-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
*phone call from Washington*
Commander Tulp, while I'm in Washington, you have the chair of this commission.
Commander Tulp, while I'm in Washington, you have the chair of this commission.
Well....that's nice to hear, I think.
Firstly, as chairman I wish to know how much money we have to reform our Military? Anyone? Mr. President? I don't ask how much we need but how much we get this term.
Firstly, as chairman I wish to know how much money we have to reform our Military? Anyone? Mr. President? I don't ask how much we need but how much we get this term.
I am still awaiting the final details of the SAW investigation into the missing monies. The first part of the report details no available money to spend on millitary reform.
Additionally, as has been true with every draft budget I've put out, I don't think it makes sense to allocate money to reform until the reform plan is in-place. Therefore, my budget for this term allocates no money to reform. It does note, of course, the necessity of changing this once the new reform plan is complete.
-Dr. Jonathan Glasser, President of Eutopia
Additionally, as has been true with every draft budget I've put out, I don't think it makes sense to allocate money to reform until the reform plan is in-place. Therefore, my budget for this term allocates no money to reform. It does note, of course, the necessity of changing this once the new reform plan is complete.
-Dr. Jonathan Glasser, President of Eutopia
Well then, we can just stop isn't it? Sorry sir but it's bullocks what you are doing. You obviously don't have fate in this commission. What do you think the Military servicement will think if you cut our budget? Once again the civilian authorities don't give a reason to trust them.
That's the President of Eutopia and your Commander-in-Chief you are speaking to, Commander! I strongly recommend you give him the respect he is entitled to as such. This insubordination will get you nowhere.
I am telling just telling the truth simple. This means that if a tank breaks down permanent that we have a tank crew without tank. If a weapon is broken we have a private without gun. This is destructing to the military!
I understand your frustration, Commander, and agree with it. The budget should have an allocation for military modernization. I'm not sure, however, that this committee is the place for such discussions.
In this commission we are supposed to discuss the modernisation and reform of our Military. That's impossible without a budget. Conclusion, we need a budget.
HJ Tulp said:
That, I would suggest, is the very reason we need military reform. The civilian government does not exist for the amusement of the military. On the contrary, the military exists to serve the civilian government -- something our military officers seem all too readily inclined to forget.
It should be obvious, Commander, that any plan this Commission produces will be a long-term one. We cannot expect to simply purchase a new fleet, new army equipment, and a new air force, and be done with. President Glasser's budget recognizes the immediate needs of the nation, and allows room for increased procurement in terms to come.
I would suggest that as a first step we resolve to significantly reduce our maintenance and payroll budgets by eliminating conscription and scrapping those ships and planes which are no longer of any real value to us. That should free up billions of ducats worth of military funding which could readily be directed to procurement. Granted, such procurement will necessitate an increase in military spending (though hopefully not to the current levels), but this in turn will be met with a reduced procurement need, so the current spending level should remain adequate for the foreseeable future, barring a significant increase in the ultimate size of our military.
All right, gentlemen, let us get this discussion back on track.
Special Forces: Can we all agree on a recommendation that we form one battalion of army special forces operatives under the control of an Army Brigadier General, and one company of naval special forces operatives under the control of a Navy Commander, both answerable to military high command?
Special Forces: Can we all agree on a recommendation that we form one battalion of army special forces operatives under the control of an Army Brigadier General, and one company of naval special forces operatives under the control of a Navy Commander, both answerable to military high command?
Never have I said that the civilian authorities are here to amuse the Military. I don't see anything amusing about leading a nation. Come on, we could scrap the whole social security and say that it leaves room to improve it next turn. The Military is here to serve EUtopia that's true but the people in the Military are EUtopians to, they have rights as well and the Civilian Authority has obligations towards them. Offcourse we need a long term plan but we better start now then next turn.
Without atleast SOME procurement this term we will be defenseless for quite some time. Furthermore, pay and benefits need to go up, more training, recruitement campaigns etc. etc.
Furthermore, we can't say from one day to the other that conscription is scrapped. That needs atleast two terms.
Without atleast SOME procurement this term we will be defenseless for quite some time. Furthermore, pay and benefits need to go up, more training, recruitement campaigns etc. etc.
Furthermore, we can't say from one day to the other that conscription is scrapped. That needs atleast two terms.
Commander,
If you genuinely believe that the military has a right to receive a certain level of funding, and that the government has an obligation to employ X number of military men at Y pay, I don't imagine I can disbuse of these notions, ridiculous though they are. I advise you to let the President's budget pass, and then sue the government over these rights you purport have been violated. I tell you as an attorney, however, that you won't win that case.
As for phasing out conscription, I wholeheartedly agree, and that is perfectly in keeping with what I suggest -- that we phase out conscripts, unnecessary troops, and outdated equipment at the same time we phase in a modernization package, so as to keep the budget balanced.
