NationStates Jolt Archive

Proportionate Defense Funding
Category: International Security
Strength: Significant

ADMIRING the efforts of United Nations members to ensure, to the best of their ability, that their citizens are protected from foreign attack,

DEFINING defense funding as the appropriation of government funds into the creation of an army, navy, air force, coast guard, missile defense systems, and/or any other military branch that the government deems necessary for protection from a foreign attack,

DEFINING defense as the deployment of said military branches to strategic locations within the nation's territory, on international waters, or on the territory of a foreign nation with that foreign nation's government's consent,

NOTING that many governments within the United Nations appropriate defense funding equally per territory, state, province, or other division of the nation's land,

NOTING WITH REGRET that such appropriation of defense funding may render more densely populated cities or territories more vulnerable to attack, while providing what is most likely excess defense on loosely populated, less economically or geographically strategic territories,

CONCERNED that such densely populated, economically or geographically significant cities or territories will be more likely to attract the attack of a hostile foreign power, especially with the recent emergence of global terrorism in the modern world, and that the aformentioned territories would suffer an immensely great loss if invaded,

RECOGNIZING that the first priority of any sovereign nation's defense forces is the protection of human life, and any objects which may be valuable to the state come secondary to the protection of civilians,

CONFIDENT that improving security in the aformentioned densely populated territories would minimize civilian losses under a foreign invasion,

DECLARES

1. All member nations allocate their government defense funding, if applicable, and as accurately as possible, based on the legal citizen population of the area where defense forces would be employed, in times of peace.

2. All governments, when distributing defense forces per capita, consider all citizens as equals in this tally, and do not count any citizens as lesser or more than any other,

3. The defense forces in times of peace deployed in a certain area based on population as described in 1. will not be farther than 31.07mi/50km from the designated sector where they were intended to be expended, unless the defense is in the form of an air force, in which the airbase will be located as such a maximum distance,

4. That 1. through 3. do not apply for defense forces deployed on international waters beyond 31.07mi/50km from a designated area,

5. That 1. through 3. do not apply for defense forces deployed in a foreign nation,

6. That 1. through 3. do not apply for intermediate-to-long ranged missiles bases, which serve little purpose in defending a particular area of the nation, but do apply to missile bases built to counter foreign missile attacks.

7. After the nation has engaged in war, the ability of the nation to freely move its armed forces will be unaffected by this resolution.

Why should the UN tell us where to place our army? I have full confidence in the geostrategic abilities of our armed forces.

This is absurd. Such a simplistic guide as population density is useless to tell us where to station defence forces. We'll continue relying on the strategic judgements of experts rather than some arbitrary rule of thumb, thanks.

Obviously, the draft as it stands is a blatant violation of national sovereignity. But I could see a point that a nation could put all of its military force in one area, and leave the majority of its population to die from invaders. I don't know how that would shape from this one, though, and its still shaky on national soveregnity violations.

we should be leaving matter like this to the people that know best. A defence forces high command.

As well as being against natsov its also absurd and should be placed in the silly proposals

As well as being against natsov its also absurd and should be placed in the silly proposals

OOC: Come on, we can disagree with it, but I think it is wrong to dismiss it as a silly proposal. Obviously a lot of effort went into drafting this.

Of course, during a time of war, defense forces will need to shift. I'll edit it to make it applicable only during peacetime to prevent a first strike.

Also, national sovereignty does not exist when the nation's government can be corrupted and the United Nations can help this. A nation's government may apt to defend a place that has economic interests to the government, for instance, it might be home to a corporation that the government relies heavily on, or the leaders of the state might allocate defenses to constituent states that most support their government, or where the nation's commander-in-chief hails from and he/she has an inherent bias towards that place. It's all extremely corruptable. The only thing that this does is make defense about saving human life by having each person equally defended as the next (equal defense per capita) and not just saving what might be important to those in charge of armed forces. If you don't do it this way, people in backwater country villages will actually be defended more per capita than people in urban environments (or potentially less).

But yes, I'll edit it so that in the middle of a war of course the defenses should shift.

