Confirmation hearing: Emsworth for SecDef

[Peter]

President Alcon has nominated Emsworth for Secretary of Defense for the event that John F. Kennedy vacates the post.

I call this confirmation hearing to order.

We will have 24 hours of questions to the nominee, followed by the vote.

[Colin]

Emsworth, do you have any experience with the military or with military/war operations? How would you rate your knowledge on the military?

[Emsworth]

Emsworth, do you have any experience with the military or with military/war operations? How would you rate your knowledge on the military?

Although I do not have any personal experience in the military, I feel that I have reasonable knowledge about the military. I am not extremely familiar with military tactics; however, I think that military strategy would be my forte.

[The Duke]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=profile;u=539;sa=showPosts;start=330

In case anyone cares.

[Peter]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=profile;u=539;sa=showPosts;start=330

In case anyone cares.

If that matters, then JFK should not have been SecDef either.

[The Duke]

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?action=profile;u=539;sa=showPosts;start=330

In case anyone cares.

If that matters, then JFK should not have been SecDef either.

Why is it problematic to put a link to someone's posts?

[Sam Spade]

What is your knowledge of the Atlasian military?

What will be your policy with regards to cuts or additions in military funding, if need be?

Why do you want the job?

[Emsworth]

What is your knowledge of the Atlasian military?

I believe that there are 14 Army Divisions and 6 Marine Divisions. There is also an Army reserve of more than 1 million soldiers. Furthermore, the Navy possesses over 300 warships, and the Air Force 2000 aircraft. Certain forces have been raised at the state or regional levels as well.

The Department of Defense is currently spending $4.5 billion on developing a naval version of the F-35 and on the naval version of the F-22. Furthermore, $1 billion is being spent annually on missile defense.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As a result of bills passed by the Fifth Senate, the Atlasian military has increased by two divisions. Thus, it is, at present, not overstretched. Therefore, I will not recommend the creation of any additional divisions at this time. However, I will not suggest any cuts, either, as the forces were definitely overstretched prior to the creation of these divisions. If, however, a civil war occurs, a rise in the military budget will become necessary.

I do think that the Defense Department needs to rearrange its priorities. Currently, the missile defense budget is less than one-fourth of the budget on aircraft development. I favor a reduction in the aircraft development budget, with the money saved being diverted to missile defense, which, I feel, should be a far greater priority.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course, I would like to be of service to the People of Atlasia. On a personal level, however, I would like this job because of my interest in wars and military history.

[12th Doctor]

What, exactly, will be your policy regarding the Navy of Atlasia.  If a Senator were to, say, propose a bill to increase the carrier fleet by one or two ships within the next 6 years (6 months Atlasia time), would you support such a measure?

[Emsworth]

What, exactly, will be your policy regarding the Navy of Atlasia.  If a Senator were to, say, propose a bill to increase the carrier fleet by one or two ships within the next 6 years (6 months Atlasia time), would you support such a measure?

Currently, as you may know, Atlasia has 12 aircraft carriers, and at least one more is under construction. Only eight other countries own active aircraft carriers: the UK (3), India (2), Brazil (1), France (1), Italy (1), Russia (1), Spain (1), and Thailand (1). Thus, at present, Atlasia controls a majority of aircraft carriers in the world. Consequently, I do not believe that a large expansion of the carrier fleet would be necessary, in and of itself.

However, Kitty Hawk is set to be retired in two years. Furthermore, John F. Kennedy is a very old aircraft carrier. As I mentioned earlier, one aircraft carrier is currently under construction; I would support the construction of one further carrier, so that both carriers aforementioned could be replaced. Obviously, of course, budgetary considerations would need to be taken into account before the Administration could back such a proposal.

In general, the Atlasian Navy is the largest and most powerful in the world. Therefore, I do not see a need for a general expansion the Navy, although some increases are necessary in the number of submarines.

[12th Doctor]

Will it always be your policy to compare our forces to those of other nations, or will you acctually seek to obtain maximum effectivness and readiness for our own nation?

[Emsworth]

Will it always be your policy to compare our forces to those of other nations, or will you acctually seek to obtain maximum effectivness and readiness for our own nation?

