three months of physical and basic soldiering training before a full year in a proper vocation in a unit listed under their own Orders of Battle.

"Conscripts learn how to operate artillery, serve as combat engineers, drive and maintain heavy armored vehicles, maintain modern fighter jets, serve on sophisticated guided missile warships. Some even go through elite training in their Guards and Special Operations ventures during their time of service. I do not know where the misguided conception of the 'stupid conscript' comes from, but rest assured not all nations and their leaders live under that assumption."

[Second Sovereignty]

"You asked about whether certain quantities of men with small arms would be able to defeat an enemy firing computer-guided artillery from a fortified position. If you meant for it to serve as an uncontested piece of rhetoric, phrasing it as a question - begging for people to answer it - doesn't help.

"Honestly... you're not wearing a name tag and I don't remember who you are, so, whoever you are, do you, really think that, my posing a question 'to the class', for 'extra credit' and 'the gold star' was meant as a genuine, serious question? I was being condescending, because I consider your position entirely disconnected from reality." He clapped a pair of hands together again. "There; veil lifted. I shall no longer presume that you are capable of discerning between the obviously absurd and the absurdly obvious. And that's entirely serious, for the record."

Also, your rhetoric skills seem to be in need of improvement, given that your only response to factual-matter refutation is a tirade of ad hominems that do not prove your assumption correct."

"This coming from the man who so eagerly placed himself in the role of a primary student, to answer a rhetorical question just moments ago? If you go and restrain your petty offense long enough to say, read the transcript from that lovely gnome over there," he waved to the Secretariat's dark-robed figure in the corner. The gnome was too focused on his work to wave back; alas. "You'll find that I made quite a few good points, if I do say so myself, all of which you have studiously ignored in favor of, picking apart a trivial example used to demonstrate a point. Perhaps engage with the point.

Allow me to illustrate it a little clearer for you; Nation A, is, shall we say, decades out of date in equipment, has fraction of the armed forces total of Nation B, - in land, navy, and aircraft totals; we will assume spacecraft are not a factor to account for your society's technological understanding, - and has dramatically inferior and highly vulnerable industrial capabilities, little to no defense-in-depth infrastructure, no actual military allies.

Nation B is an imperialist state with an extremely well organized military of well-known horrific effectiveness and otherwise horrific actions besides, immense productive capabilities safely within its own borders and those of secure allies, a heavily militarized border with little chance of crossing back for Nation A, fully modern equipment, economic and political power to push through any demands it so pleases internationally.

Nation B's first strike is a horrific, surprise bombing campaign making no distinction between civilian and military targets which utterly destroys most core military and public infrastructure ahead of any actual invasion force arriving, making use of the wild obsolescence of Nation A's defense infrastructure to render its advanced stealth craft almost untouchable. When the invasion force arrives, merely days later, it is better trained, better equipped, better organized, better commanded, better supplied, and very secure in its allies. And, in every field, navy, air, infantry and armor, they double Nation A's immediately available forces easily.

Do tell me; exactly how many conscripts do you think it will take to defeat this enemy? How many more when their own reinforcements arrive? And, more importantly, what exactly is going to stop them toppling Nation A's government entirely well before it can organize a second wave? Will the underground resistance begin dragging people in off the streets and demanding they fight the occupation? How long exactly do you think it will be before one of those let's generously still call them conscripts, gets the away from the lunatics living in the wilderness and starts telling people 'the resistance literally kidnapped me!'. Do you think that is going to build support for Nation A? Or will the citizenry perhaps begin to realize that their government-in-exile doesn't really care for their lives all that much at all. Serious questions, these ones."

"The fact that some within this multiverse engage in slavery, settler-colonialism, and genocide is indeed a big problem. Naturally, Juansonia has a vested interest in stopping these atrocities from harming those under her protection."

"So says the person demanding the right to march those very same people directly into the fires. That's not really protecting anyone. How many of your children are you putting towards the war effort, good patriot and hero? When are you abandoning your comfortable diplomatic position to fight the good fight? Are you entirely prepared to go off and die in one of the most horrific ways imaginable by any living creature, right now? No time to put your affairs in order, no last-second goodbyes, the war is on, and you are needed for your country. If yes, go volunteer, clearly you've the mindset for it; why wait for officers to arrive with your papers and a prison threat? If no, do question why you're inclined to make that choice for everyone else."