Is the new version better?

You haven't properly answered: Why should we care?

Sure, I can defend more my cities than I defend my missile bases. Surprise attack takes control of missile bases. War lost before it begun. Population slaughtered anyway.

Of course, during a time of war, defense forces will need to shift. I'll edit it to make it applicable only during peacetime to prevent a first strike.

Also, national sovereignty does not exist when the nation's government can be corrupted and the United Nations can help this. A nation's government may apt to defend a place that has economic interests to the government, for instance, it might be home to a corporation that the government relies heavily on, or the leaders of the state might allocate defenses to constituent states that most support their government, or where the nation's commander-in-chief hails from and he/she has an inherent bias towards that place. It's all extremely corruptable. The only thing that this does is make defense about saving human life by having each person equally defended as the next (equal defense per capita) and not just saving what might be important to those in charge of armed forces. If you don't do it this way, people in backwater country villages will actually be defended more per capita than people in urban environments (or potentially less).

But yes, I'll edit it so that in the middle of a war of course the defenses should shift.


But sometimes (and wow I am going to get yelled at for saying this) there is more to defence than protecting human life. For example maintaining the stability of a nuclear power plant is (in the view of my government) more urgent than protecting people from being bombed (that is if we are forced to chose between the two. If we can do both, then we do both). Why? Because one person losing their life is (in the grand scale of thing) far less serious than a nuclear power plant suffering a meltdown that could (in theory) wipe out most of the life in a given area.

We have power plants, water treatment plants. We have vast acres of farm land and we have vast acres of cropland. We have research centers, silos and other such things. All of these require defending, despite the fact that - most of the time - no one lives there. People work there, but they go home.

Are you telling me that I have to protect all of these way less than I protect a city full of people, despite the fact those people would most likely suffer if the power plants and treatment plants were destroyed? That I can't defend key outposts just because no one lives there?

And - if it comes to that - what about the border? No one lives on the border, and there are some parts of it that are outside your 50km limit. Does that mean I am not allowed to station any defensive force on the border at all?

Is the new version better?

Well, it doesn't take into account a lot of things. For example, suppose a nation had a military of 100 troops (like I might have if I accidently answered a defense issue to increase defense), but has a population of 631 million +. The 100 troops would have to be spread out to comply with the resolution, but that doesn't do much, does it?

Also, I don't think this proposal belongs in International Security, because it doesn't actually increase your budgets, nor makes it easier to defend your nation. In fact, it actually makes it harder, because by having to defend minor places, you can't defend major places as well. In view of this, I recommend human rights, because it effectively gives your citizens a right to not be attacked.

Honestly, I think it's over-the-top micromanagement to instruct nations where they will place their armies, whether in peacetime or wartime. Wars are like snowflakes: no two are alike (granted, snowflakes are prettier and I've never seen anyone try to catch a war on their tongue, but that's another issue for another day). I'm sorry, but we wouldn't be able to support the idea of this proposal, no matter how many redrafts it went through (well written though:) ).

Gorgias
Speaker to the UN

i still stand by what i said regardless of the amount of work went into this draft.

Frankly this is none of the UN's business and is clearly a national matter.

Midori Kasigi-Nero, Deputy ambassador

Fine, what about this resolution only applies to the defense forces that have been *intended* to protect civilians? This would allow any key military installations to remain defended, but the troops that have been stationed for the purpose of protecting human life would be better organized. There are still plenty of countries that have equal defense budgets for each state...

Is that a fair compromise?

Fine, what about this resolution only applies to the defense forces that have been *intended* to protect civilians? This would allow any key military installations to remain defended, but the troops that have been stationed for the purpose of protecting human life would be better organized. There are still plenty of countries that have equal defense budgets for each state...

Is that a fair compromise?

But maybe there is a legitimate reason that I want to defend Serenity (my capital city) more than I want to defend TilCala (a much larger city in the Southern Regions). If Serenity falls then my palace, my offices and the whole of the government would be thrown in to absolute chaos and confusion. If TilCala falls then - well people die. I would rather no-one was killed, but the truth is if Serenity were to fall and 20,000 people died, then the outcome for the nation would be far, far worse than if 50,000 people died in the fall of TilCala.

