This probably rightly resides over on the gzg-
hist list, but that's been fairly quiet (if not moribund) and since Chris
outlined his view on the UN and the UNSC, I thought I'd outline a contrary
view. To Chris, I think the UNSC
represents a large, well-meaning, but essentially
paternalistic (and perhaps downright evil in some ways) Big Government. My
view, perhaps unsurprisingly, differs. So, without further adieu, I offer you
my 0.02 on the UN in the GZGverse (worth exactly what you pay for it of
course!).
=======================
The UN in the TombVerse(TM)
The UN of 2000 is a bureaucratic, politically fragmented, fiscally embarassing
and often poorly supported entity. It is subject to corruption, incompetence,
and amazing laggardliness when responding to international crises. OTOH, it
does do some good (bringing relief, keeping the peace, etc) around the world.
All in all, a very mixed bag. There are profound reservations about its
overtones as "the One World Government" and these primarily from large, rich
countries with much to fear from giving a bunch of small poor countries who
might have a memory of slights (or invent one).
In 2183, things are fairly different. In order to understand the UN of this
period, one must see some of the key distinctions between the UN of 2000 and
that of 2183.
- UN of 2000 has no independent tax base.
The UN of 2183 does have an independent tax base through research patents,
international taxes (levies for peace enforcement), monies generated by
various UN research and think tank services, and from UN taxpayers living in
land (or space) claimed by the UN directly and paying income taxes directly to
the UN. The significance of this independent funding base should be lost on no
one.
- UN of 2000 has no independent military. It
has forces contributed to UN missions (after a big palaver) by member nations.
The UN of 2183 has its own independent military. That military is medium sized
but composed of long service professionals. The UN also overseas the arms
length corporation used as the primary bonding and regulatory agency for
mercenary operations throughout human space, and as a consequence makes money
there. They also directly employ a number of mercenary units for peacekeeping
(professional soldiers being a better choice than national forces with
potential cultural clash issues). This means that in a crunch they can bring
to bear (at the cost of some of those operations) a fair number of hired guns
too. Add to this a number of customs, quarantine, system patrol, and other
paramilitary forces, and the UN can muster quite a punch when it needs to. And
the core elements (UNSC Navy and Marines) are equiped with state of the art
kit, some of it fresh out of
UN-funded Research Stations (think Traveller
Imperial Research Stations). I rate the UN militarily as larger than any 1
power (even the ESU or the NAC) but smaller than any two of the big ones (or a
big one plus some small ones) combined. They have enough might even to cow the
big boys on the block, but not to enforce their will on a mass of unhappy
nations.
- The UN of 2000 has no independent
intelligence arm (well, not a formal one). The UN of 2183 has the several
intelligence gathering directorates (including, it is rumored, a black arm
that performs direct action operations to "chill out" hot sectors and keep the
enemies of
mankind off-balance). I cannot see a power with
its own taxbase, military, and obviously legal and political system not having
(and requiring) intelligence gathering and covert operations capabilities.
These agencies would also gain
from the UN's extensive ties to human-sphere-
wide law enforcement. And they would also have access to some of the more
secret UN Research Station projects. All in all, I think the UN might have
(and their successes in keeping the core systems from being smashed might
argue for it) some very effective intelligence and special operations
capabilities.
- The UN of 2000 is a large confusion of nations
with a small group in real power (the security council) at any given time. But
it also has a bureaucratic mission of sorts (some might argue it is to save
the world, other might argue
it is to rule and control it - probably it is both).
The UN of 2183 shares some of this mission -
in that it is tasked with patrolling and defending the core systems. But
probably as much as its military and economic situations have changed, it has
maintained its growth in influence in areas of international development,
global environmental policy, sustainable development, global democracy
movements, etc. So it is interwoven into the fabric of the core systems as
well as being the patrolman. The fact that it IS in this position has
(paradoxically) made the drive of the UN to expand and become more powerful
somewhat muted (exception: once the aliens attack). The UN of 2183 really is
doing the job of defending the human core, protecting the cradle of
civilization, knowledge and development, and trying to offer at least some
help to the humans trying to establish themselves throughout the stars. And
then when the aliens show up, they make sense as
the main coordinator of anti-alien operations
(arguing for even larger amounts of UN control). Of course, their are those in
the NAC and other places that don't like these trends and most nations do try
to thwart what they perceive as UN power grabs (sometimes even where they
don't exist) but this is part of the interesting tapestry of 2183 politics.
- The UN of 2000 has global crises in
population, disease, food supply, environmental damage, asteroid threat, and
military conflicts. It has however no single unifying external threat that
equally menaces all nations in an obvious way (environmental or asteroid may,
but not in
an in-your-face fashion). The UN of 2183 DOES
have immediate external threats from non-
humans. This offers them a much more solid common plank to speak to the vast
bulk of humanity and to enforce, cajole, or legislate their cooperation in the
fight.
- The UN of 2000 is riddled with corruption,
profit taking, mismanagement. The UN of 2183 suffers to some extent from the
same thing, but general global improvements (in Africa and the developing
world especially) have helped bring up the overall quality of UN personel as
have some inspired legislative manouvers that have made UN controlled zones
pretty sweet to live in making them very attractive to intelligentsia and long
service military people from other nations. So although the UN suffers from
these problems, no moreso than any large megacorp of other major nation.
