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: Deterrent Provision Act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Adam Smith 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: March 2070
Description[?]:
| Respecting the express opinion of the people of Lodamun this act proposes that provision be made for the development and deployment of nuclear technology in the defence of our nation. We would affirm a commitment to never using a first strike capability, but we do reserve the right and power to defend our nation to the utmost of our ability angainst any and all agressors. |
Proposals
Article 1
Proposal[?] to change The policy with respect to nuclear weaponry.
Old value:: The nation shall never develop, produce or store nuclear weaponry.
Current: The nation shall never produce or store nuclear weaponry for military purposes. Research and development of the technology is permitted.
Proposed: The nation reserves the right to develop, produce and store nuclear arms.
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:10:13, June 17, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Deterrent Provision Act |
| Message | As a aprty committed to international peace, we will of course vote against this bill. |
| Date | 17:37:59, June 17, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Deterrent Provision Act |
| Message | We are likewise committed to internatonal peace. Hence the explicit denial of a first strike option. There are times though when peace can only be ensured by being prepared to fight. The other question that we would dire3ct at those opposing this on the basis of world peace is what price are you prepared to pay for this peace. Should we simply accept the potential domination of the world by a fascist state armed with nuclear weapons and meekly surrender our hard won democratic rights? We in the ASP believe there are values for which it is justified to fight. Freedom of thought, expression and political liberties are principles without which peace is worthless. |
| Date | 23:53:57, June 18, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Deterrent Provision Act |
| Message | The Council was against the disarming of our previous nuclear arsenal, and will support this effort to restore our defensive capabilities. |
| Date | 05:54:43, June 19, 2005 CET | From |  Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Deterrent Provision Act |
| Message | This proposal has the support of Tuesday Is Coming. We recognize national defence as being a legitimate responsibility of government. Aggressors desire disarmed victims. |
| Date | 05:09:21, June 20, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Deterrent Provision Act |
| Message | We do not support this. The proponents of this bill seem to have mistakenly assumed the concept of mutually assured destruction is a viable national defence strategy. |
| Date | 05:30:08, June 20, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Deterrent Provision Act |
| Message | Feel free to show how it is a mistake. |
| Date | 06:53:31, June 20, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Deterrent Provision Act |
| Message | All existing empirical evidence indicates that the possession of nuclear weapons, combined with a declaration of willingness to use them as a last defence, has functioned extrememly well for half a century as a deterrent to invasion and aggression against countries that take this stand. Other states, that have the technology, but no desire to develop or use such deterrents have suffered invasions and incursions. With the current tendency toward terrorism and non traditional warfare, the possession and readiness of nuclear weaponry would release manpower resources to act in counter terrorism operations and thereby these deterrent measures would also assist in anti-terrorist activities. CFC-Greens have yet to indicate why the possession of such weaponry is contrary to their, and our, express desire for world peace. It appears that they are a major factor in generating stability and in driving countries to seek non violent resoultions to conflicts of interests. |
| Date | 07:19:25, June 20, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Deterrent Provision Act |
| Message | The premise is flawed. Millions of people have died in wars in the past half century, wars that nuclear weapons have done absolutely nothing to prevent -- because they are not weapons that a rational state can risk using. They have not protected nuclear-armed states from attack by non-nuclear states and non-governmental insurgents. There are many states that possess the technology to produce nuclear weapons and have decided not to do so. Many of these states are among the most secure in the world. Nuclear arms are entirely irrelevant to combatting terrorism -- that must be done at to local level, not by waving around weapons that we cannot risk using. Indeed, there is evidence that terrorist groups target mainly nuclear-armed states, while non-nuclear states attract few terror attacks. Our belief is that a secure world is only possible where all states agree not to possess nuclear weapons, the only arms with the capacity to destroy the entire planet. That will not be possible if various states reserve their nuclear arsenals. Declining the nuclear option does not make us a disarmed state: the question of conventional arms is entirely separate. We agree with reserving the right to self-defence, but it has not been demonstrated that nuclear arms will make us safer. The theory is called MAD for a reason: it is utterly divorced from sanity. |
| Date | 15:42:11, June 20, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Deterrent Provision Act |
