Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Military Regulation Act 2015 (Yukon)
Topic Started: Mar 6 2015, 04:33 PM (181 Views)
Arcadia
Member Avatar
Administrator
Preamble: The intent of this Act is to set out clear regulations on how military forces are managed, RPed and controlled.

Article 1 - Military Size
1.1) A nation's Regular forces may consist of up to 3% of its total population.
1.2) A nation may have a military Reserve force of up to 3% of its total population.
  • 1) Reserves require a mobilisation time of 3 days OOC before they can be deployed and used.
    2) Reserve forces are considered to be half as effective as Regular forces; to represent this Reservist forces may utilise only half of the normal national statistics applied to regular forces. So a Reserve force from a nation with a Defence Forces Index of 50 would use a Defence Forces Index of 25 instead.
    3) Reserves can be called up at any time, however calling up reserves for a period of more that 7 days OOC will have a negative impact on the nation's economy to be determined by the RP Moderation Team.
    4) Reserve forces represent an increase in manpower. It is assumed that a nation maintains enough equipment to suitably arm and equip their reserve force. However the Reserve force cannot be used to increase the number of missiles, space craft or superweapons it has available.
    5) Reserve forces can only be used to supplement terrestrial military forces not space forces.

1.3) If a nation's territory comes under direct invasion or attack from an enemy force of roughly equal or greater size or strength then they may call upon an additional 4% of their population to fight as a Militia force.

  • 1) The same rules which apply to Reservists in 1.2 apply to Militia, except where this Section states otherwise.
  • 2) Militia forces are considered to be half as effective as Reserve forces, therefore one quarter as effective as Regular forces.
  • 3) Militia forces cannot use tanks, military aircraft or military ships. or equivalent technologies such as war walkers, power armour or skyships. The decision on what qualifies under this rule lies with the RP Moderation Team.
  • 4) The negative economic impact of mobilising a Militia force is felt immediately upon the announcement of their mobilisation.
  • 5) Militia forces may not fight outside their home nation's borders.
1.4) No nation may exceed this maximum of 10% population under arms at a time except where 1.5 applies.
1.5) If a nation is defeated in war and finds their home territory occupied or taken away by the enemy then 20% of the population of these regions may rise up in resistance.