- The UN _still_ has the tough job of keeping
combatants apart, negotiating peace between belligerents, dealing with
political crises and human rights issues, and global threats from the
environment to resource depletion. And because they now have more power, a
higher standard of performance is actually expected. Their delivery, though
not perfect, has been sufficient so far, although it has failed here and there
in loud, ugly ways. And of course, there are still those who oppose large
world government just in principle (Alarishi Empire and many other small
fringist groups that the UN either ignores or tolerates as it offers a haven
for the disaffected so they tend to leave rather than cause problems from the
inside).
That's my UN. It can't push around the major powers (any two of them could
probably beat it up) without other powers onside. It can't defend humanity all
by itself. It can't go around doing things which will rise all the other
nations against it. It is no autocrat. But, it has a lot of power, and a lot
of covert direct action and intel capability so it is quite potent where it
concentrates its resources. And it has enemies
and detractors - some who oppose it on
political grounds, some on moral, and some who oppose it because it threatens
their fiefdoms. It's no angel, but it is the big boy on the block when the
aliens turn up with an ax to grind.
Take from this what you will, or ignore it entirely. This is strictly IMU of
course.:)
> This probably rightly resides over on the gzg-
There's a gzg-hist list?
> To Chris, I think the UNSC
Rather more like the Stalinist Soviet Union, with more subtlety, a better
grasp of economics, and better propaganda writers. On to....
> The UN in the TombVerse(TM)
ie the UN will, at least sometimes, act so as to benefit itself rather than to
carry out its purpose.
> long service professionals. The UN also overseas
"oversees"
> Imperial Research Stations). I rate the UN
hm....I don't see that. Partly because I don't see the UN having that big a
tax base (big, but not bigger than NAC or ESU), and partially because they're
not in FB1: The Major Powers. Call them The Largest of the Minor Powers, if
you want to irritate the Secretary General.
> Their delivery, though not perfect, has been
I'd imagine the entire Outer Rim Coalition is irritated at the UN by the time
the KV invasion is in full swing. Of course, that's probably a lot fewer
people than there were before the invasion.
I don't actually think there's a lot of difference between the
TomB-verse UN and mine--it's mainly a matter of the actual (not
necessarily professed) motives of the people at the top, and what
I still agree with the guy who long ago posted that playing the UN is rather
playing the Social Worker in Cops and Robbers!
Jason
[quoted original message omitted]
> --- Thomas Barclay <kaladorn@magma.ca> wrote:
> The UN in the TombVerse(TM)
I basically like this take...
> The UN of 2000 is a bureaucratic, politically
One word for you: WHO. I've yet to hear anything negative about WHO (other
than the gripes common to all large organization).
> All in all, a very mixed bag. There are profound
Go ahead, say "This is mostly the US, who is currently The Great Power on the
planet and is leery of giving it up, because we saw what happened to the Brits
when they lost their hegemony."
> In 2183, things are fairly different. In order
True, but how big would the UN tax base be? I don't see many people giving up
their nationality that easily.
On the other hand, I once met a very nice Serb couple living in Louisiana (met
'em at church, actually) who, when I mentioned I'd been to Serbia expressed
their complete and total lack of any enthusiasm for anything to do with the
"Old Country". There would be a portion of rational people from a variety of
crummy little countries who are sick of the old problems, as well as some
egghead idealists with romantic notions about being a "Citizen of Humanity".
> - UN of 2000 has no independent military. It
I see this.
> also directly employ a number of mercenary
True. In fact, as mercenary troops are primarily
interested in low-risk, high-pay operations that
regular troops have no love for (who really likes peacekeeping ops? Not me,
that's for sure) I can really buy that idea.
> in a crunch they can bring to bear (at the cost
I don't buy that. Not that many bodies to recruit from, and while they have an
independant tax base, it's not bigger than the NAC or ESU.
> to cow the big boys on the block, but not to
And looking after their own interests as well.
> an in-your-face fashion). The UN of 2183 DOES
Except for those in independant off-Terra nations who
got torqued off when the UN recalled all Human starships to the Core. That's
when the NRE breaks diplomatic relations, PNGed every UN diplomat in the
Empire, and gave all UN citizens 48 hours to get off planet.
> and long service military people from other
No. Long service military personnel are by definition patriotic (what, you
think we're in this for the money?) and not likely to give up citizenship in
the
nation they spent 20+ years defending.
G'day,
> True, but how big would the UN tax base be?
If they really do have iron control of the coreworlds maybe they impose
shipping taxes etc. You want to fly it in or out you pay the tax.
> There would be a
Given how big space is (and thus what rewards there could be to dish out) my
version of the UN has small nations (all nations if you like) doing service
so that they can get a cut of what they find/develop etc.
Cheers
> John Atkinson wrote:
> True, but how big would the UN tax base be?
