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 Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM)
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 2864
Description[?]:
This Act will lead the world in nuclear disarmament. |
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 warfare for any reason.
Current: The nation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons if victory is not feasibile by other means.
Proposed: The nation shall never use nuclear weapons in warfare.
Article 2
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 reserves the right to develop, produce and store nuclear arms.
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 | 17:41:39, December 15, 2009 CET | From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
Message | Prime Minister William Havers: Mr Speaker, I come to Parliament today with what I am sure will be a controversial proposal. We have been a nucelar nation for many, many years, and no doubt many will be disturbed by what we propose today. Yet, we truly believe that this is an essential Act, to improve world security and better our nation's standing. Mr Speaker, this country is very rarely at war. I therefore propose that, economically, our development of nuclear arms is absurd, they will never be used and there is no evidence to suggest that they prevent or deter attacks. We spend billions each year on their development and maintenance, and this is money that would be better in the taxpayers' pocketes. Of course, defence of the realm is a government's number one priority, and so economic arguments are minor and secondary. If it was warranted, a CLP government would spend the money. However, this country has no enemies and, this being a world consisting almost wholly of liberal democracies, we are unlikely to receive such a threat. On practical grounds, therefore, maintaining our nuclear arms is completely unnecessary. Mr Speaker, no doubt we shall be accused of leaving Hutori undefended. This is not so. Our development of conventional weaponry remains and it is only ever this weaponry that we use when in warfare. Whilst we have always reserved the right to use these weapons, it has always been assumed that these would never be used, and indeed, the documents that I have access to tell me that this went beyond assumption! We would therefore, Mr Speaker, prefer to divert resources to the development of weaponry that actually would be used, the training of our armed forces and wage increases for such personnel. Mr Speaker, this is not about reducing Hutori's role as a world power; it is a recognition of reality. If we can be seen as a powerful nation without nuclear weaponry, then I am sure and confident that other nations will follow suit. This Act, Mr Speaker, can only be a good thing for Hutori. |
Date | 17:42:19, December 15, 2009 CET | From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
Message | Prime Minister William Havers: Mr Speaker, I come to Parliament today with what I am sure will be a controversial proposal. We have been a nucelar nation for many, many years, and no doubt many will be disturbed by what we propose today. Yet, we truly believe that this is an essential Act, to improve world security and better our nation's standing. Mr Speaker, this country is very rarely at war. I therefore propose that, economically, our development of nuclear arms is absurd, they will never be used and there is no evidence to suggest that they prevent or deter attacks. We spend billions each year on their development and maintenance, and this is money that would be better in the taxpayers' pocketes. Of course, defence of the realm is a government's number one priority, and so economic arguments are minor and secondary. If it was warranted, a CLP government would spend the money. However, this country has no enemies and, this being a world consisting almost wholly of liberal democracies, we are unlikely to receive such a threat. On practical grounds, therefore, maintaining our nuclear arms is completely unnecessary. Mr Speaker, no doubt we shall be accused of leaving Hutori undefended. This is not so. Our development of conventional weaponry remains and it is only ever this weaponry that we use when in warfare. Whilst we have always reserved the right to use these weapons, it has always been assumed that these would never be used, and indeed, the documents that I have access to tell me that this went beyond assumption! We would therefore, Mr Speaker, prefer to divert resources to the development of weaponry that actually would be used, the training of our armed forces and wage increases for such personnel. Mr Speaker, this is not about reducing Hutori's role as a world power; it is a recognition of reality. If we can be seen as a powerful nation without nuclear weaponry, then I am sure and confident that other nations will follow suit. This Act, Mr Speaker, can only be a good thing for Hutori. |
Date | 17:51:43, December 15, 2009 CET | From | House Lusk-Nat'l Syndicalist Party (UM) | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
Message | Mr Speaker, our land is intermittently threatened by our western neighbor, Davostan. This law does not merely stop development of nuclear arms and mothball existing weapons-- the policy under the Lusk regime-- but completely takes away the ability to reactivate those weapons if need be. It would make more sense for the Ministry of Defence to call a halt to nuclear development to save money than to completely defang our arsenal. If we should need nuclear weapons in the future, and this bill passes, then an entire parliamentary debate will be necessary to change the law. By then, our cities could be in ruins. Wesley Michaels, Bt. NSP whip |
Date | 18:08:05, December 15, 2009 CET | From | Conservative-Libertarian Party (UM) | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
Message | Mr Speaker, should we need nuclear weapons in the future, we may as well give up thoughts of longevity and life now, for the destruction of both of those is what nuclear war would result in. |
Date | 13:34:43, December 16, 2009 CET | From | God's and the King's Fighters | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
Message | Mr Speaker, we feel that one of the reasons our country never will indulge in a nuclear war (again - lest we forget the first communist regime after the civil war) will be our country's ability to retaliate. Nuclear weapons do serve not only as weapons per se, but also as a signal to potential enemies of our nations. Our nations has fought many wars in the past, against Telamon and Davostan when we left the Union of Macon, against international communist armies after the civil war, against Davostan right before the country became the headquarters of the NWO and Saiserism, constantly during the high period of the NWO, and so on. This country has been in many wars, and it well could be the victim of war again. Therefor we cannot endorse this bill, and must vote against. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
Vote | Seats | ||
yes | Total Seats: 188 | ||
no | Total Seats: 203 | ||
abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
Random fact: You can view who's online (i.e. been active the last 10 minutes) at the bottom of the menu (either at the top or the side). |
Random quote: "Under every stone lurks a politician." Aristophanes (450 BC - 388 BC), Thesmophoriazusae, 410 B.C |