NAC: Will it ever stop? :)

This will be my last post on this subject I think. Whereas I don't agree with
some of the Listbroderbund that it is overdue to die (quite frankly, with the
debate going on it, it is arguably one of the more active debates in a while)
or that it is OT (I find it far more interesting than the mathematical
mechanistic debates on WotW, no offense intended), out of respect for their
sensibilities, I'll conclude after this reply. And suggest everyone consider
my
reply with the "Seal of Atkinson" (75% Tongue-
in-cheek, your guess to the 75%).

Brian replied to me: (My replies ot him are
[Tomb])
> this would probably only be an attitude

I seriously doubt it. Sadly, it's so popular to lampoon Americans these days,
no one really takes time to pay attention to what we're really like.

[Tomb] Without rancor, I think that is also
true of many Americans.

I wonder if anyone who holds to the American NAC nobility line actually
understands just how deeply ingrained in the American psyche is the resistance
to any sort of imposed
perrage/nobility/monarchy.

[Tomb] I did suggest that there would be
dissidents. I also humbly submit that the US is an extremely varied country,
in terms of popular attitudes, so I'd resist making such patriotic and
simplistic generalizations about what "Americans" think anymore than I (as a
Canuck) would feel comfortable speaking for "Canadians". Thirdly, I finally
submit that after a
crushing conflict like a civil-war fought with
the kind of weapons available in the day, I suspect many of the "patriots" on
both sides will be dead and many of the remaining people will show a weariness
for
war and a fondness for _ANY_ power that
can restore stability. I'm not sure what the raw population losses are, but
I'd guess in the tens of millions perhaps.

And from where is this land acquired?

[Tomb] Existing royal estates, perhaps
existing federal lands (which cease to be federal once the federal government
ceases to exist), and on colonies mostly. I'm not going to recite the entire
logic, but Traveller(TM) used a nobility system to help hold together an
empire where instant communication was infeasible across interstellar
distances and it was felt that having people in leadership positions with a
strong personal stake in things had a lot to do with maintaining a good
quality of governance.

Try taking someone's property to give it to Lord Fauntleroy of Denver, and see
how fast the buckshot flies.

[Tomb] Arguably, most of it already _flew_
in the 2ACW.

Try annexing it from a national forest, and you have a whole different set of
protesters.

[Tomb] This happens in any event.

for public
> service (always a good thing to

One not used in America in a LONG time.

[Tomb] You guys wanted pioneers, you
granted land. If you guys needed motivated soldiers and it was thought a land
grant would help, you'd probably do it just like anyone else. Land grants for
service were awesome in the days when land==prosperity==power. Nowadays, that
relationship isn't so great so it might be of lesser, but still not zero,
utility.

I'm not talking about insurgent movements. I'm talking about us ever accepting
the arrangements in the first place.

[Tomb] Let us take a worst-case
projection, unsupported but not unsupportable, that the US 2 ACW is very
violent. You have a nation with lots of NBC weapons, heavy conventional
military, and lots of armed groups. High casualties perhaps? What if the US
was reduced (as Afghanistan has been) from a technologically advanced culture
(I've seen
pictures of Kabul pre-invasion of the USSR
and today... same streets but that is barely discernable since bits of it are
nothing but
rubble) to a sub-subsistence level situation.
This is admittedly worst case. But in that case, people want to eat and not
die. Those concerns FAR outweigh arguing over
the non-existent intricacies of the non-
existent government.

Unless of course, the "Invitation" to come help end the Civil war was the same
kind of "Invitation" the Afghans gave the Soviets.

[Tomb] Historical note: It is referred to as
a "Pacification".

In which case, it would be interesting to see the reception for the first Brit
troops that attended the party they were "invited" to. SAS putting down US
insurgents is one thing. It would be interesting to see the SAS put down
insurgents that included Rangers, SEALS, Spec. Forces, etc.

