| Demilitarization |
In all this debate, people keep forgetting the thrust of my argument. The SPSF doesn't exist without costs. A lot of the debate happening in the past several posts assumes that we only gain by having the SPSF. I don't think it's a positive-sum thing anymore, and the only solution to me either abolishing it, going defender or raider, or blindly putting faith in the next random person who promises they can revitalize the SPSF to the point where the benefits do outweigh the costs.
(01-23-2015, 05:38 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Bel, that's ridiculous. Less ridiculous than some of the things that Uni accuses me of? This is a blatant case of CoI. Which Unibot is talking? TSP Unibot? UDL Unibot? FRA Unibot? TRR Unibot? Three of them gain a material benefit to less troops turning up for TNP, Balder or Euro led ops. TSP doesn't. Since when was supporting out allies some kind of crime? Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
I think TSP gains in not having a reason to have arguments over R/D, which will happen if we maintain an update force that teeters in between alignments. I don't think that's anything to sneeze at.
Unless we consider the ability to support our allies and receive benefits in return to be some kind of gain. Even a token force is a contribution that earns us goodwill and other favors.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
We can support our allies without a regular updating force. Coalitions are always formed to combat coups, and there's no reason why we need a regular updating force to join a coalition.
I don't think we really ever had a crippling impasse over the army except Unibot who has been against every nondefender action here.
Most of us agree with our foreign policy, I don't see how having an army that reflects that is radical
The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific
Indeed. Even I've reconciled to being small i rather than large I, and I literally burnt my political influence over the issue at the time.
Military policy follows foreign policy; the only people who have problems with the things are troops do are moralist defenders. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
Well if anybody in TSP is interested in joining a clandestine R/D organization based in TSP but not representing TSP please get in touch - I promise I win't tell Glenn or Uni!
If most of us agreed on our foreign policy, I don't think people would have found my tenure as MoFA to be an existential threat, SB.
I agree Glenn, however I've never been a fan of "stop talking about the problem and it'll go away." That's what demilitarization sounds like to me...get rid of it and the problems will go away. That's unlikely with all the distinct personalities that exist.
Every delegate has had some sort of issues, do we next get rid of delegates too? I like the idea of having the military answerable to the Assembly. I also think that the military having a clear purpose and objectives does help (such as SB's anti-Nazi campaign). Personally, I am a fan of defenderism but I'm open to the military being an introduction to both sides or doing something different. Doing the same thing will result in more failures but perhaps doing something different and new will garner a different result. Also, I'm so intrigued by Lady Rebel's discussion of the a 30 member military...are there any records for that? Escade ~ Positions Held in TSP ~ Delegate | Vice Delegate Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs ~ The Sparkly One ~ My Pinterest |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES 
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 12 Guest(s) |