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: Sensible Defence Policy Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Progressive Konservatives (P)
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: October 3506
Description[?]:
| Only in Lala land can the current defence provisions adequately provide for any country. We need sensible and rational policies not questionable policies driven by extreme pacifism. We would all like to pacifist but the real Terra does not allow that. Kjell Harlem FKP Defence Spokesman |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning biological and chemical weaponry.
Old value:: The nation shall never develop, purchase or store biological or chemical weaponry.
Current: The nation shall never develop, purchase or store biological or chemical weaponry.
Proposed: The nation reserves the right to develop, construct and store biological and chemical weapons.
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 shall never produce or store nuclear weaponry for military purposes. Research and development of the technology is permitted.
Proposed: The nation reserves the right to develop, produce and store nuclear arms.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning the export of weapons to other nations.
Old value:: The government does not allow arms to be exported.
Current: The government must approve all arms sales on a case by case basis.
Proposed: The government must approve all arms sales on a case by case basis.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 14:46:23, June 25, 2013 CET | From | Logisk Synspunkt | To | Debating the Sensible Defence Policy Act |
| Message | LS agrees with Articles 1, 4, and 5. Articles 2 and 3 are too extreme and should be reserves the right to use in retaliation to a similar attack, thus ensuring MAD and making sure nobody uses them against Kazulia. |
| Date | 16:33:30, June 25, 2013 CET | From | Progressive Konservatives (P) | To | Debating the Sensible Defence Policy Act |
| Message | No offense to the LS but I think you are saying we should wait until some attacks us with a nuclear weapon and not carry out a preemptive strike? Surely that would not be an effective defence policy, what if we are killed before we have a chance to protect ourselves with a pre-emptive strike. Nrvertheless we will take your objections into account. Kjell Harlem FKP Defence Spokesman |
| Date | 17:31:56, June 25, 2013 CET | From | Opriktigheten | To | Debating the Sensible Defence Policy Act |
| Message | I cannot agree with Article 3. There must be other choices that are an acceptable compromise to you. What about "the nation reserves the right to nuclear weapons in retaliation to a nuclear, chemical or biological attack" or "the nation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons on non-civilian areas?" We can't allow nuclear weapons to be used on a whim. There has to be some reason for using them that goes beyond being in aywar and having vague suspicions of needing more defense! To be completely honest, I am in agreement with LS and would prefer that they are only used as a warning and deployed if strictly necessary. As well, Article 2 is only marginally acceptable, but if Article 3 is changed, I may be willing to support this bill regardless. Representative for Defense Elisa Ree |
| Date | 20:37:14, June 25, 2013 CET | From | Progressive Konservatives (P) | To | Debating the Sensible Defence Policy Act |
| Message | We will remove the two controversial articles, 2 and 3 as a gesture of compromise. FKP Defence Spokesman |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 156 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 119 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In Culturally Protected nations, special care must be taken to ensure realism is maintained when role-playing a government controlled by an ethnic and/or religious minority. If it is to be supposed that this government is supported by a majority of the population, then this should be plausibly and sufficiently role-played. The burden of proof is on the player or players role-playing such a regime to demonstrate that it is being done realistically |
| Random quote: "The goal of life is living in agreement with nature." Zeno (335 BC - 264 BC), from Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers |