Well put all...
There's an interesting (and fun) sci-fi/fantasy book called, "The
Warlock in spite of himself" by... Damn, is it Stasheff? Anyway, in it, he
espouses that a democracy needs, amoung other things, a frontier... Somewhere
to worry about, to get those "adventurous" people
out of your hair, to allow people to make it "big", etc... (Some might even
say a chance for those bent on challenging the law can find it easier, more
profitable, while being away from the "normal" law abiding
people...)
FCT could definitely have been that, and may still be so for the NAC...
Especially given the history of those two places, and their traditions.
Just a thought. Rand.
> At 07:09 PM 6/4/2002 -0500, you wrote:
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
> Why would they get this level already? Do you see
Hi Beth, It would not be logical for the UK to not make
use of the facilities/people of the former U.S.
when going into space. The NAC fleet would consist of a reasonably large
number of former U.S. citizens that would in time achieve positions of
responsibility, I.E. squadron/fleet command.
The breakup would be peaceful, simply because the number of warships under
control of the FCT types would, if combat ensued, cause the NAC to be
vulnerable to the third party, read as ESU. Part of the rational comes from
the FCT background
I worked on for the 'Pedia. The fleet survey I did
messed up some important concepts for the breakup of
NAC/FCT. Or more precisely, since a major power had
150 warships per colonized system, I had a hard time keeping the FCT fleet
small enough to be believable
and large enough for a second/third rate power.
This was a few years and a few computers ago, so the material is lost to me,
there is some in
the E-mails of the time, if that can be found?
Bye for now,
G'day,
> It would not be logical for the UK to not make
Yep.
> The breakup would be peaceful, simply because
I guess that depends on whether you see crews as integrated or as being manned
from specific locales. We don't have "state" run frigates etc here. A ship
will contain bods from all the states and I guess that coloured my view of how
the spaceships would be crewed. At the time of the creation of the NAC I could
envisage nation based forces as the majority would've probably just have been
brought straight across from the individual constituent nations. However, the
FCT is formed in 2159 and so I had assumed crews would
be more integrated - why segregate when you either speak the same
language or wouldn't really want ships manned by all "former Brazilians" as
there is a risk of them "defecting" to the LLAR. As a result I didn't see
great swags of ships naturally falling to FCT control. Though you may have a
point about internal tensions weakening the NAC's position vs other powers and
my view of NAC stuffing is probably just some much $%@#* anyway;)
> Or more precisely, since a major power had
I know that feeling I had similar troubles when visualising/playing with
the IAS, OU structure etc.
> This was a few years and a few computers ago,
I can probably dig through the archives if that's what you're referring to.
Thanks
Hi Beth,
> I guess that depends on whether you see crews as
------
Well the NAC has 13 colonies, much depends on the
economics/stratigics of the situation. Is it
cheaper/faster to train/build on site or build
at central site and ship to all locations. The stratigic answer is have many
smaller sites
that can train/repair/build all or most classes
of ship. A single site, while ecomomicly
cheaper on site, would have support and transportation costs hidden somewhat.
A single site is a very attractive stratigic target.
> We don't have "state" run frigates etc here. A
-------
My thinking goes back to WWII. Each 'state' did furnish crews, RN, RAN, RCN,
ect. within the general framework of the 'commonwealth'.
At the time of the creation of the NAC I could envisage nation based forces as
the majority would've probably
> just have been brought straight across from the
Mutiny/force will get people killed and prevent an
agreement from being reached. A strike will present major problems in
replacements for the leaving crewmen,
degradation of the fleet readiness, ect.. For a
strike to be successful the strikers would have to
make the entire fleet non-functionsl, I.E. 40 to 50
percent of the crewmen would have to quit working. This leads to the FCT
having 40 to 50 percent of the NAC fleet or 25 percent of the fleet and the
NAC fleet is almost 40 percent understaffed.
> I didn't see great swags of ships naturally falling
G'day,
> Well, just look at it this way,
All eminently sensible... I guess I've just got mutiny in the blood... such a
tussle could make for an interesting FMA game for one;)
Have fun
> I would suggest that the FCT starts at the
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
> Why would they get this level already? Do you see
I can't see an independence movement starting out in the NAC fleet (the second
solar war has just finished and the third round is less than ten years away,
so the crews have more than enough threats to worry about). I can't imagine
that the Admiralty would be foolish enough to permit unmixed crews if there
was any danger of internal dissent; it's more likely to be case of throw the
recruits into a training school (enlisted ranks) or the Academy (midshipmen),
mix thoroughly then post individually to existing crews as berths become
vacant.
