On Sun, 30 Dec 2001 16:28:32 -0800 Mark Reindl <mreindl@pacbell.net>
writes:
> Glenn M Wilson wrote:
<snip>
> *Now* to bring this back on topic. (I hope) What does anyone think
Yeah that was "inspired psychology" wasn't it?
Okay, say not everyone excepts this but several powers choose to fight
'independent' wars versus the Kra'vak...
Who would play "team" initially?
Who would simply refuse to play "coalition war" games?
Who would it on the fence initially and then fall to either "the team" or
"independent action" side? And why?
Gracias,
On Sun, 30 Dec 2001 20:29:34 EST Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@juno.com> writes:
<snip>
> Okay, say not everyone excepts this but several powers choose to fight
<snip>
This is not written in stone but is a 'first cut'.
Taking a slightly different slant on the above question -
The Kra'vak siege of Earth/Sol:
Who joins the "Human Alliance"? Who stands alone or in separate alliances
against th Kra'vak?
Specifically who responds how to the Siege of Sol?
Who gets on board (relatively) quickly?
The UN FSE NSL RH IC Netherlands Japan SF
Who has significant political posturing/maneuvering before joining?
NAC ESU PAU
Who drags their feet almost too long then joins?
IF NFR
Who 'cooperates' with a 'human' alliance but maintains no official ties to it?
OU NI Swiss FCT
Who ignores such an alliance?
SK OC
Who has nothing to lose by ignoring the Siege of Sol and much to gain?
***LLAR***
Logic (such as it is) and reasons for several of these to follow.
[quoted original message omitted]