Reform Party of The North Pacific (RP - TNP)

Actually, it's a quite interesting civil libertarian, yet quite constitutional solution in terms of policy concerning the raider/defender issue. It's very ingenious and no one has thought of this solution yet. Just working out the bugs. Everyone will love this.
 
Finished up the tweaks of some important issues concerning military affairs (i.e.: Raiders and Defenders). The new changes are in red.
 
Re: Raiders and Defenders - The Reform Party realizes the need for both Raiders and Defenders in the NPA for an effective unified defense of the region. Therefore, in recognizing this need, Raiders and Defenders shall be given as much freedom to carry out their missions as required for the effective defense of the region and its interests.
Click to expand...

You have not explained how raiders can effectively defend our region in a raider capacity beyond invading our enemies which is a political invasion not a raid.

As it stands now your platform is a 180' from what you originally argued: raiding (attacking random regions) does not serve our regions' interests.
 
I'd like to join the party, though I disagree with the Re: Raiders and Defenders portion of the platform and hope that revisions can be discussed. Otherwise I agree with the platform and with the civil libertarian direction of the party so I'd like to join.
 
unibot:
Re: Raiders and Defenders - The Reform Party realizes the need for both Raiders and Defenders in the NPA for an effective unified defense of the region. Therefore, in recognizing this need, Raiders and Defenders shall be given as much freedom to carry out their missions as required for the effective defense of the region and its interests.
Click to expand...

You have not explained how raiders can effectively defend our region in a raider capacity beyond invading our enemies which is a political invasion not a raid.

As it stands now your platform is a 180' from what you originally argued: raiding (attacking random regions) does not serve our regions' interests.
Click to expand...
It's not really a 180 degree turn. It's just a paradigm change concerning the tactical and strategic application of raiding and defending.

I've taken a good look at the issue of raiding and defending and have concluded that they are both simply military 'tools'. Tools are neither good nor bad and only insofar as to what end you use those tools. It's a matter of practicality.

The basic concept is to use both tactical paradigms for defense purposes. To wit:

When you are at war with another region or organization, one should not only attack that enemy directly, but indirectly. This means that your enemies allies and dependencies are legitimate military targets. By harassing an enemy's dependency regions (that would be allies, protectorates, etc.,,,) you force the enemy to reapportion his forces to protect those 'assets' or lose them. That is where Raiders come in handy - in harassing an enemy and his assets that are legitimate targets. In doing so, you force a solution to the conflict in both the political and military sense of the word. After all, war is diplomacy by other means. The North Pacific must come first as the primary goal and finely tuned military is required as a matter of practical security for the region.

Raiders under this theory are akin to cavalry, in the sense that they are particularly suited for harassing, raiding and otherwise trashing and neutralizing an enemy's 'assets'. Sort of 'shock troops' after a fashion. Go in, attack, finish the job and then depart as quickly as they arrived. Raiders can also be very useful in testing an enemy for weak spots in his defenses, but this particular aspect can get quite lengthy to explain.

Defenders are useful in protecting and warding off enemies who attack our 'assets' in the same sense of having regular troops/invasion forces/occupation forces, as well as for standard defending applications.

The real goal of applying raiders and defenders is to produce a more unified military force that is primarily concerned with protecting TNP, its allies, dependencies and other assets by using both tactical and political paradigms - this facilitates attacking an enemy on two strategic 'fronts' (military and political) at the same time.

In a nutshell, the basic strategic structure would be as follows. For example:

1.) A region or force attacks TNP or one of its allies.

2.)The Defender forces go into play to defend our allies and our home region. ("Defensive Interior Lines")

3.)The Raider forces are then free to harass the enemy's home region, his allies and dependencies, and any other legitimate targets that distract the enemy and more important, force him to divide his forces which in turn. This is application of a basic principle that in order to effectively annihilate an enemy force you must destroy his ability to concentrate his forces. It's the difference between being stung by 100 bees one by one as opposed to being stung by 100 bees all at once. If you force the enemy to divide his forces, he can't sting you in one place all at once.

