Subj: Traveller-digest V1999 #1384
Date: 11/22/99 9:49:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
From: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com (Traveller-digest)
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com
Reply-to: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com
To: traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com
Traveller-digest Tuesday, November 23 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 1384
(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.
All rights reserved.
The following topics are covered in this digest:
Re: Slavery was Re: Ideological Warfare...
Re: Imperial culture
Re: the drift of Vargr
Re: Laws of War (long)
Re: Slavery was Re: Ideological ...
Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery
re: Laws of War
Re: Ortillery VS Gropos Long(was Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery)
Digest Group Publications
Re: Traveller-digest V1999 #1380
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 15:32:56 +1000
From: "The Roc"
Subject: Re: Slavery was Re: Ideological Warfare...
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Kiri Aradia Morgan
To:
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 7:18 AM
Subject: Re: Slavery was Re: Ideological Warfare
> True. But they weren't much more humane to members of their own peoples,
> often. At least not the Assyrians or the Aztecs. Assyria was a terrible
> place to be born female.
And the Aztecs needed captured enemies for sacrifice to their God/s (a
religious thing). Although one of the middle/south American tribes also
kept slaves as cattle... to work them and eat them when times were hard!
>
> The Egyptians were somewhere in the middle
By scale, the Egyptian economy didn't warrant large scale use of slaves, so
they were (by scale) the lesser user of slaves. As where the Roman Empire
needed slaves in the long-run for economic reasons, the large scale supply
of foods and goods both military and civil.
>
> Rome actually was a pretty good place to live throughout most of its
> history; it gets a bad rap due to Sunday School stories, but Christianity
> was one of the few religions it *DIDN'T* tolerate and that was because the
> Christians were actively campaigning against the gov't-- Rome ignored
> religion except when it interfered with government and only ever really
> got seriously into oppressing three religions: Zoroastrianism, Druidism
> and Christianity.
All of these were actually aloowed (if not welcomed) into Roman society, but
when they worked against the Roman ways (gov't, etc.) were they repressed.
Christianity was repressed because of it's belief that there is only one
true god and that was heavily against Roman ways and it's belief in
polythesionism.
>
> Rome is a very good model for a benevolent Empire at any tech level.
> Except for the little problem of having the army pick the Emperors, LOL.
>
> > > Are their any cultures in your TU that practice slavery?
> >
> Heheheheh. I expect that's the usual. I just recall being surprised to
> see slavery in "The Phantom Menace". Usually people don't mention it much
> any more, even though it fits in with the type of culture that universe
> had.
Slavery in ancient Europe was an economical requirement for some hundreds of
years, even with the coming of Christianity (many Popes had slaves [as the
bible sees, or had seen, no wrong in slavery as a practice or way of life.
Indeed, "Blessed is the slave whom his master, returning, finds performing
his charge," said Jesus in one of his parables -- Quoted from Slavery: A
World History by Milton Meltzer]. My old TU also had societies that relies
on slavery (with many models from malevolent to family units - all good for
plot devices) even though I believe it is canon that the Imperium does not
allow slavery (also for the making of many plot devices!).
>
> I have run Traveller in the universe where my novels are set and there are
> several slave-owning cultures, and several non-slave-owning cultures
> (which sets things up perfectly for those nasty atrocity-filled
> ideological wars...)
>
Heheheheheh... Yep! :^)
- -- The Roc
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 21:24:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Kyle Schuant
Subject: Re: Imperial culture
> Just consider the temptations for a ref who is
> interested in Japanese
> culture, and is fond of Shogun and samurai movies.
>
> Now *that* would be an interesting Imperium. And
> oddly enough, you
> could even justify it, by extrapolating from
> Japanese dominance in
> various industries and their interest in space.
>
> Other possibilities: (etc)
I'd recommend here some of the GURPS "Alternate Earth"
series. To my memory, there's only one of them that
has a spacefaring culture, and that's an Islamic
world-dominance one, but nonetheless they give good
ideas, since most are world empires...
