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: Withdrawal of the WMD treaty
Details
Submitted by[?]: Yaskovoi Independent Communist Party
Status[?]: passed
Votes: This bill proposes the withdrawal from a treaty. It will require half of the legislature to vote in favor[?]. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: April 2150
Description[?]:
| We believe that the treaty is out dated and must be removed. With the treaty in place, there is no nuclear deterrent reason for countries not to go to war. |
Proposals
Article 1
Withdraw from the WMD Limitation Treaty.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:28:51, December 01, 2005 CET | From | Yaskovoi Independent Communist Party | To | Debating the Withdrawal of the WMD treaty |
| Message | The clause in the treaty: "we could enter into a nuclear war of unimaginable destruction" implies that we are stupid. If state leaders have any sense anyway, there would be no nuclear war. The results of said war would not only be devastating to the countries (notice the plural) affected, but foreign economies would also suffer. National leaders should have more sense to simply use the threat of nuclear weapons as a deterrent rather than actually use them. |
| Date | 16:55:25, December 01, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Withdrawal of the WMD treaty |
| Message | Allowing first strike WMD use can be a deterrent, but can also be a provocation for war. Our current law, which allows us to use WMD in retaliation, seems sufficient as a deterrent against using WMD against Kanjor. |
| Date | 17:17:23, December 01, 2005 CET | From | Yaskovoi Independent Communist Party | To | Debating the Withdrawal of the WMD treaty |
| Message | But if we were struck with a nuclear weapon, we may be too weak to retaliate. It would be better to be able to strike first (but only with complete assurance that the enemy will attack us). Not that we are under threat by war at the moment though. I believe that the treaty also restricts the use of chemical weapons unles the enemy uses them first. (correct me is I am wrong) |
| Date | 17:47:32, December 01, 2005 CET | From | Populist Liberal Party | To | Debating the Withdrawal of the WMD treaty |
| Message | You correctly understand the treaty. I think we are actually more likely to be the victims of a first strike if we, through our laws, threaten to make a first strike ourselves, than if our laws say we will use WMD's only if we are hit with them first. If we say we may use them first, other nations might decide that they had better use them pre-emptively. Now, I'd be even more strongly against disarming or stating that we would never use WMD's (and in fact, I'd even be willing to support even a first strike if it were the only way to preserve Kanjor). I think that the limitation treaty is a good way to go, though; and if more nations can be moved to sign it we will all be safer. |
| Date | 02:42:43, December 02, 2005 CET | From | Kanjoran Imperial Party | To | Debating the Withdrawal of the WMD treaty |
| Message | I support this bill, even though I made that treaty (I guess that I just wanted ratifications) |
| Date | 11:51:37, December 02, 2005 CET | From | Malfico Progressive Fascist Party | To | Debating the Withdrawal of the WMD treaty |
| Message | I support this bill also. What is the point in having nuclear weapons if you can only use them if your country is already destroyed. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 636 | |||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 72 | |||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 41 |
| Random fact: Role-play is most enjoyable and successful when there is good communication and friendly relations between all players involved. |
| Random quote: "A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward." - Franklin D. Roosevelt |