Talk:War Time Service Act (666)

War Time Service Act Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 03/05/2024 00:33

Tabled by Mr. Hurst, MGA, as a government bill. An act to mandate service in the Armed Forces and secure opportunities for citizens of the Kodiak Republic during periods of war . https://kodiak.wiki/wiki/War_Time_Service_Act_(666) Voting will be June 5th. The Kodiak Republic Wiki War Time Service Act (666) An act to mandate service in the Armed Forces and secure opportunities for citizens of the Kodiak Republic during periods of war. Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 03/05/2024 00:34

@Assembly Member unfortunately this bill is open for debate. @Felix Hurst [NUP] you are first to speak. I will not accept any motion to votes until I myself motions to vote as stated in the procedures. So be mindful of that Felix Hurst [NUP] — 03/05/2024 08:13 ((sorry will get to it this afternoon)) Felix Hurst [NUP] — 03/05/2024 19:36 Before I give my statement, I'd like to ask the Assembly President why he felt it necessary for me to be the first to speak. No other billhas been subjected to this treatment. R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 03/05/2024 19:37 I do think it was actually meant to be respectful first chance to explain the bill Felix Hurst [NUP] — 03/05/2024 19:37 ((oh that's awkward)) Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 03/05/2024 20:03

Every bill that I have presented, I have always let the sponsor go first. You can go back through the old logs if you want to make sure yourself Felix Hurst [NUP] — 03/05/2024 20:11 ((the maltravers mentality of accusing the opposition has blinded me (and well, me not reading properly). Deepest apologies)) Felix Hurst [NUP] — 03/05/2024 20:57 Members of the Assembly, Before you today is a very important bill, one that hopes not only to end this civil war but to mitigate futures ones. Conscription, although unpleasant, is a necessary step to ensuring the Republic's security.

The President has expressed his concerns that conscription will destroy the workforce. Well, this bill accounts for that. In the Article 4, it makes provisions for workers in key industries and university students. I pose him this question: what difference would it make to the economy if 50000 volunteers signed up compared to 50000 conscripted.

As for the argument that this bill will "force working class citizens into service", military service can help them. Again in Article 4, upon leaving the service, soldiers will be given the equivalent of a trade school certificate. And if exemplary service is shown by a soldier, they may be offered by tuition at university.

However, I am happy to negotiate the terms of the bill. Perhaps a limit of the number of those conscripted. Thank you. J.F. Sassoon — 03/05/2024 21:00 Serving one's country is the highest honour, the benefits given in article 4 are equally as beneficial, I support this. Joseph Fala, DPPK — 03/05/2024 21:09 I have a question and it's a hypothetical. Let's say that this bill is law.

My daughter currently is 10 years old and she is my greatest pride in life shows picture to the assembly anyways. On 3.8, I would like to know more abo7t about what a Sole Survivor is.

I currently life in Duckburg with my Daughter and my wife lost her life when she was born. I'm her only parent in life and I have not remarried because I loved my wife from the bottom of my heart that I have stayed loyal to her.

Would my daughter be considered a sole Survivor? Felix Hurst [NUP] — 03/05/2024 21:20 Thank you for bringing that up Mr Fala. Yes, your daughter would be a 'sole survivor' as she has no siblings. If, hypothetically and god forbid, she were to die whilst serving, it would be the end of your bloodline. Joseph Fala, DPPK — 03/05/2024 21:30 So, there is a chance they die while surving? What do you mean by that? Felix Hurst [NUP] — 03/05/2024 21:32 I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. If you mean dying whilst serving in the military, then yes. After all, they will be active soldiers and will almost definitely see combat. Joseph Fala, DPPK — 03/05/2024 21:35 So during these 2 years of conscription, these young people will be considered "Active" is that correct? And is that also saying that we expect to be in a war all of the time? Felix Hurst [NUP] — 03/05/2024 21:54 To answer your first question, yes. They will be soldiers, they will be expected to fight like soldiers. We will not just make them march around. As for your second question: This bill was not written due to an expectation that we will always be in a state of war. If that was the case, I would have included peacetime conscription. This is only a measure to mitigate the spread of an conflict such as the civil war and the war in the Darrent. R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 03/05/2024 22:03 Its literally a "wartime conscription" act why would we have a bill for wartime conscription if it wasn't going to be to aid in war Joseph Fala, DPPK — 03/05/2024 22:05 So does conscription go away when we are not in a declaration of war? J.F. Sassoon — 03/05/2024 22:05 Would that not be obvious? Joseph Fala, DPPK — 03/05/2024 22:08 The Chancellor would be given a lot of power it seems to control the youngest of our population. I would like to have an amendment to change the language at the beginning at 1.1 from "discretion of the Chancellor" to, "discretion of a majority of the Assembly" R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 03/05/2024 22:13 I disagree, and don't believe the change should be made. The executive chancellor is selected by the assembly to conduct daily operations - a state of war is not something we can spend months debating. it either is, or it is not. Joseph Fala, DPPK — 03/05/2024 22:21 But sending people to war is a serious issue Mr. Welch that is not to be taken likely. Parts of our population including people in my district could be drafted into war at anytime the Chancellor chooses too. I have a right to speak for my constituents who may come back in a box anytime the Chancellor chooses to go into a war. For a serious issue, the Assembly should have their say in the matter before we go to war.

On top of that. Sending our young to war would be dangerous for our population itself as it we do go to war could put us into a situation where there isn't enough young population to support our old.

Yes the Chancellor is approved by the Assembly, but for an issue that touches everyone here in this assembly, we need to have our say too! R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 03/05/2024 22:23 sometimes, and this may shock you, war comes to us. that is the eventuality we must prepare for we have 25 million young people - how many people do you think we're sending to war?! use some sense, man Joseph Fala, DPPK — 03/05/2024 22:25 Depends on how large the war is J.F. Sassoon — 03/05/2024 22:26 As someone who has been in this conflict, who has lost a leg to the commune, I believe it is necessary for the members of the assembly to realise that this conscription is necessary. We cannot fight this war forever with our current numbers, a boost is absolutely necessary for us to go on and bring victory home. Considering the numbers we are likely to conscript, there is no issue of a large loss. R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 03/05/2024 22:26 Joseph Fala, DPPK — 03/05/2024 22:31 For example, if you have one large nation invading Kodiak, yeah, you need all of the help you could get.

My concern is a little more complicated, what if... lets say there is a protest. Young People are in the streets to protest the government actions in 1 thing and it grows into a movement across our nation.

If the Chancellor disagrees with the protesters. What is to stop him from going to war with a nation to the south of us and calling on conscription to stop the protest? R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 03/05/2024 22:32 J.F. Sassoon — 03/05/2024 22:32 A protest is not a war? Joseph Fala, DPPK — 03/05/2024 22:33 It's not J.F. Sassoon — 03/05/2024 22:33 Therefore there is no issue. R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 03/05/2024 22:33 look, I think the valuable lesson we've learned is that no one is to allow Fala to be Chancellor Joseph Fala, DPPK — 03/05/2024 22:33 That's true, but the issue is that the Chancellor would have too much power Felix Hurst [NUP] — 03/05/2024 22:34 Well, the Assembly has the power to remove them for a clear abuse of power. Joseph Fala, DPPK — 03/05/2024 22:34 I don't plan to be Chancellor Mr. Welch R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 03/05/2024 22:35 it takes months for conscripts to be called up. What exactly is the issue here? If the chancellor declares war on pumpkins, its still goign to take 6 months to get conscription moving Joseph Fala, DPPK — 03/05/2024 22:35 We do, but this is also why I support adding guardrail to protect our democracy and giving the assembly a say on conscription Joseph Fala, DPPK — 03/05/2024 22:37 The clock could be spead up too by arresting protesters R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 03/05/2024 22:38 what are you talking about this bill does not authorise protestor arrests Joseph Fala, DPPK — 03/05/2024 22:38 It doesn't, but a future bill could do it if the political environment was right R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 03/05/2024 22:39 are we debating imaginary bills or this bill? Joseph Fala, DPPK — 03/05/2024 22:39 We are debating this but my point stands, this gives the Chancellor too much power over our people R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 03/05/2024 22:39 the point doesn't stand at all this bill does not grant the chancellor the ability to - reads back - instantaneously draft 25 million people. because its not physically possible we are in fact still governed by the laws of physics the chancellor can declare war on his morning coffee - and its going to take 3-6 months for the burueacratic apparatus to even spool up to conscript a few thousand. This is why the office needs to be able to authorise this because wasting 9 months debating a war declaration while we're being invaded is not great defence Joseph Fala, DPPK — 03/05/2024 22:41 But we are not just debating bills here Mr. Welch, we are also putting lives in the line R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 03/05/2024 22:42 no we are literally debating a bill if we are at war - the lives on the line are already on the line. this bill does not create war Joseph Fala, DPPK — 03/05/2024 22:43 I demand that the assembly has a say on the matter so we don't just go into wars that we shouldn't be in for no reason R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 03/05/2024 22:43 your demands are unreasonable and risk the integrity of the republic Klaus Mikaelson [Ind] — 03/05/2024 22:45 My first thoughts-

