<HTML><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10>Subj:	<B> Traveller-digest V1999 #1382</FONT><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10></B><BR>
Date:	11/22/99 7:40:35 PM 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 1382<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: Ideological Warfare<BR>
Re: Vargr (Was: Re: Weapons of mass destruction)<BR>
Re: Vargr (Was: Re: Weapons of mass destruction)<BR>
Traveller like fiction<BR>
Re: Inetability of government failure<BR>
Laws of War (was: weapons of mass destruction)<BR>
Re: Ideological Warfare<BR>
Traveller patron:  The art museum<BR>
Re: Gas Giants in close orbits<BR>
[none]<BR>
Revolutions (was: Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery)<BR>
Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery (longish)<BR>
Re: Weapons of mass destruction <BR>
Re: SEC : UNCLASSIFIED - Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery<BR>
Re: Classic Traveller Reprints<BR>
Re: the drift of Vargr<BR>
Re: Ideological Warfare<BR>
<BR>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 21:11:30 -0500<BR>
From: "Chris Seamans" <semo@pil.net><BR>
Subject: Re: Ideological Warfare<BR>
<BR>
From: Robert Eaglestone <eaglesto@nortelnetworks.com><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
>Who says Imperial culture is Western?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
I always assumed that Imperial culture had some basis in Western culture<BR>
because the lingua franca of the Imperium is galactic anglic / galanglic,<BR>
the noble titles are taken from the Western tradition, and, most importantly<BR>
that the Imperium is firmly rooted in the genre of "libertarian sci-fi" with<BR>
its emphasis on merchant and mercenary style games.<BR>
<BR>
Your own mileage may vary.<BR>
<BR>
In my own Traveller Universe (the "Petty States" universe) the Interstellar<BR>
Wars were a war of words and ideas as much as soldiers and spaceships. The<BR>
assumption I'm working with is that the Vilani tradition and way of life was<BR>
forced on the worlds of the Ziru Sirka. This view of the Ziru Sirka as<BR>
pretty much homogenous isn't really at odds with canon. The Terrans found<BR>
that information warfare, and I mean that in the truest possible sense of<BR>
the word, was extremely effective in getting individual worlds and systems<BR>
to shrug off Vilani rule.<BR>
<BR>
Only one problem: Due to the fact that the Terrans rushed into the war, and<BR>
that Terra was still more or less balkanized, the ideas that made it to the<BR>
stars were not always compatible. In addition the manner in which different<BR>
cultures integrated these new Terran ideas into their own cultures was<BR>
frequently surprising. There were heavily Vilanified worlds with deeply<BR>
submerged cultures, for example.<BR>
<BR>
The economic decline of the Second Imperium was hastened as a result of all<BR>
of this turmoil. That's where my own timeline diverges. The Long Night is a<BR>
period of wars, Renaissances, Enlightenments, Cultural Revolutions,<BR>
uprisings, insurrections, etc...<BR>
<BR>
The Sylean Federation forms, turns into the Third Imperium... but the task<BR>
of taming the stars is considerably more difficult than Cleon thought it<BR>
would be. He discovers he doesn't have a monopoly on grand visions of<BR>
interstellar unity.<BR>
<BR>
I'm still working out the history and the details, but the end result (circa<BR>
1107 or so) is that there are quite a few distinct interstellar states bound<BR>
together in a web of alliances, treaties and obligations. Think of the world<BR>
on the eve of World War I...<BR>
<BR>
Yep, I pretty much threw the Third Imperium out the window, because I'm<BR>
starting to think that even without Terran intervention an interstellar<BR>
empire the size of the Imperium would be nigh-unto impossible to maintain,<BR>
or even attain in the first place. I'm only adding in the Terran<BR>
intervention to provide some degree of familiarity for the sake of my Terran<BR>
players.<BR>
<BR>
That's not to say that the familiarity will always be to their benefit. ;)<BR>
<BR>
In communicating ideas and concepts between different cultures, there's<BR>
frequently some degree of "packet loss", if you get my meaning. Imagine<BR>
knowing how to read German, but not knowing how to read it very well. Now<BR>
imagine reading Hegel in German and explaining the philosophy to some<BR>