  • 1) Resistance forces follow the same rules as Militia forces, except where this Section states otherwise.
  • 2) Resistance forces may not use military vehicles except those they capture from the enemy. The decision on what qualifies under this rule lies with the RP Moderation Team.
  • 3) Resistance forces may use improvised weapons and combat vehicles. The decision on what qualifies under this rule lies with the RP Moderation Team.
  • 4) If Resistance forces are used then the controlling player must accept a reduction of total population equal to 5x the size of the Resistance force to represent the loss of population incurred by the loss of land.
Article 2 - Military Management
2.1) All nations which have a military must maintain a Military Factbook, either on the Nationstates website or this Offsite forum.
2.2) Military Factbooks should include the total number of combat personnel a nation has as well as their distribution between the branches of the armed forces.
  • 1) There is no requirement on which branches a nation has in its military and it may distribute its forces as it will.
    2) It must be made clear what type of military force each branch has at its disposal and a brief appraisal of what sort of equipment it has. This appraisal need not be detailed, simply stating for example that the army uses rifles, tanks and armoured vehicles is enough.
    3) As a default there are four branches of the Military. Army, Navy, Airforce and Space. Each branch should be considered optional, especially Space.
2.3) Military Factbooks should include a breakdown of how the military is divided and how many personnel serve in each division. For example an Army may break itself into 40 Divisions with each Division housing 1000 personnel.
2.4) Military Factbooks should provide at least brief and vague details of the equipment used by the nation's military.
  • 1) These details need not be specific and can be vague.
    2) Where specific details are not provided then a nation's military's strength and abilities are judged according to their comparative national stats.
    3) Nations must have a Scientific Advancement Index of at least 65 in order to maintain a permanent military force in orbit. This includes satellites, space stations and weapons.
    4) Nations must have a Scientific Advancement Index of at least 100 in order to maintain a permanent military force in Space.
2.5) Military equipment which is specifically identified in a nation's Military Factbook is to have its strength judged by the RP Moderation Team based upon its own merits.
  • 1) National statistics should not be considered with relation to specifically identified equipment, only the merits of the equipment in question as described.
  • 2) The RP Moderation Team may decide that a piece of specifically identified equipment is too advanced for use by a nation, as such the nation may not use it or must find a source capable of providing them with such advanced equipment.
Article 3 - Military Usage
3.1) Military forces must be mobilised before they can be deployed and must be deployed before they can be used in combat.
3.2) Mobilisation of Regular forces takes 1 day OOC.
3.3) Military deployment times are dependent upon the distance they must travel, their method of transport and their size. Deployment times may be judged by the RP Moderation Team.
  • 1) Larger military forces take longer to deploy.
  • 2) More advanced military forces may deploy more quickly.
  • 3) Better equipped military forces may deploy more quickly.
  • 4) The minimum deployment time for any military force is 1 day OOC.
  • 5) Military forces deploy to a general area and may operate anywhere within that area. The person deploying forces must make clear what operational area a military force is being deployed to.
  • 5) A nation defending its own territory ignores 3.3.4 for its initial deployments within its territory which happen during mobilisation. However once their forces are mobilised and deployed for the first time 3.3.4 does apply if they wish to redeploy.
3.4) Military forces may be attacked at any time during mobilisation or deployment and any force which is attacked while deploying or mobilising suffers a disadvantage for not being combat ready.
3.5) Long range missiles and similar super weapons need not be deployed. Once they are mobilised they may be used at will on targets within range.
  • 1) Weapons defined as WMDs by the RP Moderation Team or by regional law may only be used with the approval of the RP Moderation Team who should make such judgements based upon whether or not their use is justifiable, sensible and reasonable within the context of IC events.
  • 2) A nation must have a Scientific Advancement Index of at least 50 to produce, own and use long range WMDs.
Article 4 - Mercenaries
4.1) Mercenary forces are allowed.
4.2) A nation may exceed its usual limit of military size by hiring mercenaries from another country.
  • 1) Mercenaries count towards the total Regular military size of their country of origin. Thus a nation may not exceed its maximum military size using mercenaries hired from its own citizens.
  • 2) Mercenaries are as effective as the Reqular forces of their country of origin and are equipped accordingly.
  • 3) Any nation offering the services of mercenaries must provide a section in their factbook defining their equipment, structure and numbers in the same way that they must provide a factbook for their regular military.
4.3) Mercenaries may not be equipped with WMDs, Super Weapons or Space Craft unless these are given to them by the nation hiring them.
4.4) Mercenary Reservists may be hired and follow the same rules as regular Reservists.
  • 1) Any nation offering the services of Mercenary Reservists must provide a section in their factbook defining their equipment, structure and numbers in the same way that they must provide a factbook for their regular military.
  • 2) Mercenary are as effective as the Reserve forces of their country of origin and are equipped accordingly.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
46566
Member Avatar

While i don't mind this bill i have to question the fairness to the smaller nations.While you and i gained our strength over time, this might overly strengthen us.As of right now i have a size of my military at max(3%) 562,290,000 with a DF of 708.I'm more worried about rolling over the smaller players. Mainly due to the fact that i should be able to fight most people with just my reserve force. Though i would like maybe the addition of a explanation of what we consider DF to be(effectiveness of training/morale)

The way this is written for example while we are even based on our military numbers but on the DF number i should wipe the floor with you. Though i have to ask why isn't there a DF requirement for space fleets?
Edited by 46566, Mar 6 2015, 04:58 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Herargon
Member Avatar

I'd prefer seeing it make it more fair to smaller nations.

