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: Put Things Right 1: International Respect
Details
Submitted by[?]: National Forwardist Party
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: February 2108
Description[?]:
| In an attempt to promote our national standing on an international level, the following is proposed. It will gain us an international trust that the current legislation denies us. |
Proposals
Article 1
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 warfare for any reason.
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.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The policy with respect to nuclear weaponry.
Old value:: The nation reserves the right to develop, produce and store nuclear arms.
Current: The nation reserves the right to develop, produce and store nuclear arms.
Proposed: The nation shall never develop, produce or store nuclear weaponry.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 20:33:08, September 07, 2005 CET | From | Social Calvinist Unionist Party | To | Debating the Put Things Right 1: International Respect |
| Message | I'm afraid I cannot agree with you. Example: Let's say some tyrannical dictatorship comes to power in another country, and starts to invade other countries, and nuking them if they take too long to take down. What is to stop them from invading us? If we have nukes, then we have the "stick". Our crack Department of State will be the "carrot". If we find a balance, we will be stronger than before. Also, isn't there an option that says we'll only use the nukes if we get nuked first? |
| Date | 20:53:41, September 07, 2005 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Put Things Right 1: International Respect |
| Message | Yes but it would weaken deterrence and mean we can be defeated by a large conventional force and do nothing about it when we could just nuked them. |
| Date | 02:13:34, September 08, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Put Things Right 1: International Respect |
| Message | i do not see the correlation between slaughtering millions of innocent civilians and expelling foriegn invaders from our land. |
| Date | 11:23:38, September 08, 2005 CET | From | Luthori Green Party | To | Debating the Put Things Right 1: International Respect |
| Message | Properly equipped and trained conventional forces are preferable to WMDs. An elite armed forces backing a crack diplomatic corp is what I want. Anti-ballistic missiles are cheaper and more effective than WMDs in defending ourselves against nuclear attacks. |
| Date | 13:54:37, September 08, 2005 CET | From | Social Calvinist Unionist Party | To | Debating the Put Things Right 1: International Respect |
| Message | When we bring the fight back to the enemy, would you rather MILLIONS get slaughtered in an all-out invasion, or we just kill around 100 thousand(which is ahorrendous number, I know, but nothing compared to millions) and bring a war to it's end? |
| Date | 19:05:01, September 08, 2005 CET | From | National Forwardist Party | To | Debating the Put Things Right 1: International Respect |
| Message | who says it would bring the war to an end? it worked that way once, but only because it was so new, so unexpected, and japan didn't have their own. in this day and age, nuking an enemy city will not end a war, it will just get a nuke dropped on us. |
| Date | 22:44:02, September 08, 2005 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Put Things Right 1: International Respect |
| Message | I DO NOT advocate the use of strategic nuclear weapons against civilian targets such as population centres. We will maintain a strategic nuclear DETERRENT and use tactical, theatre and sub-strategic weaponry against enemy military forces in order to save us from defeat or save the lives of our servicemen and civilians. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 156 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 493 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 101 |
| Random fact: It is the collective responsibility of the players in a nation to ensure all currently binding RP laws are clearly outlined in an OOC reference bill in the "Bills under debate" section of the nation page. Confusion should not be created by displaying only some of the current RP laws or displaying RP laws which are no longer current. |
| Random quote: "This administration is not sympathetic to corporations; it is indentured to corporations." - Ralph Nader |