We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Military Policy
Details
Submitted by[?]: Leviathan Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: August 2097
Description[?]:
| This is to house debate on Malivia's military policies. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 08:30:05, August 08, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Military Policy |
| Message | Given the recent defeat of the proposed bill to ban the use of NBCR weapons, we are interested to hear thoughts on the kinds of policies our military should adopt. Obviously we are interested in hearing from those parties that voted against banning the use of NBCR weapons, but in a greater context, we need a conscious choice regarding how our military is going to be organized. Given our strategic location, both as a trade hub and as a central location in the world, we need to decide exactly what role we intend to adopt for ourselves. For instance, the policy of mutually assured destruction (MAD) has the potential to greatly reduce our total military spending by reducing expenditures to the construction and maintenance of a small but effective nuclear arsenal and then a modest self defense force. We wouldn't even need to invest in intercontinental missiles, since a small submarine fleet could deliver a payload to nearly anywhere on earth, and intelligent depoyment would ensure our ablity to respond quickly. The accountant side of the LevP likes MAD, as it cuts costs and provides us excellent defense against aggression. However, MAD only works if the world believes we will authorize a nuclear strike in response to any aggression. Yes, MAD requires we respond to a convential attack on our nation, be it military of civilian, with a nuclear strike, and in that we have a problem. If a nation does not beleive we will do it and decides, for whatever reason, to begin attacking our vessels at sea, we either attack them with nuclear weapons or we dispatch an underfunded navy to counter the threat. One the one hand, we will have killed hundreds of thousands in response to a handful of attacks. On the other hand, we will have affirmed to the world that we have neither the capacity to defend ourselves conventionally or the conviction to respond with nuclear weapons. We are not certain either is very desireable. The alternative is a well funded self defense force, which can neither defend against nuclear threat or be maintained without large expenditures, and frankly, we feel that money is better spent on education and healthcare. The problem is that having a small, ineffective military is not an option, especially given our strategic location. If we appear to one of the many imperialist parties in other nations, and one of those parties comes to power, we could easily find ourselves in the crosshairs of an unscrupulous government with conquest on their mind. The obvious solution is a mutual defense pact, though that again brings the issue of military expenditure into question: which nation would agree to a mutual defense pact with a nation unable to defend itself? We would, unless our diplomats were able to pull off the con of the century, undoubtedly have to offer incentives of some kind to the nation or nations that agree to protect us, and do we want that? To have those strings attached, the protection of another nation dependant upon our compliance? And when that nation wants more from us, can we refuse? This is, flatly, unacceptable. Malivia need not be a military powerbroker, but we must be capable of defending ourselves and our oceans. We invite all discussion on how best to do this. |
| Date | 22:18:51, August 08, 2005 CET | From |  Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Military Policy |
| Message | Our opinions on WMD are we should reserve the ability and right to research and construct but only use if another should use them against us or, if we choose to enter into a strong defensive alliance, our allies. We feel that we should be very careful entering into such an alliance however, as we do not want to become involved in local wars or aid in another's imperal aims. For this reason we recommend not joining any large scale pacts rather negotiating treaties with one or two nations at a time. We would support the dismantling of these weapons should we develop technologies which provide a high level of defense from these weapons. We do not feel that NBCR weapons should be used against conventional attacks and feel we should rely on our conventional forces for this. As to conventional forces we recommend focusing on what Malivia's strength has been, naval power. Our land neighbors to the north have maintained a peaceful stance with us and we recommend formalizing this into non aggression pacts. Our naval force should be geared toward defensive power. Our goal is to prevent a force from landing on our soil and though they can be flown the most likely avenue is via sea. Thus we should focus on smaller craft and subs rather then the larger fortress ships. This also allows us to have our forces dispersed preventing simple attacks from eliminating a large percentage of our force. Unfortunately, Naval strength is one of the most expensive options, yet we do not see a method of decreasing its costs without running into the problems listed by the LevP. Our sea borders are where we are most vunerable, and thus where we need our protection. We could use the ability to guard the borders of our Northern neighbors as possible bargaining chips in those treaties if need be. The other option is to focus on airpower with the aim of defending our coast in this manner with the possibility of some bases up north if we fear attack from this angle. However this leads to the problem of having sitting ducks when they are on the ground, or expenses keeping a large portion of them airborne. Keeping a ship at sea is cheaper then flying aircraft all the time. In addition to maintain air superiority, would require frequent updates in technology of the aircraft as well as intensive training of the pilots. |
| Date | 06:48:00, August 09, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Military Policy |
| Message | Actually, navies are much cheaper than air forces; a single destroyer can be purchased for the cost of several modern fighter bombers, and has a far greater potential for force projection. The reason we feel the need for a strong navy is that, while an air force could protect our coastline, it could not project into the oceans surrounding our nation. That would require aircraft carriers, which would require an escort, and now we're back to needing naval strength. The fact that we are surrounded by a large ocean, and that we are in a central location in the world, makes a naval conflict around our territory highly probable. It will become necessary to defend those interests, and that is simply not possible with a ground based force, be it army or airforce. |
| Date | 12:40:02, August 09, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Party | To | Debating the Military Policy |
| Message | Both the Leviathan Party and the Protectorate Party raises important issues in the debate, a navy is needed for our protection from the sea whereas a land based force is not, based on the fact that our neighbours probably (note probably) will not be interested in keeping a strong land based force themselves. We have Hobrazia in the direct north, not capable of mustering a force strong enough to be a direct threat against us (they would probably also fund their navy to protect their own coastline), we have Darnussia in the northwest consisting of two island- and two land based states, they would most likely build up a massive navy to be able to protect their islands and interests, they are big enough to pose a threat from land but would probably chose to attack naval interests at first giving us a warning in case they would decide to go aggressive all of a sudden. In the south we have Selucian Empire and Cildanian Republic, both of them are nations based on islands and they will also most likely base their military power upon navies, big ones. So if it comes to the size of the naval powers we would need to invest in it would be some kind of local force, but a local force with an extreme amount of power. Submarines carrying nuclear warheads would be a good deterrent towards neighbours positioned farther away than our direct neighbouring nations, the ones close to us could be taken out using heavy-bombers or missile-silos, problem is that both of them gives of a warning to them and the element of surprise would be gone. Of course the element of surprise is only important if we intend to strike before the other part would. And that is exactly what we do intend to do and must, if we are the victims of an unprovoked attack, may it be conventional or nuclear, we must strike back and make our threats of MAD real to the world. |
| Date | 01:02:37, August 12, 2005 CET | From | Super Socialist II Turbo Party | To | Debating the Military Policy |
| Message | i like this idea. |
| Date | 13:16:56, August 17, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Military Policy |
| Message | We have moved this to a vote to 1) clean up the bill page and 2) to gauge support for the proposed plan. To recap, currently the consensus seems to be that Malivia should develop a modest nuclear arsenal and adopt an MAD policy regarding any invasion of the nation. Our conventional military would then be focused on a navy designed to interdict rather than attack, and of modest size and cost as well. Voting for this bill affirms both those policies. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 65 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 32 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 3 |
| Random fact: The influence a bill has on elections decreases over time, until it eventually is no longer relevant. This can explain shifts in your party's position to the electorate and your visibility. |
| Random quote: We are in politics not because we hate our fellow man, but because we love him. ~ Anton Weinreich, General Secretary of the Dorvish Communist Part |