+- The South Pacific (https://tspforums.xyz)
+-- Forum: Treasure Island (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-6.html)
+--- Forum: Pacifica (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-109.html)
+---- Forum: Diplomacy (https://tspforums.xyz/forum-116.html)
+---- Thread: An invitation to discuss security and economic cooperation (/thread-8929.html)
RE: An invitation to discuss security and economic cooperation - GI-Land - 01-27-2021
The latest by joining the WF you de facto agree to international law.
I believe though, that our cooperation would take a look at potential member nations in that regard too and at least GI-Land would probably want to deny access to any nation not willing to agree and act accordingly to international law.
RE: An invitation to discuss security and economic cooperation - Qwert - 09-07-2021
Anyone (who is still active here) who would be interested in continuing these discussions?
RE: An invitation to discuss security and economic cooperation - Izaakia - 09-07-2021
Am I invited yet?
RE: An invitation to discuss security and economic cooperation - Qwert - 09-07-2021
(09-07-2021, 02:03 PM)Izaakia Wrote: Am I invited yet?
You know how the Sedunnic saying goes
RE: An invitation to discuss security and economic cooperation - Izaakia - 09-07-2021
Something along the lines of
“If at first you don’t succeed, sod the rules and invite the best nation at all these things”
1. Mutual self-defence: consider an attack against one member state to be an attack against them all
2. Encourage every member to spend as much as needed to be able to contributing to intelligence gathering, common infrastructure and a military force capable of asserting respective nation's territory's integrity
3. Consensus-based decisions
4. Shared funding of research that strengthens the organisation's abilities and cause
5. Strengthen cooperation between universities
6. Free trade agreement
7. Hosting of nuclear weapons voluntary
8. No member can use chemical or biological weapons
9. Shared intelligence
10. Further members added: must be democracies
11. A council for permanent representatives from each member: decides on policies
12. A headquarters: military headquarters for sharing intelligence and surveillance and to plan joint operations
13: Apply for observer in the WF
RE: An invitation to discuss security and economic cooperation - Imperial Frost Federation - 09-07-2021
(09-07-2021, 02:02 PM)Qwert Wrote: Anyone (who is still active here) who would be interested in continuing these discussions?
Sure, and I agree with the 13 points there, but I'll add some points below.
2 could be resolved at around 2% like NATO, but the Frost Empire would like its allies to spend enough on defense, that they can refuel and resupply at friendly ports. If that takes 4-10% for an ally thats fine, but having a minimum budget like 2% or another percentage could be a start.
For 7 in response to Gianni I'm not sure about having the Frost Empire sign the treaty on Nuclear weapons despite being a victim of Nuclear warfare, ala Reizen Independence Movement, since the ultranationalists want their own revenge with hellfire. That being said, the Empire could sign it, but not ratify the treaty in a gesture of good faith to its new defensive allies.
For 12 maybe having theater headquarters would be good. For example the City of Ikireijin in Reizen could host the Bareland HQ of the Military Alliance, while there could Anserisa or Gi-Land could host the Cordilian HQ, With Sedunn hosting the Bailtem HQ.
RE: An invitation to discuss security and economic cooperation - Qwert - 09-11-2021
(09-07-2021, 07:24 PM)Imperial Frost Federation Wrote: 2 could be resolved at around 2% like NATO, but the Frost Empire would like its allies to spend enough on defense, that they can refuel and resupply at friendly ports. If that takes 4-10% for an ally thats fine, but having a minimum budget like 2% or another percentage could be a start.
Perhaps 1% at first, with a longer term goal of 2%? Sedunn already spends 4.4% of the GDP.
(09-07-2021, 07:24 PM)Imperial Frost Federation Wrote: For 7 in response to Gianni I'm not sure about having the Frost Empire sign the treaty on Nuclear weapons despite being a victim of Nuclear warfare, ala Reizen Independence Movement, since the ultranationalists want their own revenge with hellfire. That being said, the Empire could sign it, but not ratify the treaty in a gesture of good faith to its new defensive allies.
I actually don't remember if Sedunn has signed. It for sure hasn't ratified though. Sedunn would be willing to sign in order to declare its support in spirit if that does any good, but will maintain its right to get nukes if under such a threat.
(09-07-2021, 07:24 PM)Imperial Frost Federation Wrote: For 12 maybe having theater headquarters would be good. For example the City of Ikireijin in Reizen could host the Bareland HQ of the Military Alliance, while there could Anserisa or Gi-Land could host the Cordilian HQ, With Sedunn hosting the Bailtem HQ.
It sounds a bit expensive at this stage. How about a smaller single HQ that moves around to each nation say every 3 months or so?