Dr. Voshkod,
I am not inclined to see additional spending when we are making no moves to reduce the bloated size of our military. While I believe a special forces group is necessary, I would prefer to see such a thing handled as part of our overarching mandate, not as an initial matter to be gotten out of the way before we figure everything else out.
If you genuinely believe that the military has a right to receive a certain level of funding, and that the government has an obligation to employ X number of military men at Y pay, I don't imagine I can disbuse of these notions, ridiculous though they are. I advise you to let the President's budget pass, and then sue the government over these rights you purport have been violated. I tell you as an attorney, however, that you won't win that case.
As for phasing out conscription, I wholeheartedly agree, and that is perfectly in keeping with what I suggest -- that we phase out conscripts, unnecessary troops, and outdated equipment at the same time we phase in a modernization package, so as to keep the budget balanced.
Dr. Voshkod,
I am not inclined to see additional spending when we are making no moves to reduce the bloated size of our military. While I believe a special forces group is necessary, I would prefer to see such a thing handled as part of our overarching mandate, not as an initial matter to be gotten out of the way before we figure everything else out.
I'm not saying that but you and most of the other politicians allways act if servicemen aren't EUtopians themselves. That the only thing they do is sitting on their lazy bums doing nothing except couping. That's false, the EUtopian servicemen is a EUtopian like you. If normal bureacrats would get the same treatment as people in the Military then everyone would cry a river.
I'm telling you that we won't get enough money from outphasing conscription as is needed. What we need to do is say: buy 100 Gorgons, putting 200 Leopards out of active service and employ enough NCO's to man those Gorgons, when that is done we can conscript less people. That's the way we should do it.
I'm telling you that we won't get enough money from outphasing conscription as is needed. What we need to do is say: buy 100 Gorgons, putting 200 Leopards out of active service and employ enough NCO's to man those Gorgons, when that is done we can conscript less people. That's the way we should do it.
Minister: I fear you misunderstood my intent. As I said earlier, we can deal with the military structure of Eutopia by breaking it into discrete elements: Army, Navy, Air Force, Special Forces, ENDTech/Procurement/Logistics. I bring up Special Forces as a first topic, as it is a small issue, quite seperate from the other issues, and least likely to impact on the others.
But I do not intend it, or any other segement, to be dealt with in a vacuum.
But I do not intend it, or any other segement, to be dealt with in a vacuum.
I did not imagine so, Doctor, but obviously the money must come from somewhere. We cannot appreciate from whence it might come until we've dealt with the larger things. So again, while I theoretically find the idea of a Special Forces organization palatable, I consider finding the funding for it of primary importance. If we are to agree that these Special Forces groups are to be under the aegis of the Army and Navy, then they must be met with a concurrent reduction in Army and Navy spending when we deal with those topics.
Still, why the hell do we have budget cuts? For crying out loud have you taken a look at our equipement?
HJ Tulp said:
You make a serious error, Commander, if you mistake me for a politician.
But let me ask you, what else does the Eutopian military do but plot coups? It has a horrible reputation, and rightly so, for the very reason that the military's highest officers have been involved in repeated acts of malfeasance. The military itself has no mission, no mandate. It does nothing but defend us from an enemy that is wholly smoke and mirrors. I saw this during my own time with the JAG, twenty years ago, which is why I mustered out. Nothing has changed since.
That is why I consider it of primary importance that we develop a very clear operational role for our military before deciding anything else. Dr. Voshkod has suggested a mission that centers around defending us from a hypothetical U.S. invasion long enough for political pressure to halt such invasion. Considering such an invasion far less likely (and far less likely to be successfully opposed), I have suggested a more minimalist role for our military based around the defense of our territorial waters and our participation in multilateral international operations. You, Commander, have suggested little apart from the fact that the military needs more money to do whatever it is it supposedly does. So perhaps you understand my skepticism.
If you have something more concrete, I'd love to hear it.
The only reason most people distrust the Military is because of the media and the politicians who were most happy to make things even worse. The only concrete cases of coups were Hartwell and Smith. Both failed miserably. That means that there were some rotten apples without support.
I suggest forward defence. We shouldn't wait until the enemy comes here and destroys all what we have worked for. We should go to their homeland and hit them the hardest. That gives a good signal, mess with the best, die like the rest.
Furthermore we should also train our military in peacekeeping. A bit like the British army. We should be able to occupy when we win a war. Offcourse if that happens we would still need UN support but we need to be able to serve as a backbone of peacekeeping operations.
I suggest forward defence. We shouldn't wait until the enemy comes here and destroys all what we have worked for. We should go to their homeland and hit them the hardest. That gives a good signal, mess with the best, die like the rest.
Furthermore we should also train our military in peacekeeping. A bit like the British army. We should be able to occupy when we win a war. Offcourse if that happens we would still need UN support but we need to be able to serve as a backbone of peacekeeping operations.