<HTML><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10>Subj:	<B> Traveller-digest V1999 #1377</FONT><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10></B><BR>
Date:	11/22/99 9:28:56 AM Pacific Standard Time<BR>
From:	owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com (Traveller-digest)<BR>
Sender:	owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
Reply-to:	traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
To:	traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
</FONT><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10><BR>
</FONT><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10><BR>
Traveller-digest     Monday, November 22 1999     Volume 1999 : Number 1377<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
(R)1996. Traveller is a registered trademark of FarFuture Enterprises.<BR>
All rights reserved.<BR>
<BR>
The following topics are covered in this digest:<BR>
<BR>
RE: dampers and reactors<BR>
Re: Invasions (formerly Trav Nav & Gunnery)<BR>
Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery<BR>
Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery<BR>
Re: Traveller Planetary Assaults<BR>
Re Polities in the Imperium<BR>
SEC : UNCLASSIFIED - Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery<BR>
Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery<BR>
OFF TOPIC (OT): Taikonauts!<BR>
Re: Invasions (formerly Trav Nav & Gunnery)<BR>
Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery<BR>
Re: Amazon.com<BR>
Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery<BR>
Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery<BR>
Mass Destruction<BR>
Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery<BR>
Re: Megaphone/fib<BR>
Re: Mass Destruction<BR>
Re: the drift of Vargr<BR>
Two things....<BR>
Ideological Warfare<BR>
<BR>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 16:32:27 -0800<BR>
From: "Antony Farrell" <Skaran@bigpond.com><BR>
Subject: RE: dampers and reactors<BR>
<BR>
> -----Original Message-----<BR>
> From: owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
> [mailto:owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com]On Behalf Of Bruce<BR>
> Macintosh<BR>
> Sent: Sunday, 21 November 1999 9:58 AM<BR>
> To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
> Subject: Re: dampers and reactors<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
> Some people (me among them) note that Traveller reactors seem to be<BR>
> able to fuse pure H1, rather than the deuterium or tritium that more<BR>
> realistic reactors require. From this I infer that Traveller<BR>
> reactors contain<BR>
> a<BR>
> nuclear damper running in reverse, as it were, to increase the fusion<BR>
> probabilities for H+H=>D (note: this requires tweaking the electroweak<BR>
> force too, but we'll ignore that.)<BR>
><BR>
> In that case, the reactors own damper might protect it from external<BR>
> interference<BR>
> at anything but the shortest ranges.<BR>
><BR>
> Bruce<BR>
><BR>
Hmmm fusion reactors come in at TL9 damper boxes come in at TL11 and<BR>
projectors at TL12, now while TL9 fusion reactors may be quite large<BR>
relative to what comes later in FFS1 they can be built as small as 100 cubic<BR>
meters producing 200Mw. From TL9 to TL12 only the reactors minimum size<BR>
changes. This implies to me that damper technollogy was not advanced enough<BR>
at these TLs to be used to increase fusion.<BR>
<BR>
In the Starship Operators guide it did say that fusion reactors had a<BR>
deuterium tank which was used for crash starting the reactor. Could not the<BR>
fuel purification system include items to seperate deuterium and possibly<BR>
tritium to help initiate the fusion reaction?<BR>
<BR>
Antony<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 09:29:15 +0000<BR>
From: Phil Kitching <postmark.design@btinternet.com><BR>
Subject: Re: Invasions (formerly Trav Nav & Gunnery)<BR>
<BR>
Kyle Schuant <kyle3054@yahoo.com> wrote:<BR>
><BR>
>> Which brings up a question for me; assuming the<BR>
>> forces have control of the<BR>
>> 'high ground', whats the best way of dropping your<BR>
>> troops in oder to capture<BR>
>> the planet?  Together in armored shuttles (I think<BR>
>> this is a bad idea<BR>
>> myself) or like in Starship Troopers, where they<BR>
>> drop individually<BR>
>> 'halo-style'?<BR>
<BR>
This sounds like you mean the book, not the film<BR>
<BR>
<snip><BR>
<BR>
>I'd go for the armoured cars, myself. Unless unit<BR>
>cohesion ain't important to you, which I suppose it<BR>
>isn't if you have trained beserker fanatics who don't<BR>
>need back-up or organisation.... "I only need to know<BR>
>one thing... where the bugs are... blood blood blood!"<BR>