RE: An invitation to discuss security and economic cooperation - Qwert - 10-03-2021
Thoughts, @Anserisa?
RE: An invitation to discuss security and economic cooperation - Klô - 10-04-2021
I'll try to elaborate my thoughts on the matter.
1. Mutual self-defence: consider an attack against one member state to be an attack against them all.
Would there be a possibility for a country to send in civilian servants of the military instead of actual soldiers? This could make it easier for smaller nations or even nations who are not well financially to still join in the alliance and not be in contradiction with one of the key principles of the alliance. Or maybe some could send intelligence officers or strategist generals, etc. Kind of like a small opt-out in case a country can't send in soldiers.
2. Encourage every member to spend as much as needed to be able to contributing to intelligence gathering, common infrastructure and a military force capable of asserting respective nation's territory's integrity.
The wording should be : Encourage every member to spend as much as they can to be able [...]. Still I believe that the 1% of GDP requirement can be a bit high for some nations and not represent that much more to the budget of the alliance (it would represent a contribution of 75,220,000 for Anserisa, hardly a huge number). But, I would still be fine with this requirement. I'd suggest a 0.50% minimum requirement and to encourage nations who can make up for it, to put in more effort.
3. Consensus-based decisions.
Totally agree.
4. Shared funding of research that strengthens the organisation's abilities and cause.
Totally agree.
5. Strengthen cooperation between universities.
Totally agree.
6. Free trade agreement.
Totally agree.
7. Hosting of nuclear weapons voluntary.
Totally agree.
8. No member can use chemical or biological weapons.
Totally agree.
9. Shared intelligence.
I believe it would never be to share the entirety of intelligence. I believe that countries would still keep secrets from each other. Maybe then also add a non-spying clause or something along these lines would probably also be required even though countries would still be able to send in spy, maybe just less.
10. Further members added: must be democracies.
Totally agree.
11. A council for permanent representatives from each member: decides on policies.
Totally agree.
12. A headquarters: military headquarters for sharing intelligence and surveillance and to plan joint operations.
I believe a mobile HQ would be more expensive than a permanent one or even smaller ones in multiple places. I'd be, at this moment, in favour of a permanent HQ somewhere in one of the countries which would contribute the most to the military alliance. Maybe have a HQ for the coordination of the scientific/universities (that would be located within one's country national university) and one HQ for the free trade arbitration process.
13: Apply for observer in the WF.
Totally agree.
RE: An invitation to discuss security and economic cooperation - Qwert - 10-04-2021
(10-04-2021, 02:57 PM)Anserisa Wrote: 1. Mutual self-defence: consider an attack against one member state to be an attack against them all.Would the nations that don't send their military still be mandated to consider themselves being at war with the aggressor? It would be fine if these nations contribute according to their ability, and I'd be fine with it not being militarily.
Would there be a possibility for a country to send in civilian servants of the military instead of actual soldiers? This could make it easier for smaller nations or even nations who are not well financially to still join in the alliance and not be in contradiction with one of the key principles of the alliance. Or maybe some could send intelligence officers or strategist generals, etc. Kind of like a small opt-out in case a country can't send in soldiers.
(10-04-2021, 02:57 PM)Anserisa Wrote: 2. Encourage every member to spend as much as needed to be able to contributing to intelligence gathering, common infrastructure and a military force capable of asserting respective nation's territory's integrity.This would be acceptable.
The wording should be : Encourage every member to spend as much as they can to be able [...]. Still I believe that the 1% of GDP requirement can be a bit high for some nations and not represent that much more to the budget of the alliance (it would represent a contribution of 75,220,000 for Anserisa, hardly a huge number). But, I would still be fine with this requirement. I'd suggest a 0.50% minimum requirement and to encourage nations who can make up for it, to put in more effort.
(10-04-2021, 02:57 PM)Anserisa Wrote: 9. Shared intelligence.Sounds reasonable and along the line of what what I was thinking too.
I believe it would never be to share the entirety of intelligence. I believe that countries would still keep secrets from each other. Maybe then also add a non-spying clause or something along these lines would probably also be required even though countries would still be able to send in spy, maybe just less.
(10-04-2021, 02:57 PM)Anserisa Wrote: 12. A headquarters: military headquarters for sharing intelligence and surveillance and to plan joint operations.Sounds good!
I believe a mobile HQ would be more expensive than a permanent one or even smaller ones in multiple places. I'd be, at this moment, in favour of a permanent HQ somewhere in one of the countries which would contribute the most to the military alliance. Maybe have a HQ for the coordination of the scientific/universities (that would be located within one's country national university) and one HQ for the free trade arbitration process.