I always thought of the UN, and its attendant organizations, the UN Space
Command (UNSC) and UN Ground Forces (UNGF), as a rather large, powerful
organization, probably on par with any one of the Major Powers, if not more
powerful. There would be a balance there, in that if the UN tried to expand
militarily, the combined might of the Major Powers would defeat them, and if a
Major Power decided to attack the UN, they could be defeated
1-on-1, and the offending Major Power would probably be invested by the
other Major Powers, acting out of self-interest. The area (volume?)
that the UN controls is probably the economically richest in Human space.
Nobody wants to see fighting on Terra or the Core Systems anymore - too
much to lose. As the UNGF are more technologically advanced than the Major
Powers, I would assume the UNSC is as well. Possibly Heavy Beam Weapons & EMP
Weapons a la EFSB, lots of advanced-combined fighters
(heavy-fast-interceptor Ace group, anyone?). ER-SMLs, Class 4 & 5 beam
batteries. Real nasty stuff, and tough troops. Grav vehicles almost
exclusively, with lots of plasma/fusion weapons and Superior GMSs and
HELs. The UN does not have a mandate to police outside the Core Systems. They
may venture out on show-the-flag missions, or intervene in a
peacekeeping fashion after most problems have died down. Most of what the UN
does is
show-the-flag; they're pretty intimidating (or reassuring, depending on
your POV). The UN seems to be on it's way to becoming a power of it's own. It
would have tax powers in the Core Systems (how do you think they paid for
these fleets & PA troops? Donations?), and most, if not all, of the
Major Power capitols are now outside the Core. This would have taken a lot
of the old-style political influence with them. The old nations on
Terra would be important, but much less so than before the moves. As the Outer
systems grow in power, the influence of Terra will wane. More and more power
is being transferred to the Outer Systems.
The Megacorps will have a love-hate relationship with the UN -
their big economic bases are safe & secure, and they can sell materiel to the
warring parties at a safe distance. But the UN is also rather harsh when it
comes
to other matters - anything that it feels threatens it's security &
dominance of the Core, such as advanced technology. I would also expect
the UN to be rather fierce ecologists - they've only got a few worlds,
and while the richest, they;ve been used pretty hard. What goes on outside the
Core is not the UN's concern, mostly. This bargian would be accpeted by
the Megacorps - keep your room clean, but you can play in the dirt
outside. The UN has been known to sortie out into nearby systems, in order to
keep (or make) the peace. The UN forces would have their own infrastructure,
command system, etc. A totally separate military from the forces of the other
Powers. Thus guaranteeing a neutral attitude towards any enemy. Most UN
workers/employees would be career employees, and many would be of
multiple generations of UN workers. They would be beginning to think of
themselves as UN citizens, as opposed to belonging any other Power. This would
not be inaccurate. The UN would be the only government for many settlements in
the Core - giving the Un a large voting bloc in itself. The Core is
probably very crowded; space habitats, asteroid communities, Jovians &
their moons - people everywhere. The UN would spend a lot of money on
internal colonization and population deveopment - creating a bigger tax
base and voting bloc for themselves. On the older colonies and in Terra, the
attitude towards the UN would be mixed. Some would see them as oppressors, and
want greater ties to the
Outer Systems star nations - like the good old days, while others would
decry nationalism, and urge for a joining of the Core nations together under
the UN banner. Popular opinion is somewhere in between. The UN ROE would have
varying levels of response. Outside their direct mandate, they would be rather
circumspect, not wanting to spark a bigger
fight. Inside their mandate, their response is usually swift and violent.
Piracy in the UN mandate is very short-lived. Disputes between member
nations inside the mandate are usually handled by asking nicely at first, with
a cruiser of two backing up the request. Most people get the point, and
everything else is handled by the lawyers. Those who do not get the
point are crippled quickly, but the UN tries not to just blast them into
atoms - it's bad PR towards the belligerent member nations. it also
depends a lot on the commander on the scene. Some are scrupulously just
('I don't care how much you yell, sir, you fired first, and we are well within
our mandate. And you're losing atmosphere, yelling won't help that, either'),
some are painfully fair ('I don't care who started it. I'm burning off both
your drive sections, and that's that'). To keep scenarios interesting, I'm
sure that there would be many
low-level
incursions into UN territory, rather often, UN convoys & cargoes are
particularly lucrative, and while the UN could shut these down for good, it
allows them to happen to keep its crews and troops blooded. This would be a
secret, and used by the UN media to show how dangerous and lawless the
Outer Systems are; Wouldn't you rather have a nice condo on scenic Titan?