<BR>
IIRC, in ST the book, each trooper is controlling<BR>
a square mile or so of territory, so it's not surprising<BR>
that they drop individually. They also have a high<BR>
cross country movement rate (bouncing along by grav belt?)<BR>
<BR>
If instead of a single trooper, you needed a squad with<BR>
full support weapons, you might well vote for the shuttle.<BR>
<BR>
With trav tech, you have the possibility of "flattening"<BR>
a bit of the planet that no one is interested in, landing<BR>
there and then having a 12,000km NOE trip to your objective.<BR>
Phil Kitching<BR>
- --<BR>
  http://www.btinternet.com/~salvo/<BR>
  Postmark Design Bureau, Emerging Technologies Division.<BR>
 "Microwaving half-baked ideas from across the Galaxy"<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 09:49:30 +0000<BR>
From: Phil Kitching <postmark.design@btinternet.com><BR>
Subject: Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery<BR>
<BR>
At 21:01 21/11/1999 -0500, you wrote:<BR>
>><shameless plug>Better yet, buy the book when it comes out!></shameless<BR>
>plug><BR>
><BR>
>Book?  BOOK?!  :)<BR>
<BR>
His follow on to GURPS: Starmercs<BR>
<BR>
IIRC, Orginially to be called GURPS: Imperial Armies.<BR>
<BR>
I don't know what the current name is, probably something like:<BR>
<BR>
	"GURPS: Imperial Penguin Throwers"<BR>
<BR>
Anyway, buy it!<BR>
<BR>
Phil Kitching<BR>
- --<BR>
  http://www.btinternet.com/~salvo/<BR>
  Postmark Design Bureau, Emerging Technologies Division.<BR>
 "Microwaving half-baked ideas from across the Galaxy"<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 22:48:56 +1300<BR>
From: "Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz><BR>
Subject: Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery<BR>
<BR>
On 22 Nov 99, at 2:24, Walter G. Smith wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> Leonard Erikson wrote:<BR>
> >>>>>>>><BR>
> > "Any volunteers for special duty?"<BR>
> > - Famous question in the military<BR>
> <BR>
> "Sir! No, sir!<BR>
> - Any halfway intelligent trooper...<BR>
> >>>>>>>><BR>
> "That's one 'volunteer'.  Any others?"<BR>
> - standard NCO's response to above comment from "halfway intelligent<BR>
> trooper".<BR>
<BR>
Besides any trooper who called an NCO 'Sir' isn't even remotely halfway <BR>
intelligent (in any halfway intelligent armed force, that is :)<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
- --<BR>
Rupert Boleyn <paradise.net.nz><BR>
Wellington, New Zealand<BR>
<BR>
A pessimist is an optimist with a sense of history.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 09:58:52 +0000<BR>
From: Phil Kitching <postmark.design@btinternet.com><BR>
Subject: Re: Traveller Planetary Assaults<BR>
<BR>
Richard Wilson <rtwilson@rollanet.org> wrote:<BR>
>At 09:13 PM 11/21/99 -0500, you wrote:<BR>
>>    If you're dropping troops to the surface to grab what is, in all<BR>
>>likelihood,<BR>
>>an already well-defended target, such as a starport or other "high value<BR>
>>target", why wouldn't you make that, or one of those, your main beachhead?<BR>
>>If you're talking "hit and get" raids, yeah, but I got the impression that<BR>
>>you<BR>
>>were talking seize and _hold_ the starport.  <BR>
><BR>
>Way bother grabbing the starport at all? If commercial starships can land<BR>
>at a type X starport (AKA a big empty field) than a combat lander should be<BR>
>able to. <BR>
<BR>
If the Imerium is doing its job right, the starport is the ecconomic centre<BR>
of the planet. It also contains the mercantile interests that you have come<BR>
to "protect".<BR>
<BR>
<snip><BR>
<BR>
>And a final thought. The Imperium is made up of 11,000 worlds. Burning one<BR>
>world every few decades might be a cost effective measure if it makes other<BR>
>worlds think twice about leaving.<BR>
<BR>
IMHO<BR>
<BR>
This sounds more first imperium than third. The 3I (in the twelfth century)<BR>
isn't forcing people to join or stay for security reasons (like it did in<BR>
previous centuries.) Now it's trying to be a low burden, high value trade<BR>
protection operation. It wants to use its large economy with low taxes<BR>
to outlast its opponents (an extreme version of the way the US "won" the<BR>
cold war)<BR>
Phil Kitching<BR>
- --<BR>
  http://www.btinternet.com/~salvo/<BR>
  Postmark Design Bureau, Emerging Technologies Division.<BR>
 "Microwaving half-baked ideas from across the Galaxy"<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 01:13:45 -0900<BR>
From: "William F. Hostman" <aramis@gci.net><BR>
Subject: Re Polities in the Imperium<BR>
<BR>
>Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 19:48:44 -0800<BR>
>From: shudson@lightspeed.bc.ca (Steven Hudson)<BR>
