<HTML><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10>Subj:	<B> Traveller-digest V1999 #1383</FONT><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10></B><BR>
Date:	11/22/99 9:17:28 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     Tuesday, November 23 1999     Volume 1999 : Number 1383<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: Slavery was Re: Ideological Warfare<BR>
Re: Ideological Warfare<BR>
Mass destruction<BR>
Mass destruction<BR>
Re: dampers and reactors<BR>
Re: Slavery <BR>
Re: OFF TOPIC (OT): Taikonauts!<BR>
Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery (longish)<BR>
Re: The Fall of Governments<BR>
Laws of War<BR>
re: Laws of War<BR>
Imperial (Marital) Relations (was: the drift of Vargr)<BR>
Re: Slavery was Re: Ideological Warfare<BR>
Re: Traveller Planetary Assaults<BR>
Re: Imperial culture<BR>
Re: Weapons of mass destruction (Was: Traveller Nav, Gun...)<BR>
<BR>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 22:42:17 EST<BR>
From: Sethkimmel@aol.com<BR>
Subject: Re: Slavery was Re: Ideological Warfare<BR>
<BR>
In a message dated 11/22/99 1:20:26 PM Pacific Standard Time, <BR>
tiamat@tsoft.com writes:<BR>
<BR>
<< They even gave the Jews an exemption from worshipping<BR>
 the Emperor once they understood that the Jews were monotheists who<BR>
 weren't going to bother other people. >><BR>
<BR>
Not entirely true...Augustus was pretty reasonable, but the 79 ACE  revolt <BR>
(which led to the Diaspora...) was caused by the Jews revolting when the <BR>
Emperor insisted on them worshipping him as divine (which no Jew including <BR>
myself would do...). Between this revolt and Bar Kochba's in 165, Judea was <BR>
effectively depopulated. I for one, while a great admirer of Rome's <BR>
accomplishments am glad they fell...<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 19:47:32 -0800 (PST)<BR>
From: Kyle Schuant <kyle3054@yahoo.com><BR>
Subject: Re: Ideological Warfare<BR>
<BR>
- --- Kiri Aradia Morgan <tiamat@tsoft.com> wrote:<BR>
..heaps of good stuff which I snipped...<BR>
<BR>
I'm in agreement with Kiri, except for one thing, her<BR>
assertion that prior to the religious crusades of the<BR>
middle ages, wars were "mostly over territory." And<BR>
therefore didn't involve so many atrocities. While<BR>
respecting Kiri's degree in medieval history, I'd like<BR>
to point her to ancient history, just one example for<BR>
teh sake of brevity: Alexander the Great. This<BR>
charming lad would show up and say, "surrender your<BR>
city or I will kill every last man woman and child in<BR>
it." If they fought, he would win, and then murder<BR>
everybody. Pretty soon, other cities started<BR>
surrendering first. <BR>
<BR>
Armies historically in all ages have killed far more<BR>
civilians than soldiers, mainly because the civilians<BR>
didn't fight back. It's a lot easier. And comitting<BR>
atrocities binds you together as a military unit, and<BR>
as a nation, and makes you less likely to surrender<BR>
("holy shit, what will they do to me if they catch<BR>
me?!") The most die-hard, no-surrender soldiers are<BR>
also the most murderous, comitting the most<BR>
atrocities. Atrocities are not a recent thing in<BR>
history, the idea of rules of war are. Though the germ<BR>
of the idea has long been there...<BR>
<BR>
Atrocities exist because soldiers are human, and<BR>
because as a matter of policy, they often work. Of<BR>
course, sometimes they don't (egh all the jewish<BR>
scientists that fled europe and went and built the<BR>
bomb for the yanks instead of for the krauts, "woops,<BR>
nad idea hating the jews," says a kraut scientist in<BR>
August 1945)<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 19:52:30 -0800 (PST)<BR>
From: Kyle Schuant <kyle3054@yahoo.com><BR>
Subject: Mass destruction<BR>
<BR>
Kyle Schuant writes:<BR>
> <BR>
> What are the possibilities for a Death Star type<BR>
> weapon in Traveller? Maybe a humungous Meson Gun?<BR>
<BR>
Anthony jackson wrote:<BR>
Well, blowing up a planet takes in the vicinity of<BR>
10^32 joules (for an<BR>
earth-sized object), which is around a trillion tons<BR>
of antimatter,<BR>