Let's say that until you're about 1 billion citizens big, you can have an army up to 3% of your size.

But above that, your army is calculated as maximally being 0,03% of your population?

Actually, let's just forget the whole article. I find that it is unfair to both larger and smaller nations, attacking and defending nations in general:

• Larger nations would be made too strong in comparision with smaller nations - see article 1.1) and 1.2), and 1.3), and 3.3a), and 3.3b). Those would make large nations far too strong, since they have a larger population and thus a larger army possibility, and they would often be advanced, thus often be mobilising almost as fast as other nations.

• Smaller nations would get disadvantages in article 1.1) and 1.2), and 1.3d) and in 1.3e). For 1.1-1.2) refer to above said text. For 1.3d and 1.3e) it is a disadvantage due to the fact that the economic disadvantage is worse to smaller nations than larger, mostly. Larger nations are allowed to use militias, while smaller nations are too. As larger nations have a larger militia capability, this still makes them too strong. That makes it unfair.

• Defending nations would get a disadvantage due to article 3 limiting their ability to defend. Only article 3.3e) supports their ability to defend.

• Attacking nations could get an disadvantage due to above article.


Furthermore, I am concerned about article the compulsory military factbook, and article 2.5b), which is already used in another article (Technology Act?) that has been passed. That part is not necessary.

I thus disapprove of this law. It is unequal and makes it unfair to both larger and weaker nations, while it does not balance it out so larger nations won't be as weak as weaker ones. Naturally, larger nations are stronger, but that does not say they may be overpowered.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tyvenia

I'm opposed to any regulation of the military at this point by the Assembly, but I am generally in favor of Articles II & IV, if separated from the rest of the bill.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Unibearia

-snip-


Read the proposal wrong... Will update my debate in a new reply.
Edited by Unibearia, Mar 6 2015, 09:13 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
46566
Member Avatar

Herargon
Mar 6 2015, 06:38 PM
I'd prefer seeing it make it more fair to smaller nations.

Let's say that until you're about 1 billion citizens big, you can have an army up to 3% of your size.

But above that, your army is calculated as maximally being 0,03% of your population?

Actually, let's just forget the whole article. I find that it is unfair to both larger and smaller nations, attacking and defending nations in general:

• Larger nations would be made too strong in comparision with smaller nations - see article 1.1) and 1.2), and 1.3), and 3.3a), and 3.3b). Those would make large nations far too strong, since they have a larger population and thus a larger army possibility, and they would often be advanced, thus often be mobilising almost as fast as other nations.

• Smaller nations would get disadvantages in article 1.1) and 1.2), and 1.3d) and in 1.3e). For 1.1-1.2) refer to above said text. For 1.3d and 1.3e) it is a disadvantage due to the fact that the economic disadvantage is worse to smaller nations than larger, mostly. Larger nations are allowed to use militias, while smaller nations are too. As larger nations have a larger militia capability, this still makes them too strong. That makes it unfair.

• Defending nations would get a disadvantage due to article 3 limiting their ability to defend. Only article 3.3e) supports their ability to defend.

• Attacking nations could get an disadvantage due to above article.


Furthermore, I am concerned about article the compulsory military factbook, and article 2.5b), which is already used in another article (Technology Act?) that has been passed. That part is not necessary.

I thus disapprove of this law. It is unequal and makes it unfair to both larger and weaker nations, while it does not balance it out so larger nations won't be as weak as weaker ones. Naturally, larger nations are stronger, but that does not say they may be overpowered.
To be fair this bill favors larger nations like Prime or me. I stand to gain allot from the passage of this bill.(if not the most.) Though using this formula i would lose around a half a billion in forces which is good.(counting reserves) I rather not change percentage based on population size mainly because it causes confusion and overly favors smaller nations.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Arcadia
Member Avatar
Administrator
46566
 
While i don't mind this bill i have to question the fairness to the smaller nations.While you and i gained our strength over time, this might overly strengthen us.As of right now i have a size of my military at max(3%) 562,290,000 with a DF of 708.I'm more worried about rolling over the smaller players. Mainly due to the fact that i should be able to fight most people with just my reserve force. Though i would like maybe the addition of a explanation of what we consider DF to be(effectiveness of training/morale)

The way this is written for example while we are even based on our military numbers but on the DF number i should wipe the floor with you. Though i have to ask why isn't there a DF requirement for space fleets?


