main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

ST Do the films portray the New Republic negatively?

Discussion in 'Sequel Trilogy' started by Mandalore the Ascendent, Feb 21, 2018.

  1. Shadao

    Shadao Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 31, 2017
    Considering that the Jedi were essentially all but exterminated, you would think that the New Republic would realize they can no longer depend on the previous peacekeepers of a thousand generations anymore, which would lead to greater incentives of keeping a larger army in the event of an attack like the First Order.
     
  2. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    They did have a larger army though.
     
  3. ImpreciseStormtrooper

    ImpreciseStormtrooper Jedi Master star 3

    Registered:
    Jan 8, 2016
    Do you mean the NR had a larger army?

    According to the Military Disarmament Act (thanks to wookieepedia) Mon mothma reduced the size of the centralized military by "ninety percent".

    To put that into perspective it would be the equivalent of the United States reducing it's armed forces to a size not dissimilar to Australia's.



    .
     
  4. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    So, yes, larger than the OR army.
     
  5. ImpreciseStormtrooper

    ImpreciseStormtrooper Jedi Master star 3

    Registered:
    Jan 8, 2016
    Indeed. And as I mentioned two posts back, that OR army didn't make sense either.

    But even if we accept that, the OR left itself open to destruction. Its army was actually built in secret by the Sith.

    So back to this thread topic, the NR learned nothing doubled down and billions died. Not a good light.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2018
    -LordSkywalker- likes this.
  6. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Except if you don't have any military adversaries of significant size, it would makes sense for the US to only have a military the size of Australia's.

    Also note I was replying to @Shadao's point.
     
    Martoto77 likes this.
  7. ImpreciseStormtrooper

    ImpreciseStormtrooper Jedi Master star 3

    Registered:
    Jan 8, 2016
    Fair enough. You quoted me. So I asked a question to clarify then you quoted me again.

    As to making sense, the Disarmament Act was supposed to be two powers disarming: the NR and the Imperial remnants (from which the FO drew its resources). So even that internal logic is faulty if no measures were taken to monitor the FO's growth.

    But that's just the internal logic. The actual logic is even more nonsensical. Militaries are never supposed to counter just clesr and present dangers. They are insurance against potential enemies and actual enemies alike.

    Australia cannot unilaterally fight a World War. So without a powerful defender it would need to boost its military or develop nukes. The U.S. would also not disarm unless a force was there to protect it.

    If that force was the U.N. (or NR in this debate) then that entity would need a military.

    It makes no sense for the NR to disarm. Never will. No matter how many times the defeat of the Galactic Empire is raised as proof a military was no longer needed.

    Earth History is littered with world powers who took their eyes off the road and were militarily crushed by unrecognised threats they weren't military positioned to counter.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2018
    Shadao and -LordSkywalker- like this.
  8. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    The Imperial Remnants were all dissolved and the First Order is a recent state to have risen. The tabs they did keep were suggesting the FO was a ill-equipped outfit.

    Firstly the NR do have a military - it's just highly decentralised and the centralised forces are not very significant.

    Secondly, I'm not saying they made the correct decision, but if there were no threats to the state it's natural for them to not want a large military for 'what-if' scenarios, especially in a democracy. It makes sense for people who are 'in the moment' rather than looking back and knowing the Starkiller is going to attack.
     
    Martoto77 likes this.
  9. Martoto77

    Martoto77 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2016
    I think the new republic should have gotten together to agree to build and maintain a large, proactive military to keep the FO continually engaged or to gradually subdue them entirely. And if they couldn't agree to that, someone should have made them agree. Or just made them do it.:emperor:
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2018
    rorow1 likes this.
  10. Talos of Atmora

    Talos of Atmora Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Jul 3, 2016
    That's pretty much how they should have handled it.
     
  11. Martoto77

    Martoto77 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2016
    What if all the constituent members couldn't agree to being, in effect, the "good" Empire?
     
    DarthPhilosopher likes this.
  12. Oissan

    Oissan Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Mar 9, 2001
    The idea that the new Republic should have kept a large military around even though there was nothing known that could have challenged it, is weird to say the least. Reducing the armies to a small percentage of its war-size is exactly what happens after every single war. No country in history ever could afford to just keep a large military around. The people didn't like it, and the country couldn't afford it. Army sizes during war are inflated beyond what any nation could afford, and it is only because everything is set up entirely to cater to war-needs, that such a thing is even possible.

    Just as an example, the US Army - including all branches - and its size before, during and after its biggest wars:

    Civil War: 25-30k men pre war, 217k in 1861, 675k in 1862, ~1m men in 1863, 64 and 65, around 75k in 66/67 post war, down to 50 and then 40k in the following years

    1898 war against Spain: ~40k pre war, 235k in 1898, down to 100k in 1899

    WW1: ~150k pre war, 160/170k during neutral years of war, 643k men in 1917, 2.9m in 1918, 1.2m in 1919 post war, dropping to 343k in 1920, 250k from early 20s to mid 30s

    WW2: increase to 300k range during pre-war build-up, 460k in 1940, 1.8m in 1941, 3.86m in 1942, ~9m in 1943, ~11.5m in 1944, ~12m in 1945, dropping to 3m men in 1946 and 1.5m the year after.

    Then there is the cold war build-up during the 50s, with 2 or 3m troops up until around 1970, before the number first dropped to 2m and then to just 1.5m by the mid 90s.

    A disarmament that drastically lowers the number of troops is the norm every singel time a war has ended. Seeing how there was no one left but a shattered enemy, there was no need to keep a large army of the Republic in the ST-era. The Republic couldn't possibly have been clairvoyant and known about a secret re-armament of a group in a place that is unknown to the galaxy as a whole. The whole thing is in fact mirroring the setup of WW2, which has been explained a number of times by now.

    It seems like some people ignore logic and historic precedent just for the sake of being against something.
     
    DarthPhilosopher and Martoto77 like this.
  13. Gharlane

    Gharlane Jedi Grand Master star 3

    Registered:
    Dec 30, 2000
    That is why you have an executive authority such as the Supreme Chancellor or the leadership within the military such as the chief of staff that would enact policy . You seem to be under the mistaken notion that military authority can only be derived from a sovereign democratic body and that civilian rule is a default assumption irl that is often not the case and a weak civilian leadership can give raise to a strong military body especially if you have a cadre of battle hardened veterans that have went through war together and have toppled the pre-existing political system..

    "Large" is only relative to the size of your overall population. The Republic encompassed more than a thousand worlds with some worlds with populations in trillions. The idea they would scrap the pre-existing military they inherited from the Alliance because of cost issues is nonsensical and only occurs because the story necessitated resorting to cliches about a weak moribund peace loving liberal democracy to sell the threat of the First Order and to put the Resistance into the corner as the only defenders of the New Republic. Of course the political failure of the NR and the Old Republic kind of makes the Resistance to be fools especially since they are out there to restore a broke system.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018
  14. Martoto77

    Martoto77 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2016
    Policy that first has to be agreed on in a democracy. If policy cannot be agreed on then it must be dictated before it can be enacted.

    In order to implement then preserve the policy that was ostensibly meant to protect the Old Republic, its constituents gave up the right to influence policy that defined it as a democracy and a republic. Thereby becoming an Imperialist dictatorship controlled first by the Supreme Chancellor and then by the military leadership that was created to be loyal to him personally.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018
  15. Gharlane

    Gharlane Jedi Grand Master star 3

    Registered:
    Dec 30, 2000
    That is not true. Policy can originate outside the democratic framework. A military can create policy even in governments with representative democracies. So can the executive or any bureaucracy within the government. The power to create and enact policy doesn't originate from a sovereign democratic body. What you are likely thinking of is legislation that is created by a sovereign law making body. But even that can be overridden or bypassed or broken by other political players and political stakeholders within the institutions and framework of government.
     
  16. Talos of Atmora

    Talos of Atmora Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Jul 3, 2016
    Seeing as how the New Republic are the ones fighting an organization that is responsible for countless war crimes, they sit rather comfortably in the right. You don't give an organization like the Empire a chance to regroup and transform into something far worse and less manageable.
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2018
  17. Martoto77

    Martoto77 Jedi Master star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2016
    The financial support for a military complex like the one we're taking about has to be voted for in a democracy because it comes from taxes.

    Also. If a peace settlement and the constitution of a new democracy that is the objective of that settlement is dependent on disarmament and non-proliferation, then the constitution might also need to be changed, by a vote, in order to legitimise those kinds of policies.
     
  18. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    They, again, don't have any significant threat to defend against. We know from the Old Republic that a peaceful galaxy can be maintained with no military, therefore the New Republic having a small military seems to be in order. To suggest it's nonsensical because the Republic turned out to be wrong in their geopolitical bet is wanting everyone in the story to have hindsight before events happen.
     
    Oissan and Martoto77 like this.
  19. MoffJacob

    MoffJacob Jedi Knight star 2

    Registered:
    Dec 25, 2015
    More like far left pacifist and anti-militaristic
    dangerous always, but specially after a war...
     
  20. MoffJacob

    MoffJacob Jedi Knight star 2

    Registered:
    Dec 25, 2015
    Looking forward to watch the establishment of the...New New Republic (?) by Ep IX's end...
     
  21. Sigismund

    Sigismund Jedi Padawan star 1

    Registered:
    Jan 16, 2018
    hutts, various imperial groups that stayed around, the systems that didn't rejoin the republic and ultimately the unknown regions, mostly unexplored with unknown threats in them

    you reduce the military if you are surrounded by allies, not when ~1/5th of the map is literally "here be dragons"
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2018
  22. Oissan

    Oissan Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Mar 9, 2001
    None of which were any threat to the Republic at all. These things already existed in the old Republic, which didn't have an army at all. You are ignoring that the new Republic actually had a fleet, and that it got destoryed by a super-weapon.

    The they didn't know what was in the unknown regions is hardly a reason to keep a huge military. They never knew what was there in the past either, and it didn't matter one bit.

    Beyond that, the idea that you "only reduce the military if you are surrounded by allies" is not true at all. As a matter of fact, I listed actual numbers above. The USA reduced its military after every single war, even wars fought with its neighbours (be it Mexico or the UK through Canadian territory). It also never came close to the troop sizes carried during WW2, even when the Cold War was as hot as it got. If the USA could reduce its number of troops multiple times even though there were enemies around (e.g. the UK early on, or the Soviet Union during the Cold War), then there is zero reason to state that there is something wrong with what the Republic has done in the ST.

    Simply put - and as mentioned multipled times already - no one can afford to keep on a huge military once a war is over. There is always a drastic reduction. Arguing against this is like saying that actual history has never happened.
     
    Iron_lord and Martoto77 like this.
  23. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    They were surrounded by allies.
     
  24. ImpreciseStormtrooper

    ImpreciseStormtrooper Jedi Master star 3

    Registered:
    Jan 8, 2016
    This thread is amusing.

    No victorious military power has ever reduced its military by 90% during an armistace period and while still on a proxy war footing. This is what the NR did.

    The US reduced its %of GDP spend from 41% at the height of WW2 down to about 10% over a period of 30 years. 30. Years.

    Sure they reduced ground forces (the cheapest units). But they boosted investment in Nuclear Weapons, special forces, weapons development, fighter jets, its navy and equipment and space technology.

    Since then the USA has spent on average 3-4% of GDP every year for 50 straight years while maintaining one of the largest armies on the planet and maintaining an overwhelming force projection for the best part of 80 years since WW2.

    The NR is not equivalent.

    We're not debating about a wind down of the military to a peace footing here. The NR disarmed. It actually disarmed almost completely.

    Comparing the US military to what the NR did as a supporting argument for the NR's decision is a joke.
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2018
    QuangoFett and Gharlane like this.
  25. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    That's because it wasn't during a proxy war or armistice period. It's the equivalent of all the world being allies and a nation with the apparent industrial capacity of Lithuania emerging as the sole enemy nation.