=====
KA Schuant
member: Chef's Guild International, Sporting Shooter's Assoc, Amnesty Int, Carlton Soccer Club
Melbourne
Australia
"Duct tape is like the Force: it has a light side, a dark side, and it binds the universe together"
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 23:22:42 -0600
From: "Eris Reddoch"
Subject: Re: the drift of Vargr
On 11/22/99 at 12:03 PM, "Terry Carlino" said:
>>So I'd say the Vargr would probably just be mongrels,
>>really. I'm sure that with language and higher
>>intelligence they would have developed the same incest taboo.
>Not a universal result of intelligence. Remember that in Ancient
>Egypt (Right up to the First Century BCE) the Pharaoh and his sister
>were often mated, to maintain the "purity" of the bloodline.
As I understand it, it was *only* the Pharaoh who was allowed
(?required?) to wed his sister. It was taboo for everyone else. At
least, that's what I remember...it's been awhile.
Eris
- --
- -----------------------------------------------------------
"Eris Reddoch" using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 23:34:47 -0600
From: Black ICE
Subject: Re: Laws of War (long)
Walter Smith wrote:
>
> It seems I spoke too soon.
>
> My interpretation of the various Hague and Geneva conventions was
> incorrect. While it is true that the involvement of even one belligerent
> releases other belligerents from following the agreements, the
> release from the agreements appears to apply to all belligerents
> in the conflict, regardless of which side (or sides) they may be on.
However, while there may be conditions which release belligerents from
observing their formal treaty obligations as signatories to the several
Geneva and Hague Conventions, there is, according to my studies of the
Law of Land Warfare (US Army Field Manual 27-10), another source of
binding Laws of Land Warfare: custom. [The following quotes are from
the online edition of FM 27-10, Chapter 1 (Basic Rules and Principles).]
<>
4. Sources
The law of war is derived from two principal sources:
a. Lawmaking Treaties (or Conventions), such as the Hague and Geneva
Conventions.
b. Custom. Although some of the law of war has not been incorporated in
any treaty or convention to which the United States is a party, this
body of unwritten or customary law is firmly established by the custom
of nations and well defined by recognized
authorities on international law.
Lawmaking treaties may be compared with legislative enactments in the
national law of the United States and the customary law of war with the
unwritten Anglo-American common law.
<>
<>
6. Custom
Evidence of the customary law of war, arising from the general consent
of States, may be found in judicial decisions, the writings of jurists,
diplomatic correspondence, and other documentary material concerning the
practice of States. Even though individual States may not be parties to
or otherwise strictly bound by H. IV and GPW 1929, the former convention
and the general principles of the latter have been held to be
declaratory of the customary law of war, to which all States are
subject.
The Preamble to the HR specifically provides:
Until a more complete code of the laws of war has been issued, the High
Contracting Parties deem it expedient to declare that, in cases not
included in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and the
belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles
of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among
civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the
public conscience.
Similarly, a common article of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (GWS, art.
63; GWS Sea, art. 62; GPW, art. 142; GC, art. 158) provides that the
denunciation of (withdrawal from) any of the Geneva Conventions of 1949,
* * * shall in no way impair the obligations which the Parties to the
conflict shall remain bound to fulfil by virtue of the principles of the
law of nations, as they result from the usages established among
civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity and the dictates of the
public conscience.
<>
<>
c. Force of Customary Law. The unwritten or customary law of war is
binding upon all nations. It will be strictly observed by United States
forces, subject only to such exceptions as shall have been directed by
competent authority by way of legitimate
reprisals for illegal conduct of the enemy (see par. 497). The customary
law of war is part of the law of the United States and, insofar as it is
not inconsistent with any treaty to which this country is a party or
with a controlling executive or legislative act, is binding upon the
United States, citizens of the United States, and other persons serving
this country.
<>
<>
497. Reprisals
a. Definition. Reprisals are acts of retaliation in the form of conduct
which would otherwise be unlawful, resorted to by one belligerent
against enemy personnel or property for acts of warfare committed by the
other belligerent in violation of the law of war, for the purpose of
enforcing future compliance with the recognized rules of civilized
warfare. For example, the employment by a belligerent of a weapon the
use of which is normally precluded by the law of war would constitute a
lawful reprisal for
intentional mistreatment of prisoners of war held by the enemy.
<>
Those who are interested in further reading of official US Army doctrine
and interpretation of the Law of Land Warfare can go to the following
site:
http://155.217.58.58/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/27-10/toc.htm
ObTrav: The material quoted above can be used, either verbatim or in
analogy, to describe an interstellar polity's doctrine concerning the
laws of war.
