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 Weapon Abolishment Act (2656)
Details
Submitted by[?]: Liberal Social Democratic Republicans
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: August 2657
Description[?]:
| To advance towards realizing a world free of nuclear weapons. |
Proposals
Article 1
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 | 06:57:16, October 28, 2008 CET | From |  Conservative Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Weapon Abolishment Act (2656) |
| Message | We oppose because we will not let Sekowo be unguarded against the likes of the NWO or any other terrorist group. |
| Date | 09:27:59, October 28, 2008 CET | From | Normand Pluralist Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Weapon Abolishment Act (2656) |
| Message | MAD is the only thing which can provided a bulwark against nuclear war. |
| Date | 22:07:19, October 28, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Nuclear Weapon Abolishment Act (2656) |
| Message | OOC: Actually, the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction does\'nt work unless you have both sides caring more about Humanity then their own nationans and/or goals. However the basic idea of the nuclear deterent does work for the most part. |
| Date | 23:18:44, October 28, 2008 CET | From | Normand Pluralist Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Weapon Abolishment Act (2656) |
| Message | [[Actually, the idea of MAD works perfectly well so long as both sides care about their own nations. That\'s the whole reason MAD works as a deterrent.]] |
| Date | 23:45:05, October 28, 2008 CET | From | 帝国公明党 (Teikoku Kōmeitō) | To | Debating the Nuclear Weapon Abolishment Act (2656) |
| Message | We\'re opposed to this, though we\'re abstaining. OOC: That\'s why it does\'nt work, most countries with nukes would care more about ideology then the survival of the country (atleast i the way it was/is). A related, though different example of this would be that at one point in the past the US policy was, should the country ever be invaded without chance of repelling the invaders (IE Soviets), that the countries full nuclear arsenal would be launched on itself to essentially act like a poison pill. |
| Date | 00:26:42, October 29, 2008 CET | From | Revolutionary State Socialist Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Weapon Abolishment Act (2656) |
| Message | OOC: Soviet\'s did not practice MAD. In the event of invasion in Europe, nukes were part of the first wave, with the hope that hte USA would understand and only use a few themselves. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 131 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 326 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 143 |
| Random fact: "Game mechanics comes first." For example, if a currently-enforced bill sets out one law, then a player cannot claim the government has set out a contradictory law. |
| Random quote: "Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber." - Plato |