Between 2145 and 2193 it'd be roughly two of the three human Core systems,
plus several minor Inner Colonies which aren't aligned with any of the four
major powers :-/
From: "Jason Weiser" <atlas7d@rcn.com>
> I still agree with the guy who long ago posted that playing the UN
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
2 of the 3 human core systems are UN-owned? I don't
think so. Far more likely that those are UN-flagged
on the map because they were colonized by multiple powers. What's your source?
> ... but how big would the UN tax base be?
From: ~ On Behalf Of Beth.Fulton@csiro.au
Sent: 28 July 2002 09:40
Subject: RE: The GZGverse UN
> If they really do have iron control of the coreworlds maybe they
I don't believe any power controls the core worlds; the map of Earth still
holds good, with the Great Powers controlling various chunks of the map. Both
they and the remaining smaller sovereign states are "UN members", and
therefore notionally control what the UN can do and not do.
The same pattern may also extend to the other core worlds. The earliest
colonisation efforts would have been before the first interstellar warships,
so there would be little to prevent a rival power from founding a colony at a
distance from the discovering power. In time, the core worlds would become a
patchwork of colonies, independent states and industrial fiefdoms. I believe
this was the niche the Japanese were
originally intended to fit into, but the launch of the FT-13xx
range forces us to reappraise their place in the GZGverse.
Some of these colonies will have, by one means or another, found their way
into the UN fold. It's possible that some of
them were UN-founded and others became UN protectorates as a
result of various crises. Prejudice and self-interest may
prevent these entities from being recognised as UN member states, so the UN
umbrella remains their only refuge.
By 2180 the UN has both a significant tax base and access to
sophisticated technologies, viz FT-11xx.
UN power is based on the veto; if any member (or even the vast majority of
members) proposes a resolution that any one other member does not care for,
the resolution is blocked. However, once a resolution is passed it remains in
effect, protected by the same mechanism. The resolutions protecting the core
systems are over 100 years old and unlikely to ever be repealed.
This protection isn't unlimited; if the Duchy of Grand Fenwick
wishes to uphold its claim on some obscure but valuable M-class
system, the offended power can still make life difficult for the upstart
state. It can't bring a dozen regimental assault carriers into terrestrial
orbit and simply drop on the offending nation, but there are numerous other
pressures that can be brought to bear, including simply seizing the territory.
The UN isn't going to intervene in every case where it might have a mandate;
just those where the gains reasonably outweigh the potential losses.
> There would be a portion of rational people from a variety
I've previously attributed the rise of the UN to political unrest at the
events of the 21st and 22nd centuries; the peace of Freisland (2142) can't be
written off as a "breathing space" treaty (even though that was all it gave to
the major powers) because it led directly to the foundation of the UNSC. The
only reason I can see for this move is to take the heat
away from a rising pan-global pacifist movement.
Idealism may inspire some generations to lend their support to the UN, but it
won't last indefinitely. To survive as an ongoing power, the UN needs
population both to work in its own yards and to provide the revenue to run
them. A "space tax" isn't going to provide the former.
> Given how big space is (and thus what rewards there could be
But would they bring their own vessels or simply add resources to the pool
available for patrol and exploration?
-- ===========================================================
Nathan "better a citizen of humanity than someone else's
> > >True, but how big would the UN tax base be?
John said:
> 2 of the 3 human core systems are UN-owned? I don't
Oerjan probably means that they pay the UN in addition to their national
taxes. Could be direct (eg departure tax at ports) or indirect (eg NAC raises
income tax by 1% and sends that amount to UN) or a combination.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> >>True, but how big would the UN tax base be?
Not necessarily "UN-owned", but very likely willing UN sponsors and
participants. If you read between the lines in the canon timeline, the UNSC
looks very much like a "Core Colonies Defence League" which has managed to get
a UN role.
> I don't think so. Far more likely that those are UN-flagged
Judging from the fact that the "several major powers" which attempted to
limit the UNSC's peacekeeping mandate in 2145 only managed to impose
significant restrictions on UNSC ops in the Outworlds and the Inner Colonies
but *not* in the Core, it looks as if these "several major powers"
didn't have that much control over the Core - and not because they kept
each other in check (since this seems to have been the case in the Inner
Colonies and Outworlds, where they *did* manage to limit the UNSC mandate),
but because there were other powers which dominated the Core colonies.
My take on this is that most of the colonies in Centaurus and Barnard's were
founded not by the major power blocs but by minor nations,
corporations and NGOs - quite possibly with the UN lending a hand with
FTL transport etc. These smaller powers and organisations didn't have the
individual strength to face down belligerent larger powers like the ESU or
NAC, so in order to avoid being gobbled up (or accidentally flattened) by
these major powers they wholeheartedly supported the creation of the
UNSC -
which is why they gave it such extensive rights to operate in their space
(unlike the "major powers" whose main extraterrestrial territories are in the
Inner Colonies and Outworlds).
By the 2180s the "UN" is therefore effectively a confederation of Core
colonies and minor Earth states. Although the "major powers" are nominally UN
members (at least prior to 2193) they only contribute symbolic sums to
it - and judging from the UNSC's success in protecting the Core, they no
longer have a veto on UN actions outside their own territories.
