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: Defense Contract
Details
Submitted by[?]: The Liberal Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: February 2578
Description[?]:
| The recepient of this defense contract is: Stricker Naval Weapons, a privately owned company. This contract will have the following clauses: 1- This contract will last 50 years from the day of its passing. 2- This contract is worth 250,000,000,000 LOD over the 50 years period. Approximately 5,000,000,000 LOD each fiscal year. 3- The following naval weapons will be built as part of this contract: I) 5 Republic Class Aircraft Carrier(to be built within 5 years). II) 50 ballistic missile submarine III) 50 SSN774 Virginia-Class Fast Attack Submarine IV) 200 DDG51 - Arleigh Burke Class Guided Missile Destroyer V) 200 LST - Newport Class Tank Landing Ships VI) 3,000 Landing Craft, Air Cushion (LCAC) VII) 5,000 Landing Craft, Mechanized and Utility (LCM/LCU) VIII) 500 Mark V Spec Ops Craft IX) 50 BB61 - Iowa Class Battleship X) 3 Republic Class Aircraft Carrier(to be built within 10 years) XI) 2 Republic Class Aircraft Carrier (to be built in 20 years and using the latest technology at the moment). XII) 10 LCC - Amphibious Command Ship XIII) 500 LHA - Tarawa Class Amphibious Assault Ship XIV) 25 LHD - Wasp Class Amphibious Assault Ship XV) 150 High Speed Vessel, HSV 2 Swift XVI) 100 Ticonderoga-class Aegis guided missile cruisers XVII) 50,000 Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAM) XVIII) 3,000 Trident Missiles XIX) 7,000 BGM-109A (Nuclear Missiles) XX) 15,000 BGM-109B (Anti-Ship Missiles) XXI) 15,000 BGM-109C (Conventional Missiles) XXII) 15,000BGM-109D (Bomblets) 4- Any other weapons, as designated by the President, Defense Minister, or Parliament, not exceeding the total amount of 500,000 tons 5- If the government decides to back down from the contract 10,000,000,000 will be paid to Stricker Naval Weapons for compensation. If Stricker Naval Weapons decide to back down from the contract a total amount of 10,000,000,000 must be paid within three months to the government of Lodamun. 6- Production deadlines will be set by the President, Defense Minister, or Parliament. In case of a missed deadline a penalty will be charged of 10% off the original price every month after the deadline. 7- The government reserves the right to sell any weapons produced by Stricker Naval Weapons to any country. Stricker Naval Weapons will not sell any nuclear weapons to other countries within the period of this contract. 8- This contract will become binding upon passage by the legislature. |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 06:16:29, May 11, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | Any thoughts? |
| Date | 06:18:31, May 11, 2008 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | This uses out of character terms. |
| Date | 06:22:36, May 11, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | Do you mind explaining what you mean by that? |
| Date | 06:25:01, May 11, 2008 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | Virginia Class, etc. These use "real-life" geography and as such are unacceptable. Also - 15,000 nuclear missiles? Did I just read that? |
| Date | 06:45:36, May 11, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | Using real life terms is not unnaceptable. Haven't we used the Supreme Court or the VP position? There is no problem with using real life terms. I have explained to LLP before that by the time we reach the end of the contract about half of the missiles would have been dismantled because nuclear decay makes it necessary. I don't have any problem with negotiating a lower number if that is the desire of some parties. |
| Date | 12:21:45, May 11, 2008 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | It is NOT acceptable. |
| Date | 19:53:31, May 11, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | Then vote no if you want to. |
| Date | 20:46:21, May 11, 2008 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | I mean there are numerous reasons this bill is a disaster. Just a few are listed in an insightful LBC article in the forum. |
| Date | 21:03:01, May 11, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | I don't know if you noticed that this is only for the navy. If in the future we want to upgrade the army or the airforce we would use another company. This companyoffers a great price for all they are going to do. They have been in business for more than 150 years and are very capable of doing an excellent job. |
| Date | 21:19:05, May 11, 2008 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | A fifty year no bid contract. Do I have to say anything else? I think any party with common sense realizes this bill is a total mistake. |
| Date | 21:36:33, May 11, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | They offered the best deal. |
| Date | 23:48:41, May 11, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | We should split a 250 billion defence contracts among several companies, as some might specialize on one thing, while others specialize on other things, and thus to achieve the best product we need to split it this. And I also thing we should put such a huge contract up for bidding. Also the major issue for me on this bill is that this would mean a huge focus on naval expansion, and might draw resources away from our 3 other military branches. We should discuss what type of military we want, and take it from there. |
