<HTML><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10>Subj:	<B> Traveller-digest V1999 #1384</FONT><FONT  SIZE=3 PTSIZE=10></B><BR>
Date:	11/22/99 9:49:50 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 1384<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: Imperial culture<BR>
Re: the drift of Vargr<BR>
Re: Laws of War (long)<BR>
Re: Slavery was Re: Ideological ...<BR>
Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery<BR>
re: Laws of War<BR>
Re: Ortillery VS Gropos Long(was Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery)<BR>
Digest Group Publications<BR>
Re: Traveller-digest V1999 #1380<BR>
<BR>
----------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 15:32:56 +1000<BR>
From: "The Roc" <roc@kewl.com.au><BR>
Subject: Re: Slavery was Re: Ideological Warfare...<BR>
<BR>
- ----- Original Message -----<BR>
From: Kiri Aradia Morgan <tiamat@tsoft.com><BR>
To: <traveller@lists.imagiconline.com><BR>
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 7:18 AM<BR>
Subject: Re: Slavery was Re: Ideological Warfare<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
> True.  But they weren't much more humane to members of their own peoples,<BR>
> often.   At least not the Assyrians or the Aztecs.  Assyria was a terrible<BR>
> place to be born female.<BR>
<BR>
And the Aztecs needed captured enemies for sacrifice to their God/s (a<BR>
religious thing).  Although one of the middle/south American tribes also<BR>
kept slaves as cattle... to work them and eat them when times were hard!<BR>
<BR>
><BR>
> The Egyptians were somewhere in the middle<BR>
<BR>
By scale, the Egyptian economy didn't warrant large scale use of slaves, so<BR>
they were (by scale) the lesser user of slaves.  As where the Roman Empire<BR>
needed slaves in the long-run for economic reasons, the large scale supply<BR>
of foods and goods both military and civil.<BR>
<BR>
><BR>
> Rome actually was a pretty good place to live throughout most of its<BR>
> history; it gets a bad rap due to Sunday School stories, but Christianity<BR>
> was one of the few religions it *DIDN'T* tolerate and that was because the<BR>
> Christians were actively campaigning against the gov't-- Rome ignored<BR>
> religion except when it interfered with government and only ever really<BR>
> got seriously into oppressing three religions:  Zoroastrianism, Druidism<BR>
> and Christianity.<BR>
<BR>
All of these were actually aloowed (if not welcomed) into Roman society, but<BR>
when they worked against the Roman ways (gov't, etc.) were they repressed.<BR>
Christianity was repressed because of it's belief that there is only one<BR>
true god and that was heavily against Roman ways and it's belief in<BR>
polythesionism.<BR>
<BR>
><BR>
> Rome is a very good model for a benevolent Empire at any tech level.<BR>
> Except for the little problem of having the army pick the Emperors, LOL.<BR>
><BR>
> > > Are their any cultures in your TU that practice slavery?<BR>
> ><BR>
> Heheheheh.  I expect that's the usual.  I just recall being surprised to<BR>
> see slavery in "The Phantom Menace".  Usually people don't mention it much<BR>
> any more, even though it fits in with the type of culture that universe<BR>
> had.<BR>
<BR>
Slavery in ancient Europe was an economical requirement for some hundreds of<BR>
years, even with the coming of Christianity (many Popes had slaves [as the<BR>
bible sees, or had seen, no wrong in slavery as a practice or way of life.<BR>
Indeed, "Blessed is the slave whom his master, returning, finds performing<BR>
his charge," said Jesus in one of his parables -- Quoted from Slavery: A<BR>
World History by Milton Meltzer].  My old TU also had societies that relies<BR>
on slavery (with many models from malevolent to family units - all good for<BR>
plot devices) even though I believe it is canon that the Imperium does not<BR>
allow slavery (also for the making of many plot devices!).<BR>
<BR>
><BR>
> I have run Traveller in the universe where my novels are set and there are<BR>
> several slave-owning cultures, and several non-slave-owning cultures<BR>
> (which sets things up perfectly for those nasty atrocity-filled<BR>
> ideological wars...)<BR>
><BR>
<BR>
Heheheheheh... Yep!  :^)<BR>
<BR>
- -- The Roc<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 21:24:28 -0800 (PST)<BR>
From: Kyle Schuant <kyle3054@yahoo.com><BR>
Subject: Re: Imperial culture<BR>
<BR>
> Just consider the temptations for a ref who is<BR>
> interested in Japanese<BR>
> culture, and is fond of Shogun and samurai movies. <BR>
> <BR>
> Now *that* would be an interesting Imperium. And<BR>
> oddly enough, you<BR>
