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: Defence of the Realm Act: New defence policies for a new age
Details
Submitted by[?]: Covenanters (IA)
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 2106
Description[?]:
| An Act to give the Commonwealth of Luthori a credible defence strategy to face the challenges of the future. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Military stance on homosexuality.
Old value:: Homosexuality is allowed in the military.
Current: Homosexuality is allowed in the military.
Proposed: Open homosexuality is not tolerated in the military. The military has a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
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.
Current: The nation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in warfare for any reason.
Proposed: The nation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in warfare for any reason.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The policy with respect to nuclear weaponry.
Old value:: The nation shall never develop, produce or store nuclear weaponry.
Current: The nation reserves the right to develop, produce and store nuclear arms.
Proposed: The nation reserves the right to develop, produce and store nuclear arms.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change Women in the military.
Old value:: Women have no place in the military.
Current: Women serve alongside men.
Proposed: Women can only serve in non-battle positions.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 22:31:04, September 02, 2005 CET | From | Social Calvinist Unionist Party | To | Debating the Defence of the Realm Act: New defence policies for a new age |
| Message | I'm fine with all of 'em except for 3. Not that I won't vote for it if it has 3, but 3 makes me feel uncomfortable. But the defence of the Fatherland comes first. |
| Date | 22:34:10, September 02, 2005 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Defence of the Realm Act: New defence policies for a new age |
| Message | It's all about combat effectiveness, as debated on the women in the military bill. |
| Date | 00:23:52, September 03, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Defence of the Realm Act: New defence policies for a new age |
| Message | have you ever heard of 'pre-emptive strike'? yea, that's what happens to us when we arm ourselves to the teeth and start growling at our neighbors. even if the dog doesn't bite, a rabid mutt is the first to be put down. we live in peaceful times because we have neighbors who respect us and trust us. this bill will destroy that, and make everyone cautious and fearful of us, which will lead to gigantic problems in both the near and far future. |
| Date | 00:26:45, September 03, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Defence of the Realm Act: New defence policies for a new age |
| Message | i am also against article 5, which will effectively make this nation a militant police state. add that to the dictatorship you seem intent on installing, and add in the rabid intolerance of all religions but your own, as well as your rampant xenophobia and homophobia, and i get a pretty accurate sense of where you would bring this nation: into the miserable depths of fascism and repression. |
| Date | 01:30:49, September 03, 2005 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Defence of the Realm Act: New defence policies for a new age |
| Message | 'rabid intolerance of all religions but your own' I suggest you take a look at the League of Anti-Secularists, of which I am founder. |
| Date | 01:32:26, September 03, 2005 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Defence of the Realm Act: New defence policies for a new age |
| Message | I know I have the Guardians' votes, all I really need to know now is whether the CPP are going to vote yes and we can go to the vote as this is a normal bill. |
| Date | 01:41:23, September 03, 2005 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Defence of the Realm Act: New defence policies for a new age |
| Message | We've taken on board what was said about pre-emptive strike and changed our proposal regarding use of nuclear weapons. |
| Date | 02:47:02, September 03, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Defence of the Realm Act: New defence policies for a new age |
| Message | this is fucking ridiculous. does anyone seriously believe that we should arm ouselves till it comes out of our assholes and nuke the rest of the planet to oblivion? |
| Date | 02:48:32, September 03, 2005 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Defence of the Realm Act: New defence policies for a new age |
| Message | This bill doesn't say ANYTHING about nuking anyone, you slanderous arsehole! |
| Date | 03:01:27, September 03, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Defence of the Realm Act: New defence policies for a new age |
| Message | of course. "i'm just holding a gun to your head, when did i say i was going to shoot you?" |
| Date | 03:26:41, September 03, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Defence of the Realm Act: New defence policies for a new age |
