Talk:The Kodiak Security Service Law, 643 (Res)

From The Kodiak Republic Wiki

Initial Debate

Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) — 09/08/2022
@Assembly Member
The Kodiak Security Service Law
A resolution to enact universal conscription of citizens of the republic for a period of 2-3 years in order to defend against external threats to the nation's territorial integrity.

A vote date has been set to August 18th

Author: @Micheal Valois (Tanith) - NUP
Co-Sponsor: @Oskar Luchens (NUP)
The Kodiak Republic Wiki
The Kodiak Security Service Law (643)
A resolution to enact universal conscription of citizens of the republic for a period of 2-3 years in order to defend against external threats to the nation's territorial integrity. Passed ## MONTH 2022 with ## Aye, ## Nay, ## Abstain. IDENTIFYING the state of the armed forces is severally undermanned RECOGNISING the complex threat of foreign ag...
The Kodiak Security Service Law (643)
Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 09/08/2022
I have an initial concern, as the conscription terms are 36 months for men, 24 months for women. Is that not a significant amount of time (3 or 2 years) that an eligible adult is unavailable for either the workforce (or the economy I suppose), or unavailable for further education?

I'm just trying to understand what conscription means for Kodiak.

While I recognise the current state of regional affairs, and state of the military may necessitate service, perhaps we should be careful not to stunt ourselves domestically. With that in mind, should we perhaps have an exemption of continued service after say 6 (or 12) months if the conscript has a legitimate avenue for contribution to Kodiak outside military service? For example if they are pursuing higher education, in demand full-time employment. In essence, service for Kodiaks future prosperity should not necessarily be slowed. In other words, an extended article 4.1.

I'm willing to hear all sides of thought for this matter, as I have said, I recognise the current regional state of affairs with our aggressive neighbours does have cause for concern. Can the Defence Minister also comment on the necessity of conscription, the extent required, etc? What is the estimated numbers of conscripts that the current proposal supplies and is that a reasonable amount or more than enough? (OOC: If this is a difficult number to compute that's fine! Alternatively if the numbers are already available feel free to point me to them and I can calculate myself.).

Secondly, are we even equipped to conscript, train, and deploy/take care of all eligible male citizens between 18-29 and all eligible female citizens between 18-27? Or should determine the required number of conscripts on the basis of military need to supplement volunteer numbers, giving the Ministry of Defence flexibility regarding recruitment and conscription strategies, based around the available pool of eligible adults?

While not stated in this bill, would I be correct in assuming that conscription will be done at various times during the calendar year as to space out requirements and load on the military, rather than all at once per year. Does this need to be explicitly stated? I'm easy either way.

Another thought - perhaps we should allow the option for a conscript, upon completion of service or reaching exemption to enlist in the reserves. (alternatively or additionally, like Finland, be placed in a civil reserve and activated for training if a conflict should arise, until a certain age - e.g., for Finland that is 50).
2.2.1 - Married women shall also be exempt from active service, but shall still be required to serve in the Reserves.

Can the necessity of this clause be explained?
John Edwards [KWP] — 09/08/2022
"2.2 - Pregnant women and current mothers shall be exempt from military service."
I feel this should be "single parents" instead of/as well as current mothers.

Separately, I can't help but feel that we've already just had a massive influx of funding to defence. How much will this secondary expansion cost us? Could we assess the effectiveness of the first funding boost before we push further measures through?
John Edwards [KWP] — 09/08/2022
In the possible event of further increased agression from TGN, What is the current assessment of our Defence capabilities within the contested region with the recently passed spending increase? I'm not looking for micro details, just an assessment on liklihood of success and costs. Followed by an assessment on what the increased liklihood of success and costs will be with this legislation in place.
Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 09/08/2022
@Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein)
I would like add that @Micheal Valois (Tanith) - NUP is the author of this since he didn’t get the credit in the pinned post
Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 09/08/2022
The Defense Ministry recognizes the Assembly Member's question. I will provide an accurate number to answer the question shortly. (OOC: If @Patrick Barber has data from the sim about the age demographics of the nation that will be helpful. Otherwise I'll take the total population and take a reasonable percentage expected to make up the target age group.)
To answer the question regarding how many personnel we can reasonably take in, the short answer is that the military would only conscript citizens to fill the authorized size of the active army. The current authorized strength is 260,000. To allocate the citizens that report for duty, this would be decided by a national lottery during conscription windows which will be laid out in a coming Defense Report that is still being drafted.
Patrick Barber — 09/08/2022
Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 09/08/2022
Regarding the Assembly Member's question of the Ministry's assessment of our forces in the Darrent. We currently have the 10th Division on heightened alert status manning a posture of prepared defense. This is supplemented by the 501st Recon Brigade close to the border. In the event of a contingency operation. Commander, Northern Operations Command will transition to command Joint Task Force North which will subordinate all Ground, Sea, and Air units from the Darrent region. As published in the National Defense Strategy we have different milestones of how to measure our success in the campaign.

The current assessment of the Ministry of the most likely is that JTF North would struggle to conduct a successful defense of the region yielding minimal territory until the Great North had lost momentum. Due to manning issues of the current military amid a reorganization, there are many areas where their capabilities are lacking. The projected outcome of the conflict is likely to be a Minor Victory.

Passage of the Conscription Law would enable us to fill the personnel gaps quickly. mitigating one area of concern. The effectiveness of the individual personnel would largely depend on when the potential conflict occurs. If the conflict were to occur within the next 6 months, there is little we can affect with the passage. However given time. We could potentially produce a more creditable force.
Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 09/08/2022
Thank you Minister, that clarifies the intentions quite a great deal.

I raise to the assembly that I believe this bill needs some clarity in that regards, as it stands it currently could be taken as every eligible adult will need to serve at some point which seems counter towards conscription as needed by the Armed Forces.

Perhaps just a slight tweak is enough for this clarification:


   1.1 - All  male citizens between the ages of 18-29, barring any exemptions determined by the Ministry of Defense, will be required to serve a minimum of 36 months within the Kodiak military.
1.2 - All female citizens between the ages of 18-27, barring any exemptions determined by the Ministry of Defense, will be required to serve a minimum of 24 months within the Kodiak military.


   1.1 - All  male citizens between the ages of 18-29, barring any exemptions determined by the Ministry of Defense, will be required to serve a minimum of 36 months within the Kodiak military if called upon to serve by the Kodiak Armed Forces.
1.2 - All female citizens between the ages of 18-27, barring any exemptions determined by the Ministry of Defense, will be required to serve a minimum of 24 months within the Kodiak military if called upon to serve by the Kodiak Armed Forces.