This explains why the UNSC acts the way it does when the Core is threatened
in 2193/4: it pulls back to protect its main sponsors, and leaves those
worlds which haven't sponsored it to their fate.
> What's your source?
Partly the same as your source for the NRE - ie. conjecture from the
current canon and a vivid imagination :-)
Later,
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> >I don't think so. Far more likely that those are
?? Which timeline is that from? Actually in FT II it says "UNSC presence
prevents war intruding on the Core systems, though combat occurs on several
inner colonies". That's not the same thing.
> managed to impose
It sounds more to me that the potential damage in the Core systems would be
the limiting factor, so a defacto truce would be in place policed by the UN.
Remember, Albion, the most densely populated planet in the NAC has the same
population as England. That
indicates to me that the core/Terra still contains a
significant fraction of the population. Population = Power.
> My take on this is that most of the colonies in
Why do you assume that the major powers would not fund the first human
colonies? I don't see Nigeria launching many satellites, and even the second
rank powers (Europe, Britain, China) were decades behind the superpowers. Why
should space colonization be any different?
> (unlike the "major powers" whose main
Who's main exclusively owned colonies...
> By the 2180s the "UN" is therefore effectively a
You do realize there aren't many minor Earth states left, right? The Asians
are all in the ESU, IC, or IFed. The Africans are all in the PAU or IFed. The
Latin Americans are all NAC subjects. Who's left in the category of "minor"
Earth states?? Monaco? Oh wait, that's probably in the FSE. We've got the
Swiss... The Swiss... and the Swiss. Or are you counting the PAU, IC, OU,
ScanFed, and IFed?
From: "John Atkinson"
> Who's left in
Free CalTex, Netherlands. Can't think of anyone else in canon although there
could be some others, nominally independent and could be functionally
independent as well. Singapore, Bermuda, Malta, etc perhaps, and I don't think
we've ever decided whether Turkiye is FSE, IF, or neutral.
G'day,
> You do realize there aren't many minor Earth states
Canon there may not be mentioned, but as this is fiction take then number of
active listers, add some, multiple by 3 and you may come close to the number
of non-canon minor powers I doodle up waiting for my code to compile ;)
There's a lot of imaginative people out there so there's probably a whole swag
of minor nations. Whether they all support the UN or got "gobbled by its
madness... muhahaha" is debatable but the potential is there;)
G'day,
> I don't believe any power controls the core worlds; the map of
While I do think there will be UN territories, they don't have to own land to
control departure taxes and shipping costs etc. They just have to control
choke points, though this comes back to the individual's vision of how FTL
works.
> But would they bring their own vessels or simply add resources
In my version of the GZGverse both. You have IAS (Independent Antarctic
States) ships flying under the UN flags, but also IAS crews on UN ships.
Mainly for deep space exploration as they do much of their groundforce stuff
in alliance with nations that don't want their extreme climate areas (so the
IAS "takes care" of such areas for them).
Cheers
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
> Canon there may not be mentioned, but as this is
True, but they ain't got turf on Earth.
> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
FCT and Netherland Star Kingdom have off-world holding
in some quantity, and not in the Core Systems.
Can't think of anyone
> else in canon
States with a population that's measurable...
> perhaps, and I don't think we've ever decided
It's like the Irish. We never will.
G'day,
> True, but they ain't got turf on Earth.
1) Do they know that? The fuzziness of the GZG world maps suggests there's a
lot of shove room left there... (heavens I waltzed off with a whole continent
and no one even peeped;P)
2) The solar system is a big place and Earth is but a small (though crucial)
part of it;)
3) OK moving into non-cannon land here, but over the 100 odd years since
space exploration began and with so many capitals moved off earth, it MAY be
possible that some of the "resistance" groups have wrestled home ground back
off the mega-power empires on Earth. May be there is some swinging back
to the smaller more fractured political units rather than super vast empires
(bit like the collapse from colonialism in the past 100 years of our time).
Cheers
> 1) Do they know that? The fuzziness of the GZG world maps suggests
G'day,
> We're all waiting till it melts.
I still end up with a continent, just less ice... now if I'd been fool enough
to claim the Arctic I'd be in trouble;)
Cheers
> --- John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:
Don't you mean EXCEPT for Texas/California (and most
of the land between).
Bye for now,
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > Judging from the fact that the "several major powers" which
The official one, but of course the UNSC was founded in 214*3* and not
214*5*. Sorry for the typo :-)
> >managed to impose significant restrictions on UNSC ops in the
Don't think so. If it had simply been a terror balance ("if you wipe out my
Core holdings I'll wipe out yours, so let's keep the fight elsewhere" -
shades of the Cold War) there wouldn't have been any need for an active UNSC
presence to prevent fighting in the Core, but the 2183 update seems to suggest
an active UNSC.
> Remember, Albion, the most densely populated planet in
1) Albion does not appear to be located in the Core - if it had been, it
would've been settled much earlier. It was only settled in 2099, which
means that the first extra-terrestrial colonies (established in 2069)
had a
30-year head start over Albion.
