Pop GDP ActMen MilBud
NAC 809.6 $8238.1 4193 $323993
ESU 2141.6 $1734.9 8032 114858 FSE 165.2 $1174.5 1289 40225 NSL 123.1 $1139
1076 35756 IF 370.7 $493 4018 56570 PAU 468.1 $239.9 890.2 7019 IC 527.2 $235
2283 10015 OU 23.7 $219.4 90 5330
Population in millions, GDP in billions, available military manpower in
thousands, military budget in millions.
I took data from Jim Dunnigan's How To Make War, 1988 edition IIRC.
NAC includes UK, Japan, plus all of North & South America except the Caribbean
Islands, Texas and California (FCT would have a population
40 and GDP 212--I subtracted that from the NAC numbers).
ESU includes Russia (except my guesstimate of RH share), China, India
Czechoslovakia Poland N Korea Sri Lanka Nepal Mongolia Mauritius Maldives
Bhutan
FSE includes France Italy Spain Portugal Luxembourg Malta
IC includes Indonesia Thailand Philippines Malaysia Singapore Bangladesh
Vietnam Burma Kampuchea Laos
IF includes Saudi Iran Algeria Pakistan UAE Iraq Egypt Kuwait Libya Syria
Morocco Oman Qatar Tunisia Sudan Jordan Bahrain Lebanon N Yemen Afghanistan S
Yemen
NSL includes Germany Yugoslavia Hungary Austria Albania
PAU covers all Africa except what IF has
RH has some of Russia plus Romania and Bulgaria (this book was written
pre-"collapse of the USSR" so it doesn't list, say, Ukraine
separately)
Main neutrals that I didn't know where to put are S Korea Taiwan Belgium
Turkey Greece Ireland
Obviously this doesn't account for wars and such--I imagine the
Pacification of America, followed by the Wars of the Americas, would have
reduced the NAC's economy compared to the rest of the world, for example.
--Chris DeBoe
Quixtar IBO#706882
http://www.quixtar.com
G'day,
> Pop GDP ActMen MilBud
Are these based only for on Earth or total populations? Just off the top of my
head I would've said the NAC is a bit low (way low actually) given the amount
of area it is supposed to contain. As for the ESU I'd say they may be about
right (if we're talking on Earth), given China's impending reproductive
population slump. And this may sound ethnocentric to the extreme, but the OU
is too low as well. I know we've got falling growth now and that the Pacific
Islands aren't exactly reproduction paradise, but given the fact PNG and NZ
have about 4 million each and the fact everyone keeps saying that we get at
least a couple of good planets spaceside I think you were overly conservative
here.
What assumptions did you use to come up with the up with the numbers by the
way?
> NAC includes UK, Japan, plus all of North & South America except the
Why include Japan in the NAC, isn't if fairly widely accepted now that they're
an independent entity?
> ESU includes Russia (except my guesstimate of RH share), China, India
Mauritius is much more likely to go PAU in my opinion.
> FSE includes France Italy Spain Portugal Luxembourg Malta
I'd add Greece at least to that, maybe some of the other Balkan states.
> IF includes Saudi Iran Algeria Pakistan UAE Iraq Egypt Kuwait Libya
No wonder you ended up with such a large population...;)
> PAU covers all Africa except what IF has
Guess that includes Madagascar? Have you included the (immense) likelihood of
mammoth population slumps for the Africian nations during the next century in
your estimates?
> Main neutrals that I didn't know where to put are S Korea Taiwan
I guess you'll get alot of opinions coming in on these, but just off the bat
(without checking any source info or anything) I'd chuck Sth Korea and Taiwan
in with the ESU (they took over everything else around them so why
not?).
Belgium I'd be inclined to stick in the FSE or NSL (though I'm sure an irrate
Belgian is about to come head hunting me for that one)
Turkey, after recent events (and because I'm feeling perverse) would
undoubtedly be in the FSE;P More likely in the IF I guess (?? Then again maybe
I missing something)
Greece - like I said likely to go FSE I reckon
Ireland - independent as usual thankyou!! ;)
> Obviously this doesn't account for wars and such--I imagine the
Justified assumption, though I reckon there would have been a much larger and
more general reverberating effect (i.e. global impact of wars) and it is more
than likely to have been overcome since stellar exploration began (a week can
be a very long time in the financial markets I'm told).
Just a couple of initial thoughts. I'd be keen to see how you came up with the
numbers.
Thanks
Beth
> Laserlight wrote:
Seems a good basis for the future. Certainly the OU's economic standing (GDP
comparable with IC, PAU) is about right, and the emphasis on a
hi-tech manpower-saving and relatively small defence emphasising Navy is
explained by the above.
A reasonable ranking of long-term "size" might be (in terms of "how many
OUs")
NAC: 10 ESU: 8 FSE: 5 NSL: 5 IF: 2 PAC: 1 IC: 1 OU: 1
> Are these based only for on Earth or total populations?
These are the >> 1988 << figures for the areas which will later become the
powers listed. That explain a lot?
> NAC includes UK, Japan, plus all of North & South America except
I should subtract Japan, yes. I was worried about the ESU population and
didn't realize quite how much more GDP the NAC would come out with.
> ESU includes Russia (except my guesstimate of RH share), China,
I think it's unlikely too--but not (quite) as unlikely as the NAC.
> PAU covers all Africa except what IF has
likelihood
> of mammoth population slumps for the Africian nations during the next
Nope. 1988 figures only.
> Main neutrals that I didn't know where to put are S Korea Taiwan
> Belgium I'd be inclined to stick in the FSE or NSL (though I'm sure
FSE or Dutch? Someone has worked this out, I just couldn't find the map.
> Turkey, after recent events (and because I'm feeling perverse) would
> Pop GDP ActMen MilBud
[snipped other good stuff]
This seems like a good basis for the rough proportionality of the GZG
universe. I think that the actual numbers would be higher, reflecting the
colonial expansion into space.
> On Mon, 13 Dec 1999, Laserlight wrote:
[snippage here and there]
> >>ESU includes Russia (except my guesstimate of RH share), China,
Actually, in the timeline in FT, South Korea was taken over by the ESU, while
the US was distracted by its internal troubles. I would have assumed that they
were still part of the ESU (willingly or otherwise).
In a message dated 12/12/99 10:28:08 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> laserlight@quixnet.net writes:
> Main neutrals that I didn't know where to put are S Korea Taiwan
Actually, I think all of Korea is with the ESU. As for Belgium--that
HAS to be with the FSE. I don't remember Turkey being mentioned in the GZG
timeline, so it could go one of three ways--Independant (my vote), IF,
or FSE. Greece is a mystery to me, but you could assume FSE membership as well
(they are currently in the EC, right?). Ireland? I'd vote that they're FSE,
just to be a pain to the Brits...
Rob
In a message dated 12/13/1999 8:32:33 PM Central Standard Time,
> RWHofrich@aol.com writes:
> > Main neutrals that I didn't know where to put are S Korea Taiwan
IIRC, the European Union recently included Turkey on its list of membership
candidates. Looks as if they will go the FSE way...
Bill