NationStates Jolt Archive

To produce young moralist men, and a society built on order, and of course to ward off possible terror attacks, UN members agree to the following:

1) All men and women aged 18-35 must do at least 2 years military service.
2) They can be called up at any time by the Government to fight in any war that they deem fit.

This will mean that the Government will have a ready supply of men and women able to fight against terror in all its forms.

I have submited this proposal (look for the title of this post in the UN list of proposals).
I would of course like to have ideas on it, and maybe any changes people might like to see. If you like it, please endorse it.

Yours,

Andrew David O'Brien
Prime Minister of Her Majesty's Government of Posul

In this case, The Confederated Colonies of Landeras will stand opposed. This proposal is an infringement of national sovreignty. You seek to have the UN tell it's members how they must organise and recruit for their militaries, something which is clearly outside the bounds of the UN's Authority.

Rear Admiral James Walters, Ret.
UN Ambassador
Confederated Colonies of Landeras

Sorry. I'm going to vote against this one if it ever reaches quorum. It's an invasive proposal that legislates on a domestic issue.

Remember this everyone-

National Sovereignty: It's Like That "Tolerance" Crap on a National Level

Sorry. I'm going to vote against this one if it ever reaches quorum. It's an invasive proposal that legislates on a domestic issue.

Remember this everyone-

National Sovereignty: It's Like That "Tolerance" Crap on a National Level
As I despise 'me too' sorts of posts, I must improvise.

"Ditto."

To produce young moralist men, and a society built on order, and of course to ward off possible terror attacks, UN members agree to the following:

1) All men and women aged 18-35 must do at least 2 years military service.
2) They can be called up at any time by the Government to fight in any war that they deem fit.

This will mean that the Government will have a ready supply of men and women able to fight against terror in all its forms.

I have submited this proposal (look for the title of this post in the UN list of proposals).
I would of course like to have ideas on it, and maybe any changes people might like to see. If you like it, please endorse it.

Yours,

Andrew David O'Brien
Prime Minister of Her Majesty's Government of Posul

what is this for?

The individual governments should decide whether or not they want able-bodies forces ready to serve them, not the United Nations.

I feel that having enforced military service will aid all governments by bringing them to order, at this current time, armies are small, making enforcing of laws, and expansion small. While increasing this will provide less need for police and more help against terrorism. These men do not need to be used all the time, but will also provide the government with a back bone of men able to do military service if it was ever needed.

That makes it a worth while idea, also the UN must protect its member states, and by doing this, all the members states will be adequately protected. If you do not like it, then it can of course be changed.

oh, so the UN will always protect it's member countries?

Well if the proposal can go forward, nations will not need to provide too much help as each nation will be able to look after itself, with an army of adequate size.

Well if the proposal can go forward, nations will not need to provide too much help as each nation will be able to look after itself, with an army of adequate size.
i don't understand.

To produce young moralist men, and a society built on order, and of course to ward off possible terror attacks, UN members agree to the following:

1) All men and women aged 18-35 must do at least 2 years military service.
2) They can be called up at any time by the Government to fight in any war that they deem fit.

This will mean that the Government will have a ready supply of men and women able to fight against terror in all its forms.

I have submited this proposal (look for the title of this post in the UN list of proposals).
I would of course like to have ideas on it, and maybe any changes people might like to see. If you like it, please endorse it.

Yours,

Andrew David O'Brien
Prime Minister of Her Majesty's Government of Posul


My nation, my people and I do not believe in conscription. To force someone to fight against their will is against everything we hold dear. If this comes to the floor, we will vote against it and urge everyone else to do the same. If it actually passes then our nation would have to reconsider it's position in the UN.

i don't understand.

I could be wrong, but I think he/she means that if each nation has it's own standing army (one of considerable size if you take in to account all the men and women in the age group he listed) then there will be less need for a nation to come to the aid of it's neighbours in times of war/conflict and other such things.

Thing is, your plan intrudes on national sovreignty.
Since I'm already well on the way to ward reeatring myself, I may as remind the esteemed delegates of the UN that this august body's purpose is to provide an international forum whereby nations can address their greivances without going to war. The UN also serves the funtion of regulating and over-seeing interactions between its member nations. It is not, and was never intended to be a world government.

How nations recruit and maintain their forceds is a matter best left to individual states, not The UN.
Some nations prefer conscription, and others maintain volunteer forces.Some maintain no standing army, but insead call up researves and local militias in times of need. A few, Like the Confederation, require optional service in order to become a full citizen, and thus earn the right to have a say in their nation's government. Regardless of the system used, it is the right of nations to conduct their governments, in such manner as they see neccesary, without the interfereance of foreign busybodies.

Regardless of the motives behind this proposal, it is not within the UN's authority to rule on this subject.

Rear Admiral James Walters, Ret.
UN Ambassador
Confederated Colonies of Landeras

If your nation is so peaceful, then these men and women will never need to be called to arms will they? However if your nation was desperate and needed an army, then you would have one and so could help yourself, instead of asking others.