>Subject: Re Polities in the Imperium<BR>
><BR>
>>From: "William F. Hostman" <aramis@gci.net><BR>
>>Subject: Re Polities in the Imperium<BR>
>...<BR>
>>>Oh, but wait, doesn't the Imperium have laws against multiworld polities?<BR>
>><BR>
>>Doubtful, since each sector has a government and a fleet (CT: HG), as does<BR>
>>almost every subsector (ibid), plus there are imperial worlds that "own"<BR>
>>other worlds...<BR>
><BR>
>  But aren't the lower level fleets merely portions of the Imperium with<BR>
>a divergent organization? They don't actually serve a separate foreign<BR>
>policy - although as you indicate a potential difference of opinions on<BR>
>internal issue is the big question.<BR>
><BR>
Well, since it is stated in HG that they are separate fleets, and I've seen<BR>
references to "Local" fleets in at least two adventures, I think that<BR>
they're probably NOT the same things... so Basically, since CT and MT<BR>
assume a semi-feudal late 3I, I took that to mean their own governance,<BR>
taxation, and fleets. So IMTU, the Imperial Navy has it's Numbered and<BR>
Sector Fleets. The Sector Duke has his "Reserve Fleets". The Subsector<BR>
Dukes have their "Police Fleets", which match the numbered reserve fleets<BR>
answerable to the Sector duke, at least in number (although seldom by<BR>
tyupes or numbers of hulls), and any world which can afford it has at least<BR>
a few SDB's or Type-T's...<BR>
<BR>
So, in any given world, you have the local Government's Fleet, a portion of<BR>
the Subsector Fleet, the possibility of a portion of the Sector Duke's<BR>
Numbered Reserve Fleet, and a possibility of a portion of the Imperial<BR>
Numbered Fleet for that subsector, plus a possibility for a portion of the<BR>
Sector Dukes Named Reserve Fleet, and a possibility of a portion of the<BR>
Imperial Named Fleet. And, if part of some sub-subsector polity, the<BR>
Count's Fleets might show, too!<BR>
<BR>
Then again, IMTU, the Imperial Government levies a 1% stock levy per<BR>
issuance for all off-planet buisinesses, for each of the following:<BR>
Subsector Duke of Homeworld, Sector Duke of Each Sector operated in, Each<BR>
Archduke whose domains are operated in, and 1% more to the Emperor (who is<BR>
also Archduke of Sylea, thus getting 2%). I make it part of the Office,<BR>
rather than the Fief. Plus, Most Subsectors and sectors IMTU charge between<BR>
0.1% and 1.5% GPP taxes, too.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
William F. Hostman  |  "Smith & Wesson: THe original Point and Click<BR>
interface!"<BR>
Aramis 0602 C55A364-C S kk+ as+ hi+ dr+ va++(--) so+ zh++ vi+ da++ sy- ge-<BR>
533<BR>
Mailto:aramis@gci.net http://home.gci.net/~aramis mailto:wilh@alaska.com<BR>
ICQ:14640742          AIM:AKAramis	ARM 1.0: 3 R H++ P+<BR>
IMTU 1.0: tc tm++ tn- t4-- tt+ to- tg-- ru+ ge 3i+ c+ jt-() au+ st- ls<BR>
pi+() ta+ he+(-) kk+ as+ hi+ dr+ va++(--) so+ zh++ vi+ da++ sy- ge- pi+<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 23:03:03 +1100<BR>
From: "David Healey" <David.Healey@dcb.defence.gov.au><BR>
Subject: SEC : UNCLASSIFIED - Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery<BR>
<BR>
From: "Chris Seamans" <semo@pil.net><BR>
<BR>
<<Lots snipped>><BR>
<BR>
<Chris><BR>
Actually, religious disputes, historically, have been among the least<BR>
"dirty" wars, depending on how you look at it. This may simply be an<BR>
accident of history, since the same force that allowed mankind to make<BR>
really impressive weapons also happened to marginalize those religious<BR>
institutions that would be able to make war to a great degree.<BR>
<BR>
However, if you were to add up the death toll of only two of the ideological<BR>
and nationalist wars of the twentieth century (World War I and World War II)<BR>
you're gonna find that the dirtiest wars weren't fought over religion at<BR>
all.<BR>
</Chris><BR>
<BR>
However, it does often seem that wars in which religion is a major motivating factor are inclined to get nastier quicker.  Many of the more notorious cases of atrocities and attacks on civilians seem to happen more often in religious conflicts that nationalist or ideological conflicts.  Whilst the two 'World Wars' had many documented cases of atrocities, I suspect that in proportion to the numbers of combatants involved many of the smaller conflicts in history founded in religion were far nastier.<BR>
<BR>
<<Lots more snipped>><BR>
<BR>
Dave<BR>
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             !<BR>
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               <BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 07:31:19 -0500<BR>
From: "Terry Carlino" <carlino@home.com><BR>
