Talk:The National Defense Authorization Act Amendment

Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 02/08/2024 8:00 AM

Tabled by Edmund Maltravers, MGA, as a government sponsored bill. An amendment to increase funding for the armed forces of Kodiak https://kodiak.wiki/wiki/The_National_Defense_Authorization_Act_Amendment Voting is set for 12 February. The Kodiak Republic Wiki The National Defense Authorization Act Amendment ACTION by the General Assembly on ## MONTH ###. ## AYE, ## NAY, ## ABSTAIN. An amendment to increase funding for the armed forces of Kodiak. Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 02/08/2024 8:01 AM

@Assembly Member, debate for this bill is now open. Avakael — 02/08/2024 8:01 AM three quick questions a; what was it set at before b; what is the extra money going to be spent on c; where does 80% of the money actually go, seeing as it's not specified on this bill I'm supportive of increases to military funding right now given the ongoing events, and it's never been more important to boost that spending- but it's also never been more important to be conscious that we're spending it well. and of course, if these questions are answered well, it's difficult to imagine anyone in this chamber rejecting the bill in good faith. Josef Kovac — 02/08/2024 8:15 AM A: Yearly funding was 10.2 bil, everything else except for the surplus is the same. Dr Edmund Cosmo Maltravers Jr — 02/08/2024 8:17 AM A. ₣10.2 billion per year at ₣2.550 billion per quarter. B. At present the plan is to increase the number of soldiers from 50000 to 85000, this is a number the cabinet and I have deemed to be effective for meeting the growing crisis. Alongside that, having a slightly larger army of that size is not unreasonable as it will be more prepared for such eventualities as are happening now ((the UK for example has around 75000 soldiers in the army. As do many similarly sized nations.)) ((C. Either that's carried on from the original or my awful maths skills are showing)) I hope that helps with answering the Member's questions. Josef Kovac — 02/08/2024 8:20 AM If you're going to increase the number of soldiers, you should probably amend the original clause. Everett747100 — 02/08/2024 8:32 AM Fully support Dr Edmund Cosmo Maltravers Jr — 02/08/2024 9:39 AM ((sorry for the late reply: this would, I think, require an amendment to article 1 so I'll get onto that after I've had my dinner)) Dr Edmund Cosmo Maltravers Jr — 02/08/2024 11:33 AM I have amended this to include an amendment stating that in peacetime the maximum forces will be 85,000. Josef Kovac — 02/08/2024 12:04 PM I would also like to see how the 45 billion will be divided between the departments. Dr Edmund Cosmo Maltravers Jr — 02/08/2024 12:06 PM 1.2. Article 3 shall be amended thus:

