| The following article is for use on Soviet Federation pages only. DO NOT delete this template or the pages that use it...
Please do not edit or alter this article in any way while this template is active. All unauthorized edits may be reverted on the author discretion.
The Military Protocol Bills are a series of propositions first put to the Soviet Federation by the Fourth Ossorian Republic for the CDU upon joining the council. They are intended to minimise collateral damage and to standardise a federation reaction force.
Military Practise Bill
The bill proposes that member-states in an active state of war follow the conventions of war as laid down by the federation. Failure to comply with these conventions would lead to severe punishment, including economic boycott and expulsion from the federation. All member states must sign the document acknowledging that they will adhere to such conventions before they are permitted to join the federation. Existing members must also agree to sign the document.
The amended bill proposes that:
- Civilian centres are not legitimate targets in the view of the federation. It recognises that they are necessary targets in order to win wars but finds this regrettable. There shall be no explicit ban on such actions, but they will not be supported by the federation.
- Corporations are not legitimate targets in the view of the federation. It recognises that they are necessary targets in order to win wars but finds this regrettable. There shall be no explicit ban on such actions, but they will not be supported by the federation Economic ruin of a nation is not a goal of the federation and will not be supported either.
- The federation expects that member states take appropriate care to ensure the prosperity of their colonies. This will not be policed.
- The use and possesion of chemical weapons is not permitted by the federation.
- The use of nuclear weapons is allowed but not supported by the federation. Any use by a member state can be questioned by any other member state before the entire federation
- Member states cannot declare war on behalf of the federation. They are free to pursue their own military interests howver the federation will only become involved in any conflict at it's own behest.
Military Standards Bill
The purpose of this bill is to ensure that a small yet effective and highly mobile military reaction force is immediately deployable should the federation declare war or come under attack. The obligation to maintain such a force extends to signatories of the federation's war treaty. Member states are entitled to maintain a military of any size alongside this standardised force. This force shall be small enough in size as to not affect the economy of non-militarised states but is a requirement if a member state wishes to receive military aid from signatories of the war treaty. This reaction force should:
- Be of a fighting quality of at least 250
- Have sufficient military airplane capacity to deliver it
- Contain at least three long range radar planes
- Have at least one defensive unit
- have at least one offensive unit
- Member states far from conflict zones can be permitted to use military airports of closer member states in order to move their forces across the globe. If the host state does not wish to facilitate a war, they have the right to deny access.
Comments and Recommendations from the Defense Ministry
Mike of The Republic of Romanam is the current Defense Minister. Following the proposition of this bill, he composed a series of comments from the Defense Ministry. At 4:30 PM on May 15, 3505, these comments were sent to all nations of the federation. The Defense Ministry and Mike hope that the council and preimer will take the following comments into account:
Mr. Priemer, Mr. Chair, and the General Membership,
When I initially mentioned defense standards, I was imagining a system of guidelines for nations that are not in secured mode. I thought that any standards should be optional to comply with our Constitution's Bill of Rights. However, since I am only the defense minister, I will leave any constitutional issues to our Judges, Devlin, and Satomi.
1: "active state of war"
Does this include C3 wars? Yes.
2: "Failure to comply with these conventions would lead to severe punishment, including economic boycott and expulsion from the federation."
The defense ministry finds this punishment unnecessary and very overburdening. This has been amended
3: "Civilian centres are not permissable targets. Direct attack of civilian centres is a breach of the convention and may only be permitted by a majority ruling from the council after an appeal from the would-be attacker."
I believe that such a requirement would be a hindrance on any warring nation. A majority ruling, and an appeal from an enemy would take far too long. We need to ensure that this federation has guidelines in case someone attacks us, however, dictating what a nation can and cannot due is not our busies. This has been amended
4: "Corporations, as a centre of civilian activity are not legitimate targets. Economic ruin of a nation is not a goal of the federation and will not be tolerated."
In a C3 war, this, and attacking civilian targets, is one of the most effective ways of winning. In a C3 nation, these corporations will recover. This has been amended.
5: "Conquered nations will not be subjected to destructive financial harvesting. It is the responsibility of the attacking nation to aid in the recovery of a conquered nation. The council may be requested to allow a withdrawal if the conquered nation's finances are uncontrollable and continued presence of an occupier only worsens the damage."
The main purpose of fighting C3 wars is raiding and gaining financial benefits. After withdrawing, the C3 nation will recover on its own. We cannot dictate the reasons for a war, especially since so many of our members do it. The federation would not support activity but it will not act to prevent it either.
6: "The possession of nuclear or chemical weapons must be explicity allowed, upon request, by the council."
The use of chemical or nuclear weapons on any target, civilian or military, is prohibited except with the unanimous consent of the council. The Premier has the right to veto any number of requests to use such weapons."
Use and possession of nuclear or chemical weapons is an individual concern. However, due to the capacity of destruction and fallout of these weapons, I would agree that limits would have to be kept, thought unanimous consent is rather harsh. This has been amended.
7: "Member states far from conflict zones must be permitted to use military airports of closer member states in order to move their forces across the globe."
I believe that this is a breach on one nation's territory. If a nation is having a dispute with another, and wants to revoke access, then it should have that right. This has been amended.
I hope that everyone takes these comments seriously and into consideration. A series of recommendations to fix these problems will be sent soon.
The Defense Minister
Update: All concerns of the Defense Ministry have been dealt with. Mike and the MoD fully support this bill.