[DRAFT] global naval disarmament REVISED

[Komere]

category:global disarmament

the world assembly

Understanding that many nations rely on trade to keep their selves from economic collapse.

Realizing that if two nation's oversea's went to war trade routes could be blockaded and trade ship's could be sunk.

Knowing that the second most amount of deaths happen in the navy.

Hoping to resolve this issue

Therefore

The purpose of this resolution is

1.all nations must reduce their navy to at the most 50 ship's

2.no nation may have more than 100 naval aircraft

3.nations are banned from use of submarines

4.all trade ships are to be marked with i highly visible symbol from all sides

5.in case of a non-member nation declaring war all member nations will be allowed a full size navy of unmanned unused ships for use during such event should it occur

[The Xaviet Empire]

I would strongly object, war is not meant to be fair or nice.

If lives are lost so be it.

[Separatist Peoples]

"Its not every day that I see two opposite positions that are both irradeemably wrong, ambassadors, but you have managed today.

"Conflict aversion may be accomplished without decimating military forces. Further, warfare may be regulated to avoid the most needless of bloodshed without turning it into a legal minefield as well as a regular minefield. Both of you ambassadors ought to feel bad about your positions."

[Barfleur]

Out of Character: There are several issues with this proposal. For one, you're going to need better grammar and spelling--come on, it's not too hard to capitalize the first letter of each sentence. In addition, a proposal needs an operative clause, that is, a line that actually carries the text into effect. I would highly recommend reading the passed GA resolutions and rules for proposals. If you need any help or want any advice regarding the World Assembly, feel free to shoot me a telegram!

In Character:

1.all nations must reduce their navy to at the most 50 ship's

"Ambassador, this proposal does not take into account that nations are of very different sizes. Not all nations are on your silly planet earth--some are sprawling intergalactic space empires, others small city-states perched atop a mountain. Said space empire will require a much larger navy than said city-state."

2.no nation may have more than 100 naval aircraft

"Better transfer all those planes to the Air Force."

3.nations are banned from use of submarines

"That sounds like a great way to make sure no small country ever wins a war."

4.all trade ships are to be marked with i highly visible symbol from all sides

"Since you didn't say anything about making it illegal to attack trade ships, I can only assume that is to make it easier to attack them. Also, does that include ships trading weapons?"

[Morover]

"Hypothetically, what if a non-member-nation declares war on a member-nation while the proposal is in effect (which would never happen). There are no restrictions on the size of the non-member-nation's navy, and it will certainly bring about the doom of the member-state in the process."

[Emastalia]

I strongly disagree, instead I propose temporary regulations for a more sensible naval disarmament treaty.

[Galactic Republicc]

While this may not be my WA nation, I have to say how stupid this proposal is. You really think people are going to go along with this? NEVER.

WAR FOREVER!

[Separatist Peoples]

While this may not be my WA nation, I have to say how stupid this proposal is. You really think people are going to go along with this? NEVER.

WAR FOREVER!

"Nobody actually believes unending war is beneficial, ambassador. Except perhaps to be edgy."

[Barfleur]

While this may not be my WA nation, I have to say how stupid this proposal is. You really think people are going to go along with this? NEVER.

WAR FOREVER!

You do make a point--as soon as the Washington and London Naval Treaties were signed, each signatory figured out how to bend the rules (or, later on, just broke them altogether).

[Komere]

while the signatory's managed to bend or break the rules of the London treaty that was because the one who was supposed to be enforcing it didn't

[MineLegotia and Equestria]

1.all nations must reduce their navy to at the most 50 ship's

"Hypothetically, some could claim that their's is not part of their navy, but their army, thus bypassing it"

2.no nation may have more than 100 naval aircraft

"As an earlier ambassador has said, better transfer all those aircraft to the air force"

3.nations are banned from use of submarines

"Define Submarine, because we can just claim they're not submarines because they don't fit the traditional definition of the word, and what if a member state, with colonies outside the WA? They can just transfer all their submarines there,"

4.all trade ships are to be marked with i highly visible symbol from all sides

"Ah yes, below the ship, on top of the ship,"

5.in case of a non-member nation declaring war all member nations will be allowed a full size navy of unmanned unused ships for use during such event should it occur

"Unmanned... unused ships... But you banned us from having at most 50 ships, it takes time to build a navy, and it's also expensive let alone buy one off the market. You're giving the attacking state time to bloody destroy our 50-ship navy, and dominate the seas, blow up our new ships, and stuff! Against!"