"What is your attitude on Euthanasia? Could the difference be that you, being a sole individual, can only think of circumstances worse than death if they are on a personal scale?"

"Different thing entirely. Notably, voluntary. Unless, of course, your government makes a habit of euthanizing people for some, greater good, or other such nonsense, in which case, you really don't have any ground to grandstand with regards to genocide. As for the difference, I don't believe in circumstances worse than death at all; I also don't presume to make that choice for people. It's almost like my beliefs in the ethical operation of government are, despite your apparent confidence, entirely consistent, and part of a coherent political philosophy well grounded in the world and the available evidence, and primarily geared towards the improvement of society by expanding the rights and improving the conditions of the citizenry."

"People, and hours of labor, are resources. Conscription is a way to leverage them more effectively than relying on volunteers, and it changes whether a country can muster enough resources."

"People are resources; that's a dire phrase if ever one there was. I am sure your people will be happy to hear the high esteem in which their government holds them. Here's an alternative view; people are living creatures, each entitled to be treated with respect and dignity at all times, regardless of circumstance, and only abrogated to the absolute minimum necessary extent necessary for the health of society as a whole. You treat prisoners well, because if you treat them horribly, they're not going to return to society even just 'as bad' as when they went out of it, and will likely be worse. You don't enslave people because it produces, and, bluntly, emerges from, systems of exploited and privileged classes which will reproduce and reinforce themselves socially, economically, and politically, leading to the stratification of society upon class lines which leads to all manner of other problems. Let me lay it out plainly for you; the Sovereign has no desire to prop up the regimes of Governments which have declared their citizens to be expendable resources, to be leveraged as they see fit for the maintenance of their power."

"Why is it that any anti-conscription proposal assumes that the conscript is an uneducated, ignorant person on the battlefield?
"Taking examples from Earth, the South Korean, Singaporean and Israeli militaries practice conscription to maintain the bulk of their forces, and each soldier go through at least three months of physical and basic soldiering training before a full year in a proper vocation in a unit listed under their own Orders of Battle.
"Conscripts learn how to operate artillery, serve as combat engineers, drive and maintain heavy armored vehicles, maintain modern fighter jets, serve on sophisticated guided missile warships. Some even go through elite training in their Guards and Special Operations ventures during their time of service. I do not know where the misguided conception of the 'stupid conscript' comes from, but rest assured not all nations and their leaders live under that assumption."

"Cleverly, if you read the text, you will find no such assumption; no fault of yours, really, the, debate has wandered itself into a corner, as the plight of militarily-weaker nations against the better-equipped is more moving an argument, if you don't know what you're talking about, and thus no one really considers the much less justifiable practices of..." Raxes pulls out his tablet and quickly looks up whatever absurd little countries this person is talking about, "An arguably-former military dictatorship, a literal city-state, and an apartheid regime... Surely you don't seriously mean to use those as positive examples of the practice's use?"

--snipped narrator-perspective (possibly OOC) insult from Second Sovereignty--

OOC:
I assure you, anything I mean out-of-character will be clearly marked as such. See that little tag above.

[Eternal Algerstonia]

The Eternal Empire of Algerstonia opposes this blatant act of globalism that will degrade our national security faster than the hordes of illegal immigrants invading our southern border will. We will fight back against the NWO with everything we have when the Deep State comes for us, and if this resolution designed to destroy our armed forces passes, then we just won't comply. Second Sovereignty, if this resolution is passed, we will declare war against your country, and we will launch a firestorm of rockets and bombers at you. We are in direct contact with armed patriotic states across the multiverse that are planning their own special military operations against your country. You will be overran within days.

[Juansonia]

Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador for the Armed Republic of Juansonia, sets down her beeswax tablet and smartphone.

"You asked about whether certain quantities of men with small arms would be able to defeat an enemy firing computer-guided artillery from a fortified position. If you meant for it to serve as an uncontested piece of rhetoric, phrasing it as a question - begging for people to answer it - doesn't help.