However, by loosing raiders on the enemy and his cohorts in a carefully measured way, you can weaken those 'assets' (i.e.: his region and his ally's regions) to the point that you can either take them or you can force the enemy to redistribute his forces in a way that you want him to do it.

Remember, brute force is a waste of force, the new paradigm I propose is more a matter of maneuver as an art form. You apply pressure to your enemy in such a way that you force him to do exactly what you want him to do (mainly either surrendering, giving up or giving up and accepting a political solution). This is essentially what was done to Gatesville - we presented them with a scenario where if they didn't pull out of TNP their other assets and 'possessions' would suffer (and fall prey to any number of other opportunistic elements out there). I then presented Gates with a logical solution - either engage in "Forever War" and loose in the end when the will to continue the fight starts failing, or watch all of your other allies get harassed until they abandon Gatesville. And the irony is that it works on an enemy that doesn't even understand what you are doing to him.

Raiders are important to this methodology because they present a tool that can be applied with impunity that is also a moving target that the enemy must hunt down which in turn forces the enemy to divide his forces. You should really read Sun Tsu's "The Art of War" because it works, even in the NS context. It's a matter of applying a metaphor to suit the mechanics of the NS World.

Every time such a paradigm is applied, it works, but it is very hard to convince people to give up their old paradigms and try something that will be much more efficient. Properly applied through a force of sufficient size, it not only amplifies the effectiveness of the NPA, it can also be tantamount to the 'nuclear bomb' of NationStates. Remember, this exact paradigm worked extremely well and quickly against Gatesville (which, incidentally, was about as effective any military organization in NS ever was). All it took was one application of this paradigm, and Gatesville was convinced by the logic of it all and took the reasonable political solution that I presented (cease hostilities, withdraw support of a rogue delegate, and leave the region).

Applying this methodology in protecting the interests of TNP from hostiles and belligerents would be the greatest military tool in NS history (and would probably be emulated by any region with two brain cells to rub together).

And the best part it is Raider/Defender 'neutral' and serves the interests of the region.

Get it now?
 
I get it, you're being exclusive, regionalist and want citizens to give up their rights if they're not a WA member. Furthermore you're turning back on your policies for peace and goodwill in military affairs.

I resign from the Reform Party and my position in the Party, in addition to condemning your sudden change of political stance.

The logo of the Reform Party depicts a wall being built, but I have come to question if what is being built is a great new structure, or simply a wall to keep "outsiders" out? It's becoming clear, it's the latter.
 
unibot:
I get it, you're being exclusive, regionalist and want citizens to give up their rights if they're not a WA member. Furthermore you're turning back on your policies for peace and goodwill in military affairs.

I resign from the Reform Party and my position in the Party, in addition to condemning your sudden change of political stance.

The logo of the Reform Party depicts a wall being built, but I have come to question if what is being built is a great new structure, or simply a wall to keep "outsiders" out? It's becoming clear, it's the latter.
Click to expand...
After your performance in the cabinet meeting last night, your resignation from the RP saves me the trouble of getting you expelled from the Party.

Peace and good will through military policy is one thing. Leaving us open to foreign influence on matters that are voted upon exclusively by citizens is another issue altogether.

Let me remind you, non citizens do not have any right to vote in any official elections in this region. Permitting non-citizens to vote as you would have it from what I gather would make citizenship in TNP an utterly meaningless proposition. Citizens of a region have specific rights that are not afforded to non-citizens, and voting is not one of them.

And when it comes to publishing the entire minutes and transcript(s) of the most recent cabinet meeting, I shall vote in the affirmative to publish them unedited and unexpurgated in their entirety. To edit them in this instance (when no issue of regional security is in play) would be censorship.

I do not like the potential for external influences being exerted upon our region by foreign interests over the rights and privileges of the citizens of The North Pacific by permitting any such influences to hold sway. That's not exclusivism, it's just common sense.

If someone wants the rights and privileges afforded to citizens of The North Pacific, they can immigrate to The North Pacific and become citizens. No one is stopping anyone from doing that.

And I will not see this region become a battleground between various different competing 'paradigms' of military activity that transcend regional loyalties.
 
The Reform Party is hereby dissolved.

There is no need for free speech or democracy anymore in TNP when we have such effective mob rule.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top