Like war we will never change
Civil Rights Economy Political freedom
Some Strong Few

Greetings Nukapedians!

The United States of Nukapedia has now been founded in the The East Pacific and we can now start to vote on our issues. Every week I will bring you a number of issues, each with a number of solutions which you can all vote on. The most popular solution will be put through.

About our nation

The United States of Nukapedia is a huge, safe nation, remarkable for its barren, inhospitable landscape, sprawling nuclear power plants, and daily referendums. The hard-working, cynical population of 291 million Nukapedians are rabid consumers, partly through choice and partly because the government tells them to and dissenters tend to vanish from their homes at night.

The relatively small government juggles the competing demands of Defense, Law & Order, and Welfare. Citizens pay a flat income tax of 8.9%.

The strong Nukapedian economy, worth 18.7 trillion bottle caps a year, is broadly diversified and led by the Uranium Mining industry, with major contributions from Gambling, Door-to-door Insurance Sales, and Book Publishing. Average income is 64,175 bottle caps, but there is a significant disparity between incomes, with the richest 10% of citizens earning 185,858 per year while the poor average 17,560, a ratio of 10.6 to 1.

The national guard is mobilized whenever a mother gets separated from her child at the mall, referenda can be called for any law at the request of at least one third of the voting population, the nanny industry has had a boom after maternity leave was recently banned, and carpet bombing has decimated Brasilistan's landscape and population. Crime, especially youth-related, is totally unknown, thanks to a capable police force and progressive social policies in education and welfare. Nukapedia's national animal is the deathclaw, which teeters on the brink of extinction due to widespread deforestation.

Nukapedia is ranked 2,809th in The East Pacific and 65,140th in the world for Most Armed, scoring -9.829 on the Magnum-Eastwood Ordnance Scale.

National happenings
National happenings are quick snippets of information which update every time we pass legalization.

  • Carpet bombing has decimated Brasilistan's landscape and population.
  • Following new legislation in Nukapedia, The nanny industry has had a boom after maternity leave was recently banned.
  • Following new legislation in Nukapedia, referenda can be called for any law at the request of at least one third of the voting population.


Last week's issues

Maternity Leave A Must, Say Mothers

A coalition of expectant mothers (Mothers 4 Justice) has banded together to demand legislation allowing for six months of fully paid maternity leave.

yesIcon check Solution One: "Six months?! Six WHOLE months?!" blusters Georgina Chicago, a payroll manager. "Six whole months of being fully paid by our company for doing nothing but looking after a baby?! This will sink the small businesses and lose us an obscene amount of revenue! We cannot allow this to pass!"
noIcon cross Solution Two: "I believe that passing this law will be a step in the right direction," says Jennifer Neumann, the nation's most outspoken feminist advocate. "These kids need their mothers' love and attention during an important part of their growth development! I don't see why mums should be forced to juggle with the stress of bringing up children and having a job! It's simply too much! Six months maternity leave with full pay is what this country needs - even if it is at the expense of a few avaricious fat cats."
noIcon cross Solution Three: "Look, I've got an idea," says Declan Sanchez, an obsessive centrist. "Perhaps we can allow for six months of paid maternity leave, but have the government pay the companies for lost revenue? That way the mothers can bring up their children without financial worries, companies won't lose investors, and everyone will be happy. Apart from the taxpayers, of course, but you can't please everyone."

We opted to agree with the Georgina Chicago and abolish maternity pay.

Referenda: Are They Right For Nukapedia?

After the Parliament of Nukapedia recently passed a controversial law that polls have shown to be very unpopular with the public, a group of concerned citizens has called for mandatory referenda for all laws passed before the state.

noIcon cross Solution One: "We want real democracy, and we want it now!" proclaims Hope Woolf, spokesperson for special interest group 'Direct Democracy Now!' "The fact that this latest law went through has proven that voting for a Parliament every four years is obviously not enough. Laws must be passed by the masses - that is the only way we can be sure that the will of the people is truly being enforced! We must have mandatory referenda for ALL new laws."
noIcon cross Solution Two: "Don't listen to these demagogues!" implores one of your top advisors, John Nguyen. "This is a ridiculous and dangerous idea! Referenda are costly and inefficient, and a direct threat to the fine institution that is our Parliament. What do you think we have the Parliament for anyway? Our citizenry nowadays don't know what's good for them. They're too busy milling around at the mall and buying sneakers WITH LIGHTS IN THEM. More control needs to be given to our qualified, intelligent--and most of all INFORMED--politicians."
yesIcon check Solution Three: "Referenda are a good idea in principle, but to make them mandatory for each and every law is simply impractical," states Political Scientist Agnes Delauter. "Representative democracy exists because direct democracy would never work in practice in a large society such as Nukapedia. Just think of all the bureaucracy and expense that would go into it! I suggest that referenda be allowed, but only if at least a third of voters sign a petition requesting one. That should be a nice balance between democracy and practicality."

We opted to agree with Agnes Delauter and only offer referenda when one is petitioned for.

FOLLOW UP: Napalm In The Morning

The story so far: A troubled country called Brasilistan has abducted Nukapedian tourists and sent them to work in diamond mines in appalling conditions. You gathered your advisers and decided the best course of action was war; immediate and violent.

