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 Weapon Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Social Liberal 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: January 4250
Description[?]:
| We should change our policy about nuclear weapon because the current law is useless since we're leaving in a peacetime. |
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 if victory is not feasibile by other means.
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 | 22:17:25, July 30, 2017 CET | From |  National Progress Party | To | Debating the Nuclear Weapon Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker Why should we weaken our military like that? If someone attack us with chemical weapons or biological weapons we shouldn't keep ourselves from striking back with similar weapons. We must show to the world that we are strong and that we are not affraid of defending our territory. If our ennemies doesn't show mercy for us we shouldn't show mercy for them. We will vote agaisn't this bill. -River Jensen Senator and former miniister of Defence |
| Date | 23:18:35, July 30, 2017 CET | From | United Civic Alliance | To | Debating the Nuclear Weapon Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, This provision does not actually change all that much, if you look at the specifics. What it does is limit the use of nuclear devices in warfare to only those cases where others have used specifically nuclear weapons – removing the option to retaliate with nuclear weapons against chemical or biological weapons attacks. As devastating as chemical or biological weapons can be, they pale in comparison to the sheer destructive effects of nuclear weapons. Only in response to nuclear attack should we use them. I yield. |
| Date | 00:20:22, July 31, 2017 CET | From | Federal Heritage Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Nuclear Weapon Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, We have to disagree with the UCA as Biological attacks can be just as devastating if not more than nuclear attacks and we should reserve the right to retaliate if it should come to that. Senator Wyatt McLaughlin (F-AD) Federalist Senate Leader |
| Date | 00:26:27, July 31, 2017 CET | From | United Civic Alliance | To | Debating the Nuclear Weapon Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, That is certainly a valid point. But that is not what I am getting at, nor is it what this bill is getting at. We certainly should, and must, retaliate if we come under biological attack – but we should do so without nuclear weapons. In essence, our view is that only nuclear weapons attacks should rationalize nuclear responses. I yield. |
| Date | 00:42:13, July 31, 2017 CET | From | Federal Heritage Party of Hutori | To | Debating the Nuclear Weapon Act |
| Message | Mr. Speaker, If our population is decimated by a biological agent how can we retaliate if not with nuclear force? Senator Wyatt McLaughlin (F-AD) Federalist Senate Leader |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes |
Total Seats: 228 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 324 | |||
| abstain |
Total Seats: 53 |
| 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: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." - Margaret Mead |