Imagine the view, and in perfect security! Not like the brutal frontier,
where they have those nasty wars - and aliens, too! How can they ever
stand it? (BTW: the Core is also beginning to get a little insulated, and
insular...) As far as atrocities go, they're rare inside the mandate, but if
they are far enough away, the UN just uses them as another example of
the sorry state of affairs outside their nice, protected area.
Noah
[quoted original message omitted]
On Thu, 23 Jul 1998 00:01:23 -0500 Noah Doyle <nvdoyle@midlink.com>
writes:
> I always thought of the UN, and its attendant organizations,
To all you subscribers outside of the USofA--does this make any sense?
Are you even *aware* of the conspiracy theories involving the UN and
black helicopters? Just curious. :-)
[quoted original message omitted]
Hey, I like it - for nice, peacekeeping missions, I'll use my
White Fleet,
and for not-so-nice peace*making* missions, I'll bring out the Black
Fleet. This should make a real impression at the table. Gloss or matte black?
I
prefer matte, but you never know. Are the Black Helicopters matte or gloss?
An aside to the 'Black Helicopter' bit - (this is apocryphal and
most likely an Urban Legend) apparently in jest at a news conference a
military officer (I've heard Army & Air Force) stated that "there are no Black
Helicopters. They're dark green."
This next one I can confirm - when people talk about 'secret UN
military forces' being 'stockpiled in the US for the coming takeover', what
they think is a UN paint job on equipment is actually the white
shrink-wrapping
used to protect equipment in transport. Amazing.
Noah
[quoted original message omitted]
> Beth Fulton wrote:
...Snip...JTL
"Australian
> Freedom Scouts" and "One Nation" political party proved beyond doubt
Beth and All of Oz, Congrats on the win in the 'Tour De'France'.
Now back to mainstream of the evenings discussion:
The main difference between your radicals and ours is simple. Your radical
lefties are better armed than the public, and ours are not.
Just a thought, :-)
Bye for now,
> To all you subscribers outside of the USofA--does this make any sense?
G'day Carl, Yep we've heard. In fact a lot of Australians found the American
penchant for conspiracy theories seriously amusing. That is, until the
"Australian Freedom Scouts" and "One Nation" political party proved beyond
doubt that
we have our own gun-happy paranoid xenophobes to be concerned with (it
ain't so funny anymore).
Have fun,
Beth
> At 18:58 26/07/98 -0700, you wrote:
Reminds me of a comment by a 7 year old immigrant from El Salvador when asked
what the main difference was between El Salvador and America. "In El Salvador
they shoot you with big guns but here they shoot you with smaller guns".
Back to the UN though. I've often thought its a pity the UN doesn't have
covert ops sections, perhaps then it might be a bit more able to acheive its
goals.
I have to disagree with Noahs view of the UN as an actual power in its own
right. I very much doubt it would have any actual planets that it controlled
apart from perhaps being the onyl significant power willing to patrol certain
regions. It seems more likely that it would be organised like a Megacorp with
an income provided by the various powers but only to patrol in the core
systems. As such it may not have that many ships compared to the major powers
but what it does have is pure quality. It might not be able to stop a major
power all by itself but it could certainly hurt it badly enough that the
aggressor might be made vulnerable to other powers. The UN's role wouldn't be
to expand its power base but to simply keep the status quo.
There was an article in the Sfsfw magazine Ragnarok about the UN spaceforces a
couple of isues ago. I'll see if I can find it and see what it had to say.
> On 27 Jul 98, at 12:11, Niall Gilsenan wrote:
ERm, are you sure they don't? if they did they would be.. ermm.. covert.
TTFN
Jon
> At 13:04 27/07/98 +0100, you wrote:
covert.
> TTFN
Well if they did have a covert ops division things would probably work out
better for them. Since invariably it does not work out it stands to reason
that they don't have one (hows that for a display of spurious logic). Flying
about in black helicopters would be a fairly silly thing to do if you wanted
to remain a "covert" operation in any case. Just paint the damn things with a
local paint job (us, isreali, whatever) and you're much better hidden.
This millenarian/conspiracy theory thing has really gotten silly.
Imagine the disappointment when the world doesn't end in a couple of years
time...
I wonder what the role of the red cross/red crescent would be in the FT
universe? Would they even still be around, would they have a fleet? A few
small escorts and crusiers with lots of transports? Might present some
interesting scenarios for operating in warzones with small scale warships.
Perhaps breaking a blockade in the interests of humanitarianism? Or would that
be a UN role again?
Sort of sounds like The Fleet from U.N.C.L.E.
