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: Militrary improvements2
Details
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: November 2706
Description[?]:
| Also to improve the military |
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 retaliation to any attack.
Current: The nation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in retaliation to any attack.
Proposed: The nation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons if victory is not feasibile by other means.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 11:25:01, February 03, 2009 CET | From | Neo Kanist Rite Party of Sorbanika | To | Debating the Militrary improvements2 |
| Message | Yes, a nuclear holocaust is a great way to ensure victory...not. We are sorry but whilst the use of nuclear weapons could bring about the end of a war faster than conventional methods and may possibly save lives we believe that using them in this way would pose to much of a risk to world security. It could effectively lead to all out nuclear war, which we do not want. There could possibly be a situation where all nuclear powers agree to attack a nation with no nuclear capability to end a war, but we think that this will be unlikely and therefore we will not be supporting this bill. |
| Date | 16:37:03, February 03, 2009 CET | From | TW@ | To | Debating the Militrary improvements2 |
| Message | it would kill everyone within a 1 mile or more radius, and give every other civilian cancer. What it the point of taking a nuclear waistland? |
| Date | 17:40:40, February 03, 2009 CET | From | Neo Kanist Rite Party of Sorbanika | To | Debating the Militrary improvements2 |
| Message | TW@. it would kill people situated in more than a 1 mile radius and would increase the chances of cancer by a huge amount. We do not really see what relevance your second point has. |
| Date | 19:59:11, February 03, 2009 CET | From | Christian Democrat Party | To | Debating the Militrary improvements2 |
| Message | We are unsure as we believe that although nuclear weapons should only be used when victory cannot be achieved otherwise, we believe the current law allows our nuclear weapons to act as a deterrent, and will put other countries off making an attack against us. |
| Date | 00:25:49, February 04, 2009 CET | From | TW@ | To | Debating the Militrary improvements2 |
| Message | To the Neo Kanist... Party, our point is that there is no point of using nuclear weapons as an offensive weapon, as this would mean that the land you take is waistland anyway. and using them unneccerally would cause a catostopic ammount of civilian deaths - can you justify all these unneccary deaths. |
| Date | 10:32:02, February 04, 2009 CET | From | Neo Kanist Rite Party of Sorbanika | To | Debating the Militrary improvements2 |
| Message | TW@ what you just said is a contradiction of this bill that you proposed. This bill would increase the likelihood of nuclear weapons being used as an offensive weapon so why do you say "there is no point using nuclear weapons as an offensive weapon"? Also if we were to use nuclear weapons to gain victory if it is not feasible by any other means, AS STATED IN THIS BILL WHICH YOU PROPOSED, then this would of course lead to a catastrophic loss of civilian life. You ask if we can justify all this unneccessary death, i throw that question right back at you, because that is what your proposal would result in. If you think that their is no point in using nuclear weapons as an offensive weapon, as you just said, then why dont you make a bill that promotes this belief? Or you could just leave it as it is. As a party you appear to be making bills that you dont actually believe in or support, it this part of an inner party feud or as a result of bad logistics? We suggest that the TW@ party take more time to read their proposals and think about what they actually entail before you put them to vote. |
| Date | 12:12:51, February 04, 2009 CET | From | Christian Democrat Party | To | Debating the Militrary improvements2 |
| Message | Unforunately, twat, the NKRP make a good point. Allowing nuclear weapons to be used when victory cannot be obtained is very subjective and could probably justify detonating them whenever. For instance, the proposed law would allow us to attack a huge superpower as there would be no way we could defeat them with an army - the only way to obtain victory would be to blow up their country with nuclear weapons. |
| Date | 22:09:37, February 04, 2009 CET | From | The Likatonian Imperium party | To | Debating the Militrary improvements2 |
| Message | This is a cowardly course of action. We would rather surrender with dignity, than have our country made darkened forever |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 55 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 398 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 213 |
| Random fact: http://www.fantasynamegenerators.com and http://www.behindthename.com/random are great resources for coming up with character names from unfamiliar cultures. |
| Random quote: "When there's a single thief, it's robbery. When there are a thousand thieves, it's taxation. " -Vanya Cohen |