"Honestly... you're not wearing a name tag and I don't remember who you are, so, whoever you are, do you, really think that, my posing a question 'to the class', for 'extra credit' and 'the gold star' was meant as a genuine, serious question? I was being condescending, because I consider your position entirely disconnected from reality." He clapped a pair of hands together again. "There; veil lifted. I shall no longer presume that you are capable of discerning between the obviously absurd and the absurdly obvious. And that's entirely serious, for the record."

OOC: Her name was literally in the first line of the post which you replied to.

IC:

"I was, in fact, aware of the condescending intent of the question. I was also aware that said question was meant to express an assumption, that a minor technological advantage makes an adversary undefeatable, which is the basis of your entire point. I refuted said basis, and you have yet to respond. While I feel an ethical obligation to presumethat other ambassadors are acting with well intentions, that is subject to a line which your conduct approaches."

Also, your rhetoric skills seem to be in need of improvement, given that your only response to factual-matter refutation is a tirade of ad hominems that do not prove your assumption correct."

"This coming from the man who so eagerly placed himself in the role of a primary student, to answer a rhetorical question just moments ago?

"There you are, at it again. "

"Allow me to illustrate it a little clearer for you;

Nation A, is, shall we say, decades out of date in equipment, has fraction of the armed forces total of Nation B, - in land, navy, and aircraft totals; we will assume spacecraft are not a factor to account for your society's technological understanding, - and has dramatically inferior and highly vulnerable industrial capabilities, little to no defense-in-depth infrastructure, no actual military allies.

Nation B is an imperialist state with an extremely well organized military of well-known horrific effectiveness and otherwise horrific actions besides, immense productive capabilities safely within its own borders and those of secure allies, a heavily militarized border with little chance of crossing back for Nation A, fully modern equipment, economic and political power to push through any demands it so pleases internationally.

Nation B's first strike is a horrific, surprise bombing campaign making no distinction between civilian and military targets which utterly destroys most core military and public infrastructure ahead of any actual invasion force arriving, making use of the wild obsolescence of Nation A's defense infrastructure to render its advanced stealth craft almost untouchable. When the invasion force arrives, merely days later, it is better trained, better equipped, better organized, better commanded, better supplied, and very secure in its allies. And, in every field, navy, air, infantry and armor, they double Nation A's immediately available forces easily.

Do tell me; exactly how many conscripts do you think it will take to defeat this enemy? How many more when their own reinforcements arrive? And, more importantly, what exactly is going to stop them toppling Nation A's government entirely well before it can organize a second wave? Will the underground resistance begin dragging people in off the streets and demanding they fight the occupation? How long exactly do you think it will be before one of those let's generously still call them conscripts, gets the away from the lunatics living in the wilderness and starts telling people 'the resistance literally kidnapped me!'. Do you think that is going to build support for Nation A? Or will the citizenry perhaps begin to realize that their government-in-exile doesn't really care for their lives all that much at all. Serious questions, these ones."

"While none of this information is specific enough to produce accurate figures, there are a few things worth consideration. First of all, the defender is (usually) willing to accept heavier losses in the name of their defense than the attacker is willing to accept in the name of offense - hence, why deterrence works. The same principle does apply after deterrence has failed - depleting the enemy's morale makes them more likely to surrender or undergo regime change. People tend to be more willing to defend their homes than to fight foreign wars, and that could easily be the difference between a strong defense and a wartime revolution or coup. Also, whether an insurgency conscripts personnel usually is not affected by whether the regular army would do so."

"The fact that some within this multiverse engage in slavery, settler-colonialism, and genocide is indeed a big problem. Naturally, Juansonia has a vested interest in stopping these atrocities from harming those under her protection."

"How many of your children are you putting towards the war effort, good patriot and hero?

"If one uses the standard IEEE 754, I would have put NaN of my children towards the war effort. Do you prefer a different standard's specification for how zero should be divided by itself?"

When are you abandoning your comfortable diplomatic position to fight the good fight? Are you entirely prepared to go off and die in one of the most horrific ways imaginable by any living creature, right now? No time to put your affairs in order, no last-second goodbyes, the war is on, and you are needed for your country.

"After a deferment for the purpose of university education, I served 12 years (far more than the one year of national service required) as an officer in the Juansonian Army. During my service, I rose up the ranks until I retired as a Lieutenant Colonel. However, I once was just a Junior Lieutenant, quite ready to fight along the rest of the platoon under my command. In fact, the entire 7th Armored Division was deployed as part of Operation Meadow Watch, and I saw combat once Operation Meadow Bayonet began. Currently, I am in the Retired Reserves, which means that I could be called up on to serve if necessary. While I would appreciate 2 days of notice, I am relatively confident that I'd be fine without such notice."

