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: Nuclear Arms Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Luthori Christian Women's Association
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: October 2421
Description[?]:
| Our government should be a little bit more careful about starting nuclear wars. Belinda Braithwaite (Leader of the LCWA) |
Proposals
Article 1
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 reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in warfare for any reason.
Proposed: The nation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in retaliation to any attack.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 18:22:22, June 29, 2007 CET | From | Imperial Vodka and Pimm's Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Arms Act |
| Message | Mr Speaker, Honourable and Learned Colleagues, we may wish to make a pre-emptive nuclear strike, should we receive spy or satellite information regarding a nuclear strike by a foreign power on our Empire. This law constrains the actions of HSM's Government and risks our Empire and the lives of our citizens. |
| Date | 21:30:00, June 29, 2007 CET | From | Secular Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Arms Act |
| Message | .::Rises quickly as if posessed::. PRE-EMPTIVE NUCLEAR STRIKE! MADNESS! Nuclear weapons are weapons never meant to be used. They are meant to be merely deterrants. Why should the empire attack nations with nuclear weapons that have never done harm to us? As to the LPP's scenario, obviously, then the strike would not be pre-emptive. The denial of this proposal is MADNESS! .::Sits down::. |
| Date | 01:21:20, June 30, 2007 CET | From | Christian Royalist Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Arms Act |
| Message | We oppose this limitation on our defenses, we should hold the right to preemptive strike if necessary and it is utter maddnes to only strike in the event of an attack. |
| Date | 10:50:30, June 30, 2007 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Nuclear Arms Act |
| Message | Mr speaker, May I remind the members opposite that our nuclear deterrent is just that. Using our nuclear arsenal after we have been attacked would be quite pointless as our cities would already be destroyed. Revenge is not a Christian notion and as such we should use our nuclear weapons to deter and prevent attacks on our homeland, not in vengeance for them. I yield. |
| Date | 18:22:52, June 30, 2007 CET | From | Teleurstelling Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Arms Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, May I remind the members opposite no weapon is a deterrent if it is known it will never be used. Demonstration of the will to exercise the option is the deterrent. Bloody peaceniks. I yield the floor. |
| Date | 01:44:57, July 01, 2007 CET | From | Secular Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Arms Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, We know the concept of mutually assured destruction well. We are great supporters of measures ensuring it. This bill does not hinder it. It merely hinders a mad Viceroy or Defense minister of getting trigger happy with the nuclear codes. I yield the floor. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 35 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 59 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 6 |
| Random fact: Particracy has 464 player slots. |
| Random quote: "We never know the worth of water 'til the well is dry." - Thomas Fuller |