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: An Act to Outlaw the Use of Chemical Weapons
Details
Submitted by[?]: Somasi Nationalist Party (SNP)
Status[?]: defeated
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 2396
Description[?]:
| ...and to begin dismantling and destroying existing chemical weapon reserves. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning biological and chemical weaponry.
Old value:: The nation reserves the right to develop, construct and store biological and chemical weapons.
Current: The nation shall never develop, purchase or store biological or chemical weaponry.
Proposed: The nation shall never purchase, produce, or store biological or chemical weaponry, for military purposes. Research and development of the technology is permitted.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:39:32, April 26, 2007 CET | From | Aldegar Freedom Party | To | Debating the An Act to Outlaw the Use of Chemical Weapons |
| Message | We should by no means limit ourselves by an unnessicarily all-encompassing, restrictive piece of legislation of this sort. Even if we do not nessicarily intend to create or use biological or chemical weaponry, the TCP would like to suggest that we do not want to restrict ourselves from the right to do so if need be. Keep in mind - other countries will store and use biological and chemical weaponry whether we use it against them or not. Stopping ourselves from using and creating this weaponry in a binding piece of legislation is essentially saying to the enemy "look at us, we're putting heavily restrictive boundaries on our own military - attack us!!". The TCP would like to remind the other parties at this point that we are not advocating the use of biological or chemical weaponry in warfare per se, but we most certainly do NOT want to make it illegal for our own military to produce them. Why put a limit on the defence of our nation? Is that really something you can regulate? |
| Date | 20:12:34, April 26, 2007 CET | From | Somasi Nationalist Party (SNP) | To | Debating the An Act to Outlaw the Use of Chemical Weapons |
| Message | This legislation by no means limits our ability to protect and defend the great peoples of these lands. Chemical and biological weapons are one step too far and too often invoked in the name of "national security." Let us resolve to defend ourselves by strengthening our conventional armies, rather than wasting money on weapons that only terrorists would resort to using. |
| Date | 02:53:56, April 27, 2007 CET | From | Aldegar Freedom Party | To | Debating the An Act to Outlaw the Use of Chemical Weapons |
| Message | But regardless of whether we see these weapons as a step too far, it is important that we allow ourselves to compete in an arms race on the global scale, otherwise the respect and fear for our defence will deteriorate and make us an easy target. We do not want to fall below the bar and show any weakness to the enemy. Remember, this kind of devistating weaponry is actually the best peace keeper of all - if we build and store it, we create fear amongst our enemies, and they will be more reluctant to attack us. We do agree that we need to strengthen our conventional armies also, but we do not think we should limit the extent of our defence forcein any way, especially not by deciding upon legal restrictions on our own arms manufacturing based on a moral qualm - putting limits on our arms manufacturing will do nothing but make us an easy target and show our enemies that we have remorse; something that enemies will take advantage of immediately should war errupt. We feel these measures, whilst they may be morally satisfying for the SNP, will, in practice, be detrimental to our nation's defence. |
| Date | 02:57:03, April 27, 2007 CET | From | Aldegar Freedom Party | To | Debating the An Act to Outlaw the Use of Chemical Weapons |
| Message | We would also like to remind the SNP and other parties that our own Ronald Branstonwhicke, who is currently Minister of Defence, is fervently opposed to this bill. |
| Date | 04:24:01, April 27, 2007 CET | From | Party of Moderates | To | Debating the An Act to Outlaw the Use of Chemical Weapons |
| Message | We can support this actually. Chemical and biological weapons are useless and obsolete. They are cruel weapons of terror that must not be used except for the worst cases. However, their usefulness in such situations is no longer there. With the invention of nuclear weapons, a far better deterrant, chemical and biological weapons are no longer useful as a deterrant in comparison. Storing these weapons creates an unnecesary and poor statement on the reputation of Aldegar, and they put undue pressure on the finances of the military when they have to pay for these weapons. Why should we commit ourselves to these negative effects even though the weapons are obsolete? If the TCP can give a good answer to this question, we can join them in voting against this bill. Otherwise, we support this proposal. |
| Date | 15:50:20, April 27, 2007 CET | From | Communist Party of Aldegar | To | Debating the An Act to Outlaw the Use of Chemical Weapons |
| Message | We will certainly support this - such weapons are an archaic irrelevance in the modern world. |
| Date | 17:41:23, April 27, 2007 CET | From | Aldegar | To | Debating the An Act to Outlaw the Use of Chemical Weapons |
