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: Anti Nuclear Violence Act.
Details
Submitted by[?]: Social Technocrat 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: October 2204
Description[?]:
| This proposal is to reduce the nuclear threat. We think these kind of laws shouldn't be in effect in a civlised country. Also, we think that it is the goverments possibility to ensure the safety of it's people |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The government's policy concerning the use of chemical and biological weaponry in warfare.
Old value:: The nation reserves the right to use chemical or biological weapons in warfare for any reason.
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 weapons in warfare unless another nation uses them first.
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 retaliation to any attack.
Current: The nation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in warfare for any reason.
Proposed: The nation reserves the right to nuclear weapons in retaliation to a nuclear, chemical or biological attack.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 18:20:59, March 22, 2006 CET | From | Segue Democratic Alliance | To | Debating the Anti Nuclear Violence Act. |
| Message | Support, especially when we join SOTO as our deterrent threat will be multiplied substantially |
| Date | 13:58:47, March 23, 2006 CET | From | Conservative Republican Federalists | To | Debating the Anti Nuclear Violence Act. |
| Message | So you would much rather leave the defense of the nation in the hands of a treaty that may or may not work depending on how committed our allies would be to defending us in case of war. I can't support that. Our defense should rest primarily in our hands and no one elses. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | ||||
| yes | Total Seats: 106 | ||||
| no |
Total Seats: 454 | ||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: Parties have the ability to endorse another party's candidate for the Head of State election (if there is one). This adds a strategic element to the elections. |
| Random quote: "Global warmers predict that global warming is coming, and our emissions are to blame. They do that to keep us worried about our role in the whole thing. If we aren't worried and guilty, we might not pay their salaries. It's that simple." - Kary Mullis |