|
Ban on Capital Ships in Planetary Fleets
|
|
|
|
|
| Artemis_Vanden | Date: Thursday, 29 Oct 2009, 9:10 PM | Message # 1 |
 Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 302
Status: Offline
| Senators, capital ships are tremendous weapons of war. To emphasize, they are weapons of war. New Republic member worlds are entitled to a small fleet of ships with which to protect themselves, and to enforce laws and regulations in their respective systems or sectors. They do not need capital ships for this purpose, and thus I propose to prohibit the use or possession of any warships either A.) larger than 400 meters, or B.) considered larger than a frigate (whichever of these is smaller, in a specific instance). Secondarily, all such vessels currently in use will be required to be decommissioned within 6 months, and scrapped within 8 months. They are not to be sold, auctioned, or otherwise proliferated to other factions. If necessary, the New Republic will reimburse these worlds for the value of the ship(s) in question and the cost of dismantling them. There's no reason why a planet—whether it be Neimoidia, Corellia or even, laughably, Naboo—should have the capability of projecting violence beyond its borders. This is precisely what capital ships are for; there is no other purpose for weaponry capable of annihilating whole cities, or ship compliments of thousands of troops, tanks and artillery. I expect that many of Chief of State Gavrisom's allies will oppose this measure, but I hope and indeed I expect that the Chief of State himself will see the logic in this, and its potential to assure us a greater measure of peace in our time. I vote in favor.
Artemis Vanden
Representative of the Naboo
|
| |
| |
| Simon_Levi | Date: Thursday, 29 Oct 2009, 9:15 PM | Message # 2 |
 Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 395
Status: Offline
| I vote against. Neimoidia cannot afford to scrap 90% of its firepower.
Moff of the Tammuz Sector
Message edited by Senator_Kruus - Thursday, 29 Oct 2009, 9:16 PM |
| |
| |
| Ponc_Gavrisom | Date: Thursday, 29 Oct 2009, 9:17 PM | Message # 3 |
|
Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 271
Status: Offline
| I vote against this Bill. It is unfair to planets that have invested a considerable amount of their budget in this military hardware. I would support prohibiting future production of such ships, meaning that such vessels are frozen at current numbers and will decline with time as the ships are retired. But I cannot with good concience support the removal of such a protection. If the Senator can find an affortable way of compensating world I would support this motion.
Ponc Gavrisom
Chief of State
|
| |
| |
| Artemis_Vanden | Date: Thursday, 29 Oct 2009, 9:27 PM | Message # 4 |
|
Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 302
Status: Offline
| To quote from my proposal; "If necessary, the New Republic will reimburse these worlds for the value of the ship(s) in question and the cost of dismantling them." I contend that this is affordable, because there simply are not many worlds (thank the Force) that maintain capital ships. Also, surely the Chief of State realizes that a prohibition on future ships without an immediate disarmament of current ones will place most worlds at an institutional disadvantage relative to worlds that already have these vessels. As for Senator Kruus, it is regrettable that your world has invested so much money and firepower into an abhorrent weapon of mass destruction.
Artemis Vanden
Representative of the Naboo
|
| |
| |
| Simon_Levi | Date: Thursday, 29 Oct 2009, 9:30 PM | Message # 5 |
|
Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 395
Status: Offline
| The Economics Policy does not consider this affordable, especially in light of the massive number of capital ships owned by Commenor and other core worlds. Also, define capital ship? Neimoidia has hundreds of armed freighters over 400 meters long, are these to be confiscated?
Moff of the Tammuz Sector
|
| |
| |
| Artemis_Vanden | Date: Thursday, 29 Oct 2009, 9:33 PM | Message # 6 |
|
Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 302
Status: Offline
| Senator Kruus, please read the definition in my bill. It specifically denotes warships, not freighters.
Artemis Vanden
Representative of the Naboo
|
| |
| |
| Simon_Levi | Date: Thursday, 29 Oct 2009, 9:40 PM | Message # 7 |
|
Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 395
Status: Offline
| So the ship Kruus, classified as it is as an Armoured galleon is exempt?
Moff of the Tammuz Sector
|
| |
| |
| Artemis_Vanden | Date: Thursday, 29 Oct 2009, 9:43 PM | Message # 8 |
|
Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 302
Status: Offline
| Certainly you would agree that your Kruus-class vessel is considered significantly larger and more heavily armed than a frigate.
Artemis Vanden
Representative of the Naboo
|
| |
| |
| Simon_Levi | Date: Thursday, 29 Oct 2009, 9:44 PM | Message # 9 |
|
Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 395
Status: Offline
| As is a Lucrehulk-class armoured freighter. Indeed a Lucrehulk is rather larger.
Moff of the Tammuz Sector
Message edited by Senator_Kruus - Thursday, 29 Oct 2009, 9:47 PM |
| |
| |
| Artemis_Vanden | Date: Thursday, 29 Oct 2009, 9:50 PM | Message # 10 |
|
Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 302
Status: Offline
| Again, the bill refers to warships and not to freighters. And if, as I assume, your argument will be that a Lucrehulk-class freighter is as heavily armed as most capital ships, it begs the question of why that is the case.
