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: Modern Defense for Modern Times
Details
Submitted by[?]: AM Radical Libertarian Party
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: April 2159
Description[?]:
| WHEREAS we live in uncertain times, beset on all sides by potential enemies of uncertain morality and decency, AND it is necessary to protect our fair nation, its citixens, and our way of life by whatever means are necessary, THEREFORE the RLP proposes that we resume testing and production of all types of WMDs and authorize our military to use said forces if we were to be attacked by them. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning biological and chemical weaponry.
Old value:: The nation shall never purchase, produce, or store biological or chemical weaponry, for military purposes. Research and development of the technology is permitted.
Current: The nation reserves the right to develop, construct and store biological and chemical weapons.
Proposed: The nation reserves the right to develop, construct and store biological and chemical weapons.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning the use of chemical and biological weaponry in warfare.
Old value:: The nation shall never use chemical or biological weaponry in warfare.
Current: The nation reserves the right to use chemical or biological weapons in warfare for any reason.
Proposed: The nation shall never use chemical or biological weapons in warfare unless another nation uses them first.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 19:54:31, December 14, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Modern Defense for Modern Times |
| Message | The candidate member for Defense of the RLP, Gen. Buck Turgidson(ret), rises to propose a new bill to the Senate. 'These weapons can be produced and stored safely and effeciently in the many played out mines throughout our fair land, as is being done in many of the other countries in the world who might use them against us. We must not allow a mineshaft gap!' |
| Date | 04:19:52, December 15, 2005 CET | From | Progressive Party | To | Debating the Modern Defense for Modern Times |
| Message | We support. |
| Date | 04:43:52, December 15, 2005 CET | From | Likaton Fascist Front | To | Debating the Modern Defense for Modern Times |
| Message | PSS will not support this proposal. I would like to remind all parties that even though a military crisis erupted in our neighbour recently, the conventional military was adequete for the job - so much so that a recent proposal for conscription for school leavers was voted down in the senate - obviously refelctive of the confidence that the senate has for the status quo. Given our position in the world, our nuetrality and our 'isolotionist' resolution that is on the record, we feel this is at best unecessary, and at worst a possible excuse for military action to be taken against us. |
| Date | 16:36:14, December 15, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Modern Defense for Modern Times |
| Message | To the PSS: We agree that the conventional military was adaquate for the job of preventing a conventional military attack on us, and our congratulations are in order for that excellent job. What the RLP is concerned about is our position should we be threatened with non-conventional attacks. We feel that the ability to respond in kind is necessary as a deterent. |
| Date | 04:08:06, December 16, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Modern Defense for Modern Times |
| Message | The AAS must oppose. Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons are the tools of a war that no one can win. The ONLY way that these initiatives could be of ANY use, is if we reserved the right to Strike First... which MIGHT serve as a deterrent to aggressive actions by other, expansionist powers. AT the moment, the AAS is not convinced we NEED First Strike, and can see no advantage to this phase of militarisation without it. As the PSS points out, our conventional military has, recently, been more than sufficient to safeguard our sovereignty. |
| Date | 14:34:32, December 16, 2005 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Modern Defense for Modern Times |
| Message | "Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons are the tools of a war that no one can win" We agree with that thought, but derive a different conclusion from it. As long as some of the less rational states posses these weapons, they are in a position to threaten us with the useage of them. As long as we possess the ability to retaliate in kind, that threat is less likely to take place. If we could get a weorld-wide ban, enforcable by inspections, on ABC weapons I would be in favor; but I do not see that happening any time soon. |
| Date | 21:34:37, December 16, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Modern Defense for Modern Times |
| Message | Response to the RLP: But, see where all the 'power' lies in that relationship? All of the 'strength' is in the hands of those who 'threaten'. If we are going to use NBC weapons as a deterrent, we need First Strike capability. In absence of First Strike, there is ultimately little point in having the weapons. We certainly don't want them because we think we might use them. |
| Date | 03:11:02, December 21, 2005 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Modern Defense for Modern Times |
| Message | The AAS sides with our allies in the PSS and CDH. We stand to lose too much, for so little potential gain. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 93 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 243 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 164 |
| Random fact: Alduria, Rildanor and Lourenne all have Canrilaise (French) cultures. |
| Random quote: "I've been against the death penalty since I was in law school in 1950. It's horrible, discriminatory, and undermines the credibility of the criminal justice system." - Ralph Nader |