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: Nuclear Weaponry in Warfare
Details
Submitted by[?]: Paradox Theory
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: February 2576
Description[?]:
| 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 retaliation to any attack. |
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 shall never use nuclear weapons in warfare.
Proposed: The nation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in retaliation to any attack.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 01:37:16, May 13, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Weaponry in Warfare |
| Message | This is our defense system and this bill takes the liberty of decision away from our military. |
| Date | 05:18:06, May 13, 2008 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Weaponry in Warfare |
| Message | These are nuclear weapons! You're lack of concern regarding use of these weapons is a disgrace. |
| Date | 16:22:54, May 13, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Weaponry in Warfare |
| Message | Our military forces should not nuke other countries because the generals thinks it would be the easiest solution, but when we have already have been hit by nuclear missiles our retaliation capabilities might be limited. The current value serves as a nuclear deterrent against invasions, while in the new value we would not be able to retaliate unless nuked first, which basicly cancels out the nuclear deterrence in alot of cases |
| Date | 20:54:34, May 13, 2008 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Weaponry in Warfare |
| Message | An invasion would be an attack. |
| Date | 20:56:22, May 13, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Weaponry in Warfare |
| Message | well it still means our nuclear capabilities will be zero until we are actually attacked |
| Date | 20:57:48, May 13, 2008 CET | From | United Republics Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Weaponry in Warfare |
| Message | But isn't that still a deterrent? A first strike policy is unwise. |
| Date | 23:35:59, May 13, 2008 CET | From | The Liberal Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Weaponry in Warfare |
| Message | So you want to wait until we are in heaven to retaliate. If we don't have the capablity of acting quickly, we wouldn't survive an attack. |
| Date | 23:54:09, May 13, 2008 CET | From | Lodamun Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Weaponry in Warfare |
| Message | I dont think it would be a detterent since then the enemy knows they can strike us, they just have to strike us hard. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 70 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 55 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 25 |
| Random fact: Check out the forum regularly for game news. http://forum.particracy.net/ |
| Random quote: "We must face the fact that the preservation of individual freedom is incompatible with a full satisfaction of our views of distributive justice." - Friedrich August von Hayek |