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: Kalistani Protection Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Minimalist 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: February 3405
Description[?]:
| To discourage other nations from attacking Kalistan in pursuit of our abundant resources, we believe a deterrent should be in place. Purely for defensive purposes. Will leave this as a debate for 6 months. Update: Because of the ongoing debate, we will continue to leave this act in the debate phase for the time being. |
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 if victory is not feasibile by other means.
Current: The nation shall never use nuclear weapons in warfare.
Proposed: The nation shall never use nuclear weapons in warfare unless another nation uses them first.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The policy with respect to nuclear weaponry.
Old value:: The nation shall never produce or store nuclear weaponry for military purposes. Research and development of the technology is permitted.
Current: The nation shall never develop, produce or store nuclear weaponry.
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 | 04:53:40, November 27, 2012 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Kalistani Protection Act |
| Message | We like article 1, as this is a step in the correct direction toward abolition of Nuclear weapons. However, we oppose Article 2, and find that the permissiveness of this article makes it difficult, if not impossible for us to support this bill. If the Minimalists would split the bill, we would be happy to vote for Article 1 as a separate bill, if that freed us to oppose Article 2. |
| Date | 05:54:08, November 27, 2012 CET | From | Minimalist Party | To | Debating the Kalistani Protection Act |
| Message | The question that we have been asking for years and the reason we supported withdrawing from the anti-nuclear weapon treaties is as follows: How are we to retaliate with nuclear weapons when we posses none? We only want to protect Kalistan. If we are allowed to retaliate with nuclear weapons after being attacked, then we should not have to wait for a change in legislature to allow us to purchase nuclear weapons, to retaliate with, while our citizens are attacked. Kalistan as a whole could be in ashes before a bill passes that allows us to obtain nuclear weapons to retaliate with. This is the reason that the two proposals are together in the same bill. If only article 1 passed, it wouldn't have any effect at all on Kalistan's ability to defend itself. How is a nuclear deterrent supposed to work when we cannot possess nuclear weapons? We might as well say that we will never use nuclear weapons and allow other countries to militarily have the option to destroy everything that Kalistan has accomplished. |
| Date | 18:26:40, November 27, 2012 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Kalistani Protection Act |
| Message | The goal is to not retaliate with nuclear weapons. Let us abolish nuclear weapons completely. They are a huge waste of national resources, they have never been deployed in war because Kalistan only rarely conducts forrays into international affairs, and they mark us as a warlike nation, which is an unfair characterization given our unwillingness to engage in external war. I answer your question therefore with one of my own: Why maintain nukes when we do not need them, have never needed them, and will not need them in the foreseeable future, when the money spent on building and maintaining a nuclear arsonal can be much better spent elsewhere? If we forbid ourselves from using nukes, then we won't need them. It's that simple. We should not start with the assumption that nukes are better to have than to not have, because then we follow the line of logic which your above statement provides, "Well, since we have them, we should be able to use them." The SP opposes possession of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons AND their deployment. We will work to make sure that those types of weapons are out of our country. We won't vote for any law which takes DOWN barriers to their adoption. |
| Date | 18:28:38, November 27, 2012 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Kalistani Protection Act |
| Message | Other nations do not attempt to destroy Kalistan. We have never been faced with that sort of threat. Most nations don't really even recognize Kalistan's existence. Our absence in world affairs generally has offered us greater protection than a nuclear umbrella ever could. |
| Date | 02:46:16, November 28, 2012 CET | From | National Union Party | To | Debating the Kalistani Protection Act |
| Message | Unfortunately in this universe, all policies have to be one way or another. As for Article 2, the NUP would like to see WMD's abolished for military purposes other than research and development. However, Kalistan would reserve the right to produce such weapons in case of attack. But a choice one way or the other is very difficult. |
| Date | 05:38:32, November 28, 2012 CET | From | Minimalist Party | To | Debating the Kalistani Protection Act |
| Message | First, let us clarify that we did not provide a statement of "Well, since we have them, we should be able to use them." We actually provided the opposite, "Well, since we can use them in retaliation or decisive victory, we should be able to have them." Secondly, we only rarely conduct forrays into international affairs? The SP has been in this country for a larger amount of consecutive years than we have, but they seriously must not think that "Most nations don't really even recognize Kalistan's existence." What about the Kalistani Trade Organization bill that the SP themselves put up to vote? Does engaging in free trade with other countries not raise the awareness of Kalistan? Kalistan is not absent in world affairs. Our imports, exports, and 62 treaties with other nations prove that. Article 7 of SP's own Kalistani Trade Organization bill allows free trade of conventional arms. Freely exporting arms to nations injects Kalistan into world affairs, no matter how the SP denies it. This is just one piece of legislature that also proves Kalistan's existence in world affairs. We will now answer the SP's question: The logic of the question is sound, but the assumptions are wrong. It is the SP's opinion that we do not and will not need them, not a fact. If another nation attacks us with WMD, will we still be unwilling to engage in war? Just because we have never been faced with the threat of another nation attempting to destroy us, does not mean that will always be the case. Assuming that Kalistan will never be attacked with WMD because we have never been attacked with WMD in the past is a poor assumption. If we were absent in world affairs, then the SP would be correct concerning that absence offering greater protection, but we are not absent. Therefore, we believe the citizens of Kalistan deserve to be protected, not to be fed lies of forever existing in a state of peace. |
| Date | 15:50:13, November 28, 2012 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Kalistani Protection Act |
