Outside of eRepublik, the mere consideration of the phrase being used in common conversation would be considered taboo, but inside of eRepublik the phrase is not just well-received, but a very functional foreign policy enthusiastically embraced.
The game mechanics of eRepublik are such that, for all of our RL notions of war, a strictly pacifistic or rigorously neutral nation will achieve, at best, mediocrity - at worst occupation. The benefits to war for the general populace cannot be overstate
😛greater wellness and strength, increased experience, elevated market action and, most importantly, active engagement; simply put, it is an engine for growth in the New World commensurate, or exceeding, any social program that can be introduced.
In contrast to some perspectives, in eRepublik, perpetual war is not imperialism, it is a growth policy. Therefore, the necessity of war in eRepublik cannot be argued by any nation seeking growth, especially the eUS. That being said, the greatest area for dispute is the decision-making regarding the target of war and the execution of that war. For those matters, I think it is critical that you, as the voters required to make a decision come March 5th, are clear regarding my position on the questions that must be asked, and answered, prior to waging war.
1) Are we in it to win it?
For too long, the general philosophy of the eUS entry into war has revolved around war for war’s sake as a growth engine; but I believe that if the resources of the eUS taxpayer are going to be invested in waging war then the return should be victory. Regardless of the decision as to the disposition of the conquered region following the completion of the conflict - no war should be waged on the basis of planned defeat. The eUS deserves better, we are the strongest nation in the eWorld, with the most organized military and the greatest strategic minds, and if defeat comes it will not be because we were willing to settle for less.
2) Is the benefit tradeoff worth it?
A great example of this question remaining unanswered was in the Battle of the Azores, I too fought in that battle and was awestruck by the military strategy and execution of the battle by eUS forces. The decision to battle, however, failed the first question as the target was not selected for the likelihood of victory as much as the cost versus wellness benefit. This is a false choice in that the staggering investment to go to war yielded neither victory for the eUS taxpayer, nor a commensurate trade off in benefits. While the war cries rang and the battle commenced a critical point was overlooked, though the eUS benefitted in wellness and experience for its participation, each of the enemy nations of PEACE yielded exactly the same benefit relative to their participation in the battle, with only Russia abstaining. Thus the tradeoff was an 8 to 1 benefit to the nations of PEACE. Therefore, in determining a target, I will be making the decision to wage war on the foundation of achievable victory prior to cost versus benefit.
3) Can we afford victory?
While I will not be going into my perspective on taxation within this article, suffice it to say, that I plan to establish a budget in which, while not necessarily perpetual, frequent military action is proactively planned. There have been many solid steps forward in analyzing the cost of military action from great minds in the military, congress and savvy eRep economists and script runners … it is time to leverage that analysis into a fixed budget that will provide for the flexibility to wage war on our schedule and for our benefit as a nation, and our tax policy must be predicated on that goal. Congressional Reps may rage at each other in the determination of the appropriate tax rates, but I will not sacrifice frequent military action resulting in victory. If revenue does not meet the goal of amassing victories for the eUS taxpayers investment, then tax policy will need to adapt rather than our military goals.
4) How will our victory affect our reputation?
We are a nation that values our independence and the ability to flex our muscles diplomatically for the benefit of our allies. Our enemies cannot be allowed to act with impunity, knowing that the eUS, though strong, will allow it because the economic benefit is a higher priority to us than outright victory. The goal of any war we enter must be victory, so that the deterrence to aggression by our enemies is the knowledge that if they piss off the eUS, they will pay dearly in treasure and regions. We desire that aggressors fear being targeted for military action by the eUS, rather than welcoming the opportunity for increased wellness of their own. Further I hope to deploy the military overseas in training exercises from time to time to assist our allies like was done when I first joined the eUSA Army, thus sating the lust for war while saving on the massive gold costs of declaring war ourselves where we do not have a clear ability to achieve victory.
We are the strongest nation in eRepublik, with the best military, the most supportive citizens, and we will not settle for anything less than victory in our hearts and on the battlefields.
As your next president I will continue my work with our military and our Congress to establish a fixed budget for the purpose of making war on our schedule and at our discretion, for the sole purpose of victory.
Vote scrabman/PrincessMedyPi on March 5th, 2009
Oh ... and for those who missed it ... PrincessMedyPi of the UIP is my VP running mate