There are more changes than just this I’d like to see made to the Military code, but those are a project I’d want to work on writing myself in another resolution.
Lieutenants are already required to be able to lead basic operations:
- Demonstrate the ability to lead smaller operations using battlefield-typical terms
I don’t oppose adding it, but without giving an argument as to why it’s foundational enough to the rank to be defined by the Assembly and not the Admiralty it feels like you’re just legislating for the sake of legislating; creating restrictions in search of a problem to solve.
This is not a change I support. Operations involving GCRs are almost always going to be more complicated than just a large frontier given the magnitude, both mechanically and politically, and we don’t need a step down in requirements here. The knowledge and skills required are all going to be ones that you’d need to liberate a large frontier, although with perhaps the exception of SC Liberations and Injunctions. Being capable of liberating a GCR is not something I would remove, and while I’d be perfectly happy to add an “and large frontier” onto that, as it stands I am against this.
This is a massive change in policy.
This is a massive change in policy regarding something we don’t see anymore. I am in support, but feel this should go farther.
This section is all about legislating members of the SPSF who are in other militaries during a conflict where the two militaries are at odds. It was a solution to a symptom that existed at the time the Military Code was written, but whose root cause has been fixed since then. The first sentence of Article 3 Section 3 gives us our one org policy, that you cannot be a member of another military. It legislates this through the stipulation of the exception that you may be a member of another military with the permission of the Admiralty, an exception that exists to grandfather in those who were members of other militaries at the time this was written. The last example of this exception was Eshia, who left the SPSF recently. With the departure of Eshia from the SPSF we have no more members who are part of another active military. The Admiralty has no intention of granting this exception again, and we stand behind the one org policy.
The elimination of these parts are largely meaningless in a purely technical sense, as we likely will never come to see this situation in the future. From a political stance, eliminating these parts is a strong reinforcement of our one org policy. This is something I very much support, but I do not feel this goes far enough. I would rather see this change: