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
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 2049
Description[?]:
| Lodamun will disarm all Nuclear weapons over the next six years. The government will never pursue nuclear weapons technology, and destroy all its remaining warheads. Furthermore, Lodamun shall support international non-profileration and disarmament. |
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 produce or store nuclear weaponry for military purposes. Research and development of the technology is permitted.
Proposed: The nation shall never develop, produce or store nuclear weaponry.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 03:31:18, May 04, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | The Council will not support this bill. It is our belief that the government exists to protect its own citizens, and as such should reserve the right to any means of protection necessary. Additionally, the Council holds policies of non-interventionism, which the latter aspect of this bill violates clearly. |
| Date | 03:33:21, May 04, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | Will the council agree to a compromise if the latter aspect of this bill are removed? |
| Date | 03:36:01, May 04, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | The principle of defense is higher than the principle of non-interventionism, and as such the Council would still cast its votes against this bill. |
| Date | 17:10:28, May 04, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | The CCF stands for a nuclear-free world. An ideal nuclear wepaons policy would see Lodamun support multilateral efforts for disarmament and non-proliferation, and pledge no fiurst use of nuclear weapons. In keeping with non-proliferation, we suggets an amendment to the bill. Lodamun should not sell off existing nuclear stocks, it should disarm and decomission current stocks. |
| Date | 17:17:15, May 04, 2005 CET | From |  National People's Gang | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | We'll support unilateral disarmament of nuclear weaponry and decommissioning rather than sale. |
| Date | 22:04:56, May 04, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | (Ahh, sorry, that was a typo, guess I wasn't thinking straight. |
| Date | 22:56:25, May 04, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | There is absolutely no way that Lodamun would be able to convince all other nations to disarm their nuclear capabilities, nor should we even attempt such a thing. Possessing nuclear weaponry provides a deterrent to any nation that would attempt to attack. |
| Date | 04:02:41, May 05, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | Maintaining healthy relations with the rest of the world and a peaceful foreign policy will elimate the reasons for an attack. |
| Date | 04:28:24, May 05, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | The CNT/AFL assumes that no nation will be ambitious enough to actually wage war to get more land for itself. Healthy relations and peaceful policy will hardly eliminate such a reason. |
| Date | 17:17:17, May 05, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | Using nuclear weapons would be a futile admission of failure. In the meantime, the nucear arsenal consumes funds needed for policies more relevant to the intersts of the people. We need a welfare state, not a warfare state. |
| Date | 19:34:04, May 05, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | Failure of what? It acts as a line of defense - one of the only reasons for a national government to exist. The existence of nukes does not lead to the creation of a warfare state in any case. |
| Date | 20:47:47, May 05, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | High military spending does, and mutually assured destruction is not defence, but only destruction. Of the neighbouring countries on our continent, half reserve the right to keep nuclear arms (Valruzian Federation, Baltusia, Gaduridos), half have renounced it (Kalistan, Likaton, Tukarali). Would parliament be interested in pursuing the idea of a continental nuclear free zone? |
| Date | 21:40:46, May 05, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | When the MLP states its intentions, the bill will be brought to a vote. |
| Date | 21:59:53, May 05, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Nuclear Disarmament Act |
| Message | Mutually assured destruction is quite a defense. It is a deterrent. A foreign nation is far less likely to attempt to wage war if a nuclear response was possible. The Council's isolationist policies lead it to believe that pursuing such an idea would be folly. Only treaties that protect the rights of Lodamun's citizens, such as the IPT, would be considered; the treaty proposed by the CCF as a possibility would hardly secure any rights for our citizens and may in fact expose them to danger from rogue states who have no intention of disarming. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 59 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 29 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: The people in your nation don't like inactive parties. When you often abstain from voting for a bill, they will dislike your party and your visibility to the electorate will decrease significantly. Low visibility will means you are likely to lose seats. So keep in mind: voting Yes or No is always better than Abstaining. |
| Random quote: "He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god." - Aristotle |