high-school student from a completely different culture who knows only a<BR>
little English and and who has had no introduction to, say, the philosophy<BR>
of Kant.<BR>
<BR>
"So, what you're saying is that Hegel saw this Napoleon fellow on a horse<BR>
and exclaimed that he must be some sort of time-demon?"<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 03:24:35 +0100<BR>
From: Jens Rydholm <jenry023@student.liu.se><BR>
Subject: Re: Vargr (Was: Re: Weapons of mass destruction)<BR>
<BR>
SD Mooney wrote:<BR>
> The BITS book 'SpaceDogs' has notes on playing Vargr;<BR>
<BR>
I have some BITS books (the 7 available from SJgames), but I want more.<BR>
Where can I find MORE?<BR>
<BR>
MUST... HAVE... BITS...<BR>
<BR>
/Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm<BR>
 (rather tired at 03:25 in the morning)<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 20:30:55 -0600<BR>
From: Black ICE <wombat@premier.net><BR>
Subject: Re: Vargr (Was: Re: Weapons of mass destruction)<BR>
<BR>
SD Mooney wrote:<BR>
> <BR>
> At 21:34 -0500 21/11/99, Jens Rydholm <jenry023@student.liu.se> wrote:<BR>
> >Is there perhaps a web source of basic information about the different<BR>
> >races, perhaps with a general timeline thrown in? Is there good (better<BR>
> >than in T4) examples of such material in GURPS: Traveller (the main<BR>
> >book, which I don't have)?<BR>
> <BR>
> The BITS book 'SpaceDogs' has notes on playing Vargr;<BR>
> <BR>
Would that book be nicknamed "Kibbles and BITS"?<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 21:33:50 -0500<BR>
From: Mark Urbin <eclipse@ultranet.com><BR>
Subject: Traveller like fiction<BR>
<BR>
"Boris Cibic" <kafka47@hotmail.com> types out:<BR>
 >I know this is an old thread but it always surprises me that all the<BR>
 >old-timers always ignore Jeffereson P. Swycaffer's two Concordat trilogies.<BR>
<BR>
I have them listed on my Traveller fiction web page.  They are all out <BR>
print, so hit the used book stores kids:<BR>
<BR>
I list some other Traveller like fiction<BR>
<BR>
http://www.ultranet.com/~eclipse/SV/TRAV/travfic.html<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
eclipse@ultranet.com http://www.ultranet.com/~eclipse/  Opinions Mine!<BR>
"In 1991, [Vice President] Gore cited Bush's China policy as a reason he<BR>
should be defeated for reelection, charging Bush sent his emissaries to<BR>
toast the butchers of Tiananmen Square.'"<BR>
Deborah Orin in the New York Post, March 26, 1997, the day after Gore<BR>
drank champagne with Chinese Premier Li Peng, who helped plan the<BR>
Tiananmen massacre<BR>
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 13:30:33 +1000<BR>
From: dadams@parracity.nsw.gov.au<BR>
Subject: Re: Inetability of government failure<BR>
<BR>
Rob Pryor wrote:<BR>
<BR>
I think that history shows that any government will fall, sooner or later.<BR>
<BR>
I reply:<BR>
<BR>
<generalisation><BR>
Actually in real life and in Traveller, governments do not have to fall. If a<BR>
government fails to change however, then it is invetable to collapse.<BR>
</generalisation><BR>
<BR>
Take the Catholic Church. It started as a fringe cult from Judea, then an<BR>
underground movement, then a state religion, then a pan-state religion, then a<BR>
state itself (while exercising power on a global scale), then to a non-dominant<BR>
religious organisation.<BR>
<BR>
Thus it has survived since around 30AD to today, approximately 2,000 years. It<BR>
is now a form that Joshua of Nazereth<BR>
would not reconise , but it is the same organsiation that Peter sets up.<BR>
<BR>
England is another example. The Monarchy has managed to cope with all maners of<BR>
problems, from open insurection to devoloution of power to parlement.<BR>
<BR>
Both managed to survive due to the ability to change.<BR>
<BR>
The Vilani is also a good example. When the First Imperium began to impose<BR>
statis on the empire, it was doomed. It was unable to stop change, and was<BR>
usable to cope with change, so the system begins to collapse when it is faced<BR>
with crisis it can not cope with (Vagr and Terra).<BR>
<BR>
There are still governments that still excist from antiquety (Tonga, Thialand,<BR>
Mouri tribes). Yet well designed systems have collapsed (Communism was really<BR>
well set up, just porly managed).<BR>
<BR>
Darryl<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:44:59 -0800 (PST)<BR>
From: Kyle Schuant <kyle3054@yahoo.com><BR>
