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 Deterence Provisions
Details
Submitted by[?]: Progressive Centrist 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: February 4105
Description[?]:
| To ensure the continued safety of our citizens in an increasingly dangerous world there should be prepared to us nuclear weapons in response to a nuclear, biological or chemical attack against us. Such a provision within our legislation will protect our people from aggression from nuclear powered nations. We also agree to the additional request from the Social Democratic Party that there should be an increase in the government military spending dedicated to anti-missile technology to be deployed around the nation as an additional protection measure from aggressors. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning the use of nuclear weaponry in warfare.
Old value:: The nation shall never use nuclear weapons in warfare.
Current: The nation shall never use nuclear weapons in warfare unless another nation uses them first.
Proposed: The nation shall never use nuclear weapons in warfare unless another nation uses them first.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:34:50, October 12, 2016 CET | From | Social Democratic Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Deterence Provisions |
| Message | We would support this bill as our party has shifted its views on Nuclear weapons. However please can there be a clause which stipulates we would expand military spending in order to allow anti-missile technology to be deployed around the nation so we should never need to use the weapons? Harry Goldfeld Leader of the SDP |
| Date | 19:37:07, October 12, 2016 CET | From | Progressive Centrist Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Deterence Provisions |
| Message | The LCP can support this amendment. We would seek your indulgence in identifying how such an amendment can be added to our proposal, Policy Advisor Liberal Conservative Party |
| Date | 20:59:10, October 12, 2016 CET | From | Progressive Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Deterence Provisions |
| Message | The Progressive Party is entirely against nuclear proliferation, and feels that any retaliation to a nuclear strike would not be justified under any circumstance. |
| Date | 14:05:08, October 13, 2016 CET | From | Social Democratic Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Deterence Provisions |
| Message | We should include in the policy details the caveat. |
| Date | 01:09:58, October 14, 2016 CET | From | Populist Reform Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Deterence Provisions |
| Message | This will only strengthen Mordusia on the international stage,we support this. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 447 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 143 | ||||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 60 |
| Random fact: In cases where a party has no seat, the default presumption should be that the party is able to contribute to debates in the legislature due to one of its members winning a seat at a by-election. However, players may collectively improvise arrangements of their own to provide a satisfying explanation for how parties with no seats in the legislature can speak and vote there. |
| Random quote: "The day is not far off when the economic problem will take the back seat where it belongs, and the arena of the heart and the head will be occupied or reoccupied, by our real problems, the problems of life and of human relations, of creation and behaviour and religion." - John Maynard Keynes |