Subject: Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery<BR>
<BR>
>Well, that's great. Last I noticed, within the Imperium there are no<BR>
feuding<BR>
>superpowers. There can be no Cold War style situation in the Third<BR>
>Imperium... well, there can be, but at that point you begin to get further<BR>
>and further away from the canon view of the Imperium.<BR>
<BR>
You don't consider the Zho / Imperium relationship that of feuding<BR>
superpowers? It fits the classic example, down to the support of the<BR>
conflict between the Darrians and the Sword Worlds as sponsored governments.<BR>
<BR>
>Still, there's no reason to believe that such a scenario would result in a<BR>
>general rebellion anymore than dropping a contingent of Imperial marines on<BR>
>to the surface, backed up by ortillery would.<BR>
<BR>
A contingent of Marines can be surgical. Take out the leaders, take out the<BR>
troublemakers, the balance of the population, who probably doesn't care<BR>
who's in charge as long as business is good doesn't get hurt. Well mostly<BR>
anyway.  Start using weapons of mass destruction: Bio-weapons, Nukes, big<BR>
rocks, and their general apathy starts to turn to rebellion pretty quick.<BR>
<BR>
>Yet they will support dropping Imperial troops onto the surface of the<BR>
world<BR>
>to engage in combat with guerilla forces, where the distinction between<BR>
>combatants and non-combatants will most likely be blurred, and the<BR>
>distinction between civilian and war production will most certainly be<BR>
>blurred?<BR>
<BR>
Sounds just like the invasion of Terra during the Solomani Rim War.<BR>
<BR>
Terry C<BR>
All that is Gold does not glitter<BR>
Not all who travel are lost<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 08:08:30 -0500<BR>
From: "Josh W. Spencer" <macmanjws@earthlink.net><BR>
Subject: OFF TOPIC (OT): Taikonauts!<BR>
<BR>
I don't know who's all aware of this, but last weekend the People's<BR>
Republic of China launched, orbited and landed an unmanned spacecraft.<BR>
this space flight is at least one of the two precursors to the actual<BR>
launching of Chinese citizens, or what they term "taikonauts" in<BR>
English. The word comes from Chinese "taikog" (sp?) = cosmos/space, and<BR>
"ren" for men. The spacecraft itself is called "Shenzhou" for "magical vehicle."<BR>
<BR>
It's an exciting prospect and the Chinese have put their own touch onto<BR>
what looks like an effort based upon the Russian Soyuz. Of course the<BR>
Americans have also "donated" (and I use the word cautiously, in light<BR>
of the current spy scandal on our shores) their technology to the Long<BR>
March launch vehicle, in service since 1996.<BR>
<BR>
Nevertheless, it should generate a lot of inquiries and comments from<BR>
people around the world. When they pull off their first manned space<BR>
flight, it is my hope that both the USA and Russia, as well as the<BR>
European Space Agency, will welcome the Chinese accomplishment with open<BR>
arms and invite them to participate in future space missions as an<BR>
instrument of international good will.<BR>
<BR>
There is an unofficial web site dedicated to the Chinese manned space<BR>
flight efforts. It's called "Go Taikonauts!" and it is located at:<BR>
<BR>
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/1921/<BR>
<BR>
I think this would be a good Off-Topic discussion for Traveller fans.<BR>
<BR>
- --<BR>
Josh W. Spencer (macmanjws@earthlink.net)<BR>
Ypsilanti, Michigan, USA<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 08:21:44 -0500<BR>
From: "Jory Earl" <j-man@iname.com><BR>
Subject: Re: Invasions (formerly Trav Nav & Gunnery)<BR>
<BR>
>This sounds like you mean the book, not the film<BR>
<BR>
Yes, the book..Or the Avalon Hill Bookcase game..:)<BR>
___________________________________________________________<BR>
 J-Man<BR>
 ICQ# 2843475<BR>
 New Hampshire - U.S.A.<BR>
 Email : j-man@iname.com<BR>
 Home Page : http://www.geocities.com/~jman037/<BR>
___________________________________________________________<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 08:14:12 -0500<BR>
From: "Chris Seamans" <semo@pil.net><BR>
Subject: Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery<BR>
<BR>
From: Terry Carlino <carlino@home.com><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
>>Well, that's great. Last I noticed, within the Imperium there are no<BR>
>feuding<BR>
>>superpowers. There can be no Cold War style situation in the Third<BR>
>>Imperium... well, there can be, but at that point you begin to get further<BR>
>>and further away from the canon view of the Imperium.<BR>
><BR>
>You don't consider the Zho / Imperium relationship that of feuding<BR>
