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: Civil Defense Intensification Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: National Socialists
Status[?]: passed
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: July 2128
Description[?]:
| We believe that all new public buildings should have adequate civil defense shelters so that our citizens can be protected at all times from military or natural threats. In times of war, the spirit of our people and our government must not be broken by aggressive scare tactics on civilian targets. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change Civil defence is the government's policy on providing shelters to be used in the event of attacks on major cities, mainly nuclear attacks and bombing.
Old value:: The government builds and maintains a network of shelters across the nation.
Current: The government builds and maintains a network of shelters across the nation.
Proposed: No new buildings may be constructed unless they feature provisions for civil defence.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 01:31:36, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Solentian Corporate Communist Party | To | Debating the Civil Defense Intensification Act |
| Message | Why make numerous little shelters instead of one big one? Also, the attacks you speak of will either be small suicide attacks, suprise bombing raids, and/or invasion. In all instances, smaller shelters will not help due the lack of time as well as the fact there would be numerous small shelters instead of shelters on military bases that will be well protected. Let's keep the AA guns off of our skyscrapers and scuttle this measure. |
| Date | 01:38:02, October 18, 2005 CET | From | National Socialists | To | Debating the Civil Defense Intensification Act |
| Message | It is a fact that the closer a shelter is, the less chance there is for panic stampedes in our city. Adequate shelters in public building are not necessarily small. Qualified, fast and controlled access is the key to safety. |
| Date | 05:20:29, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Solentian Corporate Communist Party | To | Debating the Civil Defense Intensification Act |
| Message | With the government building shelters, we ensure all those things are available. By your justification of the change, there is no difference. |
| Date | 15:07:00, October 18, 2005 CET | From | National Socialists | To | Debating the Civil Defense Intensification Act |
| Message | There is a big difference -both financially and quantitatively- when providing this by law, instead of relying on the government's goodwill. |
| Date | 16:46:07, October 18, 2005 CET | From | Solentian Corporate Communist Party | To | Debating the Civil Defense Intensification Act |
| Message | Once again, we have shown financially that this is inefficient as well as the inefficiency quantatively. Again, government shelters are more protected than shelters in EVERY building. Furthermore, these new shelters will not have the same level of security, military protection, equipment, and generally will be inferior to those found on military bases. We can build more bases if desired but making every building have a shelter is asinine outright. |
| Date | 02:07:12, October 19, 2005 CET | From | United Centrists | To | Debating the Civil Defense Intensification Act |
| Message | We favor the organization and efficiency that exists with a government operated system of shelters. Civil Defense provisions in all new buildings could prove costly, and fear that some designers may haphazardly implement a shelter into a building without giving it addequate thought. |
| Date | 04:37:56, October 19, 2005 CET | From | National Socialists | To | Debating the Civil Defense Intensification Act |
| Message | 1. The idea is that a the financial cost is for the main part distributed among constructors, it would prove to be a smaller cost for them to add adequate shelters in their city projects. If these costs prove to high, subsidies or lower taxes could be given to this industry. 2. The planning of numerous big projects by the government, hiring another constructor, clearing ground (underground of above ground) in the middle of a vivid city all adds up to even bigger costs. 3. When they are finally needed, we will likely conclude that a significant part of a city's population didn't get there in time and perished during the disaster, despite the monstrous amount of planning, trouble and government expenditures. 4. Finally, the quality and efficiency of sheltering against natural disasters or for example military bomb raids rely on the speed they can be put to use. |
| Date | 05:02:22, October 19, 2005 CET | From | Patriot Conservative | To | Debating the Civil Defense Intensification Act |
| Message | We support this. |
| Date | 05:52:39, October 19, 2005 CET | From | National Socialists | To | Debating the Civil Defense Intensification Act |
| Message | We are happy to have convinced the president to this measure. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 383 | |||
| no |
Total Seats: 317 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Real life-life nationalities, cultures or ethnicities should not be referenced in Particracy (eg. "German"). |
| Random quote: "We have to face the fact that either all of us are going to die together or we are going to learn to live together, and if we are to live together we have to talk." - Eleanor Roosevelt |