We are working on a brand new version of the game! If you want to stay informed, read our blog and register for our mailing list.
Bill: Nuclear Disarmament Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Progressive Conservative Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This is an ordinary bill. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: October 2085
Description[?]:
| Regarding our citizens shift into pacifism. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The policy with respect to nuclear weaponry.
Old value:: The nation reserves the right to develop, produce and store nuclear arms.
Current: The nation reserves the right to develop, produce and store nuclear arms.
Proposed: The nation shall never develop, produce or store nuclear weaponry.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 04:16:02, July 19, 2005 CET | From | Progressive Conservative Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | Our electorate is becoming more pacifist and frankly we agree that a nuclear holocaust must be averted. Can we not show our peacefull ways to the world? |
| Date | 04:28:03, July 19, 2005 CET | From | Hosengott Nationalists | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | excellent we must show that these horrible wepons should be completly gotten rid of and this era can remain in the past forever |
| Date | 05:39:49, July 19, 2005 CET | From | Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | We most certainly agree that a nuclear holocaust must be averted. We most certainly do not agree that this bill will make it so. As long as we maintain a nuclear deterrent, no nation will attack us, as the fear of retribution is too strong. Mutually Assured Destruction is a safe, stable way of ensuring that war does not break out. An imbalanced armed situation, where we do not have nuclear weapons only places us at a disadvantage, and icnreases the risks of invasion. |
| Date | 07:38:00, July 19, 2005 CET | From |  Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | "Mutually Assured Destruction is a safe, stable way of ensuring that war does not break out. " Albeit very, very scary when a military power is threatening you. Our party has traditionally supported nuclear production, MAD and so forth but are willing to go with whichever side makes the most compelling arguments. |
| Date | 07:46:40, July 19, 2005 CET | From | Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | Yes, MAD is very scary when we are being threatened - but so is being threatened by a nuclear power when we have no capacity to retaliate or resist their missiles. The only way of assuring our security in that event is to have our own nuclear deterrent. |
| Date | 16:51:35, July 19, 2005 CET | From | Hosengott Nationalists | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | Are we so disfavoured amongst the world that no one else would see the crimes of a nuclear power smiting the living shyte out a a non nuclear power and help our just cause nuclear weponary is a crime agianst the planet as long as we can show that we can see that we really shouldent be alone in the battle agianst these monstrosites(OOC: Me are of teh good spelling =D) |
| Date | 18:51:11, July 19, 2005 CET | From | National Party of Baltusia | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | Nuclear weapons will never, ever, be proportional to the threat. Not even if nuclear bombs are used should we retaliate in such a way, and I hope other democratic countries feel this way also. |
| Date | 23:18:23, July 19, 2005 CET | From | Progressive Conservative Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | If ANY country used nuclear weapons it would precipitate an enormous backlash regardless of the assaulted country's nuclear capacity. Retaliation on the part of the assaulted country is suicide for both parties, notwithstanding the fact that our allies and enemies would use the situation to advance themselves which could in turn precipitate global nuclear conflict- the end of our race. (MAD) Also what if a rogue nation/ group purchased nuclear arms and used them either covertly or in such a way to implicate another country? Our lack of NW's would show our peaceful intents and we would become an trusted neutral nation protected by other nations. |
| Date | 23:59:53, July 19, 2005 CET | From | Progressive Conservative Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | Also:the nation to use NW's would be vilified for a VERY long amount of time (if there are people alive after). |
| Date | 00:59:32, July 22, 2005 CET | From | Hosengott Nationalists | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | Since the DS seems to have shut up i think we should move this on to vote |
| Date | 05:25:48, July 22, 2005 CET | From | Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | Lack of NWs doesn't "show peaceful intent" to hostile nations, it shows an easy target. Our intents are irrelevant; whilst there remain anybody hostile, we must be able to defend ourselves. The treaty suggested some years ago, where all nations would agree that if all nations passed the treaty, they would disarm, would be an excellent suggestion - this is foolish. |
