North Pacific Armed Forces Bill

St George

St George

RolePlay Moderator
-
Deputy Speaker
-
-
-
Pronouns
He/Him, They/Them
The North Pacific Army Doctrine is hereby amended to read:

1. The North Pacific Armed Forces (the NPAF) has five primary purposes:
a. To protect and defend the region of The North Pacific;
b. To protect and defend the allies of The North Pacific;
c. To assist the allies and friends of The North Pacific in whatever capacity is available;
d. To maintain a well trained military;
e. To implement regional defense and diplomatic policies as adopted under the laws of The North Pacific.

2. The NPAF is always permitted, consistent with adopted regional defense and diplomatic policies, to deploy under the following circumstances:
a. To counter or preemptively stop:
i) A direct threat to The North Pacific;
ii) A direct threat to an ally of The North Pacific;

b. To assist a region or organization as permitted by the delegate, an existing treaty, or the Executive Officer charged with military affairs;
c. Upon the orders of the appointed Executive Officer charged with military affairs or a person thus delegated to act in their name; and
d. The Regional Assembly may mandate that the NPAF follow through on a declaration of war or a policy approved by the Regional Assembly.

3. The NPAF must follow all of the following criteria on every mission in foreign regions, except against designated enemy regions:
a. Minimize collateral damage;
b. Respect the culture of the region and the wishes of the natives;
c. Minimize threat to The North Pacific and allies;
d. Restore region to its original state before leaving;
e. Contact the most recent native delegate when acting proactively;

4. The NPAF must operate so that:
a. The Delegate can issue a blanket approval for the NPAF to work with a given organisation. The Executive Officer charged with military affairs or the Delegate must still authorize individual missions.
b. Any NPAF member may refuse to take part in any mission which does not directly impact TNP security for any reason that the Executive Officer charged with military affairs or the Delegate determines is reasonable.
c. The Regional Assembly may override by simple majority vote any NPAF deployment not previously approved by the Regional Assembly. The Speaker shall accept motions to override for voting on an expedited basis.

5. The NPAF must not do the following except following: (a) a regional consensus toward a region at war with TNP or (b) a request from a recognized government in exile of that region:
a. Remove any residents from an invaded region that resided in the region prior to said invasion;
b. Act with any degree of disrespect;
c. Alter the region's chosen embassy list against the wishes of the region's natives

6. The NPAF leadership is empowered with the ability to determine the cosmetic details of military, including name, ranks and insignia, pending the outcome of a poll of active NPAF members.
Click to expand...

What I've changed: All instances of NPA or North Pacific Army are now NPAF or North Pacific Armed Forces. Added Clause 6.

What I've not changed: anything to do with the operational status or ideology of the military.

What I'm debating: Changing phrases like "NPAF member" to "member of the Armed Forces' and instances of just "NPAF" to "the Armed Forces".

Have at it folks.

The North Pacific Army Doctrine is hereby amended to read:

1. The North Pacific military (the NPM) has five primary purposes:
a. To protect and defend the region of The North Pacific;
b. To protect and defend the allies of The North Pacific;
c. To assist the allies and friends of The North Pacific in whatever capacity is available;
d. To maintain a well trained military;
e. To implement regional defense and diplomatic policies as adopted under the laws of The North Pacific.

2. The NPM is always permitted, consistent with adopted regional defense and diplomatic policies, to deploy under the following circumstances:
a. To counter or preemptively stop:
i) A direct threat to The North Pacific;
ii) A direct threat to an ally of The North Pacific;

b. To assist a region or organization as permitted by the delegate, an existing treaty, or the Executive Officer charged with military affairs;
c. Upon the orders of the appointed Executive Officer charged with military affairs or a person thus delegated to act in their name; and
d. The Regional Assembly may mandate that the NPM follow through on a declaration of war or a policy approved by the Regional Assembly.

3. The NPM must follow all of the following criteria on every mission in foreign regions, except against designated enemy regions:
a. Minimize collateral damage;
b. Respect the culture of the region and the wishes of the natives;
c. Minimize threat to The North Pacific and allies;
d. Restore region to its original state before leaving;
e. Contact the most recent native delegate when acting proactively;

4. The NPM must operate so that:
a. The Delegate can issue a blanket approval for the NPM to work with a given organisation. The Executive Officer charged with military affairs or the Delegate must still authorize individual missions.
b. Any NPM member may refuse to take part in any mission which does not directly impact TNP security for any reason that the Executive Officer charged with military affairs or the Delegate determines is reasonable.
c. The Regional Assembly may override by simple majority vote any NPM deployment not previously approved by the Regional Assembly. The Speaker shall accept motions to override for voting on an expedited basis.

5. The NPM must not do the following except following: (a) a regional consensus toward a region at war with TNP or (b) a request from a recognized government in exile of that region:
a. Remove any residents from an invaded region that resided in the region prior to said invasion;
b. Act with any degree of disrespect;
c. Alter the region's chosen embassy list against the wishes of the region's natives

6. The NPM leadership is empowered with the ability to determine the cosmetic details of military, including name, ranks and insignia.
 
Nierr:
3. The NPA must follow all of the following criteria on every mission in foreign regions, except against designated enemy regions:
Click to expand...
Still a part to edit yo.

This seems even less necessary than the North Pacific Navy bill. I'm probably abstaining.
 
I'm not sure why allowing our military to choose their own name etc in the future is unnecessary, especially if TNP ever adopts some kind of theme.
 
