WesWorld

Quoted

The United Kingdom delegate stands.

"Mr. Oyama, we completely agree with your comments. An abstention should be counted as a vote of indifference, not of opposal to a motion. To this end, I move that, for the purposes of this conference, only "Yes" and "No" votes shall be considered in determining whether or not a further motion is passed.

For obvious reasons, I believe that this motion must be either approved or otherwise before any other."

Germany will vote for this motion.

"The government of Atlantis is inclined to agree."

OOC: I beleive the Veto idea is related to capital ship sales to non-signatory's.

Its not meant to stop those wanting to joining the treaty, we are not suggesting a veto on that. Sale of warships promotes shifts in ratios that the treaty was meant to lock down. Greece opposes the sale of warships as being contrary to the spirit of the treaty. If it is to be accepted then Greece wanted to be able to bring pressure on those doing the selling by withdrawing from the treaty (this would only affect bottom and middle rung powers) or to have a say on what happens in their region - a right to veto. Using a veto vexatiously will not win you any friends. Dumping arms in hot spots wont win you friends either. A veto will even the table.

Cheers,

After two hours of intensive internal discussions the SAE delegation returns to the table.

"The votes of the SAE regarding the various topics are


Germany limits ------------------ YES
Australia/UK limits ------------- YES
Museum Ships -------------------- YES
Alteration of the Rebuild Clause ------- YES
Training Ships ------------------ YES
Experimental Submarines --------- YES
Unlimited Ships ------------ YES
Filipino limits ----------------- YES
6 inch guns --------------------- YES
Cruiser tonnage ----------------- YES
Capital Ship Definition --------- NO
General Ship Definition --------- NO
Hull limits vs tonnage ---------- NO
Minor Power Limits -------------- NO
Sales of warships (new and old) ----- (a/b/c) YES/NO/NO
Capital ship limits ------------- NO
Compliance ---------------------- YES
Submarine --------------------- NO
Hyprid Ships ----------------- NO

We hope that the points still open can be solved soon."

Think this is right.

The Republic of France. . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . 200,000 tons. New limit 189,000tons.

The Kingdom of the United Netherlands . . . 8 . . . . . 240,000 tons. New limit 252,000 tons.

The Kingdom of Nordmark . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . . . 280,000 tons. New limit 283,500 tons.

The Kingdom of Italy. . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . . . 280,000 tons. New limit 283,500 tons.

The Empire of Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . 12. . . . . 360,000 tons. New limit 378,000 tons.

The Kingdom of Iberia . . . . . . . . . . . 12. . . . . 360,000 tons. New limit 378,000 tons.

The South-African Empire. . . . . . . . . . 14. . . . . 440,000 tons. New limit 441,000 tons.

The Russian Federation. . . . . . . . . . . 14. . . . . 440,000 tons. New limit 441,000 tons.

The Atlantis Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. . . . . 440,000 tons. New limit 441,000 tons.

The United Kingdom. . . . . . . . . . . . . 20. . . . . 600,000 tons. New limit with 18 Hulls 567,000 tons.

The United States of America. . . . . . . . 21. . . . . 640,000 tons. New limit 661,500 tons.

Thanks.

So this means an increase in capital ship tonnage in general (with the exception of France). Doesn´t look like the SAE would support such a proposal...

I will edit my votes.

Quoted

The United States of America. . . . . . . . 21. . . . . 640,000 tons. New limit 661,500 tons.

I wish! The numbers were reduced when the US became a player controlled nation. I'm not sure if the UK was reduced as well when it became a PC nation.

Actually its:
The United States of America. . . . . . . . 16. . . . . 500,000 tons. New limit 504,000 tons.

Quoted

So this means an increase in capital ship tonnage in general (with the exception of France). Doesn´t look like the SAE would support such a proposal...

The other options I was looking at were 33,000 tons (which would definitely be a no-no in the eyes of the SAE and nations sharing the same ideas) and 30,000 tons. It was never discussed (I got the impression everyone was focussed on me attempting to split the capital ship category in two in that thread) so I never had the opportunity to offer the alternative 30,000 ton average.

Which would give you:

The Republic of France. . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . 200,000 tons. New limit 180,000tons.

The Kingdom of the United Netherlands . . . 8 . . . . . 240,000 tons. New limit 240,000 tons.

The Kingdom of Nordmark . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . . . 280,000 tons. New limit 270,000 tons.

