NationStates Jolt Archive

Applauds the numerous attempts to disarm the world and United Nations.

Yet recougnises full disarmament is a step by step progressive ideal, not on to be rushed.

Believing in a utopian world were Armed Forces may never be needed.

Concluding:

1 - An 'Armed Forces' refers to any Government sponsored, Government supplied and or politically applauded force. Note, this does not include rebels or militias.

2 - All UN States are permitted to spend only 10% of funds on Defence.

3 - Encourages nations to disarm further.

4 - Encourages nations to disarm their Weapons of Mass Destruction.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v87/Lucia_Daystar/11042214786237vo.jpg

Interesting idea. Honestly. No really, I mean it. Needs work. And more detailed definitions. And, well, honestly, it needs to not be.

No offense intended, but my military isn't that huge and it takes up a full third of my budget. There are those with much larger militaries and military budgets who will trounce all over this like like a herd of Woozles.

Okay, let me be blunt: shit grammar, and horrible idea. What happens if a non-UN nation decides to attack a UN nation? "Oh, I'll surrender because the UN is deciding how much money I can spend on defence!"

OOC: Also illegal, game mechanics.

2 - All UN States are permitted to spend only 10% of funds on Defence.

I suggest a much lower percent except of GDP or GNI this way it does not matter how much tax you ask. (communists would be allowed bigger armies).

OOC: Also illegal, game mechanics.

What is the problem?

I suggest a much lower percent except of GDP or GNI this way it does not matter how much tax you ask. (communists would be allowed bigger armies).

What is the problem?
It is pre-defining a nation's defence budget, which is game mechanics. If it were to be of a category that merely reduced defense spending, it would be okay, but defining the defense amount is illegal.

ok thank you

I suggest a much lower percent except of GDP or GNI this way it does not matter how much tax you ask. (communists would be allowed bigger armies).

I don't get where the notion that communists have money comes from. I mean... communists that do it right. Beyond that, it doesn't matter how much a nation taxes anyway, it's labeled as 10% of the funds anyway.

But it's all moot, it's an illegal proposal.

The point about communists is that they have 100% tax right. So they recive all money and therfore have higher funds but also have higher expense's. They could have 10% of the national income. But if you have a country with 5% tax then they only can have 0.5% of the national income.(assuming all money comes from income tax.)

I suggest a much lower percent except of GDP or GNI this way it does not matter how much tax you ask. (communists would be allowed bigger armies).

Did you ever read Aberdeen's Law 6? It was an attempt to cap Aberdeen nation's military spending, etc. It passed, and then abused extensively by Angel Fire because of the tremendous loopholes that existed (which would be in this resolution too, even if Angel Fire was a member of the UN). It was later determined that because of the way Law 6 had been implemented, Angel Fire (for whom the law was supposed to have affected the most) could still legally hold an army 2.5 times the size of the next largest army in the region. The law has since been repealed and despite multiple attempts, no good ideas have come up to replace it.

-----------------------

Arms limitations are foolish at best. Even if you got one through, you'd have nations just declare war on one another to use a loophole - or you would hinder all nation's ability to actually defend themselves by not having a war loophole and thus meaning that the quarter of nations that are in the UN have a distinct disadvantage in all wars. Further, with nations such as Angel Fire which has a quarter of its troops unpaid since they are not technically sapient, they receive rather distinct advantages. With resolutions concerning slavery only caring about humans......even sapient creatures could be fighting for free.

A big no goes here.

EDIT: We are willing to consider resolutions about specific weapons or tactics that may be extreme or unnecessary for warfare. Anything more general we are unwilling to discuss.