[DRAFT] The Blue Papers

[Laka Strolistandiler]

So basically an issue that is a mixture of IRL White Defense Papers of 1957 and Khrushchev’s armed forces reorganizations. Also option 2 is a reference to IRL corruption scandal including F-104 and Lockheed Martin. First time writing one, so I’m open to suggestions.

[validity] weapons of mass destruction policy active, low defense forces rating

During an average defense board meeting, preceded by an overseas military operation that didn’t go quite as planned, a group of military-related civil servants and politicians had presented a quite unusual document for @@LEADERNAME@@ consideration. The document, nicknamed “The Blue Papers” is a proposal for a future of @@NAME@@‘s armed forces in the face of ever changing battlefield conditions. Surprisingly, it actually managed to unite high ranking officers from all the military branches against it.

[option] A highly charismatic military spending overseer, @@RANDOMNAME@@ reads a passage from the document: “A recent disastrous campaign in the Seez Canal further demonstrates, that @@NAME@@‘s armed forces can and should no longer attempt to maintain a worldwide hegemony. Instead, a full focus on the defense of the nation from Blackacre’s nuclear threat should be used. This emphasizes the importance of the development of Surface-to-air missile systems and early warning radars, at the cost of manned aircraft and number of military personnel.” Taking the document away, he adds a few words: “And, @@LEADERNAME@@, we could also decrease the size of our armed forces! Think of all the tax money that can be spent on my new... I mean, on healthcare and education!”
[effect] The @@NAME@@‘s military has essentially abandoned all hopes of winning a conventional war

[validity: not socialist, also possibly high corruption]
[opinion]
“And I say that this doesn’t go as further as needed!- adds a notable military-industrial complex lobbyist @@RANDOMNAME@. We have dozens upon dozens of useless government-funded projects that are essentially ripping the taxpayers off! Instead, why shouldn’t we buy the military equipment from abroad? Sure, some people may brag about homegrown industries getting out of business, but hey, that’s free market for ya! Now, @@LEADERNAME@@, I was able to acquire us a very good deal on F-404 Stallfighter,- would you like to have a look...@@HE@@ slips you a few pages of a colorful booklet featuring a slim, good-looking fighter, suddenly removing an unknown hand-written notebook page featuring some very suspicious numbers in @@CURRENCY@@.

[effect]
The @@NAME@@‘s military trusts the outsiders.

[opinion]
AND WHAT DO WE HAVE HERE?! A BAND OF TREACHURERS?!- shouts @@RANDOMNAME@@, a hawkish and ravenous high-ranking Army General, who was in command of the forces landing near the Seez Canal,- Of course we’ve lost the battle, and you,- @@HE@@ points @@HIS@@ finger at civil servants,- are to blame! Year after year we’re denied funding of essential research projects on the basis of them being deemed “not important or feasible enough! Of course we can’t maintain overseas operations in such state! @@LEADERNAME@@, please,- @@HE@@ asks you with a look of despair in @@HIS@@ eyes,- don’t listen to these maniacs and toss us a few bucks! After all, it’s a common thing these fancy-shmancy nukes never gonna go off, right?”

[effect]
“The Empire prepares to strike back” had recently became @@NAME@@‘s military favorite movie

[opinion] [validity: not socialist]
“While I can’t help but partially agree with the previous orator,- on the fact that the military spending should be decreased, I can’t help but wonder wether or not simply throwing taxpayer’s money into the problem will fix anything...”- adds a far less emotional and far more logical Air Force Brigadier General @@RANDOMNAME@@. “Instead, how about a reorganization of the military industrial complex? We could encourage the companies to merge, threatening those that don’t comply with a lack of state orders. This would further decrease the amount of funds that have to be spent on supporting every firm that decides to partake in a project evaluation. Sure, some may whine about things like cartelization and monopolization, but in the end, it’s the taxpayer, who wins- less money, same result!
[effect]
A rapid olygopolization of the military industrial complex leaves small companies bankrupt in the name of the taxpayer’s money

[opinion][validity: not socialist]
Pal, I can’t help but wonder why do we even need an army at all!- adds a security guard, who you’ve stumbled upon during a coffee break,- the recent failures of the army indicate that we should go away with relying on national arms service all along! Instead, why not contract some merc groups to help defend what matters? It’s not like it will be more expensive than maintaining a regular armed forces, and these mercs sure as hell know how to fight! Sure, their loyalty can be somewhat questionable, but as long as you’ll keep the money flowing you can sleep safe and sound!
[effect]
@@NAME@@‘s military is all but replaced by private contractors

[Candensia]

Welcome to GI. You've done well to get a feel for the style issues are written in.

In my opinion, this draft has two major problems.

First, when reading the premise, it's unclear what this issue is about. Issue writing best practices state that the topic of the issue debate should be well understood by the time the reader makes it to the options. In your premise, you mention that the trigger for the debate, "The Blue Papers" , were controversial, but you never explain *why*. That "why" is the issue topic, and it needs to be clear before reaching the options.

For example, an issue on a fuel tax would say:

After (event x), a debate on a fuel tax has motored its way into the public discourse.

If you know what you're doing, you *can* bend the rules a bit, but I wouldn't suggest it to a new writer, and I don't think it works well here.

Second, the debate in the options is rather muddy and unclear. For new writers, I suggest crafting a clear debate structure using three, maybe four options. Again, using a fuel tax as an example, those structures would look like this.

Three Option Structure (For, Against, Crazy)

[Option 1] - Support Fuel Tax
[Option 2] - Oppose Fuel Tax
[Option 3] - Ban Cars

Four Option Structure (For, Against, Alternative, Crazy)

[Option 1] - Support Fuel Tax
[Option 2] - Oppose Fuel Tax
[Option 3] - Support Electric Cars
[Option 4 - Ban Cars

These structures aren't mandatory, but GI regulars have used them over and over again because they work well.

My advice would be to really get a feel for the story your issue is trying to convey to the reader. Is this a generic "do we expand the military" issue? If so, I doubt it will work. But, if you craft a unique story that justifies a clear debate, it *might* work, and I do sense that you have the skills required to get it done. Best wishes.