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: National Military Strength Act of 4042
Details
Submitted by[?]: Progressive Conservative 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: October 4043
Description[?]:
| This bill attempts to increase the strength of our nation's military by softening many of the current restrictions that have been put in place on their use of certain types of arms in certain situations. Certainly, we would not advocate for the use of nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons except in extraordinary circumstances, but we also believe that legislatively limiting our military's capabilities and telegraphing this to the rest of Terra has no benefit for the safety and security of our people. |
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 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 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 shall never use chemical or biological weaponry in warfare.
Proposed: The nation shall never use chemical or biological weapons in warfare unless another nation uses them first.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The nation's defence industry.
Old value:: Defence industries are privately owned and not subsidised.
Current: The state owns national defence industries but these exist alongside privately owned defence industries.
Proposed: Defence industries are privately owned but subsidised by the state.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy towards the use of land mines by the army.
Old value:: The use of land mines is prohibited.
Current: The use of land mines is prohibited.
Proposed: The use of land mines is allowed but restricted.
Article 5
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 shall never use nuclear weapons in warfare.
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 | 03:39:01, June 12, 2016 CET | From | Conservative Renew | To | Debating the National Military Strength Act of 4042 |
| Message | We are in support for this bill and hope for its passage |
| Date | 03:43:19, June 12, 2016 CET | From | Conservative Renew | To | Debating the National Military Strength Act of 4042 |
| Message | Article 5 however we would like to be reworked to All adults upon completion of schooling can be required in times of war to serve a term in the military |
| Date | 03:47:22, June 12, 2016 CET | From | Progressive Conservative Party | To | Debating the National Military Strength Act of 4042 |
| Message | We thank the Social Conservative Party for their support of this bill, and we hope the other parties will soon offer their support as well. Giving our military the capabilities necessary to defend Gaduridos and command the respect of other countries around Terra is of the highest importance to our party, and we feel this bill takes a significant step in the right direction. We plan on moving this bill to a vote in the months following the September election. |
| Date | 03:48:36, June 12, 2016 CET | From | Progressive Conservative Party | To | Debating the National Military Strength Act of 4042 |
| Message | And Article 5 has been updates to state that: "All adults upon completion of schooling can be required in times of war to serve a term in the military." |
| Date | 04:39:01, June 12, 2016 CET | From | Classical Liberal Party | To | Debating the National Military Strength Act of 4042 |
| Message | We are in opposition to the entire bill except for Article 8. |
| Date | 04:55:46, June 12, 2016 CET | From | Progressive Conservative Party | To | Debating the National Military Strength Act of 4042 |
| Message | We are disappointed to learn of the NDP's opposition to much of this bill. The only way to ensure a free and prosperous Gaduridos is to give our military the right to produce and potentially use the same types of weapons that other militaries all across Terra have the right to produce and use. We are currently not on a level playing field with the rest of the world. We will soon put Article 8 into a separate bill after we receive input from the Green Moderates Party on what aspects of this bill (if any) they would be willing to support. |
| Date | 21:40:17, June 12, 2016 CET | From | Green Moderates Party | To | Debating the National Military Strength Act of 4042 |
| Message | Unfortunately, we do not support this bill. We believe in maintaining a competent and capable military force for the protection of our own nation and our own citizens. Growing the military, in our opinion, without obvious issue or specific need, is contributing to spending bloat, and we feel there are more effective methods to fostering the well-being of our people. We would be willing to vote in support of a separate measure (or two) regarding Articles 5 & 7. The GMP would support the legislation requiring all citizens to participate in EITHER the armed services or domestic national service. While we view a pure draft as a requirement of citizenship that borders on the infringement of personal liberty, we feel that having a noncombatant option alongside would make this a civil "duty" similar to paying taxes. And we would support outlawing paramilitaries. While we understand a position taken that may wish to maintain resistance to potential oppression by the government using paramilitaries at home, it seems almost feudal or mafia-like to allow unconventional bodies to exercise force. The State has a monopoly on the use of force. And it is the social contract of society to maintain control over that regulated power. |
| Date | 21:44:40, June 12, 2016 CET | From | Green Moderates Party | To | Debating the National Military Strength Act of 4042 |
| Message | Previously, we sought to restrict the sale of arms to foreign bodies entirely. The current policy was a bipartisan compromise. Having the consideration for approval of arms deals on a case-by-case basis opens up the process to a number of politcally-motivated hindrances. We would prefer not to contribute at all to the propagation of war abroad, considering blowback effects, geopolitical concerns over resources, withholding military support in exchange for backroom deals, etc. |
| Date | 21:46:20, June 12, 2016 CET | From | Progressive Conservative Party | To | Debating the National Military Strength Act of 4042 |
| Message | We thank the Green Moderates Party for their comments on this bill. We will put Articles 5 & 7 into their own bills, and we are happy to change Article 5 so that it requires all citizens to participate in either the armed services or domestic national service. We hope that one day our nation will be willing to soften the current restrictions on our military capabilities, but we recognize that the current makeup of Parliament will not allow for such an act to be successful. However, we still plan on moving the rest of this bill to a vote as part of a commitment to our supporters. |
| Date | 21:53:50, June 12, 2016 CET | From | Progressive Conservative Party | To | Debating the National Military Strength Act of 4042 |
| Message | "Previously, we sought to restrict the sale of arms to foreign bodies entirely. The current policy was a bipartisan compromise. Having the consideration for approval of arms deals on a case-by-case basis opens up the process to a number of politcally-motivated hindrances. We would prefer not to contribute at all to the propagation of war abroad, considering blowback effects, geopolitical concerns over resources, withholding military support in exchange for backroom deals, etc." We believe that in certain situations it is in the best interest of our national security if we are permitted to sell arms to the governments of foreign countries on a case-by-case basis. While we understand your concerns over contributing to the propagation of war abroad, we feel that if we sell arms very strategically, they can strengthen our ties with allies, further democracy around the globe, and stop human rights abuses. We don't expect the Green Moderates to reconsider their opinion on this measure, but we would like to reaffirm our commitment to slightly reducing restrictions on the sale of arms. |
| Date | 22:48:13, June 12, 2016 CET | From | Conservative Renew | To | Debating the National Military Strength Act of 4042 |
| Message | The SCP is still in full support of the bill as presented |
| Date | 02:18:22, June 13, 2016 CET | From | Green Moderates Party | To | Debating the National Military Strength Act of 4042 |
| Message | We thank the Neocon Party for carving out an amending those articles. And the GMP respects the views held by the Neocon Party and its constituency regarding international strength and diplomatic strategy. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||
| yes |
Total Seats: 287 | ||
| no |
Total Seats: 463 | ||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Real-life quotations may be used in Particracy, but the real-life speaker or author should always be referenced in an OOC (out-of-character) note alongside the quotation. |
| Random quote: "The use of solar energy has not been opened up because the oil industry does not own the sun." - Ralph Nader |