As bad and as cruel and callous as it sounds, war is about defending the nation, not about defending the people in the nation. And I have to be permitted to do what is best for the whole country, even if it means that some people die.

edit

Also - what about key civilian installations? Power plants are not military, but require a lot of protection in times of war.

No, not realy, just forget the entire proposal, its not going to work.

But maybe there is a legitimate reason that I want to defend Serenity (my capital city) more than I want to defend TilCala (a much larger city in the Southern Regions).


I think that's the problem that the resolution's trying to solve, only on a corrupt scale. Suppose a corrupt government wanted to protect only cities where it had supporters who paid it money for favors?

Then everyone would be free to allocate 0% of the troops to civilian defense. During peacetime, it is actually a reasonable behaviour, I don't usually see the military patrolling the city streets...

To be honest, I think your proposal is a no-go in any shape or colour.

No. Quite simply, troops don't necessarily have to be near the people they're trying to defend. There are certain places which are strategically more important than others, and these may often relate more to chokepoints that ground invasion forces would have to pass through, or potential resources that the enemy will want to grab, than the places where the people we're defending actually live. Say a nation has massive oilfields. If an invading force seizes these, it suddenly gains a massive advantage because it has much more fuel for its tanks and planes etc., and will be able to destroy the nation, regardless of how many fuelless tanks are stationed around the cities. So, in the interests of stopping a successful invasion, a nation ought to concentrate a lot of force on defending the oilfields, even if barely anyone lives there.

I think that's the problem that the resolution's trying to solve, only on a corrupt scale. Suppose a corrupt government wanted to protect only cities where it had supporters who paid it money for favors?

I admit - that is a problem.

But I have legitimate military reasons for protecting Serenity, more than TilCala, and this resolution prevents me from doing so. I am not corrupt, I am not trying to protect those that love me while sending those who hate me to their firey deaths - I am just trying to say that given my government (aka me, since I am the sole and absolute ruler) is based entirely in Serenity, it is not unreasonable that Serentiy requires more protection in times of war than other, larger cities in my nation. To suggest otherwise flys in the face of common sense.

I admit - that is a problem.

But I have legitimate military reasons for protecting Serenity, more than TilCala, and this resolution prevents me from doing so. I am not corrupt, I am not trying to protect those that love me while sending those who hate me to their firey deaths - I am just trying to say that given my government (aka me, since I am the sole and absolute ruler) is based entirely in Serenity, it is not unreasonable that Serentiy requires more protection in times of war than other, larger cities in my nation. To suggest otherwise flys in the face of common sense.
Of course -- and that is why this resolution probably will not work.

Since there is no way of determining why a nation put troops wherever, and in some cases it might be a military secret, the UN cannot really force them to use their troops in a certain manner.

It might be worth trying for, however.

My Marxist way of thinking may not resonate much with you, but perhaps the collapse of a government is not the end of the world? If 30,000 people die in order to keep your government alive, then think, does your government even deserve to be alive? I know I wouldn't support a government that essentially signed death warrants for 30,000 people to stay in power... Oh, wait, that sure does sound like a lot of fascist governments we've had in the past, doesn't it?

Assuming the civilian installations are located outside the densely populated area, which, unless they're dangerous, like a Nuclear Power Plant, often won't be, they'll have to be sacraficed. However, if such an installation was dangerous, of course it would be defended... the purpose of this is just defending human life, but I'd rather lose a power plant than a whole city.

Also, if an enemy captures a civilian installation, it doesn't necessarily aide their military invasion.

Well, if nations continue to have military secrets and undisclosed motives, we're really not going to move in the direction of peace, are we? What is the purpose of the UN if we can't move away from the notion that the state and the military is more important than the quality of life for the people? Hasn't that been tha basis for all of the demilitarization proposals of the UN?

