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 Weapons Law
Details
Submitted by[?]: Dorvik Socialist 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: April 2460
Description[?]:
| We need to be able to defend ourselves against nations that would use nuclear weapons against us. |
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.
Current: The nation shall never use nuclear weapons in warfare unless another nation uses them first.
Proposed: The nation shall never use nuclear weapons in warfare unless another nation uses them first.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 01:34:39, September 22, 2007 CET | From | Supreme Party of the Republic | To | Debating the Nuclear Weapons Law |
| Message | We are against this bill. We are not a totalitarian country that depends on mighty weapons to get international respect. |
| Date | 08:22:35, September 22, 2007 CET | From | Technocratic Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Weapons Law |
| Message | We will support this bill. The other parties fail to realise that our devotion to pacifism does not render us immune to acts of aggression, or that diplomacy does not always work. In order for peace to exist, all must desire peace. If even one desires war, then war will occur. |
| Date | 15:32:02, September 22, 2007 CET | From | Supreme Party of the Republic | To | Debating the Nuclear Weapons Law |
| Message | We are not saying that we are immune to acts of aggression. We say that no one will try to attacks if we have defensive alliances. Who (mental illness does not apply) would attack a country if they knew that by doing doing so they would be attacked by 30 other countries? Better than a nuclear weapon is a good and stable defensive alliance. |
| Date | 00:14:46, September 23, 2007 CET | From | Technocratic Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Weapons Law |
| Message | We understand the NUP's positon on this matter, and we recognize the obvious value of defensive alliances. However, alliances can and do fall apart. We cannot predict the future, so we must prepare ourselves for anything. Hope for the best; prepare for the worst. |
| Date | 19:37:34, September 23, 2007 CET | From | Supreme Party of the Republic | To | Debating the Nuclear Weapons Law |
| Message | We think that TNC did not understand what we mean. There can be no peace through aggression nor liberty without civil rights. |
| Date | 22:29:45, September 23, 2007 CET | From | Technocratic Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Weapons Law |
| Message | The Technocratic Nationalist Party objects to the NUP's statements for two reasons: First, we have absolutely no intent to commit acts of unprovoked aggression. Our proposed nuclear deterrent is exactly that; a deterrent, and nothing more. Second, what exactly does TNC mean? The DLUP began referring to us by that name recently, and now we see that the NUP is doing it as well. This is a rather disturbing trend. |
| Date | 03:48:54, September 24, 2007 CET | From | Supreme Party of the Republic | To | Debating the Nuclear Weapons Law |
| Message | The creation of a national nuclear program can be seen (in some circles) as an act of future aggression. Preparation to war you may call it. What we want is not to let ourselves go into this kind of foreign policy that may causes us a lot of trouble and even make us lose some allies. OOC: About the TNC: Is just a misspelling of your party's name. In my case it was provoked by whiskey. I wasn't even aware that the DLUP called you that before. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes | Total Seats: 177 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 110 | |||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 112 |
| Random fact: Particracy does not allow real-life brand names (eg. Coca Cola, McDonalds, Microsoft). However, in the case of military equipment brand names it is permitted to use simple number-letter combinations (eg. T-90 and F-22) borrowed from real life, and also simple generic names, like those of animals (eg. Leopard and Jaguar). |
| Random quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair |