[ABANDONED] Reduce Military Budget

[Ostrovskiy]

Global Disarmament: Strong

The World Assembly:

Defining "military" as armed forces comprised of an army, navy, and air force, with an army and air force only for landlocked nations,

Recognizing the amount of money each year that is spent on the military,

Noting that this money could be better spent on many things, including
1) improving the nation
2) complying with other resolutions by the WA
3) foreign aid


Hereby:
1) Requires member states to spend at maximum 10% of their GDP on their military
2) Includes nuclear weapons in this total

.

Current Draft:
The World Assembly:

Defining "military" as armed forces comprised of an army, navy, and air force, with an army and air force only for landlocked nations,

Recognizing the amount of money each year that is spent on the military,

Noting that this money could be better spent on many things, including
1) improving the nation
2) complying with other resolutions by the WA
3) foreign aid


Hereby:
1) Requires member states to reduce military spending substantially
2) Includes nuclear weapons in this total

[Tinhampton]

Requires member states to spend at maximum 10% of their GDP on their military

Are you sure about that?

[Ostrovskiy]

Requires member states to spend at maximum 10% of their GDP on their military

Are you sure about that?

How do you suggest I reword it?

[Barfleur]

"Barfleur is opposed to this proposal, as it would place smaller member nations at a significant disadvantage as compared to larger and wealthier nations (as 10% of the GDP of the former means a good deal less than the same percentage of the GDP of the latter), and would place all member nations at a potentially irreparable disadvantage compared to non-member nations, which already can use chemical and biological weapons as they please, and now would also be able to spend as much on their military as their warlike despot desires, while member nations would be subject to this arbitrary limit."

[Bears Armed]

OOC: You've fixed most of the points that I mentioned when labelling the earlier [submitted] version as illegal, but that "10% of GDP" maximum still fails under the Game Mechanics rule because the way that the game's coding decides "official" spending levels (as shown in the pie chart) means that bringing some member nations' spending into compliance with this proposed resolution would require changing that coding as soon as it passed.

[Kurogasa]

So..."I'm a hippie so I want to force everyone to be as much of a hippie as me"...Interesting...

[Ostrovskiy]

OOC: You've fixed most of the points that I mentioned when labelling the earlier [submitted] version as illegal, but that "10% of GDP" maximum still fails under the Game Mechanics rule because the way that the game's coding decides "official" spending levels (as shown in the pie chart) means that bringing some member nations' spending into compliance with this proposed resolution would require changing that coding as soon as it passed.

I don't know what to replace it with. Advice? Maybe switch it for something like "requires member nations to reduce their military spending substantially,"?

[Ostrovskiy]

"Barfleur is opposed to this proposal, as it would place smaller member nations at a significant disadvantage as compared to larger and wealthier nations (as 10% of the GDP of the former means a good deal less than the same percentage of the GDP of the latter), and would place all member nations at a potentially irreparable disadvantage compared to non-member nations, which already can use chemical and biological weapons as they please, and now would also be able to spend as much on their military as their warlike despot desires, while member nations would be subject to this arbitrary limit."

Maybe just "substantially reduce military spending as applicable,"?

[WayNeacTia]

"Barfleur is opposed to this proposal, as it would place smaller member nations at a significant disadvantage as compared to larger and wealthier nations (as 10% of the GDP of the former means a good deal less than the same percentage of the GDP of the latter), and would place all member nations at a potentially irreparable disadvantage compared to non-member nations, which already can use chemical and biological weapons as they please, and now would also be able to spend as much on their military as their warlike despot desires, while member nations would be subject to this arbitrary limit."

Maybe just "substantially reduce military spending as applicable,"?

It's not going to happen.

[Gonswanza]

"Oh, wait, you're serious? Every country needs to keep its military in working order, such funds are a necessity to one's right to exist. Alas, this also implies that even small nations with an underfunded military would not be an exception or those who are under harsh pressure from nearby countries that may be non-signatories or non-members for the WA simply seeking an exploitable moment of weakness. Alas, this not only offers the WA to meddle with the right to security, safety, and existence... It would effectively pacify even the most militarized of countries, rendering them weak enough to be destroyed by outside forces. Not only do I refuse to approve of this, but even if it somehow passes, I will refuse to heed to it and instead continue to fund and keep my military in working order, stockpiling weapons and conducting operations in FAVOR of my country in other regions."

-Laura Ortiz.