Main | About | Tutorial | FAQ | Links | Wiki | Forum | World News | World Map | World Ranking | Nations | Electoral Calendar | Party Organizations | Treaties |
Login | Register |
Game Time: June 5461
Next month in: 02:13:44
Server time: 13:46:15, March 29, 2024 CET
Currently online (0): Record: 63 on 23:13:00, July 26, 2019 CET

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 MAD Policy

Details

Submitted by[?]: Leviathan 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: March 2098

Description[?]:

As per the approved military policy, we must update our stance regarding nuclear weapons, as we have voted to authorize nuclear strikes in response to a conventional attack on the Malivian homeland.

Proposals

Debate

These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:

Date21:33:59, August 18, 2005 CET
From Protectorate Party
ToDebating the Nuclear MAD Policy
MessageIt was the one point we disagreed on on the military policy bill. Now that we have it seperate we can express our disaproval of using nuclear weapons against conventional attacks.

Date04:09:06, August 19, 2005 CET
FromLeviathan Party
ToDebating the Nuclear MAD Policy
MessageMAD doesn't work if we do not respond to conventional attacks with nuclear weapons. Our support for rearming the nuclear arsenal was contingent upon those weapons being used as a deterrant to prevent invasion of the homeland. If we have nuclear weapons, and are not prepared to use them against conventional attacks on our homeland, we are essentially defenseless. We will have a nuclear arsenal, thus making ourselves a target, but no willingless to use them, making those weapons useless.

subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe

Voting

Vote Seats
yes
   

Total Seats: 51

no
    

Total Seats: 46

abstain
  

Total Seats: 3


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: "When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called 'the People's Stick.'" - Mikhail Bakunin

This page was generated with PHP
Copyright 2004-2010 Wouter Lievens
Queries performed: 48