Useless Defense Spending Repeal Bill (Withdrawn)

[MasterJedi]

Useless Defense Spending Repeal Bill

1. The Missile Defense Initiative Act is repealed.
2. All appropriations associated with the above are terminated.
__________________________________________________________

Sponsor: Sen. Peter Bell

[Akno21]

As Secretary of Defense, I am coming out in opposition to this bill. As a country, we cannot simply give up on developing a workable missile defense system, as this bill calls for. If we can develop this system, it will enable us to better negotiate with the North Koreans in our efforts to get them to disband their nuclear arsenal. We can negotiate more effectively from a position of strength than one of weakness, and whether we can defend ourselves from an attack is part of what determines that. This is in reality a security measure, and if we can create a workable missile defense system, the Atlasian people will be safer. This is not some ego thing for the military to be even stronger than the rest of the world, this is a national security matter. We must be prepared. The risk is too big not to be.

It is worth noting that we are only spending $1 billion per year, which is only 10% of what was originally allotted in the old, real life budget.

[Democratic Hawk]

As Secretary of Defense, I am coming out in opposition to this bill. As a country, we cannot simply give up on developing a workable missile defense system, as this bill calls for. If we can develop this system, it will enable us to better negotiate with the North Koreans in our efforts to get them to disband their nuclear arsenal. We can negotiate more effectively from a position of strength than one of weakness, and whether we can defend ourselves from an attack is part of what determines that. This is in reality a security measure, and if we can create a workable missile defense system, the Atlasian people will be safer. This is not some ego thing for the military to be even stronger than the rest of the world, this is a national security matter. We must be prepared. The risk is too big not to be.

It is worth noting that we are only spending $1 billion per year, which is only 10% of what was originally allotted in the old, real life budget.

I concur with the Secretary's oppostion to this Bill for the reasons he has stated

'Hawk'

[Yates]

I concur with the Secretary.

[MasterJedi]

I also concur with what Akno, Hawk and Yates have said.

[Gabu]

I'm interested to hear why Peter Bell feels that this is useless, as Akno makes a pretty good case, as far as I can tell.

[Q]

A missile shield system would likely serve to undermine the principles and the strategies of deterrence.

[Gabu]

A missile shield system would likely serve to undermine the principles and the strategies of deterrence.

The only problem is if any of the many world leaders show themselves to be too crazy to be daunted by methods of deterrence.

I don't really think that Atlasia would use this as an excuse to nuke anyone it doesn't like.

[Q]

A missile shield system would likely serve to undermine the principles and the strategies of deterrence.

The only problem is if any of the many world leaders show themselves to be too crazy to be daunted by methods of deterrence.

Good point.  The traditional logic of game theory might not apply in the modern world (of intercontinental weapons).

[MasterJedi]

I hereby open up the final vote on this bill. Please vote Aye, Nay or Abstain.

1. The Missile Defense Initiative Act is repealed.
2. All appropriations associated with the above are terminated.

[MasterJedi]

Nay

[Gabu]

I really wish that I could hear from the bill's sponsor before voting.

[Democratic Hawk]

This Bill is not in our national interest. I'm of the firm conviction that having a missile defense system will strengthen our hand at the negotiating table

I, therefore, vote Nay

'Hawk'

[Peter]

This bill was introduced because in the last budget negoitiations several Senators expressed an interest in cutting the deficit via legislation after we formally dealt with the budget. Several people and a couple of Senators pointed towards bloated defence spending, and this spending in particular, as a possible place for cuts to take place.

Given the clear lack of support, I withdraw the bill, though I would also like to note to the President Pro Tempore that the vote on this bill was opened 12 hours early. Whilst an hour here or there does not bother me, half a day is something more of a substantial period.

[WMS]

Akno has convinced me on this and so even though I initially suggested it for budget removal I change my mind and vote Nay.