I will not make my decisions solely on the basis of comparisons. However, the military of Atlasia does not exist in a vacuum. I judge effectiveness not by the mere number of troops or ships, but by how well the military would do in actual combat. If there is no other nation that could match the military, there is simply no need for a great expansion in the military budget. At present, there is no other navy in the world that rivals that of Atlasia. Therefore, I see no need to conduct a significant expansion of naval forces.

If my previous answer suggested that I would make decisions on the basis of numerical comparisons, then I do certainly apologize, as I had no intention whatsoever of conveying such an impression.

[12th Doctor]

Will it always be your policy to compare our forces to those of other nations, or will you acctually seek to obtain maximum effectivness and readiness for our own nation?

I will not make my decisions solely on the basis of comparisons. However, the military of Atlasia does not exist in a vacuum. I judge effectiveness not by the mere number of troops or ships, but by how well the military would do in actual combat. If there is no other nation that could match the military, there is simply no need for a great expansion in the military budget. At present, there is no other navy in the world that rivals that of Atlasia. Therefore, I see no need to conduct a significant expansion of naval forces.

If my previous answer suggested that I would make decisions on the basis of numerical comparisons, then I do certainly apologize, as I had no intention whatsoever of conveying such an impression.

Tell me, Mr. Emsworth, do you believe that Atlasia will be, in the coming years, commited to more small and medium scale military operations, as part of the War on Terror?

[Emsworth]

Tell me, Mr. Emsworth, do you believe that Atlasia will be, in the coming years, commited to more small and medium scale military operations, as part of the War on Terror?

As long as Atlasia remains in Iraq and Afghanistan, it will have to conduct military operations in those countries. We will of course attempt to train and equip local troops; however, it would be unrealistic if I were to expect that the Atlasian military's involvement would suddenly come to an end.  Therefore, I would respond in the affirmative: we will be committed to more small and medium scale operations.

I suspect that large-scale involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan will be coming to a close. I cannot claim to know if Atlasia will invade or conduct military operations in other countries, such as Iran or Syria. It would not be my place to comment on the likelihood of such events; any new wars would require not only the approval of the President, but also the agreement of the Senate. However, the Army does presently have 14 divisions, and is not overstretched. Therefore, if any large-scale operations were to become necessary, the army would be able to cope.

[12th Doctor]

Tell me, Mr. Emsworth, do you believe that Atlasia will be, in the coming years, commited to more small and medium scale military operations, as part of the War on Terror?

As long as Atlasia remains in Iraq and Afghanistan, it will have to conduct military operations in those countries. We will of course attempt to train and equip local troops; however, it would be unrealistic if I were to expect that the Atlasian military's involvement would suddenly come to an end.  Therefore, I would respond in the affirmative: we will be committed to more small and medium scale operations.

I suspect that large-scale involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan will be coming to a close. I cannot claim to know if Atlasia will invade or conduct military operations in other countries, such as Iran or Syria. It would not be my place to comment on the likelihood of such events; any new wars would require not only the approval of the President, but also the agreement of the Senate. However, the Army does presently have 14 divisions, and is not overstretched. Therefore, if any large-scale operations were to become necessary, the army would be able to cope.

Perhaps I need to restate the question.

Do you see it as possible, in the near future, that Atlasia will be involved in military operation where there does not exist readily based combat air support?

[Emsworth]

Do you see it as possible, in the near future, that Atlasia will be involved in military operation where there does not exist readily based combat air support?

Although possible, the event is not probable. It would appear that several sponsors of terrorism are in the Middle East. Although I do not wish to generalize, it is highly likely that an anti-terrorism war would involve a nation such as Iran or Syria. Outside the Middle East, North Korea and Sudan seem to be the only other plausible possible targets. I am confident that the current twleve carriers, as well as the one under construction, will be able to handle these two regions, as well as others.

[MAS117]

Would the nominee care to discuss his take on Diplomatic Mission Bill and the Nuclear Restriction Act?

[Emsworth]

Would the nominee care to discuss his take on Diplomatic Mission Bill and the Nuclear Restriction Act?

With pleasure. I absolutely favor the Nuclear Restriction Bill's prohibition on the sale of nuclear weapons or technology to nations that are not Atlasia's allies. The bill did originally prohibit such sales to friendly nations as well, but there has been an amendment to correct this problem. Therefore, I support the bill, although I think that it can be improved by providing rough guidelines for the Secretary of State to use in imposing military restrictions.