making the idea of blowing up a planet by simple force<BR>
a bit<BR>
impractical.<BR>
<BR>
What you want is a ranged matter-energy converter, or<BR>
perhaps a fusion<BR>
catalyst (though that would be more effective for<BR>
blowing up gas<BR>
giants).  Either one is well above Imperial tech<BR>
levels.<BR>
<BR>
Kyle writes back:<BR>
well, what about these nuclear damlers everybody ius<BR>
so enamoured of? Since radiactive decay in the earth's<BR>
mantle provides much fo the energy that keeps the core<BR>
molten, couldn't a humongous damper accelerate this,<BR>
not actually blowing the planet apart, but causing the<BR>
entire surface to become molten lava?<BR>
<BR>
I shudder at the image, which is somehow scarier than<BR>
simple old blowing up....<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 19:52:39 -0800 (PST)<BR>
From: Kyle Schuant <kyle3054@yahoo.com><BR>
Subject: Mass destruction<BR>
<BR>
Kyle Schuant writes:<BR>
> <BR>
> What are the possibilities for a Death Star type<BR>
> weapon in Traveller? Maybe a humungous Meson Gun?<BR>
<BR>
Anthony jackson wrote:<BR>
Well, blowing up a planet takes in the vicinity of<BR>
10^32 joules (for an<BR>
earth-sized object), which is around a trillion tons<BR>
of antimatter,<BR>
making the idea of blowing up a planet by simple force<BR>
a bit<BR>
impractical.<BR>
<BR>
What you want is a ranged matter-energy converter, or<BR>
perhaps a fusion<BR>
catalyst (though that would be more effective for<BR>
blowing up gas<BR>
giants).  Either one is well above Imperial tech<BR>
levels.<BR>
<BR>
Kyle writes back:<BR>
well, what about these nuclear dampers everybody is so<BR>
enamoured of? Since radiactive decay in the earth's<BR>
mantle provides much fo the energy that keeps the core<BR>
molten, couldn't a humongous damper accelerate this,<BR>
not actually blowing the planet apart, but causing the<BR>
entire surface to become molten lava?<BR>
<BR>
I shudder at the image, which is somehow scarier than<BR>
simple old blowing up....<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 19:49:11 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: dampers and reactors<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
> What is the Star ships Operations guide and where do I get a copy?<BR>
<BR>
"Starship Operator's Guide", actually.<BR>
<BR>
It's a long out of print book from DGP. It was written for<BR>
MegaTraveller. Since Roger Sanger holds the copyright, don't expect<BR>
reprints or xerox copies of it anytime soon.<BR>
<BR>
- -- <BR>
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)<BR>
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred<BR>
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 20:18:55 -0800 (PST)<BR>
From: Kyle Schuant <kyle3054@yahoo.com><BR>
Subject: Re: Slavery <BR>
<BR>
Bruce Johnston wrote:<BR>
> The key word here is 'commodifying'. They were worth<BR>
> something, in many<BR>
> cases, worth quite a lot. People own horses, oxen,<BR>
> dogs, they, well,<BR>
> they provide living space and food for cats ;-)<BR>
> Slaves were viewed in<BR>
> much the same way...a good slave was worth a heck of<BR>
> a lot, and it was<BR>
> stupid to mistreat them, same as it is to mistreat a<BR>
> good horse...it<BR>
> makes them worth less. <BR>
> <BR>
> Enslaving people because they are part of the<BR>
> untermenschen (sp, I'm<BR>
> sure), as the Nazis did, is another kettle of fish.<BR>
> They were seen as<BR>
> disposable, worthless, but you might get some use<BR>
> out of them before<BR>
> they wore out and were thrown away, which was the<BR>
> ultimate goal anyway.<BR>
> The Nazi's were hell bent on exterminating those<BR>
> they found to be<BR>
> subhuman, but they were also pragmatic to a germanic<BR>
> fault...why waste<BR>
> good labor while you had it?<BR>
Kyle writes:<BR>
We're talking about three different ways of valuing<BR>
humna life here: the Roman way was "about twenty gold<BR>
pieces for an adult male who can labour." The Nazi<BR>
was: "worth nothing." (As amply demonstrated by<BR>
Hitler's final orders to destroy all buildings, all<BR>
factories, and for all Germans to die fighting the<BR>
Soviets. He didn't just say jews were worthless; in<BR>