<>
- --
AuricTech Shipyards Journeyman Gearhead
"Gold-Plated [tm] solutions for copper-plated problems!" (r)
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/9776
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 15:46:26 +1000
From: "The Roc"
Subject: Re: Slavery was Re: Ideological ...
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Johnson
To:
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 7:27 AM
Subject: Re: Slavery was Re: Ideological Warfare
>
> Chattel slavery, 'people as property' is specifically outlawed as an
> Imperial Crime. Curiously, this does not seem to include indentured
> servitude.
To this very day, in Bangladesh, Thailand and West Napal to name a few,
there is still dept bondage where mainly children are sold into slave labour
and prostitution to pay of daddy's dept to someone else.
In the Ghana and the Sudan, rich land owners practice an almost sanctioned
slavery (well, sanctioned by their government) by contracting labourers that
are treated exactly as you may understand "slavery" to be, for a 5-year
term. The thing is, after 8-10 years when the slave... errrr, labourer dies
from overwork and maltreatment, it appears no-one has told the poor bugger
his contract was up several years ago! And he still dies owing the company
store money!
ObTrav: We live in a world that prohibits slavery, yet it survives in one
way or another, sometimes "legally"... as well as it could in the Imerium?
- -- The Roc
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 00:35:34 -0500
From: "Chris Seamans"
Subject: Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery
From: Alan Bradley
>I'm not quite familiar enough to deal with the American revolution, so I
>will just deal with the French case.
One has a devil of a time fitting the American Revolution into the peasant
revolt model, considering the fact that the closest thing we had to
"peasants" in any traditional sense were the slaves.
>Basically, the peasants provided the bulk of the force behind the
>revolution, along with the urban masses, the sans-culottes. This is for
>the good and simple reason that the peasants were the _overwhelming_
>majority of the French population.
Overwhelming is putting it lightly ;)
The only problem being that the bulk of the action was really in the cities,
politically, philosophical, and physically, and that's not where the
peasants were. There were a number of relatively minor peasant riots, and
the peasants seized the land from their aristocratic landlords, but after
that they really didn't really do that much.
It's even more complicated because the Gallup Poll wasn't yet in general
use...
"Our recent poll shows that 71% of the peasants in the field are in favor of
the revolution, 12% think that the Committee for Public Safety isn't
guillotining enough aristocrats, spies and political opponents, 6% wish to
be let alone and allowed to eat cake, 6% are against the revolution because
they miss the snazzy outfits the aristocrats used to wear before times went
sour and 5% are undecided."
Granted, I'll give you that it really helped that the various revolutionary
factions had the support of the peasantry... *but* as far as I understand,
that support really began to dwindle, and by the time things got bad enough
that they called in Napoleon, the peasants had little say in their destiny.
One of the real problems with applying a Marxist class-based model to the
French revolution is that classes, as such, didn't really exist in France.
Class structures are "horizontal". The social structure of France was
"vertical", or privilege based. Of course, a really proper Marxist
revolution requires a degree of industrialization, which was really slow in
coming in France.
It's tough too, because apparently the major scholar on the French
Revolution was himself a Marxist. Damn, I wish I could remember his name.
Anyway, while I have friends who are Marxists, one of the failings that they
tend to have is that they try to hang a Marxist interpretation on anything
that has something resembling a hook. I tend toward being a Skocpol fellow
myself, even though I've got two major problems: One, I don't understand her
as well as I'd like, and two I'm not familiar with the various critiques on
her structuralist view of social revolutions.
>"Elite" revolts that face opposition need mass support, or they will fail.
Only if the "masses" actually have some sort of direct connection to the
elite. Of course, the French Revolution went through a number of phases, and
the peasants were pretty active quite early on. Later on, they sat it out.
>You don't, of course, get wars that are fought for just one reason. But
>still:
Of course not.
>Enter the Taiping Rebellion!
>
>The second bloodiest war in human history was fought in China between 1851
>and 1864. The body count has been estimated at around 30 million or so.
>The Taipings' central leader considered himself the younger brother of
>Jesus.
Youch... It's interesting, though, I hadn't realized that Jesus was Chinese.