| Message | Millions of people have died in wars in the past half century, none of these have ocurred in states that possess a nulear deterrent. The premise is coonfirmed by this. Those states that have the technology to develop nuclear weapons but have not done so are secure only in so far as they are a paret of an organisation that does possess nuclear capability. Be this NATO or ANZAC or EU etc. Those states that do not possess this capability and are not alied to states that possess this capability are those where death and destructn have ruled. Iran and Iraq had a very bloody war, for less provocation than exists between India and Pakistan, which have not gone to war due to their possessing nuclear technology. The empirical evidence shows that the pressence of a nuclear deterrent is the only means mankind has yet found to prevent very bloody warfare. Whilst the belief of the CFC-Greens is very warm and fuzzy, it is unfounded. There is no evidence, from any period in the last 5,000 years of history that peace can obtain if it is not enforced (contradictory though this may apear to be). It has been clearly and indisputably shown that the presence of a nuclear deterrent does provide safety that is unobtainable in its absence. It would truly be MAD to ignore the evidence as the CFC-Greens seem to want to do. |
| Date | 22:36:08, June 20, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Deterrent Provision Act |
| Message | Sorry to go out of game, but as the precendent has been set: -- China is a nuclear state. Many Chinese have died in wars in Vietnam, Korea, Tibet, India... -- The USA is a nuclear state. Many Americans have died in wars in Vietnam, Korea, in terror attacks on US soil.... -- Britain is a nuclear power. This did nothing to prevent Argentina from invading its soil in the Falklands. Oh, and many British have died in wars in Korea, Suez.... -- France is a nuclear power. Many French have died in wars in Algeria, Vietnam... -- Russia is a nuclear power. Many Russians have died in wars in Aghanistan, in terror attacks on Russian soil... -- Israel is a nuclear power. And probably among the least safe states for its citizens in the world. Its nuclear arsenal has saved precisely zero lives. The US and the USSR could not go to war directly, but the only result was to doom millions to death in proxy wars in Korea, Angola, Iran... And nuclear annihialtion was avoided only with some very close calls. One maniac in power in either country, and the Cuban missile crisis would have been death for everyone on earth. Would Brazil really be safer if it decided to develop nuclear weapons? Wise heads in Brazil decided against it. And Brazil is safer from foreign attack than most states. The same could be said for Sweden, South Africa, Switzerland, Argentina... Is India really safer, or is it still the victim of terror attacks on a regular basis? Check the logical chain of reasoning. India and Pakistan have had wars before. Both have nuclear weapons now. They have not gone to war in the few years since that has been true. Does it follow that this is necessarily BECAUSE they have nuclear weapons? If so, then i could claim their decades-long period of peace before they obtained nuclear weapons must logically be the result of them NOT having nuclear weapons. I'd be making the claim based on a logical fallacy, of course: coincidence does not equal causation. So i won't make the claim. But your assumptions are also based on the same logical fallacy. In fact, why did India obtain nuclear weapons? It wanted to "deter" China. (China did so to "deter" the USA.) Then, to deter India, Pakistan went nuclear. Now Iran is considering nuclear arms in order to "deter" boith Israel and Pakistan. Where does it stop? Does Afghanistan now need nuclear arms to protect itself against its traditional enemy Pakistan? Then won't Tajikistan need nuclear weapons to protect itself from Afghanistan, and Kyrgyzstan to protect itself from Tajikistan? Where does it end? How long before terrorist groups accountable to no one get ahold of these weapons? Nukes for all! That's a dangerous and insane way to run the world. Nuclear proliferation has to be halted, and that will not happen by more and more states seeking illusory "security" in the false nuclear idol. |
| Date | 23:24:54, June 20, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Deterrent Provision Act |
| Message | China is a nuclear state, as is the USA as is the UK. Many soldiers from these nations have died in wars in the last fifty years. But that is not the point isit? The point is that none of the nuclear powers have been attacked in the last fifty years, in any way. The deterrent works. The 'one maniac in power' argument is obviously false as there is a clearly maniacal leader in power in one of the worlds nuclear powers, but no nuclear war has ensued. It is scaremongering, and badly done at that. Is Brazil safer witout nuclear weapons. Well Brazil is not safer without them, no. However Brazil is a traditinally nutral country in a region where there is a lot of development to be done internally before international conflict becomes a major issue. It is rather like asking whether Canada is safer for being a nuclear power or not. It is irrelevant. However in Lodamun we are not in that position. We are in the middle of a zone that has been devastated by recent warfare. It is reasonble to expect that we could be invaded at any time, by any one of various threats. Is India safer. Yes. There has been no outright warfare between India and Pakistan, which there would have been had there been no deterrent. There has been border warfare between Indioa and Pakistan (West Bangladesh) ever since the formation of these states on religious lines. This warfare only ceased with the introduction of the nuclear deterrent. Oh dear, nuclear weapons resulted in peace. Exactly what is being argued here. You ask where does it stop? It doesn't, why should a couintry leave itself vulnerable to attack when it does not need to. The nuclear non-prliferation treaty is an attempt by the members of the security councl to retain their advantage, and the biggest piece of hypocricy ever to be presented as an international treaty. Why does nuclear proliferation have to be halted? So we can still have some training grounds for our troops? NO. We, in Lodamun, have the right and the obligation to defend our people and our lands using all and every means at our disposal. Anything less is to fail in our entrusted task. |
