TML nightly	Mon Jun 13 20:30:04 EDT 1994	Volume 76 : Issue 14

Today's topics:

BUN# =AMN= =DATE====== =FROM==========  =SUBJECT/BODY==========================
 639  7990 14-Jun-1994 pihlab@cbr.hhcs  TNE: Anti-matter missile << Firstly, I 
 638  7989 13-Jun-1994 David Johnson    All: Re: Technological decline << Gentl

This is a passively moderated mailing list. All messages sent to the
submission address will be distributed. The nightly digest is currently
distributed every day at 8:30pm.

Submissions: traveller@engrg.uwo.ca -or- uunet!engrg.uwo.ca!traveller
Administrator: traveller-request@engrg.uwo.ca (James Perkins)

The TML is made possible by facilities provided by the University of
Western Ontario. All opinions and materials below are the responsibility
of the originator.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Bundle: 639
Archive-Message-Number: 7990
Date: Tue, 14 Jun 1994 08:36:54 +1000
From: pihlab@cbr.hhcs.gov.au
Subject: TNE: Anti-matter missile


Firstly, I don't see why a missile impact is impossible ... s**t happens.

Secondly, why do you need to 'detonate' an antimatter missile at range?

If I were to design an anti-matter missile I would set it up to approach
hostile ships with the intention of impacting to do the most possible
damage.  I would also design it so that if the missile is hit by a
sufficiently powerful anti-missile then it's war head goes off.

This combination gives you the best of both scenarios:

   - If they don't shoot down the missile then it WILL impact and do a
     LOT of damage.

   - When they do shoot down the missile they MUST do it sufficiently
     far from their ship so that the detonating missile doesn't do too
     much damage to them.

Non-anti-matter missiles are not so useful because you can't guarantee
they will detonate after being shot down but an anti-matter containment
field WILL fail and the reaction MUST happen because you encased the
sucker in normal matter AND whatever they are using to shoot it down is
probably composed of normal matter too.

Anti-matter missiles are expensive SO intersperse them among your 
normal Non-anti-matter missiles.  What a nice surprise for the intended
victim 8^}.

Bruce...        pihlab@cbr.hhcs.gov.au

It's a trap, there's two of them!


------------------------------

Bundle: 638
Archive-Message-Number: 7989
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 94 17:51:31 CDT
From: djohnson@geds01.jsc.nasa.gov (David Johnson)
Subject: All: Re: Technological decline

Gentlesophonts:

> My good friend Hans Rancke <rancke@diku.dk> writes:
> 
> I haven't felt acrimonious in this debate

Great.  I was just a bit worried.  It's difficult to tell sometimes.

First off, I thought we had given up on the technology issue?  :-)

> If you're really prepared to argue that all the population levels and
> population multipliers in the Spinward Marches could possibly remain intact
> for 15 years

Actually, I find this incredulous myself.  I merely stated that since there
were changes to the UWP data over this fifteen year period *and* the
population and other figures were not changed that it must be *assumed*
to have been done intentionally.  (My own opinion is that GDW was merely
careless once again.)

> No world increased it's population by as much as 10%? No
> world lost as much as 10% in a raid? They all remained at _exactly_ the
> same population? Every single one of them?

Unlikely, I admit.  I did a little arithmetic though and found some
interesting numbers.  A population increase of 10% over a period of 15
years works out to an annual rate of increase of 0.64%.  Here are some
`real' annual rates from a handy 1990 almanac (these are net figures,
accounting for births, deaths and migrations):

US         0.7%
Denmark    0.0%
Japan      0.5%
Spain      0.5%
UK         0.2%
France     0.4%
USSR       1.0%
Greece     0.1%
Italy      0.0%
Germany   -0.1% (a decrease!)
India      2.2%

It's clear for `developed' countries that something less than a 10% increase
over a period of fifteen years is not unreasonable.  Keep in mind as well that
due to rounding conventions, a 10% increase (or decrease) will not show up
even in the PBG population multipler (the mantissa) for values under 5 and
that *only* a 10% *increase* will affect the actual UWP population code *if*
the population multipler is 9.

It's my impression that most worlds in the Spinward Marches are going to be
more equivalent in terms of population growth to contemporary `developed'
nations than to `developing' nations (just my opinion).  Furthermore, while
one might expect high birth rates and low death rates (due to available high
tech medical care) on `developing' worlds one would also expect high rates of
*emigration* (to high population worlds) to keep the net growth rate low.

In fact, it is internal migration that ought to have the greatest effect
on population for worlds within the Domain/Regency.

Now, I accept that it is quite incredulous not to see any change in *any*
world population over a span of fifteen years (and I suspect if we looked
hard enough we might even find a couple of changes due to errors in 
transcription) but I submit the above information in an effort to suggest
that such an occurrence is not *impossible*.  (Maybe only as unlikely as
the occurrence of `techno-economic cycles'.  :-)

Nevertheless, I believe we were discussing tech levels not population levels
and the fact that no tech levels changed still does not suggest that *any*
of them went *down* so the lack of any evidence for the `techno-economic
cycles' remains.  (Remember, I've already admitted the *possibility* that
they *could* exist.  I can just explain Gram's domination of the Sword
Worlds through the less incredulous agency of Zhodani aid.)

> There's no way all 400 worlds in the Spinward Marches could have had their
> population level totally stagnant for 15 years. some of them, sure. Not
> even most of them, but some.

It's *possible*, just not very damn likely.

> Not for the Marches, whose culture in most every
> Traveller publication to date has been shown to be overwhelmingly solomani-
> style, and certainly not for the Sword Worlds who are spcifically _said_
> to be Solomani-derived.

Just what is Solomani culture anyway?  The Solomani took over a Vilani
empire.  I would expect them to adopt *many* Vilani traits just as the
Hellenes under Alexander adopted Persian traits and the Germanic tribes
that conquered Rome adopted Roman ones.  I suspect this `Solomani'
cultural heritage might just be more Imperial propaganda.  As for the
Sword Worlds, they haven't had any direct contact with the Solomani in
700 years.  They have about as much in common with the Solomani as
Americans have with Byzantines!  (Just look at the differences in attitudes
about religion as an indicator of the cultural gulf here.)

We sure seem to travel across a wide spectrum of ideas!  :-)

> Try imagining
> economic boom cycles scaled to an interplanetary population, rather than
> a single planet population. If a depression is severe enough, the
> factories will close.

Well, first off, it's my sense that as the size of the economy *increases*
it becomes *more* difficult for economic down turns to affect technological
capabilities (since there is more of a buffer to absorb down turns in
particular sectors).  I've admitted this is possible though.  So, please
give me some sense of your sense of the relative likeliness of these
`techo-economic cycles' occurring as compared to the likelihood of there
being no population change in the Marches over fifteen years.  Twice as
likely?  Five times?  Ten times?  A hundred times?  It's my sense that 
these two occurrences are about *equally* likely. :^)

> How severe? That's the whole point, isn't it? A planet with billions of
> inhabitants may be difficult to affect... but maybe not too dificult if 
> you have even more billions of people to do it.

Again, see above.  As the size of the economy grows it becomes *more*
difficult for economic factors to affect overall technological capabilities.
(We're not talking individual factors as used in *WBH* now.  Those already
can fluctuate up and down.)

> Seems to me I've heard about factories in third-world countries that have
> closed down after the parent company has pulled out. Admittedly I can't
> quote any examples.

Even if you could this is not a matter of technological fluctuation that
is tied to economic factors.  If the country is unable to continue to
operate the factory then it never *had* that level of capability.  The
company that pulled out maintains its own tech level at its other facilities.
This situation might occur on some worlds but it is not relevant to our
discussion of indigineous Sword Worlds capabilities.  (If anything, it
supports my claim for Zhodani support of Gram!)

Peace,

David Johnson
Houston, Texas, USA

------------------------------

End of TML Nightly
******************