This is a grim day in the history of Nukapedia. Today, Nukapedia goes to war. All eyes are on officials in Nukapedia City, waiting with bated breath to learn what form the coming conflict with Brasilistan will take.

noIcon cross Solution One: "We must mount a full-scale invasion," declares General Alexei Trax while jabbing at a map of Brasilistan. "We can land forces here, here, and here; and from there we can march straight on to their capital! It could cost millions of our soldiers' lives and take years, but short of nuking Brasilistan, this is the only road to victory."
yesIcon check Solution Two: "With all due respect, General, you are completely out of your mind!" Lara Chen of the Air Force huffs. "A full on attack will decimate our troop levels! This is a land whose terrain and climate our foot soldiers are unaccustomed to. No, the best approach is clearly the tactical one. We have gathered a list of targets that can be taken out through a sustained aerial campaign. This will reduce Brasilistan's ability to wage war long before we land a single troop carrier in their territory. Why send scores of our soldiers to their deaths when we can send scores of our bombs instead?"

We opted to agree with Lara Chen and bomb Brasilistan.

This week's issues

Click though the tabs to view and vote on the different issues.

A Capital City For Nukapedia?

As Nukapedia continues to grow, so too does its government. The number of politicians needed to administrate and legislate the country is rapidly surpassing the Houses of Parliament's capacity with ministers often requiring periscopes to see the House Speaker. Some are suggesting a new building be built in another city - a city which would then be designated as the capital city of Nukapedia.

Solution One: "I would like to make a humble recommendation for my own proud jurisdiction," says Sean Levy, mayor of one of Nukapedia's major cities. "It would be an honour for our city to be host to the seat of power! If it will seal the deal, you can change the name if you like..."
Solution Two: "Hah! Capital city indeed!" shouts Clint Taffs, a fervent anarchist, spilling leaflets all over the floor. "What's wrong with being free as the wind? Do you really think one city could possibly represent a whole country? Its people? I've had enough of the man trying to screw us down all the time! Say NO to a national capital!"
Solution Three: "Look, I've got an idea," says Declan Sanchez, an obsessive centrist. "Perhaps we can allow for six months of paid maternity leave, but have the government pay the companies for lost revenue? That way the mothers can bring up their children without financial worries, companies won't lose investors, and everyone will be happy. Apart from the taxpayers, of course, but you can't please everyone."
Solution Four: "I can accept and even approve of having a capital city," says Kathleen King, a military strategist. "But we'd be putting all our eggs in one basket if we choose somewhere too vulnerable! Believe me, capitals always get the brunt of the enemy attack because of their political and economic importance. We should put aside a few billion bottle caps and build our capital city underground. They'll never bomb us there!"
Solution Five: "What's wrong with the old building?" asks Alexander Hendrikson, a noted disestablishmentarian. "We don't need some kind of fancy capital city just to make the bigwig ministers feel important! If there's no room, then fire politicians until there IS room. Have you never heard of doing more with less?"
Issue 1: Who should we agree with?

The poll was created at 11:16 on June 20, 2015, and so far 14 people voted.

Farmers Seeding Discontent

Farmers throughout the country are threatening a nationwide strike, because their domestic produce cannot compete with cheap foreign imports. They demand that the government step in and protect the agricultural sector.

Solution One: "Foreign competition is slowly destroying us!" yells Billy-Bob Thiesen while waving a pitchfork. "We invest so much effort and time to get a quality yield, and eventually we end up throwing everything away because those cheap, plastic Maxtopian tomatoes are sold for half the price! I swear they taste like compost wrapped in iceburg lettuce, and yet Nukapedians still buy the damned things! We, the farmers of Nukapedia, demand agricultural subsidies so we can lower our prices and compete fairly with imports. After all, our food security depends upon domestic production."
Solution Two: Economic analyst Stefanie Frederickson has other ideas. "There's an easier way to support farmers without spending millions on farms that never went beyond ox plowing. Just raise tariffs. Agriculture will be protected from a transnational race to the bottom, and Nukapedians get a little tax cut to boot. The tariffs will be unpopular abroad, but this conundrum only exists because of Maxtopia's long history of protectionism."
Solution Three: "Are these people serious?" scoffs Bruce Cho, owner of A Whole Shipload, LLC. "Subsidies, tariffs, what is all that about? You're messing with the free market here! If foreign produce is cheaper, then that means they're better at doing their jobs. These ungrateful peasants just want government coddling, because they can't pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. It's time that Nukapedia promote personal responsibility instead of pandering to the weak. Crush the strike by abolishing all foodstuff tariffs, and then we can import as much as we like."
Issue 2: Who should we agree with?

The poll was created at 11:16 on June 20, 2015, and so far 12 people voted.

FOLLOW UP: Select Your Target!

The story so far: Your government's response to overtures of aggression from the Brasilistanis has been to bomb specific high-level, valuable assets in the nation.

Having decided to launch a tactical strike on Brasilistan, your military advisors have drawn up a list of different targets, each ranging in terms of severity and civilian casulties.

Solution One: Admiral Nelson Wellington presents you with a file first. "This is an aerial view map of Western Brasilistan. We have circled in red key armament factories, military bases, and a military airport. Eliminating these targets will not only harm the enemy's ability to mobilise an effective retaliatory attack, but it also makes it easier for us to land troops on the west coast. The impact on civilians will be minimal."
Solution Two: "That won't be enough", Air Marshal Peter Bottle says firmly. "Here is a map of the same region, but as you can see our targets are much more crucial to Brasilistan's infrastructure. Give the go ahead and my pilots will unleash their bombs on the city itself. There is a 100% chance of high civilian casualties, but it's to ensure that the enemy has a 0% chance of retaliation, in any way, shape, or form."
Solution Three: "Or we could just nuke them", General Megan Wong says, pushing the other two out of the way. "Think about it. None of our soldiers will go in so there'll be zero casualties on our side. All it takes is one bomb, so it's considerably cheaper, and it means there'll be no drawn-out conflict. I can't see a loss. To us, anyway. It'll decimate Brasilistan, but they are the enemy, and this is war."
Issue 3: Who should we agree with?

The poll was created at 11:16 on June 20, 2015, and so far 13 people voted.