the end everybody was). The modern way to think is:<BR>
"infinite value." Because lives are of infinite value,<BR>
we are imprisoned for murder, and so on; whereas were<BR>
we to kill a slave, we'd just have to pay the<BR>
replacement cost. <BR>
> Chattel slavery, 'people as property' is<BR>
> specifically outlawed as an<BR>
> Imperial Crime. Curiously, this does not seem to<BR>
> include indentured<BR>
> servitude.<BR>
Of course not. Otherwise, mortgages would be<BR>
prohibited. I am not joking here. You are legally<BR>
forced to work for the bank if capable. How does that<BR>
differ from a farmer in India? All that differs is<BR>
that it's necessary for the Indian to do it, or<BR>
starve, whereas for us it's just a case of wanting<BR>
things... we're still indentured, though. <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 20:22:37 -0800 (PST)<BR>
From: Kyle Schuant <kyle3054@yahoo.com><BR>
Subject: Re: OFF TOPIC (OT): Taikonauts!<BR>
<BR>
Josh wrote:<BR>
> If<BR>
> everything we do in<BR>
> space is to be American-made, that's not common<BR>
> sense in my humble<BR>
> opinion...that's arrogance.<BR>
<BR>
I agree. Also, big projects require brains from<BR>
everywhere... where would the american Manhattan and<BR>
Apollo projects have been without German and other<BR>
European citizens?<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 23:26:14 -0500<BR>
From: "Chris Seamans" <semo@pil.net><BR>
Subject: Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery (longish)<BR>
<BR>
From: Graeme_Batho@agd.nsw.gov.au <Graeme_Batho@agd.nsw.gov.au><BR>
<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,<BR>
what<BR>
>>you're actually saying is that these various interstellar civilizations,<BR>
>>each with *vastly* different views on... well, *everything* are going to<BR>
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<BR>
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>
<BR>
Well, no, it's easy to explain why: all rules concerning modern warfare are<BR>
meant to stop the wars from escalating out of hand. You don't use nukes<BR>
because someone else out there has nukes and in a few hours you've got a<BR>
really serious setback to modern civilization, to put it lightly.<BR>
<BR>
After World War I, everybody was really horrified by how chemical weapons<BR>
had escalated out of hand. In World War II, interestingly enough, I can't<BR>
think of the use of chemical weapons on a large scale in World War II<BR>
(actually, I can't think of their use on a small scale either, but I'm<BR>
hedging my bets here since there are quite a few people on the list with an<BR>
astonishing mind for detail) with the exception of the death camps, but the<BR>
dynamic was quite different from the battlefield.<BR>
<BR>
>Actions have consequences.<BR>
>Some consequences are undesirable.<BR>
>Therefore your possible actions are limited.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Unfortunately, we're not talking about Earth here, where all of the<BR>
combatants are part of the same species *and* the same planet. The Aslan,<BR>
the Hivers, the K'Kree are all radically different, psychologically.<BR>
<BR>
Hell, if you accept TNE canon the Ithklur (the Hiver's pet troops) weren't<BR>
above *eating* the K'Kree! ;)<BR>
<BR>
The Vargr are at least descended from real dyed in the wool Terran<BR>
mammals... *but* on the other hand they can't really agree on anything as a<BR>
race, I'm not sure why they would be able to agree on anything with folks<BR>
*outside* their race.<BR>
<BR>
In the Imperium, the distinction is blurred between the Solomani and the<BR>
Vilani, although I think I recall that in canon the Vilani are all business<BR>
when it comes to warfare.<BR>
<BR>
Finally, the Zhodani *already* use combat robots, which the Imperium hates.<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".<BR>
<BR>
On the other hand, if your objective is to destroy the troop concentration<BR>
around the factory... you'd use the nuke. Or, if some particularly tasty<BR>
targets happened to be there, you might also use the nuke. So what?<BR>
<BR>
The reason that we don't use nuclear weapons on earth is because using nukes<BR>