3.1 - The Ministry of Defense authorization for Defense Spending is set at ₣45 billion per year, equating to ₣11.25 billion per quarter. 3.2 – The Army budget is adjusted to ₣3.9 billion per year, or ₣975 million per quarter. 3.3 – The Navy budget is adjusted to ₣2.31 billion per year, or ₣577.5 million per quarter. 3.4 – The Air Force budget is adjusted to ₣3.04 billion per year, or ₣760 million per quarter. That, I believe, is what you're looking for? Josef Kovac — 02/08/2024 12:15 PM Where does the other 36 billion go? Dr Edmund Cosmo Maltravers Jr — 02/08/2024 12:17 PM ((my apologies, it appears the maths may be off, I'm not very good with numbers. 😛 I'll readjust them now.)) Josef Kovac — 02/08/2024 12:17 PM ((All good)) Dr Edmund Cosmo Maltravers Jr — 02/08/2024 12:25 PM ((right that should be correct now, I hope)) Josef Kovac — 02/08/2024 12:28 PM If we're going to increase military research funding, wouldn't it be prudent to update the procurement section as well? We don't need 1.75 billion a year to research an IFV from '22. Dr Edmund Cosmo Maltravers Jr — 02/08/2024 12:30 PM I could always readjust it back to its original state and put that leftover into the navy as they only have 5 billion whereas the army and air force have more? I do agree it may be silly to increase the research budget. Right so, by doing this the navy's budget will be 9,550,000,000 or ₣2.3875 billion per quarter. Josef Kovac — 02/08/2024 12:34 PM I'm not saying it's silly to increase the research budget at all, but the procurement section would need to be modernized to justify that. In addition, 45 billion is quite a lot of money. Considering our current enemy, we could probably scrape off some Florins from the Navy and Coast Guard budget. Air maritime patrols would probably be sufficient to halt any threat from sea. Dr Edmund Cosmo Maltravers Jr — 02/08/2024 12:34 PM Right. I'll have a look at the procurement act and will propose some amendments Sergei Urisko [KWP] — 02/08/2024 5:48 PM Why do we need any naval reinforcements when this is an inland conflict? Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 02/08/2024 5:49 PM Its a question I think about a balanced long term defence force Much of this conflict couldn't have happened if our forces were better funded Sergei Urisko [KWP] — 02/08/2024 5:50 PM Of course, which is why I prompt it. Shouldn't we only focus on inland forces and later - after some recovery from all of this - revisit naval forces? Given we're in a state of emergency, I would think it would be more practical. Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 02/08/2024 5:51 PM I think it depends how much time we want to spend on the issue - we can just set and forget today or have multiple resolutions over the next years. I think its ok to ((abstract)) the issue a bit in the interest of keeping things simple to work through on t he med and long term but that's just my opinion on the subject Sergei Urisko [KWP] — 02/08/2024 5:53 PM I'm fine either way. Just thinking about the short term push. It could potentially make a difference. We don't know exactly how much inland forces we need. I might be okay if we look at more progressive options like drones and other machinery to reduce manpower. Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 02/08/2024 5:54 PM there is a line for 500 million in immediate funding for the current crisis which should be able to quickly equip and train 2000-5000 soldiers immediately ((immediately being 3 months)) Sergei Urisko [KWP] — 02/08/2024 5:57 PM The 500 seems very general. I wonder if we could find quicker solutions with that kind of money abroad. Do we not have a means to draft citizens for internal wars? Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 02/08/2024 5:58 PM its my understanding its authorisation for the executive - not necessarily spelled out by the GA specificslly no, the draft was repealed Sergei Urisko [KWP] — 02/08/2024 5:59 PM That's a pity. Could we use the (or part of) 500 to entice recruits? For a very short-term training? Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 02/08/2024 6:00 PM for sure Sergei Urisko [KWP] — 02/08/2024 6:03 PM Then this may need to be specifically stated in the bill. Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 02/08/2024 6:14 PM Yes the authorisation line could probably be workshopped a bit but I think if we empower the executive we can use it however is best - if we write specifics it can tie the hands of the executive but perhaps that's a good thing sometimes Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 02/09/2024 2:06 AM @Dr Edmund Cosmo Maltravers Jr Dr Edmund Cosmo Maltravers Jr — 02/09/2024 2:10 AM ((I'll look through these ideas and amend the bill appropriately in a bit, I'm on a bus presently, however.)) Dr Edmund Cosmo Maltravers Jr — 02/09/2024 9:56 AM Right, I've done some rewording Edmund Marwood [NUP]

pinned 

a message

to this channel. See all 

pinned messages .

— 02/10/2024 3:14 AM

Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 02/10/2024 3:15 AM We need to define what crisis the item is for and also correct an "and" to "an" Joanna Sousa KWP (Juliette) — 02/10/2024 3:53 AM ((Just a question gameplay wise, but as worded the Active Army has an authorised 'end strength' of 170,000.

And there is also a clause of a maximum organised reserve of 85,000.

What does this actually constitute numbers wise overall? I imagine that 170,000 sounds more like a target so some proportion of 170,000 + some proportion of 85,000 activated reservists as the numbers would probably in reality differ depending on circumstances. Would that be the correct interpretation?)) Joanna Sousa KWP (Juliette) — 02/10/2024 4:08 AM ((More confusion due to the fact that the Navy and Airforce don't have a simlar clause. That said if the desired interpretation)) Joanna Sousa KWP (Juliette) — 02/10/2024 4:18 AM Procurement discussion aside, I think the personnel strength of the Navy and Airforce ought to be increased slightly too, but I recognise the need for attention to be paid to the ground forces in the short term.

While have some concerns whether the huge injection is sustainable right now, I am not opposed to a large increase to the military budget.

To clarify, in case it is susprising to some, I have always been and I am in full support of an increased military budget irrespective of the present situation. My only concerns are fiscal, as is my role as Treasurer.