[Separatist Peoples]

while the signatory's managed to bend or break the rules of the London treaty that was because the one who was supposed to be enforcing it didn't

"Why, ambassador, would anybody agree to measures that compromise their security when less invasive alternatives can protect seaborne trade? This is like addressing a hangnail with a hacksaw."

[Free Salvation]

As a Neutral Ambassador when Conflicts are Involved, our Country has gained a favourable opposition to this proposal, shall it ever become legitimate. The Majority of our Population reports they would "Not Feel Safe" Without the navy protecting our waters and Fishing Zones, as it could lead to Rival, Non-member states fishing in our abundant waters with no restriction. For this reason, we will not be aligning ourselves with those wishing to support this Proposal, but will make sure to oblige to it if the need arises.

[Newark Aristocracy]

The ambassador of the Newark Aristocracy stands up after reading the propsal. He says:"WHAT THE HELL IS THIS?
This singular propsal literaly makes as much sense as a propsal declaring that drinking bleach everyday is good for your health,AKA,nonsense.
Now,when can i invade the nation behind this hilarously stupid propsal?"

[Sleet Clans]

''This is all....highly vague and unfocused. Might I suggest that instead of focusing on the number of vessels within a navy, this could be redrafted to focus on tonnage or weaponry? Of course, the technology level and size of nations abiding by the treaty would have to be considered for such a treaty to have even a hope of succeeding.''

[Hiram Land]

This is meant to provide criticism, I may act a little blunt in the following post so don't take it personal. Also, I'm not a naval guy and I'm not in any navy whatsoever, so I might get these things wrong,
tl;dr this is a proposal which is simply absurd and which contradicts itself and makes no sense whatsoever.

"1.all nations must reduce their navy to at the most 50 ship's

2.no nation may have more than 100 naval aircraft

3.nations are banned from use of submarines

4.all trade ships are to be marked with i highly visible symbol from all sides

5.in case of a non-member nation declaring war all member nations will be allowed a full size navy of unmanned unused ships for use during such event should it occur"

For point 1: I disagree with this request since basically we're reducing our navies to 50 ships or less, without defining what ships need to go and what stays (except for point 3). I could just burn all of my patrol boats and my lower class ships, keep my destroyers and aircraft carriers and supply ships, etc and it would still comply. This is vague and it should be defined more (in terms of what types of ships should go). In addition, large nations with large militaries need a large navy to maintain control of the areas that they have domination over, why else did Britain keep her large and vast navy until past WW2?

Point 2: I honestly don't like this point since basically this basically eliminates a advantage that many nations have in terms of having multiple aircraft carriers. Aircraft carriers can hold up to 75 aircraft, so basically restricting us to one large aircraft carrier and maybe a few smaller ships that can hold helicopters, or maybe two or three aircraft carriers with half of their capacity. A air force is needed to attack military targets (and take out civilian targets too), so when they need to go on overseas operations, most likely they might need either air bases on the routes to the target, or a aircraft carrier ready to deploy. This removes the advantage of easily being able to deploy to other parts of the world (or regional worlds, idk how you call them, just go along) and basically restricts us to bases along the route, which might cause more logistical problems.

Point 3: well time to go back to actually seeing our enemy and firing on them heheheheheheh

Submarines are often used to protect aircraft carriers (apparently), spying on future targets that are overseas, or attacking other submarines or naval vessels. This gives the submarines and the nations which have them a advantage since they could either deploy their torpedoes underwater, surprising the enemy vessel, or provide intelligence to a allied or mother nation without having to go through aircraft and possibly being shot down. I think you get my point on that one. If we ban submarines, then how else are we going to perform an attack without having the risk of being spotted. (You could say aircraft could be used for that same thing, although if the enemy finds out about a aircraft deploying against a target, they could have a risk of being shot down, while submarines need mines or special equipment or other submarines to be caught and attacked).

Point 4: well time to put a symbol in every single visible surface in my ships!