If yes, go volunteer, clearly you've the mindset for it; why wait for officers to arrive with your papers and a prison threat?

"Juansonia is not currently involved in an ongoing war, and me returning to the Army could, without enough time to bring a replacement Ambassador up to speed, cause significant harm to Juansonian interests."

If no, do question why you're inclined to make that choice for everyone else."

"I am not a head of state or a recruitment officer. I simply represent the interests of Juansonia, and one of those interests is allowing our allies to use conscription without being branded as international criminals for that act alone."

"What is your attitude on Euthanasia? Could the difference be that you, being a sole individual, can only think of circumstances worse than death if they are on a personal scale?"

"Different thing entirely. Notably, voluntary. Unless, of course, your government makes a habit of euthanizing people for some, greater good, or other such nonsense, in which case, you really don't have any ground to grandstand with regards to genocide. As for the difference, I don't believe in circumstances worse than death at all; I also don't presume to make that choice for people. It's almost like my beliefs in the ethical operation of government are, despite your apparent confidence, entirely consistent, and part of a coherent political philosophy well grounded in the world and the available evidence, and primarily geared towards the improvement of society by expanding the rights and improving the conditions of the citizenry."

"It could easily be argued that some conditions, such as being a victim of ongoing chattel slavery, are worse than death. It could also be argued that it's difficult to ensure the right of people to be free from said condition when they are occupied by a hostile state known to enslave people. Given that one uses a 'better than the most likely alternative near future' test instead of a 'better than current conditions' test to measure 'improving', sending conscripts into the trenches could improve the living conditions and expand the rights of those who survive the war."

"People, and hours of labor, are resources. Conscription is a way to leverage them more effectively than relying on volunteers, and it changes whether a country can muster enough resources."

"People are resources; that's a dire phrase if ever one there was. I am sure your people will be happy to hear the high esteem in which their government holds them. Here's an alternative view; people are living creatures, each entitled to be treated with respect and dignity at all times, regardless of circumstance, and only abrogated to the absolute minimum necessary extent necessary for the health of society as a whole. You treat prisoners well, because if you treat them horribly, they're not going to return to society even just 'as bad' as when they went out of it, and will likely be worse. You don't enslave people because it produces, and, bluntly, emerges from, systems of exploited and privileged classes which will reproduce and reinforce themselves socially, economically, and politically, leading to the stratification of society upon class lines which leads to all manner of other problems. Let me lay it out plainly for you; the Sovereign has no desire to prop up the regimes of Governments which have declared their citizens to be expendable resources, to be leveraged as they see fit for the maintenance of their power."

"Given that 'a source of supply, support, or aid, especially one that can be readily drawn upon when needed' is an acceptable definition of resource, it's clear that people are resources, much like how copper, philosophy, and labor are resources. I presume that you misinterpreted what I said due to the term 'resource' having connotations not present in Juansonian English."

edit: formatting.

[Soogts Matopao]

The Eternal Empire of Algerstonia opposes this blatant act of globalism that will degrade our national security faster than the hordes of illegal immigrants invading our southern border will. We will fight back against the NWO with everything we have when the Deep State comes for us, and if this resolution designed to destroy our armed forces passes, then we just won't comply. Second Sovereignty, if this resolution is passed, we will declare war against your country, and we will launch a firestorm of rockets and bombers at you. We are in direct contact with armed patriotic states across the multiverse that are planning their own special military operations against your country. You will be overran within days.

agreed, this draft is rather insane.

[Second Sovereignty]

OOC: Her name was literally in the first line of the post which you replied to.

OOC:
Oh, sorry, that's on me... it seems I was a little zealous in stripping off the narrative bits for formatting.
IC:

"I was, in fact, aware of the condescending intent of the question. I was also aware that said question was meant to express an assumption, that a minor technological advantage makes an adversary undefeatable, which is the basis of your entire point. I refuted said basis, and you have yet to respond. While I feel an ethical obligation to presume that other ambassadors are acting with well intentions, that is subject to a line which your conduct approaches."