My Marxist way of thinking may not resonate much with you, but perhaps the collapse of a government is not the end of the world? If 30,000 people die in order to keep your government alive, then think, does your government even deserve to be alive? I know I wouldn't support a government that essentially signed death warrants for 30,000 people to stay in power... Oh, wait, that sure does sound like a lot of fascist governments we've had in the past, doesn't it?


Thank you. It is a long while since I have been called a fascist, and I was missing the warm and loving feeling it gave me.

I guess this comes down to why you want to fight a war. I want to fight it to maintain my nation for as many of it's people as possible. To do that, I have to have a functioning government to direct the military and to protect the people I am trying to save. If the government (in the person of my and the two Second Triarchs) are killed, then no one will be doing that - every person will be left to fight for themselves. Including the military, who no longer have anyone to take orders from.

The purpose of war is to defend the nation. Some people might have to die for that to happen. I would rather that happen than have every single person survive, only to have the invading nation conquer everyone and truly be living under a fascist state.


Assuming the civilian installations are located outside the densely populated area, which, unless they're dangerous, like a Nuclear Power Plant, often won't be, they'll have to be sacraficed. However, if such an installation was dangerous, of course it would be defended... the purpose of this is just defending human life, but I'd rather lose a power plant than a whole city.


And if the people who then conquer the power plant use it to blow up the city - you end up losing both.

And if the power plant is providing the power for the people who are defending the city, then you end up losing both.

Lets put it this way - a single power plant provides power to 40,000 cilvians (which is fine) and five military bases where the military forces are directed from. The moment that power plant is lost, the bases lose their power and the military grinds to a halt. So the defence forces that were protecting the 40,000 civilians are not so much doing that any more, and hey - the 40,000 are killed anyway.

Yet if we sacrifice the lives of 100 people, we can protect the power plant and save the lives of the other 39,900.

I know which I would rather do.


Also, if an enemy captures a civilian installation, it doesn't necessarily aide their military invasion.

Nope. They can capture the local high school if they want - that won't help.

But the power plants, radio stations (to warn people of air raids and attacks), tv stations (for the same purpose) and so forth - they would pretty much help any military invasion.


I think it comes down to this - I know what my people are willing to do when defending their nation more than you do. I know my nation better than you do. I know what my people are willing to sacrifice and give up more than you do. And I know where to put my troops to give them the most effect during an invasion a LOT better than you do.


And if this passes, and it becomes unavoidable that I follow it, I will simply redefine eveyr member of every military force as one of the Angels Of Mercy - one of my more well known black ops groups that report directly to me and are not part of the regular military. Because then they will be exempt from this resolution and I can get back to protecting my country the way it should be protected.

My Marxist way of thinking may not resonate much with you, but perhaps the collapse of a government is not the end of the world? If 30,000 people die in order to keep your government alive, then think, does your government even deserve to be alive? I know I wouldn't support a government that essentially signed death warrants for 30,000 people to stay in power... Oh, wait, that sure does sound like a lot of fascist governments we've had in the past, doesn't it?

Assuming the civilian installations are located outside the densely populated area, which, unless they're dangerous, like a Nuclear Power Plant, often won't be, they'll have to be sacraficed. However, if such an installation was dangerous, of course it would be defended... the purpose of this is just defending human life, but I'd rather lose a power plant than a whole city.

But losing things like this could lead to civil war.

Government building down -> no government
Power plant down -> no power -> people want answers -> from government

Whoops, no government!

People want answers -> Don't get answers -> Start fighting to get answers

Civil war!

Excuse the weirdness of this post.

Well, if nations continue to have military secrets and undisclosed motives, we're really not going to move in the direction of peace, are we? What is the purpose of the UN if we can't move away from the notion that the state and the military is more important than the quality of life for the people? Hasn't that been tha basis for all of the demilitarization proposals of the UN?

Wanting to protect the government of my nation is an undisclosed motive?

The reason the state is more important than the people (in times of war) is that the state persists, where as almost everyone else will die at some point. And (in general) without the state ensuring people are protected, and have a suitable quality of life, then it would just be anarcy?

