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: Peace through a Defensive Nuclear Deterrent
Details
Submitted by[?]: Tuesday Is Coming
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: June 2095
Description[?]:
| The nation shall retain a nuclear deterrent, for use only as a last resort option when another nation has used nuclear weapons first. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The policy with respect to nuclear weaponry.
Old value:: The nation shall never produce or store nuclear weaponry for military purposes. Research and development of the technology is permitted.
Current: The nation shall never produce or store nuclear weaponry for military purposes. Research and development of the technology is permitted.
Proposed: The nation reserves the right to develop, produce and store nuclear arms.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 18:28:44, August 10, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Peace through a Defensive Nuclear Deterrent |
| Message | as always, the Greens will oppose any attempt for Lodamun to rejoin the nuclear arms race. These "weapons" only make the world more dangerous. They do not make us safer. |
| Date | 20:53:29, August 10, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Peace through a Defensive Nuclear Deterrent |
| Message | That is debatable GA. We hold that a deterrent is effective in stopping warfare. Thus we support holding a nuclear deterrent. |
| Date | 23:02:14, August 10, 2005 CET | From |  National People's Gang | To | Debating the Peace through a Defensive Nuclear Deterrent |
| Message | Provide the evidence please. |
| Date | 23:57:54, August 10, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Peace through a Defensive Nuclear Deterrent |
| Message | OOC/RL: Nukes have existed for over 50 years, Atomic weapons were only used once in warfare, when there was only one nation that possessed them. Since then, they have never been used to kill, but have helped to convince hostile powers to work out compromises. |
| Date | 01:51:23, August 11, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Peace through a Defensive Nuclear Deterrent |
| Message | logical fallacy, that. IC: The major war in Terra's history was when Kalistan attacked Gaduridos. Both states had nuclear arms. There was no deterrent value of any sort. |
| Date | 03:02:46, August 11, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Peace through a Defensive Nuclear Deterrent |
| Message | ((OOC regarding game mechanics - The war between Kallistan and Gaduridos was purely RPed. As and when war becomes a real possibility then the deterrent value of Nucleare weapons will be seen. There is no in game deterrent yet, but there are assumed parallels between this game world and the Real World that it is modelled on. One of the facxtors that is highly relevant in the RL in preventing major and widespread warfare is the presence of a nuclear deterrent. )) |
| Date | 04:36:44, August 11, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Peace through a Defensive Nuclear Deterrent |
| Message | Nukes cannot be RPd. This would be godmodding. Therefore they have no deterrent value or aggressive value whatsoever. |
| Date | 04:36:52, August 11, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Peace through a Defensive Nuclear Deterrent |
| Message | (For RP purposes) |
| Date | 05:34:30, August 11, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Peace through a Defensive Nuclear Deterrent |
| Message | ((When warfare is implemented, Nuclear weapons will be prohibitively expensive.)) |
| Date | 17:40:27, August 11, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Peace through a Defensive Nuclear Deterrent |
| Message | ((Obviously, otherwise the world could end within "months")) |
| Date | 21:00:04, August 11, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Peace through a Defensive Nuclear Deterrent |
| Message | ((When warfare is implemented we will have to use a deterrent system and mutual defence agreements. Nuclear weapons will not be prohibitively expensive, but we will have to create systems wherby the use of them would be. This is exactly what this bill proposes to do.)) |
| Date | 01:38:34, August 12, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Peace through a Defensive Nuclear Deterrent |
| Message | Here's some examples of nuclear powers being at war with other states where their atomic arsenal has proved useless. United States: Korean War, 1950, v North Korea; Vietnam War, 1963, v North Vietnam; Gulf War, 1990, v Iraq Russia: Afghanistan, 1979, v Afghanistan United Kingdom: Falkland Islands, 1982, v Argentina |
| Date | 05:25:02, August 13, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Peace through a Defensive Nuclear Deterrent |
| Message | it is our great pleasure to report that Kalistan has renounced all weapons of mass destruction, thanks to the efforts of the Libertarian Party. We hope that this will remove the sense of insecurity felt by some parties, and lead to the removal of this bill. |
| Date | 06:07:31, August 13, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Peace through a Defensive Nuclear Deterrent |
| Message | While the ability to obtain nuclear weapons exists for any states, individuals, or organizations; it is our responsibility to ensure that Lodamun has a defense against their use. Here's some examples of nuclear powers being at war with other states where nuclear/atomic weapons were not used. "United States: Korean War, 1950, v North Korea; Vietnam War, 1963, v North Vietnam; Gulf War, 1990, v Iraq Russia: Afghanistan, 1979, v Afghanistan United Kingdom: Falkland Islands, 1982, v Argentina" |
| Date | 06:25:37, August 13, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Peace through a Defensive Nuclear Deterrent |
| Message | Obviously no is going to admit any changes of opinion here... |
| Date | 17:18:40, August 13, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Peace through a Defensive Nuclear Deterrent |
| Message | we were told in a previous debate that tghe main fear was Kalistan. Now that Kalistan is WMD-free, we had hoped there might be some reflection. Apparently that was a vain hope. |
| Date | 17:31:22, August 13, 2005 CET | From | Royal Conservative Party | To | Debating the Peace through a Defensive Nuclear Deterrent |
| Message | It is thanks to the nuclear deterrant that a war betweent America and the Soviet Union was avoided - both sides would have been prepared to use conventional weapons against each other, had it not been for the fact that nuclear weapons existed. The nuclear bomb is the reason why there has not been a war between first class powers for over 50 years. |
| Date | 18:49:59, August 13, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Peace through a Defensive Nuclear Deterrent |
| Message | Kalistan was a threat. Kalistan may be a threat in the future. However, there are simliar threats all over the world. It is our duty to protect our citizens from all of these. |
| Date | 08:58:33, August 14, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Peace through a Defensive Nuclear Deterrent |
| Message | CUP - that isn't true. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 211 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 239 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Players have a responsibility to differentiate between OOC (out-of-character) and IC (in-character) behaviour, and to make clear when they are communicating in OOC or IC terms. Since Particracy is a role-playing game, IC excesses are generally fine, but OOC attacks are not. However, players must not presume this convention permits them to harass a player with IC remarks that have a clear OOC context. |
| Random quote: "The state is nothing but an instrument of oppression of one class by another, no less so in a democratic republic than in a monarchy." - John Smith |