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: Fight Fire with Fire
Details
Submitted by[?]: Tuesday Is Coming
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: April 2087
Description[?]:
| There are many nations that would resort to using chemical or biological methods of warfare. While we do not propose to do so, we reserve the right to answer such a threat with a detterrent equally as potent. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning biological and chemical weaponry.
Old value:: The nation shall never develop, purchase or store biological or chemical weaponry.
Current: The nation shall never develop, purchase or store biological or chemical weaponry.
Proposed: The nation reserves the right to develop, construct and store biological and chemical weapons.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 01:35:02, July 26, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Fight Fire with Fire |
| Message | We will need a lot of persuading on this one. We see that there is value in reserving the right to develop nuclear weaponry, but biological is just madness and chemical is inhuman in that they kill slowly and painfully, unlike a nuclear blast. |
| Date | 02:21:46, July 26, 2005 CET | From |  Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Fight Fire with Fire |
| Message | Right now, other nations that possess these weapons may use them against us. Without possessing them ourselves, we have no legitimate deterrent to stop them, short of nuclear, from using what may be a fatal advantage. |
| Date | 02:42:31, July 26, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Fight Fire with Fire |
| Message | Nuclear is sufficient deterrent. Biological is uncontrolable, and we would not use it. Chemical is against our particular ethics, so again we would not use it. The presence of nuclear would be a deterrent against any form of attack, so the development, storage etc of these weapons is not something we can aprove. Additionally, the risks of these getting into the wrong hands is far higher. Nuclear needs a complicated and difficult delivery system. These need aerosol sprays. |
| Date | 05:31:45, July 26, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Fight Fire with Fire |
| Message | absolutely opposed, but you knew that. |
| Date | 22:20:20, July 26, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Fight Fire with Fire |
| Message | "The presence of nuclear would be a deterrent against any form of attack, so the development, storage etc of these weapons is not something we can aprove" We no longer have any form of nuclear detterents. |
| Date | 02:03:18, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Fight Fire with Fire |
| Message | The removal of the option to develop nuclear weapons (just the option note) is short sighted and stupid. However as the majority have not supported their removal, we will re propose that we reserve that right after the next election. The absence does not mean that we will support this though. |
| Date | 09:44:59, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Fight Fire with Fire |
| Message | Would you prefer to: A) Be a disarmed country able to be bullied by rogue states and other nations that act as "protectors." B) Retain what you consider to be an abominable weapon for use as a last resort only, when ALL other diplomatic and military alternatives have failed? |
| Date | 16:42:54, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Fight Fire with Fire |
| Message | c) be a well-armed country that does not possess barbaric weapons of mass destruction |
| Date | 16:58:11, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Fight Fire with Fire |
| Message | We prefer to retain the right to a nuclear deterrent. We do not wish to be responsible for biological or chemical warfare in any way. The risks are too high, the value too low, and these weapons are too indiscriminate. Nuclear can be used against military targets (with devastating effect and some civilian casualties) whereas chemical and biological are only usable against civilian targets. We do not approve of this option. @ Green - well armed has to include some final option armament, or it is not well armed, it is only heavily armed. SO yes I support C, but this implies restoring the option to have a nuclear deterrent. |
| Date | 19:59:54, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Fight Fire with Fire |
| Message | Perhaps we could reach a permanent compromise allowing nuclears? "Nuclear can be used against military targets (with devastating effect and some civilian casualties) whereas chemical and biological are only usable against civilian targets." Chemical weapons have traditionally been used againt military targets. My preference would be chemical and nuclear weapons, (but no bio unless chem and nuclear were banned). As the two are together here, I assume that reserving the right to have biological and chemical weapons would give us the option to not develop one or the other or both. Keep in mind that the term "chemical weapons" is very broad and applies to lethal and non-lethal weapons, some for use against humans, and some for other uses. While many of these weapons, I would never like to use in war, some I would like to hold in reserve for special purposes. Right now, we cannot use any form of chemical weapons, we are prevented by a very broad and vague law. If I am selected minister of defence, for which I have been nominated, I pledge that all military aquisition of these substances will be according to the guidelines outlined above and elsewhere. General Julius Fel TuesdayIsComing Minister Of Defence candidate. |
| Date | 23:11:58, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Fight Fire with Fire |
| Message | ((should I add the nuclear RR option to this bill?)) |
| Date | 23:37:28, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Fight Fire with Fire |
| Message | nm. Now moving on and resolving this... |
| Date | 23:53:35, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Fight Fire with Fire |
| Message | In the absence of a nuclear option, we will support this, but only for chemical, and only very strictly controlled. |
| Date | 23:55:32, July 27, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Fight Fire with Fire |
| Message | We agree with that. Bio is very unpredictable, and hardly able to accomplish the detterrent(sp?) goal |
| Date | 00:20:45, July 28, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Fight Fire with Fire |
| Message | ((Look who popped in for a couple of votes.)) |
| Date | 01:24:56, July 28, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Fight Fire with Fire |
| Message | Good to see you. Try not to go the way of MLT, AC, SAP, etc. |
| Date | 08:53:09, July 28, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Fight Fire with Fire |
| Message | Thanks MLP, there's a reason I chose you to head defence... |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 227 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 195 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 28 |
| Random fact: Unless otherwise stated, monarchs and their royal houses will be presumed to be owned by the player who introduced the bill appointing them to their position. |
| Random quote: "This administration is not sympathetic to corporations; it is indentured to corporations." - Ralph Nader |