While I suspect that in the re-assembled NAC,
the Americans would still reject the idea of the inequality of some citizens
by virtue of birthright (at least insofar as their right to govern goes), this
would probably only be an attitude that the
NAC powers-that-be would work around.
Remember, the UK is a democracy. There is a Queen, but when was the last time
she went out and declared a war on someone? (It has been some time). Canada,
while retaining the Queen as titular head of state, actually leaves little or
no place for her in public policy (yes, the Governor General basically counts
as "little or
no").
I'm betting when the territories of North and South America are included, the
format will be:
- Parliamentary (some reformed system that is
not first-past-the-post or let-the-lawyers-sort-it-
out) and Democratic.
- Recognizing "Honour Nobles" (Peerages
granted for service) for what they are - simply
some people given a minor reward (a modifier to their name, a bit of land
maybe) for public service (always a good thing to encourage and no different
than granting land for military service, a time honoured tradition).
Yes, some former Americans may dislike this. Gee, I wonder if the NAC might
have insurgent movements? Seems likely. American Militias who can't abide the
idea of a foreign King (even if the country really is run by a Prime
Minister....) but who are fine with families of huge hereditary wealth and
power (Rockafellers, Fords, etc) or who live in a priveledged status due to
there presence on the TriD (entertainers) or who are effectively more powerful
than royalty due to consolidation of huge amounts of economic power in various
sectors (Wm. Gates "call me Bill", Larry Elison, the head of GE, etc).
And some would stay and fight about it. The SAS has, I note, had plenty of
practice dealing with internal insurgencies. And the British have a certain
talent (fails at times, but far better than their peers in this regard) at
maintaining a light hand in the Colonial power game (contrast with France or
the Dutch....). And some of the former United States citizens who really could
not abide life in the NAC could either 1) Go join the UNSC, 2) Go live in FCT,
or 3) Go live on some outrim world where they can revive the US Constitution,
the Republic, and all that stuff. Gee, another NAC splinter group.....
People can play this however they like, but canon shows us: The NAC is still a
Kingdom/Monarchy. The NAC has absorbed a
destroyed and torn-down former-American
republic and has captured and integrated all of Central and South America. The
only seemingly willing (and still whole and structurally sound) volunteer was
Canada (AFAIK), and that may have been as much an acknowledgement of the way
the winds were blowing and who protects who and trades with them as it was any
idealistic fascination for Monarchy. But I think the canon is pretty clear
that the NAC is still a Monarchy and the US, Canada, and the rest of the
Americas are now part of that Monarchy.
You are, of course, free to toss this out. But if you are operating within the
strictures of canon,
you need to look for reasons for why this _will_
work, rather than will not, because in the canon universe, even if it is as
likely as a pink flying elephant, this IS the situation that exists.
Deal with it. We all know it is an unlikely fiction developed by a kindly man
with a twisted sense of humor who spent too long in his cups (St. Jon^3). So
what? Now all we have to do if we want to rationalize it is find a sufficient
"justification" (read: thin tissue which papers over the obvious and patent
unlikelihood of the whole thing). I'm sure Russians and Chinese would find the
ESU about as unlikely. Welcome to Silly Games 101. Live with it, or live
without it, but (to help out Mr.Beast), let us stop railing about how unlikely
it is. There is no dispute
there. That was _never_ the question, really....
Tomb.
> Thomas Barclay wrote:
> While I suspect that in the re-assembled NAC,
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. 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. Good God,
we almost rejected our first and arguably most beloved president because some
people thought he acted too much like a king. That's why the official address
of a US Pres is "Mr. President," not, His Honorness or His worshipfulness or
some other folderol.
> Remember, the UK is a democracy. There is a
> - Recognizing "Honour Nobles" (Peerages
And from where is this land acquired? Try taking someone's property to give it
to Lord Fauntleroy of Denver, and see how fast the buckshot flies. Try
annexing it from a national forest, and you have a whole different set of
protesters.
for public
> service (always a good thing to encourage and
One not used in America in a LONG time.
> Yes, some former Americans may dislike this.
I'm not talking about insurgent movements. I'm talking about us ever accepting
the arrangements in the first place. Unless of course, the "Invitation" to
come help end the Civil war was the same kind of "Invitation" the Afghans gave
the Soviets. 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.
And the British have a
> certain talent (fails at times, but far better than
Tell that to Mahatma Gandhi.
contrast with
> France or the Dutch....). And some of the
Yes, well, apparently even that isn't allowed these days. Even though it's so
very likely, if not certain.
> People can play this however they like, but
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.
The only seemingly
> willing (and still whole and structurally sound)
Actually, that's a good idea.
> But if
All of which merely reinforces my sense of urgency in developing a
non-canon
universe.
