Defense Act

Geez, I like you all, but sometimes…

Things that aren’t illegal for civilians can and are illegal for military. Moral turpitude, the military is strong on that one.

Sure, but this is an NS military, not an actual armed service.

I’ve always found it pretty weird that we put elected ministers into the General Corps, as a matter of organization. It makes more sense, especially from a civilian-military separation, to just say the minister is in the charge of the military as a whole.

But honestly… I’m interested in not having a Minister of Defense. We’re already 3/4ths of the way there with how our military operates under our laws as it is. The General Corps runs the day-to-day-- by design, the SPSF is built to run with or without the presence of a minister. So what case is there for changing the leadership every 4 months? Why not have just a General Corps? Either maintain civilian leadership via the Prime Minister or going TRR-like and spinning off the SPSF as an independent body in itself. If left under the PM, then it’s possible for them to appoint a Minister of Defense if they want, but we wouldn’t need to spell that out in law that there must be a minister over the military.

1 Like

I agree with Glen for the most part. The PM should have the option to not appoint a Minister but the SPSF should ultimatley be subordinate to the PM and had civilian leadership. I’d rather not go the full way of separating the two - similarly to TITO or the RRA - as I think that introduces other organizational concerns.

On the contrary, engaging offensive military action is one of the gravest decisions the region could possibly undertake. Depending on the circumstances, such actions could constitute casus belli with another region. Currently, it is impossible to do without majority support of both the Cabinet and the Assembly. However, I believe that is overly limiting, as matters which are presented to the Assembly for approval are effectively not operationally secure. Having the Assembly declare our intent to attack a region by majority vote effectively tells an adversary “hey you’re about to be attacked!”.

Unanimous approval is the best middle ground. It preserves operational security (which the status quo does not) while still ensuring that we make measured decisions about the use of offensive force, rather than ones which risk stumbling into war.

As a former multi term MoD if the SPSF and NPA, I totally have no problem with the SPSF reporting to and under the Prime Minister but I have a STRONG belief that s MoD needs to be elected and not appointed. Too many times I’ve seen armies destroyed by MoDs being appointed by Prime Ministers/delegates with NO game play experience and no gameplay knowledge themselves. At a minimum, the MoD appointment has to be approved by the General staff. While a prime Minister may suggest an appointment to General, it should be contained within the SPSF for that appointment.

Why should the military receive that kind of special treatment?

The entire point of the Generals Corp is to have a professional body of officers who know what they are doing seperate from any political leadership. Thay way the PM or MoD don’t need to be experienced MilGP leaders.

1 Like

There a generals in the SPSf that have far greater reputations in the gameplay arena than almost every Prime Minister will ever have. I can agree that reporting to the Prime Minister can stop potential issues of the SPSF doing something with a region or against a region the the delegate may be in secret talks with but al the long time gameplayers know the deal and these usually quiet quick. But to get a Prime Minister that all of a sudden wants to play and get involved in promoting people, directing ops and things like that does NOTHING but demotivate experienced staff. Seen it, had it happen. Think of it this way. Been here since 2008. I have NEVER role played. Wouldn’t even know where to start. I become Prime Minister and get a buddy that hasn’t either and make them in charge of what types of role plays a allowed in TSP. Same thing.

Then, in that case, the General Corps, as a body, could report to the Assembly (the supreme authority in the region) their grievances in hopes that they do something about it.

Similarly, I would also hope that the General Corps would be able to adequately advise and consent to a PM or MoD’s desires and steer them away from misguided objectives contrary to the long-term goals of the SPSF.

Lastly, under the proposed text of the bill, neither the PM nor the MoD would have unilateral control over many of the things that I quoted above. That authority rests collectively with the General Corps, of which the PM and MoD would be a max of 2 members. One could construe that it would be an unlawful order for the PM or MoD to order an action unilaterally that didn’t have the support or even discussion of the General Corps.

That right there will be interpreted by a PM in the future they can do what they want and as new recruits come in, they will think that’s ok. This EXACT same scenario just destroyed what was the great army I am associated with that is now down to two Generals, once again trying to rebuild it once again

I’m looking at this part.

The general corps has the agenda purview of the stuff above. The general corps, also has the PM on the council, so presumably the PM shouldn’t be making unilateral decisions without the advice and consent of the general corps.

I, for one, would be very troubled to find out that a PM has decided that they know best and disregard the “professionals” in the SPSF.

I’m not going too invested in this, but I don’t think there is too much of an issue the way it’s set up. We have checks in the law to prevent gross overreach of power.