>superpowers? It fits the classic example, down to the support of the<BR>
>conflict between the Darrians and the Sword Worlds as sponsored<BR>
governments.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Please note that in the quote above I said "within the Imperium".<BR>
<BR>
>A contingent of Marines can be surgical. Take out the leaders, take out the<BR>
>troublemakers, the balance of the population, who probably doesn't care<BR>
>who's in charge as long as business is good doesn't get hurt. Well mostly<BR>
>anyway.  Start using weapons of mass destruction: Bio-weapons, Nukes, big<BR>
>rocks, and their general apathy starts to turn to rebellion pretty quick.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
No doubt that a contingent of marines can be surgical. However, a surgical<BR>
strike is *anything* but what the Imperium would need in a scenario like the<BR>
one that forms the basis for this discussion.<BR>
<BR>
I am curious as to how you've come to the conclusion that "general apathy<BR>
starts to turn to rebellion pretty quick"? While it seems to me that,<BR>
historically, armies in the field tend to fight better when they hear about<BR>
atrocities commited on their civilian populations, there's no real evidence<BR>
that atrocities *generate* revolutions.<BR>
<BR>
Besides, the Imperium is in that boat already. In the scenario we're talking<BR>
about, there already *is* a general rebellion on the surface of the planet.<BR>
If a few fence sitters change sides it really doesn't matter. What are they<BR>
going to do, thumb their noses at the Imperial warships, effectively<BR>
invisible and untouchable, somewhere past the sky?<BR>
<BR>
>>Yet they will support dropping Imperial troops onto the surface of the<BR>
>world<BR>
>>to engage in combat with guerilla forces, where the distinction between<BR>
>>combatants and non-combatants will most likely be blurred, and the<BR>
>>distinction between civilian and war production will most certainly be<BR>
>>blurred?<BR>
><BR>
>Sounds just like the invasion of Terra during the Solomani Rim War.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
You've made my point for me. In this case, only the avatar of destruction is<BR>
being changed, not the fact that the destruction occurs. From the point of<BR>
view of the Imperium, the use of big rocks is much cheaper than a marine<BR>
invasion, so why is it that folks claim that such scenarios will be "rare"?<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 08:31:39 -0500<BR>
From: "Jory Earl" <j-man@iname.com><BR>
Subject: Re: Amazon.com<BR>
<BR>
>I can't offer you any help, I'm sorry, but if I can find the article, it<BR>
>does give legal (although Aussie - but it may be a start) points on what to<BR>
>do.<BR>
><BR>
>-- The Roc<BR>
<BR>
Don't worry, Amazon.com informed me that it was US Priority Mail who dropped<BR>
the ball.  The package never even showed up.<BR>
<BR>
___________________________________________________________<BR>
 J-Man<BR>
 ICQ# 2843475<BR>
 New Hampshire - U.S.A.<BR>
 Email : j-man@iname.com<BR>
 Home Page : http://www.geocities.com/~jman037/<BR>
___________________________________________________________<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:42:40 +0000<BR>
From: Phil Kitching <postmark.design@btinternet.com><BR>
Subject: Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery<BR>
<BR>
I wrote:<BR>
<BR>
>>Book?  BOOK?!  :)<BR>
><BR>
>His follow on to GURPS: Starmercs<BR>
><BR>
>IIRC, Orginially to be called GURPS: Imperial Armies.<BR>
><BR>
>I don't know what the current name is, probably something like:<BR>
><BR>
>	"GURPS: Imperial Penguin Throwers"<BR>
><BR>
<BR>
Thought: Do Imperial Marines throw Emperor Penguins?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Phil Kitching<BR>
- --<BR>
  http://www.btinternet.com/~salvo/<BR>
  Postmark Design Bureau, Emerging Technologies Division.<BR>
 "Microwaving half-baked ideas from across the Galaxy"<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 08:59:42 -0500<BR>
From: Walter Smith <SmithW@HARTWICK.EDU><BR>
Subject: Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery<BR>
<BR>
Rupert Boleyn wrote:<BR>
>>>>>>><BR>
> "Sir! No, sir!<BR>
> - Any halfway intelligent trooper...<BR>
> >>>>>>>><BR>
> "That's one 'volunteer'.  Any others?"<BR>
> - standard NCO's response to above comment from "halfway intelligent<BR>
> trooper".<BR>
<BR>
Besides any trooper who called an NCO 'Sir' isn't even remotely halfway <BR>
intelligent (in any halfway intelligent armed force, that is :)<BR>
>>>>>>>><BR>
Rupert, it's all a matter of proper procedure.<BR>
<BR>
The Officer comes in and makes the do-or-die speech. The NCO is the<BR>
one in charge of taking down names... <weg><BR>