2) The statement that Albion is the most densely populated planet in the
NAC is conjecture, since the canon doesn't actually say this <g> It also
implies that Terra is not "in the NAC" in spite of the NAC having vast
territories and a large part of its population there, and in spite of Earth
being far more densely populated than Albion... which suggests that your
"in the NAC" means "controlled exclusively by the NAC", and that in turn
means that the Albion example says nothing whatever about planets with
colonies from more than one power. Like, for example, the Core systems
<g>
> >My take on this is that most of the colonies in Centaurus and
Oh, they did establish the *first* colonies. The AC (later-to-become
NAC) and the EC (later to split into FSE and NSL) did establish the first
colonies in 2069. But I don't think that they established the *most* colonies
in the Core, nor that they control a very large part of the populations there.
> I don't see Nigeria launching many satellites, and even the second rank
Because the canon says so. The AC and the EC (later to become NAC and
FSE/NSL respectively) launched their first FTL craft in 2069; the IF,
PAU and RH launched *their* first FTL craft in 2070 (ie. only one year later),
the ESU in 2072 and the LLAR and IC launch their first FTL craft in 2075.
That's not "decades behind" - it is a span of only six years.
> >(unlike the "major powers" whose main extraterrestrial territories
The Outworlds are mainly exclusively owned. The Inner Colonies are at least
partly multi-national according to the "Situation Update: 2183" in the
FT2 book.
> >By the 2180s the "UN" is therefore effectively a confederation of
Japan, Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan all appear to be independent - or at
least I can't find any canon mention of them being absorbed by any of the
major power blocs. Not sure about Taiwan either; it seems likely that it'd
fall to the ESU after the US collapse in 2049, but again there's no mention
about it in the timeline.
> The Africans are all in the PAU or IFed. The Latin Americans are all
Probably not PAU, IC or IF.
This leaves ScanFed, Finland (unless it is part of the former or stayed with
the NSL, but I don't find either option particularly likely), OU, Netherlands,
and Switzerland, Turkey, those parts of the Balkans which didn't join any of
ESU, FSE or RH, Iran, possibly Afghanistan (or at least
some of its successor states providing recruits for the UNSC gropos :-/
);
and also numerous minor island states - very small in population, but
with vast ocean areas containing rather impressive natural resources. Maybe
Japan as well, at least in the early period.
As I said these are minor Earth states compared to the big power blocs, but by
no means negligible in any of natural resources, population, education
or industry :-/
Later,
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
> >It sounds more to me that the potential damage in
Not so. The UNSC is confidence-builder and policeman
of truce in Core Worlds, like their role in the Sinai. The UN mission in the
Sinai couldn't stop either the Israeli or Egyptian armies if those two nations
wanted to fight, but it's a confidence builder. I see UNSC's role in the Core
as being the compromise adopted by the Big players because they don't trust
each other, but they also see a need to limit themselves to colonial warfare.
For an example of this style of warfare in history, we
need only look at the Roman/Persian wars (prior to the
idiot, monster, and usurper Phokas), the 18th century wars between the
European states, the Cold War, and British colonial competition with France,
Russia, and Germany. In those cases absolute total warfare would have been far
more damaging even to the victor than the potential gains would have been, so
rivals settled their differences with small issues. A city here, a border
province there, fighting over a colony, installing a friendly head of state in
some minor buffer kingdom (see: Armenia), etc.
> > >My take on this is that most of the colonies in
None of them individually do, that's why no one can easily gain advantage
which is why there's more to be lost than gained from fighting there. That
doesn't mean that the Core colonies constitute an independant power bloc in
and of themselves.
> >I don't see Nigeria launching many satellites, and
That doesn't mean that their space programs are of the
same size. Massive population/wealth/technology
concentrations will result in better programs.
> > >(unlike the "major powers" whose main
Right. You're agreeing with me.
> >You do realize there aren't many minor Earth states
Actually, Japan is specifically mentioned as being a client state of the NAC.
And while Iran and Afghanistan aren't mentioned, Pakistan is mentioned as
being in the IFed. I really don't see the IFed absorbing Pakistan without
going through Iran first. And I also don't really see Afghanistan remaining
independant while surrounded by two mutually hostile expansionistic powers.
YMMV. But I don't see a coalition of Afghanistan, Turkey, Iraq, and Taiwan
being able to dictate to the ESU or the NAC.
> This leaves ScanFed, Finland (unless it is part of
I had assumed ScanFed, but you'd know better. My thought was that Finland
might be looking across the border at an expansionistic Communist state,
decide that any port in a storm is better than none, and go ScanFed regardless
of what the average Finn might think about uniting with Sweden under other
circumstances.
> Netherlands, and Switzerland, Turkey, those parts of
Balkans is a clusterfuck that will never amount to anything. Been there, done
that, got the verdammt
T-shirt.
> Afghanistan (or at least
None of which added together have the power to push around the Germans, much
less the Germans,
French/Italians/Spanish, the Chinese/Russians, and the
Brits/'Mericans all simultaneously.
Now, those little guys together may have wheeled and dealed and played the big
guys off each other to get what they want. But they damn well didn't dictate
terms.
My take on the UN...
The UN has a large presence in the Core - but not much
of one outside. It draws its finances from various fees
and charges paid in the core by all nations - sometimes
willingly, sometimes grudgingly, but paid nonetheless.
