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: Slashing Military Spending
Details
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: September 2111
Description[?]:
| With the militarist sabre-rattlers and war mongers out of power, Lodamun does not need nuclear arsenals to defend against the repercussions caused by the folly of our politicians, nor does it need to download the building of prohibitively expensive defence shelters to local governments. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Civil defence is the government's policy on providing shelters to be used in the event of attacks on major cities, mainly nuclear attacks and bombing.
Old value:: Local authorities are responsible for building and maintaining shelters.
Current: No new buildings may be constructed unless they feature provisions for civil defence.
Proposed: The government makes no provision for civil defence.
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 unless another nation uses them first.
Current: The nation shall never use nuclear weapons in warfare.
Proposed: The nation shall never use nuclear weapons in warfare.
Article 3
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 shall never produce or store nuclear weaponry for military purposes. Research and development of the technology is permitted.
Proposed: The nation shall never produce or store nuclear weaponry for military purposes. Research and development of the technology is permitted.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 18:15:27, September 10, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Slashing Military Spending |
| Message | The Greens would prefer a bill split -- we are very happy to support nuclear disarmament, but the first article on shelters is not only about nuclear falloutr shelters. It also addresses shelters in case of terror attacks, and these shelters also remain available for use in natural disasters. We would not wish to deny local governments their authority over this matter. |
| Date | 18:21:49, September 10, 2005 CET | From |  Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Slashing Military Spending |
| Message | The nuclear arms decommissioning will be more expensive than keeping them, you know that. |
| Date | 18:58:12, September 10, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Slashing Military Spending |
| Message | The current proposal says that local governments are responsible for building and maintaining shelters, the decision is not up to them, rather, they have to build shelters. |
| Date | 18:58:33, September 10, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Slashing Military Spending |
| Message | "The nuclear arms decommissioning will be more expensive than keeping them, you know that." Don't force us to repeatedly decomission them then. |
| Date | 19:58:40, September 10, 2005 CET | From | Royal Conservative Party | To | Debating the Slashing Military Spending |
| Message | We will commission nuclear weapons whenever we have the opportunity. You have this brief chance purely because ASP has gone. I would advise that you spend your time looking for long lasting compromises rather than doing things that will be torn down as soon as we have the next election. |
| Date | 20:31:25, September 10, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Slashing Military Spending |
| Message | We advise that you look for long-lasting compromises rather than doing things that will be torn down. |
| Date | 22:00:11, September 10, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Slashing Military Spending |
| Message | Can anyone suggest a long-lasting compromise on nuclear weapons? The Refuseniks put up a bill on that some time ago, but no one responded to the compromises suggested at that time. We also proposed a bill that would limit the military's control over nuclear weapons and the secrecy involved, while keeping the nuclear arsenal, but even that was rejected. Perhaps now that the shoe is on the other foot, a compromise can be worked out and agreed to be in place for 10 years, 15 years, or another mutually agreeable period? Some possible compromises: - cap nuclear arsenal at a certain number of weapons, and keep triggering devices off-site (our defeated bill) - abolish nuclear wepaons, but bring in conscription as part of a system of civilian-based defence - keep nuclear weapons, but renounce the use of them |
| Date | 23:22:51, September 10, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Slashing Military Spending |
| Message | I thought we had a compromise on WMDs... We leave biochem alone, you leave nukes alone. (ASP wrote the Biochem treaty, after previously supporting them.) TiC will not allow Lodamun to be without a deterrent for long, we will restore it at the first opportunity. "- abolish nuclear wepaons, but bring in conscription as part of a system of civilian-based defence" We also cannot support conscription or a draft, as we feel that doing so would unjustifiably infringe on the rights of those involved. "- keep nuclear weapons, but renounce the use of them" There is no point in a deterrent if the law forbids us from using it. Of course we "renounce" the use of them, believing that they are devastating weapons that should not be used. "- cap nuclear arsenal at a certain number of weapons, and keep triggering devices off-site (our defeated bill)" Keeping the triggering devices off site would eliminate our ability to respond quick enough to a nuclear attack. Our current system cannot be fired without codes that are kept in a secure location, and changed often. Our current deterrent has been in place for years. After the passage of the bills, nuclear arms are created rather quickly and put in place. After a suitable amount have been obtained, there is no need for any more. The largest Particracy nation is 2,050,200 kmē...not a lot of nukes are required to wipe it out. As minister of defense and prime minister, TiC members have kept true to the party philosophy of minimum government spending. Any nuclear deterrent is far better than none, a minimal one is roughly the same in defensive effectiveness as a very large one. Bottom line, the nukes have already been purchased. Maintenance and upkeep is now minimal, far lower than the costs of decommissioning(not to mention the costs of purchasing them again later). Lodamun does not have a large nuclear arsenal, there is a small network of silos spread throughout the five states, with the codes necessary to trigger them kept in another location. There are safeguards in place. Articles 2 and 3 are unneccesary and misnamed in this bill. |