I do get that trade ships need to be identified in some way to make them less inclined to be attacked, but I think it's clear that these ships aren't a target unless they carry material that may be supportive to the enemy's war goals. In that case, you can simply restrict access (using a naval force, which *gasp* is restricted to 50 ships) and follow these ships to their destination, or try to inspect what they carry, and unless your war-time Germany or Japan or whichever nation did those things, simply not attack these trade ships unless there's a reasonable doubt that they aren't carrying material that will help the enemy.

Point 5: You just said that we had to restrict our ship count to 50 ships! So, in order to break that rule, we have to be at war with a non-member nation... what is a non-member nation? Oh, I don't know! That is vague and anyone could be counted as a non-member. Are you implying that if I leave the WA, I can suddenly declare war on a WA member and put my navy on automatic mode and attack them? But I can't... I need a nap, this is just so mumbo jumbo.

[MineLegotia and Equestria]

"We would also like to address another problem system in this Proposal, the fact there is no definition for the navy, so in theory, you could give it to a State Owned Corporation, name it something other than a navy, and give them the job as a navy,"

[Separatist Peoples]

"We would also like to address another problem system in this Proposal, the fact there is no definition for the navy, so in theory, you could give it to a State Owned Corporation, name it something other than a navy, and give them the job as a navy,"

"Absent a definition, a good faith interpretation of 'navy' would not permit such an action under GAR#2."

[Komere]

i understand that many nations here do not approve of this treaty and in listening to what they have said i believe it would be better
to increase our navy's to counter any threats possible posed by non-member navy as they will never have a limit to their navy's size

[MineLegotia and Equestria]

"We would also like to address another problem system in this Proposal, the fact there is no definition for the navy, so in theory, you could give it to a State Owned Corporation, name it something other than a navy, and give them the job as a navy,"

"Absent a definition, a good faith interpretation of 'navy' would not permit such an action under GAR#2."

"Fuck, how many resolutions did my nation break already, because we can add GAR#2 to the list, also, we can still transfer it to a non-member state, legally not under our control, and pay them to do the job!"

[Hiram Land]

i understand that many nations here do not approve of this treaty and in listening to what they have said i believe it would be better
to increase our navy's to counter any threats possible posed by non-member navy as they will never have a limit to their navy's size

Didn't you say we had to perform disarmament of our navies? Does that mean this proposal is not going through?

[Hiram Land]

"We would also like to address another problem system in this Proposal, the fact there is no definition for the navy, so in theory, you could give it to a State Owned Corporation, name it something other than a navy, and give them the job as a navy,"

The Hiram Land Navy, now legally the Hiram Land Naval Vessel Fighting Company, LLC

[Separatist Peoples]

"Absent a definition, a good faith interpretation of 'navy' would not permit such an action under GAR#2."

"Fuck, how many resolutions did my nation break already, because we can add GAR#2 to the list, also, we can still transfer it to a non-member state, legally not under our control, and pay them to do the job!"

"You want to transfer your navy to a foreign power who obeys you out of...what, the goodness of their own hearts? They can almost certainly sell your navy for more than you pay them. Ambassador, that is the dumbest suggestion to evade compliance I have heard in years."

[Hiram Land]

"Fuck, how many resolutions did my nation break already, because we can add GAR#2 to the list, also, we can still transfer it to a non-member state, legally not under our control, and pay them to do the job!"

"You want to transfer your navy to a foreign power who obeys you out of...what, the goodness of their own hearts? They can almost certainly sell your navy for more than you pay them. Ambassador, that is the dumbest suggestion to evade compliance I have heard in years."

"They could just make a puppet, transfer that navy to the puppet, and basically evade them, or they could just leave the WA!"

[Separatist Peoples]

"You want to transfer your navy to a foreign power who obeys you out of...what, the goodness of their own hearts? They can almost certainly sell your navy for more than you pay them. Ambassador, that is the dumbest suggestion to evade compliance I have heard in years."

"They could just make a puppet, transfer that navy to the puppet, and basically evade them, or they could just leave the WA!"

"They would be better off resigning, since by giving a client state a chunk of your military, you enable the client state to resist and weaken your ability to protract conflict. This gives the client state a stronger position by far. Not a solution."

Ooc: puppet nations are an OOC concept, for the most part