More resented than the mulcting of moola is the mandatory propaganda. There's
a lot of emphasis on "One Species, Many Cultures, One Law". Every schoolchild
is indoctrinated
by UN-mandated textbooks, emphasising the Siblinghood of
All Humans, telling tales of the brave UN Ecological Enforcement Corps
defending the planet from the greedy
ecology-wreckers, saving the Whales, etc. How the World
is made a Better Place(tm) by the World Health Organisation. the United
Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organisation, the International
Labour Organisation, and the World Bank.
It's all very Politically Correct. And in the Core Worlds, the "Best and the
Brightest" are often drawn to the ideals of the UN.
One of which is that "Peace is Compulsory". The UN has a large and efficent
space fleet, as technologically advanced as any other or more so, that acts
the Policeman in the Core.
It's in everybody's best interests not to allow planet-busters
or Nova-Inducers, at least where there's major population
centres. The peace is enforced by Deterrence, naked threat, and the threat is
Unsubtle. There's only one capital crime, "Disturbing the Peace", and the
punishment is capital and
applied to all with 1/8 or more of a genetic connection with
the perpetrators - though small children and cousins are
often allowed to take Involuntary Exile instead of the Letal Chamber.
The UNSC is by far the most efficient and least corrupt of all the arms of the
UN.
Out on the Rim, it's a different matter. Just as in the 1500s, where there was
"No Peace Beyond the Line", treaties
and non-aggression agreements are not enforceable. Thus
the various Interstellar Wars, where the UN only becomes involved where one
side or another violates the Laws and
Customs of War - and not always then.
The major problem that the UN faces is the constant haemoragging of their best
people back to their countries
of origin - or more often, to the Colonies. This is because of
the endemic corruption and inefficiency that the young Idealists find as they
rise through the ranks. The only exception is the UNSC, where the ideals of
the UN are actually upheld, not always, but they do their best within the
limitations they work under. Even there, there have been some spectacular
defections, such as those which leaked Pulse Torpedo technology to the NAC.
One advantage the UN has is that the smaller nations - not the
Big 4 (NAC, NSL, FSE, ESU), but the LLAR, the PAU, the OU -
for their own reasons see the UN as a guardian against exploitation by their
bigger neighbours. The UNSC is reputed to use the OU
John Atkinson wrote (was your post off- or on-list BTW? Ah well - FH
posts are on topic here):
> >>It sounds more to me that the potential damage in the
-
> >shades of the Cold War) there wouldn't have been any need for an
A weak force like the UNSC you describe - appearently based on the UN of
today which you know about - can only build confidence and do policing
if
the powers it keeps apart are also relatively weak - which is the case
in Sinai, Lebanon, Cyprus, etc.
However, we're not talking about lesser regional powers in the 2183 scenario.
We're talking about a UNSC prepared to go between the 2183
equivalents of NATO and the USSR on the former intra-German border -
which
is the biggest potential hot-spot where today's UN did *not* send any
troops during the Cold War era.
> [snip] I see UNSC's role in the Core as being the compromise adopted by
The US and the USSR did exactly that - limited themselves to colonial
warfare - during the Cold War, with no UN interference in their core
territories (ie., on the inter-German border). In the earlier historical
examples you cited - the Roman/Persian wars, 18th C European wars and
19th
C colonial competitions - the total lack of a confidence-building
UN-style
organisation is also quite glaring... yet most of these wars were also limited
in scope.
My point is this: if, which you suggest, this same "costs more than it is
worth" mechanism still kept the fighting outside the Core Systems in 2183
*there would be no need for an armed UNSC to do that very same thing*. Since
the UNSC *does* exist in the Tuffleyverse, it seems to me that the
"costs more than it tastes to fight in the Core" mechanic has ceased to
function.
Other indications that the Core was not considered "safe from combat" prior to
the formation of the UNSC is the war of the NSL secession from the FSE (which
featured major ground actions in Europe around the previous turn of the
century), and of course that the two biggest power blocs both move their seats
of government *from*
the "supposedly safe" Core in this period - ESU in 2127, NAC in 2135. If
the Core had been considered safer than anywhere else, moving the
government anywhere else wouldn't be terribly smart - yet *both* the
biggest human powers did so.
> >>I don't see Nigeria launching many satellites, and even the second
There's another twist to this which I forgot in the previous post: the main
reason why only the two superpowers were involved in the space race of the
1960s was that it was essentially all about prestige: "If the Russians can do
it, then we must do it too and do it better". With no obvious economic gains
in sight, the lesser powers simply didn't bother to join in.
When the economic advantages became obvious and the technology matured,
everyone and his granny began launching satellites - not just states,
but
even rather minor companies did it :-/ With colonisation, there is (or
at least there may very well be) an economic incentive to establish colonies
for the smaller powers as well as for the larger ones right from the start.
> >>You do realize there aren't many minor Earth states left, right?
The
> >>Asians are all in the ESU, IC, or IFed.