| Date | 05:27:28, July 22, 2005 CET | From | Progressive Conservative Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | Hosengott Nationalists: This party will not tolerate any inflammatory statements from any source. On your behalf (as this is a PSP bill) we apologize to the Democratic Socialists. |
| Date | 07:28:57, July 22, 2005 CET | From | Hosengott Nationalists | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | Your willing to use fear to govern the actions of other nations yet you wont let it govern that of your own. Are because these people " not within the imaginary lines" we seem to draw mean they do not deserve the same respect you would treat your own citizens with. Can we oppress others into this fear with no regret yet give gaping shock and awe if we use the same fear on our own people. I dont like your hippie crap and since someone has been trying to censor mien wordings I will allow myself all the vulgarity i choose to spew fourth(OOC: I also blieve Conservative is spelt with a C not a S your PCP no matter if u like it or not ^.^ ah drugs) Your no hate speech seem to have no way here so i will resume hating everyone. |
| Date | 08:24:07, July 22, 2005 CET | From | Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | We thank the Progressive Conservatives for their statement, and are pleased that even when we disagree on policy, we remain civil, and debate the issues, instead of descending to insults. In 2039, the Democratic Socialists proposed nuclear disarmament, which was rejected by the Parliament of the time. Since then, new party officials have come to hold different views than those of former President Rootian, who was adamantly opposed to nuclear weapons. In an ideal world, we would agree; disarming our nuclear warheads would show peaceful intent, and encourage our neighbours to disarm as well. Our world, however, is far from ideal. We feel that the strongest way to guarantee our country's safety is to assue any invaders that their hostility towards us will be the destruction of their own home. If they know that that will be the case, they would never invade. In order to ensure this with conventional forces, we would need to maintain a massive and expensive army, which would serve under almost all circumstances only to drain the treasury. A much smaller number of nuclear warheads could promise the same result, but be much cheaper, and free the potential soldiers to work in the economy instead, providing us with the double benefit of a cheaper military and a greater workforce. We advocate holding nuclear weapons, in order to ensure that we need never use them. |
| Date | 10:28:06, July 22, 2005 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | Having reviewed the arguments so far, my party is leaning toward the affirmative (mostly because of Hosengotts surprisingly good argument). HOWEVER, we may still vote against if one condition is met (which we think is a compromise): A resolution is passed stating that nuclear weapons will never be constructed in a time of peace, ie they may only be manufactured when we are at war. This means we reserve the right to manufacture nukes but do not unless absolutely necessary, such as a war. We would further suggest that the facility used for making the weapons is impervious to conventional or nuclear attack. This means an unprovoked/pre-emptive attack will not disable our nuclear capabilities and the threat of MAD hangs in the air but clearly shows we cannot instigate it and that we are peaceable. How's that for a plan? |
| Date | 21:48:20, July 22, 2005 CET | From | Hosengott Nationalists | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | I would like to bring up something someone said in an earlyer dicussion most likely agianstt he death penalty. It was something about an eye for an eye being wrong. See "We feel that the strongest way to guarantee our country's safety is to assue any invaders that their hostility towards us will be the destruction of their own home." Im pretty sure thats another form of saying an eye for an eye a policy that the majority of seats in this country has shown time and time before that they will not do. So are we really willing to demonise the people of other nations and murder countless amounts of innocents just because they did it to us if your going by this logic i see no reason why you should be in disgareement with me about execution. Since after all the majority of the people you will kill with these wepons will be civilians. Also more people being in the army gives them a lot of training that can be put to use even after they have left service and fighting a war with soldiers instead of bombs gives us more controll over what is nessesary to destroy and what is unessesary so we can keep civilian casualties to a much smaller number then what bombing them would do. |
| Date | 21:49:10, July 22, 2005 CET | From | Hosengott Nationalists | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | And you havent shown before that you are agianst spending money to save innocent lives should that be started now? |
| Date | 21:53:50, July 22, 2005 CET | From | Hosengott Nationalists | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | Expanding the military also means less unemployment and ya we like to see everyone at work hobos are messy. |
| Date | 00:54:20, July 23, 2005 CET | From | Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | Try reading our statements - "We advocate holding nuclear weapons, in order to ensure that we need never use them." We don't want anybody to die unnecessarily - we don't want to deploy these weapons, we want to hold them. Unlike your party, we do not support murder. We are simply baffled by your claim that we have opposed spending money to save lives, given our support for untied aid, unlimited refugees, and safe foods. |
| Date | 02:13:44, July 23, 2005 CET | From | Hosengott Nationalists | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | Nuclear wepons will cost more lives then those will ever save. We do not support murder we suppot retribution you people and your hunting acts support murder killing for pleasure is never on our agenda however you and well everyone else except our party has shown they are not agianst it. Also really wiegh the pros and cons of nukes vs larger army you seem to have only shown one singular pro to having these nuclear wepons while as i have stated earlyer there are many pros to the army employing the populus and training them at the same time vs if they nuke us we will nuke them back alsomass death of innocents vs a war fought between those willing to fight for the country i see no reason to keep these containers of genocide. |
| Date | 03:39:20, July 23, 2005 CET | From | Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | There seems little point in 'debate' if we are to continue having two disconnected monologues. You assume that holding nuclear weapons automatically leads to death. One last time: If nuclear weapons are not used then they cost no lives. If they are held, then they can be used. As long as they can be used, the potential for retribution makes any idea of invasion too risky, thereby ensuring our security. As long as our security is assured, we need never deploy these weapons. Therefore, nobody dies. If, on the other hand, we control only conventional weapons, then there are two contingencies under which we could be attacked: 1) Nations which, for some reason, came to despise us could deploy their weapons on us knowing that we could not possibly retaliate. 2) Nations with comparable or superior conventional forces could invade, leading to a high death toll among both armies and any civilians in the areas of fighting. Either way, holding nuclear weapons in order that we need never use them leads to a lower death toll. MAD, despite its acronym, is a safe, sane course of action. On a side note, could you please use punctuation, if only to separate the multitude of concepts which currently run into every sentence? |
| Date | 04:20:11, July 23, 2005 CET | From | Hosengott Nationalists | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | In response to your last point never Fighting with conventional wepons can give us time to escort civilians away from the battlefront and if the enemy chooses to not let us do so their war crimes can be made apparent to the world. Also about your security assurance yes we will be able to return fire however itll only help kill everyone i would rather we lose a manned war and only have our fighters taken from us then have everyone taken from us. If someone however decides to nuke us we have already gone over how the world would react to such an action however the retribution from the world would be a much saner action then sencelessly killing thousands for the sake of they senclessly killed thousands. OOC: If you can believe that creating a area of mass death and horrible ecological drawbacks is right you may want to join the americans >.> I will stay up here hoping those idiots dont decide to provoke someone who nukes em back near our border. |
| Date | 08:26:00, July 23, 2005 CET | From | Democratic Socialists | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | You wish to rely on their hypothetical reaction to world condemnation. We wish to ensure Baltusian security. That then is the primary difference between our position and that of the HN. |
| Date | 10:00:55, July 23, 2005 CET | From | Populist Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | OOC: Not all Americans are that way thank you very much!!! I think the government are friggen warhawks, but thats a total different issue. Just saying please dont make broad generalizations about Americans just because half the voters voted for our stupid president... |
| Date | 14:04:14, July 23, 2005 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | OOC: And half the voters arent necessarily half the nation. |