With that said, I can assure the assembly that we do indeed have a surplus that we use to absorb the impact, and we have quite a number of options for shifting the budget which can come later. The question simply needs to be how much funds we inject to the military as soon as possible. Remembering that the funds injected now aren't just for the present conflict and will eventually be made use of for long term defence investment.

Suffice to say that I do not believe our military is well funded, having been in the military myself I have seen and experienced first hand the struggle of our troops in the last major conflict Kodiak had to deal with. If our troops are to defend the nation, we must take into account the reality of our present situation and the defence of the nation in future. As present funding levels would not be enough to defend from invasion, and has not truly been enough to deal with our present crisis. Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 02/10/2024 4:37 AM ((I am unsure about the troop numbers, and as the GM I'm not really fussed as the only number I look at is the funding, and whatever the simulation's determination in on what that means)) Joanna Sousa KWP (Juliette) — 02/10/2024 4:38 AM ((Yeah totally, all flavour after all at this point after the money)) Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 02/10/2024 5:20 AM Honestly surprised there is so little debate on this John Edwards [KWP] — 02/10/2024 5:47 AM Handy timing to coincide with a crisis. Dr Edmund Cosmo Maltravers Jr — 02/10/2024 7:06 AM If members believe there are ways to improve this bill, I happily welcome them to propose possible amendments - military was never my strongest point. Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 02/10/2024 7:07 AM ((military was never my strongest point I recognise the importance of agreement in this process)) The Republic of Arcasis (DPPK) — 02/11/2024 6:42 AM I am not up to date with everything but from what I understand The Kodiak Republic is in crisis Political chaos and a revolt in the south... As much as I am a pacifist I understand that this a must For the survival of the republic this I deem necesary Josef Kovac — 02/11/2024 8:44 AM I am okay with the amount of funding in this bill, as large as it might seem. Even with the deficit that this bill will send us into, we can wage war for 40 years without our debt passing 80% of our GDP. Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 02/11/2024 8:45 AM

hear:

Alexander Paramount (NUP) — 02/11/2024 9:19 AM I mean, I support it without a doubt since I’m getting tired of these Kodiak Commune terrorists. We are in a crisis right now and we need to increase spending and fight back as soon as possible The Republic of Arcasis (DPPK) — 02/11/2024 9:19 AM Agreed Although I wouldn't call them terrorists Alexander Paramount (NUP) — 02/11/2024 9:21 AM Eh, whatever you call them, they’re still dangerous. It’s either we keep elongate this issue with indecisiveness and watch them get stronger through foreign aids or we fight back and defeat them as soon as possible. That’s my personal view of the isssue The Republic of Arcasis (DPPK) — 02/11/2024 9:22 AM Also agreed But we need to tread carefully Alexander Paramount (NUP) — 02/11/2024 9:23 AM Yeah it could be another guerrilla warfare mess that halt our advance The Republic of Arcasis (DPPK) — 02/11/2024 9:23 AM Some people sugested that we should legitimize their government Which is frankly ridiciulous Although going either extreme will have dire consequences On one hand if we legitimize them it could give way to other rebelions If we just crush them it would lead to, as you said, a guerrilla war Joanna Sousa KWP (Juliette) — 02/12/2024 3:30 AM ((OOC: had some time so went wild :P equipment designation 'NN is made up, I feel as long as the number is bigger than before it basically should be better than before :P))

A suggestion to the author and the GA, through my own background and receiving consultation from trusted contacts in the armed forces I truly believe the entire military requires modernisation and more personnel to support it into the future. So allow me to provide some suggestions to make use of the large injection of funds:

An increase in Navy and Airforce personnel alongside the already suggested increase in the ground forces:

Navy: -> Increase end strength to 60k sailors

Airforce: -> End strength to 60k personnel

This is under the assumption that recruitment will target the maximum number for the regular forces as best as they can.

Suggested modernisation efforts, and a streamlining of legislation specificity so that we may leave the procurement specifics to the military:

Naval procurement: -> Incremental modernisation of current destroyer design 52' -> Procurement of new Domestic Frigate Design '57 -> Procurement of new Domestic Corvette Design '42

Army procurement: -> 5 year procurement and modernisation of Army Air/Helicopters/Support '52 -> 5 year procurement and modernisation of Infantry weapons and equipment '55 -> 5 year procurement and modernisation of Vehicles/Light Armour/Main Battle Tank '55 -> 5 year procurement long ranged missiles, rockets and artillery '52

Airforce -> 5 year procurement support and transportation air assets '52 -> Incremental modernisation of current multirole fighter design '52 -> Keep the rest

The suggested procurement is more to make up for older equipment, and with the understanding that Kodiak cannot hope to procure at a rapid rate of modernisation that a super power could (e.g., we could not possibly hope for aircraft carriers, 5th generation fighters, etc). However we should be able to modernise our military to that of an equivalent power (OOC: we're not the USA, China, etc, we can at least hope to be a European regional power).

