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: Ban The Bomb
Details
Submitted by[?]: Kundrati Revolutionary Movement
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 2039
Description[?]:
| There is no circumstance under which the use of nuclear weapons would be justified. Their only purpose is to engage in mass-murder. Even in retaliation, all they can accomplish is the mass slaughter of non-combatants. Additionally the construction, maintenace, and security costs involved are astronomical. We therefore resolve to take no part in the nuclear madness. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The policy with respect to nuclear weaponry.
Old value:: The nation reserves the right to develop, produce and store nuclear arms.
Current: The nation shall never develop, produce or store nuclear weaponry.
Proposed: The nation shall never develop, produce or store nuclear weaponry.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | not recorded |
From | | To | Debating the Ban The Bomb | | Message | Nuclear weapons are vital for the protection of our country and as history proved it time and yime again it saves millions of lifes and billions of dollars. In order for our country to continue it’s existence it has to have the right to produce nuclear weapons if the situation demands it. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Kundrati Revolutionary Movement | To | Debating the Ban The Bomb | | Message | Anyone mad enough to launch a nuclear attack is also mad enough to not care about the million+ civillians we would slaughter in retaliation - they'll be in their bunker already. The deterrence factor of nuclear weapons is imaginary, and their mere existence provides a constant threat to the lives of everyone on the planet. And in an unstable world, this threat increases even more dramatically if such weapons were to fall into the hands of non-state entities - with them there isn't even a civillian population to rain retaliatory nuclear death down upon. The only way to ensure the safety of the world is to work towards the systematic dismantling of of all nuclear weapon programs everywhere. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | | To | Debating the Ban The Bomb | | Message | You are not listening to us and at the same time you are ignoring the facts. The last 60 years of Earth history has seen no world war because of nuclear weapons. The nuclear bomb saved millions of life during the second world war. Had it not been for the nuclear bomb Japan would have never surrendered thus forcing the Americans into a costly invasion in both human lives and dollars. Had it not been for the nuclear weapons the Warsaw pact troops would have swept over Europe(or maybe they would have been defeated but with heavy losses). In 60 years no such weapon has fallen in the hands of terrorist organizations. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | | To | Debating the Ban The Bomb | | Message | “ Anyone mad enough to launch a nuclear attack is also mad enough to not care about the million+ civillians we would slaughter in retaliation - they'll be in their bunker already”
That is the beauty of the nuclear weapons ,there is no escape. Why do you think that none of the dictatorships on earth ever used them? You build nuclear weapons so you can stand as an equal to other nation and not be bullied around.
|
| Date | not recorded |
From | | To | Debating the Ban The Bomb | | Message | “The only way to ensure the safety of the world is to work towards the systematic dismantling of of all nuclear weapon programs everywhere.” You cannot force a dictatorship to dismantle its nuclear weapons and nor should you try since that is a very grave intrusion of the country’s internal affairs. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Kundrati Revolutionary Movement | To | Debating the Ban The Bomb | | Message | Suppose one of those dictators does use a nuke - what then? What is the point of nuking the opressed people in their nation? Or worse, suppose that in the mad rush of tin-pot dictators trying to get nukes so they can sit at the big boy table, some apocalyptic non-state group gets their hands on one? There is no moral or even pragmatic course of action you can follow to deal with these situations that involves nuclear weapons. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Kundrati Revolutionary Movement | To | Debating the Ban The Bomb | | Message | and in the real world, nuke did not prevent any wars at all. the world was in pretty much constant warfare throughout the 20th century, causing the deaths of millions. The chief players in this were the same groups of countries from around the world fighting in various other countries around the world. nuclear weapons didn't stop a world war at all. they just brought us quite close to total annihilation multiple times. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | | To | Debating the Ban The Bomb | | Message | “Suppose one of those dictators does use a nuke - what then?” Nobody wants to die. But if he really is mad nuke his bunker and all military installations and the new dictator will have to reconsider its position. The alternative is that dictatorship will conquer us region by region using the threat of nuclear weapons.
So I will ask you: How do you stop a dictatorship that has nukes? With flowers?
|
| Date | not recorded |
From | | To | Debating the Ban The Bomb | | Message | “and in the real world, nuke did not prevent any wars at all.” Do you have any idea how many millions dies in world war two alone? I think you are underestimating the horrors of the war. More people die today of famine and disease than from war. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | | To | Debating the Ban The Bomb | | Message |
“The chief players in this were the same groups of countries from around the world fighting in various other countries around the world”
Less than 4000 allied soldiers killed in the Iraq war so far.
Less than 60 0000 allied solders less than 1,5 millions Vietnamese soldiers killed (and that was blodist war of the Cold war era)
Compare this with the casualties of World war 2 and World war one
|
| Date | not recorded |
From | | To | Debating the Ban The Bomb | | Message | Sorry not "1,5 millions Vietnamese soldiers killed" But 1,5 millions Vietnamize killed(including civilians) |
| Date | not recorded |
From |  Unity Party | To | Debating the Ban The Bomb | | Message | The Unity Party of the Independent Davostan Republic supports this bill. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | | To | Debating the Ban The Bomb | | Message | I bet you do! Can't wait to attack us,right? |
| Date | not recorded |
From | | To | Debating the Ban The Bomb | | Message | Indeed. All Patriots should vote against this bill. We are glad that we have at least 27 Patriots in the Senate, though I fear that is all there is. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Union of Work-Shy Elements | To | Debating the Ban The Bomb | | Message | I think we should reserve the right to contruct nuclear weapons. That doesn't mean we have to but it gives us the choice to do so. If we limit our options it will only weaken us in the long term |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Kundrati Revolutionary Movement | To | Debating the Ban The Bomb | | Message | The way you stop a dictator with nukes is to have him killed or otherwise removed from power. There are all sorts of way to get rid of somebody that do not include killing millions of non-combatants in a single. If someone launches a nuclear attack, launching a retailiatory one does nothing but increase the total death count in that particular crime against humanity - you are still dead, and the country will be decimated and fall under the control of some other agency anyway. There is no circumstance where the use of nuclear weapons would be justifiable. Or even useful. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | | To | Debating the Ban The Bomb | | Message | "The way you stop a dictator with nukes is to have him killed or otherwise removed from power."
Leaving aside the fact that what you are proposing is vague and almost impossible you seem to be spreading a dangerous ideology that wants to impose (even by killing foreign leaders) your ideals on other countries. Why can’t you understand that a nation has every right to develop nuclear weapons ? You can only interfere if they threaten your nation. Also you seem to be ignoring the whole idea of Balance of Power. Why do you think Japan got nuked twice and U.S.S.R. didn’t? Face the fact, nuclear weapons are vital for peace. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Free Market Party | To | Debating the Ban The Bomb | | Message | We are no fans of nuclear weapons, but this bill is too extreme. We can't support a complete ban as this bill would have us do. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Kundrati Revolutionary Movement | To | Debating the Ban The Bomb | | Message | R: We wonder how you justify taking away firearms from the police, but not outlawing weapons which can only be used to commit crimes against humanity. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Progressive Pragmatists | To | Debating the Ban The Bomb | | Message | Our Nation has recently outlawed these same weapons, but if this Nation decides to maintain its current policy we will regard it as hostile intent and rearm... |
| Date | not recorded |
From | Free Market Party | To | Debating the Ban The Bomb | | Message | I don't believe that the Secular Democrats possess the power to make that decision for their nation. I also find it odd that we are being threatened not to maintain the status quo when our current policy obviously had no effect on The Democratic Republic of Ikradon's recent decision. (It is also worth noting that the Secular Democrats actively opposed the ban in their own nation.) This threat is groundless, it is rude, it is hypocritical, and it is completely out of place. I am certain that if any hostilities were to break out between our two nations that the Secular Democrats would be the instigator. I kindly ask the party to take their threats elsewhere, as we desire peace. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | | To | Debating the Ban The Bomb | | Message | @Secular Democrats Party: It seems you win. |
| Date | not recorded |
From | | To | Debating the Ban The Bomb | | Message | Well done, Ikradon imperialists. Well done.
Our nation is on it's knees. We will not resist any hostile attack. Thank you MfM. |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 137 |
| no | Total Seats: 0 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In cases where a party has no seat, the default presumption should be that the party is able to contribute to debates in the legislature due to one of its members winning a seat at a by-election. However, players may collectively improvise arrangements of their own to provide a satisfying explanation for how parties with no seats in the legislature can speak and vote there. |
| Random quote: "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to defend minorities." - Ayn Rand |