The Kingdom of Italy. . . . . . . . . . . . 9 . . . . . 280,000 tons. New limit 270,000 tons.

The Empire of Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . 12. . . . . 360,000 tons. New limit 360,000 tons.

The Kingdom of Iberia . . . . . . . . . . . 12. . . . . 360,000 tons. New limit 360,000 tons.

The South-African Empire. . . . . . . . . . 14. . . . . 440,000 tons. New limit 420,000 tons.

The Russian Federation. . . . . . . . . . . 14. . . . . 440,000 tons. New limit 420,000 tons.

The Atlantis Empire . . . . . . . . . . . . 14. . . . . 440,000 tons. New limit 420,000 tons.

The United States of America. . . . . . . . 16. . . . . 500,000 tons. New limit 480,000 tons.

The United Kingdom. . . . . . . . . . . . . 20. . . . . 600,000 tons. New limit with 18 Hulls 540,000 tons.

Well, some time ago, South Africa made it clear that it wished to decrease the tonnage...
:-)

Nordmark could not accept this proposal

I know. I also know that the US is opposed to that average as well.

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Cruiser tonnage ----------------- YES

Clearly shows you that a nation that does not support a certain idea does not have to oppose it.
:-)

Do the number of hulls increase at all with this plan? If not I don't see any problem with it as most navies have already filled out their numbers or tonnage limits. The largest shift is 18,000 tons. While that is a lot, it just allows for slightly larger ships, not more of them. If fact it might make for smaller than the 40,000 ton ships as nations will try to use as much tonnage as possible for hopefully more balanced warships. Of course I'm thinking like an American as the United States made most of the fleet as close to the same as possible to make for a strong battleline, and maybe less problems for the quartermasters department.

In the plan as a whole (inculding the introduction of the A and B class capital ships) an increase of the number of hulls would only apply for France (as Japan believes that the tonnages for that nation is too low) and nations with an odd number of hulls (in order to properly split the capital ship category in two). France indicated that it would stay at its current limits and I never got to the other bit.
It may be true that most navies have already filled out their numbers or tonnage limits and that the largest shift is 18,000 tons... but you have to realize that one of the nations that gains 18,000 tons with the 31,500 equal average is neither at its tonnage limit nor at the number of hulls limit.

with the tonnage plan, most nations increases in tonnage would just be eaten up with reconstructions on aging capital ships.

Well you'll note that Chile voted for the division into subgroups, but against the Capital Ship Definition and abstained on the new Capital Ship Limits. The Definition seems irrelivant to Chile, but Chile also favors Large Cruisers as a part of the treaty, which it shows by voting for the General Definition change, but doesn't care on the Capital Ships Limits as Chile would feel restricted no matter what limit the treaty would choose to set.

Quoted

Originally posted by Rooijen10

Quoted

Originally posted by HoOmAn
Cruiser tonnage ----------------- YES

Clearly shows you that a nation that does not support a certain idea does not have to oppose it.
:-)

Indeed. I don´t like the idea in general, it´s too complex to follow, methinks. But on the other hand I don´t want to spoil people´s fun. So that´s why I finally decided to vote with a "YES". :o)

Last vote done so the list for the SAE should be complete.

So with that, unless my vote tally is wrong we get the following on the sale of ships preposal.

Treaty nations...................eye......... ney.......undecided?
Sales of warships A --------- 2 --------- 5 --------- 5
Sales of warships B --------- 1 --------- 6 --------- 5
Sales of warships C --------- 5 --------- 3 --------- 4

non treaty nations
Sales of warships A --------- 1 --------- 1 --------- 0
Sales of warships B --------- 2 --------- 0 --------- 0
Sales of warships C --------- 2 --------- 0 --------- 0

Total

Sales of warships A --------- 3 --------- 5 --------- 5
Sales of warships B --------- 3 --------- 6 --------- 5
Sales of warships C --------- 7 --------- 3 --------- 4

I think we can write off preposal B, which limits new ships built for non-signatory's.

Shall we revote on preposal A and C?

I think the votes are clear. We have to write off all three proposals. I don´t think there is much else to discuss. Looks like we have decided to keep the status quo.

I'm not so sure, we were close on the original preposal with just a few objections so perhaps retreating to the original preposal would be the final course of action before scratching the idea.

I also edited the tally to reflect Nordmarks vote.