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: A New Nuclear Direction
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal Patriots' League
Status[?]: defeated
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: May 2484
Description[?]:
| Our current policies seem inconsistent, amounting to an empty threat. Let us limit the threat, but make if far more feasible. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Government policy on nuclear power.
Old value:: The government encourages nuclear power (subsidies, tax relief etc).
Current: The government requires most energy to be generated by nuclear power.
Proposed: The government does not take any position on nuclear power.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning the use of nuclear weaponry in warfare.
Old value:: The nation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in retaliation to any attack.
Current: The nation shall never use nuclear weapons in warfare.
Proposed: The nation reserves the right to nuclear weapons in retaliation to a nuclear, chemical or biological attack.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The policy with respect to nuclear weaponry.
Old value:: The nation shall never produce or store nuclear weaponry for military purposes. Research and development of the technology is permitted.
Current: The nation shall never develop, produce or store nuclear weaponry.
Proposed: The nation reserves the right to develop, produce and store nuclear arms.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 04:20:36, November 10, 2007 CET | From | Maverick Party | To | Debating the A New Nuclear Direction |
| Message | Finally, someones making sense. |
| Date | 06:19:11, November 10, 2007 CET | From | Kalistani Interest Party | To | Debating the A New Nuclear Direction |
| Message | A sound propisition. Yes. |
| Date | 08:02:43, November 10, 2007 CET | From | Revolutionary Freedom Party -- KEG SLAM | To | Debating the A New Nuclear Direction |
| Message | What I don't understand is why both advance nuclear power as a weapon, and at the same time, retard it's use as a domestic energy source? Why yes to nuclear weapons, but no to nuclear power? Wouldn't yes to both or no to both be more logical? I can even see that no to weapons and yes to energy being more logical, the one you're proposing being the least. We oppose. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 161 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 280 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 140 |
| Random fact: Hundreds of vessels were lost while traversing the cold waters of the Sea of Lost Souls. It is located between Seleya and Majatra. |
| Random quote: "I'm the motherfucking Premier of Kalistan. It don't get more full time than that!" - Omar Al-Khali, former Kalistani politician |