| Date | 22:46:11, July 23, 2005 CET | From | Progressive Conservative Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | OOC: well I can see that this has developed into an all out slugfest when I was gone... LLP: would you like the proposed resolution added to this bill? If so please draft it and send it to PCP message centre for introduction. Also just because we will not be developing, purchasing or storingnuclear weaponry does not mean we will lose our nuclear capability. In times of war we could revoke this act. IN ADDITION, we could draft a proposal for a War Measures Act in which would be described those laws to be changed in a time of war/insurrection/terrorism. Please also note that just becasue we are not storing/ developing nuclear capabilities per se we COULD keep all the parts needed seperated for the emergency construction of the weapons. Democratic Socialists: In respose to your arguements of 03:39:20, July 23 1. I do assume that as we are a fairly peacefull country we will not be without allied countries that posses nuclear capabilities. 2. The above arguements apply to pt2. Also I would also point out that if we WERE invaded, nuclear weapons will not be a detterent as they will have already calculated and accepted the risk of annihilation. I would gladly sacrifice every man woman and child in our country to prevent a global nuclear conflict. Response to 08:26:00, July 23: Also as nuclear weapons inflict horredeous damage on civilian populations, as these are the easiest target (unlike a mobile military comand centre or a nuclear fortified base), any country willing to perform such an atrocity will indeed be censured. |
| Date | 00:07:10, July 24, 2005 CET | From | Hosengott Nationalists | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | Our "hypothetical reaction" is based upon the fact that if someone is willing to nuke an easy target other nations may see this as a threat to their own security and the security of the world and react to stop further nuclear actions done by the attacker. OOC: Also information that will confirm this is part of human nature for your own readings it may be good to look at something you MAY already know about called World War 2. Also OOC: The Americans are doing bad things to my country i feel i have the ability to run my mouth about them. |
| Date | 05:22:59, July 24, 2005 CET | From | Txurruka/Aperribai/Mayoz's OPX | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | The problem with banning weapons and then repealling it is that we have to wait 8 months for it to be repealled. We could all be dead by then. Which brings us back to my proposal (OOC: Which, when Im not glued to my PS2, I will draft and send to you, PCP. Are you willing to delete the legislation change if the resolution goes up?). If we did need nukes, we can have them almost immediately but it will be illegal to produce and maintain them during peace. Reserving the right to construct nukes is not necessarily utilising that right. |
| Date | 05:40:03, July 24, 2005 CET | From | Hosengott Nationalists | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | Im still pro never useing nukes ever because of the massive unessesary death that will happen. |
| Date | 10:09:38, July 24, 2005 CET | From | Populist Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | OOC: Well that's fine, but not all of us are bad. I hate what we're doing EVERYWHERE. I really wish wed focus on our own issues before acting like the world police or somthing like that. Just please don't pre-judge me simply on the basis that I am an American, that just isn't fair to me personally. |
| Date | 19:27:16, July 24, 2005 CET | From | Hosengott Nationalists | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | OOC: No i know that i know a lot of Americans o.O O.o however you really should have noticed that i like running mien mouth a lot >.> <.< Its just what i do. |
| Date | 22:51:26, July 24, 2005 CET | From | Progressive Conservative Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | Maybe we could get a request into Wouter to allow a change in nuclear policy that would allow limited retention of current nuclear stockpiles while forbiding furthur construction/research. Meanwhile I am going to run this bill through to gague support. |
| Date | 07:31:16, July 25, 2005 CET | From | Family First Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | Without a 'get out' clause as proposed by the Liberal Libertarian Party, we are very weary about supporting this. With such a clause, it is almost certain that the party would agree. So no for now. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 209 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 187 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 24 |
| Random fact: In order for a Cabinet bill to pass, more than half of the legislature must vote for it and all of the parties included in the proposed Cabinet must support it. If your nation has a Head of State who is also the Head of Government, then the party controlling this character must also vote for the bill, since the Head of Government is also a member of the Cabinet. If any of these requirements are not met, the bill will not pass. |
| Random quote: "More Medicament Manufacture take the profits, workers take the factory" - Boros Norbert, former Endralonian businessman |