It's a minor edit to clarify that this is the case IF they are called upon. Giving the Armed Forces and Ministry of Defence leeway in how they do the selection, and when, on an as needed basis. As well as providing a means for emergency conscription should a conflict arise, whilst also not needing to accommodate large scale conscription when not needed, if determined to be the case by the MoD.
Additional edit to account for this:


1.5 - The citizens in question must begin their minimum service length within the ages as set by Articles 1.1 and 1.2, however it is up to the citizen when they wish to begin their service, unless called upon by the Ministry of Defense for occasions such as War or a Declaration of National Emergency.


1.5 - The citizens in question must begin their minimum service length within the ages as set by Articles 1.1 and 1.2, if they volunteer for service, unless called upon by the Ministry of Defense for occasions such as War or a Declaration of National Emergency.

Interestingly, I guess this changes this clause somewhat in the sense that - would it not be more prudent for a citizen to volunteer for the armed forces itself?
Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 09/08/2022
Based on the age demographics, this would make up to 10% of the national population eligible for conscription, or a total of 8 million citizens barring restrictions that would deem them ineligible. Assuming an even split between genders.
The current manning shortfall for the active military is 79,000 personnel
Micheal Valois (Tanith) - NUP — 09/08/2022
So a quick note on your higher education question, it does actually call for higher education as a allowed reason to push your time back, as stated in Article 2, Section 7.
"2.7 - Citizens currently pursuing Higher Education will be exempt for the time they are enrolled in a College or University, but will be required to begin their service upon graduation or withdrawing."
Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 10/08/2022
Doesn't that clause as written only apply for those currently in high education, prior to being conscripted, and not during conscription? This is a different point to, 'after say 12 months' if they are offered a place in higher education they could be released.
Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 10/08/2022
Thanks for the estimates. I think my suggested edits should make it clear that the draft isn't everyone immediately and only the numbers needed but hopefully still allows the flexibility that if things escalate, any increase in personnel needed can be drafted in more dire times, whilst allowing this to be rolled back in peace time. Though if this needs to be more explicit I guess that can be added.
Micheal Valois (Tanith) - NUP — 10/08/2022
I believe there's been a misconception made that this bill is the establishment of a Draft
Which it is not
A Draft and Conscription are two very different things
Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 10/08/2022
Meaning aside, I mean conscription :)
Micheal Valois (Tanith) - NUP — 10/08/2022
Conscription is just requiring service for a certain period of time, then having no requirements outside of voluntary to rejoin
Draft is putting yourself eligible to be brought into the service as warranted by the Government for a large period of your life
Micheal Valois (Tanith) - NUP — 10/08/2022
I know, just clearing the air per say. I was reading through and there appeared to be some people who were getting the idea that a Draft and Conscription were one in the same
Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 11/08/2022
Just to iron out the wordplay. Draft/Conscription are the same thing. Mainly Draft being a US/North American alternative because "Conscription" sounds imperial.
Reifyrm Visdvk [I] — 11/08/2022
Yeah, They are the same
Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 12/08/2022
Thoughts on suggested edits? I'm not saying things I write are perfect though so happy for more discussion. I believe this bill ought to be discussed fully due to the importance of the current situation with our 'neighbours'.
Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 12/08/2022
@Micheal Valois (Tanith) - NUP , when you have time. The questions are directed to the idea of excluding all single parents,
Clarification about high education exemptions
Conscription as a reserve force instead of the active force
Mandatory training for all but not service for all
and some other questions in the above posts.
Micheal Valois (Tanith) - NUP — 13/08/2022
I will try to get responses written tonight
Micheal Valois (Tanith) - NUP — 15/08/2022
So, in order:
-I will accept the suggestion of extending the exclusion to all single parents rather then just mothers
-In terms of Higher Education, pursuance of Higher Education allows them to avoid being called by the system at all until they're completed with schooling. Meaning that if someone theoretically goes from Highschool to their Bachelor's, straight into their Master's and Doctorate, then theoretically they could avoid the entirety of the eligibility window and never have to do mandatory service in the Armed Forces.
-After discussions with Minister Luchens, I have elected to reword the Bill in order to simply mandate conscription into reserves and with mandatory training for all, without service for all. There will as he stated however, be a lottery system to induct people into the active duty forces for the service time of 36/24 months.
-I will also be adding a notation that for those going into Higher Education that are entering into military academies or enrolled in ROTC will be allowed to bypass mandatory training and the notation of Article 4, Section 3 and be immediately commissioned as an Officer
Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 15/08/2022
Thanks for getting back to the Assembly, I think I speak for everyone when we say we have a vested interest in ensuring we are able to defend ourselves, so it is vitally important that this is done right.

I will await the revisions so I can review and comment on a fresh slate then!
(Thanks in advance!)
Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein) — 18/08/2022
@Micheal Valois (Tanith) - NUP I will allow until the end of the day for the revisions to be put in place before the vote. Alternatively the voting can be extended.
Micheal Valois (Tanith) - NUP — 18/08/2022
@Tobias Virstürm (Vikstein)
I would like to put forward a request for a extension to allow more conversation and edits to be made.

OOC: Im currently up to my neck in work so I will get stuff done as soon as I can, I hope to have it edited and modified by this weekend.
Patrick Barber — 18/08/2022
I believe I speak on behalf of many when I say that we are facing a crisis of defence, and urgent changes are likely needed - but I simply cannot see an all encompassing demand for national service to be the answer to this. Temporary conscription? Maybe. But a full-population program of national service? We must be considered in our approach to recruitment and this will not aid the defence of the Darrent, it will set it back. There is no way we can quickly manage and create a program this large while also defending the homeland.
I must urge the assembly to vote against this bill, and this policy.
Gustave Bernier [KWP] — 18/08/2022
A part of the future of the nation depends on this bill. Vote for the people, vote for freedom, vote no.
Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 18/08/2022
Fellow members of the assembly. I must rise today and argue in opposition to Mr. Barber. The nation does indeed face challenges and indeed a very real crisis continues to develop to the north. One that I add may involve armed conflict. I will also note to the Chancellor that the bill does require citizens to register for conscription and does push conscripts through a period of basic training. But only a select few will service active duty terms and the rest will be committed to the Organized Reserves.