> could even justify it, by extrapolating from<BR>
> Japanese dominance in<BR>
> various industries and their interest in space. <BR>
> <BR>
> Other possibilities: (etc)<BR>
<BR>
I'd recommend here some of the GURPS "Alternate Earth"<BR>
series. To my memory, there's only one of them that<BR>
has a spacefaring culture, and that's an Islamic<BR>
world-dominance one, but nonetheless they give good<BR>
ideas, since most are world empires...<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 23:22:42 -0600<BR>
From: "Eris Reddoch" <eris@pcola.gulf.net><BR>
Subject: Re: the drift of Vargr<BR>
<BR>
On 11/22/99 at 12:03 PM,  "Terry Carlino" <carlino@home.com> said:<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<BR>
>Egypt (Right up to the First Century BCE) the Pharaoh and his sister<BR>
>were often mated, to maintain the "purity" of the bloodline.<BR>
<BR>
As I understand it, it was *only* the Pharaoh who was allowed<BR>
(?required?) to wed his sister.  It was taboo for everyone else.  At<BR>
least, that's what I remember...it's been awhile. <g><BR>
<BR>
Eris<BR>
- -- <BR>
- -----------------------------------------------------------<BR>
"Eris Reddoch" <eris@pcola.gulf.net>    using MR/2 ICE #245<BR>
- -----------------------------------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 23:34:47 -0600<BR>
From: Black ICE <wombat@premier.net><BR>
Subject: Re: Laws of War (long)<BR>
<BR>
Walter Smith wrote:<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>
However, while there may be conditions which release belligerents from<BR>
observing their formal treaty obligations as signatories to the several<BR>
Geneva and Hague Conventions, there is, according to my studies of the<BR>
Law of Land Warfare (US Army Field Manual 27-10), another source of<BR>
binding Laws of Land Warfare:  custom.  [The following quotes are from<BR>
the online edition of FM 27-10, Chapter 1 (Basic Rules and Principles).]<BR>
<BR>
<<begin first quote>><BR>
<BR>
4. Sources <BR>
<BR>
The law of war is derived from two principal sources: <BR>
<BR>
a. Lawmaking Treaties (or Conventions), such as the Hague and Geneva<BR>
Conventions. <BR>
<BR>
b. Custom. Although some of the law of war has not been incorporated in<BR>
any treaty or convention to which the United States is a party, this<BR>
body of unwritten or customary law is firmly established by the custom<BR>
of nations and well defined by recognized<BR>
authorities on international law. <BR>
<BR>
Lawmaking treaties may be compared with legislative enactments in the<BR>
national law of the United States and the customary law of war with the<BR>
unwritten Anglo-American common law.<BR>
<BR>
<<end first quote>><BR>
<BR>
<<begin second quote>><BR>
<BR>
6. Custom <BR>
<BR>
Evidence of the customary law of war, arising from the general consent<BR>
of States, may be found in judicial decisions, the writings of jurists,<BR>
diplomatic correspondence, and other documentary material concerning the<BR>
practice of States. Even though individual States may not be parties to<BR>
or otherwise strictly bound by H. IV and GPW 1929, the former convention<BR>
and the general principles of the latter have been held to be<BR>
declaratory of the customary law of war, to which all States are<BR>
subject. <BR>
<BR>
The Preamble to the HR specifically provides: <BR>
<BR>
Until a more complete code of the laws of war has been issued, the High<BR>
Contracting Parties deem it expedient to declare that, in cases not<BR>
included in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and the<BR>
belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the principles<BR>
of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among<BR>
civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity, and the dictates of the<BR>
public conscience. <BR>
<BR>
Similarly, a common article of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (GWS, art.<BR>
63; GWS Sea, art. 62; GPW, art. 142; GC, art. 158) provides that the<BR>
denunciation of (withdrawal from) any of the Geneva Conventions of 1949,<BR>
* * * shall in no way impair the obligations which the Parties to the<BR>
conflict shall remain bound to fulfil by virtue of the principles of the<BR>
law of nations, as they result from the usages established among<BR>
civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity and the dictates of the<BR>
public conscience.<BR>
<BR>
<<end second quote>><BR>
<BR>
<<begin third quote, from paragraph 7>><BR>
<BR>
c. Force of Customary Law. The unwritten or customary law of war is<BR>
binding upon all nations. It will be strictly observed by United States<BR>
forces, subject only to such exceptions as shall have been directed by<BR>
