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 weapons
Details
Submitted by[?]: Seosavists Republican party
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: November 2153
Description[?]:
a step in the right direction. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning the use of nuclear weaponry in warfare.
Old value:: The nation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in warfare for any reason.
Current: The nation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in warfare for any reason.
Proposed: The nation reserves the right to nuclear weapons in retaliation to a nuclear, chemical or biological attack.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
Date | 21:16:51, December 08, 2005 CET |
From | Seosavists Republican party | To | Debating the nuclear weapons | Message | If there is a conventional attack then a nuclear attack would provote a return on us and the war would turn into one of extermination not just of conquest! |
Date | 21:30:52, December 08, 2005 CET |
From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the nuclear weapons | Message | Since we can't afford adequate conventional forces, mass retaliation and a first strike capability are an essential last line of defence. Only the USSR with its massive conventional forces could ever afford the luxury of a no first use policy! |
Date | 10:38:03, December 09, 2005 CET |
From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the nuclear weapons | Message | I can't believe the RzP would go for this! I thought they were strong on defence? |
Date | 13:57:18, December 09, 2005 CET |
From | Social Calvinist Unionist Party | To | Debating the nuclear weapons | Message | If they nuke us, they will die. Simple. They will get our cities, sure, but not our nukes. Then, not only will we have the support of the international community, we'll also be able to nuke them back. And this time, we'll go all out. Y'see, those fools who decide to nuke us will prolly just hit Sondavita and go "Wez0rz! We has n00ked their leaderz, they can't go 0nz0rz!" However, we'll let the nukes fly, and kill off half their population. And the international community will be clapping us on the entire way.
We could even nuke our own city to do that. After all, a man who convinced tens of millions of people to follow him off the edge of world (metaphorically) once said, "The great masses of people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one. Especially if it is repeated over and over." I'm not saying we nuke our cities over and over, but... |
Date | 14:19:17, December 09, 2005 CET |
From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the nuclear weapons | Message | I'd rather than have an honest first strike capability than have to nuke our own cities if we're already losing! |
Date | 15:38:27, December 09, 2005 CET |
From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the nuclear weapons | Message | He might not have said he wanted to do that, but he revealed that is what WE WOULD HAVE TO DO IN ORDER TO WIN if we were being defeated by a conventional attack or guerilla tactics. |
Date | 15:50:10, December 09, 2005 CET |
From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the nuclear weapons | Message | Well it's there now. I'd rather not be forced into doing that when we could just maintain first strike capability instead. |
Date | 16:59:36, December 09, 2005 CET |
From | Social Calvinist Unionist Party | To | Debating the nuclear weapons | Message | You tend to forget, DUP, that when a war is going on we CAN change the law. If it turns out we're getting our bottoms kicked (which we shouldn't, seeing how we're aiming to create a professional army that would resist most other armies), we could change the legislation and BAM, he's dead. |
Date | 20:16:54, December 09, 2005 CET |
From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the nuclear weapons | Message | If it turns out we're getting our bottoms kicked (which we shouldn't, seeing how we're aiming to create a professional army that would resist most other armies), we could change the legislation and ... EIGHT MONTHS PASS WHILE THE BILL IS BEING VOTED UPON, PRESUMING IT DOESN'T FALL DURING AN ELECTION MEANING WE HAVE TO WAIT EVEN LONGER ... BAM we lose all our sovereignty and can never pass any laws of our own again, but must obey someone else's. NO THANKS! |
Date | 21:06:58, December 09, 2005 CET |
From | Social Calvinist Unionist Party | To | Debating the nuclear weapons | Message | We must gain the respect of the international community, DUP. Without out, our nation will remain backwards forever. You might want that, however. I mean, the more backwards a nation, the more desperate they are, eh? |
subscribe to this discussion -
unsubscribeVoting
Vote |
Seats |
yes | Total Seats: 328 |
no | Total Seats: 234 |
abstain | Total Seats: 188 |
Random fact: Make sure to check out Particracy's wiki. http://particracy.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page |
Random quote: "What is conservatism? Is it not the adherence to the old and tried against the new and untried?" - Abraham Lincoln |