Should we not take every possible measure to defend the Republic? Should we hedge our bets of our national integrity on the hope that the current military strength is enough? If we are overwhelmed in the Darrent, what next? Rosalice? San Chico? Rykkbugh? When will enough be enough. I for one contest the premature decisions of the KWP to stand against this bill and instead I call upon all like minded members of the Republic to stand with the NUP for the defense of the nation. Vote Yes when it comes to Title 6.
Klaus Mikaelson — 18/08/2022
Can we focus solely on the bill at hand and not turn it into a campaign stump speech?
What of instead of a program of national conscription, the military first recruits from those populations who need the assistance and stability that the military can provide while supporting their nations? Our prisons are overflowing, crowded and unstable. Why not recruit from prison populations as an alternative?
Gustave Bernier [KWP] — 18/08/2022
Mhmm, giving weapons to people that have been incarcerated and are a danger to the republic does not seem like a good idea to me.
Klaus Mikaelson — 18/08/2022
the vast majority of inmates tend to be those who are in for non-violent, drug related offenses
Gustave Bernier [KWP] — 18/08/2022
So the idea would be to force them to go to war ?
Another alternative could be to offer pensions to the poor and their families who agree to participate in the army, giving them the choice to join if they want and reducing poverty
Patrick Barber — 18/08/2022
I think there is a more prescient question which is, as this bill attempts - do we seriously want to enact a full time national service?
Again as I stated before, while I can see some merit in the question of conscription for the present crisis, this bill does not limit itself to that single point.
Reading between Mr. Luchen's lines and ignoring the grand standing, that even the Deputy Chancellor's language displays the results here. Conscription is only one portion of this policy which includes a larger and permanent call to national service.
As the presently leading socialist, I am not opposed to national service when those policies are built for society. This is not a bill built for society. It is not a request for fire fighters, community volunteers, emergency services, or a peace corps.
This is a military service bill, and the window dressing on avoidance and 'temporary changes in purpose' are not enough to change that.
Klaus Mikaelson — 18/08/2022
recruitment doesn't equal force
Klaus Mikaelson — 18/08/2022
poor people are always fighting other peoples wars anyways
Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 18/08/2022
The purpose of this bill remains, first and foremost, the defense of the Republic. The second and third order effects of this bill remain to be seen. A national call to serve as a measure of the citizen is not a weakness of this bill but instead is a strength. This bill has the ability to provide jobs for many Kodiakers that are otherwise unemployed. It offers job training and certification. And the potential for the republic to build a pool of able bodied reservists in the event of national crisis both presently and in the future. We should not be short sighted to this this will be the only national crisis or possible aggression we face. But we must also work to make sure its not the last time.
Gustave Bernier [KWP] — 18/08/2022
Prioritizing the development of the army over the development of a proper advanced education and freedom is not something that many will stand by. Other alternatives need to be explored
Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 18/08/2022
I believe that there are many members of the Assembly that would agree with that. However I believe also they would rather not see such investments wasted to end up behind a border controlled by The Great North. To potentially lose control of the Darrent and its resources would be a massive blow to the Republic. 5.5% of our population resides in the region. The resource deposits would offer us billions in revenue in the future as well.
Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 19/08/2022
Although economic and social impacts could be substantial, what is a greater threat is king ellenburg and his acquisition of the Darrent region.
Patrick Barber — 19/08/2022
I stand by my notion that NUP pearl clutching about the Darrent aside - this bill's over reach is obvious and excessive. Were it about the defence of the nation specifically, it would be directed at the defence. Not a holistic and socially invasive national service policy.
Micheal Valois (Tanith) - NUP — 19/08/2022
I will do you one better
If a Conscript does not yet have a Bachelor's degree, but shows qualities befitting an Officer
In exchange for going through ROTC, OCS, and a service contract to serve as an Officer following Graduation
The military will pay for them to go to a public university or military academy
and enroll in any Bachelor's level degree of their choosing
This will raise the education standards of the nation as a whole, give opportunities to those who may not have the money to normally seek a higher education, and in exchange the military will have a Officer who wants the position and has earned their stripes so to speak.
The official writing for the section will be such:
4.4 - Conscripts who do not yet hold a Bachelor’s Degree or higher, but show qualities befitting an Officer, may be offered free college tuition at a public university or military academy to obtain a Bachelor’s Degree in a subject of their choosing, but must participate in ROTC and OCS, and enter a service contract as an officer upon graduation.
@Gustave Bernier [KWP] @Klaus Mikaelson Is this acceptable to you?
In addition, I am also adding multiple new exemptions to service, including the following:
2.7 - Citizens without any siblings shall be exempt from military service.

2.8 - Citizens currently pursuing Higher Education will be exempt for the time they are enrolled in a College or University, but will be required to begin their service upon graduation or withdrawing, unless they have been accepted into the next level of educational classes.

2.9 - Citizens currently serving in any of the following job fields will be exempt from all military service: Education, Healthcare, Agriculture, Religion, Law, Law Enforcement, Engineering, Manufacturing,

2.9.1 - While Healthcare workers are exempt from standard military service, the Kodiak Government reserves the right to enact a Medical Draft.
to go over these in detail
2.7 is a variant on the common "Sole Survivor" Clause found in most militaries, to avoid the total loss of a bloodline. This will also mean that, if for any reason, a serviceman or servicewoman is the last member of their family line, They will be immediately pulled from any active duty service, sent home, and honorably discharged.
2.8 is a updated version simply verifying that one can simply continue higher education and thus not be selected for service.
2.9 excludes numerous positions key to our country's wellbeing from being chosen for service, and I do plan on adding more exemptions as I go through our economy and ensure that none who are critical are eligible
2.9.1 is a reservation of rights for the government to draft private practice medical personnel in case of a national emergency
Gustave Bernier [KWP] — 19/08/2022
@Micheal Valois (Tanith) - NUP I'd like you to clarify 2.9.1, does drafting medical personnel mean making them fight or does it just mean staying at the back of the battlefield to help the wounded ?
Micheal Valois (Tanith) - NUP — 19/08/2022
Staying at the back, though that usage of the Medical Draft is very rare. Normally it is used in cases of Natural Disasters to quickly get as many medical personnel as possible to help without concerning about private industry payments and the like.
@Gustave Bernier [KWP]
John Edwards [KWP] — 19/08/2022
Considering that, as the Deputy Chancellor has stated, the number of personnel actually required is low and recruiting the unemployed may provide much needed job training and certification, would it not be more prudent to offer enlistment incentives to the target groups? We would likely get enough recruits to achieve the desired numbers, and reduce unemployment numbers, provide training, all without forcing a vast swathe of the population into service against their will.

It would probably be cheaper too.
Micheal Valois (Tanith) - NUP — 19/08/2022
Multiple nations before have done such targetted benefits in the past, and all have come under considerable criticism for it. It is in part why I have written the system as universal, to avoid any claims of racial, economic, or other types of bias.

If it would make the opposing elements of this law happy, I would be willing to add a clause into the exceptions list offering alternative service methods to the armed forces for Conscientious objectors, such as through the Border Guard, Firefighters and other Emergency Services, or even a Peace Corps if approval can be gained and funds available from the government budget.
@John Edwards [KWP]
John Edwards [KWP] — 19/08/2022
Your first point is reasonable and makes sense, however I'm not sure that any amount of clauses will make this bill supportable for those opposed to conscription other than one very critical one:

That the bill is applicable to the current crisis only and ends once it is resolved.

