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 Policy Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Conservative 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: December 2600
Description[?]:
| A bill that will enable our government to fight and thwart foreign threats to our national security. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning biological and chemical weaponry.
Old value:: The nation shall never purchase, produce, or store biological or chemical weaponry, for military purposes. Research and development of the technology is permitted.
Current: The nation reserves the right to develop, construct and store biological and chemical weapons.
Proposed: The nation reserves the right to develop, construct and store biological and chemical weapons.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning the use of chemical and biological weaponry in warfare.
Old value:: The nation shall never use chemical or biological weaponry in warfare.
Current: The nation reserves the right to use chemical or biological weapons in warfare for any reason.
Proposed: The nation shall never use chemical or biological weapons in warfare unless another nation uses them first.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The nation's defence industry.
Old value:: The state owns all defence industries.
Current: The state owns all defence industries.
Proposed: The state owns national defence industries but these exist alongside privately owned defence industries.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning the export of weapons to other nations.
Old value:: The government does not allow arms to be exported.
Current: The government must approve all arms sales on a case by case basis.
Proposed: The government must approve all arms sales on a case by case basis.
Article 5
Proposal[?] to change Women in the military.
Old value:: Women serve alongside men.
Current: Women serve alongside men.
Proposed: Women can only serve in non-battle positions.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:22:20, June 27, 2008 CET | From |  Conservative Party | To | Debating the Defense Policy Act |
| Message | - Art. 1 and 2 are proposed in order to bring consistency between the state\'s policies towards nuclear weapons and the its policies towards biological and chemical weapons. Under current legislation, the government is allowed the use of nuclear weapons, but the use of chemical and bio. weapons is discouraged, even though they are far less destructive than the former.\r\n\r\n- Art. 3 The conduct of deffensive affairs is a state\'s sole responasiblity, but it would be unwise to discard the contributions that private innovations can bring to warfare.\r\n\r\n- Art. 4 We all love and want peace, but sometimes to protect oneself, one has to "kill with a borrowed knife", which means luring someone else to do the job, avoiding direct confrontation and keeping oneself safe from harm. So the government shouldn\'t be prevented from selling arms when national security estimations demand it.\r\n\r\nArt. 5 First, acknowledging women\'s bravery and self-denial, women\'s services in the armies are irreplaceable. But they are perjudical in the battlefield; according to the testimonies of many soldiers that say that men find harder to focus on battle when they fight along with their female combatants, because they can barely help trying to "protect them" more than that is prudent. The results of this policy is more deaths and more injured men than there should be. \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n |
| Date | 23:58:39, June 27, 2008 CET | From | Conservative Party | To | Debating the Defense Policy Act |
| Message | This one is more readable... Art. 1 First, acknowledging women's bravery and self-denial, women's services in the armies are irreplaceable. But according to the testimonies of many soldiers, which say that men find harder to focus on battle when they fight along with their female combatants, because they can barely help trying to "protect them" more than that is prudent. The deployment of female soldiers on the battlefields is perjudicial. The results of this policy is more deaths and more injured men than there should be. - Art. 2 and 3 are proposed in order to bring consistency between the state\'s policies towards nuclear weapons and the its policies towards biological and chemical weapons. Under current legislation, the government is allowed the use of nuclear weapons, but the use of chemical and bio. weapons is discouraged, even though they are far less destructive than the former. Art. 4 The conduct of deffensive affairs is a state\'s sole responasiblity, but it would be unwise to discard the contributions that private innovations can bring to warfare. Art. 5 We all love and want peace, but sometimes to protect oneself, one has to "kill with a borrowed knife", which means luring someone else to do the job, avoiding direct confrontation and keeping oneself safe from harm. So the government shouldn\'t be prevented from selling arms when national security estimations demand it. |
| Date | 03:14:22, June 28, 2008 CET | From | Partido Santanderista | To | Debating the Defense Policy Act |
| Message | No to all |
| Date | 17:57:57, June 28, 2008 CET | From | NWOIAUCFCCNUCDMFSatanilicRepublicanParty | To | Debating the Defense Policy Act |
| Message | SRP Minister Of Defence Rev. Slardar: It's been a firm SRP opinion that everyone should be in the military. SRP Chaos Representative Rev. Bob Larrity: Damn straight! We want the men, women, gays, kids, seniors, machines, illegal aliens, criminals, disable people, animals straped with weapons, and zombies on the battlefield! We want every f**king thing that can pull a trigger in the military!!! Right Hand SRP Representative Rev. Marv: By the way. We support all other articles. |
| Date | 19:32:53, June 28, 2008 CET | From | Partido Laborista Socialista | To | Debating the Defense Policy Act |
| Message | Act 1: Here you treat the symptom, not the disease. If you truly want to wipe out the issue that you raise, you ought to propose new ways of making sure that people are not discriminated against on any grounds, such as gender. Act 2 & 3: You say that biological weapons are 'safe', yet this is clearly not the case. What if a new incredibly virulent and resistant strain of some disease we have been working on is released in a war-zone somewhere? It will wipe out that population, yes, but it will end up spreading all over Terra and working its way back here, to Davostan. In the single action of releasing a biological weapon, we have become responsible for the mass-murder of our own citizens. As for chemical weapons, we see your point that the actual destruction of physical objects is not great with this, but the purpose of nuclear weapons is that very destruction, not the side effects of irradiation. The point here is that with chemical weapons, the enemy can prepare much easier for the attack, but this is not so with nuclear weapons. Also, as long as we make ourselves able to utilise nuclear weapons against any nuclear, biological or chemical attack, we can prevent it occurring in the first place, and save on the expense of maintaining biological and chemical weapons. Act 4: The defence of the nation is the sole responsibility of the state, and in order to prevent profiteering businessmen from selling our secrets to the enemy, we should make sure that the state controls all the secrets. Act 5: For the same reasons as Act 4, we must maintain important secrets about our military capability if we are to succeed in a war. |
| Date | 23:56:54, June 28, 2008 CET | From | Partido Conservador de Davostan | To | Debating the Defense Policy Act |
| Message | We agree with the SRP's representative Slardar on the idea that all able citizens should serve in the military. We urge UDL to examine the bill bearing the title "National Security Bill", where we intend to modify the nation's policy towards nuclear weapons. There seems to be some consensus from some of the parties in government as to the need to change it and they might be more inclined to support it if each subject is addressed separately. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 0 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 68 | |||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 68 |
| Random fact: Once approved, players should copy Cultural Protocols into a bill in the debate section of their nation page, under the title of "OOC: Cultural Protocols". This bill should include links to the passed Cultural Protocol bill and the Moderation approval. |
| Random quote: "Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end." - John Dalberg-Acton |