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: Worldwide Nuclear Disarmament Intent Treaty
Details
Submitted by[?]: Cooperative Commonwealth Federation
Status[?]: defeated
Votes: This bill is a resolution. It requires more yes votes than no votes. This bill will not pass any sooner than the deadline.
Voting deadline: April 2074
Description[?]:
| The Likatonian LFP would like to propose a Worldwide Nuclear Disarmament Intent Treaty, under these terms, to be passed verbatim where-ever they can be found agreeable. No action is required under them until all nations have passed the same law. "Should we, at any time, become the last nation armed with nuclear weapons we will immediately and unanimously destroy them. Should all other nations in the world pass this same law as is being proposed here, we will also disarm in that circumstance." |
Proposals
Debate
These messages have been posted to debate on this bill:
| Date | 17:48:21, June 27, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Worldwide Nuclear Disarmament Intent Treaty |
| Message | ((Let's do this here instead of on the nation page. Timely enough, given recent debates on nuclear weapons.)) |
| Date | 18:06:41, June 27, 2005 CET | From | CNT/AFL | To | Debating the Worldwide Nuclear Disarmament Intent Treaty |
| Message | We would support this treaty, especially if we lose a vote and re-arm. |
| Date | 18:50:35, June 27, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Worldwide Nuclear Disarmament Intent Treaty |
| Message | We oppose this on the basis given on the nation page. It is way too open to abuse. Sure let us give away all our defensive capability while a non democratic state just pretends to. How is this to be monitored and enforced? It can not be can it? |
| Date | 00:42:20, June 28, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Worldwide Nuclear Disarmament Intent Treaty |
| Message | What about if it added a point requiring verification? |
| Date | 01:43:59, June 28, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Worldwide Nuclear Disarmament Intent Treaty |
| Message | How would the verification work? It is easy to say "yes we destroyed ours, now you destroy yours" but how is that to be verified? |
| Date | 02:14:22, June 28, 2005 CET | From |  Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Worldwide Nuclear Disarmament Intent Treaty |
| Message | Even if all nuclear weapons are actually destroyed, there is no way to effectively prevent someone else from producing them later. There would have to be constant, infallible, inspections of every country. This is simply impractical. |
| Date | 02:15:10, June 28, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Worldwide Nuclear Disarmament Intent Treaty |
| Message | This is not my bill. If the Adam Smith Party is interested in producing a better bill, then we can debate ways to make this a stronger measure, seeking answers to that question about verification. If the ASP is merely playing logical entrapment games, then i for one am not interested. Perhaps before we go further you could clarify: do you want to produce a possible consensus bill out of this, or are you just shooting this one down? Kwame Suzuki CCF-Greens peace & disarmament critic |
| Date | 04:27:05, June 28, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Worldwide Nuclear Disarmament Intent Treaty |
| Message | Speaking for Tuesday Is Coming; We cannot see any compromise here other than the supernatural. Perhaps a Dune-Style agreement never to use nuclear weapons, with the consequences for violating the pact being nuclear retaliation against the violator by all members of the agreement. |
| Date | 04:27:47, June 28, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Worldwide Nuclear Disarmament Intent Treaty |
| Message | IE: if A-Z are in the agreement, and A nukes B, then B-Z nuke A. |
| Date | 15:21:24, June 28, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Worldwide Nuclear Disarmament Intent Treaty |
| Message | The ASP has stated very clearly that it is opposed to this bill. No logical entrapment games this time. We also have no interest in producing a 'better' disarmament bill, as that is an oxymoron in our opinion. |
| Date | 16:46:26, June 28, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Worldwide Nuclear Disarmament Intent Treaty |
| Message | Do any other parties have views to express, or shall we move to a vote? |
| Date | 20:36:46, June 28, 2005 CET | From | Chorus of Amyst | To | Debating the Worldwide Nuclear Disarmament Intent Treaty |
| Message | (( "IE: if A-Z are in the agreement, and A nukes B, then B-Z nuke A." Well, more like C-Z nuke A, probably. :D )) The Council opposes on the grounds of the ASP and TiC Party. |
| Date | 21:13:00, June 28, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Worldwide Nuclear Disarmament Intent Treaty |
| Message | B would just do whatever it could I guess. Would anyone support if I were to propose a resolution bill(no proposals) containing my above "nuclear defense coalition" plan? |
| Date | 23:23:06, June 28, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Worldwide Nuclear Disarmament Intent Treaty |
| Message | No. ((By the way: we passed the nuclear re-armament bill. Does that mean we are building nukes (like North Korea), or just reserve the right to do so (like Iran, maybe), or it's a state secret (like Israel, even though everyone knows)?)) |
| Date | 02:51:09, June 29, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Worldwide Nuclear Disarmament Intent Treaty |
| Message | I understand that it means that we do not promise not to have nuclear weapons. Until such time as there is a detailed military budget and expenditure, it will have to remain a state secret even from ourselves. |
| Date | 02:57:47, June 29, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Worldwide Nuclear Disarmament Intent Treaty |
| Message | @TiC. No, as well. We should not commit ourselves to having to take a military action that does not involve making a decision based on the specifics of the circumstances. Such a treaty would commit us to the nuclear destruction of a country that may not have initiated the nuclear strike of its own will. Imagine Iran, Iraq and the Israel some 20 years ago with nukes and this treaty being in operation. An agent from Iraq sneaks into Iran and launches a nuke against Iraq (some city of a different muslim faction). The rest of the world including Iraq and the USA level Iran. Who gains? Iraq. Who started the conflict? Iraq. Who was obliged to support Iraq? Israel. Did they want to support Iraq? No. Sorry but we prefer not to have our future military actions determined by present treaties. |
| Date | 08:20:53, June 29, 2005 CET | From | Tuesday Is Coming | To | Debating the Worldwide Nuclear Disarmament Intent Treaty |
| Message | A completely reasonable position. The intent was to deter. "An agent from Iraq sneaks into Iran and launches a nuke against Iraq (some city of a different muslim faction)." The fault would partially lie with Iran for having left the door unlocked to the nuclear weapons. I would see such a treaty as causing countries to make sure that their nuclear weapons were safely in their control. Also, I cannot see Israel trusting those countries in this way. |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||||
| yes |
Total Seats: 160 | |||||
| no |
Total Seats: 197 | |||||
| abstain | Total Seats: 93 |
| Random fact: Particracy does not allow real-life brand names (eg. Coca Cola, McDonalds, Microsoft). However, in the case of military equipment brand names it is permitted to use simple number-letter combinations (eg. T-90 and F-22) borrowed from real life, and also simple generic names, like those of animals (eg. Leopard and Jaguar). |
| Random quote: "Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." - Mahatma Gandhi |