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: No-to-nukes
Details
Submitted by[?]: Radical Freedom 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 2138
Description[?]:
| "NO TO NUKES!", chants Jessica Freedom whilst holding up a colourful sign with animals and peace signs and lots of other confusing symbolics, "END THE NUCLEAR MADNESS!" |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning the use of nuclear weaponry in warfare.
Old value:: The nation shall never use nuclear weapons in warfare unless another nation uses them first.
Current: The nation shall never use nuclear weapons in warfare.
Proposed: The nation shall never use nuclear weapons in warfare.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 13:39:49, November 05, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the No-to-nukes |
| Message | "I'd rather my country have the ability to defend itself from complete and utter destruction," explained an LIP spokesman politely to a calm LIP party rally, waving his hand towards the pacifists, "the nuclear deterrent has been shown to successfully stop wars, both conventional and nuclear. Those people, however, do not seem to understand history nor the issues they are talking about." The LIP members at the rally clapped lightly and quietly expressed agreement to those standing next to them, content with the knowledge that they werent a bunch of daft bloody hippies. |
| Date | 14:35:47, November 05, 2005 CET | From | Libertarian Alcoholic Party II | To | Debating the No-to-nukes |
| Message | Getting rid of our nukes makes us far weaker than nations which have them. We'd be at the mercy of the tyrant with the biggest arsenal. |
| Date | 16:20:56, November 05, 2005 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the No-to-nukes |
| Message | This proposal does not get rid of the Rutanian nuclear arsenal. Instead, it changes the policy of the government to one that does not use nuclear weapons. A future government will be able to change this policy if it pleases it to do so. We have not proposed dismantling the Rutanian nuclear arsenal because doing so would be prohibitively expensive, and it would likely be reversed when thr Right Coalition gets back into power. The RFP refuses to see billions of RUT thrown away again and again for party-political reasons. Hence we only change the policy. |
| Date | 23:45:06, November 05, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the No-to-nukes |
| Message | We on the other side of the debate, however, believe that we should assert our right to fire back BEFORE we are nuked, not after. This policy presents no real deterrent (well, provided the submarine commanders actually follow the law if the time comes) whilst at the same time still spending all the money needed to maintain the deterrent in working condition. It's the worst of both worlds, and disarmament by the back door. We all know from their voting record that the RFP wants to dismantle the nuclear deterrent. |
| Date | 11:50:33, November 06, 2005 CET | From |  Freedom Party | To | Debating the No-to-nukes |
| Message | So we will have a nuclear arsenal but wont be able to use it, how stupid. |
| Date | 11:51:10, November 06, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the No-to-nukes |
| Message | Eight months to change it is too long and could mean we are fucked and bombed, nice thinking RFP |
| Date | 12:19:49, November 06, 2005 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the No-to-nukes |
| Message | The Rt. Hon. gentleman is quite right, we oppose nuclear weapons. Would he prefer that I propose complete disarament now instead of trying to consider your sensibilities? If we were to dismantle the nuclear arsenal now it might take DECADES to restore it. The Freedom Party is making an irrelevant point. |
| Date | 21:52:25, November 07, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the No-to-nukes |
| Message | Hardly, if we say we cant use them and it takes eight months to change that, then for those eight months when we realise we need to change it to counter a threat, we are screwed. Our point is hardly irrelevent at all, eight months is a long time in war. Somehow we feel the RFP do not know what war is actually like. |
| Date | 01:05:33, November 08, 2005 CET | From | Radical Freedom Party | To | Debating the No-to-nukes |
| Message | As opposed to the experience the Freedom Party has with widespread nuclear holocaust? |
| Date | 21:40:31, November 08, 2005 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the No-to-nukes |
| Message | I said war, can you not read?? Eight months is a long time in war, now i think most people would realise (except for yourselves obviously) that another nation can fire a nulear weapons or a hundred at us in less than eight months, |
| Date | 23:08:43, November 08, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the No-to-nukes |
| Message | How does deterring an enemy from firing at you cause a "widespread nuclear holocaust"? I think someone's be at the wine... |
| Date | 23:08:53, November 08, 2005 CET | From | Liberal Imperialist Party | To | Debating the No-to-nukes |
| Message | *been |
| Date | 04:42:35, November 09, 2005 CET | From | Evil non-Internationalist Communist Part | To | Debating the No-to-nukes |
| Message | I have no arguement against using a 5 million dollar nuke in order to save billions of dollars and thousands of lives in an un-needed war. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 250 | |||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 349 | |||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Don't vote yes on a cabinet coalition that doesn't give you the power that you deserve. |
| Random quote: "It is a man's own mind, not his enemy or foe, that lures him to evil ways." - Buddha |