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 Defense In Non-Civilian Areas Bill
Details
Submitted by[?]: Social Democratic Party (LL)
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: February 3137
Description[?]:
| Whereas, We need a defense against WMD's and the main argument used against the proposals in the past have been that they would allow us to harm the civilians of opposing countries, We propose to allow what one who opposed our other bill said he would prefer: To allow Ikradon to use nuclear weapons, but only in non-civilian areas. This would mostly be "battlefield nuclear weapons," that have limited range and are used in non-civilian skirmish areas. Their use shall only be allowed, in addition, if the Ikradon homeland is under an attack initiated by the country against which they would be used, or if the country against which they would be used first used a WMD attack against Ikradon. |
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.
Current: The nation shall never use nuclear weapons in warfare unless another nation uses them first.
Proposed: The nation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons on non-civilian areas.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The policy with respect to nuclear weaponry.
Old value:: The nation shall never develop, produce or store nuclear weaponry.
Current: The nation reserves the right to develop, produce and store nuclear arms.
Proposed: The nation reserves the right to develop, produce and store nuclear arms.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 00:09:29, June 15, 2011 CET | From |  Union Socialism Alliance | To | Debating the Nuclear Defense In Non-Civilian Areas Bill |
| Message | Why? Why must Ikradon lower themselves to other genocidal maniacs?! Nuclear fallout is still a very possible possibility, even if only non-civilian areas are targeted. And what really constitutes as non-civilian, a desert or the ocean? |
| Date | 04:50:30, June 15, 2011 CET | From | Beloved Freedom | To | Debating the Nuclear Defense In Non-Civilian Areas Bill |
| Message | Beloved Freedom guess non-civilian areas mean military bases or military-using areas. Anyway, Beloved Freedom is opposed to this proposal. In addition to Union Socialism Alliance's argument, BF wants to point out the negative aspect of nuclear strategy. A small amount of nukes does not work, because it can easily be destroyed by preemptive attacks on nuclear bases. Thus, if we want to have nukes, we should have large amounts of nukes, submarines, rockets, and launchers. Financially, it costs a great deal. It is beyond our financial capacity.q Socially, it inevitably causes militarization of society. both are very undesirable. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||||
| yes | Total Seats: 81 | ||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 669 | ||||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: There is a phpBB forum dedicated to Particracy. Please click the Forum link in the top game menu. Additions to the game, suggestions and discussion is held there so get involved. http://forum.particracy.net/ |
| Random quote: "The great masses of the people... will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one." - Adolf Hitler |