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: Ratification of the No First Use Treaty
Details
Submitted by[?]: Luthori Green Party
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill proposes for the ratification of a treaty. It will require two-thirds of the legislature to vote in favor[?]. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: February 2200
Description[?]:
| This bill asks for the ratification of the No First Use Treaty. If this treaty is ratified, it becomes binding and will define national law. |
Proposals
Article 1
Ratify the No First Use Treaty.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 08:40:02, March 14, 2006 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Ratification of the No First Use Treaty |
| Message | No way. A first strike capability is essential for deterrence as well as a flexible response strategy. |
| Date | 14:52:34, March 14, 2006 CET | From | Luthori Tory Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the No First Use Treaty |
| Message | I disagree. Why should we need to use chemical/bioigical and/or nuclear weapons first for defence? Far better that we are attacked first than we abandon our morals. 'Do unto others as you would have done unto you.' |
| Date | 15:17:41, March 14, 2006 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Ratification of the No First Use Treaty |
| Message | Because it can save lives, and deterrence doesn't exist without first strike capability. The only thing you are deterring with nuclear weapons and a no first use policy is a failed first strike. All the enemy has to do is ensure they destroy you with their first strike and your threat of nuclear retailiation becomes meaningless. |
| Date | 17:02:25, March 14, 2006 CET | From | Luthori Tory Party | To | Debating the Ratification of the No First Use Treaty |
| Message | Why do we want to threaten people? |
| Date | 09:16:10, March 15, 2006 CET | From | Covenanters (IA) | To | Debating the Ratification of the No First Use Treaty |
| Message | The best form of defence is defence. As there is no credible form of defence against nuclear weapons we must resort the the second best form of defence, which is deterrence. If we are to use deterrence we must deter potential enemies from picking a fight with us altogether: to simply deter them from failing to utterly destroy us with a pre-emptive strike would be foolhardy. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 299 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 451 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: "Game mechanics comes first." For example, if a currently-enforced bill sets out one law, then a player cannot claim the government has set out a contradictory law. |
| Random quote: "How we can possibly be giving £1bn a month, when we're in this sort of debt, to Bongo Bongo Land is completely beyond me." - Godfrey Bloom |