Subject: Laws of War (was: weapons of mass destruction)<BR>
<BR>
> Luther Martin wrote:<BR>
> Note that even under the current law of land<BR>
> warfare, you are entitled to<BR>
> reprisals if your enemy violates the conventions.<BR>
> Considering the number of<BR>
> violations by the Iraqis in the Gulf War, think<BR>
> about the possible *real*<BR>
> reason for some events in the war.<BR>
This is not correct: the Geneva Convetion of 1949, and<BR>
the addtional two Protocols of 1977, specifically<BR>
stated that violations by one party to the conflict<BR>
did not absolve the other party or parties of the<BR>
responsibility to follow these conventions and<BR>
protocols. In other words you can't say, "but he did<BR>
it first!" <BR>
The reason for this is obvious: it would make the<BR>
conventions meaningless, since everybody can always<BR>
pull up some example of the enemy having done<BR>
something wrong first, therefore nobody could ever be<BR>
held responsible. Secondly, restraint or atrocities by<BR>
one side will encourage the other to behave similarly.<BR>
A good example is the Germans in WWII: they in general<BR>
treated the Allied soldiers well, and that treatment<BR>
was returned (the massacre of Americans at Malmedy and<BR>
so on being easily matched by Allied actions); they<BR>
treated the Soviets horrifically, and as a<BR>
consequence, of the two million Germans captured by<BR>
the Soviets, only 10,000 came back, and they were not<BR>
released until 1955.<BR>
You _don't_ have the right to reprisals in current<BR>
international law. You have the right to seek<BR>
prosecution. (Which rarely happens, but that's another<BR>
story!)<BR>
> Even further afield:<BR>
> <BR>
> Much like the SCA, who do not reenact history as is<BR>
> was, but rather<BR>
> something like<BR>
> "history as it should have been," Traveller is not<BR>
> the future, but "the<BR>
> future as it should be," at least from the POV of<BR>
> the authors. In reality,<BR>
> it will not even be close, but that<BR>
> shouldn't stop it from being an interesting game.<BR>
> ----- Original Message -----<BR>
> From: Jens Rydholm <jenry023@student.liu.se><BR>
> To: <traveller@lists.imagiconline.com><BR>
> Sent: Sunday, November 21, 1999 4:37 AM<BR>
> Subject: Weapons of mass destruction (Was: Traveller<BR>
> Nav, Gun...)<BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> > Luther Martin wrote:<BR>
> > > This is the ultimate reason why it is very<BR>
> unlikely<BR>
> > > that such things like<BR>
> > > near-c rocks will be regularly used as weapons.<BR>
> ><BR>
> > I want to disagree with you here. During war, more<BR>
> or less every weapon<BR>
> > that is effective to use will be used. Kyle<BR>
> pointed out the atrocities<BR>
> > commited by the *allies* during WWII as an<BR>
> example. Especially the<BR>
> > bombings of Dresden were interesting, as it was<BR>
> not a military target.<BR>
> > On the contrary, many German civilians had gone<BR>
> there to avoid being<BR>
> > bombed. The bombing was done at that spot in order<BR>
> to ruin the German<BR>
> > morale quickly...<BR>
> ><BR>
> > > Civilizations which progress far<BR>
> > > enough to reach advanced technology will also<BR>
> have<BR>
> > > come to the same<BR>
> > > conclusion.<BR>
> ><BR>
> > Hehe... if we (stupid humans) learned from<BR>
> history, that is, we would<BR>
> > have come to the same conclusion. I do not have<BR>
> the exact wording for<BR>
> > this quote, but one of the Wright brothers said<BR>
> (about the flying<BR>
> > machine) that this machine will make further wars<BR>
> impossible, since the<BR>
> > potential for destruction is so great.<BR>
> ><BR>
> > Sadly enough, it had been said before. A pope<BR>
> (don't know which, have to<BR>
> > find my quotations collection) once said (not an<BR>
> exact quote either)<BR>
> > about a new weapon that it was too accurate,<BR>
> silent, quick, and deadly<BR>
> > to allow for any more wars. That weapon was the<BR>
> crossbow...<BR>
> ><BR>
> > ObTrav: Seeing things in this light, I find it<BR>
> rather improbable that<BR>
> > nukes aren't used by most cultures in Traveller.<BR>
> IMTU, the Imperium (and<BR>
> > thus their client states) have laws forbidding<BR>
> them, but many other<BR>
> > cultures use them. The below notes are further<BR>
> information about nuclear<BR>
> > weapons IMTU.<BR>
> ><BR>
> > The Vargr haven't got the knowledge, and the<BR>
