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: Military Reformations
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal Democratic 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: November 2391
Description[?]:
This bill would aim to end the nuclear and chemical productions Cildania currently implements to its Defense Division. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning biological and chemical weaponry.
Old value:: The nation shall never purchase, produce, or store biological or chemical weaponry, for military purposes. Research and development of the technology is permitted.
Current: The nation reserves the right to develop, construct and store biological and chemical weapons.
Proposed: The nation shall never develop, purchase or store biological or chemical weaponry.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning the use of chemical and biological weaponry in warfare.
Old value:: The nation shall never use chemical or biological weapons in warfare unless another nation uses them first.
Current: The nation shall never use chemical or biological weaponry in warfare.
Proposed: The nation shall never use chemical or biological weaponry in warfare.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning the use of nuclear weaponry in warfare.
Old value:: The nation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in warfare for any reason.
Current: The nation shall never use nuclear weapons in warfare.
Proposed: The nation shall never use nuclear weapons in warfare.
Article 4
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.
Article 5
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning the export of weapons to other nations.
Old value:: The government allows conventional arms to be exported freely.
Current: The government allows all arms to be exported freely.
Proposed: The government must approve all arms sales on a case by case basis.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 09:50:23, April 19, 2007 CET | From | Justice League of Cildania | To | Debating the Military Reformations |
Message | You propose to reform the military by hacking off its limbs? By needlessly sacrificing military men and women of Cildania that could have been prevented? This bill doesn't strike anyone else as monstrous? |
Date | 15:03:12, April 19, 2007 CET | From | Hebilon Mujahideen | To | Debating the Military Reformations |
Message | What happens if we come up against an enemy who doesnt have your morals? Are we supposed to just sit back and take it? Nuclear and chemical weapons are a sufficient detterent to make any nation think twice before declaring war on us, and good enough to stop them using theres against us for fear of retaliation. |
Date | 23:14:17, April 19, 2007 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party | To | Debating the Military Reformations |
Message | Nuclear weaponry, as well as biological and chemical weaponries, are the bane of existing warfare known to mankind. Fatalities are increased dramatically by these weapons of mass destruction and terror. It is not morals that guides our views against these weapons, it is common sense. If every nation thought as suggested by the two opposition parties, Terra would no longer exist as it is now. The world would be a radioactive miserly place to live, where virtually no life could exist. N/B/C weaponries have destruction and horrors beyond the military's control that not only cause excessive and unneeded massacre to opposing troops, but to civilian innocents and populouses as well. Warfare is gruesome, we will agree, but by letting it sink to a level even lower than it is can be defined as chaotic madness bent on nothing but murder. This is not needed for a successful defense program as Cildania has shown long before the opposition arrived. Military strategies can still be implemented with the utmost success without N/B/C weaponries and they currently are. To use these weapons is terrorism and mindless slaughter. Also, we are a neutral entity and have remained so for a great deal of time. We are well respected for our military's capability and excellence and it remains extremely unlikely that another nation would commit suicide by attacking Cildania. |
Date | 23:29:33, April 19, 2007 CET | From | Hebilon Mujahideen | To | Debating the Military Reformations |
Message | Why does it naturally follow that because we have these weapons we are going to use them? They are a detterent, and the threat to destroy an enemies city is far more effective than the threat of a well trained army. A well trained army will not deter an attacking nation with these weapons, because they know they have the upperhand- the knowledge that even if they lose on the battlefield, they can still attack our civillian populace before they call it a day. Arent they far less likely to do that if we have the capabilities to strike back? We should remain a neutral nation, who countries are afraid to attack. But wont they be more worried about attacking if we have these weapons? The bottom line is that these weapons, in the right hands, are not weapons of mass destruction but a detterent which stops wars and saves lives. |
Date | 00:18:57, April 20, 2007 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party | To | Debating the Military Reformations |
Message | The opposition seems to be forgetting that N/B/Cs aren't the only weapons capable of destroying a target. ICBMs are powerful weapons that are nothing to shrug off. Just because a nation doesn't have N/B/Cs means it suddenly is prone to mass destruction. There are plenty of other weapons that can easily scare off a predator that poses a serious threat to Cildanian safety. There are numerous ways to replace N/B/Cs by implementing different technologies in the stead of these weapons of terror. And we would most certainly question "in the right hands" seeing how this is definitely an opinionated statement dominated by subjective reasoning. If a new government were to come into power, then we are at their mercy. If the government is dominated by war-mongering terrorists, then we feel sorry for Terra. If it is a government dedicated to peace and diplomacy, then these instruments of inhumane actions will not be used. We would also disclaim "...threat to destroy an enemies city is far more effective than the threat of a well trained army". The reception given to a statement like this by any reasonable entity would be most questioning and skeptical. It seems the opposition doesn't understand that a well trained army is the sole operations of any actions the military takes. While a nuclear strike would be devastating, an invasion by naval entries, air attacks, and land forces would be much more destructive, especially when these forces capture a nation's arsenal and or governmental sources. Making the incorporated statement as questioned would be like saying (for a real life example) just because the U.S. has signed into law the forbidding use of N/B/Cs in war, the U.S. is now suddenly weak. This couldn't be any more wrong. The U.S. has the most powerful military in the real world and it does not use N/B/Cs and that is because of its superb military. Also, the U.S. has defense programs dealing with nuclear attacks, meaning the U.S. has the capability to prevent these strikes. We do not need N/B/Cs to counter strike an opposing force, that is a certainly not true. Defense installations that are built specifically to block these attacks can accomplish what is feared by the opposition. If everyone thought among these lines of insecurity and illogical substantiation, we would assuredly already have a nuclear holocaust. |
Date | 05:38:28, April 20, 2007 CET | From | Justice League of Cildania | To | Debating the Military Reformations |
Message | Ah, so you're worried if Cildania is one-day ruled by war-mongering terrorists, they'd have nukes. But if a well-trained army is more destructive than scary super weapons, wouldn't the terrorist rulers have access to the more powerful army too? By that argument you should be clamoring to shut the whole military down just in case it gets into the wrong hands. But the army isn't just another weapon. You're talking about people's lives that you're throwing into the line of fire. Imagine a battle that would cost hundreds of thousands in military casualties to succeed, but it could have been prevented by the real threat of using a WMD? By researching this technology and stockpiling the threat, you have saved hundreds of thousands of Cildanian lives. That's all we're trying to protect here. |
Date | 22:38:25, April 20, 2007 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party | To | Debating the Military Reformations |
Message | We see a stopping point in debate, and it is quite clearly obvious that neither side of the argument will understand the other (though we know who's right....just kidding....maybe....). If your side wishes to be terrorists, then they can be just that. And to answer your question, if a terrorist dictator would take control of the military, it's a tad different than taking N/B/Cs in possession. Seeing how the people within the military can turn against the terrorist and a N/B/C can't because it has no human qualities. So, it's just a little different....more than. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | |||
yes | Total Seats: 230 | |||
no |
Total Seats: 195 | |||
abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
Random fact: Real-life organisations should not be referenced in Particracy, unless they are simple and generic (eg. "National Organisation for Women" is allowed). |
Random quote: "He comes out of hibernation once every three years and says something stupid. No wonder the UR fell apart." - Tirza Sommer, Pragmatic Party Leader, on the Dorvish President, Leonhard Khan. |