| Demilitarization |
|
What about getting rid of the MoA and placing the military under the jurisdiction of the MoFA? The military generals can answer to the MoFA and conduct missions that actually advance our FA objectives.
Apad
King of Haldilwe
Dear god no.
Ah, the wonders of technology. I'm on Tapatalk!
That doesn't actually solve the problem, it just gives the MoFA work that is probably unwanted.
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
Im trying to think of what we can do to get the military to act in a way that is beneficial to our FA instead of just going about doing missions without consultation about its impact on our relations with allies or potential enemies.
I dont know how much more work it would add to the MoFA. I would envision the MoFA giving the all clear for missions but allowing the head general to run the missions and coordinate with allies. let me be clear, my preference is to get rid of the SPSF in favor of a militia or just demilitarize altogether.
Apad
King of Haldilwe
My preference is to establish a Civil Guard, for the record.
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
If there had to be continuous coordination between MoFA and MoA, presumably with MoFA having veto power over missions to prevent any FA issues, I think we would run into problems. The two would probably butt heads, if either didn't take a neutral stance on GP. Kind of like how the State Dept and the Defense Dept in RL US constantly don't get along.
But more practically, it would require that MoFA have the same dedication as MoA. I certainly wouldn't have been able to do that. Friction between MoA and MoFA boils down to TSP's non-alignment. As long as both ministers are on the same team, things go fine. But when their interests diverge, that's when the military becomes a potential problem for FA. But I think not many people here would accept the notion that FA is more important than the military.
(01-23-2015, 09:27 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: My preference is to establish a Civil Guard, for the record. What does this mean though? I agree with the more militia style approach towards military gameplay and was something I advocated in my MoA campaign, and I think it makes a lot of sense in The South Pacific. Reducing barriers to entry is always something we should be trying to do. I do not think we should just eliminate the army or make it so our army can only do incredibly basic things.
The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific
I believe the idea of a Civil Guard is to get people to endorse our delegate, first and foremost. They would be here most of the time. When an ally needs help, like if they're being attacked, or they need help with a delegate transition, the Civil Guard would be deployed.
It sounds to be like a slightly more formal version of the ad hoc coalitions of the willing that Unibot and I are advocating in replacement of a regular updating force.
Noting that the military arm of TSP has diminished to the size where it can no longer mount effective operations in any unilateral capacity, and recognising TSP as a region does not advocate adherence to the prevalent philosophies current in gameplay of either raiding, defending or imperialist expansion, it is logical to conclude that the SPSF is no longer a viable organisation for the region to host.
Without numerical capacity and the political support of its host, any Military in a region that has embraced pacifism is at best an anachronism, at worst anathema to our present world view. As TSP recognises that the right of other regions to conduct their affairs without fear of outside interference, it would be a violation of our own values for units representing the region to engage in hostile invasions of Sovereign regions under any pretext. Military capacity could be retained in the region to act as a reserve to be called upon to oppose interventions in foreign regions by external aggressors. However, this would firmly place the Region in the Defender camp (according to current definitions)again going against our Zeitgeist The retention of any military organisation for the purposes of internal security could possibly be perceived as a heavy handed encroachment on the liberty and democracy of the region given that the CSS is tasked with that aspect already. The suggestion that is therefore that TSP needs a military to fulfill obligations with our allies and treaty partners. However, if our this is the case I would suggest that these treaties need to be re-examined - it would seem contradictory for us to adopt isolationist pacifiism if we could be forced to violate our own principles of non-interference at the behest of our "friends".
I read your post, but I honestly didn't understand a thing.
@Glen: in a way. I still think that having an established name and purpose for the Civil Guard/Coalition of the Willing would be good. That way, we could even work on a strategy to improve the Delegate's endo levels. I'm thinking on more than just the military, in this particular case. Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 6 Guest(s) |