> Zhodani won't give it to<BR>
> > them (the Zho's have got the Bomb, but they are<BR>
> afraid of an escalating<BR>
> > war). The Darrians have no problems whatsoever<BR>
> with using nukes if they<BR>
> > need to, and they have bombed several of the Sword<BR>
> Worlds. The Sword<BR>
> > Worlder's have done the same to the Darrians...<BR>
> This is exactly the type<BR>
> > of conflict (with the Imperium) that the Zhodani<BR>
> are afraid of.<BR>
> ><BR>
> > The K'Kree gladly nuke "bad" worlds, but won't<BR>
> destroy inhabitable (to<BR>
> > them) worlds that way. Aslan follow the Imperial<BR>
> way of thinking, but<BR>
> > some clans just *might* have an ace or two up<BR>
> their sleeve.<BR>
> ><BR>
> > I haven't considered Droyne or Hiver's, since I<BR>
> don't have any material<BR>
> > on these races yet (I'm waiting for GT: Alien<BR>
> Races 3).<BR>
> ><BR>
> > /Jens 'Spacejens' Rydholm<BR>
> ><BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
> <BR>
<BR>
<BR>
=====<BR>
KA Schuant<BR>
member: Chef's Guild International, Sporting Shooter's Assoc, Amnesty Int, Carlton Soccer Club<BR>
Melbourne<BR>
Australia<BR>
<BR>
"Duct tape is like the Force: it has a light side, a dark side, and it binds the universe together"<BR>
__________________________________________________<BR>
Do You Yahoo!?<BR>
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 21:45:52 EST<BR>
From: JFZeigler@aol.com<BR>
Subject: Re: Ideological Warfare<BR>
<BR>
In a message dated 11/22/99 2:47:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, jcoles@nac.net <BR>
writes:<BR>
<BR>
> I certainly agree that really nasty warfare (salting fields, genocide,<BR>
>  nucs, rocks, etc.) requires de-humanization of one's enenmy. And I'd agree<BR>
>  that the Crusades were a fine example of this.  But I'd question whether<BR>
>  the Crusades were the first example.  What about Carthage, for example? <BR>
<BR>
Not an ideological war, really.  The Romans were just very good at making<BR>
sure than when they put you down, you *stayed* down.<BR>
<BR>
- ----------<BR>
Jon F. Zeigler: Mathematician, computer geek, amateur historian, freelance<BR>
writer, occasional scribbler of bad poetry<BR>
"For any statement, no matter how innocuous, there exists a nonempty<BR>
set of people who will take offense at it."<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:46:48 -0800 (PST)<BR>
From: Glenn Goffin <gmgoffin@yahoo.com><BR>
Subject: Traveller patron:  The art museum<BR>
<BR>
The art museum on X specializes in the arts of region<BR>
Y from various periods.  The museum has arranged with<BR>
the Y authorities for an exhibition of ancient artwork<BR>
from Y.  There are a large number of pieces, some<BR>
extremely large, some extremely small, many very<BR>
fragile, all priceless and irreplaceable (although<BR>
marketing stolen works may be problematic).  The<BR>
pieces will be transported from Y to X entirely by<BR>
commercial ships.  The pieces may be originating from<BR>
more than one world in Y.  <BR>
<BR>
The PCs are hired by the Y authorities as couriers to<BR>
travel with and guard some or all of the pieces.  They<BR>
must ensure the authenticity of the pieces at each<BR>
stage of the journey, making sure that the pieces that<BR>
went into sealed container A are the ones coming out<BR>
of sealed container A, making sure that the container<BR>
is not unsealed at the wrong times, monitoring the<BR>
internal environment of the containers (humidity,<BR>
atmosphere, pressure, etc.), guarding against breakage<BR>
and theft, and ensuring that the pieces arrive at X on<BR>
time and return safely to Y.  <BR>
<BR>
The pieces may also be shown at several sites on X.<BR>
<BR>
Details and adventures are left to the referee.  <BR>
<BR>
The foregoing was inspired by an article in the<BR>
current issue of Treasures, the magazine of San<BR>
Francisco's Asian Art Museum, from which I quote:<BR>
<BR>
"Most exhibitions require couriers to accompany the<BR>
objects as they make their trip from one venue to<BR>
another, and amking arrangements for them is a big<BR>
undertaking.  Couriers (who are usually curators,<BR>
conservators, or registrars [but might be gun-toting<BR>
ex-spooks --GMG]) must be prepared to spend long<BR>
periods away from home.  For Golden Age, a delegation<BR>
of more than twenty people from China will stay with<BR>
the entire exhibition, rotating in teams, with each<BR>