Any sort of political unrest is more likely to start on the ground, amongst
the civilians. Why
Cal-Tex should be more apt to (or successful at)
revolution than the occupied terrestrial LLAR territory is a mystery; it's
possible that having fought for the crown in the War Of The Americas, the
population was considered reliable enough to participate in the early Anglian
colonisation drive. I would make more of the fact that the two outer colonies
were involved; the flames of open revolt would stand less chance of being
stamped out before becoming established if the fire started in a remote part
of the confederation. Early demonstrations on Earth would have been in support
of this movement.
However, we can't ignore the fact that canon history clearly states that
California and Texas declare themselves independent from the NAC, and that
these states claim all rights to the colonies
on Austin and Fenris rather than vice-versa. This
may be because by 2159 no power has a totally free hand in the inner systems.
Prohibited by UN mandate from employing orbital weaponry or moving in large
numbers of troops, and after much diplomatic protest the NAC have no option
but let the defection go and learn from their mistakes.
This doesn't protect the outer colonies, which have been the playpen and
safety valve for the great powers and will continue to be so for the next 24
years. I take the token military strikes to be NAC raids to recover vessels
and personnel trapped in FCT ports and to recover any other assets best kept
in crown hands.
Why doesn't the NAC employ brute force against New
Pasadena? They've been caught flat-footed by the
entire Free Cal-Tex movement and don't know how
reliable the rest of the American-born contingent
is, apart from the Canadians. The admirals know that even crew born in the FCT
will at worst have divided loyalties, but the politicians don't understand
that and elect to play safe. The FCT is magnanimously allowed to go its own
way with the hope that it will become an ally rather than a foe.
As to ships, the home-designed FCT vessels
presumably don't appear until after the rebellion. Whatever ships were
employed for local police duties are it until the shipyards get going,
although barring a protective treaty the NAC are unlikely to have insisted on
the return of every vessel if they don't want to see a less vulnerable
(backspace ten) principled power move in. By 2187 the FCT have ships capable
of standing in the line
> --- CS Renegade <njg@csrenegade.demon.co.uk> wrote:
--------
Think WWII commonwealth, RN, RCN, RAN, RNZN, ect.. While representation would
be present on vessels of the different fleets, as it is today, the 'seconded'
staff would be there for precedure learning.
> Any sort of political unrest is more likely to
-------
You must be kidding, there is not an army in the world that can occupy the
U.S. without help from inside.
it's possible that having
> fought for the crown in the War Of The Americas,
-------
It should be obvious that most of the troops in that war would have originated
in the U.S..
I would make more of the fact that the two
> outer colonies were involved; the flames of open
-------
It is not logical that the break would start in a colony and spread, the
colony is easily isolated
and the break would be contained/starved out of
existance.
> However, we can't ignore the fact that canon
-------
For the reason stated in the prior paragraph, the break was most likely an
organized action that incorperated the colony worlds and a sufficiently large
portion to the NAC fleet to make the deal
a de-facto situation that the NAC had to accept
or risk a civil war. Would the U.N. fleet have
helped, anything to hurt the big guy on the block
would have be accepted. The U.N. would have liked
the NAC to become a 2nd/3rd rate power, and have
and new 3rd/4th rate power to deal with. That
type of thinking would have been understood by the
NAC/FCT and would have made the break a cooperative
rather than a hostile effort.
Prohibited by UN mandate
> from employing orbital weaponry or moving in large
-------
Stratigically the is a must.
> As to ships, the home-designed FCT vessels
I generally have not given Canon History more than the cursory look necessary
to acclimate to the discussions here, and to identify figures
:),
but I did read this and I have to say it has some pretty well reasoned
thoughts. In short, nice, Renegade.
I am intrigued enough to want to toss in some other possibilities.
I picture a situation in which FTC comes into being, but has not left the NAC
fold. Economically it certainly seems that they would continue to depend
heavily upon the NAC and could not burn any bridges. As you mention,
self-defense would be an issue, and hardly appear immediately in
organized implementation. There would be considerable need for cooperative
efforts, at
least in the short term, and they remain English-speaking cousins no
matter
what...
so, my thoughts:
With the ESU political/military situation, perhaps decency allowed the
FTC to be born with more of a NAC Commonwealth status maturing into full
independence over time. I imagine some in the NAC would believe it (the FTC)
would never work and they would have to come back, "so let them learn the hard
way".