| Date | 00:42:32, June 21, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Deterrent Provision Act |
| Message | As i said, many nuclear powers have been attacked. The UK in the Falklands, the USA on 11 September 2001, Russia by Chechen suicide bombers, Israel on many occasions. The new threats make nuclear weapons a dangerous irrelevancy. India and Pakistan fought their last war over Bangladesh in 1971, and have been at peace ever since. There has been no major India-Pakistan war since then, but Pakistan only obtained nuclear weapons in the past few years. And you seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that i'm saying the Security COuncil powers should keep thei nuclear arsenals while others are denied them, when i think all countries should disarm. The timeline is simply wrong. As to the rest, i'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree, and bring the debate back to Lodamun's world. It is the position of this party that no state should possess nuclear weapons. Strong conventional forces, adroit diplomacy and citizen-based defence are far more likely to protect us than nuclear weapons. Gaduridos has nuclear arms. So does Kalistan. They still went to war with each otiher. Nuclear weapons deterred nothing. They are useless as a means fo defence and as a means of deterrence. ... and you can hardly expect a Green party to vote for nuclear arms in any case ;) |
| Date | 02:00:22, June 21, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Deterrent Provision Act |
| Message | No nuclear power has had a war started against it since it became a nuclear power. Being attacked is something else. However we will bring it back from RL on your request. Why should I not expect a green party to vote for nuclear weapons. Nuclear power is the cleanest form of power other than solar that we know of (Wind, wave and hydro all have damaging effects on the environment. ) The military funding that a nuclear weapons program would bring would assist in transferring power generation over from far more polluting means such as fossilfuel burning generation to clean nuclear generation. The weapons themselves are not for use, they are for deterrent value, and as such are far less polluting than fossil fuel powered tanks and aircraft etc. Nuclear weapons, if you think about them are less polluting than having to have large conventional armies, or biohazard weapons or chemical weapons. A green party should support this move, not oppose it. |
| Date | 03:20:02, June 21, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Deterrent Provision Act |
| Message | We have moved this to vote so that it completes the voting procedure prior to the next election. |
| Date | 03:20:38, June 21, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Deterrent Provision Act |
| Message | "There has been border warfare between Indioa and Pakistan (West Bangladesh) ever since the formation of these states on religious lines. This warfare only ceased with the introduction of the nuclear deterrent. Oh dear, nuclear weapons resulted in peace. Exactly what is being argued here." Au contraire, there have been numerous armed conflicts between the two since 1998, most notably the Kargil War in 1999. |
| Date | 05:16:57, June 21, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Deterrent Provision Act |
| Message | no nuclear conflicts however... |
| Date | 05:19:52, June 21, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Deterrent Provision Act |
| Message | and there have been no more wars as extensive as the two immediately before nuclear weapons were developed |
| Date | 06:53:59, June 21, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Deterrent Provision Act |
| Message | Armed conflict will exist as long as there are guns. Do not conflate armed conflict with war. They are not the same. There has been no warfare between India and Pakistan since India developed a nuclear deterrent. There have been skirmishes and border incidents, but no declaration of war. Fact (We had agreed to leave RL behind) |
| Date | 07:10:56, June 21, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Deterrent Provision Act |
| Message | Consider also, the only hostile use of near-nuclear weapons, was ending a war. |
| Date | 20:39:21, June 21, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Deterrent Provision Act |
| Message | "and there have been no more wars as extensive as the two immediately before nuclear weapons were developed" The two wars 'immediately' before nuclear weapons were developed actually occured in 1947 (When both tried to seize Kashmir), and 1971, when East Pakistan declared independence. Ironically, Nixon sent the USS Enterprise and threatened India with a nuclear strike when it became apparent that Pakistan would lose, that didn't stop India from aiding Bangladesh. It wasn't much of a deterrent. |
| Date | 15:15:08, June 22, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Deterrent Provision Act |
| Message | I was referring to WWI and II |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 141 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 305 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 0 |
| Random fact: In order for a Cabinet bill to pass, more than half of the legislature must vote for it and all of the parties included in the proposed Cabinet must support it. If your nation has a Head of State who is also the Head of Government, then the party controlling this character must also vote for the bill, since the Head of Government is also a member of the Cabinet. If any of these requirements are not met, the bill will not pass. |
| Random quote: "Economic advance is not the same thing as human progress." - John Clapham |