group staying four to five weeks -- this is a<BR>
significant exhibition expense.  It is up to the<BR>
registrars to find accommodations for them, to provide<BR>
translators if needed, andto arrange library access<BR>
and educational and leisure activities.<BR>
<BR>
"During transit, the couriers must never lose sight of<BR>
the objects:  they must be present when objects are<BR>
packed and unpacked, they have to ride in the truck<BR>
carrying the object to the plane or one following it,<BR>
they have to ride in the same plane as the objects ...<BR>
and they have to be present for the loading and<BR>
unloading.  Forrest McGill recalls couriering a single<BR>
ceramic to an exhibition in Miho, Japan, which<BR>
required him to go thirty hours without sleep."<BR>
<BR>
- --Glenn<BR>
__________________________________________________<BR>
Do You Yahoo!?<BR>
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 21:50:07 EST<BR>
From: JFZeigler@aol.com<BR>
Subject: Re: Gas Giants in close orbits<BR>
<BR>
In a message dated 11/22/99 6:08:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, <BR>
kaleja@estarcion.com writes:<BR>
<BR>
> Cue the "edit Solomani Rim to match reality" thread...<BR>
<BR>
Not a chance :-).<BR>
<BR>
- ----------<BR>
Jon F. Zeigler: Mathematician, computer geek, amateur historian, freelance<BR>
writer, occasional scribbler of bad poetry<BR>
"For any statement, no matter how innocuous, there exists a nonempty<BR>
set of people who will take offense at it."<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 17:51:48 -0900<BR>
From: "William F. Hostman" <aramis@gci.net><BR>
Subject: [none]<BR>
<BR>
>At 05:23 PM 11/22/99 +0000, you wrote:<BR>
>>2) does anyone know what the legal position is on<BR>
>photocopying/scanning<BR>
>>out of print works?  I've tried in vain to get hold of Books 7 & 8<BR>
>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<BR>
>spares<BR>
>>they want to part with.....<BR>
<BR>
Sorry, but why not spend the $20 and get them in the reprint, which is due<BR>
sometime soon. You'll also have Books 0-6 in the volume...<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 18:55:22 -0800 (PST)<BR>
From: Glenn Goffin <gmgoffin@yahoo.com><BR>
Subject: Revolutions (was: Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery)<BR>
<BR>
>From: "Alan Bradley" <alanb@elf.brisnet.org.au><BR>
<BR>
>"Chris Seamans" <BR>
>> Just out of curiosity, how did we end up on the <BR>
>>Marxist "peasant revolt" line? It doesn't have to be<BR>
<BR>
>>"peasants" or "proles" who are doing the bulk of<BR>
>> the revolting at all. In fact, in cases like the <BR>
>>American of French Revolutions the peasants weren't <BR>
>>even the real driving force behind the rebellion.<BR>
<BR>
>I'm not quite familiar enough to deal with the <BR>
>American revolution, so I will just deal with the <BR>
>French case.  Basically, the peasants provided the <BR>
>bulk of the force behind the revolution, along with <BR>
>the urban masses, the sans-culottes.  This is for<BR>
>the good and simple reason that the peasants were the<BR>
<BR>
>_overwhelming_ majority of the French population.<BR>
>"Elite" revolts that face opposition need mass <BR>
>support, or they will fail.<BR>
<BR>
We should remember to distinguish between bourgeois<BR>
revolutions, like the English Civil War, the American<BR>
Revolution, and the French Revolution, and poor<BR>
peoples' revolutions, like the Revolustions of Russia<BR>
(1917), China (1949), and Cuba (1959), and perhaps<BR>
some of the 1848 uprisings in Europe (and the Commune<BR>
of Paris).  (The far off topic question:  Do we<BR>
consider Russia 1985, and China since Deng Xiaoping to<BR>
be bourgeois revolutions?)  <BR>
<BR>
Every revolution requires mass support to topple the<BR>
existing structure.  Who can get and keep that mass<BR>
support is the interesting question.<BR>
<BR>
- --Glenn<BR>
__________________________________________________<BR>
Do You Yahoo!?<BR>
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 13:29:16 +1000<BR>
From: Graeme_Batho@agd.nsw.gov.au<BR>
Subject: Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery (longish)<BR>
<BR>
On Sun, 21 Nov 1999 19:58:45 -0500<BR>
"Chris Seamans" <semo@pil.net> wrote:<BR>
<BR>
>Yet, strangely enough "energy" ortillery will be alright, even though the<BR>
>effects can be exactly the same. There are plenty of strange rules of<BR>
>warfare in the real world, so I'm not raising my eyebrows too much. So, what<BR>