It would be nice to see some kind of check on the Chancellor being able to do this unilaterally, just as a backup safety.

I also wonder if the ages listed for those who would serve end at too young of an age? People are, by and large, physically able to serve after the age of 29. Should this cut off be raised?

I would also be open to the age of service being lowered to 16 with parental consent. J.F. Sassoon — 03/05/2024 22:49 Sixteen is rather young, I would say. The mind is not developed. Eighteen should be the earliest. John Edwards [KWP] — 03/05/2024 22:49 We've been through all this before. Apparently you're all too young to remember what happened last time we had conscription. If you insist on forgetting the lessons of history, don't say I didn't warn you. Image J.F. Sassoon — 03/05/2024 22:51 You yourself were Chancellor at the time, what are your thoughts on this situation presently then, Mr Edwards? R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 03/05/2024 22:52 he wasn't - it was Luchens J.F. Sassoon — 03/05/2024 22:53 ((the paper says Edwards.)) R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 03/05/2024 22:53 ah this must be from after the end of the war - and not applicable to the current crisis then Felix Hurst [NUP] — 03/05/2024 22:54 Mr Mikaelson, to answer your thoughts on the age bar: I would not be opposed to raising the age, as you said there are many able-bodied individuals over 29. I will have to consider it. However, I will not lower the age. Maybe a sort of cadet force, but certainly not a conscript. They are too young to experience the horrors of war. Klaus Mikaelson [Ind] — 03/05/2024 22:54 I don't believe the mind is developed in men at 18 either, so what's the difference? Military service may help to properly shape the mind to a degree. R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 03/05/2024 22:54 The right to vote and influence over their own fate in that regard J.F. Sassoon — 03/05/2024 22:55 That I agree with entirely, military service can do a great deal of good. However, we should at least give children a chance to complete their education beforehand. Klaus Mikaelson [Ind] — 03/05/2024 22:57 I don't disagree. I'm partially thinking of those who don't finish their education for other reasons and may have no where else to go and who could use direction in their lives. Perhaps they could be used in communications or other non-front line positions? J.F. Sassoon — 03/05/2024 22:57 Now that I had not considered, it is a fair point. Klaus Mikaelson [Ind] — 03/05/2024 22:58 I'm not saying that should all be put into this bill, as an aside, that's not the purpose of this measure, but it could be cited to another bill on military service. Joseph Fala, DPPK — 03/05/2024 22:59 Mr. Mikaelson, I agree with you to an extent. I think 2 years of public service is enough to help our younger people. But Conscription in the military is a risky move. I will agree everyone could get basic military training but I wouldn't want them in the military if they don't want too.

Something we do agree on Mr. Mikaelson is that there needs to be a guardrail in case a conscription is called. The Assembly needs a say on the matter R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 03/05/2024 23:00 The assembly has its say every time it chooses who to trust as Chancellor. Joseph Fala, DPPK — 03/05/2024 23:00 If someone wants to get the basic military training and then use the rest of the 2 years of public service within helping social services. I think thats fine. If they want to use it working on the civilan side of the Army, thats fine too R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 03/05/2024 23:00 this assembly cannot function if it must approve of every button design on every uniform or every menu item in the mess. Klaus Mikaelson [Ind] — 03/05/2024 23:01 I think it's easy to say that's quite different from a notice of conscription, however. R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 03/05/2024 23:01 its about realistic framing sir - it takes months to enact conscription - enough time to cancel it via assembly resolution Klaus Mikaelson [Ind] — 03/05/2024 23:02 The Chancellor must be free to run their government as they see fit, that's what they are elected to do. However, if they alone have the power to drastically change the lives of millions of civilians that the members of this chamber are supposed to represent, a check of some kind is warranted. R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 03/05/2024 23:02 but it takes months to pass a resolution - months we may not have when under attack Klaus Mikaelson [Ind] — 03/05/2024 23:02 Assembly Resolutions have no weight in law. R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 03/05/2024 23:02 a semantic argument about the definition of an act of the house is unbecoming its about realistic framing sir - it takes months to enact conscription - enough time to cancel it via assembly BILL/ACT/RESOLUTION/LAW/PAPER Joseph Fala, DPPK — 03/05/2024 23:03 The Chancillor may control active military members at anytime if we are suddenly in a war. The Conscription should be only used if we are running out of men R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 03/05/2024 23:03 but it takes months to pass a BILL/ACT/RESOLUTION/LAW/PAPER- months we may not have when under attack Klaus Mikaelson [Ind] — 03/05/2024 23:03 No more unbecoming than comparing menu items to the conscription of millions of people. R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 03/05/2024 23:03 well that is not infact the comparison I was making as it was a comparison of the duties of the house that it should not act as an executive assembly as it is not one Klaus Mikaelson [Ind] — 03/05/2024 23:04 but in some circumstances and for some situations, the legislative branch should have a check on the executive. Joseph Fala, DPPK — 03/05/2024 23:04 This is why I am asking for Guardrails, I'm glad we agree R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 03/05/2024 23:05 great, and it can undo the actions of the chancellor if it doesn't like them but tying hands a priori for a crisis bill is ignorance in the highest Joseph Fala, DPPK — 03/05/2024 23:06 Active Military exist for a reason Mr Welch R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 03/05/2024 23:06 so your solution is to have a full military response force ready at all times including peacetime? we should have active military personel to the level of full-war defence at all times instead of a bill for wartime conscription Joseph Fala, DPPK — 03/05/2024 23:07 In a Democracy, the point is that not one man has complete power to do what he wants. This is just trying to keep in that tradition R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 03/05/2024 23:08 that is not even a response to the point raised and it also isn't even reflective of this bill Joseph Fala, DPPK — 03/05/2024 23:09 Thats why they are active military Its what they are for R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 03/05/2024 23:09 .. you understand we don't need as many military personel during peacetime than during wartime right? are you being an actual idiot or is this a rouse to waste debate time of the house? because I hope its the second Joseph Fala, DPPK — 03/05/2024 23:10 I understand that, Which is why you have Active and Reserve The Active Military members are the first to the line and the Reserve come second. Then if we are running out of men, then the concription could be called by that point R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 03/05/2024 23:12 and then we can spend months debating a new bill on conscription that you can delay for no reason, then if it passes wait 6 months+ for the first conscripts to begin their 3 month basic training and watch the war be lost before the first new boot hits the ground your points are simply unfathomable - your actual argument is that we should be already losing before we might react to do something about it Joseph Fala, DPPK — 03/05/2024 23:14 If the situation is dire, the Assembly can make a swift decision on the matter