What’s the point of maintaining civilian control of the military, when civilians aren’t allowed to control it? If we’re deferring to the General Corps on everything, then again I recommend we spin off the SPSF to be its own independent part of TSP.

In your system, would the SPSF exist as an entirely non-governmental entity (similar to the RRA)? Or would there still be a measure of Assembly accountability?

I remain convinced that the military is not so special that it needs its own separate legal regime. It’s an institution within our government that is used as one of the ways in which we execute our policies, both foreign and domestic. Let’s treat it as such.

I understand this from an equity perspective, but ultimately the military wields the power of the region abroad and is used for power projection or in the event of war. Given the severity of some of its responsibilities, I think it’s reasonable to say more thought is needed as to its structure than is required for, say, planning cultural events.

The military has a key role, no doubt, but no less relevant than those of our other ministries. They all contribute to the region in their own ways and mismanagement in any has important consequences to our community, as one may notice from our current state. I know some think that the military is particularly delicate, but I believe that this comes from an outsized view of the role of foreign affairs and power projection within the region. Sure, those are important, but why are we holding them in such importance? What good is a military if there is no active community to benefit from it?

In any case, the military already has a General Corps. Going from that to discussing the possibility of removing civilian control over it or even separating it from the regular structure of regional government places a level of criticality to the military that I do not believe is warranted, unless one subscribes to the view that the military is more key than other institutions.

1 Like

Please see proposed amendments. I think this slims the law down considerably, retains ultimate civilian control of the military, but doesn’t try to “politicise” day to day operational matters.

Defense Act

An act to establish an official military for regional defense, war, and gameplay

1. General Provisions

  1. This law is a constitutional law and has precedence over all general laws and regulations.

2. Organization and Purpose

  1. The South Pacific Special Forces (SPSF) are the official military of the Coalition.

  2. The military will endeavor to:
    a. Foster regional activity,
    b. Defend the Coalition,
    c. Represent the power, influence, and policies of the Coalition abroad,
    d. Protect innocent regions from attack, and
    e. Promote legitimate, native democratic institutions across the world.

  3. The military will not engage in offensive operations to attack, destroy, vandalize, subjugate, or colonize any regions, except for:
    a. Regions which espouse hateful ideologies, with the approval of a majority of the General Corps; and
    b. Regions against which the Coalition has declared an official state of war or recognizes as hostile, with the unanimous approval of the General Corps.

  4. A member of the General Corps will notify the Assembly of offensive operations within 24 hours. The Assembly may order a military withdrawal from any offensive operation by majority vote.

3. Governance

  1. The Prime Minister is the civilian commander-in-chief of the military.
    a. No member of the military may refuse any lawful order or direction of the Prime Minister.
    b. The Prime Minister will generally seek the advice of military commanders.

  2. The Prime Minister may designate a minister as being responsible for the military.

  3. The General Corps is a body responsible for organizing military missions, deciding personnel membership and ranks, and providing military advice to the Prime Minister.

  4. The General Corps consists of:
    a. The Prime Minister, ex officio;
    a. The Prime Minister, ex officio, or a minister designated as being responsible for the military,
    b. The minister designated by the Prime Minister as being responsible for the military, ex officio; and
    b. All currently serving Generals.

  5. An individual becomes a General if they are nominated by the Prime Minister or the minister designated with responsibility for the military, the Generals Corp and if their nomination is approved by a majority vote of the Assembly.

  6. An individual is removed as a General if recalled by the Assembly by regular order or by a majority vote of the other members of the General Corps.

  7. The Prime Minister will hold ultimate authority in the General Corps.

  8. The Prime Minister may veto any proposed military mission they believe is contrary to interests of the Coalition.

4. Structure

  1. The General Corps may establish or abolish SPSF ranks and organize its command structure accordingly.

  2. Each rank established must have clearly defined and publicly accessible rank requirements.

5. Discipline

  1. The General Corps may establish a code of conduct for members of the military.

  2. The General Corps may enact disciplinary actions for violations of this code of conduct as it sees fit.

  3. The Prime Minister may unilaterally enact disciplinary actions for violations of this code of conduct as they see fit.

Sneaky sneaky removing the anti-raiding clauses!

You really should leave 3.1.A in there.

I think Belschaft will argue he left the statement of the military’s purpose in there. The problem is that it removes the legally enforceable way we restrict the military from doing non-defender operations. 2(3) and 2(4) have to stay in.