SENATE STANDING COMMITTEE: National Security

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Let's begin!  Joyce, please explain to us why these bills are necessary.

Alrighty, going down the list:

-TRICARE Reform (introduced by Sen. Nix): TRICARE is the military health care program. To what extent TRICARE has been replaced/reformed by Fritzcare is not entirely clear; introducing this legislation would also be a way to determine that before the proposed reforms are implemented.
-Retirement Reform (introduced by Sen. Nix): In the interests of saving time, just skim my remarks in Mr. Marokai's campaign thread.
-Budget stuff: These two related pieces of legislation (separated in order to separate those that would affect the services and those that would affect the DoEA in general) are designed to allow for a reduction in defense spending while preserving current defense plans to the greatest extent possible in an effort to minimize potential vulnerabilities. It would keep the military capable of addressing a wide range of possible threats around the world, while achieving substantial cost savings. While it reduces LCS, F-35s, Army modernization and missile defense programs, it reinvests much of the savings into platforms such as DDG-51s, F/A-18s, F-16s, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and trucks. It also returns the Army and Marine Corps to end strengths near their 2001 levels. I can provide further analysis of the potential risks of this legislation if you need it.
-UNCLOS: This would ratify the Law of the Sea treaty. Presently, the Atlasian military relies on customary international law regarding navigation in and above the sea, and customary law can change as practices change. This would codify reasonable, responsible maritime territory claims in an international legal framework which cannot be manipulated by any other states. It also provides through the ITLOS a way to resolve territorial and natural resource disputes with other states who have signed the treaty; Atlasia cannot participate in that framework without ascending to the treaty. Additionally, there would be massive economic benefits; we would have exclusive rights to manage the resources in areas near the coast. Atlasian corporations could also apply for ISA licenses in order to exploit resources in the deep seabed.

Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to speak before this committee, Secretary SJoyce.  These proposals all seem like reasonable, common-sense proposals and they have my support

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Aye on all

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I nominate Senator Ben, SOEA SJoyce, and Senator Averroes Nix

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Aye on all three

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Israel is undeniably an important ally in the Middle East.  Having said that, some of their recent actions such as building settlements in the West Bank have hurt the chances of ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the near-future.  In light of that, my first question for you is this: Do you believe that the time has come for us, as both a friend and ally of Israel, to start telling them tough truths about the consequences of their actions?  Additionally, I was wondering if you consider a two state solution a necessary requirement for a peaceful solution to the conflict; why or why not?  Lastly, what specific courses of action (military or otherwise) do you believe should be on the table if Iran fails to meet the deadline you called for earlier in your testimony (assuming one is set).

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Aye

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I am here

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Ah.  Yes, I have two members.  Will be looking into stuff to discuss ASAP.

Sounds good

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

My concern is that North Korea is simply all bark and no bite.  I am skeptical that they would actually use their nuclear weapons or invade South Korea.  If they were to do so, I am sure the President would be able to get a declaration of war passed.  But right now, I don't know that I can support this proposal.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

My concern is that North Korea is simply all bark and no bite.  I am skeptical that they would actually use their nuclear weapons or invade South Korea.  If they were to do so, I am sure the President would be able to get a declaration of war passed.  But right now, I don't know that I can support this proposal.

My point is this- why would we wait until AFTER they had done so? Our intelligence is the best in the world... and any weaknesses we have are made up by our allies', particularly South Korea in this case. We will likely know if they are preparing a strike- and we cannot allow them at that point to kill millions of people before we lift a finger

Because even the best intelligence can be wrong.  Imagine this scenario: We already know North Korea has WMDs and is about to attack South Korea.  The invasion will presumably happen within the month, probably within the next two weeks.  Numerous intelligence reports suggest an attack is imminent and our top intelligence official tells the President that it is "a slam-dunk" that an invasion is imminent.  The President calls for a preemptive attack on North Korea and then what?  The North Korean government will have to be toppled until a new government is secure.  Also, we'd have to account for all of the country's nuclear weapons, least some go missing.  China will be doing God only knows what.  And then let's say in the midst of all of this we find out it was a bluff.  We find out that the North Koreans had no actual plan to invade.  We find out that South Korea was deliberately giving us false information and wanted us to invade so as to remove a serious regional threat.  We find out that we didn't know it was a bluff because our intelligence agencies didn't even know when Kim-Jong Il died (because of how isolated North Korea is, no one really knows what's going on there, I fear).  So with that in mind, my question is this: how do we prevent this scenario?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Nay