Peace and Prosperity Act of 2014 (Voting on Amendment)

[Cassius]

1. This element of the bill is totally unacceptable. Not only is a 75 percent cut in military expenditure a dangerous and damaging thing to do, but, in fact, any cut in military expenditure should be avoided. Indeed, given the way the military budget has been pared back in recent times, I would argue that it is in need of further investment.

2. These elements of the bill, whilst novel, cannot be achieved without Section 1, thus these a pretty much a defunct duck anyway.

3. Unilateral nuclear, chemical and biological weapons disarmament is certainly a... courageous thing to do, yet, at the same time, it is quite possibly deranged. For one thing, to unilaterally disarm whilst not expecting other countries to follow suit (and even then, well...) is hardly advisable, given that it would put us at a military disadvantage relative to the likes of Russia and China. For another, Atlasian preeminence in world affairs has been built upon the back of military superiority. This section of the bill, and others, threaten to totally squander that advantage.

4. Section 4, like Section 3, simply ties one hand behind our back. You talk of 'concerned parties'. Well what about the 'unconcerned' parties. Are we simply to forget them, even if they pose a potential threat? Again, I repeat, the world is a profoundly unstable, not to say violent place. The only way to ensure Atlasian security is through military strength, as well as through the maintenance of strong relationships with our allies. Will they be so keen to be our allies if we take an axe to our military budget and unilaterally disarm (Section 7 also comes into play here, but we'll get to that in due time).

5. Democratising the United Nations is another gambit which can only produce negative results. For one, if the United States truly is to be 'ruled by the people' (as democratisation implies), it must have a 'people' to represent. It does not, for it is a supranational body designed to be a forum in which nations, theoretically, can settle disputes (as well as other things), not the government of a nation. Secondly, the idea of electing the security council is patently ridiculous; to do so would put more power into the hands of the morass of third world countries, whom history has shown to be fickle friends to Atlasia. The idea of electing the security council and abolishing the veto that accompanies it will erode the power of Atlasia, leaving it less able to exercise any form of authority in the United Nations, and thus, in world affairs generally.

6. We cannot forsake our ability, as a sovereign nation, to intervene in the affairs of another sovereign nation if our interests call upon us to do so. We cannot chain ourselves to the wall of multilateralism, essentially ending our capacity for independent action, which may be neccessary, given that, sometimes, our interests may not be those of other nations.

7. As I pointed out earlier, Section 7 will simply serve to erode the credibility of Atlasia as one of the world's premier powers in the eyes of our allies. It will serve as a statement that we are disinclined to protect our allies if need be, which in turn will place great stress upon those relationships, and may even serve as to push former allies into different camps to our own.

8. Forgiving debts, as mentioned, sets an absolutely dreadful example to the world as a whole. 'We can take this loan that we won't be able to repay easily, because Atlasia will simply waive our responsibilities'. This is profoundly irresponsible, and should not be considered.

To sum up, this bill will do many things; it will gut our military, it will erode our international credibility and it will severely limit the ability of Atlasia to project its power abroad. In a world where all the old certainties seem to be withering away, and a frightening set of new circumstances are emerging, now more than ever, we must be a strong nation, with the ability to unilaterally influence the course of world events if need be. We must be like a ice-breaker, not a leaf caught up in the torrent and thrown this way and that. Of course, the Senator and I are on different pages entirely on this one; he is a Marxist and an internationalist; I am not. But I urge other Senators to reject this bill, in the name of state security if nothing else.

[Cassius]

I really don't think its a good idea to remove troops from Europe or Japan, given that, in a nightmare scenario, they might be needed to help out our allies, and it would be easier for us to do so if we already had boots on the ground, so to speak.

Also, I think its a bad idea to decomission all aircraft piloted by humans, since they would have to be replaced by drones, which strikes me as a very bad idea indeed.

[Cassius]

I went with Europe/Japan because those countries are perfectly capable of defending themselves, unlike some of the smaller nations I decided not to include in that list on account of, well, those being smaller nations that are less developed and less capable of mounting a stronge defense.

What's wrong with drones?

I doubt that either European nations (most of which are paring their military capabilities back considerably), or Japan, would be able to resist a serious attack by a power such as Russia or China (God forbid that scenario ever comes to pass. Even in the 1980's, when defence spending was much higher in Britain, it was reasonably well-known that British forces (and their European counterparts), could not hope to resist a Soviet invasion without American help.

I'm an opponent of drone warfare firstly because drones are not as effective as some claim them to be, and it is often better to have humans carrying out these operations rather than drones. Secondly, I'm of the view that drones represent the depersonalisation of warfare, which I think is something that should avoided as much as possible.

I'd also like to add, with regards to 5d, that such a proposal was carried out in Canada in the 1960's, and was generally opposed by the different services, amongst both officers and men. It was generally regarded as doing little to reduce costs and improve operational capabilities. I think that it would be unwise to attempt to do the same in Atlasia, when I see little evidence that such a change is needed or desired by the armed forces.

[Cassius]

Nay

[Cassius]

Aye

And I must say I'm baffled that Cassius has revealed himself as more dovish than tnf.

Oh no, I'm trying to prevent this bill (which contains virtually nothing that I agree with) being made more palatable to the Senate as a whole (as evidenced by Cynic's comment).

[Cassius]

I'm surprised that nobody has raised any qualms about Section 2 yet; attempting to 'democratise' the United Nations is a fools errand, and one that will do great damage to our ability to advance a strong foreign policy that is in Atlasia's interests.

[Cassius]

The bill is still bad, but I guess this it the best I'm gonna get...

Aye

[Cassius]

Nay

[Cassius]

Nay