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 - The Nuclear Option
Details
Submitted by[?]: Progressive 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 2170
Description[?]:
| Once again, we have decided to bring this issue back to the Convocation/Senate floor for debate. It is our belief that the threat to use a nuclear first strike will prove to be a powerful deterrent. |
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 warfare for any reason.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 08:22:23, January 10, 2006 CET | From | Likaton Fascist Front | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - The Nuclear Option |
| Message | PSS has proposed this in the past, and we are happy to support. This is the deterrent we need. |
| Date | 14:26:26, January 10, 2006 CET | From | AM Radical Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - The Nuclear Option |
| Message | RLP agrees with providing our military with all possible defensive options. |
| Date | 15:39:49, January 10, 2006 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - The Nuclear Option |
| Message | The AAS is torn. If we are going to have nuclear weapons as a deterrent, the MORE potent that deterrent, the better. Under THAT proviso... even this legislation does not go far enough. However, on the other hand... it was not the AAS wish to HAVE a nuclear deterrent... and we have opposed all 'militarisation'. So - should the AAS vote 'principles'... and oppose ANY militarising legislation....? Or, should the AAS vote 'pragmatism'... and accept that, if we HAVE a nuclear deterrent... it should be a good one? |
| Date | 18:20:15, January 10, 2006 CET | From | JLP Liberation Militia | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - The Nuclear Option |
| Message | JLP supports this legislation, whlie understanding the strife in the AAS. While hoping we never go nuclear, we believe we should have the legal ability to go nuclear if necessary. If, according to current legislation, we are hit with a nuclear attack, we have the right to retaliate. Obviously, common sense dictates that we won't have a chance to retaliate if we are hit with a nuclear strike. |
| Date | 19:25:44, January 10, 2006 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - The Nuclear Option |
| Message | The AAS takes onboard the JLP thought... which makes us think, more than ever, that this legislation is 'half-hearted'.... something of a gesture, but lacking real teeth. If the AAS is going to step away from the pacifist agenda on this issue, we are not going to step in increments. If we REALLY want a nuclear deterrent, we might as well opt for the "First Strike" option. Otherwise, as the JLP point out... we are always going to be the 'second player' in the nuclear war game... and the second player always plays from a disadvantage. |
| Date | 22:49:52, January 10, 2006 CET | From | JLP Liberation Militia | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - The Nuclear Option |
| Message | AAS is right on. |
| Date | 05:11:47, January 11, 2006 CET | From | Progressive Party | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - The Nuclear Option |
| Message | We actually do support and have advocated for a first strike option but proposed this because we didn't think that we could get it passed. We will change the proposal accordingly. |
| Date | 20:55:47, January 11, 2006 CET | From | Likaton Fascist Front | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - The Nuclear Option |
| Message | Bring it on ! |
| Date | 00:27:02, January 12, 2006 CET | From | Commonwealth Workers Army | To | Debating the Progressive Reform Bill - The Nuclear Option |
| Message | If we have it, it might as well have teeth. Supported. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 421 | |||||||
| no |
Total Seats: 79 | |||||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Party candidates for head of state elections are not visible to the public. This means that you cannot see who will run and who will not, which adds another strategic element to the elections. |
| Random quote: "Erotic politicians, that's what we are. We're interested in anything about revolt, disorder, chaos and activity that appears to have no meaning." Jim Morrison |