Where exactly is that stated? I can't find it in any of the 'canon'
timelines :-( The RN's re-naming of its Japanese-named ship classes in
the
2170s (documented cases are the Miyazaki-class frigates and
Hoshino-class
light cruisers being upgraded and re-named Minerva and Huron; there are
probably other cases as well) and the appearance of an independent Japanese
fleet strongly suggests that the client status was transient though :-/
> And while Iran and Afghanistan aren't mentioned, Pakistan is mentioned
Another reference I can't find in the canon timelines. The closest I can
find is the 2051 note about *ESU* (not IF) invading the entire Indian
sub-continent in which Pakistan is currently located.
> And I also don't really see Afghanistan remaining independant while
Afghanistan has been surrounded by mutually hostile expansionistic powers for
the better part of the last four thousand years, yet they're still
independent :-/ So far everyone who has tried conquering them has found
that it costs far more to take than it is worth... and quite a few powers have
recruited them as mercenaries.
> >This leaves ScanFed, Finland (unless it is part of the former or
On the Finnish side, I suspect that they still remember 1939-1945 quite
well - prior to the war there was quite a bit of Swedish talk about
standing united with the Finns, yet all we sent was a smallish "volunteer"
force (not to denigrate the contribution of these volunteers to the war, of
course!). On the Swedish side, I fear that it'll take a long while before we
willingly allow anyone who might need serious support into any kind of
official mutual defence union with us as the senior partner :-/
> >Netherlands, and Switzerland, Turkey, those parts of
<chuckle> Except of course that it made up a major part of your beloved and
resurrected Rhomaioi Empire ;-)
> >Afghanistan (or at least some of its successor states providing
> much less the Germans, French/Italians/Spanish, the Chinese/Russians,
They don't have to push them all around *simultaneously*. One at a time
would be quite enough in a limited area of operations like the Core :-/
> Now, those little guys together may have wheeled and dealed and played
They didn't dictate *all* of the terms in 2143 - if they had, the UN
would've had a full mandate in the Outworlds as well - but they
certainly appear to have dictated *some* of them...
Regards,
> --- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:
Both, actually.
> A weak force like the UNSC you describe -
Right.
> However, we're not talking about lesser regional
Because it was a frontline conflict like Korea, Taiwan, and Indochina were. It
was just a state of siege (decisively won when the Soviet economy went
'boink') rather than a more active war. The two powers chose to compete and
chose to compete at that level. The UN held down conflicts that the
superpowers did not want to get out of hand.
> My point is this: if, which you suggest, this same
So, are nuclear weapons, orbital bombardment, and the asteroid strikes so
beloved of this list when
discussing the all-powerfulness of spacecraft
suddendly less destructive? The UN would be, in my view, an excuse the
politicos use to prevent any problems at home. "We have to stop the Godless
Commies, but we have to do it in deep space because the UN won't let us fight
it out in the Solar System". Gives the government an out when they have to
relieve future MacArthurs for running his yap about nuking the enemy's core
systems...
> >Actually, Japan is specifically mentioned as being
Page 51 of DSII. The line is "Japan, (technically "independant", but jealously
protected by the NAC)
> of the 'canon'
Nah, it just means they are a client state with their own armed forces.
> >And while Iran and Afghanistan aren't mentioned,
I stand corrected. However the 2123 entry in SGII refers to the IFed and EU
clashing with "crossborder raids and artillery duels". Either A)India is in
ESU and Pakistan is in IFed, or B)The border between IF and ESU is further
West. Regardless of which case you choose (personal preference is A) you still
can't have independant Turkey, Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan because then
there are no ESU borders for the IFed to raid across and vice versa.
> Afghanistan has been surrounded by mutually hostile
The jury is still out on the latest conquest.
Granted we did it with feoderati rather than our own troops, but that's the
cheapest possible way anyway.
> On the Finnish side, I suspect that they still
Neither of which comes close the kind of regional rivalries and outright
hatreds that have to be overcome to form the rest of the superstates (I think
the NAC is the only case where none of the major precursor states hate each
other). Go with the genre, man.
> Balkans is a clusterfuck that will never amount to
Rarely an economically significant portion (excepting Hellas, Macedonia, and
Thrace)... and note that was mostly before those Slavs invaded, and always
with Roman guidance. On it's own, feh.
> On the Finnish side, I suspect that they still
If the English can help the French in 1914 and 1939 with a Monarch who
is half-German and after over 1000 years of bloody war against the
French then I think the Swedes and Finns can settle their differences over
WWII.
Furthermore if the Swedish military are lax in discipline now, maybe they need
the Norwegians and Finns to give their troops some backbone and to shake
things up. Perhaps the Swedes drove the technology and economy and the other
Scandinavian nations provide the backbone for the colonisation effort and
military might. Maybe everyone gains.
Also the emergence of supra-national empires in the vicinity of the Scan
countries would require an economic federation to prevent the economies being
outdone. It would then be a fairly small step for a charismatic leader to turn
an economic union into a political one. Probably not without squabbles or pain
but then they have a little while to get it right yet!
The differences between the Scandinavian nations is surely no greater than the
differences between the member states of the FSE. And they all had some common
ground in wanting to be out of the NSL so presumably that meant needing
economic and military critical mass of some kind.