David Best Section II Operations and Enforcement
Niall spake thusly upon matters weighty:
> Well if they did have a covert ops division things would probably work
Hmm. Or how about the fact the UN has achieved what it needs - Core
system stability. Perhaps they do covert ops after all. We haven't wiped
ourselves out yet.... we can at least leave that to the Bugs.
> I wonder what the role of the red cross/red crescent would be in the
I'm thinking that is UN territory. Unless the Red Cross has opened a Sp*ce
M*rine chapterhouse...
Tom.
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay Software Specialist Police Communications Systems Software
Kinetics Ltd. 66 Iber Road, Stittsville Ontario, Canada, K2S 1E7
Reception: (613) 831-0888
PBX: (613) 831-2018
My Extension: 4009
Fax: (613) 831-8255
Software Kinetics' Web Page:
http://www.sofkin.ca
SKL Daemons Softball Web Page:
http://fox.nstn.ca/~kaladorn/softhp.htm
**************************************************/
> At 18:58 26/07/98 -0700, you wrote:
John, from this side of the puddle (Oz) it don't look that way. Ours are
better armed than most of us (one claimed to have been stashing away artillery
for the big day) but I think most of yours are better equiped than most of
your people. Besides here they are ultra radical right.
> Niall Gilsenan wrote:
...Snip...JTL
> Back to the UN though. I've often thought its a pity the UN doesn't
...snip...JTL
> Niall Gilsenan,
"Remember Captain, These people are obstructing world peace, Take no
prisoners!" Said Major Mangel. "And bring all the gold you find to me. They
are behind in thier U.N. dues."
Bye for now,
Tony and All who care, This is a personal position statement to clarify right
and left: Left: Communists, Nazis, Socialist and Liberals Right:Anarchists
Middle: Everybody else. (Most vary slightly left or right and do no great
harm.)
Since I don't feel that any one really cares one way or the other, I will not
continue with this line.
Bye for now, and changing to other subjects. Yours Respectfully John L.
> Tony Wilkinson wrote:
[quoted original message omitted]
> On Mon, 27 Jul 1998, Jonathan White wrote:
> ERm, are you sure they don't? if they did they would be.. ermm..
covert.
> TTFN
... The Secretary-General will disavow all knowledge of your actions...
> Glover, Owen wrote:
In the spring 1980 issue of DESTINIES, Jerry Pournelle published an articled
called THE PROPER STUDY OF MANKIND. It had an appendix that had a facinating
classification system for political organizations. It had two variables.
(Pournelle makes clear that he didn't think then nor does he think now that
these two are all there is to political theory. But they have the property of
mapping every major political philosophy into one unique place)
R ^ A: Max Stirner, Ayn Rand
a +2 | B: Various Libertarians
t A | E C: Welfare Liberals
i +1 | D D: Socialists
o B | C E: Communists
n 0<----------+---------> F: Classical Anarchists
a | H G: American "counter culture"
l -1 G | I H: Various Conservatives
i | J I: Fascists
s -2 F | J: Nazis
m v
-2 -1 0 +1 +2
Statism
VARIABLE ONE: "Statism" This is the attitude towards the State. Is the
government an object of idolatry, a postitive good, a necessary evil, or
unmitigated evil?
Put this on the X axis, with umitigated evil at -2,
and object of idolatry at +2.
(Anarchists would be at -2. Reactionary monarchists would
be at +2. American political parties would cluster around
0. Both Communists and Fascists are from +1 to +2.
Both American Conservatism and US Welfare Liberalism
are from 0 to +1. Don't be fooled into thinking that
Conservatives are anti-statits, they may want to dismantle
the Dept of Health, Education, and Welfare, but they would strengthen the
police and army.
Ideological libertarians are from -2 to 0)
VARIABLE TWO: "Rationalism" This is the attitude towards planned social
progress. It maps the belief that society has "problems" and these can be
"solved". Put this on the Y axis, with "all social problems
have findable solutions" at +2, and with
"problems, what problems?" at -2.
(Fascism is at about -1, since they appeal to
"the greatness of the nation" or volk, and to
the fuhrer-prinzip. Communism belongs up around
+2, since they have all the answers to social ills.
Welfare liberals are from +1 to +2 ("all crime
is caused by poverty thus when we end poverty we'll end crime...")
Note that this arrangement does explain some political anomolies. Pournelle
gives an example of
> Nyrath the nearly wise wrote:
...Snip...JTL
> R ^ A: Max Stirner, Ayn Rand
...snip...JTL
Thank you for the information, I did perhaps oversimplify a bit. But the
thought was in the right place! Bye for now, (Dinner is ready)