Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Brood]

Sorry if this is stepping on your toes a little Kaferian but given that we're running a nation we'll probably need to talk a lot and it would clutter up the main thread a lot in the process.
So I thought it would be a good idea to set up this thread to allow us to have our talks without making the main thread a mess for you to go through looking for peoples turns.

So yea this threads purpose is in the title, we can decide what to do with our nation or anything else we need to discuss in here and do turns in the main thread to avoid the two getting muddled up together.

Main thread.

http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=124511.0

[Brood]

In any case since the nation has been formed and we've already been given control it stands to reason we've all met at least the one time when we were given our new roles and we would probably have discussed our areas of influence within the nation at that time so we may as well sort out who's doing what.

" My name is Domonic Hunt, I run the single largest recruitment agency within the New Pacific Republic. At some time or other I have probably done business with most of you supplying you with the personnel that make up your businesses.

We are in a sticky situation being a new power and the Union is not going to ignore us for very long, so I believe we need to decide what we are going to do to prepare our nation in the event that the Union or any other power should attempt to take control of our lands through military or any other means.

So, suggestions anybody? "

[scapheap]

"I think you should get a less demonic sounding name"

[Brood]

" Anything a bit more relevant to our current situation? I doubt we have long before the Union decides it wants it's land back.

I would suggest that I take control of the military, as a recruitment company I can expand it far more rapidly then anybody else so that we have a large enough force to protect ourselves if the Union or anybody else should attempt to invade.

We would also need to produce more weapons, more food, get a more stable economy and construct a method of shifting our soldiers around as quickly as possible.

I believe you all have experience in that area and I can of course provide you all with additional personnel to expand your work forces. "

[alamoes]

"How about you lead the army, and the other guy, Fitzgerald, produces the weaponry.  Makes sense, cause you get the people, and he gets the guns.  And everyone said they have their parts, well I have mine too.  It's to keep you guys afloat with cash investments.  Potentially at the expense of the people.  Probably at the expense of the people."  Says a dark shadow from across the room.  You can't see the face. 

[Brood]

" I will agree that he can provide the weaponry but I will also continue my own production, better to have two sources then one.

Is that acceptable to you Mr Fitzgerald?
You will control the majority of the weapons and munitions trade in the republic with our support but I will maintain my own production as well, I will of course limit it to supplying the army alone so that you are the only supplier to the vast majority of our population.
Also I will of course still purchase the majorty of my equipment from you to avoid looking like a competitor. "

[Bdthemag]

"You seem rather eager to take control of the army, seems like the best position you could be in once things don't go your way. I am not a paranoid man, by I know an obvious issue when I see one. We give him power over the military, and it'll be over before it even began. Now see, ideally our current problem would be an issue of trust. Each and every man here has his own agenda, and if someone gets in the way of said agenda then trouble is bound to arise. Not to mention any outside influence that will interfere once we get things up and running. Especially once our little gold industry starts up once again, every single country nearby and overseas worth a damn is going to want a slice of our little piece of heaven. Who's to say they won't "convince" one of us to work for them? It is exactly the reason to have nothing to do with any other great powers until we are prepared. Did the United States not do the same when they were a fledgling nation such as us? George Washington himself tried to implement a strict policy of isolationism, one that would be very logical to adopt now."

[Brood]

" I care little if we allow in outsiders or not that is for the rest of you to decide, we have an army being led by a man who is not amongst us.
That gives him a loaded gun to hold to our heads if he should as you've suggested be "convinced" to join them, he has little to lose but a great deal to gain in such an agreement where as any of us stands to lose more then we would gain.

I am the best suited amongst us to lead the army given that I can generate the needed manpower for it easier then anybody else here, Mr Hofmann clearly agrees with me as his support indicates.
Trust will come with time but time is nothing something we do not have a great deal of so risks will have to be taken if we are to survive.

Give me control of the army and what I need to make it strong and I will get us all the time we need for that trust to grow.

I would greatly appreciate your support, your rail lines would make the transport and supply of those armies a much simpler task and in return I would be more then happy to provide security so you can continue to expand that rail network
I also have a "friend" who I could put you in contact with who would be beneficial to you in "removing" your competitors.
If taking full control of the nations rail network interests you.