;)
ObTrav: You can have *lots* of fun with revolutions, especially when the PCs
are involved, even accidentally. All that the characters wanted to do was
deliver a package, now their ship has been impounded by the "people" and
their Imperial credits are looking really good to the population of the
planet, since the economy has gone hyper-inflationary.
Do the characters join on the side of the well-dressed aristocracy... or do
they raise their fists and say, "Down with The Man! Power to the people!"?
If you're using the French Revolution as a model you can toss in artistes,
such as David, and any number of philosopher types to really increase the
fun you can have. You could have the "Grav-Ball Court Oath"! Of course, you
can have fun with the later "minor" revolutions as well.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 21:43:21 -0800 (PST)
From: Kyle Schuant
Subject: re: Laws of War
What the conventions and protocols actually say:
"The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and
to ensure respect for the present Convention in all
circumstances."
"...Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be
a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are
parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their
mutual relations...." (ie, you've got to follow the
rules even if the enemy doesn't, if you have already
agreed to the rules, eg, Allies didn't get to murder
Japs in camps just because the Japs hadn't signed the
Conventions)
Also, you can't order reprisals against: medical
personnel, prisoners of war, the wounded and sick,
chaplains, or the civilian population. That's
everybody except the boys fighting, and probably they
don't care whether your shooting them is an attack or
"reprisal"; the bullet stings your bum just the same!
Those who can wade through the legalese I recommend to
the following site for links to the full texts of the
conventions (war crimes down the bottom of the
screen):
http://www.hri.ca/uninfo/treaties/
You'll note, by these standards, every party to every
conflict we can think have war criminals...
- --- Walter Smith wrote:
> It seems I spoke too soon.
>
> My interpretation of the various Hague and Geneva
> conventions was
> incorrect. While it is true that the involvement of
> even one belligerent
> releases other belligerents from following the
> agreements, the
> release from the agreements appears to apply to all
> belligerents
> in the conflict, regardless of which side (or sides)
> they may be on.
>
> ObTrav: Wanna see what happens when a junior
> diplomat on the
> spot has a different understanding of the intent of
> a treaty than the
> senior who gave him his orders six months ago?
> Paging Mr. Retief...
>
> (Granted, Retief's interpretation of a treaty was
> generally 1000%
> better than his boss's...)
>
> Walt Smith
>
=====
KA Schuant
member: Chef's Guild International, Sporting Shooter's Assoc, Amnesty Int, Carlton Soccer Club
Melbourne
Australia
"Duct tape is like the Force: it has a light side, a dark side, and it binds the universe together"
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 23:41:32 -0600
From: "Eris Reddoch"
Subject: Re: Ortillery VS Gropos Long(was Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery)
On 11/22/99 at 02:12 PM, "DaveShayne" said:
>>Well, the large number of nationalist movements, self-determination
>>movements, and so on that exist and have existed in the real world seem to
>>be placed in opposition to your reasoning.
>True there are Welsh seperatists. And a lot more Welsh who are more
>or less happy being british. Then there are the Quebec seperatists.
>And twice in a row they've voted down independence.
>There are other examples, my point being that in any reasonably large
>population you will be able to find a number of quislings and a lot
>of people who won't care who is in charge as long as they have bread
>on the table and a reasonable expectation of having more of the same
>in the future.
And what about Puerto Rico, the majority of US citizens would be
*more* than happy to give them their independence, and we wouldn't
object to them joining the union as a state is they wanted. It
comes up for a vote down there from time to time, but everytime it
does they vote to remain a territory. Then *we* get blamed for
their decision...sheeze!
I'd take this to the Imperium, but I don't imagine the Emperor
lets systems vote to *leave* the empire.
Eris
- --
- -----------------------------------------------------------
"Eris Reddoch" using MR/2 ICE #245
- -----------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 00:46:07 EST
From: JDoch226@aol.com
Subject: Digest Group Publications
Can anyone comment on the quality of the out-of-print Digest Group items,
especially the Vargr and Aslan books? Do they have unique content that's
worth seeking out?
Thanks,
Jed Docherty
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 00:52:47 -0500
From: "DaveShayne"
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1999 #1380
>From: "Chris Seamans"
>>I was responding to the specific scenario of a worlds leaders deliberately
>>sabotaging their own infrastructure not making a general point. If say
>>some political leader were to order you to destroy your source of income
>>in order to annoy some larger political body would you? Would your
>neighbor?
>
>
>It's happened, and it will most likely happen again (and again). It seems
>like you're assuming a modern American apathetic dynamic. There are
>astonishing examples in World War II, for example.
Perhaps you could provide some so I know what your argument is?
Barring that, yes there was resistance to german occupation durring
the war. The industrial output of occupied territories was definitely
effected by sabotage, slow work, etc. But production continued.
And how long would people have kept up the resistance if the
UK/US/USSR hadn't been actively fighting the germans? A world
rebelling on the border may be able to count on outside support
or liberation but not neccessarily. And get a few jumps into the interior
and you can forget about outside assistance.
>>If they're fanatics who'd rather die than accept Impie rule they would.
>>But such people are rare in the extreme.
>I don't think that they're as rare as you think. Vietnam (particularly apt,
>actually), Afghanistan... I can be here all day composing a list, and that
>would only focus on those after 1900 or so.
Individual fanatics are not very rare. Whole societies of fanatics are
much less common. The fanatic society was what I meant. Sorry.
>I never said that *every* world would want to leave the Imperium, nor that
>every world that wants to leave will be commited. However, I think that it
>would be an eventuality that would happen, and would happen a number of
>times within the Imperium. After all, there are many, many worlds within
the
>Imperium.
>
>Remember, the Imperium looks the other way with regard to the plight of
>worlds ruled by brutal regimes every day. It's going to be obvious to
>somebody that the Imperium *could* do something and chooses not to as long
>as the taxes are coming in. Give such a scenario, I don't know, one or two
>or six centuries and you're going to have people who have more than just a
>little dislike for the Imperium.
Perhaps. But the imperium would also be more than willing to deal with
the victors of a proletarian revolution (Hah now you see my true sympathies)
as long as those same taxes keep roling in. It comes to a push(gambling
term,
means tie) IMHO. Oppressive regimes are tolerated but so are relatively
quick revolutions. In some instances I would expect some covert Impy help
to revolutionaries.
>
>Toss in the submerged cultural regions, which were at one time multi-world
>polities with long histories and (presumably) proud traditions, and which
>were brought into the Imperium by force.
CF Scotland. Last I heard loyal subjects of the Queen. Yes there are lots of
reasons for worlds to rebel. There are also lots of reasons for the same
worlds
to remain loyal. Cultural inertia will result in most worlds in the imperium
remaining loyal. When worlds do rebel the marines deploy. As the Imps can
always count on overwhelming odds against any single world we can assume
the world will capitulate fairly soon. Then sift through the locals looking
for a
loyal government. Orbital bombardment only gets in the way.
>
>>There are other examples, my point being that in any reasonably large
>>population you will be able to find a number of quislings and a lot of
>>people who won't care who is in charge as long as they have bread
>>on the table and a reasonable expectation of having more of the same in
>>the future.
>
>
>If what you're saying is true, the Japanese could never have isolated
>themselves to the extent that they did. Incidentally, that isolation ended
>when the American Navy threatened to come back in a year and start
>bombarding the country.
I'm not as hip on Japanese history as I should be so if I make any
factual errors please correct me.
Prior to this the only people who tried to break through to Japan were
the Chinese (who's fleet was destroyed in a storm(Kamikaze)) and the
Dutch (who traded there for a while but were kicked out.) To the best
of my knowledge nobody else even tried untill the Americans.
This was also coincident with the Meiji restoration - a revolution of sorts
in which power shifted to the emperor that had previously been held by
warlords. The newly powerfull emperor, realizing that Japan's previous
isolation had led to stagnation, ordered a massive westernization
campaign. (Damned impressive too, they went from a feudal agrarian
backwater to an industrial power in less than 100 years)
So they were ready to do this any way and the US didn't cram
missionaries down their throats(which is what the dutch did that resulted
in their dismisal)
>
>Actually, after the West made their way to Asia and started trying to pawn
>off their shiny baubles the Asians frequently pulled inward and tried to
>isolate themselves. Some were successful, some were not.
>>Some people become adherents of the said dictator/ideology many don't.
>>The trick is to kill the adherents whilst leaving as untouched as posible
>>those who aren't.