Without this, I can't see it gaining traction.
Micheal Valois (Tanith) - NUP — 19/08/2022
Minister Edwards, I have a simple question for you. What happens the next time our lands are threatened by an external threat? We go through this process again, reinstating or rewriting this bill and having to rebuild or un-mothball the infrastructure and logistics necessary to complete this if it even passes?

No, I don't believe that is the way, and our history has proven a different way of thought. A wise man once said "Walk Softly, but carry a Big Stick." Even against hostile powers, when negotiations are backed up by the unspoken threat of force, one may defend themselves aptly without resorting to conflict. The Republic once knew how to do such, we did so when we broke away from The Last Kingdom, earned our freedom in blood. And what did we do afterwards? We used our Big Stick, and peace was obtained for all, and over the next 30 years, the lands formerly of the Kingdom joined us.

Now? We may talk softly, but we lack our Big Stick. One cannot work without the other. Talk loud with a big stick, and we're no better then the bastards we broke free from. Talk softly with no stick, and our words are hollow and can be ignored by anyone who believes themselves superior.

My goal is to return to having the Big Stick, not so we can fight and win wars, but so that we have the power necessary to avoid them. The price of a human life is worth more then every tank, every plane, every missile we have, all I seek is a way to ensure that peace is obtainable, a lasting peace in which we need not worry about losing our territories, our homes, our families, our lives! to those who believe themselves better then us.
Is it not our jobs to keep our people safe? To try and ensure that every man, woman, and child may live free of tyranny and oppression? That our citizens may sleep at night soundly, knowing that there is no chance of war by the next morning?
Peace, is the ultimate goal. This bill, despite what the Chancellor claims he is reading through the lines, is an attempt to ensure that we may keep Peace. An ancient philosopher said that if one wants Peace, they must be prepared for War.
That is what this Bill is about. Nothing more, nothing less.
idol — 19/08/2022
A little historical context. Si vis pacem, para bellum. Was written by an author we know little about, not a philosopher, and not ancient either. It directly translates to "if you want peace, prepare for war". This statement was written as millitary doctrine, which is a fairly biased source. However it may still hold true. So the question is how do you prepare for war? Simply put millitary numbers is only one of many possible ways. Infrastructure, economic strength, total population, social organization, patriotism, all increase the ability of our people to respond to the possibity of war. I would support a bill that strengthed our ability to respond to any crisis, and trained our population how to quickly organized in the face of danger. But not a bill that just increases the millitary pool as the solution. Conscription just isn't the right avenue. We want peace with other nations? let's start with peace at home.
Conscription for the immediate crisis would be understandable, but it is not the long term solution to anything.
Joshua Lopez - Slatium — 19/08/2022
Of course, it will just cause chaos
Have a time limit or something, so people dont start waging wars in kodiak itself
Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 19/08/2022
I've added the proposed amendments to the bill. Additionally formally Article 4 has become Article 5. The new Article 4 establishes a separate Wartime Draft as opposed to Peacetime Service obligations.
I keeping with the previously passed NDAA for 643, the creation of new formations within the army specifically will require an influx of recruits which, given the lack of manning previously is not likely to be met by recruiting drives alone. To combat this, if we institute the Service Law, we can cut the time required to meet our new strength cap in half. Down from a decade to 4-5 years.
Ysgramor — 19/08/2022
Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 19/08/2022
Fellow members of this assembly. We do not have time on our side. Responding to conflict is decided in the opening engagements of most conflicts. Our ability to prevent a hostile force taking and occupying their objectives before we can assemble and conduct a counter action is dependent at the border. We do not have the ability to trade space for time. The time to build up a force of new recruits will take anywhere from 3-7 months each class. Depending on how low we are prepared to establish a bar for training requirements in the event of hostile conflict. As we replace our combat losses with troops that lack sufficient training, the combat coherency of our formations will begin to dip. Additionally, if we are building new units at the same time, this process will take up to a year to certify a unit being ready for action prior to committing it to a battle. All these options contain risks that will be assumed by the chancellor.

The opponents to this bill have highlighted that we are overreaching. However, given a clear and present danger, this bill remains grounded in the reality we certainly face. Today it is The Great North, tomorrow it may be another nation that isn't our direct neighbor. In order to meet the possible challenges, we must take actions now, not after The Great North has potentially reached the Taiping River.
Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 19/08/2022
If I may, the critical issue isn't the fact that there is a clear and present danger - I believe everybody in the assembly recognises that there is. Framing it in this way masks the the very real question on how far do we push civil liberties that goes beyond typical methods of conscription, particularly the implication that all in certain age ranges must serve is more akin to national service. Particularly as 'all' is exceedingly more than the military actually needs now and in the future.

Furthermore, this bill has been presented as the one solution to our problems and a failure to adhere to this pov means immediate defeat now or in the future because of some other threat. It is irresponsible for anybody to claim this IS the one big stick that we could deploy.

While I don't disagree that we do need to increase training and recruitment in other to properly ensure combat effectiveness of our various proud military formations, I do disagree that this is the right level of response. While peace is our ultimate goal, we must remember that for Kodiak - civil liberty is also an important ethos of society. I am sure a balance can be struck that does not need to go in one extreme, and that it is disingenuous to suggest that one direction is the only path forward.

Regarding the current edits - thank you for doing so, it certainly improves some aspects that I had misgivings of. I still believe this is an important piece of legislation for the nation, and it deserves a high level of active scrutiny and discussion - so I am thankful that the assembly has taken up their duties admirably on either side of the debate.
Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 20/08/2022
I too value the civil liberties of our citizens. This bill's goal is not meant to be seen as a degradation of those liberties but instead as their defense against foreign tyranny. The guarantor of those rights is the Government and the duty of the citizen must be acknowledged in this instance to maintain the ability of that government to guarantee those rights.

I won't say this bill is the ONE solution to the gravity of the situation we face, but it is the most immediate solution to what may likely be an impending crisis. There have been other incremental gains on this front between the Reserve Act and the various Defense Reforms. But all these items will take years to fully be felt. The conscription of the needed soldiers into the active force and the training of a ready pool of reserves through this act will give us a short term boost on the way to the final solution.
heimdallr (PPK) — 20/08/2022
As the government we hold a responsibility to our citizens this bill would propose that we send 18 and even 17 year olds with conscription to fight for a cause they would not other wise. These are young people students to force our citizens at this age to fight for this government can not stand. The Only case they should be allowed in the armed forces is by volunteer and If we are truly in need of such measures we should at least raise the age from 18 to at least 21 or 23 at the most we the assembly have a duty to these people we can not send such young people to fight and possibly die for a cause they did not volunteer for I urge my colleagues to reconsider the wording or the whole bill itself
Gustave Bernier [KWP] — 20/08/2022
Any type of nation wide obligatory national service is a threat to our youth's civil rights. It is a threat to our people's freedom, to our people's lives.