Artemis Vanden
Representative of the Naboo
|
| |
| |
| Simon_Levi | Date: Thursday, 29 Oct 2009, 10:23 PM | Message # 11 |
|
Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 395
Status: Offline
| I can name a dozen classes which are as well armed as warships. That is because of the present danger of piracy and raids by rogue warlords. The presence of Kruus has prevented any of these form effecting Neimoidia. This bill is a ridiculous attempt at stifling Neimoidia's right to own ships it has build legally. It is also a redundant bill. I could build several much smaller ships with equal firepower to one larger ship and completely circumvent this bill. It is massively open to abuse, and while I admire the spirit of the law, the practicality is not in existance. Are 3, 400m long ships less dangerous than one of 1200m? No, they are not. They are an equal (if not greater) weapon.
Moff of the Tammuz Sector
|
| |
| |
| Artemis_Vanden | Date: Thursday, 29 Oct 2009, 10:48 PM | Message # 12 |
|
Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 302
Status: Offline
| The difference, Senator, is that vessels 400 meters or smaller are traditionally not intended as projections of power. The Kruus-class vessel has presumably thousands of battle droids and accompanying armaments. Its 70 turbolasers are sufficient to flatten a mountain range in a matter of hours. These are not necessary, of course, for the enforcement of Neimoidian laws, customs, counter-piracy, and so on. You are using a sledge hammer when a scalpel is all that's required. Frankly, Senator Kruus, methinks thou doth protest too much. That you should be so disinclined to this measure only hardens the suspicion that you intend to use this ship again as a weapon of war, just as you have used it in the past. Hardly peace first.
Artemis Vanden
Representative of the Naboo
|
| |
| |
| Simon_Levi | Date: Thursday, 29 Oct 2009, 11:10 PM | Message # 13 |
|
Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 395
Status: Offline
| My ship is a vessel to preserve peace, as it has been used. I believe in maintaining a Defence and policing pirates, smugglers and rogue warlords, and on such a mission Kruus has served in an abundantly competant and loyal fashion. The standard droid load of the ship does not include thousands of battledroids or tanks, and while it does have this capacity, any vessel can carry droids, even most freighters could carry a few hundred. But it is the standard load that is important. I remind Mr Vanden that there are still rogue Imperials in the proximity of Neimoidia, and it is only by fear of this ship that they do not often strike at our trade routes, not to mention the abundantly capable way in which Kruus deals with pirates and interdiction. And still the question remains unanswered, what prevents the production of Multiple 'pocket battleships' equal in firepower? Nothing, which is why this bill is an unenforcable farce.
Moff of the Tammuz Sector
Message edited by Senator_Kruus - Thursday, 29 Oct 2009, 11:16 PM |
| |
| |
| Artemis_Vanden | Date: Thursday, 29 Oct 2009, 11:31 PM | Message # 14 |
|
Major general
Group: Users
Messages: 302
Status: Offline
| To quote Senator Kruus from his "unveiling" of the Kruus-class some years ago; "It can hold many hundreds of marines and multiple thousands of battle droids, along with companies of heavy armor." Also, "... it packs enough fire to demolish an Imperial-II Star Destroyer in a gunnery duel, and even duel volleys with Super Star Destroyers for a period of time. It packs more weaponry than an MC-90 cruiser." If you mean to say that all of this is necessary to combat pirates and smugglers, that is the real farce here. I remind the Senator, also, that the combat of rogue warlords (which, frankly, I think are somewhat of a myth propagated by the anti-peace factions within the Senate) is not the task of planetary forces but rather of the aptly named New Republic Defense Fleet. I also remind him that Humbarine, Commenor and Cato Neimoidia are "in the proximity of Neimoidia," not phantom warlords. The bottom line is that "pocket battleships," for whatever their merits, do not serve as a "base of operations" and, thus, a projection of power in the same sense that larger warships are intended.
Artemis Vanden
Representative of the Naboo
Message edited by Artemis_Vanden - Thursday, 29 Oct 2009, 11:32 PM |
| |
| |
| Senator_Cambrist | Date: Friday, 30 Oct 2009, 0:04 AM | Message # 15 |
 Lieutenant general
Group: Users
Messages: 761
Status: Offline
| Senator Vanden cannot have it both ways. He has already called for a significant disarmament of the New Republic Defense Fleet (the wisdom of which I do not deny), but he cannot in good conscience also call for the disarmament of planetary forces. This is simply unreasonable, and leaves us vulnerable not only to the possibility of rogue Imperial attacks, but also from all manner of factions with animosities of their own. I understand that the Senator from Naboo believes, in his words, that there are "simply too many weapons of war in this galaxy," and that evidently he believes himself on a crusade to rid the galaxy of all of them, but there comes a point when promoting peace crosses the line, inadvertantly, into promoting patent vulnerability. This measure crosses that line. I vote against. We are not all willing to mortgage the lives of our citizens on faith in the the kindness of others, as Naboo does. Note also that I do not have a vested interest in this measure, because Brentaal has no vessels that match Senator Vanden's description. My objection, thus, is on principle and principle only. Senator Sir Reuke Cambrist, Brentaal
Chairman of the Commerce Council
|
| |
| |