---

There was also mention of transferring more of the coast guard budget to the Navy, and I would support that. In general I would support a minimum of a total 30bil in funding overall, which obviously the present proposal checks that 'box' so to speak.

I urge the assembly to provide funds to our nations defence. Dr Edmund Cosmo Maltravers Jr — 02/12/2024 3:53 AM I'm in favour of this, I'll be honest. I think upgrading our entire armed forces is necessary. Josef Kovac — 02/12/2024 3:54 AM I'm not sure if people realize just how underfunded our military was before. I don't recall the exact number, but it was something like 5000 USD per soldier per year. Dr Edmund Cosmo Maltravers Jr — 02/12/2024 5:52 AM ((as a note: I'm going to amend the bill to include these ideas in a bit, because I believe they could be extremely beneficial)) Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 02/12/2024 5:52 AM Let us try to get this finalised for the @Assembly President to send to vote asap Dr Edmund Cosmo Maltravers Jr — 02/12/2024 6:07 AM I've now amended the bill. The Republic of Arcasis (DPPK) — 02/12/2024 11:04 AM My apoligies but wasn't voting set for today? Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 02/12/2024 12:08 PM

It is. It will be presented before the evening ((EST)) is out Jack Williams (DPPK) — 02/12/2024 1:20 PM Is this amendment just to strengthen our National Defense with the potential war against the Commune? Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 02/12/2024 4:21 PM just is a strong word - it is to fund the military over the term of the rebellion, but also to ensure we maintain a defensive force after the conflict (unlike after the war with TGN). Jack Williams (DPPK) — 02/12/2024 4:32 PM Ok thank you Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 02/12/2024 4:33 PM this funding would put us at just 400 florins per capita - which is not an exceptional amount when plotted against comparable nations Jack Williams (DPPK) — 02/12/2024 4:34 PM Yeah no its not very exceptional at all lol Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 02/12/2024 4:35 PM ((comparison table for nations that don't exist)) Image Jack Williams (DPPK) — 02/12/2024 4:36 PM ((I assumed Kodiak's military was underfunded but its rare to be in conflict here, or am I wrong?)) Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 02/12/2024 4:41 PM ((well I suppose it isn't as rare as we'd hope. We've had one foreign invasion in 645, a leftist insurrection in 663, and a potential right-wing insurrection that was thwarted in 650.)) ((but we're also still recovering as a government and as a people since the Kodiak Flu outbreak)) Jack Williams (DPPK) — 02/12/2024 4:41 PM ((I noticed that from reading up on the history logs on the wiki, thats cool though. )) Dr Edmund Cosmo Maltravers Jr — 02/12/2024 6:38 PM I'd like to motion for a vote Edmund Marwood [NUP] — 02/12/2024 6:40 PM I second the motion Jack Williams (DPPK) — 02/12/2024 7:03 PM I third the motion EasyPoll BOT

— 02/12/2024 7:51 PM

Question Does the General Assembly approve of the National Defense Authorization Act Amendment?

Choices 🇦 Aye 🇧 Nay 🇨 Abstain

Final Result 🇦 ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓░░ [16 • 76%] 🇧 ▓░░░░░░░░░ [3 • 14%] 🇨 ▓░░░░░░░░░ [2 • 10%] 21 users voted

Settings

alarm_clock: Poll already ended (2 days ago)

spy: Anonymous Poll

one: allowed choice

lock: No other votes allowed

Allowed roles: @Assembly Member Poll ID: 4369fc4e Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 02/12/2024 7:52 PM

@Assembly Member, voting for this bill is now open and will remain open for 72 hours. Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— 02/15/2024 12:33 PM

@Assembly Member, only one day left to vote on this proposal. Braughn F. G. Kryos OP

— Today at 9:41 AM

With 16 ayes, 3 nays, and 2 abstains, the National Defense Authorization Act Amendment is passed by the General Assembly. This debate will be archived shortly.