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: Right to Defense act
Details
Submitted by[?]: Adam Smith Party
Status[?]: passed
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 2084
Description[?]:
| Results of recent reviews of the policies of our neighbouring nations regarding armaments raises some serious concerns with regard to our defence capabilities. While it is appreciated that our citizens are peace loving and honourable individuals we can not make that assumption of the citizens of other nations. As such we propose that we lift the restrictions on our military technology. The facts are (RR = Reserved right to develop, Nev = Never shall develop) Kalistan - Pac-Agg: Central BioChem: RR Nuclear: RR Baltusia - Pac-Agg: Mildly Pac BioChem: Nev Nuclear: RR Valruzia - Pac-Agg: Central BioCHem: Nev Nuclear: RR Likatonia - Pac-Agg: Mod Pac BioChem: Nev Nuclear RR As such we feel that we should likewise reserve the right to develop Nuclear weaponry. This does not mean that we will, it simply means that we are not legally prevented from doing so. It is suggested that we reserve this right, but nucleare weapons will only be developped if such a course of action is aproved by two out of three of the Head of Government, The Foreign Minister and the Secretary of Defence. The intention is to show that we will not be intimidated, but that we are not warmongering. |
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 | 05:44:49, July 19, 2005 CET | From | Democractic Socialist Party of Lodamun | To | Debating the Right to Defense act |
| Message | Are we fighting with these nations? Do we not like them? Do they not like us? If not, we have no need for these weapons of mass destruction. If so, let's address that issue before increasing tensions. |
| Date | 18:50:23, July 19, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Right to Defense act |
| Message | Please read the proposal. We are nbot suggesting that we should have weapons of mass destruction, we are suggesting that we should not prohibit the military from procuring these if it becomes necessary. The time scale that it takes to get a change in the law is too large for any effective measure to be taken if one of our neigthbours does become aggresive. This bill is to reserve the right to store or obtain (or develop) such weapons if necessary without having to wait eight months for the law to be changed first. Having the right to do something does not mean that you have to do it. We have the right to worship small green men from alien planets here, but that does not mean that we do worship them. Likewise having the right to develop, spurchase or store nuclear weapons does not mean that we will actually do so unless it becomes necessary. What this law does is to enable a quick decision to be made if necessary, rather than the enforced slow time scale of pushing a bill through parliament. |
| Date | 18:56:19, July 19, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Right to Defense act |
| Message | ((If this proposal http://www.takeforum.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=13829&mforum=particracy#13829 is accepted then we can revoke this bill)) |
| Date | 20:12:26, July 19, 2005 CET | From | Democractic Socialist Party of Lodamun | To | Debating the Right to Defense act |
| Message | Where the military has the power to create a weapon, the military will create that weapon eventually. |
| Date | 20:44:28, July 19, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Right to Defense act |
| Message | What this is doing is not giving the right to the military. That right would still rest with the government, specifically with the cabinet. All it is doing is streamlining the decision process, making it possible for a rapid decision to be made in the government. |
| Date | 01:00:53, July 20, 2005 CET | From | Cooperative Commonwealth Federation | To | Debating the Right to Defense act |
| Message | The assumption here is that nuclear weapons are some sort of deterrent. This has not been demonstrated: indeed, Kailstan and Gaduridos went to war despite both being nuclear powers. Passing this law at this time would also destroy the move to have all nations sign the disarmament intent treaty, a needlessly provocative step. May we suggest a small amendment? Instead of a secretary at the department of defence making these decisions, perhaps it should be the minister? ((Yeah, i know, bad joke. ASP's forum proposal would be a nice solution, though)) |
| Date | 04:18:48, July 20, 2005 CET | From | Democractic Socialist Party of Lodamun | To | Debating the Right to Defense act |
| Message | Yes, I'd support ASP's proposal in the forum. Not this, however. |
| Date | 23:27:26, July 20, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Right to Defense act |
| Message | All this is, is the only means we have of having any way of acting in an emergency at the moment. ((Though it does appear the Wouter has some interest in the emergency bill system)) |
| Date | 21:27:47, July 22, 2005 CET | From | National Libertarian Party | To | Debating the Right to Defense act |
| Message | You need to worry about the threat of invasion from kalistan - there executive started this war with us while using the civil war in marlingatos as an excuse, luckily he lost power in the middle of the fighting, but he has already been reelected. I advise you to agree with this proposal. |
| Date | 21:48:48, July 22, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Right to Defense act |
| Message | We thank the National Libertarian Party of Kalistan for their timely warning. We request that our colleages here look at this current debate in the Nation of Kalistan, and then suggest that we should not be better prepared to defend ourselves. http://aiglesrv.no-ip.info:8085/particracy/main/viewbill.php?billid=6170 While we sympathise with the position of the CCF-Greens with respect to the disarmament treaty, and we recommend that we do not actually develop or purchase nuclear weapons, while we have a neighbour that is intent on using military means to obtain their goals, we believe that we should be prepared to resist such threats. |
| Date | 21:51:58, July 22, 2005 CET | From | Adam Smith Party | To | Debating the Right to Defense act |
| Message | Errata: The National Libertarian Party is from Gaduridos not Kalistan |
subscribe to this discussion - unsubscribe
Voting
| Vote | Seats | |||
| yes | Total Seats: 150 | |||
| no | Total Seats: 112 | |||
| abstain | Total Seats: 175 |
| Random fact: If you are likely to be logging in to Particracy with the same IP address as another player with an active account, please inform Moderation on the forum. Otherwise your account could be inactivated on suspicion of multi-accounting. |
| Random quote: "The spirit of democracy is not a mechanical thing to be adjusted by abolition of forms. It requires change of heart." - Mahatma Gandhi |