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: Weapons of Mass Destruction Act 2109
Details
Submitted by[?]: Inrala no Ikolowagitou (Green)
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: August 2109
Description[?]:
Tis bill would outlaw the construction, storage or use of biological agents, and restrict nuclear wepons use to retaliatory strikes. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning biological and chemical weaponry.
Old value:: The nation reserves the right to develop, construct and store biological and chemical weapons.
Current: The nation shall never develop, purchase or store biological or chemical weaponry.
Proposed: The nation shall never purchase, produce, or store biological or chemical weaponry, for military purposes. Research and development of the technology is permitted.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning the use of chemical and biological weaponry in warfare.
Old value:: The nation reserves the right to use chemical or biological weapons in warfare for any reason.
Current: The nation shall never use chemical or biological weaponry in warfare.
Proposed: The nation shall never use chemical or biological weaponry in warfare.
Article 3
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 shall never use nuclear weapons in warfare.
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 | 19:27:49, September 09, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party of Indrala | To | Debating the Weapons of Mass Destruction Act 2109 |
Message | There is stupidity, and then there is Article 2. Does the Indralan Green Party seriously believe that we would retain the capacity to launch nuclear strikes after an attack from an enemy? |
Date | 19:29:14, September 09, 2005 CET | From | Inrala no Ikolowagitou (Green) | To | Debating the Weapons of Mass Destruction Act 2109 |
Message | The proposal to ban biological weaposns will be added if necessary once the vote on the current bill has been resolved. |
Date | 19:31:57, September 09, 2005 CET | From | Inrala no Ikolowagitou (Green) | To | Debating the Weapons of Mass Destruction Act 2109 |
Message | Icoming missiles do not arrive instantaneously, as the SDP are doubtless aware. Once a nation has launched against us they would become a legitimate target. This is the basic principle of deterrence which is in our view the only ethical stance we can take short of banning these weapons altogether. |
Date | 19:39:02, September 09, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party of Indrala | To | Debating the Weapons of Mass Destruction Act 2109 |
Message | And what do we have as a deterrant against aggression by conventional means? Would we simply allow enemy armies to walk in and destroy our launching facilities? |
Date | 04:00:36, September 10, 2005 CET | From | Centrist Democrats | To | Debating the Weapons of Mass Destruction Act 2109 |
Message | Is the SDP Seriously suggesting that our only means of defence are WMDs? Surely the convential forces are sufficient to repel convential aggression, if not, then we should be focusing there rather than on shiny toys. |
Date | 08:13:41, September 10, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party of Indrala | To | Debating the Weapons of Mass Destruction Act 2109 |
Message | Are the Centrist Democrats seriously suggesting that our conventional forces are invincible? |
Date | 10:49:49, September 10, 2005 CET | From | Centrist Democrats | To | Debating the Weapons of Mass Destruction Act 2109 |
Message | Not at all. You stated that an enemy could simply "walk in and destroy our launching facilities?". If our military is that bad, then obviously better training and equipment is more important than an expensive nuclear deterrent. |
Date | 13:11:45, September 10, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party of Indrala | To | Debating the Weapons of Mass Destruction Act 2109 |
Message | It is not an issue of our military's strength. The fact is, no conventional force could completely guarantee our nation's safety. What if we were faced by an alliance of several other nations determined to take Indrala without using WMDs? We would be overwhelmed by sheer force of numbers, and we would be unable to use our WMDs for defence. |
Date | 21:22:27, September 10, 2005 CET | From | Inrala no Ikolowagitou (Green) | To | Debating the Weapons of Mass Destruction Act 2109 |
Message | In such an instance, would not the use of WMDs trigger an overwhelming retaliation and the utter destruction of our beloved Indrala? Surely that is worse that a conventional defeat? |
Date | 21:51:18, September 10, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party of Indrala | To | Debating the Weapons of Mass Destruction Act 2109 |
Message | No. Our ability to use them would likely prevent any war, obviously. |
Date | 08:26:48, September 11, 2005 CET | From | Centrist Democrats | To | Debating the Weapons of Mass Destruction Act 2109 |
Message | The fact that we have WMDs will prevent an alliance of "several other nations", similarly armed, from waging war against Indrala? Then surely we can disband the conventional forces and have them serve soup to the poor. |
Date | 09:32:54, September 11, 2005 CET | From | Indralan Progressive Conservative Party | To | Debating the Weapons of Mass Destruction Act 2109 |
Message | This is one of the most pathetic bills I have seen. |
Date | 12:57:31, September 11, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Democratic Party of Indrala | To | Debating the Weapons of Mass Destruction Act 2109 |
Message | "The fact that we have WMDs will prevent an alliance of "several other nations", similarly armed, from waging war against Indrala? Then surely we can disband the conventional forces and have them serve soup to the poor." We would disagree. WMDs are a deterrant against agression from similarily armed nations and overwhelming conventional forces. If we were attacked by an alliance, merely threatening to use these weapons would likely prevent any war occuring. Our conventional forces are still necessary to defend us from targets against which WMDs are of no use. This includes internal threats and guerilla organisations, as well as nations which may have developed missile interception systems. On another note, it is largely due to legislation initiated by the SDP that Indrala has one of the best social security systems in the world. Disbanding the army to serve soup would, therefore, have little if any effect. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | |||
yes | Total Seats: 129 | |||
no |
Total Seats: 171 | |||
abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
Random fact: Players who consent to a particular role-play by acknowledging it in their own role-play cannot then disown it or withdraw their consent from it. For example, if player A role-plays the assassination of player B's character, and player B then acknowledges the assassination in a news post, but then backtracks and insists the assassination did not happen, then he will be required under the rules to accept the validity of the assassination role-play. |
Random quote: "The root source of wealth is human ingenuity. This has no known bounds, so the amount of wealth in existence can always be increased. That's why capitalism is called 'making money.'" - Marc Geddes |