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: Rational Defense Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: freedom party
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: June 2096
Description[?]:
| This bill seeks to change our views on warfare. Our current legislation has a clause which states Saridan must be hit by Nuclear Warfare FIRST before retaliating in kind. The downside of this legislation, is that if Saridan is hit first, Saridan will never be able to strike back. We must allow a rational defense policy. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning the use of nuclear weaponry in warfare.
Old value:: The nation shall never use nuclear weapons in warfare unless another nation uses them first.
Current: The nation shall never use nuclear weapons in warfare.
Proposed: The nation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in warfare for any reason.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 02:35:23, August 13, 2005 CET | From | freedom party | To | Debating the Rational Defense Bill |
| Message | While we certainly see the downside of this bills passing. (see Americas pre emptive warfare) Saying that we cant use nukes unless another country uses them first is ludicrous. If another country uses them first, we wont be able to strike at all....... We dont seek to create a pre emptive defense, but if we were attacked non nuclearly, and we found it in our best interests to respond with such methods, we should be able to do so. |
| Date | 03:16:42, August 13, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party of Saridan | To | Debating the Rational Defense Bill |
| Message | We strongly support. |
| Date | 04:28:10, August 13, 2005 CET | From | Commercial Freedom | To | Debating the Rational Defense Bill |
| Message | You can't assume that if we get attacked first we definately won't be able to attack back. However, we are currently abstained. We recognize that with this power we don't need biological weapons. |
| Date | 05:00:54, August 13, 2005 CET | From | New Frontier Party | To | Debating the Rational Defense Bill |
| Message | I disagree with this bill. |
| Date | 05:36:00, August 13, 2005 CET | From | freedom party | To | Debating the Rational Defense Bill |
| Message | Its true that we might be able to respond, but at what cost? Again, we worry of pre emptive war fare, but tough decisions must be made, often with pros and cons on both sides. |
| Date | 11:13:11, August 13, 2005 CET | From | Enlightened Socialist Party | To | Debating the Rational Defense Bill |
| Message | We strongly disagree. Pre-emptive warfare with WMD will make us an international villain, and is morally reprehensible. We would easily be able to strike back after having been hit - see the Cold War. If the enemy launches missiles, we will detect it, and fire our own, and even if we are hit before we know about it our silos, airforce bases, and ships on the ocean are still able to retaliate with our nuclear arms. First-strike makes US in the wrong instead of the enemy, as WMD should ideally never be used (or weapons of any kind, for that matter). |
| Date | 01:58:43, August 15, 2005 CET | From | Liberty Party of Saridan | To | Debating the Rational Defense Bill |
| Message | We understand the ESP's concern but we feel that the military of Saridan should have the right to strike based upon other happenings such as terror attacks that do not involve nuclear arms but still harm the Saridanian people. The right to use these weapons is an important step for Saridanian security. We CAN be safe without being reckless. |
| Date | 12:50:20, August 15, 2005 CET | From | Enlightened Socialist Party | To | Debating the Rational Defense Bill |
| Message | Conventionally. Not with WMD. He who uses WMD first is a villain, as the intent of these weapons is a deterrent, never to be actually used. If this passes, we will be seen as international warmongers and a threat. We are far more likely to be attacked if we rescind our proud 'no first strike' policy. Which is more threatening to the other nations, a country that will not use nuclear arms unless attacked first, or one that suddenly announces that they will use nuclear bombs without provocation? |
| Date | 12:54:52, August 15, 2005 CET | From | Enlightened Socialist Party | To | Debating the Rational Defense Bill |
| Message | We urge everyone to change their votes on this after the above. We are more, not less, likely to be attacked if this passes. Not to mention it being morally wrong to mass-murder millions. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 253 | |||||||
| no | Total Seats: 47 | |||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Parties have the ability to endorse another party's candidate for the Head of State election (if there is one). This adds a strategic element to the elections. |
| Random quote: "When the tyrant has disposed of foreign enemies by conquest or treaty, and there is nothing to fear from them, then he is always stirring up some war or other in order that the people may require a leader." - Plato |