Talk:National Defense Authorization Act, 643

Original Debate

Typn

1. 2619

Text Channel 📜-defence-act Search

Welcome to #📜-defence-act! This is the start of the #📜-defence-act channel.

Edit Channel July 3, 2022

The Kodiak Public Service — 07/03/2022 @Assembly Member The National Defence Act, 643 An act to expand the capabilities of the armed forces of the republic. Amends and merges the Defense Act (Inter) and National Defense Reserve Act (637). Provides authority for funding of projects for FY643 - FY646 Proposed by Deputy Chancellor @Oskar Luchens (NUP) as Minister for Defence. Expected final voting to take place on 14 July unless otherwise changed by action of the Assembly. https://kodiak.fandom.com/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act,_643

Aaron Tzardovich of Princeberg — 07/03/2022 Does this have to do anything with The Great North?

Patrick Barber — 07/03/2022 As Chancellor, i support this bill for first, fulfilling my election promise to increase defence funding; second, for the increase protection funding for our defence forces will provide; third, for the increase in accessible training and jobs funded by the state; and fourth, for the simplification of our two existing codes within the Ministry of Defence into one more streamlined act.

@Aaron Tzardovich of Princeberg Does this have to do anything with The Great North?

Patrick Barber — 07/03/2022 I think there is a significant level of urgency to ensure we maintain our territorial integrity within the region of Darrent from the illegal claims of Kingdom the Great North, and this is one major step, yes.

1

Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) — 07/03/2022 This act will also help in combatting the likely reemergence of the Kodiak militia following the disappearance of Mobius Weebus. Of course, it is unconfirmed whether the disappearance is the result of Kodiak militia activity, but it is always good to be prepared. I support this act.

Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 07/03/2022 I am most pleased about the expansion of construction that is spread nationally throughout Kodiak, that will undoubtedly also help with jobs, and national expertise. I look forward to future details from the Minister as well, naturally! I'll review this again later (just skimmed for now) but I don't see anything that leaps out at me that I need to comment on. (edited) July 4, 2022

Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 07/04/2022 I am prepared to answer questions or provide additional information where needed. July 5, 2022

John Edwards [KWP] — 07/05/2022 You previously raised in the lobby a proposal to build a shipworks to manufacture coast guard vessels. Is that allocation included in this?

Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 07/05/2022 Correct. The navy projects includes provisions to improve spillways and dry docks of several navy yards. These will be of use for the future for ship construction and repair yards for both the navy and coast guard. In the short term we will continue to require procurement of foreign built ships to meet the needs of the fleet July 6, 2022

Visdvk — 07/06/2022 This is an excellent bill, and I believe that it should pass. July 12, 2022

Jaxon L. NFPA (NUP) — 07/12/2022 This may be stupid, but what is the current state of our MBTs and other armored units. [2:01 AM] In the long run, Is it a better idea to work on developing a new MBT, APC, etc. instead of retrofitting old ones? (edited)

@Jaxon L. NFPA (NUP) This may be stupid, but what is the current state of our MBTs and other armored units.

Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) — 07/12/2022 I believe you can look at the report on the status of our defense forces on the wiki. [2:02 AM] Can't find the link right now.

Aaron Tzardovich of Princeberg — 07/12/2022 I believe this is the current basing and state of the military

Jaxon L. NFPA (NUP) — 07/12/2022 Ok it says latest equipment

1 [2:04 AM] But it seems like we don't have enough of them

@Jaxon L. NFPA (NUP) But it seems like we don't have enough of them

Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) — 07/12/2022 It is included in the bill that more will be bought over a period of multiple years.

Jaxon L. NFPA (NUP) — 07/12/2022 Oh? Where does it say that.

Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) — 07/12/2022 Article 2.1

Jaxon L. NFPA (NUP) — 07/12/2022 "2.1.3 - Multiyear procurement authority for Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV) Model '20 Moderniziation package " - This? [2:07 AM] Because that to me just seems like a modernization package. [2:07 AM] Not actually procuring more units.

@Jaxon L. NFPA (NUP) Not actually procuring more units.

Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) — 07/12/2022 Oh you're right.

Jaxon L. NFPA (NUP) — 07/12/2022 So I guess a question I bring to the table is... Is it maybe worth it to amend the bill to include a procurement of a modest amount of new armored units, whatever that may be?

@Jaxon L. NFPA (NUP) Not actually procuring more units.

Símôn Kalimeno [Myguystan] (NUP) — 07/12/2022 However I believe the extra military budget will be delegated as seen fit after it is appropriately distributed to the programs in the bill. [2:09 AM] So the extra equipment will be acquired, just on an individual basis as army logistics staff see fit and not necessarily part of the bill.

Jaxon L. NFPA (NUP) So I guess a question I bring to the table is... Is it maybe worth it to amend the bill to include a procurement of a modest amount of new armored units, whatever that may be?

Jaxon L. NFPA (NUP) — 07/12/2022 Hmm, Ok. I'm always a little weary of pork barrel legislation, but this seems to be a good fit for it. [2:10 AM] Either way, I believe the bill should be passed.

1

@Jaxon L. NFPA (NUP) So I guess a question I bring to the table is... Is it maybe worth it to amend the bill to include a procurement of a modest amount of new armored units, whatever that may be?

Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 07/12/2022 Appreciate the feed back. To address the items earlier I'll try to answer the questions you posed.

Current state of the MBTs is a lack of manning and equipping of the current force. Most of our equipment is in the Tier 3 category (Tier 1 is highest) Basically we are two generations of equipment behind the most advanced items. Due to a lack of manning and issues with maintenance in the past, Tier 3 is probably the best we can hope to keep running from the cost of equipment maintaining.

@Jaxon L. NFPA (NUP) So I guess a question I bring to the table is... Is it maybe worth it to amend the bill to include a procurement of a modest amount of new armored units, whatever that may be?

Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 07/12/2022 When I wrote the bill, the intent was to try and get the whole force to an achievable level. The cost of modern tanks or even the next gen above would be much more expensive and would only improve the battalions we outfit. Leaving critical gaps in the rest of the force. This would also necessitate a change in training courses for new maintenance practices and procedures for those vehicles. Our maintainers would no longer all be on the same skill range. The strategy with this bill is to take the short term improvement of all units over the next three years and then we can begin the process of choosing a new MBT or APC model. [4:52 AM] Instead, we chose to go for the modern Infantry rifle and support weapons which will effect more soldiers in the near term and be less expensive compared to an armored vehicle. Similarly our artillery systems will be taking modernization in order to meet possible demands of the modern battlefield and keep us lethal in a Fires capacity. [4:53 AM] To offset the tank equipment we did include a provision for modern Attack Helicopter models which can be a massive force multiplier for our armored forces to offset any possible ground differential. But this will also take time to train new pilots and retrain existing pilots. [4:54 AM] However, if there is enough concern from the assembly we can relook priorities to better shape the ground forces. (edited)

2 July 14, 2022

Eh, it's Searls... — 07/14/2022 Shouldn't this be going to vote?

Gustave Bernier - KWP — 07/14/2022 It should soon enough

Patrick Barber — 07/14/2022 The President has been pretty busy IRL lately - i will have the Public Service begin the process

1

1

The Kodiak Public Service

used 

/timepoll

EasyPoll BOT

— 07/14/2022
(edited)

Question Do you approve of the implementation of this The National Defence Act, 643?

Choices

Aye
Nay
Abstain

Final Result

▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░ [17 • 77%]
░░░░░░░░░░ [1 • 5%]
▓▓░░░░░░░░ [4 • 18%]

22 users voted

Settings

Poll already ended (3 days ago)
Anonymous Poll
allowed choice

No other votes allowed

Allowed roles: @Assembly Member Poll ID: JZbSJTCSw9

1

1

1

The Kodiak Public Service — 07/14/2022 @Assembly Member The National Defence Act, 643 is now up to vote. Voting will be available for 72 hours. No debate is permitted while the vote occurs. July 19, 2022

Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) — Yesterday at 11:08 PM @Assembly Member the National Defence Act has passed. I will be archiving and deleting the channel in 24 hours.