| Date | 23:56:11, May 11, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | If you split the contract it would be much more costly as the specialized companies charge more for for their products. I am sure that a missile will destroy a target no matter in what company they were made. We got a very good price for this contract, it is almost impossible to get one better. If we want to expand our three other branches we can do so if we want to. A strong military is strong in every part, navy, army, and airforce. |
| Date | 01:25:34, May 12, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | Yeah a strong military is stron in all branches, but we got to set priorities based on the funds we got. After the war the defense budget is going to be cut alot, so we will have less resources than now |
| Date | 01:26:45, May 12, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | Also any contract of this size will have to run through the DoD, and thats the department which has to give out the contracts if this gets passed |
| Date | 03:48:12, May 12, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | I would appreciate any input from the Minister of Defense about the contract but if it is passed he cannot modify it unless instructed by the contract. You know that the 250 billion is going to be split into 50 years, right? Our defense budget couldn't be bigger, so payment will not be a problem. Besides what are we going to do with an enormous surplus, we may as well spend it in something productive such Defense. |
| Date | 04:30:52, May 12, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | LLP, what would be more important than to have a strong navy. That is the backbone of our military. I forgot to say that the special forces we have as another branch will also be suplied with this contract, meaning boats and other equipment. |
| Date | 13:10:22, May 12, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | A strong airforce for example, our a strong army. When we first get into a war then its usally the army with air support that does the fighting on the ground, and thats usally where the battles are won. Yes we need a strong navy too, but the navy branch is not singlehandedly the backbone of our armed forces. And we dont have a 5th special forces branch, but each branch have there own special forces (or alteast army, airforce, and navy does, I am unsure about the marines) And for what to spend a surplus on I am sure there is alot of conflicting ideas. |
| Date | 23:17:50, May 12, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | I meant the marines will be suplied with this contract. That was the other branchI was talking about. The navy prevents an invasion in our territories as well as the army. The best option is to have all branches being powerful. About the surplus, why have one if it is not going to be spent. Surpluses have to be spent and what best than our military. But it should definately be spent on something. |
| Date | 05:23:21, May 13, 2008 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | Why don't we put this bill up so it can be summarily defeated? The LLP and myself pointed out many ways this bill is flawed and you obviously will not listen to our criticism. |
| Date | 23:45:44, May 13, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | You are only speaking for yourself. You don't have any idea how other parties may vote. This bill is cose to flawless, if you don't like it that is not my problem. Thisbill is up for debate for a reason, so parties can make suggestions not criticize it withou giving any suggestions aside from: this is worthless. |
| Date | 00:36:32, May 14, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | Well since the three of us have been the only one debating latly I doubt we will get more imput |
| Date | 00:48:33, May 14, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | Just wait for a little bit, like four or five months. Maybe we'll get lucky. The thing that bothers me the most is that those who don't say anything are usually the ones who later complain that they didn't get included in the cabinet or they are not treated fair (not intended to offend any party, just an opinion). |
| Date | 00:51:00, May 14, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | **Correction: Cabinet is not the word I intended, I meant policy. Those who never speak out are always complaning of the policies adopted or proposed. Sorry, I am very tired today. |
| Date | 00:53:27, May 14, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | well if they dont participate in the debate its there own fault |
| Date | 00:55:12, May 14, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | I know it is their problem but sometimes it gets kind of annoying. I urge all parties to please post their comments, that is what the debate is for, to exchange opinions and to make sure everyone is heard. Please, don't be shy. |
| Date | 06:15:07, May 14, 2008 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | I posted suggestions: 1. remove out of character terms 2. shorten the length of the contract 3. .put the contract up for bid 4. split the contract up piece by piece to spread our budget over several companies with different specialties In all cases I was dismissed out of hand and told "this bill is close to flawless." LP, please try to work with others. |
