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: Strong Military Act of 4055
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: September 4056
Description[?]:
| Removes self-imposed restrictions on the strength of our military. |
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 reserves the right to use chemical or biological weapons in warfare for any reason.
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 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 | 22:16:24, July 07, 2016 CET | From | Classical Liberal Party | To | Debating the Strong Military Act of 4055 |
| Message | We oppose this entire bill. |
| Date | 23:02:12, July 07, 2016 CET | From | Progressive Conservative Party | To | Debating the Strong Military Act of 4055 |
| Message | By now, we are well aware of the NDPs desire to restrict our military capabilities and weaken our nation. We just a hope a majority of the legislature will recognize the necessity of removing restrictions that prevent our country from maintaining a truly strong military. |
| Date | 05:04:58, July 08, 2016 CET | From | Classical Liberal Party | To | Debating the Strong Military Act of 4055 |
| Message | How are unethical weapons going to strengthen our military? We lose any high ground in a dispute the second we deploy dirty biological or chemical bombs. |
| Date | 05:06:01, July 08, 2016 CET | From | Classical Liberal Party | To | Debating the Strong Military Act of 4055 |
| Message | And large scale business subsidisation of the defense industry will discourage competition, which will hurt our military in the long run. |
| Date | 07:05:01, July 08, 2016 CET | From | Progressive Conservative Party | To | Debating the Strong Military Act of 4055 |
| Message | How is limiting the types of weapons our military can theoretically use beneficial at all? We are not advocating for the unprovoked use of chemical weapons in war by our military. But it makes absolutely no sense to have policy in place telling our potential adversaries what type of weapons our military can and can't use and in what situations we can or can't use them. The only way to truly achieve lasting peace is through a military that gives off an image of strength to the world. Our military will only appear strong if it is not excessively regulated by a legislature that is currently sharing all of its limitations with the rest of world. We should allow our military to give off that appearance of strength by leaving all options on the table and respecting the judgement of the President, Secretary of Defense, and military leadership should there ever be circumstances where the use of nontraditional weapons would be necessary to protect the safety of our people. |
| Date | 12:59:49, July 08, 2016 CET | From | Vintalli Nationalist Party | To | Debating the Strong Military Act of 4055 |
| Message | We support. |
| Date | 01:52:48, July 09, 2016 CET | From | Bentaran National Democrats | To | Debating the Strong Military Act of 4055 |
| Message | We commend the Neoconservative party for bringing forth this important piece of legislation and wholeheartedly support it . |
| Date | 18:57:14, July 09, 2016 CET | From | Progressive Conservative Party | To | Debating the Strong Military Act of 4055 |
| Message | We thank the Bentaran National Democrats, Social Conservatives, and Vintalli Nationalists for their support. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 115 | ||||
| no | Total Seats: 129 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 156 |
| Random fact: If there are no parties in your nation with seats, feel free to visit the forum and request an early election on the Early Election Requests thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4362 |
| Random quote: "You know what's interesting about Washington? It's the kind of place where second-guessing has become second nature." - George W. Bush |