| Message | and by the way: [DUP]{'rabid intolerance of all religions but your own' I suggest you take a look at the League of Anti-Secularists, of which I am founder.} [DUP]{The utility companies should use this methods out of Christian concern for their fellow man.} [DUP]{The current law regarding marriage is unbiblical and needs adjusted to comply with the scriptures.} [DUP]{Morality is at an all time low in our once great Commonwealth. Recent voting patterns reflect the fact that Luthori is a Christian country and as such, morality should be taught in schools through organised religion. It is time we repealed this horrendous law preventing our state schools from teaching from the scriptures, from which all morality is derived and based upon.} "League of Anti-Secularists"? bullshit. |
| Date | 03:29:53, September 03, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Defence of the Realm Act: New defence policies for a new age |
| Message | your league preaches a union between all religions, and you are constantly thumping your bible without a thought for any other religions that the people of this nation may want to practice. |
| Date | 05:04:29, September 03, 2005 CET | From | Luthori Green Party | To | Debating the Defence of the Realm Act: New defence policies for a new age |
| Message | The LLP votes no for the following reasons: 1. The use of WMDs is deplorable. Articles One, Five and Six allow us to use these barbaric and savage weapons against non-combatants, this is intolerable. 2. Homophobia is wrong. Article Two is never going to pass into legislation. 3. Using the intelligence agency as an instrument of the government, able to untertake any action against foreign nationals, including abduction, torture and murder, goes against our foreign relations policy. It is not acceptable. Neither is Article Three. 4. Using the military against your own people, is not a good sign, especially if you want a monarch. Article Four is thus unacceptable. 5. Article Seven is actually acceptable, but not with Articles One, Two, Three, Four, Five or Six. |
| Date | 09:14:36, September 03, 2005 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Defence of the Realm Act: New defence policies for a new age |
| Message | The opposition are going to vote against any bill to strengthen our military anyway: they made that clear during their tenure. What I really need to know is whether the other governing parties want to see any changes. |
| Date | 11:19:00, September 03, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Defence of the Realm Act: New defence policies for a new age |
| Message | 'the opposition'? let me get this straight: i've been here for all but one of this nation's elections, and have been in power for over half of the time since then, and now i'm "the opposition"? homophobic xenophobic warmongering religious intolerance is a passing fad. once you get the bills you want passed, the people are going to see exactly what kind of nation their 'leadership' has brought them to, and will get you out of office soon enough. |
| Date | 17:23:55, September 03, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Defence of the Realm Act: New defence policies for a new age |
| Message | We urge Luthori to abandon this course, and instead consider signing the chemical weapons disarmament treaty, drafted by the Adam Smith Party of Lodamun. There is no reason that any civilized state should possess chemical weapons, and no reason for Luthori to declare itself a roague state by doing so. |
| Date | 01:36:35, September 04, 2005 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Defence of the Realm Act: New defence policies for a new age |
| Message | Please will the CPP indicate which way they are going to vote in this bill and/or any changes they would like to see? |
| Date | 03:42:44, September 04, 2005 CET | From | Luthori Green Party | To | Debating the Defence of the Realm Act: New defence policies for a new age |
| Message | I point the DUP to the obvious international concern your policies have aroused. It is clearly against Luthori's interests to let the current regime turn the Commonwealth into a rogue military theocratical junta. |
| Date | 16:41:20, September 04, 2005 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Defence of the Realm Act: New defence policies for a new age |
| Message | Nonsense: we in the government are not prepared to allow the Commonwealth of Luthori to remain a soft target for rogue states and terrorists. This bill is long overdue: the people deserve protection. It's 1939: who would you rather be? Poland or the British Empire? |
| Date | 17:28:04, September 04, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Defence of the Realm Act: New defence policies for a new age |
| Message | Luthori has been considered for many years a respectable memebr of the international community. We must point out that only rogue states possess chemical and biological weapons. Arguably there is a deterrent value to nuclear weapons, but there is none to chemical and biological weapons, which can only be used for barbaric purposes. If our comments here, on behalf of a multinational association of parties, are unwelcome we will of course withdraw. We are here only to point out that passage of this bill will have profoundly negative effects on Luthori's foreign relations. ((In 1939, what gave the British empire an edge was strong conventional forces on land and espcially sea and air, plus geography and the backing of the Dominions as rear supply and support bases. Poland had very high military spending, but it was low-tech and the Poles were unlucky enough to live right in between two military giants who ahted them. Chemical weapons made no difference one way or the other.)) |