Nations with a larger population will always have a numerical advantage over smaller nations; short of instituting a region wide cap on population there is no way to get around this issue. We can however ensure that all nations operate to the same set of rules and standards when it comes to their military.

Your concern over the Defence Forces Index is justified I think, however I want to try and avoid a formulaic system which requires the application of mathematics. I think DF should be used as a simple comparison of the effectiveness of soldiers in terms of their morale and training and not on what a nation can and cannot use militarily, thus DF should have no bearing on whether or not a nation can have space forces.

Quote:
 
I'd prefer seeing it make it more fair to smaller nations.

Let's say that until you're about 1 billion citizens big, you can have an army up to 3% of your size.

But above that, your army is calculated as maximally being 0,03% of your population?

Actually, let's just forget the whole article. I find that it is unfair to both larger and smaller nations, attacking and defending nations in general:

• Larger nations would be made too strong in comparision with smaller nations - see article 1.1) and 1.2), and 1.3), and 3.3a), and 3.3b). Those would make large nations far too strong, since they have a larger population and thus a larger army possibility, and they would often be advanced, thus often be mobilising almost as fast as other nations.

• Smaller nations would get disadvantages in article 1.1) and 1.2), and 1.3d) and in 1.3e). For 1.1-1.2) refer to above said text. For 1.3d and 1.3e) it is a disadvantage due to the fact that the economic disadvantage is worse to smaller nations than larger, mostly. Larger nations are allowed to use militias, while smaller nations are too. As larger nations have a larger militia capability, this still makes them too strong. That makes it unfair.

• Defending nations would get a disadvantage due to article 3 limiting their ability to defend. Only article 3.3e) supports their ability to defend.

• Attacking nations could get an disadvantage due to above article.


Furthermore, I am concerned about article the compulsory military factbook, and article 2.5b), which is already used in another article (Technology Act?) that has been passed. That part is not necessary.

I thus disapprove of this law. It is unequal and makes it unfair to both larger and weaker nations, while it does not balance it out so larger nations won't be as weak as weaker ones. Naturally, larger nations are stronger, but that does not say they may be overpowered.


I have to disagree with you absolutely here. The percentages listed here are based on realistic projections; rarely has any nation exceeded 10% of their population being under arms. In fact its rare for any nation to come close; the USA reached an all time high of 12% service during WW2 but then that was arguably the greatest conflict in human history and thus is an exceptional case - at present only 0.5% of the population serves.

To turn to a large nation and say 'you must have a smaller proportion of your population in your military because you are big' is grossly unfair to larger nations. Its basically saying that because I have a big population I should be penalised for it. This is not a system I would approve of.

Now to address your concerns over numbers and fairness. At most a nation can have a military which is as effective as 5.5% of its population. A nation which reaches the maximum 10% population allowance therefore only has the benefit of an extra 2.5% over an attacker's 3% because the extra troops they call up are less effective and cannot utilise the same equipment.

Not only this but military convention is that you NEVER deploy your entire military overseas, let alone to a single location. In any war the defender has a natural advantage because they should, if they're sensible, have a larger proportion of their forces at home. Not only this you have to consider the fact that any attacker will be facing a hostile populace. This is why offensive wars are so costly, because the attacker always has a natural disadvantage that must be overcome.

Let's take the USA in the First Gulf War. They had to deploy overwhelming numbers which they could only achieve through assembling a coalition. They balanced out the defender's bonus through sheer firepower and technological superiority. That is how it should be.

Now please explain to me why I should not be allowed to use the same proportion of my population that say Vvarden is? It just doesn't make sense to further restrict the forces larger nations can bring to bear. Do you think that in a realistic scenario China would have less military forces available than Italy? No that's ridiculous, China is a huge nation and Italy is comparatively tiny. By further limiting the number of troops a larger nation is allowed you unfairly disadvantage those larger nations because they have more land and a larger population to protect with less. If I were to be limited to the 0.03% you propose I would have a mere 54 million regular soldiers to defend 18 billion people, compare this to a nation with 900 million population with 3% who has 27 million. That's a nation infinitesimally smaller than my own with more than half the number of troops I am able to field. That is just ridiculous.

You need to face the reality that there are huge disparities in population size and thus strength.

However this said just because a nation is big in terms of population doesn't mean its military is stronger man for man. Big isn't necessarily better. Take the USSR during WW2; at the beginning of the war the average USSR soldier was barely trained, had low morale, poor equipment and bad commanders. Germany's soldiers had excellent training, great morale, exceptional equipment and experienced commanders. The Russians outnumbered the Germans by many orders of magnitude and yet the Germans were able to push the Russians back to the gates of Moscow itself. This Act actually benefits smaller nations by specifically setting out a means by which their soldiers can in fact be superior to those of much larger militaries.

Quote:
 
I'm opposed to any regulation of the military at this point by the Assembly, but I am generally in favor of Articles II & IV, if separated from the rest of the bill.

I don't see why you are opposed to regulation of the military. It is something which, in order to prevent God Moding, needs to be addressed. I remember in NCON New Wolfeinstein claiming that half his population were in the military. That sort of thing cannot be allowed in a reasonable system because it creates ridiculous outcomes. If NW can claim 50% of his population are in the military then so can I. Say hello to my 9 billion man military.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
46566
Member Avatar

fair enough. I've always been afraid of running over the little guys.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Unibearia

46566
Mar 6 2015, 10:42 PM
fair enough. I've always been afraid of running over the little guys.
*Looks up* Who you calling little?


lol joke.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ajerrin

Uni you're like 30% of me and I'm like 30% of 456. You're not little. You're microscopic.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Wolfeinstein
Member Avatar

Since when should the RP moderation team have say in WMD deployment, I personally dislike this bill because it makes gargantuan nations like 46566 gods and smaller nations like me ticks.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
46566
Member Avatar

New Wolfeinstein
Mar 8 2015, 06:31 PM
Since when should the RP moderation team have say in WMD deployment, I personally dislike this bill because it makes gargantuan nations like 46566 gods and smaller nations like me ticks.
It's the same way now.This bill would actually make me weaker.(and other nations) The tracker i use gives me over 2 billion in military.(active and reserve) This bill will lower me to about 1 billion in military(active and reserve)Right now there is no ruling that reserves are weaker then active military.Look at the coalition against me recently I'd crush everyone in the alliance when i bought out SUN. I stopped myself from wreaking the smaller nations lined up against me. There was no way you guys had a chance against me when SUN left.

Based off of the tracker i use i do not have the biggest military in the region either.Nedea does. He beats me by 400 million. I think prime would have the fifth largest military at 710 million.(losing out to Nedea,me,Moarfall and st saratoga)
Edited by 46566, Mar 8 2015, 06:55 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Herargon
Member Avatar

Ajerrin
Mar 7 2015, 06:51 AM
Uni you're like 30% of me and I'm like 30% of 456. You're not little. You're microscopic.
Aside from this discussion, that gave me a good chuckle. :P

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Herargon
Member Avatar

Arcadia
Mar 6 2015, 10:22 PM
46566
 
While i don't mind this bill i have to question the fairness to the smaller nations.While you and i gained our strength over time, this might overly strengthen us.As of right now i have a size of my military at max(3%) 562,290,000 with a DF of 708.I'm more worried about rolling over the smaller players. Mainly due to the fact that i should be able to fight most people with just my reserve force. Though i would like maybe the addition of a explanation of what we consider DF to be(effectiveness of training/morale)

The way this is written for example while we are even based on our military numbers but on the DF number i should wipe the floor with you. Though i have to ask why isn't there a DF requirement for space fleets?