>you're actually saying is that these various interstellar civilizations,<BR>
>each with *vastly* different views on... well, *everything* are going to all<BR>
>decide to play by the same rules?<BR>
><BR>
>I do find that a little bit difficult to believe.<BR>
<BR>
Strange though it may be, both sides in a war normally do play by the rules.<BR>
(Though when they don't is when things get *interesting*).<BR>
It's hard to describe why, except in vague terms, but think of it this way:<BR>
<BR>
Actions have consequences.<BR>
Some consequences are undesirable.<BR>
Therefore your possible actions are limited.<BR>
<BR>
The goal you are trying to achieve in combat precludes you from using<BR>
certain actions and tactics. For example, if you are trying to capture a<BR>
factory you would not use a nuke on the forces defending it. It would<BR>
destroy them but also prevent you from achieving your objective. So,<BR>
as a consequence, your actions tend to fit within what we loosely<BR>
call the "rules of warfare". The "rules" are not so much arrived at<BR>
by sitting down in a committee, but by what actions don't give<BR>
unfavourable outcomes.<BR>
<BR>
Similarly on a strategic level, your ultimate goal will constrain what<BR>
lengths you can go to to achieve it. Read Clausewitz. Politics and the<BR>
military are intertwined. Political goals are behind all combat. Why<BR>
doesn't the IRA assassinate the queen? Because the *political*<BR>
consequences of that act would be undesirable for the IRA.<BR>
<BR>
Now, though the various interstellar civilizations may have different<BR>
views about things they have many similar goals. Like survival.<BR>
Colonization. So, the technology and tactics used might be alien<BR>
but the objectives would be similar.<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=14><BIG><BIG><BIG><BR>
>If it's the former, dropping rocks is effectively the same as dropping<BR>
>ground troops. You're still going to lose civilians, and it's more than<BR>
>likely that you're going to decimate industrial centers. If it's the latter,<BR>
>dropping rocks is a hell of alot cheaper and less time consuming than<BR>
>dropping marines in battle dress.<BR>
<BR>
Now, as to why near-c rocks don't get used in the Traveller universe<BR>
more often I have a simple answer.<BR>
<BR>
Control.<BR>
<BR>
No commander likes to have weapons under his command that he can't control.<BR>
Near-c rocks are about as uncontrolled as you can get. They take weeks<BR>
to prepare, can't be directed at small targets, and have an unpredictable<BR>
area of effect (because bits flake off before impact, the rock might<BR>
explode when it hits the atmosphere, etc). Worst of all for any commander,<BR>
once sent they cannot be recalled. Just as the poor sods you point it at<BR>
cannot stop it, eventually neither can you. If they surrender unconditionally<BR>
before impact, or you find they have something you need intact, or the<BR>
EMPEROR calls off the attack you *can't* do anything about it. You are no<BR>
longer in control of your own weapon.<BR>
<BR>
No commander would chose to be in such a position, and no politician would<BR>
LET the armed forces get into such a situation.<BR>
<BR>
It's sorta like the plans for an automated response proposed during the<BR>
cold war, where computers were to launch missiles automatically. The<BR>
idea got nixed/changed to keep the humans in the loop, so that they<BR>
could still *decide* whether to go to nuclear war or not.<BR>
<BR>
Now, I'm not saying that near-c rocks *cannot* be used in Traveller.<BR>
I'm just explaining why, *by choice*, they aren't used more often.<BR>
<BR>
Graeme Batho<BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
If at first you don't succeed, DON'T try Russian Roulette.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:59:32 -0800 (PST)<BR>
From: Glenn Goffin <gmgoffin@yahoo.com><BR>
Subject: Re: Weapons of mass destruction <BR>
<BR>
>From: Michel Vaillancourt<BR>
<misha@empire.atlantic-online.ns.ca><BR>
<BR>
>        Dr.Gatling figured the same thing...  it was<BR>
>his *intention* to build a weapon so fearsome no one <BR>
>would use it again....<BR>
<BR>
If you build it they will use it.<BR>
<BR>
- --Glenn<BR>
__________________________________________________<BR>
Do You Yahoo!?<BR>
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 22:14:08 EST<BR>
From: Sethkimmel@aol.com<BR>