can very well result in the end of civilization for everyone with nukes.<BR>
Once the birds are in the air, say goodnight, Gracie.<BR>
<BR>
It naturally follows that there must be some reason for not using really<BR>
heavy weapons in the Traveller universe, and it can't be the same. It's<BR>
handled internal to the Imperium by the Imperial rules of war.<BR>
<BR>
>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>
<BR>
<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>
<BR>
Of course political goals are behind all combat. It's so obvious that it<BR>
goes without saying.<BR>
<BR>
Again, so what? All you've really said is that launching a nuke at a factory<BR>
when you want to acquire it isn't a good idea, and that politics happen to<BR>
be lurking behind warfare.<BR>
<BR>
You've managed to completely dodge the question you responded to, which<BR>
boils down to:<BR>
<BR>
Why would rules against using big rocks be in place between interstellar<BR>
civilizations, but not energy ortillery which serves the same function and<BR>
can be just as damaging.<BR>
<BR>
You *nearly* answer it at the end of the post, but you make an appeal to<BR>
practicality, which has nothing to do with the rules of war, concerning a<BR>
position which I don't even hold. More on that when you get down there.<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>
<BR>
Keep in mind we are talking about *technology* and *tactics* here.<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>
<BR>
I'm very sorry, you must have me confused with someone else. I have never,<BR>
in this thread, nor any recent thread, referred to near-c rocks. I'm not<BR>
talking about near-c rocks here. Keep that in mind as you read the rest of<BR>
my response where I ignore the prefix "near-c".<BR>
<BR>
>No commander likes to have weapons under his command that he can't control.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Fine, but big rocks can be controlled with relative ease. This is a culture<BR>
which builds gigantic starships. Landing ships on the surface of a planet<BR>
is, literally, a routine task.<BR>
<BR>
>Near-c rocks are about as uncontrolled as you can get. They take weeks<BR>
>to prepare,<BR>
<BR>
Okay, they take weeks to prepare. All the more time for the planet to come<BR>
around and accept Imperial demands.<BR>
<BR>
>can't be directed at small targets,<BR>
<BR>
Actually, yes they can. The laws of physics tend to be pretty stable, and<BR>
Imperial ships tend to have really big computers. Still, depends on what<BR>
size you consider small. Big rocks are only practical for big stationary<BR>
things, like cities, towns, harbors, etc.<BR>
<BR>
>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).<BR>
<BR>
I'm sure that a starfaring race can come up with a set of guidelines<BR>
concerning what types of rocks won't flake apart before impact, and what<BR>
ones aren't explosive.<BR>
<BR>
>Worst of all for any commander,<BR>
>once sent they cannot be recalled.<BR>
<BR>
That may be the case with near-c rocks, but it's not the case with big rocks<BR>
that aren't accelerated to such speeds.<BR>
<BR>
>Just as the poor sods you point it at<BR>
>cannot stop it, eventually neither can you. If they surrender<BR>
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>
<BR>
Again, since I'm not talking about near-c rocks this is something of a moot<BR>
point.<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>
<BR>
Yep. I've seen WarGames too ;)<BR>
<BR>
"Shall we play a game?"<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 23:33:35 -0500<BR>
From: "Chris Seamans" <semo@pil.net><BR>
Subject: Re: The Fall of Governments<BR>
<BR>
From: Robert Prior <robert_prior@sympatico.ca><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
>I think that history shows that any government will fall, sooner or later.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Nah. As long as there are diehard Classic Traveller fans, the Imperium will<BR>
be perpetually exist in exactly the same state as it was conceived. ;)<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 23:38:45 -0500<BR>