Raxes clicked sharply; "Wrong! Nothing minor about it. Also, not the basis of anything, merely a front-piece of a larger, cohesive argument, which I laid out, in plainer terms, just before you spoke. I haven't responded to the picking apart of a framing example with point-dodging pedantry about camouflage and tactics and numbers, because it would be a waste of both of our time."

"There you are, at it again. "

"I can understand being upset with insults, but if you get offended at my carrying out my part a trade thereof, well, don't my insult my rhetorical skills while you're busy walking into rhetorical devices. Turn of phrase, by the way, 'trading insults', I'm sure that translates."

"While none of this information is specific enough to produce accurate figures, there are a few things worth consideration. First of all, the defender is (usually) willing to accept heavier losses in the name of their defense than the attacker is willing to accept in the name of offense - hence, why deterrence works. The same principle does apply after deterrence has failed - depleting the enemy's morale makes them more likely to surrender or undergo regime change. People tend to be more willing to defend their homes than to fight foreign wars, and that could easily be the difference between a strong defense and a wartime revolution or coup. Also, whether an insurgency conscripts personnel usually is not affected by whether the regular army would do so."

"Or... in other words, you don't have an answer to the questions." He clicked pointedly, yet again.

"You're willing to accept heavy losses in defense; fair for you, but heavy losses relative to the enemy is almost universally a sign of inferior circumstance, not a simple fact embraced in defense. What you lack in maneuverability, with certain defense strategies, you gain in solid fortification. If that is not enough to weigh at least the early phases of the defense in your favor, the outlook for later on is not good.
As for 'deterrence', I don't you know what military deterrence actually looks like. I mean, clearly, if you think it is the weight of your bodies the enemy must march through to achieve the objective that deters. A defense predicated on throwing as many lives at the enemy as possible in the hopes that the gore gums-up the tank-tracks, - hyperbole, not a serious assumption, that, - is, at best, desperation, and desperation does not work. An effective defense must be predicated upon minimizing losses of one's own personnel, equipment, and infrastructure, and maximizing expenditure of each from the enemy, and your ability to do that efficiently is what deters invasion. Not a calculus which you insist from the outset, is weighed in the favor of the invader.

Also, let me just say before I move on, it is incredibly funny that you are invoking voluntary soldiers as evidence that conscription is good. I will say that I quite agree that a healthy influx of willing recruits can indeed aid greatly in one's defense operations. But that's not what you mean to talk about, is it? It's just a broad brush to paint your conscripts as, 'willing, really, if you think about it', and thus justify the policy; say what you mean, please."

"If one uses the standard IEEE 754, I would have put NaN of my children towards the war effort. Do you prefer a different standard's specification for how zero should be divided by itself?"

"Well, that's a shame and half. I'm afraid you don't really have a choice; that's conscription for you." He paused, possibility dawning on him, "Unless you don't have children at all, which, we will assume is why you responded to yet another obviously rhetorical question seriously. I'll give you that one, I wouldn't have been able to resist myself, in your position. Regardless. I was, per usual, making a point, and I would prefer it if you engaged with it."

"After a deferment for the purpose of university education, I served 12 years (far more than the one year of national service required) as an officer in the Juansonian Army. During my service, I rose up the ranks until I retired as a Lieutenant Colonel. However, I once was just a Junior Lieutenant, quite ready to fight along the rest of the platoon under my command. In fact, the entire 7th Armored Division was deployed as part of Operation Meadow Watch, and I saw combat once Operation Meadow Bayonet began. Currently, I am in the Retired Reserves, which means that I could be called up on to serve if necessary. While I would appreciate 2 days of notice, I am relatively confident that I'd be fine without such notice."

"Oh you're a proud victim of one of those 'national service' countries; forgive me, I assumed your society at least pretended to be humane. I'm not going to be debating 'national service' type policies because they are fundamentally, obviously, and in-arguably appalling and I won't even entertain the idea that a defense of them can be made in good faith."

"I am not a head of state or a recruitment officer. I simply represent the interests of Juansonia, and one of those interests is allowing our allies to use conscription without being branded as international criminals for that act alone."