First Review

Patrick Barber
OP

— 15/12/2022 12:54

@Assembly Member National Defense Authorization Act, 643
An act to expand the capabilities of the armed forces of the republic. https://kodiak.wiki/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act,_643

This Act is automatically under review due to the funding period expiring.
It is the duty of the Assembly to either Renew, or Amend this act. I suggest making amendments now that the war is complete, but recommend against repeal as this is the only defence spending authorisation act on the books. We should likely seek to make funding permanent now that it is peacetime and reviews take up valuable GA debate time.

Voting is presently set for 29 Dec 2022
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 15/12/2022 13:14 I think that we should focus on amending and revising the specific procurement programs in this bill.
I suggest a relatively unorthodox approach to modernization and procurement. This would involve foreign defense companies investing and building factories inside Kodiak, allowing them to produce their weapons and equipment inside Kodiak for cheaper costs because of our large (and quite frankly desperate) labor force. In return we purchase initial shipments of their systems while allowing some factories to be eventually bought by the state and retailored to produce modified versions of imported equipment. This helps establish a military-industrial complex as well as allow us to gain experience developing more complicated weapons systems. This also has the added benefit of boosting our economy by creating more jobs. John Edwards [KWP] — 15/12/2022 19:06
I can't say as I'm super keen to see Kodiak workers be exploited simply becuase there are a lot of them. Wouldn't this become something of a sweatshop scenario? Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 15/12/2022 23:25
Our main value to foreign investors right now is cheaper labor compared to more developed countries whilst also not being so underdeveloped. This doesn’t necessarily mean that it’ll become a sweatshop type scenario, it can merely mean that the standard of living and wages are lower here right now compared to a well-developed country. Our labor laws would apply since they’ll be operating inside Kodiak, so we still retain a fair degree of control over the wellbeing of our workers. Patrick Barber
OP

— 18/12/2022 18:45

@Assembly Member I would like to direct members to this bill as it does need to be amended.
Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 18/12/2022 19:09 Would it be a fair assumption that the modernisation program has had setbacks due to the outbreak of war taking considerable resources? My best guess is a yes. If anything we would certainly need to continue funding to continue to bring about the reorganisation, infrastructure, equipping these formations.

We ought to also examine the proposed modernisation / procurement programs and determine if these are still fit for purpose given what we have learned - should things still be funded, should we fund other things more, should we remove and add different funding priorities. Example - we could not establish air superiority and air defence over our own territory, and that is likely due to a combination of factors such as our equipment not being ready, as well as whether our procurement needs are still being met.

I think it also relevant to point out that many of our cities were under missile threat throughout the duration of the conflict - and we really were not able to counter that.

I must also ask the question how much more funding can we add, can we still maintain current levels of funding as well?
John Edwards [KWP] — 18/12/2022 21:11 I'm going through budget comparisons at the moment.
Patrick Barber OP

— 20/12/2022 14:52

@Chancellor
Just a reminder about this bill John Edwards [KWP] — 20/12/2022 17:31
Military spending spiralled massively (by necessity) during the war. While this legislation is necessary, the costs included are war based costs. Conscription has now swallowed much of the military budget. The nation simply cannot afford an expenditure of this level AND maintain the expenditure for national service. I'm recommending this either be halved, or the time frame doubled. In interest alone we stand to lose 5B florins. That will need to be made up somewhere. Patrick Barber
OP

— 20/12/2022 17:33

given that we really should avoid having any automated laws, the only option would be to halve the budget John Edwards [KWP] — 22/12/2022 09:17
As per the agreement over the conscription repeal, I propose increasing the military budget from 11B to 13B. That will significantly increase defence spending and put it at approximately 10% of our total expenditure (for frame of reference, much more than the US, about on par with Israel). Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 22/12/2022 10:05
What would the defense spending to gdp ratio be like? Patrick Barber
OP

— 22/12/2022 10:07

Defence spending in 648 was ~3.1% GDP and 8.7% GovExp compared to the OECD numbers of
~6% GovExp and 2.5% GDP Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 22/12/2022 10:09
Which, of part of the deal to end conscription, will go up. Patrick Barber
OP