I'll vote against any form of conscription/forced national service in the name of freedom for freedom is what I value the most in our society.
John Edwards [KWP] — 20/08/2022
"This bill's goal is not meant to be seen as a degradation of those liberties" - Yet a degredation of civil liberties it would be nonetheless. We would replace the threat of a loss civil liberties with an actual loss of civil liberties even when the threat is no longer present.

"The guarantor of those rights is the Government" - So it is our duty to ensure those rights are not eroded on a permanent basis.

"it is the most immediate solution to what may likely be an impending crisis" - That may be so, but to maintain this solution after the crisis against imagined future threats is a permanent erosion of the civil liberties of our citizens.
John Edwards [KWP] — 20/08/2022
"What happens the next time our lands are threatened by an external threat?" - By that point, the resources already allocated to improve the military will be in place and we will be well suited to defend our nation without the necessity of forced service.
Patrick Barber — 20/08/2022
I am still unsure if it would make a difference to my decision, but what if we put in an automatic 3 year renewal clause
the bill must come back for renewal or be automatically repealed
Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 20/08/2022
@Micheal Valois (Tanith) - NUP I leave the acceptance of the Chancellor's proposal to you as the author. However if you disagree, I believe we have reached an impasse for further amendments to this proposal. I motion that we vote on the Bill as it stands at this time.
Patrick Barber — 20/08/2022
I support the motion of the Deputy Chancellor
Micheal Valois (Tanith) - NUP — 21/08/2022
I will accept the Chancellor's proposal to the addition of the 3 year renewal clause so as to allow this bill to push forward.
Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 23/08/2022
Added the Renewal Claus
The motion to vote carries
Patrick Barber — 23/08/2022
can I confirm that the wording meant to mean "if the assembly doesn't renew, its repealed" because to me it reads as "automatically continues unless repealed"
Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 23/08/2022
ah so it does.
Patrick Barber — 23/08/2022
OOC Sneaky Sneaky
Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 23/08/2022
OOC: You caught me
Patrick Barber — 23/08/2022
OK. With that change, I appreciate the cooperation of the NUP and would like to motion to a vote
Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 23/08/2022
Patrick Barber — 23/08/2022
As General Secretary of the Kodiak Workers' Party, I open the party to a conscience vote on this issue. I make no instructions as leader.
Oskar Luchens (NUP) — 25/08/2022
@Assembly President , I believe the conditions for a vote are met for this bill as well.
Patrick Barber — 25/08/2022
Just finalising some administrative and personnel issues and will get to this in approx 2 hours

— 25/08/2022

Do you approve of this legislation?

🇦 Aye
🇧 Nay
🇨 Abstain

Final Result
🇦 ▓▓▓▓▓░░░░░ [14 • 54%]
🇧 ▓▓▓▓░░░░░░ [10 • 38%]
🇨 ▓░░░░░░░░░ [2 • 8%]
26 users voted


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: 3GieNP6mxF
Patrick Barber — 25/08/2022
@Assembly Member
The vote for this piece of legislation is now active. It shall last for 72 hours. The link to the text may be found in the pinned post.
Comments are now disallowed
Patrick Barber — 27/08/2022
@Assembly Member
Approximately 30 hours remain on this vote.
Patrick Barber — Yesterday at 21:56
This legislation has been approved. This channel shall be archived in 18 hours.

First Review

Patrick Barber

— 08/12/2022 13:51

@Assembly Member
The Kodiak Security Service Law , 643
An act to mandate service in the Armed Forces and secure opportunities for citizens of the Kodiak Republic.,_643

This Act is automatically under review in accordance to Article 6. It is the duty of the Assembly to either Repeal, Renew, or Amend this act.

Voting is presently set for 15 Dec 2022
Patrick Barber


a message

to this channel. See all 

pinned messages

— 08/12/2022 13:51

Patrick Barber


The West Virginian Coalition

from the thread.
— 08/12/2022 22:10

John Edwards [KWP] — 08/12/2022 22:26
This was a law that may have seemed like a necessity at the time, but ultimately achieved nothing other than forcing Kodiakers into military service and a war. With that war being resolved and resolutions to prevent it from re-occuring, I think it is time we repeal conscription.
Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 09/12/2022 01:11
I think the very idea of ​​the bill is good, but we should, due to the lack of military action, reduce the number of months required in service. Basic radio or gun handling and first aid skills can help people.
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 09/12/2022 02:17
I agree with Phil; a short time of compulsory military service would be good to increase the preparedness of our defense forces and populous in general in case of another conflict.
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 09/12/2022 03:09
In the age of modern warfare, mass conscription is unhealthy and ineffective. I believe we should instead introduce incentives for volunteering in the military. This way we can achieve a smaller, but well-motivated and highly equipped modern fighting force.
Micheal Valois (Tanith) - NUP — 09/12/2022 03:20
As the Author of this bill, I feel personally attacked by the Chancellor's claim that my bill, who's job was simply to shore up our nations very lackluster defenses, was the cause of the war. We were attacked because our enemy believed themselves capable of victory. Our inability to defend our borders properly, our weakness, is what caused our nation to come under attack from a foreign power.

To say this bill caused the war to occur is frankly an insult.
John Edwards [KWP] — 09/12/2022 03:46
That is not what I stated, or implied. I did state that it seemed necessary at the time. I also stated that it forced citizens to go to war, not that it caused the war.