"Yes, and I represent the Sovereign, and it is within the interests of the people generally, - whom we are indeed presuming to speak for, as has been done time and again within these halls by others, - that their fundamental rights to be free of enslavement and exploitation and other horrors not be abrogated. If that means branding the perpetrators of such acts as international criminals, then so be it. We don't let slavers walk around proudly when they're doing it for labor; we don't see much reason to allow it when they're doing it for military advantage."

"It could easily be argued that some conditions, such as being a victim of ongoing chattel slavery, are worse than death. It could also be argued that it's difficult to ensure the right of people to be free from said condition when they are occupied by a hostile state known to enslave people. Given that one uses a 'better than the most likely alternative near future' test instead of a 'better than current conditions' test to measure 'improving', sending conscripts into the trenches could improve the living conditions and expand the rights of those who survive the war."

"You could argue that, yes, and like I explicitly said, I wouldn't argue the former, because I don't care to argue that point with anyone, as it's a determination they can only meaningfully make for themselves, and I certainly won't be caught on the defense of chattel-slavery. Unlike, well, you, funnily enough, with all that 'resource' talk. Let me state something else plainly; we don't let Member-States respond to genocide with genocide, nuclear annihilation, chemical bombardment, biological incursion, or radiological offense. Or, indeed, execution of prisoners, stripping of nationality, or prohibition on the import of otherwise-legal bees. Why, exactly, should we let Member-States respond to it with slavery?"

"Given that 'a source of supply, support, or aid, especially one that can be readily drawn upon when needed' is an acceptable definition of resource, it's clear that people are resources, much like how copper, philosophy, and labor are resources. I presume that you misinterpreted what I said due to the term 'resource' having connotations not present in Juansonian English."

"Pawning off the dire statement on a mistranslation, are we? And then you, go on and explicitly state you meant it exactly as it was interpreted before, cleverly framing me in misunderstanding without actually quieting your point to your allies. Decent debate strategy, but a poor shield to anyone who is, remotely aware of how these things work, especially given how you came out the door on the topic. Backpedaling into a, what's-the-word, 'dogwhistle'? The Sovereign will keep this in mind, for future interactions."

[Juansonia]

OOC: Her name was literally in the first line of the post which you replied to.

OOC:
Oh, sorry, that's on me... it seems I was a little zealous in stripping off the narrative bits for formatting.

No worries, but I might as well cram in some OOC things to say here:

I personally am opposed to Conscription, especially if it would be used by the regime which I live under.
However, my beliefs on it are milder than those which Raxes and the Sovereign ICly express, and Juansonia isn't meant to represent my OOC views on this matter.

Everything in quotes below is spoken from Maria-Fernanda Novo, WA Ambassador from the Armed Republic of Juansonia.

IC:

"While none of this information is specific enough to produce accurate figures, there are a few things worth consideration. First of all, the defender is (usually) willing to accept heavier losses in the name of their defense than the attacker is willing to accept in the name of offense - hence, why deterrence works. The same principle does apply after deterrence has failed - depleting the enemy's morale makes them more likely to surrender or undergo regime change. People tend to be more willing to defend their homes than to fight foreign wars, and that could easily be the difference between a strong defense and a wartime revolution or coup. Also, whether an insurgency conscripts personnel usually is not affected by whether the regular army would do so."

As for 'deterrence', I don't you know what military deterrence actually looks like. I mean, clearly, if you think it is the weight of your bodies the enemy must march through to achieve the objective that deters. A defense predicated on throwing as many lives at the enemy as possible in the hopes that the gore gums-up the tank-tracks, - hyperbole, not a serious assumption, that, - is, at best, desperation, and desperation does not work. An effective defense must be predicated upon minimizing losses of one's own personnel, equipment, and infrastructure, and maximizing expenditure of each from the enemy, and your ability to do that efficiently is what deters invasion. Not a calculus which you insist from the outset, is weighed in the favor of the invader.

"On a fundamental level, deterrence is the threat to make an invader's victory too costly for them to justify. Usually, deterrence takes the form of preparing an effective defense. However, threatening mutual assurance of destruction is also a somewhat effective means of deterrence, especially where effective defense is not feasible. For example, strategic nuclear weapons are often readied so, by threatening mutual assurance of destruction, the use of similar weapons by a potential adversary is deterred."

"I am not a head of state or a recruitment officer. I simply represent the interests of Juansonia, and one of those interests is allowing our allies to use conscription without being branded as international criminals for that act alone."

