Homework Assignment

textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative

Some good points raised in replies.

UN:

There was a suggestion that the UN, in order to be what it is in the timeline,
would have to evolve its own citizenship. In my mind, this is an absolute
necessity as the requirements of any major power will be:

a) tax base to support military construction and operations b) population base
loyal to that faction and from which it can draw soldiers and sailors without
mixed loyalties c) territorial base for that construction and for the
aforementioned citizenry to live on free of coercion by other nations

No effectual force will ever exist in that context where:

a) funding for operations and capital procurements exists solely at the
discretion of various power blocks b) personel are drawn from different power
blocks (as sometimes they won't be available and they will ALWAYS have a
second tier of ROE) c) political interests will make it productive for policy
and strategic directives of this faction to be interfered with by the powers
contributing troops and money

No independent foreign policy and strategic doctrine can truly exist without
some form of revenue and staffing independence.

Beth:

Would like to see what you did, even off list. My theory is that real
history raises hackles, so any re-envisioning of it must too - somebody
will be a winner, somebody a loser, and some observer will get nose out of
joint.
Even touching on the whole Arab-Israeli situation is inherently
perilous, even with the intellectual coverage of 'its just a sci fi game'. But
maybe that makes these discussions a bit useful as well in thinking about the
real world's destinations while being able to treat them less heatedly. (I
mean, we can envision victorian futures for games, and we don't seem to get
every female gamer up in arms, despite the cultural view of the time being
ostensibly replicated implicitly into the future...)

To your other point about NI/IF:

I've had some discussions with friends who have ties to Israel. I believe I
understand some of their thinking now somewhat better. I have also spoken to
a number of Lebanese, Pakistani, and other co-workers and understand
some of their perspective. There seems to be some fundamental differences that
appear to be resistant to mediation and a large historical memory (for
probably good reasons) that serves to limit and channel the overall strategic
decision making. There are some very human elements to the problem and I find
that there are sympathetic points raised by multiple sides
(I'd
say there are more than two here).

I think projecting animosity into space from traditional fights is accurate as
a consequence of this, but incomplete. Look at today for instance: There are
people in other parts of the world, now expats for perhaps generations,
from the region we are discussing - and they still hold very polarized
views on things back there. So I suspect the difficulties and memory will
export rather readily.

On the other hand, there are lots of signs that some folk that are expats and
some that are of that descent as well as a fair number within the region are
looking to come to resolutions and are willing to put more on the table and be
more flexible. I think this is the incomplete part of the GZG
representation - it captures one of the two flavours, but both flavours
I suspect will exist.

This may make NI and IF policy not so clearcut or perhaps sort of
schizophrenic at times, much like the real world. Or perhaps it would lead to
splintering off of these factions (lord knows, the NAC seems to
promulgate splinter groups by its mere existence - no reason the same
does not apply other places). I do think this second alternative perspective
needs to be seen somewhere in the fluff.

Now, some will cite the nuclear destruction of Israel as a rather large point
in the lasting emnity. I conclude that this would in fact be just such a thing
for many people. But I draw people's attention to the only example of nuclear
deployment against a nation state we already have. 70 years later, we have
relative peace and even good feeling between people in the countries that
deployed the nuclear weapons and people in the country that were the target.

There are respects in which this analogy is weak (no reconstruction efforts,
for one) but one has to think that this shows that time tends to change
outlooks. Even the fact that the British and French are allies now, or the US
and British, or (somewhat) the Russians and the West are signs that lasting
emnities can change as generations of populations come and go and new issues
and flavours arise in the geopolitics and cultures of the day.

Note of course that even Japan has some military resurgent factions today. I
don't think they have lasting emnity to the US, but they want Japan to be
strong and defended (and given the neighbourhood, this might not be the least
sane idea).

How to write a timeline

The thing that is interesting is how do you capture these depths of nuance in
a timeline write up? If you acknowledge the deeper dispersion of views, it
might seem like there are no good reasons for larger military conflicts
(hmmmm, the real world still seems to have them.....). It may read as
confusing for readers. But if you delve into the issues deeply enough to
provide sensible explanations of nuanced outcomes, you will be more
restrictive than Jon's original small blurb was stylistically and this heavier
approach will be more restrictive to the different individual readers and will
sap some of their individual interpretation (or allow them easier routes to
feel the fluff does not reflect their prejudices).

This concern was part of why I suggest a number of these could constitute
alternate history timelines. The game could afford to have 15 flavours of
alternate timeline that to one extent or another hew to common factions (so
Jon could continue sales in their current form) but there could be enough
diversity of flavours to let gamers find one that fits their own outlook more
or less. I see nothing wrong with their being no single official history, just
a whole pile of interesting alternate options.

It would just be nice to consolidate them in a single place so somebody
could easily one-stop shop such a thing for ideas. In a way, a gzg-pedia
could do that but it would require some restructuring.

Anyway, that's part of my inspiration for the homework assignment.