I've no idea how long the NPA moniker has been in use, but I imagine it's well recognized. I guess we'll see if there's appetite for change in that regard. Clause 6 is ill-advised. With every Delegate change, the name could change (perhaps many times, depending on the Delegate). We could end up with The North Pacific Jihadis, The North Pacific Malloreans , or The North Pacific Mac and Cheese with Bacon. Ranks and insignia would also be subject to abuse. Nay.
 
falapatorius:
I've no idea how long the NPA moniker has been in use, but I imagine it's well recognized. I guess we'll see if there's appetite for change in that regard. Clause 6 is ill-advised. With every Delegate change, the name could change (perhaps many times, depending on the Delegate). We could end up with The North Pacific Jihadis, The North Pacific Malloreans , or The North Pacific Mac and Cheese with Bacon. Ranks and insignia would also be subject to abuse. Nay.
Click to expand...
"NPA rename of the day" would make for an awesome spam thread, that's for certain.
 
NPAF would be better. The AF being Armed Forces, and that would include the NPA (North Pacific Army) and the North Pacific Regional Guard (NPRG).

Includes room for more sub-divisions if needed. That way the NPA can still rightfully call itself as such, but in official documents when we are referring to the Military as a whole, we can say the North Pacific Armed Forces.
 
Blue Wolf II:
NPAF would be better. The AF being Armed Forces, and that would include the NPA (North Pacific Army) and the North Pacific Regional Guard (NPRG).

Includes room for more sub-divisions if needed. That way the NPA can still rightfully call itself as such, but in official documents when we are referring to the Military as a whole, we can say the North Pacific Armed Forces.
Click to expand...
My question is, how would creating a plethora of new branches of the military make the military more effective? Wouldn't that add more layers of complexity and bureaucracy where it is not only impractical but also possibly dilutes the NPA mission?

Also, how would the mission of an "Army" differ from a "Coast Guard" in practical terms. If the missions differ, it only dilutes the overall mission in practical terms.

However, if it divides the NPA into various 'specialised' functions, that work as one complete unit, then it might actually serve a purpose.
 
I am in favour of this for the same reasons I liked the NPN bill: it allows our military to forge a new path, unencumbered by the traditions of the past.

In my head I will always remember the NPA as the defender force of the past. I get that it is no longer that. A new name, for me, makes a clean break and a fresh start.
 
I like BW's suggestion. Will make edits to that effect. Also looking to flesh out clause 6 which I added. Possibly a requirement for NPA members to endorse the changes?
 
I am against this bill for the same reason that falapatorius is.
I personally believe that the North Pacific Army has a name that is well known and it is part of the region's culture and the army's history.
It is not just a name, but it is now basically part of the NPA.
I do not believe it should be changed at the whim of any leader that wants to change it.
And as some were saying that a name change could give it a fresh start or a new theme... I believe that it doesn't need a fresh start nor theme. The NPA has worked very hard and I believe it will do more and contribute more to the history of TNP and NS under its current name.
So therefore, I would vote Nay if this went into vote.
 
Gladio:
These attempts at renaming the NPA really need to stop...
Click to expand...
It's not an attempt at renaming the NPA.

It's giving the NPA the ability to change its name if it so wished.
 
I like the bill, and I'm in favor of the name change to the NPAF. It's more... official and recognized all sections of the army. However I am not in favor of clause 6. Too many polls will be started and who knows what the names will end up, like stated before. It would be distracting from the actual objectives of the NPA.

-President of the United Socialist States of Egalotir
 
The entire point of this bill is to give the NPA the ability to change its name if it wishes to. It doesn't change the name of the NPA unless the NPA membership wants it to change.
 
Your intent ant the way the bill is written are two different things.

In addition, why not just start a second specialized force and use the new name for that? Certainly the more skilled and experienced members could use more advanced work while new players learn the ropes?
 
Nierr:
The entire point of this bill is to give the NPA the ability to change its name if it wishes to. It doesn't change the name of the NPA unless the NPA membership wants it to change.
Click to expand...
I re-read the bill and you are completely right. If the NPA leadership choose to change the cosmetics of the army, and the active NPA members vote it through I do not see any problem. It is just a minor cosmetic change, with no real changes to actual war doctrine.

I will vote a yes on this if it comes to vote.

-President of the United Socialist States of Egalotir
 
Thank you for taking the time to re-read the bill, sincerely. :)
 
Any other concerns over wording or can I do whatever it needs that needs to be done to bring it to vote? :P
 
I would like to shorten formal debate to two days.
 
The Democratic Republic of Tomb:
I am against this bill for the same reason that falapatorius is.
I personally believe that the North Pacific Army has a name that is well known and it is part of the region's culture and the army's history.
It is not just a name, but it is now basically part of the NPA.
I do not believe it should be changed at the whim of any leader that wants to change it.
And as some were saying that a name change could give it a fresh start or a new theme... I believe that it doesn't need a fresh start nor theme. The NPA has worked very hard and I believe it will do more and contribute more to the history of TNP and NS under its current name.
So therefore, I would vote Nay if this went into vote.
Click to expand...

:agree: We need to maintain a thread of continuity. Without continuity we lose a certain sense of history and legitimacy, provided the continuity is legitimate.

You have to know where you came from in order to know where you are going. Disruption of continuity for the sake of disrupting continuity makes diminishes and muddles our history and historical record.

OTOH, if we are creating a blanket term for a collection of several branches of the military, that's a different story that adds to continuity.
 
This doesnt disrupt continuity. The NPA will still be the NPA,because under clause 6, the name only changes if the NPA membership decide to change it.
 
I believe so. Thanks to everyone who's expressed support and helped out with this bill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top