Conscription results in little more than poor morale. It can be necessary in emergency situations, which is why it came up in the first place but it is a bill for its time that is no longer conducive to an effective military.
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 09/12/2022 07:48
Personally, I think we should amend this act. I'm not in favor of mandatory conscription, besides its taking manpower from other vital economic sectors, but it is obvious our armed forces are less than optimal. I believe we should build a strong standing army comprised of volunteers. We should reform our military organization to accommodate the military being a viable career path. I'm talking tuition assistance, insurance benefits, pensions, etc. to incentivize Kodiakers to volunteer for the army and possibly even stay in it.
Patrick Barber

— 09/12/2022 08:02

I disagree. The act should be repealed. It does not in and of itself provide readiness beyond manpower. If we desire to increase military quality, administration and money should be spent on the military we have and not the acquisition of more soldiers. Especially now that we have more concrete assurances from the URA. In fact, we should explore becoming a full member of the Assembly of Nations to grant us more access to diplomatic protections
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 09/12/2022 08:05
Then perhaps not amend this act but draft a new bill focusing on increasing the viability of the military as a career path and incentivizing volunteers.
Patrick Barber

— 09/12/2022 08:10

Perhaps or perhaps not - but this review should in my political opinion select to repeal conscription.
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 09/12/2022 08:23
I agree with repealing conscription. Any attempt to reform our armed forces into a modern and professional fighting force starts at making it volunteer-only.
Micheal Valois (Tanith) - NUP — 09/12/2022 08:56
And Mr. President, if we repeal this bill without setting up any other kind of system to deal with our severe manpower shortage, we will be right back at Square 1 as we were when Mr. Luchens posted the original Defense Reports. I must be vocal in my belief that we keep the bill to at least attempt to have a semi-competent defense force until such a time that we implement better reforms to encourage more voluntary enlistment. I'm willing to support the repeal of my bill when we have something to replace it with, but until then for the sake of our national defense, I cannot support this.
Patrick Barber

— 09/12/2022 09:00

then we should consider reintroducing a version of this resolution,_645
not utilising conscription
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 09/12/2022 11:16
The NUP’s official stance on this act, as well as my personal one, is that we should not repeal this bill until a better bill is in place. In this state of vulnerability militarily, mandatory military service should stay in place in one way or another until Kodiak can replace its systems, vehicles, etc. with newer and better equipment. Until then, only manpower can reinforce our already battered military. Maybe, as a compromise, we could scale back conscription in return for a greater recruitment budget and a new recruitment drive. However, as things stand right now with no other bill lined up to fill the disparity in our military preparedness, the NUP will not vote to repeal this bill.
Therefore, if the KWP wants the NUP to vote to repeal this bill, they should put forward a bill that would replenish the loss our military would take if this bill were repealed.
John Edwards [KWP] — 09/12/2022 12:42
We introduced this during the war. we sent young Kodiakers to the front unwillingly. And we were consistently defeated and outclassed by our opponents who didn't care how much manpower we had, because it didn't make a difference. And the NUP solution is to do more of the same? Soldiers forced to be there against their will, have poor morale and will break easily. You'll have your precious numbers heading for the hills. However a well trained, volunteer military, modernised for future threats is far better suited to the task. What's more, we now have the time to achieve this goal without thrusting our citizens into harms way without their consent.
Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 09/12/2022 12:44
This bill CANNOT be repealed. How would Kodiak ever defend itself in case of another war? What if we couldn’t get bailed out the current war? Things could have been much worse. We need to enhance our armed forces to prevent this from happening again. Some form of conscription is necessary… it’s obvious no Kodiak would even want to serve nor would receive substantial federal funding, hence why the military was so bad. This is a matter of national security… is that too much to ask?
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 09/12/2022 12:46
We’re in a state of peace right now. It makes no sense to keep the compulsory military service and instead redirect that manpower to post-war recovery. We can afford to partake in a heavy, long-term modernization program; we don’t have to drain our economy of even more manpower to pay people to stand around against their will. We need government incentives for the military. We need military pensions, benefits, tuition assistance, not more conscripts.
Jonn Stevens (PPK) — 09/12/2022 12:47
We should not force our unwilling citizens to go to war it just makes bad soldiers and more desertions now that conflict is over it is more then a reasonable idea to repeal it it shouldn’t have been implemented in the first place especially at the age range it has if I remember correctly
John Edwards [KWP] — 09/12/2022 12:51
Which is why I recommend a change of direction. When we have issues with deserters who don't want to be there, what will you do? What's next? a commissariat to stand at the back and shoot them if they run?
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 09/12/2022 12:52
I agree that we need military benefits, tuition assistance, etc. but I’m thinking about what we need right now. Those things are things we will need to phase in slowly, and eventually we will stop what you call “conscription” (as I see it it is compulsory military service, just like Israel). I agree with the KWP in that the military needs better incentives, but right now, we need more manpower, , at least until we can phase in new technology.
John Edwards [KWP] — 09/12/2022 12:55
Why right now? We have peace and a treaty that prevents similar events from occurring again. We now have the time to do this properly. Not half arse it now and have to fix the ingrained problems that come with it down the line.
I do think we need to fix the military but forcing bodies into it is not the way to do it.
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 09/12/2022 13:02
Just because TGN is unlikely to attack again, we have shown our military’s weakness in the war, and I doubt another nation would think us a worthy adversary anymore. Even if it’s just a small advantage, larger numbers offer an advantage on any battlefield and an even bigger advantage on paper, something other nations would take into consideration when deciding if they could attack or not.
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 09/12/2022 13:09
We are at peace and our largest threat won’t dare to invade us under the ire of the international community. Quite frankly an extensive modernization program is the best option. Instating conscription will only drain manpower and resources from the economy which could’ve been directed to said modernization program. If we were to go to war we’d only send more Kodiak lives to death for little gain. I am staunchly against mandatory military service.
John Edwards [KWP] — 09/12/2022 13:14
Firstly, our neighbours are URA members who are bound to upgold the treaty recognising our sovereign borders.
Secondly, while we remain economically weaker, they will always have an advantage over us, no matter how many bodies we throw at them. If war happens again, it will not matter if we are outnumbered or outnumber them if they can outmanoeuvre us regardless. It is exactly what happened last time and exactly what will happen again unless we can get past this concept that a meat grinder is an effective military strategy. Modernisation will level the playing field far more than bodies.
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 09/12/2022 13:16
To be frank, our military equipment is extremely outdated, and modernization will take an extremely long time. If we increase benefits of military service, we could keep mandatory military service with high morale too. Also, why are you against compulsory military service? Some of the most modernized militaries irl, such as South Korea and Israel, enforce mandatory military service with little to no problems. Also, your points about people being taken away from the economy are hollow. The military, specifically the military industrial complex, contributes a great deal to the economy, and the more equipment that needs to be made (and more does with more service members), the greater the economy grows in that regard.
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 09/12/2022 13:22
We will never know where the next invasion will come from; peace treaty or not, alliance or not, terrorist or nation, an attack is always a possibility. That is why every country is generally prepared militarily, and we are not. And, although I agree that the military needs to undergo heavy modernization, the only thing that will strengthen our military in this time of weakness is more men. I am trying to emphasize that this bill, if renewed, would continue only as a temporary measure until modernization is far enough in progress. Then, we shall revote.
Patrick Barber