Subject: Re: SEC : UNCLASSIFIED - Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery<BR>
<BR>
In a message dated 11/22/99 4:10:07 AM Pacific Standard Time, <BR>
David.Healey@dcb.defence.gov.au writes:<BR>
<BR>
<< However, it does often seem that wars in which religion is a major <BR>
motivating factor are inclined to get nastier quicker.  Many of the more <BR>
notorious cases of atrocities and attacks on civilians seem to happen more <BR>
often in religious conflicts that nationalist or ideological conflicts.  <BR>
Whilst the two 'World Wars' had many documented cases of atrocities, I <BR>
suspect that in proportion to the numbers of combatants involved many of the <BR>
smaller conflicts in history founded in religion were far nastier. >><BR>
<BR>
Oh yeah; read accounts of the Crusades and the Thirty Years Wars....<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 22:32:32 EST<BR>
From: Sethkimmel@aol.com<BR>
Subject: Re: Classic Traveller Reprints<BR>
<BR>
In a message dated 11/22/99 11:26:31 AM Pacific Standard Time, <BR>
SmithW@HARTWICK.EDU writes:<BR>
<BR>
<< Looking at MM's page on the Classic Traveller Reprints, <BR>
 <BR>
 HTTP://members.aol.com/Traveller/T401-00.html ,<BR>
 <BR>
 I'm looking forward to a chance at the entirety of the original JTAS<BR>
 run - I've read about six issues, and the Best of JTAS #1 - #4, but<BR>
 I know I missed a lot of good stuff. $28+shipping per 12 issues<BR>
 certainly  beats the current $5-$10 per issue I'm seeing on EBay<BR>
 for back issues.<BR>
 <BR>
 Here's hoping for the continued health of the project...<BR>
 <BR>
 Walt Smith<BR>
  >><BR>
<BR>
Same here...have all GDW CT stuff except for the JTAS's and best of #4...<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 19:37:00 -0800 (PST)<BR>
From: Kyle Schuant <kyle3054@yahoo.com><BR>
Subject: Re: the drift of Vargr<BR>
<BR>
- --- Terry Carlino <carlino@home.com> wrote:<BR>
> >So I'd say the Vargr would probably just be<BR>
> mongrels,<BR>
> >really. I'm sure that with language and higher<BR>
> >intelligence they would have developed the same<BR>
> incest taboo.<BR>
> <BR>
> Not a universal result of intelligence. Remember<BR>
> that in Ancient Egypt<BR>
> (Right up to the First Century BCE) the Pharaoh and<BR>
> his sister were often<BR>
> mated, to maintain the "purity" of the bloodline.<BR>
<BR>
Yes, but royals always are incestuous, since no-one<BR>
else is good enough for them to marry. (Anyone seen<BR>
the family tree of Queen Victoria?) I'd note that<BR>
while the Pharaoh might have been happily shagging his<BR>
sister, the commoners were a little more squeamish.<BR>
<BR>
=====<BR>
KA Schuant<BR>
member: Chef's Guild International, Sporting Shooter's Assoc, Amnesty Int, Carlton Soccer Club<BR>
Melbourne<BR>
Australia<BR>
<BR>
"Duct tape is like the Force: it has a light side, a dark side, and it binds the universe together"<BR>
__________________________________________________<BR>
Do You Yahoo!?<BR>
Bid and sell for free at http://auctions.yahoo.com<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 22:37:40 -0500<BR>
From: "Chris Seamans" <semo@pil.net><BR>
Subject: Re: Ideological Warfare<BR>
<BR>
From: Kiri Aradia Morgan <tiamat@tsoft.com><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<I snipped some stuff about religious wars as the stuff has already floated<BR>
around the list a bit. Those who have been following the thread already know<BR>
what's going on. Those who haven't been, I disputed the claim that<BR>
"religious wars" were among the dirtiest wars.><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.<BR>
<BR>
I'm not sure that your thread led into this one. It may have though. At any<BR>
rate, the cops will never prove complicity. ;)<BR>
<BR>
>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>
<BR>
Then the ground you're standing on begins to get less firm, at least in my<BR>
opinion. I don't mean that in an insulting way, but drawing lines between<BR>
ideological wars and non-ideological wars begins to appear rather arbitrary.<BR>
Ultimately, there's always going to be some at least *some* element of<BR>
ideology in any war.<BR>
<BR>
What I've seen begin to happen when a line of thought like this is used is<BR>
that there is a difference between ideological warfare and warfare which is<BR>
intended to annex or hold territory, depending on the side. I'm not saying<BR>
that there's anything wrong with that, but it opens up a whole new can of<BR>