"Yes, and I represent the Sovereign, and it is within the interests of the people generally, - whom we are indeed presuming to speak for, as has been done time and again within these halls by others, - that their fundamental rights to be free of enslavement and exploitation and other horrors not be abrogated. If that means branding the perpetrators of such acts as international criminals, then so be it. We don't let slavers walk around proudly when they're doing it for labor; we don't see much reason to allow it when they're doing it for military advantage."

"If you take that line of reasoning to its logical conclusion - that coercing a person to act cannot be justified under any circumstance, then jury duty is out the window, as is securing testimony from hostile witnesses. After all, due process isn't much more impressive a reason than military advantage or profit."

"Of course, I did not mean to genuinely argue that jury duty is the same as owning a person: I meant to illustrate a point. Governance is fundamentally built upon the principle that some people will be coerced into some action for some purpose. Witnesses coerced to testify, residents coerced to pay taxes, suspects coerced to drop their weapon, it's all the same: something justifies the state engaging in a coercive action. Of course, many delude themselves into thinking that it somehow isn't coercive when governments coerce, often appealing to 'divine authority' or 'democracy'. However, ruling by divine authority requires coercing people to recognise not only the divine granter but also the divine grant of authority, and democracy requires coercing the minority to the majority's interests. Once one pushes past that illusion, the ethics of ruling is simply a matter of which ends justify which means. "

"Given that 'a source of supply, support, or aid, especially one that can be readily drawn upon when needed' is an acceptable definition of resource, it's clear that people are resources, much like how copper, philosophy, and labor are resources. I presume that you misinterpreted what I said due to the term 'resource' having connotations not present in Juansonian English."

"Pawning off the dire statement on a mistranslation, are we? And then you, go on and explicitly state you meant it exactly as it was interpreted before, cleverly framing me in misunderstanding without actually quieting your point to your allies. Decent debate strategy, but a poor shield to anyone who is, remotely aware of how these things work, especially given how you came out the door on the topic. Backpedaling into a, what's-the-word, 'dogwhistle'? The Sovereign will keep this in mind, for future interactions."

"You misinterpreted what I was saying by implying that I meant 'thing to own' or 'thing to control' when I said resource. I was addressing the concept of a resource from more of a logistics perspective, and I meant that people play an important, measurable, and scalable role in processes such as warfare and manufacturing."

"If one uses the standard IEEE 754, I would have put NaN of my children towards the war effort. Do you prefer a different standard's specification for how zero should be divided by itself?"

"Well, that's a shame and half. I'm afraid you don't really have a choice; that's conscription for you." He paused, possibility dawning on him, "Unless you don't have children at all, which, we will assume is why you responded to yet another obviously rhetorical question seriously. I'll give you that one, I wouldn't have been able to resist myself, in your position. Regardless. I was, per usual, making a point, and I would prefer it if you engaged with it."

"In the case of that part of what you said, your point was to claim that I was personally a hypocrite for personally being uninvolved in a practice which I was personally defending. However, I was neither personally uninvolved nor personally defending it."

"After a deferment for the purpose of university education, I served 12 years (far more than the one year of national service required) as an officer in the Juansonian Army. During my service, I rose up the ranks until I retired as a Lieutenant Colonel. However, I once was just a Junior Lieutenant, quite ready to fight along the rest of the platoon under my command. In fact, the entire 7th Armored Division was deployed as part of Operation Meadow Watch, and I saw combat once Operation Meadow Bayonet began. Currently, I am in the Retired Reserves, which means that I could be called up on to serve if necessary. While I would appreciate 2 days of notice, I am relatively confident that I'd be fine without such notice."

"Oh you're a proud victim of one of those 'national service' countries; forgive me, I assumed your society at least pretended to be humane. I'm not going to be debating 'national service' type policies because they are fundamentally, obviously, and in-arguably appalling and I won't even entertain the idea that a defense of them can be made in good faith."

"Given that you are unwilling to entertain the possibility that I am acting in good faith while defending the policy in question, I believe that a mutual acknowledgement of impasse would be best for the decorum of this assembly and the sanity of both of us."

[Second Sovereignty]

OOC:
This has been submitted.

