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: Homeland Security Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: People's 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: March 2045
Description[?]:
| Likaton has pledged itself to a policy of peace and non-agression. Yet we live in a dangerous neighbourhood, and the threat from our enemies is ever present and growing. To safeguard our security, we propose the development and maintenance of a strategic nuclear program. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The policy with respect to nuclear weaponry.
Old value:: The nation shall never develop, produce or store nuclear weaponry.
Current: The nation reserves the right to develop, produce and store nuclear arms.
Proposed: The nation reserves the right to develop, produce and store nuclear arms.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 02:12:21, April 27, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the Homeland Security Bill | | Message | We stand by our 'No First Use" policy- we will only use nukes, if another nation uses them on us. |
| Date | 08:55:58, April 27, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the Homeland Security Bill | | Message | Actually mutually assured destruction is a better way to achieve peace. How many times have two large nuclear nations gone to war against each other in the last 50 years? Now compare that with 50years before, when we had the two world wars, the Crimean War, several skirmishes ..all between the biggest powers of the world. |
| Date | 08:58:31, April 27, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the Homeland Security Bill | | Message | The arms race ends when everyone realises that there is no more advantage they can achieve over others. But to not arm yourself when other do so, is suicide.. |
| Date | 10:13:08, April 27, 2005 CET |
From | | To | Debating the Homeland Security Bill | | Message | We are fundamentally opposed to the construction, storage or use of Nuclear Weapons. |
| Date | 23:12:00, April 27, 2005 CET |
From | Liberal Party for Equality | To | Debating the Homeland Security Bill | | Message | Suicide eh? Well, in a civilised world, it shouldn't be. only approximately 10 countries in the real world have nuclear weapons.(taking into account those with undeclared weapons) Is everybody else being nuked? no. QED.
plus they save a lot of money not having to pay to make and maintain them. |
| Date | 23:29:16, April 27, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the Homeland Security Bill | | Message | Wait till the game starts allowing armies...we will not be able to stand up to any bully in the region, with a bunch of fighter jets and missiles. They'll be obliterated in just one nuclear strike. |
| Date | 10:12:24, April 28, 2005 CET |
From | | To | Debating the Homeland Security Bill | | Message | That happens all the time doesn't it? Nuclear powers are always using their nukes against everyone else. |
| Date | 11:23:13, April 28, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the Homeland Security Bill | | Message | But no nuclear power in history ever used one against another nuclear nation ...
America bombed JApan because we were 'ending the war' . Yet we never used nukes on russia despite all the tensions of the cold war... India never used nukes on Pakistan despite the Kargil crisis, when 20 years ago India would have reacted by marching across the border to take the country over...all these attest to the potency of nukes --as a strategetic deterrent. |
| Date | 14:49:36, April 28, 2005 CET |
From | | To | Debating the Homeland Security Bill | | Message | But they are fundamentally pointless weapons. All they do is make sure everyone dies. What is the point of that? Added to the fact that they are a weapon designed to kill large numbers of civilians and they become genocidal weapons. Surely there is no party in Likaton that would promote that. |
| Date | 17:25:24, April 28, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the Homeland Security Bill | | Message | The point is to deter. Instead of having the large and expensive army we would need to properly defend our borders, we could just have a few nukes and a small army. That would be enough to ensure our security. |
| Date | 21:43:40, April 28, 2005 CET |
From | | To | Debating the Homeland Security Bill | | Message | Possesion of nuclear weapons did not deter Saddam from launching Scud attacks on Isreal. |
| Date | 22:53:39, April 28, 2005 CET |
From | | To | Debating the Homeland Security Bill | | Message | No since there was another country inbetween them. Additionally nuclear weapons inevitably increase the general availability of the raw materials and technology so that it becomes ever easier for other nations and terrorist organisations to aquire them. |
| Date | 10:56:43, April 29, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the Homeland Security Bill | | Message | Would Isreal been safe if there was no country between them?
Here think about this ...anyone remember the Kargil crisis between india and Pakistan???? In 1971, during the crisis in East PAkistan(now Bangladesh), India claimed that it had had enough and then proceeded to invade and kick ass. Yet in 1999, despite a clear invasion by Pakistan , India never pushed back into Pakistan.
|
| Date | 10:58:46, April 29, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the Homeland Security Bill | | Message | The material can be controlled and protected. The danger comes when failed states develop nukes, not robust countries like ours. When was the last time you heard of nuckes being sold from american plants? |
| Date | 21:07:07, April 29, 2005 CET |
From | | To | Debating the Homeland Security Bill | | Message | Even the US and Britain have found themselves unable to account for all radioactive material in their countries, even though they have legislation in place rewuiring it to be registered.
We would suggest that India and Pakistan are a different model as there is alot of posturing and gamesmanship involved, not just the nuclear element. |
| Date | 01:26:58, April 30, 2005 CET |
From | | To | Debating the Homeland Security Bill | | Message | Is there more to say or shall we just vote and see? |
| Date | 02:36:50, April 30, 2005 CET |
From | People's Party | To | Debating the Homeland Security Bill | | Message | Yes theres always a remote chance that some stuff will sneak out...but if you're really worried about terrorists getting their hands on some, we should worry abt those failed states who are going to develop them anyway. Killing our program is not going to stop anyone else from threatening us with theirs. AZANyway, I'm moving this to vote. |
| Date | 15:47:41, April 30, 2005 CET |
From | | To | Debating the Homeland Security Bill | | Message | Thanks for another good debate PP. |
| Date | 00:55:52, May 01, 2005 CET |
From | | To | Debating the Homeland Security Bill | | Message | Maybe not here, but certainly in other areas :) |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
| Vote |
Seats |
| yes | Total Seats: 34 |
| no | Total Seats: 133 |
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: The players in a nation have a collective responsibility to ensure their "Bills under debate" section is kept in good order. Bills which are irrelevant or have become irrelevant should be deleted. Deletion can be requested for bills proposed by inactive parties on the Bill Clearout Requests thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4363 |
| Random quote: "If Lincoln were alive today, he’d be turning over in his grave." - Gerald Ford |