>
>
>If you'll pardon my saying so, that's an awfully shallow view. Charismatic
>dictators are not mesmers. They do not suddenly shift populations with
their
>stunning rhetoric. They are charismatic because they are a product of the
>culture that they are making their appeals to. Don't get me wrong, I'm not
>saying that their actual *presence* doesn't matter. I'm just saying that it
>goes far deeper than that. Ideologies, on the other hand, are not simply
>born overnight.
>
>They accrete and develop over the course of long decades, even centuries.
>Let's keep going with the Nazi example. It's a good one. You kill the
>adherents. How do you find the adherents? There were hundreds of thousands
>of German citizens who had no qualms about going out and killing Jews.
There
>were members of police and para-military groups who sent back pictures of
>dead Jewish Poles - women and children and old folks - in the streets to
>their wives and children back home.
Well you start With the SA, and SS and comb through records of party
mebership
etc. You will undoubtedly find/execute people in those groups who aren't
commited nazi's but we don't need to be perfect in this instance. You can
assume
most of the rest are merely pasive supporters who are willing to adopt
another
governing Ideology. Again some nasty war criminal types will slip through
the
cracks but again we aren't worried about perfect. What you wind up with is
a population which is statistically likely to not be significantly nazi. At
least
they won't act like them as long as the occupation holds. This is by the way
more or less how we dealt with the silly master race twits historically.
>
>There have been anthropological and sociological studies done which seem to
>strongly point the finger not at any one leader, nor any one group of
people
>(indeed, those who participated in the really nasty and atrocious acts were
>a decent cross section of the German populace), nor any general moral
>breakdown on the part of the German people it was the result of a long
>process and includes philosophy, religious development, folklore, political
>movements, outside influences, and many, many other factors.
Yes and that same cross section of germans later accepted that Nazism
was wrong(at least when the allied troops were arround) Studies exist
that prove that almost anybody will perform the most heinous acts if
they perceive that those acts were ordered by an authority figure. (I
can't cite them off hand but they are in any first year Psych/Soc text)
Set yourself up as the authority and most Humans will obey you.
>Not at all. After all, rocks are cheap, battle-dress, grav tanks and
trained
>operators are not.
Ah but the marines will get the job done. The rock probably will not.
Terrorism rarely works. And when it does it takes a long time.
Long as in decades.
>So what you're saying is that nailing, say, a city of 10,000, at no danger
>to the Imperium, is going to be different from entering into a ground war
>that could have many, many more casualties and could cost the Imperium a
>hell of a lot more?
Yes because just nailing cities doesn't necesarily impose control.
Marines impose control. And again the ground forces will be a good deal
less random in their application of force. I cannot stress that last
sentance
enough. It's the key to the whole problem. If you want willing Imperial
subjects you need to at least appear to avoid indiscriminate killing.
>
>>Maybe not Hitler but how about the Krupps? Or the general staff?
>>Or even confronting Hitler in 36 or 37 when the wermacht was still
>>A small and mostly obsolete force instead of the much larger army
>>of 39.
>
>
>Fair enough, but do you honestly think that bribing Hitler, or Lenin, or
>Castro would have succeeded? Do you think that Hitler would have been
>interested in money?
Not Hitler(as I said in my post) but the other senior Nazi's were so damn
corrupt you could have bought them for a packet of American Airlines
honey roasted peanuts.
>>On the subject of Castro. I was going to go there but I won't.
>
>
>It's a good idea not to, considering the fact that he's still in power. ;)
I'm more woried about the exiles in miami... those people hold grudges.
>Fair enough, although I'm not sure that anybody *really* follows "civilized
>rules of war" these days. Folks tend to avoid the nukes, chem and bio
>weapons simply because they know that the situation will most likely
>escalate to the point that they'd be wiped off the face of the earth.
As well as the fact that none of these weapons is very useful in a
military sense. Nukes destroy whatever they hit - If you want something
you can't nuke it. Chem and bio weapons have a nasty habit of biting you
on the ass if your not very carefull. They are used occasionaly against
civilian populations these days. They don't appear to have decided the
course of any wars. They certainly haven't stopped any (I'm primarily
thinking of the Iran/Iraq/Kuwait/Kurd mess here.)
>>and eventually you can't keep the
>>fiction
>>of a benevellent Imperium going and lots of worlds and probably quite a
few
>>fleets rebel and the next thing you know....
>
>
>I didn't know that there was a fiction of a benevolent Imperium.
Any government that wishes to last as long as the Imperium has lasted
has to cultivate at least the appearance of benevolency. If everybody thinks
the imperium is the problem the imperium falls. QED.
>Um... Okay, sure. In one case the war wasn't over until the infantry
>occupied the country, in the other the war was over before the infantry
>occupied the country. You'll have to excuse me when I say it sounds like
>you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.
Perhaps I am. My point was that occupation was necesary even with
the nasty nuke terror weapon victory. In both instances it was conventional
force which beat the enemy and occupation(Which continues to this day in
both instances) that sealed the victory. The use of terror weapons in both
instances didn't change the eventual outcome.
>Actually, no. It's not closer in spirit to what I'm talking about. I'm not
>talking about strategic bombing in any way, shape or form. I'm talking
about
>the use of terror weapons. Two entirely different things.
Actually strategic bombing = terror weapons in most respects.
It is possible for a heavy bomber to be given a tactical mission which
tends to confuse things a little. Everything else that SAC does is target
civilian populations.
>What do you think happens when you let loose the battle-dress marines and
>the grav tanks? Do you think the infrastructure of the country remains
>intact? Do you think that the Imperium will avoid nailing strategic
targets?
If they're smart they will. Tactical targets win wars. Strategic targets
absorb explosives.
>...the difference with rock dropping is that you don't *really* damage the
>infrastructure all that much. After all, you nail a city and the civilian,
>industrial and military infrastructure of that city is *gone*. Poof. Not
>there to rebuild in the first place.
If there was anything in that city you wanted you will have to rebuild it.
If thers wasn't anything in the city you wanted I doubt your fanatical
fight to the last sophont revolutionaries will be impressed with it's
destruction.
>Compare that to the effects of a ground war, in which you're going to have
>to destroy the enemy's industrial capacity if you want them to stop
>fighting.
Why? You need to destroy the enemies will to resist. Wether his industry
is still standing or not is not relevent. CF Poland 39, France et al 40.
Germany was still producing armaments to the end of the war.
>People forgive and forget pretty quickly. Even ground wars can end with the
>same kind of feelings that you're talking about. Take Germany's position at
>the end of World War I, for example.
The peace was severely bungled after the great war. Germany was not occupied
and onerous conditions were imposed on the germans by the alies. Which
probably wouldn't have led to the next war if the depression hadn't
destroyed
the worlds economy and the french hadn't insisted that the germans continue
to
repay reparations. IMTU the 3I has learned this lesson well, "Don't kick
somebody
when they're down."
Make with this what you will
David Shayne
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Old version - Build a better mousetrap and
the world will beat a path to your door.
New version - Build a better mousetrap and
some @$*% will build a better mouse.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
------------------------------
End of Traveller-digest V1999 #1384
***********************************
To unsubscribe to Traveller-Digest, send the command:
unsubscribe traveller-digest
in the body of a message to "traveller-request@lists.imagiconline.com".
If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is
coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that
address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe
"local-traveller":
subscribe traveller-digest local-traveller@your.domain.net
A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "traveller-digest"
in the commands above with "traveller".
Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com
----------------------- Headers --------------------------------
Return-Path:
Received: from rly-yg03.mx.aol.com (rly-yg03.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.3]) by air-yg02.mail.aol.com (vx) with ESMTP; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 00:49:50 1900
Received: from lists.imagiconline.com (lists.imagiconline.com [204.85.32.11]) by rly-yg03.mx.aol.com (v65.4) with ESMTP; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 00:49:38 1900
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)
by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) with SMTP id AAA07711;
Tue, 23 Nov 1999 00:48:45 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com)
Received: by lists.imagiconline.com (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 23 Nov 1999 00:48:36 -0500
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) id AAA07671
for traveller-digest-outgoing; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 00:48:36 -0500 (EST)
(envelope-from owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com)
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 00:48:36 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199911230548.AAA07671@lists.imagiconline.com>
From: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com (Traveller-digest)
To: traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com
Subject: Traveller-digest V1999 #1384
Reply-To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com