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: Flexible Response Strategy
Details
Submitted by[?]: Covenanters (IA)
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: April 2142
Description[?]:
| Recognising that we do not wish to arm ourselves with or use biological or chemical weapons in order to counter threats from those weapons types we must abondon the current policy of 'no first use' of our nuclear weapons. The current policy depends only on the concept of 'Mutually Assured Destruction' (MAD) and is ONLY a deterrent against a nuclear power carrying out a UNSUCCESSFUL first strike against our nuclear forces. To counter the threats from superior conventional forces, biological and chemical weapons we must adapt a far more flexible strategy: enabling the use of tactical, theatre and sub-strategic nuclear weapons against the above threats. This not only improves the deterrent value of our nuclear forces as we are far more likely, in the eyes of an enemy, to cross the nuclear threshold if it is not a case of MAD, it also enhances our power projection capability as our conventional forces will have 'force multipliers' in the form of tactical nuclear weapons such as nuclear artillery. This is a cost effective way of enhancing our military capability without increasing the quantity of men under arms. The important thing to remember with a flexible response strategy is that it is a 'paper strategy' to improve deterrence. It doesn't mean we are going to start using strategic nuclear weapons without due cause and consideration. To that end, the nuclear threshold will not be crossed unless all the surviving holders of the offices of Lord Chancellor, Foreign Secretary and Secretary of State for Defence agree. Should all three be killed or unavailable due to a decapitating enemy attack the decision would pass to the military chain of command (i.e. it is not in anyone's interest to decapitate the government). |
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 reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in warfare for any reason.
Proposed: The nation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in warfare for any reason.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 15:17:17, November 11, 2005 CET | From | Luthori Green Party | To | Debating the Flexible Response Strategy |
| Message | If this is just a paper strategy, does this require a large cache of nulcear weapons, or are we just talking about a small quantity? If it can be done with the latter, and the sentence "It doesn't mean we are going to start using strategic nuclear weapoms with due cause and consideration" is just a typo, and is meant to read "without due cause and consideration," the LEC will consider allowing this, for as long as the threat of chemical and biological weapons exist. It should also be stressed that if chemical and biological weapons are such a threat, we should become involved in the international effort to ensure that no nation is equipped with such WMDs, since I am sure all parties can agree on defending the population of Luthori from such a threat is a top priority. I would also like to recommend that we create some definitions for when the use of nuclear weapons can be used in warfare, as it is clear from the wording of this bill that such definitions will be created. |
| Date | 23:15:19, November 11, 2005 CET | From | Social Calvinist Unionist Party | To | Debating the Flexible Response Strategy |
| Message | I would be very uneasy with passing this bill. It would mean that if an extremely radical party came to power (OOC: And if Wouter ever implements war -_-), nuclear weapons could be used on an unsuspecting nation, and any moral superiority we held would be lost in an instant. By the way, notice that the bill does not say "unless they are used first on our country". That means if we try to defend one of our allies and THEY get nukes, we are given the go ahead to nuke to enemy. |
| Date | 00:06:28, November 12, 2005 CET | From | Seosavists Republican party | To | Debating the Flexible Response Strategy |
| Message | http://www.takeforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=44215&mforum=particracy#44215 wait till this gets implemented. So no to this. |
| Date | 01:02:39, November 12, 2005 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Flexible Response Strategy |
| Message | I like both of Seosavist's proposals, but for the timebeing this act is better than no first use/MAD. |
| Date | 05:11:37, November 12, 2005 CET | From | Luthori Green Party | To | Debating the Flexible Response Strategy |
| Message | RzP: Fortunately, the chances of the UCP being elected are slim, at best, so our moral superiority (on WMDs at least) will not be lost. SRP: Good ideas. |
| Date | 19:50:52, November 13, 2005 CET | From | Seosavists Republican party | To | Debating the Flexible Response Strategy |