— 09/12/2022 13:23

This paranoia is misplaced. We have one active enemy at one border, currently cowed by a larger international military alliance.
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 09/12/2022 13:24
Those militaries aren’t good because of mandatory service, they are good despite it. Israel is the bastion of Jews and surrounded by enemies. They’re already motivated so mandatory service won’t hinder their morale all that much. South Korea is the same, they literally border a lunatic dictator who has access to WMDs and dreams of uniting the peninsula under them.
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 09/12/2022 13:24
This is not paranoia, this is emphasis on why general military preparedness is always necessary.
Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 09/12/2022 13:27
You don’t think Kodiak doesn’t have a renewed since of nationality and a higher morale? We stuck out in this war and didn’t give up. I’m sure Kodiak citizens want to see their country defend itself and succeed.
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 09/12/2022 13:27
I disagree, I think those militaries are good because of that aspect (among other things), not despite it. With more incentives, our drafted military personnel can be just as motivated.
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 09/12/2022 13:28
Our citizens are tired of fighting a war. Sheer nationalism doesn’t make a good military it makes a ticking time bomb.
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 09/12/2022 13:28
Wars? @Patrick Barber how many wars has Kodiak undergone?
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 09/12/2022 13:29
One war is too many
No matter how patriotic and nationalistic out citizens are everyone will get tired of war.
Besides this war has exposed the total inadequacy of our military. The international community will know this sudden influx of personal is a bluff
Patrick Barber

— 09/12/2022 13:31

there was the revolution in the 400s, the Europeian Coup in the 500s, and this event in the 600s. I can't think of any active wars we've had other than those three
one major home-soil war every 60 years or so?
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 09/12/2022 13:32
I agree, but I would argue that Kodiak has not necessarily undergone war fatigue. Everywhere else besides the Darrent did not feel many effects from what I remembers; even if the economic hurt is large, that doesn’t constitute war fatigue. Russia’s economy has been destroyed by war, and 76% or more in Russia still actively support the war.
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 09/12/2022 13:33
I wouldn’t necessarily trust Russian polls for judging war support.
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 09/12/2022 13:34
The war has exposed the inadequacy of our military, which I believe can only be reinforced right now by manpower, even if it looks like a bluff.
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 09/12/2022 13:35
The poll was conducted by a transparent, unbiased, third party, humanitarian organization (not based in Russia).
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 09/12/2022 13:36
I’m willing to reach a compromise. The bill stays for the meantime but we will phase it out over the long term for a extensive modernization program. I do not want military service to be something every future generation has to expect.
Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 09/12/2022 13:36
We can’t modernize the military if there isn’t an increase of manpower… there’s no good way to do that. I feel like we need some numbers here… how many people are active duty? Reserve? Eligible?
Patrick Barber

— 09/12/2022 13:37

Mr. Crysler may be willing to make that compromise, but I will be voting to repeal
John Edwards [KWP] — 09/12/2022 13:37
Let's maybe not use Russia as a model for anything?
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 09/12/2022 13:38
That seems like a good compromise, and generally what I’ve been arguing for. Thank you.
Klaus Mikaelson — 09/12/2022 13:39
"you get what you want, the other side gets nothing right now"
- "yes, that's a good compromise"
Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 09/12/2022 13:40
What wouldn’t KWP get? The idea would be that conscription would eventually be phased out and added to focus on military modernization.
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 09/12/2022 13:40
I mean the modernization program would’ve been long term anyways
I won’t support the bill in its current state though
I believe Amendments that would immediately begin the modernization program should be introduced.
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 09/12/2022 13:42
And maybe set a date when the bill would be automatically deactivated, without a vote?
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 09/12/2022 13:42
Yes perhaps
Though for it to pass it would depend on KWP support
John Edwards [KWP] — 09/12/2022 13:43
So if modernisation will happen anyway, and we are not at risk in the meantime, why keep it? Why keep spending money on a program that would be dropped in a few years anyway?
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 09/12/2022 13:44
Ideally I would like to drop the mandatory service and start modernization immediately whilst establishing international allies
John Edwards [KWP] — 09/12/2022 13:44
We've already established international allies. That's what the treaty did.
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 09/12/2022 13:45
Alright guys I gtg, good debate. Have a good night/day 🙂
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 09/12/2022 13:45
Alr bye :)
I gtg too also, bye
Hester Sirocco-Loren (Juliette) — 09/12/2022 19:46
For the moment, I won't add too much more to the debate that has not already been discussed (OOC: hurray for debate!) - I agree that the defence force needs a renewed modernisation program in the long term, previously our modernisation efforts have been relatively short term (3 year periods), we ought to look to the short - medium AND - long term now that we have proof of many deficiencies that I'm sure our military would be very eager to highlight for us. I hope this can be looked at jointly by all of the GA.

I do not currently believe that this bill is an answer, and conscription will need to be phased out if not repealed.
Micheal Valois (Tanith) - NUP — 09/12/2022 23:59
Yes, because that stopped Hitler in 1937, 1938, 1939... oh wait.
John Edwards [KWP] — 10/12/2022 00:24
Except TGN aren't in the same situation as Germany in 1937. They are more powerful than us individually, and were able to invade without interference by neutral parties. That has been resolved with the treaty. If they try it again, they face the combined threat of the URA immediately. The time of acting against us without getting trounced has passed for them.
Patrick Barber