FTC could almost serve as the outlet for any other separatist tendencies.
Its success could provide an emigration target for other like-minded
citizens. This could server a dual benefit - put meat on the bones of
the
FTC spirit in its infancy and draw down the very social/political
elements the NAC would not be sorry to see go. This would allow the FTC
success to mitigate its repetition.
Were the FTC claimed colonies in any sort of position that the NAC gained an
advantage vis-à-vis the ESU by drawing down in the lull between the
wars?
Perhaps the NAC was still concerned enough with the ESU that they were
unwilling to commit the resources they imagined were necessary to bring the
worlds back under the Crown.
But again, I am not up on my Canon so I do not know... Does it state that
events were peaceful and orderly, or were they more chaotic and political
ill-will remains "today"? I imagine at a minimum some "incidents" must
have occurred but the governments 'will must have held things together in some
fashion for the current state to have taken form (though that may be an over
simplification).
[quoted original message omitted]
> I would suggest that the FCT starts at the
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
> Why would they get this level already? Do you see
> I can't see an independence movement starting out
From: ~ On Behalf Of John Leary
Sent: 04 June 2002 22:04
Subject: RE: [FH] FCT founding talk
> Think WWII commonwealth, RN, RCN, RAN, RNZN, ect..
I'm not certain about that parallel. Surely the ships of the navies you
mention belonged to those commonwealth governments? Were antipodean boats ever
assigned PQ duty or redeployed for the desperate situation in the Atlantic?
(I don't know the answers to these questions, but list members please don't
turn the thread into a general WWII naval discussion; it's supposed to
be [FH].)
> Any sort of political unrest is more likely to
> You must be kidding, there is not an army in the
> It should be obvious that most of the troops in
Now we're getting into the thorny "what is the AC?" question. Leaving aside
those who find the whole idea incredible, I believe that opinions varied
from a post-apocalyptic wasteland completely
rebuilt by the AC to an open confederation in which most of the existing
traditions of the US are preserved.
A wicked little thought if most of the troops for the above war did come from
old US territories: a war against some bellicose latinos is a good way to
occupy all those patriots while the more pragmatic get on with rebuilding
their towns and cities.
We may find it more productive to take the NAC as a given and restrict the
discussion to the years immediately before and after the 2159 secession.
> I would make more of the fact that the two
> It is not logical that the break would start
Very true if we're talking about a Hungarian
Uprising-style rebellion, but I don't see it
happening that way. If (and there is no evidence to support this theory) the
NAC permits a degree of plurality and political debate and some freedom of the
press to go with it, then a simple campaign to grant the colony greater
rights* could have been hijacked by the secessionists. The local governor is
overconfident and doesn't act in time, nor does he report it for fear that it
will jeopardise his career. The news and some supporters get back to Earth,
where it ignites the imagination of the local populace.
The "Why Cal-Tex?" question is thus answered by the
explanation that these areas that provided the colonists for Austin and
Fenris.
> One need to look at the starmap to understand
Is www.projectrho.com/ft/astropolitical.gif?
By south, you mean trailward? But the FCT is below Sol, whereas both the PAU
and the IC are above. Am I missing a symbol on Nyrath's maps that indicate the
presence of a base?
* nothing major, possibly just more permits to
--- CS Renegade <njg@csrenegade.demon.co.uk> wrote:>
> > Think WWII commonwealth, RN, RCN, RAN, RNZN, ect..
-------
Yes they do.
Were antipodean boats
> ever assigned PQ duty or redeployed for the
-------
The RCN make large contributions throughout the war in the Atlantic, the
neutral U.S.N. ran convoy escort in the western Atlantic prior to becoming
actively involved. PQ convoys are special and normally had a higher DD,
capital ship escort than the normal Atlantic
convoy. I do not have listings of the ships
used for the PQ convoys, so I venture no guess.
> Now we're getting into the thorny "what is the AC?"
--------
I realize the game is science fiction, BUT the idea the the AC cound
completely rebuild the
U.S. while expanding into space/building space
fleet would be a unacceptable strech. The confederation concept is a more
believeable and far less expensive alternative.
> We may find it more productive to take the NAC as
-------
I try.
> Very true if we're talking about a Hungarian