Conscription also makes nations think again before declaring war on others, and so therefore in some ways reduces war. Many a time nations have wished that they had had conscription, by enforcing it, we will make sure enemy nations cannot destroy other nations so easily.

This bodies purpose, when it was made, was infact to stop tyranny by any means possible, and one of these was war. It was the war that Stopped the Communists in Korea, and it is the UN's duty to make sure that each nation has enough protection.

This bodies purpose, when it was made, was infact to stop tyranny by any means possible, and one of these was war. It was the war that Stopped the Communists in Korea, and it is the UN's duty to make sure that each nation has enough protection.
Not this body. Maybe some other body with identical initials, but not this one.

The UN is expressly forbidden from having a standing army under its control, and this proposal skirts right into that area.

Sorry, no.

No way. We will not let such things pass.

The state exists to serve the people, not the other way around. If the citizens disagree with a war that their government is waging, that war quite probably shouldn't be happening anyway, let alone having those citizens drafted in to fight it.

And if a minority of people don't agree with the war, why should they be forced to fight it?

If this passed, we would have trouble enforcing it, as there wouldn't be enough people willing to maintain the infrastructure of compulsory military service - i.e. large portions of our existing forces would ideologically refuse to participate in the training of young people doing compulusory service. And if we were forced to fight a war, for whatever reason, which conflicted with our ideals (and that would be most wars), we would have a whole bunch of conscientious objectors which the text doesn't say how to deal with.

OOC: Sorry about any confusion caused by my previous post... I forgot which login I was using.

IC: Even so, It is the duty of individual nations to protect and provide for their own security. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and nations cannot sacrifice that freedom by allowing others to usurp such responsibilities.

IT is not the right of the UN to tell nations what the must eat, what they must wear, or who they can marry. Nor does the UN have the right to compell citizens of its member nations to serve in those nations' armed forces.
To do so would be to give the UN far more power than it needs or, quite frankly, desearves.

Rear Admiral James Walters, Ret.
UN Ambassador
Confederated Colonies of Landeras

If your nation is so peaceful, then these men and women will never need to be called to arms will they? However if your nation was desperate and needed an army, then you would have one and so could help yourself, instead of asking others.

Conscription also makes nations think again before declaring war on others, and so therefore in some ways reduces war. Many a time nations have wished that they had had conscription, by enforcing it, we will make sure enemy nations cannot destroy other nations so easily.

Conscription teaches people to kill other people. Which is not a laudable goal, and indeed should be avoided at all costs.

The Council of Enn, as the leading body of a nation without a standing army, and no need for one, must voice their objections to this proposal. The only military force we require is our IGNORE Cannon.

My nation is completely opposed to such a proposal. Enforced military service is a breach of human rights.

I'd like to scream about why the UN should need to have any hand in the military, or lack thereof, of its members, but let's just assume that's not a factor. Okay, here we go.

To produce young moralist men, and a society built on order, and of course to ward off possible terror attacks, UN members agree to the following:

1) All men and women aged 18-35 must do at least 2 years military service.
2) They can be called up at any time by the Government to fight in any war that they deem fit.

This will mean that the Government will have a ready supply of men and women able to fight against terror in all its forms.


Ugh ugh ugh.

I don't know what's worse, your proposal or your reasoning. Firstly, I feel it's completely wrong to force people into the military. And you also don't promote peace by promoting military buildup.

You also think this would produce "Moralist men"... but this begs the question of whose morals these are. Morals are a personal thing and military service has nothing to do with it. It was military personnel who were responsible for Abu-Ghirab, so if you say the military makes you a more moral person... I'd say you were wrong, if not crazy.

Two years is also a very sizable chunk of time to be depriving someone of. Then you close off with a reference to terrorism, which is completely off-target because, one, terrorism is extremely overblown as a threat, with casualties from wars and other large-scale violence since 2001 making the casualties from actual terrorist attacks since 2001 seem titchy. Two, prevention of terrorism lies in a government's policies and prevention of attacks in the civil defence force (police, paramedics, firefighters) and intelligence agencies - very little of this involves the military.

Conscription also makes nations think again before declaring war on others, and so therefore in some ways reduces war. Many a time nations have wished that they had had conscription, by enforcing it, we will make sure enemy nations cannot destroy other nations so easily.

If EVERY nation has forced conscription, it follows that the nations with the biggest population will have the biggest militaries. This is hardly conducive to peace. Admittedly, the generals will think twice before invading, I think it'd be something like, "Are we sure their population was only 240 million?"... "Yep." "Okay, let's declare war."

It's like trying to reduce the number of gun-related fatalities by giving everyone an assault rifle.

the DSH has a tiny standing army. We have nukes instead. They do a better job (and don't eat so much food).

Thus the DSH have to politely decline to support this proposal, and will not be contacting our delegate to urge them to support it either.