<BR>
Walt Smith<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 09:25:37 -0500<BR>
From: Ian Ferguson <ian@vax2.concordia.ca><BR>
Subject: Mass Destruction<BR>
<BR>
Kyle Schuant writes:<BR>
>Who remembers Moff Tarken in Star Wars? He was never ordered<BR>
>to go and waste Alderaan.... who here thinks that if the Death<BR>
>Star had survived the Emperor would have cashiered and executed<BR>
>Tarken? I think he just got carried away with his big new toy.<BR>
>Alderaan's annual taxes might've paid for a whole new Death<BR>
>Star.<BR>
<BR>
	Interesting idea, but I wonder about the cost of a Death<BR>
	Star. It is described as the size of a "small moon," and<BR>
	certainly looks like one from close up. Anyone have a<BR>
	guestimate of its tonnage? I cannot imagine anything<BR>
	just 1 km in diameter being refered to as a "small moon,"<BR>
	perhaps 10 km would be a minimum. This is about 3.88x10^10<BR>
	dtons. It might require more than a few planets worth of<BR>
	annual taxes.<BR>
<BR>
>What are the possibilities for a Death Star type weapon in<BR>
>Traveller? Maybe a humungous Meson Gun?<BR>
<BR>
	That would be the best of the canon weapons systems, IMHO.<BR>
	Of course, some sort of grav device might be effective at<BR>
	allowing the planet to blow itself appart. In any event,<BR>
	it would have to be BIG.<BR>
<BR>
Peez<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 08:44:15 -0600<BR>
From: Black ICE <wombat@premier.net><BR>
Subject: Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery<BR>
<BR>
Phil Kitching wrote:<BR>
> <BR>
> I wrote:<BR>
> <BR>
> >>Book?  BOOK?!  :)<BR>
> ><BR>
> >His follow on to GURPS: Starmercs<BR>
> ><BR>
> >IIRC, Orginially to be called GURPS: Imperial Armies.<BR>
> ><BR>
> >I don't know what the current name is, probably something like:<BR>
> ><BR>
> >       "GURPS: Imperial Penguin Throwers"<BR>
> ><BR>
> <BR>
> Thought: Do Imperial Marines throw Emperor Penguins?<BR>
<BR>
Or would that be considered lese majeste?<BR>
<BR>
- -- <BR>
AuricTech Shipyards Journeyman Gearhead<BR>
"Gold-Plated [tm] solutions for copper-plated problems!" (r)<BR>
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/9776<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 10:02:33 -0500<BR>
From: Ethan Henry <egh@klg.com><BR>
Subject: Re: Megaphone/fib<BR>
<BR>
"Rupert Boleyn" <rboleyn@paradise.net.nz> wrote:<BR>
><BR>
> > Hard to organize a riot if all your megaphones stiop working.<BR>
> <BR>
> That's what your Megaphone/fib is for.<BR>
<BR>
Heh. I have a semi-funny story relating to that... A <BR>
classmate of mine and I went to a local ham enthusiasts'<BR>
club one night (we were both in computer engineering at the<BR>
time in university). There were a couple of guys from Bell<BR>
giving a presentation on how they installed fiber lines.<BR>
They had one of these cool boxes with multiple camera/microscope<BR>
and a tiny little arc welder that made splicing fiber seem <BR>
pretty damn easy (having had to do it by hand in a lab, let<BR>
me tell you that butting up two pieces of fiber, half the<BR>
diameter of a human hair, is not easy).<BR>
<BR>
After hearing about all the wonderful properties of fiber<BR>
versus copper one of the HAMs, totally serious, stood up<BR>
and said how great fiber would be to run from his power <BR>
amplifer to his antenna, to eliminate all the cross-talk and <BR>
noise he was always getting.<BR>
<BR>
Now, on the other hand, in all fairness, I can barely work<BR>
an FM radio in spite of having taken multiple courses on<BR>
electromagnetics and antennas, so it's not like he was the<BR>
only idiot in the room.<BR>
- --<BR>
Ethan Henry                                        egh@klg.com<BR>
Java Evangelist, KL Group                   http://www.klg.com<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 09:54:52 -0600<BR>
From: "Joseph R. Dietrich" <yikes@evansville.net><BR>
Subject: Re: Mass Destruction<BR>
<BR>
>	Interesting idea, but I wonder about the cost of a Death<BR>
>	Star.<BR>
<BR>
According to published Star Wars sources its a sphere about 120 km in<BR>
diameter, thus it has a displacement of 6.463 x 10^14 dtons. The second DS<BR>
is supposed to be larger.<BR>
<BR>
The cost of the frame alone would be ... significant.<BR>
<BR>
Ciao,<BR>
<BR>
Joseph R. Dietrich<BR>
yikes@evansville.net<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:03:06 -0500<BR>
From: "Terry Carlino" <carlino@home.com><BR>
Subject: Re: the drift of Vargr<BR>
<BR>
>So I'd say the Vargr would probably just be mongrels,<BR>
>really. I'm sure that with language and higher<BR>
>intelligence they would have developed the same incest taboo.<BR>
<BR>