> --- Thomas Barclay <kaladorn@fox.nstn.ca> wrote:
> People can play this however they like, but
However: The Brits/Canadians are invited in by a US
provisional government in control of a significant portion of the country. And
the simple logic of the matter is that no matter how you slice it, even if the
British and Canadian armies expanded to WWII levels
they would be insufficient to flat-out conquer the US
without significant cooperation from much of the extant US forces. And
regardless of the alleged expertise of the SAS the UK still couldn't hold
Ireland (which by comparison is about the size of West Virginia), and never
did finish off the IRA in Northern Ireland. Now multiply that land area by a
couple hundred and the population by a couple dozen. Hence the need to respect
American sensibilities. I could see a "Union" or "Confederation" with the King
as nominal head of state. Unlikely, but possible. I can't see 60 million
Englishmen treating 280 million USians like they're Hindu coolies. It ain't
gonna
happen--we don't have a caste system telling us that
the gods ordained us to be peons and y'all to be dictators. And we understand
how to fight, which is more than I can say about anyone in India (excepting
the Sihks, who did NOT get treated the same way the Hindus did).
You want a comparison, try South Africa after the Boer Wars. Too exhausted and
drained to go for true independance but certaintly having shown they were
capable of kicking the Brits around six ways 'till Sunday, the Boers worked
out a negotiated deal.
I agree with your comments here (on the background).
To the disagreeers:
Like it or not, whats in the books is official -- No matter how
unlikely. My liking it or not won't change that. (lets see, pull out my time
machine...)
Jon goes right out and invites players to "make their own". He even said
something about the "official" history only being there to get the game going.
(And to make/sell many interesting sets of
miniatures...ships...troops...AFVs...drool.)
I agree. FT/ect. makes much better games with some kind of setting.
I do feel that (no matter how flawed) that setting does make a really good
model for players to make their own. His setting has complexities, good and
bad interactions, planet and space conflicts, several powers, some large, some
small,
peaple doing the idiotic things -- just like in real life. To me, this
gives it a special spin most game settings don't. When I do my own settings, I
hope they can stand up like his does.
FT/ect. are the few games on the market where there isn't any "right
way" to play the existing powers. When someone at a con somewhere says: "the
NAC/whoever would never do that". You can respond "they do in my
games..."
Like Jon said...if you don't like something -- change it!
Thanks Jon!
To the disagreeers:
Like it or not, whats in the books is official -- No matter how
unlikely. My liking it or not won't change that. (lets see, pull out my time
machine...)
Jon goes right out and invites players to "make their own". He even said
something about the "official" history only being there to get the game going.
(And to make/sell many interesting sets of
miniatures...ships...troops...AFVs...drool.)
I agree. FT/ect. makes much better games with some kind of setting.
I agree the system is fine the way it is. And if you don't like something you
can add to or change it. The background is a good basis for a well rounded
game. I am also profoundly grateful that Jon isn't French, the amalgam of the
UK, USA and Canada is at least plausible.......But with the FSE, there are
some things we
yanks just can't take! ;-)
> Brian Bilderback wrote:
[snip]
> >- Recognizing "Honour Nobles" (Peerages
Try
> annexing it from a national forest, and you have a whole different set
People seem to have some very weird ideas regarding British nobility, whether
in its current form, historical forms and likely future forms. Land isn't
attached to an hereditary title, although sometimes there is an enduring
coincidence of ownership between the title and the land. (Are people against
inherited wealth?) People are not dispossessed of land during the new creation
of a title (except perhaps other nobles convicted of treason).
Things are, historically, reversed. Once you had legally acquired enough land
around <somewhere> by purchase or inheritance to have been, de facto, the lord
of <somewhere> and clearly an important person in the administration of the
county *then* you would summoned to parliament as Baron Somewhere, but you
were *already* a somebody.
Boss Hogg or Baron Hogg, what's the difference? Is anyone claiming that the
wealthiest ten percent of Americans owns a significantly smaller percentage of
America's wealth then the wealthiest ten percent of Britons own of Britain's?
I doubt that would be true.
[snip]
In a message dated 03/12/01 03:59:23 GMT Standard Time,
> johnmatkinson@yahoo.com writes:
> > > Always honorary. You can't knight an American,
But as someone else has said the land belongs to the person, not the title.
And as far as I am aware America has no problem with inheriting
money/land.
Someone suggested handing out pockets of land with titles, and while this
obviously doesn't happen at present, there is no reason that a few acres of a
new world being colonised couldn't be given to a retiring officer to set up
home on. It ensures you have loyal citizens on planet, able to set up a
reserve in case of invasion. Contrary to one persons suggestion I have no urge
to stomp all over Americans, and poke fun at them. I'm just looking at some of
the side effects of the NAC being a constitutional monarchy. I think honorary
titles (which are not hereditary) gives a little bit more to the background.
As has also been pointed out the monarch does not control the country, they
act as a figurehead that is a constant through changes in political
leadership, and direction. And a rallying point in times of national trouble.
John Atkinson said something I liked the sound of in relation to military unit
history.