| Message | ACP are supporting this bill. If we need weapons, we get some other weapons. |
| Date | 21:55:41, April 27, 2007 CET | From | Aldegar Liberty Party | To | Debating the An Act to Outlaw the Use of Chemical Weapons |
| Message | In modern times we must fight smarter, not harder and fighting smarter means having every available avenue open for use. The leadership of the ALP has said it before and will say it again; our most valuable resource is the lives of our citizens, military or otherwise. Any device, tactic, or method which allows us to save more Aldegarian lives is a worthwhile one. We will oppose this bill. |
| Date | 01:39:39, April 28, 2007 CET | From | Party of Moderates | To | Debating the An Act to Outlaw the Use of Chemical Weapons |
| Message | We will support until we are given a convincing argument to our points. |
| Date | 03:31:18, April 28, 2007 CET | From | Aldegar Freedom Party | To | Debating the An Act to Outlaw the Use of Chemical Weapons |
| Message | We agree with the statements of the ALP. In warfare, one can't use the arguement that we can build different weapons instead, rendering other weapons obsolete. We need to at least be ABLE to manufacture any weapon possible to have everything at our disposal, if the need should arise for this weaponry, to allow a full scope for our defence force. Even if we don't intend to use these weapons, even if we don't intend to MAKE these weapons, all the TCP wants is to ensure that we don't bind ourselves into bureucratic red tape - limitations and regulations are going to do nothing but hinder our defence. As to the PM's arguements that biological and chemical weapons give a bad reputation to our country, the TCP is aware that other countries wouldn't think highly of us - if we used it in war. But again, we're not advocating immediate manufacturing of this weaponry, or even the use of it in warfare. We're simply wanting to keep our options open, because when it comes to warfare in particular, we don't want to be the one that gets caught out. As the PM said, nuclear weapons are by far a greater deterent, we agree, but there is alot of doubt in the world as to whether anyone actually has the fortitude to use one in warfare. That's something most countries don't want to have against their name either. The point is, would we stop building ships if tanks were proven more effective and less inhumane? Of course not - manufacturing both ships and tanks would let us attack from two different, unique angles, from land and from water. The same thing applies for biological and nuclear weaponry - they have two very different effects and would allow us a broader range of attack methods; that is, in the absolutely minute possibility that we should ever use this weaponry in actual warfare. We know this weaponry is devistating, we know it's inhumane. But who ever said war was supposed to be humane? There's nothing humane about any of it. That's a fact we have to live with; it's sad but true. Again, the TCP does not advocate the use of this weaponry in warfare per se; we want to stress that fact, but even having the rights to manufacture the weapons is enough to keep our enemies in fear, even the possibility that we MIGHT be manufacturing them and storing them in our country would have other nations wanting to sign peace treaties with us, and at least it will allow us to keep our options open without getting bound up in red tape - something we know for a fact that the PM is not particularly fond of. These are the reasons for the TCP's decision to vote no on this bill. We hope this has provided a comprehensive set of reasons for the PM and we hope that they will consequently re-think their decision. |
| Date | 01:12:20, April 29, 2007 CET | From | Party of Moderates | To | Debating the An Act to Outlaw the Use of Chemical Weapons |
| Message | First of all, we should mention that ships and tanks are two completely different things. They're both used for different reasons. A better comparison would be swords and guns, and we reaffirm the argument that it is wasteful of the military's resources to continue manufacturing swords when we can use guns. If the legislature of this country is fine with wasting our valuable resources and taxpayer money on obsolete weapons that fail to serve any purpose anymore, then we will accept that. Although, we do find it odd that such acts are supposed to be the antithesis of the beliefs of much of the seats voting against this bill. Second, as to the argument that world leaders believe other nations are too afraid to ever use a nuclear weapon, we believe that world leaders are smart enough to realize that if you invade and terrorize a country, the country attacked is going attack back just as hard, even with nuclear weapons if the situation is that extreme. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 165 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 485 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Before creating a party organisation, check to see whether there are any existing organisations which cover the same agenda. |
| Random quote: "In any country there must be people who have to die. They are the sacrifices any nation has to make to achieve law and order." - Idi Amin |