R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 03/05/2024 23:14 but you're also concerned we might somehow lose 25 million young people? to death you're all over the shop R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 03/05/2024 23:15 If the assembly this term has not proven that is untrue - then you are unable to be helped and your opinions should be dismissed out of hand Joseph Fala, DPPK — 03/05/2024 23:18 Then add a provision that we don't debate and we just vote then María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 03/05/2024 23:20 That would still be at the mercy of the time of the queue and the President at the time, which is also too time consuming for a wartime situation. R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 03/05/2024 23:21 I'd be happy to do that now lets just vote then Klaus Mikaelson [Ind] — 03/05/2024 23:21 I understand that some here have gotten in the habit of directing personal attacks towards those seen as being in opposition. I'm not against you in this debate. I'm attempting to have a discussion in earnest, and I could do without your extreme statements. I am not your enemy here, sir. R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 03/05/2024 23:23 I don't want to start a semantic argument about a request not to be personally attacked, but being ignorant is not an insult. my belief that you are of an improper belief, and therefore ignorant to the position or facts as I see it, is not an insult If i wanted to insult you, and I say this as a sign post and not a claim - I would call you an idiot or something of that nature. I promise you. I would not be so kind as to call you ignorant if that were my intention Klaus Mikaelson [Ind] — 03/05/2024 23:24 statements like this are also incredibly unhelpful to the discussion at large. If we're going to debate the bill, let's debate the bill. R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 03/05/2024 23:25 Then I will leave it to you to motion for Mr Fala to no longer be heard when he next begins going on about imaginary future bills or random questions about protestors and sudden declarations of war on neighbours. Klaus Mikaelson [Ind] — 03/05/2024 23:25 What kind of check would be possible to have that does not hamstring the powers of the Chancellor, do you have thoughts on that? Joseph Fala, DPPK — 03/05/2024 23:26 We could have a provision that stops the Conscription by Assembly vote Joseph Fala, DPPK — 03/05/2024 23:26 Is that good enough Klaus Mikaelson [Ind] — 03/05/2024 23:27 I agree that a check is needed, but I do not want to interfere with the Chancellor being able to do their job. R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 03/05/2024 23:27 this is a power the assembly already has - to override a chancellors' decisions by vote. J.F. Sassoon — 03/05/2024 23:34 If there are serious concerns about the powers of the executive, it would be better suited for a constitutional convention rather than a debate about War Time Service. Quite frankly, call me mad if you will, but going in circles is not how the Legislature should be behaving. It's childish! John Edwards [KWP] — 04/05/2024 01:15 @Felix Hurst [NUP], I note there is no mention of conscription ending. Under what circumstances does conscription end? Not for the individual soldier but but for the system as a whole. If this has been addressed, I apologise, it was lost in the "debate". Tobias Virstürm (DPPK) — 04/05/2024 01:54 I do have a question regarding this, if individuals are members of the KNF would they also be forced into required military service? Is this a subtle way of integrating some paramilitary forces into our own military? I do understand not all of them fall into the age range of this act, however, some will. Liam Harrison [KWP] — 04/05/2024 07:07 I agree with Mr. Edwards, this bill discusses "wartime conscription" but gives no limits as to when "wartime" actually is. J.F. Sassoon — 04/05/2024 07:16 I would say, taking an educated estimation, that is, that a war is around 2.4 years in length on average. In this case, as a compromise, it could be set that war time can be 2.4 years at maximum and any further time must be granted by the Assembly? Felix Hurst [NUP] — 04/05/2024 10:24 Mr Edwards, Mr Harrison, yes the bill's wording is vague in that regard. I shall add a definition of 'wartime'. I am also open to implementing Sassoon's suggestion. Felix Hurst [NUP] — 04/05/2024 10:39 Mr Virstürm, no, KNF members will be exempt from conscription. Though the way you word it is strange. They are already integrated into the army. Even so, if KNF members were to be drafted into the regular army, it would not be an integration of the KNF. They will be soldiers like any other. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/05/2024 10:40 They are most certainly not integrated into the army. This has been made very clear by the government. Unless Mr. Hurst means to suggest that a single military commander over an entirely civilian force constitutes "integrated". Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 04/05/2024 10:42