It is probably not my place to comment on the Diplomatic Mission Bill, but, I can say in an unofficial capacity that I am rather hesitant. Under the present system, Atlasia simulates the real United States and American foreign relations. Diplomatic relations with other micronations would put a different complexion on the underlying basis of the game. I have an open mind about the issue; however, I am not yet completely convinced that such a change is warranted.

[12th Doctor]

Do you see it as possible, in the near future, that Atlasia will be involved in military operation where there does not exist readily based combat air support?

Although possible, the event is not probable. It would appear that several sponsors of terrorism are in the Middle East. Although I do not wish to generalize, it is highly likely that an anti-terrorism war would involve a nation such as Iran or Syria. Outside the Middle East, North Korea and Sudan seem to be the only other plausible possible targets. I am confident that the current twleve carriers, as well as the one under construction, will be able to handle these two regions, as well as others.

I see.  The reason that I ask, sir, is that it has become a fact in todays world that the primary job of our aircraft carriers is to act as easily deployable and ready air support for our groud forces.  As Atlasia is more liekly to commit to such opperations than are other nations, I find that you comparision to other navies is not apt at all, and shows a fundamental lack of understanding for the nature of sea power.

As I see Atlasia being more involved in such operations in the future, I find that a significant increase in our carrier fleet and perhaps attemps to branch out into different styles of carriers are more than warrented.  As you might know, I have a key interest in this area, not only because I am concerned with such things, but also because my district contains, not only the Norfolk Naval Ship Yards, but also the Atlasian Naval Academy.

I would encourage you to take another look at this problem, as most military experts would recomend an increase in the carrier fleet, as the status quo might not be enough to maintain effective opperations throughout the world.

[Emsworth]

I would encourage you to take another look at this problem, as most military experts would recomend an increase in the carrier fleet, as the status quo might not be enough to maintain effective opperations throughout the world.

I will certainly implement your suggestion.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the Senator finds the comparison inappropriate, then I do apologize for my lack of expertise.

[Emsworth]

As I see Atlasia being more involved in such operations in the future...

To add to my previous post, I think that we have a slight difference of opinion here. I believe that if Atlasia were to restrict itself to wars of self-defense, it appears unlikely that too many new operations would ensue.

Moreover, a proposed expansion in the carrier fleet would have to be balanced against budgetary concerns. As you of course know, we face a large deficit at this time. Budgetary concerns were among the reasons for which I did not indicate complete support for the proposal.

[12th Doctor]

To add to my previous post, I think that we have a slight difference of opinion here. I believe that if Atlasia were to restrict itself to wars of self-defense, it appears unlikely that too many new operations would ensue.

Am I to understand, therefore, that you are against humanitarian interventions?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unfortunatly, our problems could be fixed very easily, if the Senate were commited to a solution.

[Emsworth]

Am I to understand, therefore, that you are against humanitarian interventions?

Personally, I believe that the lives of soldiers should, in most cases, be risked only in the defense of Atlasia. In certain circumstances, humanitarian missions are justified. My definition of humanitarian causes, however, is not so broad as to encompass - for example - freeing individuals from dictatorships.

Moreover, I would note that I strongly support pursuing all reasonable diplomatic avenues before going to war.

[The Duke]

As I see Atlasia being more involved in such operations in the future...

To add to my previous post, I think that we have a slight difference of opinion here. I believe that if Atlasia were to restrict itself to wars of self-defense, it appears unlikely that too many new operations would ensue.

Moreover, a proposed expansion in the carrier fleet would have to be balanced against budgetary concerns. As you of course know, we face a large deficit at this time. Budgetary concerns were among the reasons for which I did not indicate complete support for the proposal.

With all due respect, the war in Afghanistan was heavily sustained by carriers operating in support of gorund forces.  Unless you believe this was not a war of self defense, you're basically going to have no choice but to accept Senator Supersoulty's characterization of our Navy's mission.

[Emsworth]

With all due respect, the war in Afghanistan was heavily sustained by carriers operating in support of gorund forces.

I never indicated anything to the contrary. I merely suggested that the budget deficit should be weighed against extending military spending.