# FILE NAME: 00001894.soc
# TITLE: Should the UK have unilaterally disarmed, after WW2? [456b0e2c45e20e90b8970f2db283df8a]
# DESCRIPTION: 
# DATA TYPE: soc
# MODIFICATION TYPE: original
# RELATES TO: 
# RELATED FILES: 
# PUBLICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# MODIFICATION DATE: 2025-10-12
# NUMBER ALTERNATIVES: 4
# NUMBER VOTERS: 5
# NUMBER UNIQUE ORDERS: 3
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 1: Statement 1 - The UK should not have unilaterally disarmed after WW2. Even though disarming after a war is beneficial in some ways, we still need weapons to defend ourselves and to help protect other countries that cannot defend themselves. Also weapons are essential to international politics and how other countries view the UK and if the UK is viewed as powerful.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 2: Statement 2 - The UK should not have disarmed after WW2.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 3: Statement 3 - In general, the UK should not have unilaterally disarmed after WW2 as each country has the right to protect itself. However, in the current political climate, the UK should not have developed its own nuclear arsenal as this is a threat to other countries. Instead, the UK should have worked together with other countries to ensure that all countries have the right to defend themselves.
# ALTERNATIVE NAME 4: Statement 4 - In general, each country should have the right to defend itself. However, in the current situation, countries should not have weapons that are only meant to threaten other countries. The UK should not have unilaterally disarmed after WW2.
3: 1,3,4,2
1: 3,1,4,2
1: 1,4,3,2