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 Sanity Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Independent Capitalist 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: July 2168
Description[?]:
| Using nuclear missiles as a retaliation to *any* attack will lead to nuclear war. We wouldn't want the destruction of Terra by nuclear winter to be blamed on us, would we? |
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 retaliation to any attack.
Current: The nation shall never use nuclear weapons in warfare.
Proposed: The nation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons if victory is not feasibile by other means.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:00:58, January 07, 2006 CET | From | Freedom Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Sanity Act |
| Message | We like neither option, but the proposed one is the lesser evil. |
| Date | 21:11:02, January 07, 2006 CET | From | Independent Capitalist Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Sanity Act |
| Message | Hopefully the others will see this too. I tried to make it as little of a change as possible to make sure that even militarists can vote to repeal the old law because it is necissary to do so. Think about it! Do you want to start a nuclear war from a conventional attack on us!? |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 466 | |||||
| no | Total Seats: 134 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Character names must appear plausible and should consist of at least a first name and a surname. Exceptions to this will only be granted at Moderation's discretion and where a very strong case has been presented |
| Random quote: "Those who are responsible for the national security must be the sole judges of what the national security requires. It would be obviously undesirable that such matters should be made the subject of evidence in a court of law or otherwise discussed in public." - Unattributed member of the the House of Lords on the removal of trade union rights |