> Ian Cotgias wrote:
> If the English can help the French in 1914 and 1939 with a Monarch who
It's not so much a matter of "differences over WWII" as a matter of political
attitude and military capability. Sweden has a nearly two hundred year long
tradition of not getting officially involved in wars raging on
our doorstep, and we have neither the economy nor the population base to
raise a serious military force except by conscripting virtually everyone
able to fight (and that'll wreck our economy completely!). In contrast, by
1914 the UK had a seven hundred year long tradition of reasonably successful
military interventions on the continent, and had a large empire to draw
manpower and other resources from (not to mention a much larger
manpower pool at home than Sweden has even now) - it wasn't really a
question about *whether* Britain would get involved in WW1, only on which side
she'd enter the war. The grand alliances weren't particularly stable
in the two-three decades prior to the war, after all.
So no, I don't think that Britain in 1914 is a very good comparison to Sweden
today, or even in 2102. I consider it far more likely that Finland
was/will be (depending on your temporal POV) one of the founding states
of
the NSL - Germany is a far, far more powerful ally than Sweden, and by
the
time of the EU civil war in 2101-02 it has been Finland's powerful ally
for well over a century.
> Also the emergence of supra-national empires in the vicinity of the
> being outdone.
We've been living next door to a "supra-national empire" for nearly
three hundred years, yet for some strange reason we didn't join the local
"economic federation" (commonly known as "EU") until *after* that
"supra-national empire" collapsed... and it collapsed due primarily to
economic bankruptcy. Unless the (communistic) ESU proves vastly more effective
economically than the (communistic) USSR was, I don't think that the ESU
economic threat is valid.
> It would then be a fairly small step for a charismatic leader to turn
<chuckle>. That's exactly what's happening in the EU as we speak, isn't it? I
must say that the charisma is really overflowing in the current top EU
leadership...
> The differences between the Scandinavian nations is surely no greater
You have that completely backwards. "They" - meaning the NSL, ScanFed
and
the Netherlands - all had some common ground in wanting to get out of
the
*FSE*. The FSE is the "rump EU" - it consists of those countries which
didn't break away from the EU in the 2101-02 war. (AFAIK the FSE member
states haven't been arch-enemies the way Sweden and Denmark has either,
though of course that depends on how far into the Balkans the FSE stretches
:-/ )
Regards,
> completely!). In contrast, by 1914 the UK had a seven hundred year
> from (not to mention a much larger manpower pool at home than Sweden
Having read Lloyd Georges WWI memoires I can assure you that the UK was in no
way ready to fight a major war on the continent. Mismanagment in manpower,
resources and production seriously hampered the war effort.
Just as in WWII the UK was nearly strangled by the German U-boats and
the war was only won because of US production and manpower.
it wasn't really a question about *whether* Britain would
> get involved in WW1, only on which side she'd enter the war. The grand
> alliances weren't particularly stable in the two-three decades prior
The UK didn't really come into the war because of any alliances with the
French or any other nation. Their main motive was they had assured the
existence of Belgium.
> It would then be a fairly small step for a charismatic leader to
> <chuckle>. That's exactly what's happening in the EU as we speak, isn't
And that is why the EU will fail in the same way that many other things about
the EU failed in the past. Beurocratic inertia (i.e. finding it hard to start
any process and equally hard to stop the process once it
has begun) is no substitute for leadership :-). When I was talking about
economic to political union being a small step for a Charismatic leader I can
assure you the EU was furthest from my mind. I was actually thinking of the
USA and even that did not happen overnight or without bloodshed.
On the Scanfed countries I must admit to ignorance about the politics but I
find it very interesting. As an outsider I did not (but should have) realised
you had the same animosities as the constituents of the not so United Kingdom.
I don't know about you but I find most of the rationales pretty shaky for the
alliances. Perhaps the least unlikely is the IF?
To illustrate my point, let's take the NAC. Are Ireland, Wales and Scotland in
the NAC? I cannot see any of those countries wishing to resolidify relations
with England after finally achieving some degree of
quasi-independence. In fact historically these three nations have looked
to the French or Spanish to save them from the English. Maybe they should be
in the FSE!! After 1000 years of attempted and actual conquest (and even
stooping to breeding with the natives!!) the English have still failed to make
the Celtic nations truly loyal to the crown.
How about the USA? Can you see either the USA or Canada wanting to rejoin the
crown, whatever the justification? The 4th of July celebrations come to mind.
Anyway the UK is a second rate world power now however El Presidente Blair
wants to try and talk it up. Economically we still have some clout (largely
thanks to London's importance in the Imperial days still meaning it is an
important center for Trade and Commerce) but militarily
we are suffering from under-investment in technology and manpower. How
could we even hope to save the USA?
Someone said the NAC was the most believeable because the participating
nations did not hate one another. The governments may work closely but
democracies need the support of the population, which is why the EU has
such difficulty funtioning because no-one likes anyone else enough :-).
Hence we have to accept that massive political and social changes are needed
for any of the nations to exist in the way they are described between now and
the late 22nd century. I for one can accept that, after all I find a
balkanised colonisation effort easier to believe than a
pan-Human empire as used in some genres. I find all of Earth ever
uniting even less believable.