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: Military Reform Bill
Details
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: March 4406
Description[?]:
| The Beluzian Communist Party is back in the name of the beluzians, and as our first act we shall propose a military reform bill |
Proposals
Article 1
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: The state owns all defence industries.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change Civil defence is the government's policy on providing shelters to be used in the event of attacks on major cities, mainly nuclear attacks and bombing.
Old value:: Local authorities are responsible for building and maintaining shelters.
Current: The government builds and maintains a network of shelters across the nation.
Proposed: The government builds and maintains a network of shelters across the nation.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning the use of nuclear weaponry in warfare.
Old value:: The nation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in warfare for any reason.
Current: The nation shall never use nuclear weapons in warfare.
Proposed: The nation shall never use nuclear weapons in warfare unless another nation uses them first.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning the export of weapons to other nations.
Old value:: The government allows arms to be sold only to close allies.
Current: The government must approve all arms sales on a case by case basis.
Proposed: The government does not allow arms to be exported.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 16:33:02, June 08, 2018 CET | From | Beluzian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Military Reform Bill |
| Message | Article 3 is bizarre. To have Beluzian law state that Beluzian people must be slaughtered by nuclear weapons before we can defend ourself like-for-like is self-defeating. Article 4 is self-defeating too. Why shouldn't we be able to help our allies in conflicts that affect us directly or indirectly? Articles 1 and 2 are just ideological nonsense like the rest of it. We'd support an alteration to the defence industry policy but these proposals are dangerous to our national security. |
| Date | 19:30:39, June 08, 2018 CET | From | Alliance | To | Debating the Military Reform Bill |
| Message | Regarding your counter argument to article 3 : You claim we must keep nuclear weapons to prevent manslaughter, however if you are against manslaughter, you wouldn't wish to use these nuclear weapons for any reason. On your counter argument to article 4 : Your patriotism is contradictory. You claim it's self-defeating not to help our allies, however, isn't it also self-defeating to sell our arms to close allies? Articles 1 and 2 are also to ensure the safety of our citizens in a war situation |
| Date | 20:10:14, June 08, 2018 CET | From | Beluzian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Military Reform Bill |
| Message | If Beluzia has a nuclear arsenal with a pro-Beluzia strike policy the very fact of possessing these weapons eradicates the threat of nuclear attack. The Communist Party's proposal is only self-defeating. It makes no sense to restrict ourselves in such a manner that the country must be nuked before we can retaliate. OOC: You argument regarding Article 4 makes no sense. |
| Date | 23:58:44, June 08, 2018 CET | From | Liberty Party | To | Debating the Military Reform Bill |
| Message | Liberty are struggling to understand CPs counter to 4 also. What objection do you have to helping out allies? |
| Date | 09:58:23, June 09, 2018 CET | From | Alliance | To | Debating the Military Reform Bill |
| Message | Our counter to argument 4 was simply a refutation to the Conservative's point of view, if he considers it to be self-defeating not to help our alies, wouldn't it also be self-defeating to give away our weapons? Either way, the BCP is against warring and most importantly making war a businesss |
| Date | 11:44:39, June 09, 2018 CET | From | United Party | To | Debating the Military Reform Bill |
| Message | “From my understanding the bill doesn’t block Beluzia from launching nukes until the strike hits the nation, but rather once the missiles are in the air.” |
| Date | 16:57:42, June 09, 2018 CET | From | Beluzian Conservative Party | To | Debating the Military Reform Bill |
| Message | Your "refutation" doesn't make sense. We are helping our allies by sending them Beluzia arms - it's that simple. United Party, you're just falling for ideological claptrap. Even if your interpretation is correct - which it isn't - we still shouldn't wait for our enemies to have a huge advantage over us before being able to legally prepare a retaliation. Why should we wait for a country to launch nuclear weapons at us before we can prepare to send them back? It makes no sense. If you applied that to all aspects of a war we'd be trampled upon. This is an absolutely ridiculous reform and we wont forget this in the future. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 367 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 356 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 27 |
| Random fact: Particracy has been running since 2005. Dorvik was Particracy's first nation, the Dorvik Social Democrats the first party and the International Greens the first Party Organisation. |
| Random quote: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." - John Dalberg-Acton |