| Date | 17:50:17, September 04, 2005 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Defence of the Realm Act: New defence policies for a new age |
| Message | WMDs are the difference between strong nations and weak ones in this game. Biological and Chemical armament is negotiable (you'll notice I'm proposing our policy towards using them: if anyone uses them against us we should go nuclear). A credible nuclear deterrent is essential to our defence and a non-negotiable. Now, all I need to know is which way the CPP is going to vote. |
| Date | 21:24:08, September 04, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Defence of the Realm Act: New defence policies for a new age |
| Message | If WMDs make a nation strong, then the strongest power in this game is Al'Badara. But in fact we know that states using a combination of hard and soft power, such as Rutania, are far more able to project influence than Al'Badara. If nuclear weapons had deterrent value, would Kalistan have attacked nuclear-armed Gaduridos? |
| Date | 01:12:58, September 05, 2005 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Defence of the Realm Act: New defence policies for a new age |
| Message | Those attacks were just role-played. When war fighting becomes an official part of the game our independent nuclear deterrent will be vital. Once we're the colony of a nuclear power it will be too late to re-think these policies so we need to act now. As I'm getting no indication how some of the floating voters are going to vote I've removed some of the less essential and more controversial articles and will proceed to vote. |
| Date | 04:42:09, September 05, 2005 CET | From | Luthori Green Party | To | Debating the Defence of the Realm Act: New defence policies for a new age |
| Message | The LLP cannot vote in favour of a homophobic bill. |
| Date | 22:49:00, September 05, 2005 CET | From | Social Calvinist Unionist Party | To | Debating the Defence of the Realm Act: New defence policies for a new age |
| Message | While this certainly violates all of our social opinions, and will probably cause us to loose votes, military comes before moral issues. |
| Date | 01:30:43, September 06, 2005 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Defence of the Realm Act: New defence policies for a new age |
| Message | Lose votes? I don't think so... |
| Date | 03:07:40, September 06, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Defence of the Realm Act: New defence policies for a new age |
| Message | if you don't think so, then you haven't been here long enough to see how things really work. |
| Date | 06:31:43, September 06, 2005 CET | From | Luthori Green Party | To | Debating the Defence of the Realm Act: New defence policies for a new age |
| Message | I implore the GoL to contemplate the social and diplomatic ramifications of this bill. We should be reinforcing our conventional forces, with better equipment and training, increasing the size of the forces, and providing reserve forces, not by creating WMDs and restricting Luthorians from joining due to religious dogma. |
| Date | 22:42:53, September 06, 2005 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Defence of the Realm Act: New defence policies for a new age |
| Message | There are no measures for reinforcing our conventional forces, with better equipment and training, increasing the size of the forces, and providing reserve forces at present. As soon as they become available I'm sure either me, thee or the Guardians will propose them. In the meantime this is all we have to improve our defence. |
| Date | 08:55:45, September 07, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Defence of the Realm Act: New defence policies for a new age |
| Message | nukes do nothing for defense. only retaliatory offense. 'defense' implies that you are doing something to stop an advancement into our nation. 'defense' involves trenches, bunkers, and minefields. there is no way to use a nuke to stop an advancing army. |
| Date | 18:32:46, September 07, 2005 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Defence of the Realm Act: New defence policies for a new age |
| Message | Are you stupid? What do you think 'tactical', 'theatre' and 'sub-strategic' nuclear weapons are for? |
| Date | 02:23:34, September 08, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Defence of the Realm Act: New defence policies for a new age |
| Message | blowing up far more than necessary and permanently ruining large areas of land in a single stroke |
| Date | 20:36:12, September 08, 2005 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Defence of the Realm Act: New defence policies for a new age |
| Message | If we strike early enough the attacking forces will still be on someone else's land. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 340 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 258 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 2 |
| Random fact: Whilst the use of non-English languages can be appropriate for nation names, party names, constitutional titles and other variables, English is the official language of communication in the game. All descriptive texts and public communications should be in English or at least appear alongside a full English translation. |
| Random quote: "The Lord is a man of war" - Exodus 15:3 |