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 2400
Details
Submitted by[?]: S.C.A.F.R.
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: September 2401
Description[?]:
| - |
Proposals
Article 1
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 weaponry in warfare.
Current: The nation shall never use chemical or biological weaponry in warfare.
Proposed: The nation shall never use chemical or biological weapons in warfare unless another nation uses them first.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning the export of weapons to other nations.
Old value:: The government must approve all arms sales on a case by case basis.
Current: The government allows arms to be sold only to close allies.
Proposed: The government allows arms to be sold only to close allies.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:52:29, May 08, 2007 CET | From | Party of Moderates | To | Debating the Military 2400 |
| Message | What is wrong with the status quo? Biological and chemical weapons are obsolete in comparison with nuclear weapons when it comes to deterrants, and under the status quo concerning article 2, we already can choose to just sell arms to close allies. |
| Date | 05:19:31, May 09, 2007 CET | From | Aldegar Freedom Party | To | Debating the Military 2400 |
| Message | Family First certainly perceives nothing wrong with the status quo for Article 2, and the proposition of Article 2 is virtually the same as the status quo, only more restrictive - currently, we can sell arms to whoever we see fit, and considering we find it highly unlikely that we would ever sell weapons to enemies, what is the issue being adressed by the change? We only see this as binding our weapons industry with more unnessicary and frankly irrelevant red-tape. As for Article 1, we don't nessicarily disagree with the proposal - at least it allows us the option to use thoes forms of weaponry if the need every arose. We certainly support this Article's efforts to free up the scope of our options in warfare, as warfare demands that the nation has literally every single option at its disposal, and any legal red tape is essentially only a detriment to us, and indeed a benefit to our enemies. But, considering the extent to which we disagree with Article 2, we cannot support this bill on the whole. We may consider supporting Article 1 by itself if it was ever to appear in a bill of its own, but its certainly not an issue we see as particularly important. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 330 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 190 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 130 |
| Random fact: Cultural Protocols should generally be reflective of RP conducted within the nation and should not significantly alter or modify the ethnic, religious or linguistic composition without considerable and reasonable role-play or other justification. |
| Random quote: "A theory that seems to explain everything is just as good at explaining nothing"- Christopher Hitchens |