I am not a NatSov person - I believe the UN should be permitted to rule on what it wants, when it wants, and I make very little fuss.

But on certain things I can't agree - and defending my nation is one of them. Most leaders will argue they are in a better position to decide how to defend their country, since every country is unique and so the requirements for defence will be unique.

Well, if nations continue to have military secrets and undisclosed motives, we're really not going to move in the direction of peace, are we? What is the purpose of the UN if we can't move away from the notion that the state and the military is more important than the quality of life for the people? Hasn't that been tha basis for all of the demilitarization proposals of the UN?

The state leads to good quality of life. That's what the state's for.

As for military secrets, I completely agree that we should have a resolution to ban all forms and types of weapons, war, etc.

Of course, I think it's against the rules, and I'm probably the only one who thinks that way. So, we have to have military secrets if we're going to have a military, or else the nation with the biggest military wins.

Which no one wants except for that nation. :)

I'm not getting my Marxist philosophies too involved, but I think you don't understand what I mean by the state. The existence of any state is necessary to ensure that, as Thomas Jefferson said, leave people unable to injure each other but able to regulate their own individual pursuits. My only qualm is that any particular state, no matter what form of government it is, that sacrafices lives to stay in power is not a benevolent one. More often than not, such a state will be an authoritarian one that is somewhat intolerant of losing power as illustrated by such an action.

And it is not a safe assumption that any invading force will be fascist. Look at the US invasion of Iraq... well... bad example... but you get my point.

I don't think it's impossible to have international military honesty and not necessarily have complete demilitarization, but the military certainly wouldn't be the same type of military that we think of today. The military will probably be used less often, and will be strictly regulated by the government, and the national consciousness that one's military is just as exposed as their potential enemy's is a discouragement for war, similar to the consciousness that the USSR had nuclear weapons, thus discouraging the Americans from attacking them with a first strike. This consciousness will simply be extrapolated and expanded to other sects of the military.

Change is impossible if you don't alter your own predispositions to accept it.

Now I agree that civilian population should not be the only variable in defense deployment, but for all defenses *intended* on protecting civilians, it should be organized as such. I'll adjust the resolution accordingly if you think I should. My only real concern is that governments will be expending more funds per capita in certain areas and less in other areas, of course other factors will play into it, but I think that issue alone should not be forsaken and that this resolution can be reworked to address it, no?

Anarchy is not safe nor fun (except for the looters; they have a grand ol' time). Please, stop insulting nations that would rather ensure stability within their borders than sacrifice their government.

I'm not getting my Marxist philosophies too involved, but I think you don't understand what I mean by the state. The existence of any state is necessary to ensure that, as Thomas Jefferson said, leave people unable to injure each other but able to regulate their own individual pursuits. My only qualm is that any particular state, no matter what form of government it is, that sacrafices lives to stay in power is not a benevolent one. More often than not, such a state will be an authoritarian one that is somewhat intolerant of losing power as illustrated by such an action.


First - by The State I generally mean anyone who is in a position of responsibility to make the general population's life better or safer. However in my nation, The State Is Me (to coin a phrase).

And I will endeavour not to sacrifice lives - I am not a lunatic madwoman who is hell-bent on killing everyone just so I can live. If giving up my life meant I could end any war one day sooner, I would do it in a second.

But in a war I have to protect as many of my people for as long as possible. And to do that, sometimes I have to make non-civillian areas a higher priority than civillian ones. Defending railway lines, defending mountain passes (so that I can bottle up any invading army) - all of these are important.

Further more, if the invasion comes from the North, why in the name of The Three would I put more troops round TilCana, which is in the Southern Regions? Would I not be better putting the bulk of my forces where they will do the most good - where the invaders actually are? Tulaca is a pretty large city in the North, and I would be way more willing to protect it than TilCana, simply because it is actually under threat if the invaders come from the North.


I am not going to kill people, or let them be killed, if I can avoid it. But war is hell (to coin another phrase), and when you live in hell, sometimes you don't get to keep your virtue.


And it is not a safe assumption that any invading force will be fascist. Look at the US invasion of Iraq... well... bad example... but you get my point.


