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: Mutual defence reform
Details
Submitted by[?]: MLC Old Endralonian Resistance
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: September 2060
Description[?]:
| It is the opinion of the MLC that Endralon must possess a small cache of nuclear arms to deter the coming onslaught of international war, whilst we agree nuclear weapons are abhorrent until a worldwide pact of disarmament can be established they are a necessary evil. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The policy with respect to nuclear weaponry.
Old value:: The nation shall never develop, produce or store nuclear weaponry.
Current: The nation reserves the right to develop, produce and store nuclear arms.
Proposed: The nation reserves the right to develop, produce and store nuclear arms.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:32:43, May 30, 2005 CET | From | Communist Party of Endralon | To | Debating the Mutual defence reform |
| Message | As always, we fully support this initiative. |
| Date | 18:06:44, May 30, 2005 CET | From | Abandoned NFC Headquarters | To | Debating the Mutual defence reform |
| Message | The Nihilist Fascist Collegiality supports this course of action. |
| Date | 19:49:21, May 30, 2005 CET | From | MLC Old Endralonian Resistance | To | Debating the Mutual defence reform |
| Message | we can all see how this one is going to pan out and I dont think it needs any further clarification or discussion so Ill be bringing it to vote |
| Date | 20:14:08, May 30, 2005 CET | From | Communist Party of Endralon | To | Debating the Mutual defence reform |
| Message | WTF!? The conservatives turned hippie? |
| Date | 20:18:20, May 30, 2005 CET | From | MLC Old Endralonian Resistance | To | Debating the Mutual defence reform |
| Message | well gotta say Im suprised that you'd flipflop on this issue Conservative Party. |
| Date | 21:25:12, May 30, 2005 CET | From | People's Liberation Front (PPP) | To | Debating the Mutual defence reform |
| Message | We are against this motion. Nuclear weaponry is just too dangerous and the world is better off without them. |
| Date | 22:43:20, May 30, 2005 CET | From | Delete This Party!!! | To | Debating the Mutual defence reform |
| Message | Sorry, mistake. You know how much right-wingers love their nukes :P |
| Date | 04:02:00, May 31, 2005 CET | From | MLC Old Endralonian Resistance | To | Debating the Mutual defence reform |
| Message | I agree PPP but I have no control over other nations and they seem to want nukes , and while they do and some of which are even likely to use them , I'd rather endralon had at least some kind of workable detterent. |
| Date | 12:25:52, May 31, 2005 CET | From | Delete This Party!!! | To | Debating the Mutual defence reform |
| Message | At the end of the day, nuclear weapons are required to prevent them being used. If we have nuclear weapons we are less likely to be attacked by other nations and we will have more diplomatic clout as nations will know we can back up what we say. The nuclear weapons are unlikely to ever be used. As an example, look at the Cold War. Both sides had masses of nukes and yet noone was nuked. Look at Japan - they didnt have nukes, they ended up nuked. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 354 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 264 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: The players in a nation have a collective responsibility to ensure their "Bills under debate" section is kept in good order. Bills which are irrelevant or have become irrelevant should be deleted. Deletion can be requested for bills proposed by inactive parties on the Bill Clearout Requests thread: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=4363 |
| Random quote: "A Bill of Rights that means what the majority wants it to mean is worthless." - Antonin Scalia |