Nations with a larger population will always have a numerical advantage over smaller nations; short of instituting a region wide cap on population there is no way to get around this issue. We can however ensure that all nations operate to the same set of rules and standards when it comes to their military.

Your concern over the Defence Forces Index is justified I think, however I want to try and avoid a formulaic system which requires the application of mathematics. I think DF should be used as a simple comparison of the effectiveness of soldiers in terms of their morale and training and not on what a nation can and cannot use militarily, thus DF should have no bearing on whether or not a nation can have space forces.

Quote:
 
I'd prefer seeing it make it more fair to smaller nations.

Let's say that until you're about 1 billion citizens big, you can have an army up to 3% of your size.

But above that, your army is calculated as maximally being 0,03% of your population?

Actually, let's just forget the whole article. I find that it is unfair to both larger and smaller nations, attacking and defending nations in general:

• Larger nations would be made too strong in comparision with smaller nations - see article 1.1) and 1.2), and 1.3), and 3.3a), and 3.3b). Those would make large nations far too strong, since they have a larger population and thus a larger army possibility, and they would often be advanced, thus often be mobilising almost as fast as other nations.

• Smaller nations would get disadvantages in article 1.1) and 1.2), and 1.3d) and in 1.3e). For 1.1-1.2) refer to above said text. For 1.3d and 1.3e) it is a disadvantage due to the fact that the economic disadvantage is worse to smaller nations than larger, mostly. Larger nations are allowed to use militias, while smaller nations are too. As larger nations have a larger militia capability, this still makes them too strong. That makes it unfair.

• Defending nations would get a disadvantage due to article 3 limiting their ability to defend. Only article 3.3e) supports their ability to defend.

• Attacking nations could get an disadvantage due to above article.


Furthermore, I am concerned about article the compulsory military factbook, and article 2.5b), which is already used in another article (Technology Act?) that has been passed. That part is not necessary.

I thus disapprove of this law. It is unequal and makes it unfair to both larger and weaker nations, while it does not balance it out so larger nations won't be as weak as weaker ones. Naturally, larger nations are stronger, but that does not say they may be overpowered.


I have to disagree with you absolutely here. The percentages listed here are based on realistic projections; rarely has any nation exceeded 10% of their population being under arms. In fact its rare for any nation to come close; the USA reached an all time high of 12% service during WW2 but then that was arguably the greatest conflict in human history and thus is an exceptional case - at present only 0.5% of the population serves.

To turn to a large nation and say 'you must have a smaller proportion of your population in your military because you are big' is grossly unfair to larger nations. Its basically saying that because I have a big population I should be penalised for it. This is not a system I would approve of.

Now to address your concerns over numbers and fairness. At most a nation can have a military which is as effective as 5.5% of its population. A nation which reaches the maximum 10% population allowance therefore only has the benefit of an extra 2.5% over an attacker's 3% because the extra troops they call up are less effective and cannot utilise the same equipment.

Not only this but military convention is that you NEVER deploy your entire military overseas, let alone to a single location. In any war the defender has a natural advantage because they should, if they're sensible, have a larger proportion of their forces at home. Not only this you have to consider the fact that any attacker will be facing a hostile populace. This is why offensive wars are so costly, because the attacker always has a natural disadvantage that must be overcome.

Let's take the USA in the First Gulf War. They had to deploy overwhelming numbers which they could only achieve through assembling a coalition. They balanced out the defender's bonus through sheer firepower and technological superiority. That is how it should be.

Now please explain to me why I should not be allowed to use the same proportion of my population that say Vvarden is? It just doesn't make sense to further restrict the forces larger nations can bring to bear. Do you think that in a realistic scenario China would have less military forces available than Italy? No that's ridiculous, China is a huge nation and Italy is comparatively tiny. By further limiting the number of troops a larger nation is allowed you unfairly disadvantage those larger nations because they have more land and a larger population to protect with less. If I were to be limited to the 0.03% you propose I would have a mere 54 million regular soldiers to defend 18 billion people, compare this to a nation with 900 million population with 3% who has 27 million. That's a nation infinitesimally smaller than my own with more than half the number of troops I am able to field. That is just ridiculous.

You need to face the reality that there are huge disparities in population size and thus strength.

However this said just because a nation is big in terms of population doesn't mean its military is stronger man for man. Big isn't necessarily better. Take the USSR during WW2; at the beginning of the war the average USSR soldier was barely trained, had low morale, poor equipment and bad commanders. Germany's soldiers had excellent training, great morale, exceptional equipment and experienced commanders. The Russians outnumbered the Germans by many orders of magnitude and yet the Germans were able to push the Russians back to the gates of Moscow itself. This Act actually benefits smaller nations by specifically setting out a means by which their soldiers can in fact be superior to those of much larger militaries.

Quote:
 
I'm opposed to any regulation of the military at this point by the Assembly, but I am generally in favor of Articles II & IV, if separated from the rest of the bill.

I don't see why you are opposed to regulation of the military. It is something which, in order to prevent God Moding, needs to be addressed. I remember in NCON New Wolfeinstein claiming that half his population were in the military. That sort of thing cannot be allowed in a reasonable system because it creates ridiculous outcomes. If NW can claim 50% of his population are in the military then so can I. Say hello to my 9 billion man military.



You say that the percentage (3-10%) is reasonable. I think I now could agree with your stance on that percentage, since you've explained it. However, the Chinese army has about 3 million soldiers, and not 46 million (let's say China has 1,2 billion population) - or anything like that. Your argument on that place is invalid, however. I agree however that the percentage (3-10?%) you list as being okay - is good.

There indeed are huge disparities in population size and thus strength. I once too said that thing about the USSR.

But how does it benefit smaller nations in ''setting out a means by which their soldiers can in fact be superior to those of much larger militaries'', aside from training, morale, equipment and commanders? If I may ask; or is that it?

EDIT: also, where do you pull these statistics out from? ''3% percent'', ''as effective as 5.5%''?
Edited by Herargon, Mar 8 2015, 08:08 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Arcadia
Member Avatar
Administrator
The percentile categories state the MAXIMUM amount allowed for each military branch, not the required amount. I presently operate a regular military comprised of 1% of my population, not 3, the passage of this Act wouldn't change that.

As to where I get the statistics from I am applying mathematics. If the initial Regular force A, consists of 3% of a nation's population, then you add Reserve force B to it, with Reserve force B being as effective as 50% of A, so B = 50% of A, 1.5%. Etc etc etc its simple mathematics.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Arcadia
Member Avatar
Administrator
The 5 day debating period is over this Act is now at vote, please declare your votes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Unibearia

Aye
Edited by Unibearia, Mar 11 2015, 07:20 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
New Wolfeinstein
Member Avatar

Nay
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Herargon
Member Avatar

Nay
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tyvenia

Aye.

(Because I don't like the entire thing, but have been persuaded (opposed to my March 6 comments), that something is better than nothing at this point, and with the RPMT in place I find the totality of the circumstances sufficient to make this tenable. In addition, should this fail, I'd like to see it rebirthed in segments, rather than as a whole bill.)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Onza
Member Avatar

Aye
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
46566
Member Avatar

aye
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Arcadia
Member Avatar
Administrator
Voting is now complete and with a 4-2-0 majority the Act passes to the Senate.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Register Now
« Previous Topic · Legislative Archives · Next Topic »
Add Reply


Theme created by vcd of the ZetaBoards Theme ZoneStyle District