| Message | Your bill changes the law to allow us to have them. I don't see how that represents what your speaker just said. We do not have the right currently to possess them or store them or manufacture them for military purposes, only for research, which, by the way, we also oppose.. This bill alters that. You don't explicitly need to say "Well, if we have them we should use them." The proposals you add to this bill do that. We are absolutely committed to eliminating nuclear, biological and chemical weaponry from our arsenal. With regard to our treaties, yes, we have extensive contacts with several nations. However, the last time we were at war was over a hundred years ago, and the nation itself did not go to war: the SP sent its Party militia to deal with a conflict that one Party (not the SP, by the way) committed us to without consulting us, then refused to vote on a bill to supply troops to the conflict. Before that, our conflicts were internal. In the last 700 years I can't remember when Kalistan has ever entered into War. There may be some sort of hidden history that our Party historians are not aware of (granted, we haven't lurked in the forums so some active parties could be there fighting wars on Kalistan's behalf completely off the books...) but for the most part, Kalistan's history has been one of joyful and exuberant neutrality in all international conflicts. At least as long as the SP has been active. What need have we ever had for nuclear weapons, during all that time. Those weapons have been banned, both in law and by treaty, for the vast majority of seven centuries. And when some Party decided that we should violate our own policy and leave our own treaty, we have not had to resort, at all to nuclear weaponry, because our differences have been resolved through politics, not war. I say the time has come not to expand our possession of nuclear weaponry, but to ban it outright. We call upon the Defense Minister to provide us a bill banning the possession of nuclear, biological and chemical weaponry, and then support our efforts to re-enshrine that policy in a treaty which does the same. |
| Date | 22:27:05, November 28, 2012 CET | From | Minimalist Party | To | Debating the Kalistani Protection Act |
| Message | We are aware what our bill is changing. Our bill is saying that we will have the ability to use them in defense if the case arises. Not that we "should" use them. Again, the SP is basing their views off of the assumption that since Kalistan has never entered a war in 700 years, then we will never enter a war in the future. This is a false assumption. Although, if we never enter into a war, then no nation will use nuclear weapons on us, and therefore we will not use nuclear weapons. Thus, if the SPs false assumption proves correct, then the passing of this bill will have no effect on Kalistan's use of nuclear weapons. The Defense Minister is concerned with the safety of Kalistan, not siding with political parties in order to gain more power. The SP was aware of our defense stance before they nominated us with the seat of the Ministry of Defense. |
| Date | 23:57:00, November 28, 2012 CET | From | Crimson Lance Directive | To | Debating the Kalistani Protection Act |
| Message | We support the owning of nukes and reserve the right to nuke whoever we please. |
| Date | 05:11:39, November 29, 2012 CET | From | Crimson Lance Directive | To | Debating the Kalistani Protection Act |
| Message | The Minister of Science and Technology Confirms that passing this bill will be inevitable if Kalistan wants to remain in running for advancements in technology. |
| Date | 07:06:31, November 29, 2012 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Kalistani Protection Act |
| Message | The Socialist Party hereby commits, in the next term to introduce legislation seeking to ban nuclear weapons, whether or not this bill is put up for a vote. This is part of our platform, and we are currently running on it. We appreciate the opinion of the Defense Minister, as well as the opinion of the Science and Technology Minister on this matter. If the Premier opts to follow the advice of the two honorable Ministers and to push the issue of acquisition of nuclear weaponry, the Socialist Party will happily resign its seats and join the opposition so we can move our anti-NBC platform forward. We would prefer, of course to remain in Government because there are a number of things we still hope to accomplish in Government, but we will do the normal thing when cabinet ministers disagree publicly with the direction of Legislation coming from the Government. Rather than undermine the power of the Premier, we can as easily work outside the Government to promote our Party's platform over a policy we view as quite misguided and rather dangerous. |
| Date | 07:08:48, November 29, 2012 CET | From | Socialist Party of Kalistan (SPoK) | To | Debating the Kalistani Protection Act |
| Message | Our goal is not only to prevent Nuclear weaponry's usage, but also its possession. We want nukes completely out of Kalistan, along with Biological and Chemical weaponry. This does not mean that we do not support the Premier, but if the Premier makes it a centerpiece of his Administration, we will, we reiterate, be happy to resign our seats in Government. |
| Date | 20:03:12, November 29, 2012 CET | From | Minimalist Party | To | Debating the Kalistani Protection Act |
| Message | The Premier would like to cooperate with all nations on this issue, and would be discouraged to see Ministers resign because of this. The Premier is concerned with the safety of our nation, and would like to determine the best possible way of protecting it. Currently, we are not convinced that an anti-NBC platform is the best strategy of defense. We would appreciate all Parties' input on this matter. |
| Date | 23:46:56, November 29, 2012 CET | From | Minimalist Party | To | Debating the Kalistani Protection Act |
| Message | Correction: The Premier would like to cooperate with all Parties on this issue... |
| Date | 02:18:48, December 02, 2012 CET | From | Minimalist Party | To | Debating the Kalistani Protection Act |
| Message | Seeing that no party has shown any interest in this debate in almost a year, we will put this up to a vote. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 512 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 238 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Moderation will not accept Cultural Protocol updates which introduce, on a significant scale, cultures which are likely to be insufficiently accessible to players. In particular, for all significant cultures in Particracy, it should be easy for players to access and use online resources to assist with language translation and the generation of character names. Moderation reserves the right to amend Cultural Protocols which are deemed to have introduced significant cultures that are not sufficiently accessible and which are not being actively role-played with. |
| Random quote: "Poverty is like punishment for a crime you didn't commit." - Eli Khamarov |