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: WMD Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Luthori Green 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 will bring our legislation on use of Nuclear, Biological, Chemical and Radiological WMDs during wartime inline with with our current legislation on the production, purchasing and storing of WMDs. The use of WMDs is wrong, and does serious damage both to human beings and the environment. Many nations have stockpiles of weapons, but that does not mean we should, Mutually Assured Destruction only works when the other side realises the effects of WMDs, and their is a reason the tactic is known as MAD. We should not lower ourselves to their standards, and contemplate using these deplorable, savage and barbaric weapons, but should instead work to bring about the dismantling of every country's stockpile, only then shall we be completely safe from their effects. Why should we step up to this level of annihilation, when conventional weapons can do enough damage. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning the use of chemical and biological weaponry in warfare.
Old value:: The nation shall never use chemical or biological weapons in warfare unless another nation uses them first.
Current: The nation reserves the right to use chemical or biological weapons in warfare for any reason.
Proposed: The nation shall never use chemical or biological weaponry in warfare.
Article 2
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 reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in warfare for any reason.
Proposed: The nation shall never use nuclear weapons in warfare.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 08:24:35, August 14, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the WMD Act |
| Message | I agree with this. |
| Date | 09:23:43, August 14, 2005 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the WMD Act |
| Message | Utter nonsense. The DUP will not accept our country backing down in the face of rogue nations and terrorists. NO SURRENDER! |
| Date | 21:01:45, August 14, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the WMD Act |
| Message | you call yourself a christian? read Luke 6:29 |
| Date | 21:06:40, August 14, 2005 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the WMD Act |
| Message | [quote]And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also.[/quote] You think this means we unilaterally disarm and allow our enemies to kill God's people? Oh no. NO NO NO! |
| Date | 21:07:17, August 14, 2005 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the WMD Act |
| Message | bbcode doesn't work here then? |
| Date | 21:11:32, August 14, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the WMD Act |
| Message | if we are struck, it says that we hold to our strength and trust in god's protection, not lash out in anger and destruction. i'm unabashedly athiest, but i'm willing to admit that some parts of your religious texts make sense. |
| Date | 23:24:47, August 14, 2005 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the WMD Act |
| Message | God isn't going to directly intervene against a foreign or terrorist attack against us: he gave man free will and that includes attacking us. However: it also includes us defending ourselves, using pre-emptive strikes where we deem necessary. I pray God gives you all the wisdom to see the error in your ways. |
| Date | 01:40:29, August 15, 2005 CET | From | Luthori Green Party | To | Debating the WMD Act |
| Message | We should not become a rogue nation to protect ourselves from rogue nations, we should not become terrorists to protect ourselves from terrorists. Although I am in full support of us becoming a Rouge Nation (I am not being critical of anyone's spelling, I just thought it up and it sounded cool; red is the color of passion after all, sorry this is how my mind works). |
| Date | 01:40:30, August 15, 2005 CET | From | Luthori Green Party | To | Debating the WMD Act |
| Message | We should not become a rogue nation to protect ourselves from rogue nations, we should not become terrorists to protect ourselves from terrorists. Although I am in full support of us becoming a Rouge Nation (I am not being critical of anyone's spelling, I just thought it up and it sounded cool; red is the color of passion after all, sorry this is how my mind works). |
| Date | 01:44:25, August 15, 2005 CET | From | Luthori Green Party | To | Debating the WMD Act |
| Message | Sorry about the double-post, computer did it not me. About the pre-emptive strikes, the Australian Prime Minister tried setting up that policy, didn't go down well with others in the region, really set back Australia's diplomatic efforts in the region. |
| Date | 03:14:07, August 15, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the WMD Act |
| Message | you advocate pre-emptive strikes? you do realize that having that kind of foriegn policy only encourages people to pre-emptive strike against us. some good quotes: those who live by the sword die by the sword. weapons are never the tools of peace. |
| Date | 08:30:44, August 15, 2005 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the WMD Act |
| Message | That second one makes no sense at all. The British Army has been a force of peace in the world for a long time now. Exactly how would you have stopped Hitler and the Japanese? |
| Date | 09:12:05, August 15, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the WMD Act |
| Message | the way switzerland did. i would also like you to overcome your nationalistic blindness for a minute and take a look at what sucess Gahndi had. the mightiest empire in the world brought to its knees by an elderly Indian man with no guns and no swords. |
| Date | 09:39:57, August 15, 2005 CET | From | Luthori Green Party | To | Debating the WMD Act |
| Message | I'm for defence and peace keeping, but provocative action, and pre-emptive strikes only put our nation into more danger. And on the Pacific Campaign of World War Two: A force of less that 1000 Australian commandos kept an entire Japanese division (approx. 12,000 men) tied up for more than six months in the Battle for Timor, 1942-1943 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Timor_%281942-43%29). All you need to do is have a highly trained, well equipped military and you will be respected. In addition, the Australian component of the Coalition in Iraq (which is small compared to the British and American components) is expected to have trained the Iraqi forces in their area months before the rest of the countries forces are ready (although the Americans are in the more dangerous part of Iraq and have to put down rebellions every hour), and they basically made up the entire peace keeping force in East Timor. |
| Date | 10:07:54, August 15, 2005 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the WMD Act |
| Message | 'the way [S]witzerland did'. By harbouring his gold and collaborating? Nice one! I think I can find some common ground with the Labour party, despite their abhorrent unilateralist stance. How do Labour propose we create a small professional army and special forces regiment on the Anglo-Australian model? |
| Date | 10:20:14, August 15, 2005 CET | From | Luthori Green Party | To | Debating the WMD Act |
| Message | I never said I was against the military or defence, I just don't see how WMDs will help. If the situation warrants it, I will support defence budget increases, but I just want to see it spent on conventional military, which is more flexible then WMDs. After all, how would WMDs help in peace keeping? I can't speak for the other parties, but I just don't see the need for us to go for this option, when conventional forces are more viable. They can take part in wars, peacekeeping, disaster relief, aid transport, and security operations. The specialists like engineers and doctors can help civilians in times of peace, and it is a cheap source of tertiary education for low-income families (not really appicable as we give free tuition to all). |
| Date | 10:49:39, August 15, 2005 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the WMD Act |
| Message | So let's stop talking and start improving our armed forces. |
| Date | 11:07:59, August 15, 2005 CET | From | Luthori Green Party | To | Debating the WMD Act |
| Message | Ok |
| Date | 00:15:11, August 16, 2005 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the WMD Act |
| Message | Hmm, according to this game defence is just about WMDs... |
| Date | 10:01:13, August 16, 2005 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the WMD Act |
| Message | That means that within the constraints of the game mechanics we as a country are weak on defence, and this bill will make us weaker! NO! |
| Date | 10:09:23, August 16, 2005 CET | From | Luthori Green Party | To | Debating the WMD Act |
| Message | Well, until we get warfare going, war can't happen except in the forums, and when it gets going, there will be conventional forces. BTW, new legislative options are sure to please you. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 478 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 82 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 132 |
| Random fact: In cases where players have failed to clearly and accurately reference their nation's RP laws in the "Bills under debate" section, Moderation will rule them invalid if a challenge is made to their validity. |
| Random quote: "If God made man they say Sam Colt made them equal." - Unknown |