[Second Sovereignty]

OOC:
We are quorate. Many thanks to Namwenia for taking up the telegram effort, being as I'm, incapacitated, at present.

[New Westmore]

The Democratic Republic of Westmore does not support a ban on conscription or forced service. In our nation, the idea of conscription is heavily ingrained in Westmorian society, and to serve in our nation's armed forces is seen as an honour among the many who live within our nation. Such is the perception of servitude to the state so ingrained that our armed forces maintains a reserve for those who wish to serve their conscription period, even when they are ineligible for such duty to Westmore. On top of that, in our country and in many others, defence is a priority and to maintain a capable force conscription is a must. As well as that, we are very sure that many nations both member states and non-member states maintain a form of conscription as a national policy. What would happen to those in the WA with conscription should this act pass into international law?

Back to us. We perceive this act and its provisions as this: to ban conscription is to destroy and desecrate our values as a nation. If such an act passes, we shall not hesitate to resign effective immediately from the World Assembly, for we do not want to follow the provisions of such an insulting document to the people of Westmore.

Official Response from the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs
---
Adam Madeus Spielberg, 34th President of New Westmore
Marcus Alana Holberg, Vice President and Minister of Defence of New Westmore

[Kaprein]

How is this resolution allowed, given that conscription is an in-game policy?

[El Lazaro]

Being destroyed at vote, as it should be.

[Picairn]

How is this resolution allowed, given that conscription is an in-game policy?

OOC: WA resolutions and in-game policies are separate entirely. You can ban abortion in issues despite the fact that abortion is WA-mandated.

[My Political Ideas]

The Most Maniacal of My Political Ideas(the name is kind of a WIP)recognizes that in a functional, fair, and free society, citizens should not be forced to serve as instruments of war, scarring themselves and others. However, My Political Ideas is not a functional, fair, and free society, and therefore does not support this resolution.

[Land of Bobtopia]

conscription is an essential part of keeping safe from our enemies. our WMDs are not enough

[Askrieg]

The Askrieg Liaison for General Assembly and Procurement of Foreign Pizza Recipes, Dr. David Dominic Daendels, stood up to speak.

"The State Protectorate of Askrieg opposes the proposal at vote in its' current iteration. It lacks several characterization that we deem vital to discuss the current topic.

Firstly, the proposal fails to mention the justification that personal safety is the foundation of which other ideals may stand. One cannot possibly, let's say, engage in the pursuit of happiness or self-realize their identity if first, their personal safety is not guaranteed. Under the centuries-old social contract theory that a state must provide safety in exchange of its' citizens' personal freedom, it is non-negotiable that the state must ensure safety.

Secondly, many member nations have and will always exist, in a politically turbulent region. Excellent examples brought forth by delegates before me are Earth's South Korea and Israel. Their region has been in the center, or in the vicinity of political conflict in their existence; Israel in the Levant with conflicts stemming since the end of WW2; and South Korea in a state of perpetual ceasefire --not peace, with North Korea since the Korean War. These nations critically rely on a capable, constant, and ready at-a-moments-notice standing army. These standing armies firstly do not exists simply as an extension of a government's fascistic tendencies as the proposal suggests, but rather, as a latent power projection to induce deterrence against a nation's latent enemies. These standing armies also conducts intelligence operations as the first umbrella of defense that a nation might need when a conflict's finally come to a conflict. Keyword "when".

Thirdly, the proposal also fails to mention that there are exemptions that apply when it comes to conscriptions. For example, for citizens that assisted in realizing the state's interests in the international theatre through non-military means, examples include but not limited to, scientifically; economically; or diplomatically; are exempt from involuntary military conscriptions. This example proves that there exists already mechanisms of which unwilling individual to be exempted from military conscriptions. This proves that member nations with involuntary military service is not omnipotent in forcing its' citizens to be drafted, and is willfully ignorant in its' citizens desires, and would rather exercise its' non-existent fascistic tendencies to line up its' adult citizens into the nearest boot camp. This resolution is unnecessary, if it is willing to characterize this point.

Therefore, by these absolutely basic reasons stated, and the failure of the proposal to clarify these reasons beforehand, and frankly, the apparent lack of understanding of why one nation might need military conscription in the first place, The State Protectorate of Askrieg begs the remaining undecided members of the General Assembly to vote AGAINST this resolution under vote."