NATION

PASSWORD

[ABANDONED] Reduce Military Budget

Where WA members debate how to improve the world, one resolution at a time.
User avatar
Ostrovskiy
Secretary
 
Posts: 36
Founded: Nov 01, 2019
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

[ABANDONED] Reduce Military Budget

Postby Ostrovskiy » Sun Oct 24, 2021 11:16 am

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
Last edited by Ostrovskiy on Mon Oct 25, 2021 2:04 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Tinhampton
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9404
Founded: Oct 05, 2016
Anarchy

Postby Tinhampton » Sun Oct 24, 2021 11:53 am

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

Are you sure about that?
The Self-Administrative City of TINHAMPTON (pop. 319,372): Saffron Howard, Mayor (UCP); Alexander Smith, WA Delegate-Ambassador

Authorships & co-authorships: SC#250, SC#251, Issue #1115, SC#267, GA#484, GA#491, GA#533, GA#540, GA#549, SC#356, GA#559, GA#562, GA#567, GA#578, SC#374, GA#582, SC#375
Other achievements: Cup of Harmony 73 champions; Philosopher-Queen of Sophia; possibly very controversial; "Tinhampton? the man's literally god"
Who am I, really? 46yo Tory woman w/Asperger's; Cambridge graduate; currently reading National Populism by Roger Eatwell and Matthew Goodwin

User avatar
Ostrovskiy
Secretary
 
Posts: 36
Founded: Nov 01, 2019
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Ostrovskiy » Sun Oct 24, 2021 12:37 pm

Tinhampton wrote:
Ostrovskiy wrote: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?

User avatar
Barfleur
Diplomat
 
Posts: 567
Founded: Mar 04, 2019
Left-Leaning College State

Postby Barfleur » Sun Oct 24, 2021 1:41 pm

"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."
Barfleur: Unus pro omnibus et omnes pro uno
Citizen of The East Pacific
“Sweatpants are a sign of defeat. You lost control of your life so you bought some sweatpants.”
― Karl Lagerfeld
Ambassador: Roger MacGeorge
Military Attaché: Colonel Lyndon Q. Ralston
Co-author, GA#534.
The Barfleurian World Assembly Mission can be found at Room 1903, Floor 19, WAHQ.

User avatar
Bears Armed
GA Secretariat
 
Posts: 20506
Founded: Jun 01, 2006
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Bears Armed » Sun Oct 24, 2021 3:55 pm

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.
The Confrederated Clans (and other Confrederated Bodys) of the Free Bears of Bears Armed
(includes The Ursine NorthLands) Demonym = Bear[s]; adjective = ‘Urrsish’.
Population = just under 20 million. Economy = only Thriving. Average Life expectancy = c.60 years. If the nation is classified as 'Anarchy' there still is a [strictly limited] national government... and those aren't "biker gangs", they're traditional cross-Clan 'Warrior Societies', generally respected rather than feared.
Author of some GA Resolutions, via Bears Armed Mission; subject of an SC resolution.
Factbook. We have more than 70 MAPS. Visitors' Guide.
The IDU's WA Drafting Room is open to help you.
Author of issues #429, 712, 729, 934, 1120, 1152, 1474.

User avatar
Kurogasa
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 65
Founded: Oct 15, 2005
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Kurogasa » Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:12 pm

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

User avatar
Ostrovskiy
Secretary
 
Posts: 36
Founded: Nov 01, 2019
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Ostrovskiy » Sun Oct 24, 2021 6:32 pm

Bears Armed wrote: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,"?

User avatar
Ostrovskiy
Secretary
 
Posts: 36
Founded: Nov 01, 2019
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby Ostrovskiy » Sun Oct 24, 2021 6:33 pm

Barfleur wrote:"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,"?

User avatar
Wayneactia
Minister
 
Posts: 2482
Founded: Aug 01, 2014
New York Times Democracy

Postby Wayneactia » Sun Oct 24, 2021 8:56 pm

Ostrovskiy wrote:
Barfleur wrote:"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.
Sarcasm dispensed liberally.

User avatar
Gonswanza
Diplomat
 
Posts: 805
Founded: Aug 13, 2021
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Gonswanza » Mon Oct 25, 2021 1:40 pm

"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.
Last edited by Gonswanza on Mon Oct 25, 2021 1:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Praise our glorious president Laura Ortiz!

Amistad Declaration signatory! Down with slavery!

[GNN] The ball is here! /// Transcript of the Horsemen Interviews released. /// AI attempts to butcher Boarhound, succeeds in spite of low-quality cuts /// Christmas tree set up in lunar base, decorated with custom 3D printed ornaments /// Three-wheeled concept car flops, for obvious reasons


Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General Assembly

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Apatosaurus, Coque Borie Lethawik, Honeydewistania, Imperium Anglorum, Rightport, Unibot III, Untecna

Advertisement

Remove ads