Yeah they have yet to be integrated Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/05/2024 10:43 This is doubly confusing. No, the KNF members are not exempt from conscription, yet they "are already integrated into the army". This would suggest that the KNF, integrated into the army, would somehow be... drafted into the army. I'm not sure I quite understand the line of reasoning there. Either they are integrated into the army (which they most certainly are not), in which case they would have to be exempt from the draft or they are not integrated into the army (which is the actual case of affairs). It cannot be had both ways. John Edwards [KWP] — 04/05/2024 11:11 @María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] ,as the primary advocate of the KNF, what role do you forsee for them post war, or even post Graz? I would recommend against exemption as suggested by @Felix Hurst [NUP] , as then any militia can theoretically claim exemption. They could however have their current action considered as "served". María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 04/05/2024 11:26 Even though I'm not the author of this act, I may have some ideas about it. As the KNF is a militia with a lack of long-term military training, and most of the men who make up the force are far too old from the age range presented in this act, they will most likely be exempt by default, although I doubt there'd be any issues if any of those withing the proper age range present themselves for conscription. And involving the war, they'll primarily be focused on facing the small pockets of Commune forces which could potentially be dangerous enough to take up portions of the territory of the nation. After the war, I believe that they may either establish themselves as an organization or they'll possibly disband by their own will. They're not that organized to keep it up after the war, and their main purpose is to fight the Commune, once the enemy is dealt I see most of them will go back to their lives, considering they'll feel justice has been brought. María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 04/05/2024 11:34 And indeed, their current paramilitary activity could count as serving their time. But I'll let Mr. Hurst decide on that. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/05/2024 11:48 blinks The Minister for Law and Order would be okay with a paramilitary organization, an armed mob of untrained civilians, to... continue after the threat we face is gone? And do what exactly? María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 04/05/2024 11:51 What do you try to accomplish making such assumptions, Mr. Kryos? Braughn F. G. Kryos — 04/05/2024 11:53 I'm trying to understand why a paramilitary organization would need to continue after the crisis they were formed for has ended. Their existance already pushes the boundary of what we might see as legal. I'm not sure how the government could justify their continuation. John Edwards [KWP] — 04/05/2024 11:54 You said "establish as an organisation". What kind of organisation do you forsee? A paramilitary one? If so, would such paramilitary organisations be exempt from conscription? María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 04/05/2024 11:55 I never said they would be allowed to continue after the war, I said what they'd do. I though they could perhaps reform into a, let's say, political organization, distinct from an actual paramilitary organization. MHC (The Class Dynasty) — 04/05/2024 11:55 But what about the paramilitary forces of other nations aswell? Such as the Unified Military States' paramilitary unit? María Sanz-Cortés [NUP] — 04/05/2024 11:56 If they don't follow such a change, then they would just go live their lives again, which in my opinion is the most possible outcome. John Edwards [KWP] — 04/05/2024 11:58 Foreign organisations would not be subject to Kodiak conscription laws. Tobias Virstürm (DPPK) — 04/05/2024 16:39 I appreciate the clarification, I do not mean to make the question difficult. I do support the measure Felix Hurst [NUP] — 05/05/2024 00:01 I have added an article five to accommodate Mr Edwards and Mr Sassoons recommendations. Taken from Mr Harrison's point, I would like to hear some definitions of what can be deemed a 'war'. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/05/2024 00:02 I will re-iterate this point. Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 05/05/2024 00:02

