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: Lex Pescennia de Armis Eversionis Latissimae
Details
Submitted by[?]: Factio Republicana Socialistica
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: November 4421
Description[?]:
| Pescennian Law on Weapons of Mass Destruction Senators, The recent Vanukean nuclear strike in its conventional war against Deltaria is absolute proof that nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction are antithetical to the Republican commitment to a universal militia and the military self-governance of Republican citizens. The main purpose of the universal right to arms and its complementary duty that most adults be armed that we have recently implemented is to give the People direct control over the decision whether to go to war. If the government declares war and calls upon its armed citizenry and nobody shows up, no war can occur. Weapons of mass destruction however require no such popular consent, as hypothetically, and as we've seen with Vanuku, practically as well, nuclear war can begin with just one politician's push of a button, without popular ratification and in spite of popular opposition. Whereas under a universal citizen militia all citizens share the suffering and consequences of warfare, and are thus directly affected by the decision to go to war, weapons of mass destruction render that principle irrelevant. They can inflict considerable damage without the need for widespread cooperation and support among the body of the citizenry, rendering citizens apathetic to the decision whether to go to war in the first place, and supporting the war effort and irrational escalations from the comfort of their own homes, with little risk of their own suffering. And that is the very antithesis of civic virtue. It has been said that "war is politics by other means", and those words could not be more true. Is it not then despicable when those that take military decisions lose sight of the long-term political goals of war in favor of short-term tactical or strategic gains, and is it not ultimately self-defeating to only pursue the latter without keeping the far more important political goals in mind? The ability to use weapons of mass destruction is a clear illustration of the dangers involved in letting politicians or military leaders pursue war without regard to its political objectives. The Vanukean Armed Forces inflicted massive damage on their enemy, and yet they found themselves isolated on the world stage, their credibility lost and their influence shattered. Whatever tactical gains they may have made against Deltarian forces vanished because short-sighted Vanukean leaders ignored the political role of war, and decided to forego popular ratification in favor of limited military gains. It is for these reasons that we call on the Republic to immediately and unilaterally dismantle its entire nuclear, chemical, and biological stockpile, to take the power to wage war away from politicians and generals and return it in the hands of the People. If the Republic ever decides to go to war, it will be because those that will actually die in it agree it is worth fighting. Otherwise we will continue hiding behind the false myth of "nuclear deterrence" and march obliviously towards the extinction of all human life. Peace is guaranteed not because of nuclear weapons, but in spite of them. Let us abandon our childish fascination with big destructive weapons and return the power of death to the hands of the People. Alexandra Pescennia Scato Senatrix OOC: Nuclear strike happened here: http://forum.particracy.net/viewtopic.php?f=17&t=1605&start=480#p136204 |
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 unless another nation uses them first.
Current: The nation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in warfare for any reason.
Proposed: The nation shall never use nuclear weapons in warfare.
Article 2
Proposal[?] to change The policy with respect to nuclear weaponry.
Old value:: The nation reserves the right to develop, produce and store nuclear arms.
Current: The nation reserves the right to develop, produce and store nuclear arms.
Proposed: The nation shall never develop, produce or store nuclear weaponry.
Article 3
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning biological and chemical weaponry.
Old value:: The nation reserves the right to develop, construct and store biological and chemical weapons.
Current: The nation reserves the right to develop, construct and store biological and chemical weapons.
Proposed: The nation shall never develop, purchase or store biological or chemical weaponry.
Article 4
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning the use of chemical and biological weaponry in warfare.
Old value:: The nation can only use chemical or biological weapons on non-civilan areas.
Current: The nation reserves the right to use chemical or biological weapons in warfare for any reason.
Proposed: The nation shall never use chemical or biological weaponry in warfare.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 21:26:12, July 09, 2018 CET | From | Novus Partis Rexisti | To | Debating the Lex Pescennia de Armis Eversionis Latissimae |
| Message | Senators, As your Consul I shall have to disapprove of this proposal. Our Republican Peers forget one thing, and that is the fact that the possession of nuclear weaponry is a deterrent to nuclear attack through the principle of mutually assured destruction. Wilhelmus Augustus Flavius Consul Populi |
| Date | 11:22:58, July 10, 2018 CET | From | Factio Republicana Socialistica | To | Debating the Lex Pescennia de Armis Eversionis Latissimae |
| Message | Senators, Consul Flavius seems unaware that the nuclear deterrent is a myth. Nuclear weapons do not make wars less likely. They make their use in war more likely, with disastrous and potentially civilization-ending consequences. Of all conflicts during the past two millennia, since the development of nuclear weaponry, none was prevented by nuclear weapons. Instead we have seen them used as a desperate alternative in conventional wars. Nuclear powers go to war as often or perhaps even more frequently than non-nuclear states, and more often than one would like the temptation to use nuclear weapons proves too great. Although it happens rarely, it is not unusual to see nuclear weapons used in warfare. With rising tensions throughout Terra and the formation of two powerful military blocs, constantly at each others' throats, the risk of a global nuclear war is far too great to be ignored. Mutually assured destruction is also a deadly myth. There is no threshold for what amount of nuclear weaponry constitutes effective deterrence. If one side is willing to be annihilated in a counterattack, no amount of threatened retaliation can deter them. If one side believes the other is utterly indifferent to the loss of life no amount of nuclear weaponry will be enough. Mutually assured destruction assumes that military and political leaders are always rational calculating actors and that they would never take actions that threaten the destruction of civilization. That is simply not true. Leaders are no more immune to mental illness, paranoia, delusions, and an irrational commitment to abstract ideals than anyone else, and perhaps even more so. Moreover, nuclear deterrence only works if the victim of nuclear attack retains second-strike retaliatory capability, which is in fact our current policy. However this ignores the fact that over the centuries nuclear missiles have become more and more accurate, leaving our nuclear weapons vulnerable to a counterforce strike and rendering our second-strike policy irrelevant. If we ever find ourselves in a nuclear war, rest assured that the very first target of any nuclear aggressor will be our own nuclear arsenal. Under such circumstances it makes no sense for us to maintain the second-strike policy and it would be far more rational to preemptively launch a first strike ourselves, lest we find our entire nuclear arsenal obliterated. This situation, where both victim and aggressor have every incentive to strike first, is inherently unstable and will in the long run make nuclear war all but guaranteed. In nuclear circles they call this conundrum "use 'em or lose 'em", meaning that nuclear weapons are useless unless used in a first strike. Which means that our current policy is not only utopian, it is dangerous and a waste of taxpayer money on vanity projects that do nothing to enhance our defensive capabilities and everything to make us vulnerable to nuclear war. It is for these reasons that we call on the Senate to abandon our centuries-long delusional policy and embrace the light of truth: nuclear deterrence doesn't work, nuclear weapons are unethical, weapons of mass destruction remove the power of the People to wage war, and possession of nuclear weapons makes the end of all human life a frightfully likely possibility. Alexandra Pescennia Scato Senatrix |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 335 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 415 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Particracy allows you to establish an unelected head of state like a monarch or a president-for-life, but doing this is a bit of a process. First elect a candidate with the name "." to the Head of State position. Then change your law on the "Structure of the executive branch" to "The head of state is hereditary and symbolic; the head of government chairs the cabinet" and change the "formal title of the head of state" to how you want the new head of state's title and name to appear (eg. King Percy XVI). |
| Random quote: "I swear to the Lord I still can't see Why Democracy means Everybody but me." - Langston Hughes, The Black Man Speaks |