The Great Debate: USAF [1/2]

Day 2,796, 09:46 • Published in USA USA • by ResouIa

Hello all and thank you for your time in advance. This is the first article of many to come that I intend to dub, "The Great Debate". The articles will have two parts each and will focus on the recent hot topics that have been discussed in Congress. Part one will always be a discussion where I take the most common arguments of one side, and allow members of the opposite side to counter them (Including myself if I so choose). Part two will be the posting of a live-debate I will be hosting. Meaning yes, a debate will be following this article. I will likely hold it in #Blacksheep, and I need volunteers on the Pro-USAF side to agree to take part in this debate. Time, date, and length, will be decided as most convenient, so please contact me if you are interested. And for now enjoy the read!

When confronted with the idea of cutting funding to USAF or getting rid of it entirely, the arguments displayed in the article are the most 5 common arguments I found used by Pro-USAF voices(Some slightly paraphrased after collecting responses in order to make them easier to understand). Anti-USAF voices will counter them; 2 voices per argument (Lest the length of the article become monstrous). The 6th and final point is a question of opinion for the anti-USAF voices.

#1. We need USAF to maintain the dictatorship.

Resoula: That does not mean we need to keep pouring ta😜ayer money that is better spent elsewhere, or saved, into USAF. We need one man to control the military unit that houses the dictator for the purposes of maintaining it, and no other members whatsoever. As long as dictatorship exists as a law in eUSA, this may justify keeping a government-controlled MU open (Not necessarily USAF), but it does not justify wasting tax money.

eShades: Using the USAF as the conduit for the dictatorship is its own can of worms. If we, Congress, need to remove the Country President as is our constitutional right, well...that's setting up a field for USAF versus PMUs (in this case, PMUs would be the defenders of the eUSA). It'd be better to use another government military unit (possible the Civ MU which was the MU the CP used to command prior to the USAF)

#2. PMUs cannot be trusted to always put the interests of eUSA first. A government MU can and we need that leverage.

Bob Boudahili: While it is true that private MU's have done what they believe to be in their best interests over the perceived best interests of the Executive, it has been a minority of times. There have been notable big examples particularly the 2011 final blow up between Congress and the JCS. When it comes to getting military stakeholders on board, it requires work. This is not real life, there is no UCMJ, and commanders do not have confinement authority. There is a requirement of consent of the governed if the executive wants something to get done. It is a lazy CP/D that cannot sell a war to their people. If they cannot sell it, perhaps that failing indicates that it was not in the best interest of the eUS only in the interests of the Executive. Besides, the damage of the current USAF would not save the country in time of war, or be much of a force for the shifting of the balance of power in an international conflict.

eShades: Communication channels between PMUs and the executive are more open than ever. That level of trust between both parties is necessary to achieve the eUSA's goals -- the USAF is simply not the body this country needs. More steps are needed by both sides but we NEED PMUs to work with the government for the greater glory of 'Murica. Those steps should definitely include reprimands for soldiers fighting against eUS battle priorities (and if you're unaware, over a dozen PMUs are notified, by the National Security Council, of eUS priorities as they change). It's not fair to the eUSA if only the government has to do the legwork in obtaining bonuses, wars, and other all-around good stuff while PMUs sit and bask in the glory. I'm of the mind that, because of the nature and size of the eUS community these days, people will do their part not because the eUSA pays them to do it, but because they feel a sense of loyalty. Loyalty can come in several ways, chief among them roles in eUS government; EZC, War Inc, Freestyle (who are almost literally the eUS government :3), + others all have positions in Congress and in the Executive (ranging from advisors to the highest position), so I'm sure many PMU leadership are the most loyal eUS citizens around -- we just need both sides to realize it and take that obvious step to work even more closely.

#3. USAF is efficient is damage in correlation to the strength of its members.

Roper: USAF pays players to be in the unit with high supplies then also has to pay for them to step onto the battlefield with CO's and stuff. That is anything but efficient.

eShades: If you give me 80k a week and don't expect efficiency, lol to you. There are larger issues than simple efficiency. Is the USAF giving us damage we need? The eUSA needs D1, D2, and a little bit more D3 damage. Guess what kind of efficiency the USAF is giving us? Division four. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ They do have a few D1/D2 damage-dealers, though, so good for them.

#4. USAF is a good place for new players to learn the ropes.

Roper: PMU's have been just as valuable if not more than usaf has been in the past 2 years. A flourishing communty that includes every group is much better for the new players than anything. USAF will never present that long as tax payers are being forced to pay for it.

eShades: Is it really? They don't seem to have new players learning the ropes. The USAF in its current consolidated form has existed for longer than a year and sadly we're not seeing the sort of new player activity from them that would warrant the label of "good place for new players" over other organizations; basically, the USAF does the same thing as everyone else with regard to new players: give them gold, say hi for a little bit, and if they're still around, continue exactly the same why.

#5. To stop funding USAF is to kill their community. How would you like it if I proposed to kill your PMU's community?

Roper: If tax payers need to fund their Unit to keep their community alive then it's already dead and we're being asked to throw money away. If people who love USAF can't step up and fund their unit then they do not need to exist, that's on them and forcing it on the tax payers is wrong..

Resoula: Oh? So you're implying that USAF has a community as tightly knit and loyal as every single PMU in eUSA? Even the top ones that you have directed that statement towards? That's perfect! Then I bet since they are as closely woven and dedicated as we are, they'd have absolutely no problem surviving without government funds just as we've done and we will continue to do. That should be no problem right? Unless of course...you're overestimating the comradery of your precious USAF. If it wants to live it will swim as the rest of us have without stealing from the common man. If you've been keeping it alive in a vegetable state, it will sink, and you will be proven wrong. So come, and prove me wrong.

#6. So finally, what benefits would you say cutting funding from USAF would have for eUSA?

Henryfrench: If USAF could protect us when we get attacked by themselves I would fine with funding them but see no point when other MUs do just as much damage and costs us nothing.

eShades: Increases to the newly-budgeted DoI/DoE programs! Without a doubt, these departments are the real places for new players to truly learn the ropes. New players are the foundation of our community and they should be treated as such. Older players can't keep doing all the work, after all. Interior and Education are working well together and hopefully we'll see greater new player retention in eUSA.

Thank you all again for your time reading this article, it turned out to be a lot longer than i thought it would be, but I'm glad to have done it anyway. I hope this is something the citizens of eUSA find interesting, I find the idea of "The Great Debate" a good way to get the arguments off the dusty shelves of the eUSA forums that many active players don't like and refuse to visit, and right into the face of those players so that they can be kept up to date with and react to what is happening within our government.

Again if you'd like to take part in the debate I'll be hosting next (Pro or Anti USAF, but I especially need Pro USAF volunteers) please comment below, shoot me a PM, or ping me on IRC. I hope to cover a variety of issues using this format as the issues present themselves. I'd love to hear all of your feedback, and I'll see you all during the debates! (Which shall be announced once I figure out when they are going to happen)