From: Walter Smith <SmithW@HARTWICK.EDU><BR>
Subject: Laws of War<BR>
<BR>
I spent a few minutes looking over some of the Hague conventions and <BR>
Geneva conventions online, and found an interesting detail:<BR>
<BR>
In general, you only have to follow the laws of war if *all* your enemies<BR>
have agreed to follow them as well. You're still bound by things like<BR>
"International Law" and "the Requirements of Humanity", but some of<BR>
the more restrictive limits on such things as confiscating property,<BR>
handling POW's, or restricting collateral damage no longer apply.<BR>
<BR>
Let's say A and B signed the treaties, and C didn't. If A and B have<BR>
a war, they are both obligated to follow the rules. If C has a war with<BR>
either A or B, no one is bound to follow the rules.<BR>
<BR>
Here's the interesting part, though:<BR>
If A and B are having a war, and C allies with B against A, then<BR>
A no longer has to follow the rules - but B is still bound by them!!<BR>
<BR>
ObTrav is a little fuzzy, as I don't expect these conventions to have<BR>
made it to the stars with the 2nd Imperium...but the odd side effects<BR>
treaties can have should make for some interesting plot twists.<BR>
<BR>
Walt Smith<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 23:52:27 -0500<BR>
From: Walter Smith <SmithW@HARTWICK.EDU><BR>
Subject: re: Laws of War<BR>
<BR>
It seems I spoke too soon.<BR>
<BR>
My interpretation of the various Hague and Geneva conventions was<BR>
incorrect. While it is true that the involvement of even one belligerent<BR>
releases other belligerents from following the agreements, the<BR>
release from the agreements appears to apply to all belligerents<BR>
in the conflict, regardless of which side (or sides) they may be on.<BR>
<BR>
ObTrav: Wanna see what happens when a junior diplomat on the<BR>
spot has a different understanding of the intent of a treaty than the<BR>
senior who gave him his orders six months ago? Paging Mr. Retief...<BR>
<BR>
(Granted, Retief's interpretation of a treaty was generally 1000% <BR>
better than his boss's...)<BR>
<BR>
Walt Smith<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 23:08:28 -0600<BR>
From: Black ICE <wombat@premier.net><BR>
Subject: Imperial (Marital) Relations (was: the drift of Vargr)<BR>
<BR>
Kyle Schuant wrote:<BR>
> <BR>
<<snip>><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>
I would expect that Pharaoh's wishes in the matter of his spouse were<BR>
entirely immaterial.  Like it or not, Pharaoh's duties included marrying<BR>
his sister.<BR>
<BR>
This brings up an interesting ObTrav.  How are potential Imperial<BR>
spouses chosen?  Marriages of state (heirs of two royal families<BR>
marrying each other) seem unlikely, given that the two largest human<BR>
rival states to the 3I do not follow the Imperial model.   That leaves<BR>
the various noble families within the 3I.  If that's the case, then how<BR>
far down the nobility chain can a potential Emperor/Empress go to find<BR>
an acceptable mate?<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 20:43:09 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: Slavery was Re: Ideological Warfare<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
> Dr. Jerry Pournelle, in _King David's Spaceship_, points out that the<BR>
> horse collar eventually led to the end of human slavery as a routine<BR>
> institution.  [Note:  Figures used are from _KDS_.]  Before the horse<BR>
> collar was invented, a horse could do the work of five human slaves,<BR>
> because the harnesses in use at the time would strangle the horse if you<BR>
> had it pull too much.  Since a horse also eats about as much as five<BR>
> human slaves, human slave labor is reasonably attractive.  However, once<BR>
> the horse collar was invented, a horse could do the work of _ten_ human<BR>
> slaves, while still eating as much as five human slaves.  Given the<BR>
> obvious economic benefit of using horses for heavy work (twice as much<BR>
> work per unit of food), slavery becomes more rare, and is generally<BR>
> imposed on peoples thought of as inferior.  Once the Industrial<BR>
> Revolution began, slavery became even less viable economically, as<BR>