The rest of the world is going to come whether we like it or not and when they do I for one will be standing in the doorway with a gun to bar it's way for the good of the people, who else in this room can say they would place the good of the people before the good of themselves?

“The best way to find out if you can trust somebody is to trust them.”
― Ernest Hemingway
  "

[Harry Baldman]

"I do believe that none of us should be allowed to lead the military, as that would let too much power trickle into the hands of people - myself included - who might misuse it. Not that this makes us bad people, it merely makes us human. And absolutely none of us are military geniuses or even particularly experienced in commanding armies. So why don't we lay this 'who will lead the army' nonsense to rest and instead form a completely independent army? That way it will not degenerate into a private force of heavily armed errand boys for whoever is in charge of it. We should look for promising commanders among the people we have."

[Cheesecake]

I'll post in here later. And yeah, I agree with finding a suitable, experienced commander.

[Harry Baldman]

"Perhaps I chose the wrong word there. Not a completely independent army, but rather one that none of us can command exclusively. All military decisions should be reached by a committee formed of us all and perhaps some other members of significance, and only the entire committee could order the army to undertake major military actions or appoint a new commander by way of a majority vote."

"Speaking of, we should really plan out a system of government. How will officials be elected? Who will elect or appoint them? How much democracy will we have here? These are important questions, as it is important to form a political system that the people can trust, fight for and even die for, should the need arise. Without such a system, we will be unable to effectively organize our work."

[Innsmothe]

Miss Enderby makes a point. Though however, if the men on the ground are swayed by one person or another, our influence would be nixed.
I think we should all contribute an equal number of CO's and NCO's, to prevent a potential military coupe.

As for government, I have not put much thought into it, we have all seen how the system in Washington and the blowhards in Montgomery have threatened the interests of men of property and merit such as us.

[Brood]

Are you insane? An army can not be led by 7 men and 7 chains of command.
It would be at war with itself before it even met the enemy.

An army must be led by 1 man and that man must choose the best men as his officers otherwise it is not an army at all.

By the time a commitee has gathered, argued pointlessly and made a choice the army would have been destroyed and the war ended.

Leave running the army to the only man here who knows how to do so.
I do not seek power at all I seek only to protect my people and this nation from the inevitable threats, if you allow political rivalry to cripple the army as you are doing now then we are all going to die.

[Harry Baldman]

"Mr. Hunt, where did you, pray tell, learn how to run an army? It is not a recruiting agency by any means, and to consider it the same thing would be folly. What I propose is that the army is led by commanders with actual experience in their field. Delusions of grandeur and armchair tactical experience will hardly be of use to you in a war, don't you think? An army must be commanded by generals subservient to the state. It would be completely silly to let only person take control of the entire armed forces of the country, as that would give them every ounce of power that matters. And when somebody claims they do not seek power, they are liars, pure and simple. We all seek power. That, in fact, is the reason we have all gathered here today."

"And you seem to have misunderstood the idea of it all - there will not be seven chains of command or even seven leaders. The idea is that a general leads each army that we have and that the only authority above them is a committee made up of ourselves and certain other people, if applicable. This way one of us will not destroy the country by pre-emptively striking against the Mexicans or the Union with their private army - because that is what you seek to obtain with your requests, Mr. Hunt - to pursue some insane notion that may pop into their heads, or kill all of his rivals merely because spoke out against him. You see, the notion of 'protecting the people' can entail any number of things good and evil, peaceful and violent. And I simply cannot abide the thought of any one of us being granted absolute power like that."

[Brood]

That is rather unfortunate because I already have an army.
I have led it in battle with the union and I have won every time.

I was referring mostly to our colleagues idea of each placing an equal number of officers in the army.

To do so would cause the army to turn on itself.
Who then would take over all command of those generals? One of us had to take the role of commander in chief to co-ordinate the generals in times of war and provide a central command on the frontlined and I am the only military man here to do so.

Every army needs one man to make the final call if the generals disagree.