| Date | 23:48:23, September 10, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Slashing Military Spending |
| Message | As TiC ought to be aware, the current policy of second-use nuclear weaponry is not consistent with maintaining a minimum number of devices. The first targets of incoming nuclear strikes will be the "small network of silos" and their likely command and control centres. If the aim, as TiC repeatedly says, is to have sufficient devices to flatten every inch of the largest landmass any single hostile country possesses, then far more nukes than the minimum are required. If not, then if only a few of these small silos are knocked out it means the enemy will not be obliterated and therefore has "won" the armageddon. In the nuclear chess game, the winner is one who builds the most and uses them first. Furthermore, how does this "minimal" nukes strategy fair if Lodamun is attacked by two or more nuclear enemies? Does Lodamun have sufficient nukes to obliterate every other nuclear country simultaneously? What redundancy factor is built into the provision of our "small network of silos" to ensure that after suffering a first strike by every other nuclear country simultaneously Lodamun can nuke every inch of these countries in retaliation despite the loss of a number of our devices? |
| Date | 00:08:47, September 11, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Slashing Military Spending |
| Message | We dont have to nuke every inch of another country, only the biggest city or so, in order to make them think twice about an attack. Our silos are not obviously placed, but are far enough away from major cities. We also have various other places where nuclear arms are stored, such as submarines. We have various methods of detecting incoming missiles, so that we can respond before we are disarmed. In any case, the fact that we have any nukes is enough of a reason for an aggressor to pick on someone else. |
| Date | 03:11:01, September 11, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Slashing Military Spending |
| Message | Off-site triggering devices can be deployed within hours. It is not a significant blow to response time, but it does guarantee (1) an accidential missile launch cannot take place when radar mistakes flock of geese for a nuclear attack, and (2) that in peacetime we do not have fully-armed nuclear weapons pointed at our trade partners. |
| Date | 04:19:12, September 11, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Slashing Military Spending |
| Message | How is the current off-site code system inadequate to prevent accidental launch? |
| Date | 05:11:51, September 11, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Slashing Military Spending |
| Message | "We leave biochem alone, you leave nukes alone. " Who's this 'we'? To the best of my memory, TiC was the only party that voted against signing the CBW treaty and the only party that voted against banning CBWs. |
| Date | 09:53:17, September 11, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Slashing Military Spending |
| Message | TiC voted to retain biochem after we lost our nuclear capability. The debate is here: http://82.238.75.178:8085/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=10873 "Perhaps we could reach a permanent compromise allowing nuclears? "Nuclear can be used against military targets (with devastating effect and some civilian casualties) whereas chemical and biological are only usable against civilian targets." Chemical weapons have traditionally been used againt military targets. My preference would be chemical and nuclear weapons, (but no bio unless chem and nuclear were banned). As the two are together here, I assume that reserving the right to have biological and chemical weapons would give us the option to not develop one or the other or both. Keep in mind that the term "chemical weapons" is very broad and applies to lethal and non-lethal weapons, some for use against humans, and some for other uses. While many of these weapons, I would never like to use in war, some I would like to hold in reserve for special purposes. Right now, we cannot use any form of chemical weapons, we are prevented by a very broad and vague law. If I am selected minister of defence, for which I have been nominated, I pledge that all military aquisition of these substances will be according to the guidelines outlined above and elsewhere. General Julius Fel TuesdayIsComing Minister Of Defence candidate." "In the absence of a nuclear option, we will support this, but only for chemical, and only very strictly controlled."-ASP "We agree with that. Bio is very unpredictable, and hardly able to accomplish the detterrent(sp?) goal"-TiC You can see above, TiC doesnt care about the other WMDs as long as lodamun is defended by a nuclear deterrent. We proposed a compromise, which we have abided by, only proposing chemical bills when nukes are gone. ((It should also be noted that much of this was done to take advantage of the militarist opinion's of the people. The shelters helped to take advantage of the large-government opinions. As you can see, it worked. Since the reset, this isnt as important.)) |
| Date | 17:39:54, September 11, 2005 CET | From | National People's Gang | To | Debating the Slashing Military Spending |
| Message | So, in fact, there was no compromise. |
| Date | 21:03:44, September 11, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Slashing Military Spending |
| Message | One was proposed, we have adhered to it, even if others have not. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 113 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 135 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 24 |
| Random fact: Bill descriptions must be in English, or at least include a full English translation. Bill titles may appear in a language that is appropriate to the nation and are not required to be translated into English. |
| Random quote: "Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err." - Mahatma Gandhi |