> machines began to replace human labor in many fields.<BR>
<BR>
The big catch being that the horse could replace slaves as far as sheer<BR>
muscle power went. But when it comes to things where manual dexterity<BR>
is involved, the slave wins until fairly late in the industrial<BR>
revolution. <BR>
<BR>
Heck, stevedores were better than machines at several phases of loading<BR>
and unloading vessel right up until containerized freight caught on. <BR>
<BR>
The original reason the American South needed all those slaves was to<BR>
pick cotton. And that came about *because* the invention of the cotton<BR>
gin made it *practical* to raise huge amounts of cotton. Before that<BR>
there was *too much* hand labor involved in removing the seeds.<BR>
<BR>
> Thus, S.M. Stirling's Domination of the Draka notwithstanding, I would<BR>
> not expect to see chattel slavery in a semi-rational technological<BR>
> civilization.  <BR>
<BR>
Remember, the Draka are a *highly* unusual situation. They started out<BR>
with an "ideological need" for slavery after the ex-Confederates joined<BR>
them after the US Civil War.<BR>
<BR>
- -- <BR>
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)<BR>
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred<BR>
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 20:53:55 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: Traveller Planetary Assaults<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
> At 09:58 AM 11/22/99 +0000, you wrote:<BR>
> <snip><BR>
>>Richard Wilson <rtwilson@rollanet.org> wrote:<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>
Sure. *Some* starships can land at type X ports. They then have to load<BR>
or unload *by hand*, or pretty close to it. What a decent port could<BR>
unload in an hour might take them all day. <BR>
<BR>
This is the same reason that the Allies made a point of capturing a<BR>
relatively intact seaport shortly after D-Day. You *can* get troops and<BR>
supplies ashore via landing craft. But it takes specialized vehicles,<BR>
and takes a lot of time. <BR>
<BR>
Ports also have fueling facilities, and are tied into the local<BR>
transportation net. that last won't be *quite* as important in a CG<BR>
using civilization, but I bet there's still stuff better handled by<BR>
road or some sort of "subway" or even pipeline. <BR>
<BR>
> Which is why you don't want to launch an all out planetary assault on it.<BR>
> You want the starport intact for after the war, so you pull the defending<BR>
> forces away from the port before engaging them.<BR>
<BR>
Just keep in mind that the *other* side wants that port intact too.<BR>
You'll mostly see major facilities being destroyed when the enemy is<BR>
fighting on territory that they took away from someone else. <BR>
<BR>
Otherwise it's a good sign that they consider the situation hopeless<BR>
and have decided that the only thing left to do is destroy things to<BR>
keep you from using them. <BR>
<BR>
- -- <BR>
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)<BR>
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred<BR>
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 20:01:56 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: Imperial culture<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
> On Mon, 22 Nov 1999, Robert Eaglestone wrote:<BR>
><BR>
>> Who says Imperial culture is Western?<BR>
>> <BR>
> I would expect Imperial culture in any given TU to reflect the culture<BR>
> or cultures that the referee comes from, modified by what historical<BR>
> reading the ref has done and what sort of SF the ref likes to read.<BR>
> This isn't particularly logical but it makes for better gaming.<BR>
<BR>
Just consider the temptations for a ref who is interested in Japanese<BR>
culture, and is fond of Shogun and samurai movies. <BR>
<BR>
Now *that* would be an interesting Imperium. And oddly enough, you<BR>
could even justify it, by extrapolating from Japanese dominance in<BR>
various industries and their interest in space. <BR>
<BR>
Other possibilities:<BR>
<BR>
Chinese Imperial bureaucracy.<BR>
Cultural Russians, "reviving" the Czarist model.<BR>
Roman Revival.<BR>
<BR>
And so on. This planet has seen a *lot* of "empires" with rather<BR>
different details. Even *gross* details.<BR>
<BR>
If you want to take obscure (but known) "empires" and make them the<BR>
dominant culture of some planet with it's own humaniti and have *them*<BR>
be what the Imperium is descended from, things *rapidly* get weirder.<BR>
<BR>
If I won the lottery, I'd be tempted to hire a few anthro majors and<BR>
dig up what's known about *all* the cultures on Earth, and see what we<BR>
could do in the way of trying to "grow" them into industrial cultures,<BR>
and then on to planet-spanning cultures, spacefaring cultures,<BR>
starfaring cultures, and finally to interstellar cultures. <BR>
<BR>
It'd make for one *hell* of a sourcebook. Probably more like a *series*<BR>
of sourcebooks.<BR>
<BR>
- -- <BR>
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)<BR>
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred<BR>
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 21:13:55 PST<BR>
From: shadow@krypton.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)<BR>
Subject: Re: Weapons of mass destruction (Was: Traveller Nav, Gun...)<BR>
<BR>
In mail you write:<BR>
<BR>
> At 07:47 PM 11/21/99 PST, you wrote:<BR>
>>In mail you write:<BR>
>><BR>
>>>> So anybody over TL 5 or 6 (too lazy to check the books :-) can<BR>
>>>> build a nuke. It's no more "restricted" a technology than<BR>
>>>> gunpowder and other explosives.<BR>
<BR>
>>> Give me the materials and I can make you one.  Very simple to build<BR>
>>> and understand if you can at least think.<BR>
<BR>
>> "Build Your Own Atomic Bomb and *Really* Wake Up the Neighborhood"<BR>
>> (or something like that) was the title of an article printed in the<BR>
>> 70s in Analog. It details how to build a *really* crude nuke. Really<BR>
>> dirty too.<BR>
<BR>
>> And yes, they left out details. Ones that might get you killed. But<BR>
>> the damn thing *would* work.<BR>
<BR>
>> Basicly, all you need are the fissionables, a 2-story house with<BR>
>> basement, and some fairly common tools and construction materials.<BR>
>> You *don't* need any explosives!<BR>
<BR>
>         I thought they used a powder charge atop the upper hemisphere to<BR>
> give it a boost down the pipe? (It's been a while, and if the water<BR>
> damage hasn't ruined it it's still packed away).<BR>
<BR>
I don't think so. And even if they did, I can think of several means of<BR>
getting the same effect *without* explosives. <BR>
<BR>
- -- <BR>
Leonard Erickson (aka Shadow)<BR>
 shadow@krypton.rain.com        <--preferred<BR>
leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com     <--last resort<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
End of Traveller-digest V1999 #1383<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-zc05.mx.aol.com (rly-zc05.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.5]) by air-zc02.mail.aol.com (vx) with ESMTP; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 00:17:28 1900<BR>
Received: from  lists.imagiconline.com (lists.imagiconline.com [204.85.32.11]) by rly-zc05.mx.aol.com (v65.4) with ESMTP; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 00:17:07 -0500<BR>
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)<BR>
	by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) with SMTP id AAA06321;<BR>
	Tue, 23 Nov 1999 00:16:40 -0500 (EST)<BR>
	(envelope-from owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com)<BR>
Received: by lists.imagiconline.com (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 23 Nov 1999 00:16:21 -0500<BR>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)<BR>
	by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) id AAA06277<BR>
	for traveller-digest-outgoing; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 00:16:21 -0500 (EST)<BR>
	(envelope-from owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com)<BR>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 00:16:21 -0500 (EST)<BR>
Message-Id: <199911230516.AAA06277@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 #1383<BR>
Reply-To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
<BR>
</HTML>