Anything that has “war” in the end😂 Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/05/2024 00:04 Simple enough: The Assembly declares war, so whenever the Assembly declares war, that is when war is. When the Assembly declares the war over, the war is then over. R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 05/05/2024 00:12 this definition is only meaningfully operable in less than half of cases as it provides no discretion during times where the war is declared upon us - or cases where war is not declared but acts of war have been committed against us Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 05/05/2024 00:14

But on a serious note. If there is a death count over 50 with full scale battles including this Civil War. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/05/2024 00:14 If we were talking about the general use of armed forces, I might agree. Considering we are discussing the implimentation of a draft, the specific need for an official declaration of war is warranted. R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 05/05/2024 00:15 given the propensity of this assembly, and some of those present, to vastly under-fund our military - i disagree Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/05/2024 00:15 What does supporting or not supporting funding have to do with declaring war or beginning a draft? I may stand against peacetime military buildup, but both myself and the KWP supported the increased military spending and the declaration of war on the Commune when it was so visibly necessary. R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 05/05/2024 00:22 As with the last two occasions of armed conflict within Kodiak, the military was so vastly underfunded we were considerably on the side of losing for months while the assembly struggled to prioritise new funding, equipment, and even more importantly, personel.

It is clearly and directly obvious that it is possible that will occur again and we return to the points i made earlier that it takes time to spool up conscripts into soldiers and we cannot waste months of debate in the assembly on a resolution or specifics when we need people as soon as possible. this is too urgent a matter to leave to the machinery of the assembly and requires executive discretion - the purpose of the executive in the first place. Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/05/2024 00:24 Again, if this were the use of the armed forces against our enemies, that would be one thing. But this is a draft, one of the most invasive things a government can levy against its people. This is one of those times when caution is warranted. R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 05/05/2024 00:25 in less than half of cases as it provides no discretion during times where the war is declared upon us - or cases where war is not declared but acts of war have been committed against us Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/05/2024 00:26 If acts of war have been committed against us or war has been declared upon us, why would we not make a formal declaration of war against that party? R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 05/05/2024 00:29 standing rules dictate that resolutions must be discussed for a minimum of ((72 hours)) 45 days and administration and voting also takes ((72 hours)) 45 days. not what I would consider "timely" Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/05/2024 00:29 ((I mean, yeah, but there needs to be at least some level of time fudgery there. It's not like any real Assembly would vote for 45 days)) R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 05/05/2024 00:30 ((I don't think I can fudge time by three months, at least 3 news storeis would have come out in that time)) Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/05/2024 00:31 ((I always understood it to be that debate and voting took place in real time, but only at the back end of the time. So, like, if we debate a bill for a week and vote for three days, that's how it happens. But if the voting ends on March 25 IC time, the debate began on March 15 IC time)) R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 05/05/2024 00:32 ((sometimes - it depends on the volume and style of the debate. Some things can't be retconned once its declared and some thigns can't be delayed to wait.)) Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/05/2024 00:32 ((I suppose that doesn't help the time scale)) R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 05/05/2024 00:33 ((it just depends on the kind of thing being done)) Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/05/2024 00:33 ((Either way, there has to be some level of fudging when it comes to things that would necessarily require the immediacy of action, like a declaration of war. I mean, heck, the US Congress spends months/years on bills, but the last declaration of war took days)) R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 05/05/2024 00:34 ((we can't pause war for 10 days during the crisis point while the assembly talks about it and the vote sits silently for 72 hours)) ((takes the wind out of the story)) Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/05/2024 00:34 ((Moving to ⁠💬｜general)) Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/05/2024 00:55 I remain very hesistant to allow the Chancellor to simply declare a draft whenever they decided a war was happening. This is an incredibly invasive act that should be guarded with sufficient and effective checks. R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 05/05/2024 00:55 so my point of view is as I related earlier - that it takes months for the draft to actually take meaningful effect - which means there is still opportunity for the assembly to cancel the policy we would expect a few months for the appartus to spool up, some weeks to gather draftees, 3 months for BCT, 3 months for advanced training, then some weeks for unit integration so we aren't seeing troops finalise training for 9 months at minimum Braughn F. G. Kryos — 05/05/2024 00:57 While I appreciate that, I have found that it is much, much harder to stop a ball in motion in this chamber rather than keeping one from rolling. R. Henry Welch, III [NUP] — 05/05/2024 00:57 if the assembly can't figure out what to do in 9 months - what are they doing Joanna Sousa KWP (Juliette) — 05/05/2024 22:03 I would go as far as to say that we must be in a defensive war. That includes declarations of war by us in defence of invasion, civil war, and declarations of war on us. To put it bluntly, we shouldn't need to wait for our side to formally declare war if we are already at war, additionally we should not be conscripting our people for a non-defensive war, not that I think anyone here intends to invade another nation but you never know what the future holds. If we simply define this as 'state of war', then that includes us being the 'Imperialists'/'Invaders'/Insert other label here. Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 06/05/2024 05:18

I agree with this. Only for defensive wars J.F. Sassoon — 06/05/2024 05:19 ((Has Kodiak ever had offensive wars?)) The Public Service — 07/05/2024 09:57 I ask the Author @Felix Hurst [NUP] if there are any remaining changes to be made. Debate appears to have stalled. Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 07/05/2024 10:25

@Felix Hurst [NUP] are you still wanting to make changes. What’s happening here? Felix Hurst [NUP] — 07/05/2024 17:11 ((sorry been busy with school, will add changes in a bit)) Joanna Sousa KWP (Juliette) — 07/05/2024 18:39 ((Thank you, no worries thanks for letting us know)).

I believe that clarity on defensive wars is crucial the values we have as a nation, is all I really have to add to my previous statement. I would support this, in the name of defending our nation from threats that we do not know about today. Felix Hurst [NUP] — 07/05/2024 20:32 I have added a (rather tentative) definition of war for this bill. Jack Williams (DPPK) OP

— 07/05/2024 23:07

@Assembly Member I motion to vote Joseph Fala, DPPK — 07/05/2024 23:08 second EasyPoll APP

— 07/05/2024 23:12

Question Does the Assembly approve of the War Time Service Act?

Choices 🇦 Aye 🇧 Nay 🇨 Abstain

Final Result 🇦 ▓▓▓▓▓▓░░░░ [13 • 62%] 🇧 ▓▓▓░░░░░░░ [6 • 29%] 🇨 ▓░░░░░░░░░ [2 • 10%] 21 users voted

Settings

alarm_clock: Poll already ended (17 hours ago)

spy: Anonymous Poll

one: allowed choice

lock: No other votes allowed

Allowed roles: @Assembly Member Poll ID: 20c96bfa The Public Service — Today at 15:16 @Assembly Member The Resolution has been accepted. 13 Aye, 6 Nay, with 2 Abstaining

This will be archived soon (TM).