— 22/12/2022 10:09

We do need to play catchup Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 22/12/2022 10:10
We will need a strong domestic military industrial complex built to sustain such a war machine It won’t matter how much money we have if we’re reliant on distant and vulnerable trade networks
Is there a current plan of action on how we’ll tackle that? (Hopefully one as successful as Israel’s) Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 22/12/2022 10:15
Presumably when our economy improves and allows investments anywhere else, the expenditure and % GDP value will go down naturally. Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 22/12/2022 10:16
So we’re gonna let the free market prop up an arms industry? Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 22/12/2022 10:18
Sorry I didn't see your question when I wrote that, we do need domestic industrial investment as well that much is true. We don't have a strong capability ourselves to do much production military wise - though we have been building plenty of shipyards (that would continue with funding from this bill) Patrick Barber
OP

— 22/12/2022 17:13

There is certainly opportunity to invest in domestic manufacture - but we will need to subsidise the capital investment in plant and property Patrick Barber
OP

— 23/12/2022 11:05

I'm not seeing much input from other members. Are we happy with an increase to 13 billion per annum and removal of the review as proposed? Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 23/12/2022 11:06
I’m happy with it, how about you guys @Gabriel Mondo (Karr) [NUP] , @Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden , @Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [NUP] , and @Reginald Karbunckle(Kusaca)(NUP)? Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 23/12/2022 11:31
Sounds good to me Gabriel Mondo (Karr) [NUP] — 23/12/2022 11:56
An increase to 13 billion seems sufficient. Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [NUP] — 23/12/2022 21:59
Yeah, sounds good Reifyrm Visdvk [I] — 24/12/2022 01:49
I find that adequate. Patrick Barber
OP

— 24/12/2022 09:45

Amendment to Summary An act to expand the capabilities of the armed forces of the republic. Amends and merges the Defense Act (Inter) and National Defense Reserve Act (637).
Amendment to Article 3

   3.1 - The Ministry of Defense authorization for Defense Spending is set at ₣13 billion per FY/3.25 per quarter.

   3.2 - The Army budget is raised to ₣1,950 million/quarter
   3.3 - The Naval budget is raised to ₣755 million/quarter

   3.4 - The Air Force budget is raised to ₣520 million/quarter
   3.5 - The Coast Guard budget is crafted at ₣ 175 million/quarter

Patrick Barber

pinned 

a message

to this channel. See all 

pinned messages .

— 24/12/2022 09:45

Patrick Barber
OP

— 24/12/2022 09:45

I can't edit the original in place, as its currently active legislation, so consider this amendment as pinned. Patrick Barber
OP

— 27/12/2022 09:29

@Chancellor Is this amendment acceptable? John Edwards [KWP] — 27/12/2022 09:31
Absolutely. Patrick Barber
OP

— 27/12/2022 09:31

I will allow 24 hours for any objections and then call the vote. EasyPoll
BOT

— 28/12/2022 16:32

Question
Do you approve of the Amendment for the National Defense Authorisation Act?
Choices 🇦 Aye
🇧 Nay 🇨 Abstain

Final Result
🇦 ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░ [15 • 75%] 🇧 ▓▓░░░░░░░░ [3 • 15%]
🇨 ▓░░░░░░░░░ [2 • 10%] 20 users voted

Settings

alarm_clock: Poll already ended (a day ago)

spy: Anonymous Poll

one: allowed choice

lock: No other votes allowed

Allowed roles: @Assembly Member
Poll ID: ZFzyku8pPW Patrick Barber
OP

— 28/12/2022 16:33

@Assembly Member The vote has now been called. Debate is suspended. The poll shall remain open for 72 hours.
Patrick Barber OP

— Yesterday at 14:01

@Assembly Member
Apologies for the timing, but this vote ends in less than 3 hours. Please be sure to vote if you have not Patrick Barber
OP

— Today at 12:02

@Assembly Member This Vote has ended. Measure passed 15:3:2.
It will be archived Presently