Not a universal result of intelligence. Remember that in Ancient Egypt<BR>
(Right up to the First Century BCE) the Pharaoh and his sister were often<BR>
mated, to maintain the "purity" of the bloodline.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Terry C<BR>
All that is Gold does not glitter<BR>
Not all who travel are lost<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 17:23:54 +0000<BR>
From: iSteve <iSteve@outhere.f9.co.uk><BR>
Subject: Two things....<BR>
<BR>
1) thanks for the responses on the Ine Givar...unfortunately I don't<BR>
posses a credit card and sending a cheque in US dollars is problematic<BR>
for us Brits, but the archive article gave me enough background to work<BR>
on.  Thanks again - excellent article.<BR>
<BR>
2) does anyone know what the legal position is on photocopying/scanning<BR>
out of print works?  I've tried in vain to get hold of Books 7 & 8 for<BR>
CT, and am out of ideas.  Obviously I don't want to violate any<BR>
copyright laws in getting hold of copies, so unless anyone has spares<BR>
they want to part with.....<BR>
<BR>
Regards,<BR>
<BR>
iSteve<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 09:27:21 -0800 (PST)<BR>
From: Kiri Aradia Morgan <tiamat@tsoft.com><BR>
Subject: Ideological Warfare<BR>
<BR>
On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, David Healey wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> <Chris><BR>
> Actually, religious disputes, historically, have been among the least<BR>
> "dirty" wars, depending on how you look at it. This may simply be an<BR>
> accident of history, since the same force that allowed mankind to make<BR>
> really impressive weapons also happened to marginalize those religious<BR>
> institutions that would be able to make war to a great degree.<BR>
> <BR>
> However, if you were to add up the death toll of only two of the ideological<BR>
> and nationalist wars of the twentieth century (World War I and World War II)<BR>
> you're gonna find that the dirtiest wars weren't fought over religion at<BR>
> all.<BR>
> </Chris><BR>
> <BR>
> <Dave> However, it does often seem that wars in which religion is a<BR>
major motivating factor are inclined to get nastier quicker.  Many of the<BR>
more notorious cases of atrocities and attacks on civilians seem to happen<BR>
more often in religious conflicts that nationalist or ideological<BR>
conflicts.  Whilst the two 'World Wars' had many documented cases of<BR>
atrocities, I suspect that in proportion to the numbers of combatants<BR>
involved many of the smaller conflicts in history founded in religion were<BR>
far nastier. </Dave>                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         !<BR>
                      !<BR>
>                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                <BR>
> <BR>
(I LIKE this way of doing attributions.)<BR>
<BR>
I think I'm the one who started this by saying that religious wars are the<BR>
nastiest and bloodiest, and I should have been clearer about what I meant<BR>
by that.  I should have said "ideological wars" but I was talking in<BR>
shorthand-- while I have a strong faith, ideological wars exemplfy what<BR>
bugs me about Religion with a capital R, which doesn't necessarily have<BR>
anything to do with any real conception of God/dess.<BR>
<BR>
I have a degree (MA) in History with concentrations in Medieval Studies,<BR>
Women's History (don't hate me, I still shave my legs OK?) and History of<BR>
Science and the Occult.<BR>
<BR>
My favorite professor said that it was during the Crusades that people<BR>
really began to make the intellectual leap toward dehumanizing others and<BR>
that prior to this, even though there may have been a religious aspect,<BR>
wars were fought mostly over territory.<BR>
<BR>
When you are fighting over territory and you just want to take other<BR>
people's lands and stuff away from them, you aren't going to salt the<BR>
fields or use a nuclear weapon because you want to preserve what's there.<BR>
Nine times out of ten you will restrict your predations on the populace<BR>
to some degree because you will probably want them as servants.<BR>
<BR>
Wars of genocide and wars of mass destruction, whatever weapons are used,<BR>
are always the wars that are fought over ideas, and religion was the first<BR>
big idea that people were willing to fight over that way.<BR>
<BR>
In the 20th century, of course, religion has largely been replaced with<BR>
various ideologies in the industrialized world.  Capitalism vs. communism<BR>
(though there is a lot of religious crap attached to both ideas-- there<BR>
are fundamentalist Christians who talk as though the current economic<BR>
system of the US were divinely ordained in the Bible, hahaha, and one of<BR>