worms.<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>
<BR>
I don't mind Women's History at all, in and of itself.<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>
<BR>
As I stated above, I find it kind of odd when people try to delineate<BR>
different sorts of wars. All wars have an ideological component, and<BR>
frequently ancient wars had ideological components that are invisible to us<BR>
moderns.<BR>
<BR>
For example, the culture of the ancient Greeks was one that was literally<BR>
*awash* with competing ideologies, religions and philosophies, as was the<BR>
culture of the ancient Persians, for example. The Persians and the Greeks<BR>
were two cultures which had a real difficulty seeing eye to eye in general.<BR>
<BR>
You're right, though, there were distinct differences in how they viewed<BR>
other groups of people.<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<BR>
>there.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
To some extent. It depends on the culture or civilization. Even predating<BR>
the crusades, though, you had some really nasty warfare. There is<BR>
archeological evidence that quite a number of cities were rebuilt and<BR>
destroyed many times as a result of many wars. That's hardly in keeping with<BR>
the theory that ancient wars were simply fought to capture intact land. Make<BR>
of it what you will.<BR>
<BR>
To switch continents, the American Indians fought some pretty nasty wars,<BR>
and some of the customs that different tribes and nations had toward<BR>
prisoners of war were pretty different. Once you get down into Central and<BR>
South America things get pretty odd as well. The same can be said of Africa.<BR>
<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>
<BR>
Depends on the culture. Historical records tend to be all over the place<BR>
with regard to their treatment of the populace at large. Some wanted massive<BR>
armies of servants, some didn't.<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>
<BR>
I can see where you're coming from. Still, genocide on a large enough scale<BR>
to make the history books is really *most* viable with modern technology.<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>
<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>
<BR>
The enemy *always* gets "de-humanized" though. When the Greeks warred with<BR>
the Persians they felt pity for the Persians, but still felt that they were<BR>
superior to them. By the logic of the day, the Persians would have been just<BR>
like the Greeks had they, too, been lucky enough to live on land with harsh<BR>
soil.<BR>
<BR>
They still weren't as *good* as the Greeks.<BR>
<BR>
<much snippage after this point, I'm getting kind of tired and I suspect<BR>
that I'd begin repeating myself to some degree><BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
End of Traveller-digest V1999 #1382<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></BIG></BIG><BR>
<BR>
----------------------- Headers --------------------------------<BR>
Return-Path: <owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com><BR>
Received: from  rly-yh05.mx.aol.com (rly-yh05.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.37]) by air-yh05.mail.aol.com (vx) with ESMTP; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 22:40:35 -0500<BR>
Received: from  lists.imagiconline.com (lists.imagiconline.com [204.85.32.11]) by rly-yh05.mx.aol.com (v65.4) with ESMTP; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 22:40:18 -0500<BR>
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)<BR>
	by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) with SMTP id WAA02110;<BR>
	Mon, 22 Nov 1999 22:39:35 -0500 (EST)<BR>
	(envelope-from owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com)<BR>
Received: by lists.imagiconline.com (bulk_mailer v1.12); Mon, 22 Nov 1999 22:39:11 -0500<BR>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)<BR>
	by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) id WAA02058<BR>
	for traveller-digest-outgoing; Mon, 22 Nov 1999 22:39:11 -0500 (EST)<BR>
	(envelope-from owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com)<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 22:39:11 -0500 (EST)<BR>
Message-Id: <199911230339.WAA02058@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 #1382<BR>
Reply-To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
<BR>
</BIG></HTML>