| Message | at the moment there's no war system so nothing to worry about. |
| Date | 00:21:08, November 14, 2005 CET | From | United Conservative Party | To | Debating the Flexible Response Strategy |
| Message | No question: we MUST be able to strike first. No point in saying: "Oh! we've just been totally annihilated, we better try to get off a few rockets in revenge!" And the UCP is the VERY BEST party to have in control of Luthori. With our steadfast approach to morals and national defence, Luthori would be completely safe. |
| Date | 02:35:33, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Luthori Green Party | To | Debating the Flexible Response Strategy |
| Message | IC: The Sejm falls into anarchy as the LEC representatives fall of their chairs, laughing so hard they begin to cry. OOC: On a point of semanitics, if the definition of "best" is of the most excellent, effective, or deisrable type or quality," how can you have the very best. |
| Date | 13:45:59, November 14, 2005 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Flexible Response Strategy |
| Message | A small stockpile would suffice so long as we have a credible supply chain in place. Does the wording of this need changing, or are the LEC happy? |
| Date | 03:14:41, November 15, 2005 CET | From | Luthori Green Party | To | Debating the Flexible Response Strategy |
| Message | Yes, although I would like a definition of due cause and consideration. ie, what would cause us to consider the use of nuclear weapons, and whether it is the Rzeczpospolita King, the Lord Chancellor, the Defence Minister, the Cabinet or the Sejm that considers it. |
| Date | 09:39:05, November 15, 2005 CET | From | United Conservative Party | To | Debating the Flexible Response Strategy |
| Message | LEC happy? LOL!! The word that comes to mind is sappy. |
| Date | 13:39:55, November 15, 2005 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Flexible Response Strategy |
| Message | Since we are a constitutional monarchy I'd say the Lord Chancellor, but he shouldn't be able to do so without consulting the Archbishop of Oalapo. The Sejm having to vote would slow things down too much and reduce our deterrence unacceptably. How about the Lord Chancellor, Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary have to agree? All we need to do them is make sure they're not all in the same party! We'd have to consider their use if we were going to lose otherwise. Seriously, the Americans claim dropping the two A bombs on Japan saved lives, even though the Japanese weren't exactly on the verge of taking the Americas, or even Hawaii. The idea of Flexible Response is it acts as a deterrent against any aggression, not just against WMDs. For example, NATO's Flexible Response Strategy enabled members to reduce the number of conventional forces stationed along the Central Front, reasoning that a small force could act as a nuclear tripwire, thus deterring the Warsaw Pact from making even a limited conventional attack into, say, West Berlin. |
| Date | 15:12:30, November 15, 2005 CET | From | Luthori Green Party | To | Debating the Flexible Response Strategy |
| Message | Since it is common for three different parties to hold the three positions, this would be a good system, as they would represent at least 37.5% of the nation. Likewise, the idea of Flexible Response sounds reasonable. For the good of the nation, I'll ignore the UCP's comments, and not let them affect my decision. I will support this bill. |
| Date | 01:03:09, November 16, 2005 CET | From | United Conservative Party | To | Debating the Flexible Response Strategy |
| Message | "...I'll ignore the UCP's comments..." LOL!! No you didn't. :-) |
| Date | 20:58:45, November 16, 2005 CET | From | Social Calvinist Unionist Party | To | Debating the Flexible Response Strategy |
| Message | I'll vote yes, but when a better alternative comes along, I'll vote for it. Oh, and DUP, this is off-topic, but we dropped the A-bomb on Japan to save JAPANESE lives. The logic may seem faulty, however, consider this; if we had actually invaded Japan, then millions of Japanese civilians would have died in suicidal attacks against American forces (and we'd suffer a hefty amount of damage ourselves, mind you). |
| Date | 21:16:24, November 16, 2005 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Flexible Response Strategy |
| Message | I know, but I thought the peaceniks would have me for breakfast if I said that. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 509 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 0 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 241 |
| Random fact: It is not allowed to call more than 5 elections in 5 game years in a nation. The default sanction for a player persisting in the early election tactic will be a seat reset. |
| Random quote: "Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names." - John F. Kennedy |