> Seriously, it's hard to explain. Except that history,
Now put that on the scale of the NAC, and that's what I'm trying to put across
about "Honours" And of course if you don't like it you don't have to use it.
> At 11:13 PM -0500 12/2/01, Thomas Barclay wrote:
Oh yeah...Earl of Microsoft. That'd be great to live under. Likely land would
be granted off planet. Taking someone else's land to give to some "noble"
would spark class wars like you've never seen before. If the Earl of Microsoft
were to start living off planet, people would probably be all the happier.
> And some would stay and fight about it. The
Heh. Ever talk to a native Irishman about gun ownership? They absolutely abhor
the idea of private ownership of firearms. Compare that to Americans of some
strain. Add a terrain that is far more expansive. You could increase the SAS
units by a factor of ten and they'd never have enough time to visit 5% of the
US.
> certain talent (fails at times, but far better than
UNSC, even worse.
FCT, not a bad idea.
> some outrim world where they can revive the
Which we want to keep down. Remember the impositon of NAC rule on the US was
to help a bad situation, not to hurt.
> People can play this however they like, but
I'd like to think that the British learned something about the 18th and early
19th centuries and would use some wisdom when dealing with the people's of
North, Central and South America.
> the canon is pretty clear that the NAC is still a
But it is a Confederation. Not an Empire. Not a Republic. A confederation is
very very loose.
> At 1:15 PM +0000 12/3/01, David Brewer wrote:
I seriously question whether Ted Turner would stand to be a noble. Course then
he'd probably use it as an excuse to offend the queen, the English and the
peerage in a single sentence. Thus ending any desire to have him as a peer.
<<And regardless of the alleged expertise of the SAS the UK still couldn't
hold Ireland (which by comparison is about the size of West Virginia), and
never did finish off the IRA in Northern Ireland.>>
As a military man, you should know more than any of us that when the
politicians get involved..... ;-)
And as any SAS personnel (like most Special Forces) is that the military can
only impose a solution, not negotiate one. Its the battle for hearts and minds
that is most important. IMHO.
Cheers, Iain.
[quoted original message omitted]
<<But as someone else has said the land belongs to the person, not the title.
>>
I beg to disagree, your honour. With hereditary peerages, the eldest son (may
be eldest child in these enlightened times) usually gains the estate with the
title on his father's death. Of course, with death duties being what they are,
these may well be some attempt to offset these by the Earl, Baron, Duke or
whatever passing control of some of the estate over before his death (good
experience if nothing else); however the title itself cannot be transferred in
this way.
Life peerages (the only sort that get handed out these days) only lasts for
the lifetime of the person it is given to and the children do not inherit it.
Cheers, Iain.
[quoted original message omitted]
> --- Iain Davidson <iain@arath.org.uk> wrote:
Only if you can kick the enemy's ass on the field of
battle--if you can't, then hearts and minds become
irrelevant. The SAS got smacked around by Iraqi
3rd-line troops because of this attitude. They
discovered that being SAS does NOT make them bulletproof and that numbers do
tell.
> --- Ryan Gill <rmgill@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I seriously question whether Ted Turner would stand
You mean he hasn't offended the queen, English, and peerage? Doesn't that make
them about unique on this planet?
> Ryan Gill wrote:
Interesting... so if there's any modern-day government that the NAC most
resembles, it would be the Australian government -- strong, independent
state (provincial?) governments, overseen by a weaker federal government?
JohnA said:
> Only if you can kick the enemy's ass on the field of
The point of smacking people on the battlefield is to win hearts and
minds--if not to generate enthusiasm, at least to motivate them to
quit fighting..
> The SAS got smacked around by Iraqi
If you're thinking of Andy McNab and his lads, as I recall is was 8 SAS for
250 Iraqis. Although, given the comparative expense of training, supplies,
etc, it may be that the Iraqis won that one....
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2001, Rick Rutherford wrote:
> Ryan Gill wrote:
Sure, Canada is pretty similar. The federal govt. handles foreign affairs,
defence, etc, and sets national standards for a number of things; the
provinces do the bulk of the day-to-day governing internally, and all
have a certain (fairly low) level of autonomy.
Lots of inter-governmental diplomacy to sort out details (and money...).
In fact, the US states in some ways have even more autonomy right now -
Canadian provinces have no equivilent of the US State National Gaurd, who
AFAIK can be given orders by the state's Governor.
Imagine another lay of govt. over the present 'federal' systems, a
shifting of responsibilities around - that would work for the NAC.
On Tue, 4 Dec 2001 10:21:01 -0500 Rick Rutherford <Rick@esr.com>
writes:
> Ryan Gill wrote:
Assuming the word confederation was actually properly used, then it would
be mess like the pre-Constitution USA, a Confederation. For the NAC
either the word has been 're-defined' for internal coherency or it is a
political sham (oops, was I redundant?)
Gracias,