— 10/12/2022 00:25

we can presume I think with high accuracy that TGN isn't the force it once was, if they were so keen to accept cash to walk away
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 10/12/2022 01:16
If the NUP is concerned with immediate manpower shortages, how about not conscripting any new personnel but allowing the requiring active personnel to stay? Then we can phase them out and transform our military into a professional, volunteer force.
Micheal Valois (Tanith) - NUP — 10/12/2022 07:50
I believe we have very different concepts as to how long it will take to modernize the military.
I would like to hear how long the KWP representatives believe it would take us to create and establish production of a single modern Main Battle Tank
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 10/12/2022 08:01
We don't necessarily have to make it completely domestically. We can do a Poland and use a foreign design but have them invest in factories in our country. It would probably take 1.5-2 years to set that up.
Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 10/12/2022 08:02
Leopard 2PL lol
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 10/12/2022 08:02
Well more like K2PL
Aaron Tonnesen - New Asden — 10/12/2022 08:13
I am not too keen on becoming dependent on military equipment off of foreign nations… if that’s what we plan to do we need to expand our production domestically.
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 10/12/2022 08:15
They'll invest into factories inside Kodiak, we'll learn more about making an MBT. We get an MBT pretty quickly. And we can make our own later on.
Micheal Valois (Tanith) - NUP — 10/12/2022 08:34
We dont' have any of the industry to even begin producing our own homemade vehicles
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 10/12/2022 08:36
That's why we'll get foreign companies to begin investing into building factories that'll produce their products. In exchange we'll be able to buy their systems for much cheaper.
and we'll gain experience building these systems
Micheal Valois (Tanith) - NUP — 10/12/2022 08:36
We don't even have any capacity for electronics manufacturing
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 10/12/2022 08:37
well we have to modernize to survive
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 10/12/2022 08:37
1.5-2 years is very optimistic. Also, I agree with Aaron; I very much would not like to rely on foreign countries to supply our military. And MBTs are not the only things we need to modernize: our entire navy, APCs, helicopters, fighters, bombers, artillery (especially the munitions for it), recon vehicles, CSTAR equipment, MANPADS, ATGMs, shoulder fired anti air draft weapons, mines, everything down to standard primary and secondary weapons for infantry.
Micheal Valois (Tanith) - NUP — 10/12/2022 08:37
We are, for lack of better numbers, decades off. I must stress and remind the Assembly that our current tanks are about equivalent to the T-55
And we even have the equivalent to T-34/85s as mainline Battle Tanks in our current military
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 10/12/2022 08:39
If we are going to modernize we quite frankly have to rely on foreign partners to being able to modernize in a reasonable time
Micheal Valois (Tanith) - NUP — 10/12/2022 08:40
Well I have to ask then if the current government is willing to write that check
Our current military is essentially on par with Afghanistan
Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 10/12/2022 08:42
I think that a very good idea when designing/manufacturing MBT would be to use similar parts, thanks to which you would not have to open too many new production lines
Micheal Valois (Tanith) - NUP — 10/12/2022 08:44
It is currently... what year?
We have not purchased overseas for the military in almost 40 years
We have nothing left in terms of replacement parts
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 10/12/2022 08:48
At least for a MBT designed by a foreign company who is willing to invest into building factories in our country to make these. It will probably take 1.5-2 years to get production chugging along. How long it'll take to actually outfit our army, I don't know. We don't currently have the infrastructure for a large domestic military-industrial complex, which only exacerbates the need to immediately start the modernization process.
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 10/12/2022 08:49
We'll need that check if Kodiak is to survive a future invasion.
Phil Kirk (Tecianad. Isl.) [TFF] — 10/12/2022 08:50
how about setting up a system like in Finland?
small amount of normal soldiers, and many reservists
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 10/12/2022 09:36
that's what they're proposing
Mandatory service would make a lot of trained reservists
Patrick Barber

— 10/12/2022 10:04

Given that the entire debate thus far as been about repeal or renew, and there have been no specific amendments proposed that have attracted the debate, I feel that we are approaching an impasse that will only be resolved with a vote. I will allow for 24 hours for an actual amendment that can attract the support of some of the members otherwise I will begin the vote.
If members wish to develop a new funding bill, then I encourage them to propose it in my office, as this is not a funding bill.
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 10/12/2022 10:37
The M1 Abrams took 8 years to develop and mass produce, and the US is a country with a huge preexisting military industrial complex. It could take us decades to develop a tank on par with other countries.
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 10/12/2022 10:38
Not develop, we’ll be licensing a foreign design to start off. A situation similar to Poland and SK.
SK is building factories in Poland and gives the the entire K2 package. In exchange Poland pays for the tanks obviously but also allow SK to manufacture K2s in Poland which they’ll sell.
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 10/12/2022 10:49
I adjust my estimates, probably 3-4 years
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 10/12/2022 10:50
We could do that, but then again, we're talking about all of our equipment. In my opinion, it would not be good to be reliant on foreign companies for all of our equipment, not to mention it would be a LOT more expensive than just making it ourselves. Also, it probably wouldn't even be logistically possible.
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 10/12/2022 10:51
SK is allowing Poland to produce their own modified version of the K2, the K2PL which will be domestically manufactured in Poland. It is also the model that makes up the bulk of the Polish-SK orders. We could set up a similar scheme.
This would heavily simplify logistics and would jumpstart our military industrial complex
Patrick Barber

— 10/12/2022 10:53

None of these questions about equipment are meaningful to the question: should we impress citizens into the military
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 10/12/2022 10:53
Again, we're talking about all of our equipment. Also, we wouldn't want to get into a Saudi Arabia situation where our main arms supplier gets mad at us for one reason for another and then all the sudden we're not getting much military equipment anymore.
Patrick Barber

— 10/12/2022 10:53

If we don't have equipment we don't need more soldiers.
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 10/12/2022 10:54
True, probably for discussion in a future bill.
Patrick Barber

— 10/12/2022 10:54

Which is in and of itself a hyperbole on the part of my colleagues in the nup
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 10/12/2022 10:54
As it stands if no further amendments to the bill are made I’m going to vote to repeal it.
Call me naive but I trust the international community to back us
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 10/12/2022 10:55
Call me paranoid, but in this matter, we should only be self reliant.
Patrick Barber

— 10/12/2022 10:56

I think it important to remember that the only allies our enemy could attract have already committed to our defense
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 10/12/2022 10:57
We can’t be self reliant right now, if we are invaded again we’re toast with this bill enabled or not.
Patrick Barber

— 10/12/2022 10:58

That's not true. We have made massive advances in our military over the three years the war was in action
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 10/12/2022 10:59
Well Mr. Kalimeno is assuming that we’ll be attacked within the decade before any significant modernization program can bear fruit.
Símôn Kalimeno (NUP) — 10/12/2022 10:59
Anyways, I see no further debate is necessary here. I think we have stated, and restated, and restated our points. The NUP is going to vote to renew this bill, along with any moderates independents we can muster up. Good debates though, I honestly had fun.
Erich Crysler -- Alsozar [UKN] — 10/12/2022 10:59
Yea it was a good debate, a lot of fun.
Patrick Barber

— 10/12/2022 11:00

I hope to see you both in the education proposal
Patrick Barber


a message

to this channel. See all 

pinned messages

— 10/12/2022 17:25


— 11/12/2022 11:28

The Kodiak Security Service Law shall be Retained or Repealed?

🇦 Retain
🇧 Repeal
🇨 Abstain

Final Result
🇦 ▓▓▓▓▓░░░░░ [14 • 47%]
🇧 ▓▓▓▓░░░░░░ [12 • 40%]
🇨 ▓░░░░░░░░░ [4 • 13%]
30 users voted


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: MMhACozZNp
Patrick Barber

— 11/12/2022 11:28

@Assembly Member
The vote is now active. Debate is suspended. 72 hours are given for the poll.
Patrick Barber

— 13/12/2022 13:38

@Assembly Member
The vote will end in approx 22 hours. Please be sure to vote if you have not yet done so.
Patrick Barber

— Yesterday at 11:29

The vote is complete. The Kodiak Security Service law has been retained and will return to the floor in 3 years time for its next review unless repealed beforehand.
The thread shall remain for 24 hours before it is archived.

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.