the things communists are most vilified for is the suppression of<BR>
religion, which I hardly think is the worst thing that say, Red China, has<BR>
ever done!) and other such ideologies, like religion, can be used to<BR>
dehumanize the enemy.<BR>
<BR>
But even so, if you have a really nasty conflict, with ecological damage,<BR>
systematic rape, death camps, etc. nine times out of ten there is ideology<BR>
involved-- the Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian mess is partly religious in<BR>
nature-- and the tenth time it's a couple of small groups of people that<BR>
have been hating each other and competing for scarce resources for<BR>
hundreds of years.  Combine the two, as in Bosnia, and...<BR>
<BR>
Anyhow, I still remember in the late 80's when the communist gov'ts fell<BR>
in Eastern Europe and I was like "oh shit, there goes Yugoslavia."  My<BR>
Reaganite mother was horrified and insisted that now that these people had<BR>
found Democracy (to her, like finding Jay-zus, whom I differentiate from<BR>
Jesus Christ in that Jesus Christ does not make you weird and Jay-zus<BR>
does)-- they would forever be able to live in peace, and was really<BR>
irritated at my suggestion that a strong central government was the only<BR>
thing keeping those people from killing each other.<BR>
<BR>
I haven't discussed it with her since, mostly because she and I don't get<BR>
along (we haven't spoken at all since 91 anyway) but I often wonder if she<BR>
ever recalls that conversation.<BR>
<BR>
Kiri<BR>
<BR>
******************************************************************************<BR>
Kiri Aradia Morgan                                  93!  Thou Art God<BR>
tiamat@tsoft.com<BR>
<BR>
"If time passes, everything turns into beauty<BR>
If the rains stop, tears clean the scars of memory away<BR>
Everything starts wearing fresh colors<BR>
Every sound begins playing a heartfelt melody<BR>
Jealousy embellishes a page of the epic<BR>
Desire is embraced in a dream..."              -- X-JAPAN <BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
End of Traveller-digest V1999 #1377<BR>
***********************************<BR>
<BR>
To unsubscribe to Traveller-Digest, send the command:<BR>
<BR>
unsubscribe traveller-digest<BR>
<BR>
in the body of a message to "traveller-request@lists.imagiconline.com".<BR>
If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is<BR>
coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that<BR>
address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe<BR>
"local-traveller":<BR>
<BR>
subscribe traveller-digest local-traveller@your.domain.net<BR>
<BR>
A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to<BR>
subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "traveller-digest"<BR>
in the commands above with "traveller".<BR>
<BR>
Multi-Player Games Network http://www.mpgn.com<BR>
</XMP></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#0f0f0f" BACK="#fffffe" SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10><BR>
<BR>
----------------------- Headers --------------------------------<BR>
Return-Path: <owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com><BR>
Received: from  rly-zb01.mx.aol.com (rly-zb01.mail.aol.com [172.31.41.1]) by air-zb02.mail.aol.com (vx) with ESMTP; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:28:56 -0500<BR>
Received: from  lists.imagiconline.com (lists.imagiconline.com [204.85.32.11]) by rly-zb01.mx.aol.com (v65.4) with ESMTP; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:28:39 -0500<BR>
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)<BR>
	by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) with SMTP id MAA75504;<BR>
	Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:28:11 -0500 (EST)<BR>
	(envelope-from owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com)<BR>
Received: by lists.imagiconline.com (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:27:28 -0500<BR>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)<BR>
	by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) id MAA75457<BR>
	for traveller-digest-outgoing; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:27:28 -0500 (EST)<BR>
	(envelope-from owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com)<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 12:27:28 -0500 (EST)<BR>
Message-Id: <199911221727.MAA75457@lists.imagiconline.com><BR>
From: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com (Traveller-digest)<BR>
To: traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
Subject: Traveller-digest V1999 #1377<BR>
Reply-To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
<BR>
</HTML>