(ooc - bwahahahahaha)

(back in character). I am assuming if they are invading my nation, they are not what I would consider good guys, and would generally hold the belief the people would be better off under me, than under them.


I don't think it's impossible to have international military honesty and not necessarily have complete demilitarization, but the military certainly wouldn't be the same type of military that we think of today. The military will probably be used less often, and will be strictly regulated by the government, and the national consciousness that one's military is just as exposed as their potential enemy's is a discouragement for war, similar to the consciousness that the USSR had nuclear weapons, thus discouraging the Americans from attacking them with a first strike. This consciousness will simply be extrapolated and expanded to other sects of the military.


Yeah - there was a reason that both sides having nuclear weapons was called MAD. It's not a sound stratergy for the future.


Change is impossible if you don't alter your own predispositions to accept it.

I can change. I have no desire to go to war, and no desire to invade and occupy. But I have a desire to keep my people safe, and if some of them have to die to do that, then some of them have to die.

Now I agree that civilian population should not be the only variable in defense deployment, but for all defenses *intended* on protecting civilians, it should be organized as such. I'll adjust the resolution accordingly if you think I should. My only real concern is that governments will be expending more funds per capita in certain areas and less in other areas, of course other factors will play into it, but I think that issue alone should not be forsaken and that this resolution can be reworked to address it, no?

Ok. I have to confess I have never thought of having a military force just to protect civillians. My military force is here to protect the nation - all of the nation. From the civiliians, to the buildings, to the land and to protect me. I guess by extention they protect those who don't fight, but that's not their primary role - the primary role is to fight back any invaders and to stop my country being attacked.

If this proposal passes, I will pretty much classify everyone as defending "military assetts", and reclassify all towns, villages, cities and everything else as a military assett. People will still be civillans, but no military unit will be specifically assigned to protect them. That way I can defend my nation as I think is necessary while still complying.

Wait, is this in character? I just thought that this was a hypothetical political debate among people around the world of political denominations, I didn't know we needed to be in-character for this...

Wait, is this in character? I just thought that this was a hypothetical political debate among people around the world of political denominations, I didn't know we needed to be in-character for this...

(ooc)
I don't think you don't have to be - it's mostly up to you.

I tend to argue everything I argue as Queen Lily would, for two main reasons. Firstly because it is her nation that will be affected by all this, not mine (what with me being a real person and not a member of the NSUN). And secondly - because it's way more fun that way. I (being me) would never argue that property should be protected above life, but I am not the leader of a nation. Queen Lily is - a nation that has had its share of strife and conflict, and so her views are shaped by that history and her arguements relfect it.

I can't speak for any other nations, but almost everything I post is in character (said by Queen Lily) unless I specifically make mention of it being otherwise (as this has been noted with the tag above)

This may sound odd coming from someone who's peddling a nuclear non-proliferation resolution, but it's none of the UN's business how we allocate our defense spending. Much less how or where units are positioned.

This may sound odd coming from someone who's peddling a nuclear non-proliferation resolution, but it's none of the UN's business how we allocate our defense spending. Much less how or where units are positioned.
The more I think about it, the more I realize you're absolutely right.

The more I think about it, the more I realize you're absolutely right.
The "odd" part or the "none of the UN's business" part? :)

I'm not usually one for endless arguments over natsov, but I was referring to the second part, about the none of the UN's business. ;)

In general, I hate it when people resort to this position, but I have finally found an issue over which I would leave the UN: the defense of Cluichstan. Should a proposal like this ever pass, we will leave the UN rather than forfeit our inherent right to determine how best to defend our nation. As our Yeldan friend has already said, this is none of the UN's business.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala

In general, I hate it when people resort to this position, but I have finally found an issue over which I would leave the UN: the defense of Cluichstan. Should a proposal like this ever pass, we will leave the UN rather than forfeit our inherent right to determine how best to defend our nation. As our Yeldan friend has already said, this is none of the UN's business.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN
Regional Delegate from Scybala


The government of St Edmund agrees with this view.