[Tomb] Yep. It would be interesting to see
the Brit troops arrive with food packets to feed the starving, to restore the
rule of law to a lawless land with bands of heavily armed thugs (since we all
know how much 'Mericans love their guns!) roaming around enforcing their will
(whatever that may be),
etc. I'm not saying this _IS_ what the case
is, because as Adrian has pointed out it
isn't really clear, but it _might_ be the
case. In this instance, I don't think I have to imagine that the bulk of the
(surviving) people would gladly welcome in anyone who restored anything akin
to law and order.

And the British have a
> certain talent (fails at times, but far

Tell that to Mahatma Gandhi.

[Tomb]: What part of "fails at times" was
hard to read? There have been some bad examples. But contrast the UK's pullout
from its colonies to that of the French or Dutch and one has to give them
credit in most cases. The French tendency is to stay about a decade or two
past their welcome really coming to a crashing halt.

Brian said: Any America so torn down and destroyed would be a nuclear
wasteland not worth owning to begin with. That's the only way I see the NAC as
canon has it existing.

[Tomb] A few crackpots setting off some
nukes and NBC weapons could really wreck a lot of the US with accompanying
plagues
and whatnot and inter-force conflicts in the
military plus all the civil forces raging riot. But, rather than raging on the
Americans, why don't we also not rag on Canadians or Brits? There is just the
chance that, although it makes no economic sense, recovering and rebuilding a
shattered America is something these nations would want to do out of a kinship
for the Americans (which we are told we constantly lampoon and fail to
understand....) and basic human decency. Add to that having a large
destabilized region such as the USA might well make the present day concern
about Afghanistan as a terrorist spawning ground seem trivial.... so the Brits
and Canucks helping out probably is both an expedient and humanitarian
venture.

> You are, of course, free to toss this out.

Actually, that's a good idea.

[Tomb] And a number of people have done
so. I don't believe it is plausible in the slightest (canon history) and not
LEAST because of the NAC. The ESU, the IF, etc. are all very unlikely. OTOH, I
decided it was a game I wanted to play with people and the most common vector
was canon. So I now consider how canon might have come about, given the
premise that it
_has_.

All of which merely reinforces my sense of urgency in
developing a non-canon universe.

[Tomb] Which is perfectly sensible. Your
pocket universe may be more realistic or at least more in line with your
personal sensibiities (or both) than what Jon T. developed. Frankly, as a
businessman, Jon T could probably give two hoots what you do as long as you
buy his games and his lead guys. Everything else is trappings. I'm
not defending the canon history - the
underlying assumption is that it _is_ and
after that, the question becomes how could it be? And with many people of
equally
strong patriotic anti-monarchist sentiments
as yourself and John A, there must be compelling reasons for something
different to have been accepted. But never, ever sell short history. America
was, for some part of its time, British. The original rebels were mostly
former Englishmen. Imagine if the Crown had had more foresight and a lighter
grip? 1775-76 might never have played out
as it did. Preposterous? Hardly. History is made up of a lot of little
decision points and if a major one had went slightly differently, all that
follows may have been quite different as things build upon past
things. Canon is _unlikely_ but not
impossible (now, it is admittedly a collection of unlikely events that
together yield a rather very unlikely end combination) and I see making it
work a thought excercise.

Tomb
PS - I have some American family (Uncle).
I have many American friends and I've probably taken more American history
than most Americans have Canadian history, despite the fact we're your largest
trading partner and have fought with you in all the major wars after 1776
IIRC. I've observed more similarity between Alberta Farmers and North Dakota
farmers than either have with their federal capital's people. If I lampoon an
American, it is with the same spirit I lampoon my Scots ancestors or my
Canadian fellow citizens or a member of my
own family - I frankly think most of the
Western Countries share such similar culture and values that it is an
excercise in sophistry to try to create meaningful differences. That is
probably why I lampoon Scots, English, Irish (but not the Welsh, oh
no, never the Welsh), French (and French-
Canadians), Americans, Aussies, and Kiwis
all to about the same extent - I sort of
think of them as extended family. It is not in a spirit of smallness,
pettiness or jealousy, just good natured amusement most of the time. The fact
that people can be sensitive to these proddings is of unceasing amazement. If
you can't laugh at yourself and your friends, you must live a humorless life.
:) YMMV.