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: Use of Nuclear Weapons Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Freedom Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: November 2091
Description[?]:
| This act outlines when the use of Nuclear Weapons shall be allowed by our country. Support from the HoS, HoG and the Defense Minister is required for use of nuclear weapons in response to them being used on Rutania first. (For this act to pass, over 50% have to approve of it in Parliament) We also maintain that Rutania will not use nuclear weapons first and that we will only use them in response to them being used on us first. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 18:49:49, August 02, 2005 CET | From |  Freedom Party | To | Debating the Use of Nuclear Weapons Act |
| Message | Thoughts wanted. |
| Date | 19:57:06, August 02, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Use of Nuclear Weapons Act |
| Message | Hmm, this places a sensible restriction on the danger nuclear weapons pose... We'd support this. |
| Date | 21:55:11, August 02, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the Use of Nuclear Weapons Act |
| Message | No. If our early warning radar have detected missiles in the air, we dont have time to vote on firing back. |
| Date | 22:16:26, August 02, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Use of Nuclear Weapons Act |
| Message | Good point, authorisation by the Federal President and confirmation by the Federal Chancellor, or the Defence Minister is better in that case. That would basically mean that no one man would have the authority to initiate the launch of nuclear weaponry because the Federal President, when temporarily not entirely mentally sane, could make terrible decisions which in the case of nuclear weapons could have terrible consequences. And we must have a resolution saying that only the Federal President (or the next in line) can authorise nuclear strikes, we can't risk a Captain aboard a sub going mad and launching. |
| Date | 23:43:30, August 02, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Use of Nuclear Weapons Act |
| Message | Huh? How does that apply to the LIP's example? They are saying what would we do if we detect a enemy missile coming to strike against our nation. In that case i say we authorise the military to use necessary force to destroy the missile and retaliate. |
| Date | 00:41:44, August 03, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Use of Nuclear Weapons Act |
| Message | No, that would place too much power in the hands of the military. Only the Federal President should be able to authorise nuclear strikes. I don't know the image you have of a nuclear strike, but the Federal President could retaliate within one minute after missiles have been detected. And you don't need nuclear weapons to take down nuclear weapons. |
| Date | 10:57:47, August 03, 2005 CET | From | Grand Republican Party | To | Debating the Use of Nuclear Weapons Act |
| Message | I agree with the SDs - With missiles raining down, 50% of parliament voting is too long and ineffectual. Just the President should be able to authorise a missile strike. |
| Date | 23:55:09, August 03, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Use of Nuclear Weapons Act |
| Message | Ok. To use WMDs first before the opposition, we need Parliament approval and approval from HoS, HoG and Defense Minister. To use them in retaliation, just the President. |
| Date | 12:02:49, August 04, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Use of Nuclear Weapons Act |
| Message | I was under the impression we'd only use nuclear weaponry to deter enemies, not to attack them. |
| Date | 12:03:32, August 04, 2005 CET | From | RSDP - Democratic Front | To | Debating the Use of Nuclear Weapons Act |
| Message | For retaliation, I really think both the President and the HoG or the Defence Minister should give their approval. |
| Date | 18:36:51, August 06, 2005 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Use of Nuclear Weapons Act |
| Message | We need a chain of command set up in case of a catastrophic first-strike... What if we lose the President? Who has control then? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 467 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 56 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 76 |
| Random fact: Players are expected to behave in a courteous, co-operative manner and make a reasonable effort to act with the consent of all players involved, even where the rules do not make consent strictly necessary. In particular, players have a responsibility to take reasonable care that other players are not misinformed either about the role-play or the Game Rules. |
| Random quote: "If you're not turned on to politics, politics will turn on you." - Ralph Nader |