[snip]
> Snideness and suspicion aside, how feasable do we think a
Unlikely maybe, but we have to throw SOME twists in.... the NAC take a very
"protective" view of the Japanese for the latter's industry and tech. As the
timeline progresses, the Japanese are becoming much more independant again as
well as militarily aggressive....
As to the previous posts on this thread (argued with varying degrees of
vehemence and/or coherency), I can assure you all of one thing: THE FT
UNIVERSE HAS NO GOOD GUYS!!!! Everyone is out for their own ends at the
base level. Some nations/forces may adhere more to certain moral/ethical
codes than others, though one man's rules of war can easily become another
man's atrocity. Anyone worried that the NAC is squeaky-clean should
consult the timeline again: they START the Third Solar War.....
I try not to let any predjudices and personal views influence the background
TOO much, though any writer will naturally write some things he
believes in, and some of it is tongue-in-cheek as well - please
disconnect
sense-of-humour bypasses in some cases. My own views are an odd mix of
extremely liberal in some areas, and something to the right of Ghengis Khan in
others, but I don't let either standpoint influence my choice of gaming
friends (who have varied between hardline Socialists and extreme Rights,
plus every shade in between - I even game regularly with a committed
"Green", which leads to much good-natured p*ss-taking......).
Are we all OK now?? ;)
> You wrote:
> As to the previous posts on this thread (argued with varying degrees
No one ever said it did, except our neighborhood New Soviet Man.
the >base level. Some nations/forces may adhere more to certain
moral/ethical >codes than others, though one man's rules of war can
easily become another >man's atrocity. Anyone worried that the NAC is
squeaky-clean should consult >the timeline again: they START the Third
Solar War.....
I could care less who starts wars, my interest is restricted to how they tend
to prosecute. Is it still (as is currently) the practice of
the NAC (read US/UK) to teach and enforce the Geneva, Hauge, and other
applicable treaties, or should I presume all sense of humanity and law has
been stuffed in an airlock and show into space? That's all I'm asking, and I
only care in regards to mine warfare. It matters.
> plus every shade in between - I even game regularly with a committed
Oh, those nasty DFFGs crisping all those blades of grass! Horrors!:)
Can I quote you for the next cut of the N/S/O document?
Jon said: "I can assure you all of one thing: THE FT UNIVERSE HAS NO GOOD
GUYS!!!!"
> Can I quote you for the next cut of the N/S/O document?
> Ground Zero Games wrote:
Point of order: The Mongols were a collectivist group. In other words,
they were leftist, not right-wing types.
Of course assigning left/right labels to any one pre say 1700 is a bit
silly.
> At 19:08 5/5/98, mlooney - IOnet wrote:
> Point of order: The Mongols were a collectivist group. In other
Especially as the terms left/right/center came out of the
post-Revolution
French government. In the senate meetings, the conservative party sat on the
right side of the room, the progressives sat on the left side of the room, and
everyone else muddled about in the middle. So, after all, all of
this *is* the fault of the French. >^_^<
Personally, I think that all right-thinking people in this country are
sick and tired of being told when ordinary, decent people in this country are
fed up with being sick and tired. I'm certainly not, and I'm sick and tired of
being told that I am. So there.
> You wrote:
The NAC will, I think, still follow conventions regarding treatment of POWs
etc., but may well be a little more "flexible" in terms of employment of
weapon systems (anything short of indiscriminate nuking, that is, and there
are probably even arguable cases for that....):) I think you'd be OK assuming
that mine warfare is firmly back on the menu again.