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: Progressive Reform Bill - Nuclear Retaliation
Details
Submitted by[?]: Progressive 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: September 2167
Description[?]:
| We propose allowing nuclear retaliation to any attack, whether by WMDs or from a massive conventional attack. This will serve as a strong deterrent to any enemies of Likatonia. |
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 nuclear weapons in retaliation to a nuclear, chemical or biological attack.
Current: The nation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in retaliation to any attack.
Proposed: The nation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in retaliation to any attack.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 03:46:42, January 04, 2006 CET | From | Likaton Fascist Front | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Nuclear Retaliation |
| Message | This is perfectly aligned with PSS agenda. Strongly support. |
| Date | 13:59:32, January 04, 2006 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Nuclear Retaliation |
| Message | The AAS opposes. |
| Date | 14:31:44, January 04, 2006 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Nuclear Retaliation |
| Message | RLP supports this or any increase in the flexibility of our military response. |
| Date | 05:05:08, January 05, 2006 CET | From | JLP Liberation Militia | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Nuclear Retaliation |
| Message | Let's do it. |
| Date | 07:04:09, January 06, 2006 CET | From | Progressive Party | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Nuclear Retaliation |
| Message | We ask why the AAS would oppose this bill when it is such a grave matter of national security. A huge conventional attack by an enemy nation wouldn't be considered grounds to launch a nuclear missile in retaliation under current law. Hypothetically, Likatonia could be invaded by 3 major armies and attacked at sea while enemy aircraft bomb our cities to oblivion... and we still wouldn't open up all military options even if Likatonian was on the verge of destruction. Our proposed legislation changes all of this, and we can be assured that the use of nuclear weapons will still be restricted to retaliatory strikes and that any retaliatory nuclear strike Likatonia launches will be of last resort. |
| Date | 15:32:33, January 06, 2006 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - Nuclear Retaliation |
| Message | In partial response - let the AAS point out that the Progressive Party is actually now duplicating (almost word for word) earlier AAS (AAP) legislation: Let us, please, direct the Progressive Party's attention to our National Security Acts, especially "National Security (viii) which was the culmination of rpeated legislative attempts. http://80.237.164.51/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=26143 As the Progressive Party can see - that legislation is very similar to the arguments the Progressive Party uses today... however, it was also the last 'military' legislation (and, indeed, the very last 'policy' legislation) the AAP suggested BEFORE the break-up of the Old Party, and the formation of the new Anarch Anakrousite Shatter.... which is much more geared towards pacifist and political mechanisms, than towards machinery of war. It isn't that the AAS sees no danger... or that we do not appreciate the risks. It is more that we favour words over swords. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 169 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 261 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 70 |
| Random fact: Unless otherwise stated, monarchs and their royal houses will be presumed to be owned by the player who introduced the bill appointing them to their position. |
| Random quote: "I am a conservative to preserve all that is good in our constitution, a radical to remove all that is bad. I seek to preserve property and to respect order, and I equally decry the appeal to the passions of the many or the prejudices of the few." - Benjamin Disraeli |