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 Disarmament
Details
Submitted by[?]: Radical Centrists
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: January 2047
Description[?]:
The United Federation of Malivia sets an example to the international community and pledges to both cease production of nuclear weaponry and phase out its existing nuclear arsenal. |
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 develop, produce or store nuclear weaponry.
Proposed: The nation shall never develop, produce or store nuclear weaponry.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 05:08:06, April 29, 2005 CET | From | Radical Centrists | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament |
Message | Since the previous effort has been abandoned, the RC will attempt to drag this issue back in the spotlight. Any suggestions welcome, for instance a time frame for disarmament. I can think of at least two parties that will oppose... |
Date | 05:17:55, April 29, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament |
Message | ooc: the reason i let the original bill die was, as with many other issues, there were economic concerns that i'd like answered before i take a position one way or the other. if a majority of people here want to wait, then we should. if not, then off we go. |
Date | 05:41:24, April 29, 2005 CET | From | Radical Centrists | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament |
Message | OOC: Yeah, I remember - fair enough. Consider this an opinion poll on the issue (one party, one vote!). If y'all have concerns on this factor, I won't proceed. |
Date | 05:44:01, April 29, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament |
Message | Thank you RC for putting this up for open debate. We appreciate your openness to suggestions and comments. There are two problems that the FRP sees with WMDs. First, we should not limit our strategic abilities. Nuclear weapons are a deterrent that can prevent war and increase the use of diplomacy as an option to resolve our differences with other countries. On the other hand, WMDs have the potential to cause so much damage that ecological destruction will prevent people from ever living in an area again. Perhaps a joint resolution, with no proposals, to never build chemical and biological weapons, while retaining our right to nuclear weapons? How does that sound RC? |
Date | 06:13:21, April 29, 2005 CET | From | Radical Centrists | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament |
Message | ooc: If we could persuade Wouter to factor in bio & chem weapons options, that'd be very good. Basically, LevP reckons we wait for the economics to be sorted out, while you oppose the resolution as stands. Five more positions to establish! |
Date | 06:21:14, April 29, 2005 CET | From | Radical Centrists | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament |
Message | OK, I've made a post in the forum to this effect. |
Date | 07:19:59, April 29, 2005 CET | From | Protectorate Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament |
Message | Our position has not changed. |
Date | 07:42:54, April 29, 2005 CET | From | Free Reform Coalition (FRP) | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament |
Message | Thank you RC for putting it in the forums. Should we now wait until there are changes before we move on this bill, or should we go now and then deal with changes later? |
Date | 11:29:45, April 29, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament |
Message | The stand of the USP is probably not forgotten by the rest of the parties in Malivia. We have not changed since the last debate and stand firm on the belief that MAD makes us live in a safe world. |
Date | 13:23:10, April 29, 2005 CET | From | Labour Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament |
Message | The LP remains opposed to nuclear weapons and has not changed from it's unilateralist position. OOC: Thiugh I'm happy to wait if Wouter is going to add new options. Although I can;t see any circumstances in which the LP will vote to retain nukes, I have no objection to having the debate with all the options before us. |
Date | 15:09:49, April 29, 2005 CET | From | LibCom Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament |
Message | The LCP also remains fully committed to a nuclear free policy. OOC: Yeah, what LP said. |
Date | 17:05:39, April 29, 2005 CET | From | Radical Centrists | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament |
Message | Suggested by rakko: Government Policy In Regards to Chemical and Biological Weapons: - Blanket authorization is granted to armies to utilize these weapons as they see fit - The government allows limited use and funds countermeasure research - The government funds countermeasure research but bans use of either in combat - The government bans use of and discourages research on chemical and biological weapons |
Date | 17:10:57, April 29, 2005 CET | From | Radical Centrists | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament |
Message | I think a majority are happy to bring this to a vote, though I may well lose! That said, I'll hold off a short while to get your views on the above suggstion and see if a new option comes up. If the economics dictate that we ought to keep a nuclear capablity, we can always repeal. |
Date | 23:34:05, April 29, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament |
Message | My god, won't anybody think of the children!? Let us see a couple of figures here; I will use the numbers from the US army since they are quite free and easy to obtain opposite to the Russian ones. The US spent $5.5 trillion on nuclear weapons and related programs between 1940 and 1996, that is about 40% of the cost of general national defence costs, which were $13.2 trillion. That amount of money was spent on the military even though the US had access to nuclear weapons. Today the US spends about 11% of their total defence budget on nuclear weapons and their related programs (that is including maintenance of their more than 8000 nuclear warheads). So you can imagine the vast amounts of money pushed into the military wouldn’t the US had access to nuclear weapons, they might be a big cost to develop and build, but maintaining them is an abysmal price compared to what it would cost to have a standing army, navy and air force capable of deterring a possible enemy, the threat of war doesn’t go away with our nuclear weapons, quite the opposite, we become sitting ducks and have to invest billions into conventional troops. |
Date | 01:32:40, May 01, 2005 CET | From | Labour Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament |
Message | The LP thanks the USP for highlighting some of the money that would be availalble to health, education and welfare if we removed the enormous drain of nuclear weapons from the natonal budget. OOC: Ok, the figures aren't really relevant for game purposes as the USA isn't in the game, but they do illustrate the exceptionally high cost of maintianing a nuclear arselnal. And one reason why its better to spend more money on conventional troops than nukes is because that creates employment. |
Date | 10:02:29, May 01, 2005 CET | From | Leviathan Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament |
Message | I believe the USP's point was to illustrate that nuclear weapons are as effective a deterrant as a much larger and more expensive conventional military. However, as we've stated previously, MAD only works if you have a government the world believes will start a nuclear war if attacked in any way. If, for instance, a foreign power were to being seizing our shipping, would we be capable of retaliating with nuclear weapons? If not, then we have told the world that not only is our shipping vulnerable, but that they can now attack with impunity. How far will they press the envelope until we do retaliate? We do not pose an answer here, only a concern that has so far gone unaddressed. A military based on MAD would be far cheaper than a conventional military, our economists agree with the USP on that point, the question is simply whether an MAD based military would be effective. |
Date | 15:29:25, May 01, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament |
Message | The LP must have missed the part where the USP explains that a conventional army would drain even more money from such branches as welfare, health and education. Nuclear arms are both cheaper and safer than conventional armies. OOC: The figures are totally relevant, unless there's some really cheap way of building/producing nuclear weapons in the game... Employment that doesn't produce anything... I am sure the people who would work in the conventional army could be trained to do something a little more... producing than just marching around and running drills... |
Date | 21:00:25, May 01, 2005 CET | From | Labour Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament |
Message | OOC: yes, I missed the point - I was drunk though. Maybe I'll call my next presidentual candidate Boris ;-). I take the point though, but I still think there's a valid point about the employment issue. You can't just assume that military personnel will find alternative employment so the ability to employ many people in an army is an important one. Though, admittedyl this is not qyite the discussion to have here, but I am in favour (ICly at least) of maintaining a decent sized conventional army. |
Date | 23:16:13, May 01, 2005 CET | From | United Socialist Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament |
Message | OOC: Haha, well that was a president who totally rocked! Other than what I've already said I don't got much more to add, for the moment anyway. And nuclear weapons would of course co-exist with a moderate conventional army, tho' it wouldn't be that big. |
Date | 18:04:27, May 03, 2005 CET | From | Radical Centrists | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament |
Message | OK, I'll put this to vote. If it passes and the economics development aspect of the game renders it unwise, we can always repeal it. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | ||||||
yes |
Total Seats: 74 | ||||||
no | Total Seats: 26 | ||||||
abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
Random fact: Players are expected to play the game independently and should not share their passwords or allow others to access their accounts. |
Random quote: "Wherever you have an efficient government, you have a dictatorship." - Harry S. Truman |