| Date | 06:31:31, May 14, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | I answered all of your suggestions this way: 1- There is no problem using out of character terms. We have used the Supreme Court, the Vice-President, etc. 2- The only way we can afford to pay this contract is to extend it for that period of time. There is no problem with this. 3- We got the best deal but I said that I will put up for bid after the defense budget is lowered, as requested by the Defense Minister. I am close to 100% sure we will not get a better deal than this one considering all we are asking. 4- Splitting into pieces will costmore because specialized companies charge more for the products. 5- One you didn't include is that I will reduce the number of nuclear missiles by about half. |
| Date | 14:03:28, May 14, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | both #3 and #4 of the suggestion URP posted is a must for the LLP to support this. |
| Date | 19:46:48, May 14, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | I am sorry but #4 is not going to be possible. It wl cost much more. Do the math, and you'll see. This is one contract, not several dozens of them. #3 will be done but I doubt we'll get a better price. |
| Date | 19:47:15, May 14, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | That is as far as I'll go. |
| Date | 21:47:22, May 14, 2008 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | This obviously isn't a negotiation then. You cannot use out of character terms. What is Virginia? It's not a location in Lodamun as far as I can tell. |
| Date | 21:57:04, May 14, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | This doesn't refer to a U.S. state but rather to a specific model, it is not intended to name anything. Location in Lodamun has nothing to do with this. If I didn't want to negotiate, I would already have submitted it to vote. I have responded to everyone's suggestion. |
| Date | 00:22:41, May 15, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | as for #3 how can we get a worse price? the one who cna do it for the lowest amount of money will get the job, as since we already have the Stricker Naval Weapons offer that is the worst deal we can get in a bidding round |
| Date | 00:38:14, May 15, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | You don't understand. If the entire contract is produced by specialized companies, the total cost will be much more. We received a great discount for buying everything from them. |
| Date | 00:41:40, May 15, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | thats #4m not #3. any discounts and such will be part of the bid they make, if anyone else topples that then we have a better offer, but we certainly wont have a worse one. And as for #4, the military is probarbly the only budget post I would say this about, but I actually prefer quality even if it costs more than quantity on this |
| Date | 06:06:44, May 15, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | Then why don't you propose a 60 billion defense budget? You are all for less spending, so I really don't understand your position. If anyone can give me any facts as of why Stricker Naval Operations does not offer quality products then I will accept the suggestion about giving out contracts. You also realize that if we give out contracts to specialized companies, we'll have to vote on five or ten different contracts? |
| Date | 07:07:54, May 15, 2008 CET | From | Pariah Idealism | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | The defense budget doesn't really concern me too much. With my lack of interest in war it seems too much, but then again what do I know? How realistic is it to have a civilian military with the commoners able to handle all type of weapons, have self-defense training and all that other stuff that goes along with war? Then we would need to worry about protecting ourselves, we'd have a country as a military. Too much idealism, eh? |
| Date | 07:21:16, May 15, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | Maybe, but do you like the contract? Anything you want to point out. |
| Date | 12:00:13, May 16, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | Having a completly conscription based army is one option, but it would require us to force people into military service in times of war, would mean our military would be porly trained, and would mean our reaction time to any crisis would be alot slower, since we would need to conscript, train, and equip our soldiers before they are ready for action. We have a professional army who is higly trained, got alot of experience, and who consists only of volunteers, which I think is the best option |
| Date | 02:03:41, May 17, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | I urge all parties to vote for this contract. It will strenghten our navy. |
| Date | 09:00:08, May 17, 2008 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | The LP gave no ground in this bill. Serious issues remain unaddressed. I urge all parties to vote no on this 50 year no-bid contract. |
| Date | 23:58:35, May 17, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Defense Contract |
| Message | I have adressed those issues, you simply don't agree with this contract. This contract will strenghten our navy for 100 years. We will have a strong navy and at the same time spend very little money on this contract. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 38 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 67 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 45 |
| Random fact: If there are no parties in your nation with seats, feel free to visit the forum and request an early election on the Early Election Requests thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4362 |
| Random quote: "Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." - Edward Abbey |