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: WMD Reform Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Witchdoctor's Leftist Doctrine
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 2655
Description[?]:
| To completely eliminate the construction and maintenance of Weapons of Mass Destruction. |
Proposals
Article 1
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 weapons in warfare unless another nation uses them first.
Current: The nation shall never use chemical or biological weapons in warfare unless another nation uses them first.
Proposed: The nation shall never use chemical or biological weaponry in warfare.
Article 2
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 develop, produce or store nuclear weaponry.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:10:17, October 17, 2008 CET | From | Witchdoctor's Leftist Doctrine | To | Debating the WMD Reform Act |
| Message | These weapons are inhumane and cruel. Although they are the ultimate "pointy stick", they serve no real purpose in warfare, except to cause suffering and instill fear in any enemies. Biological weapons are widely considered an abominable practice by a vast majority of nations. If any enemy of ours were to launch a biological attack upon us, we would be back be many nations in any war efforts we decide to take against the offender. The retaliatory use of such weaponry then becomes spiteful and in many ways, immature. Remember, two wrongs don't make a right my friends. Nuclear weapons are also unneeded. If any nuclear strikes are launched our way, we would be well backed by the global community. We should not strive to be a nation respected out of fear, but due to our peaceful, generous and kind nature. These weapons serve no purpose to us. |
| Date | 00:17:55, October 17, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the WMD Reform Act |
| Message | We have these weapons for the precise purpose of ensuring peace. Mutually assured destruction is a awful principle, but it is one that is grounded in reality. There are a number of failed states in the world, some on our doorstep, that we simply cannot trust to leave us alone because of our kind nature. We would be doing a disservice to our people to not ensure their protection by having deterrence weapons. |
| Date | 00:26:39, October 17, 2008 CET | From | Witchdoctor's Leftist Doctrine | To | Debating the WMD Reform Act |
| Message | Alas, as you say, it is grounded in reality. The use of such weapons by other countries would need to be well founded, and as long as we remain neutral to surrounding states in any kind of future wars, I can, with good conscience, assure you we will not come under atomic fire. The most we would need to be concerned with would be the possibility of an occupation, which would be more easily deterred with conventional weapons than launching our own nukes on our on soil. I wish to hear your views on the proposal on Biological Weapons. |
| Date | 00:39:42, October 17, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the WMD Reform Act |
| Message | The current law regarding biological weapons works on the same basis as MAD - as long as no one uses biological weapons, we will similarly not. We believe that is a good balance, and we would certainly not support any more of a liberal approach to their use. |
| Date | 01:25:18, October 17, 2008 CET | From | Witchdoctor's Leftist Doctrine | To | Debating the WMD Reform Act |
| Message | But if they use them, we will? Since when was "he hit me first" a viable excuse in any corner of the world? I can understand the need for nuclear capabilities and am prepared to drop the proposal, but the fact we have Biological Weapons on our soil is appalling, for obvious reasons. They are a cheap tactic and nothing more than a terror weapon. Use of them, regardless of whether we initiated it or not, we risk being branded a terrorist in the global community. If, in some bizarre turn of events, we agitate a nation to the point of war, and their subsequent use of biological weapons, we need only break down their door hard and fast with conventional weapons and adequate NBC technology. Not only would we avoid a reputation as bio-terrorists, but we would gain respect for being the "bigger man" in a conflicting situation. |
| Date | 02:33:27, October 17, 2008 CET | From | Judicial Union Party | To | Debating the WMD Reform Act |
| Message | We might, not we will. We reserve the ability to use biological weapons in retaliation. That should dissuade their use in the first place. And "he hit me first" is a valid principle of international law, though we call it valid counter-measures. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 0 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 430 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 70 |
| Random fact: Before choosing a nation, you may wish to research it first. For more information on the cultural backgrounds of the nations, please see the Cultural Protocols Index: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=6365 |
| Random quote: "I have come to the conclusion that politics are too serious a matter to be left to the politicians." - Charles de Gaulle |