competent authority by way of legitimate<BR>
reprisals for illegal conduct of the enemy (see par. 497). The customary<BR>
law of war is part of the law of the United States and, insofar as it is<BR>
not inconsistent with any treaty to which this country is a party or<BR>
with a controlling executive or legislative act, is binding upon the<BR>
United States, citizens of the United States, and other persons serving<BR>
this country.<BR>
<BR>
<<end third quote>><BR>
<BR>
<<begin quote of paragraph 497, referenced above (Chapter 8)>><BR>
<BR>
497. Reprisals <BR>
<BR>
a. Definition. Reprisals are acts of retaliation in the form of conduct<BR>
which would otherwise be unlawful, resorted to by one belligerent<BR>
against enemy personnel or property for acts of warfare committed by the<BR>
other belligerent in violation of the law of war, for the purpose of<BR>
enforcing future compliance with the recognized rules of civilized<BR>
warfare. For example, the employment by a belligerent of a weapon the<BR>
use of which is normally precluded by the law of war would constitute a<BR>
lawful reprisal for<BR>
intentional mistreatment of prisoners of war held by the enemy.<BR>
<BR>
<<end final quote>><BR>
<BR>
Those who are interested in further reading of official US Army doctrine<BR>
and interpretation of the Law of Land Warfare can go to the following<BR>
site:<BR>
<BR>
http://155.217.58.58/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/27-10/toc.htm<BR>
<BR>
ObTrav:  The material quoted above can be used, either verbatim or in<BR>
analogy, to describe an interstellar polity's doctrine concerning the<BR>
laws of war.<BR>
<BR>
<<snip>><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: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 15:46:26 +1000<BR>
From: "The Roc" <roc@kewl.com.au><BR>
Subject: Re: Slavery was Re: Ideological ...<BR>
<BR>
- ----- Original Message -----<BR>
From: Bruce Johnson <johnson@pharmacy.arizona.edu><BR>
To: <traveller@lists.imagiconline.com><BR>
Sent: Tuesday, November 23, 1999 7:27 AM<BR>
Subject: Re: Slavery was Re: Ideological Warfare<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
><BR>
> Chattel slavery, 'people as property' is specifically outlawed as an<BR>
> Imperial Crime. Curiously, this does not seem to include indentured<BR>
> servitude.<BR>
<BR>
To this very day, in Bangladesh, Thailand and West Napal to name a few,<BR>
there is still dept bondage where mainly children are sold into slave labour<BR>
and prostitution to pay of daddy's dept to someone else.<BR>
<BR>
In the Ghana and the Sudan, rich land owners practice an almost sanctioned<BR>
slavery (well, sanctioned by their government) by contracting labourers that<BR>
are treated exactly as you may understand "slavery" to be, for a 5-year<BR>
term.  The thing is, after 8-10 years when the slave... errrr, labourer dies<BR>
from overwork and maltreatment, it appears no-one has told the poor bugger<BR>
his contract was up several years ago!  And he still dies owing the company<BR>
store money!<BR>
<BR>
ObTrav:  We live in a world that prohibits slavery, yet it survives in one<BR>
way or another, sometimes "legally"... as well as it could in the Imerium?<BR>
<BR>
- -- The Roc<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 00:35:34 -0500<BR>
From: "Chris Seamans" <semo@pil.net><BR>
Subject: Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery<BR>
<BR>
From: Alan Bradley <alanb@elf.brisnet.org.au><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
>I'm not quite familiar enough to deal with the American revolution, so I<BR>
>will just deal with the French case.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
One has a devil of a time fitting the American Revolution into the peasant<BR>
revolt model, considering the fact that the closest thing we had to<BR>
"peasants" in any traditional sense were the slaves.<BR>
<BR>
>Basically, the peasants provided the bulk of the force behind the<BR>
>revolution, along with the urban masses, the sans-culottes.  This is for<BR>
>the good and simple reason that the peasants were the _overwhelming_<BR>
>majority of the French population.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Overwhelming is putting it lightly ;)<BR>
<BR>
The only problem being that the bulk of the action was really in the cities,<BR>
politically, philosophical, and physically,  and that's not where the<BR>
peasants were. There were a number of relatively minor peasant riots, and<BR>
the peasants seized the land from their aristocratic landlords, but after<BR>
that they really didn't really do that much.<BR>
<BR>
It's even more complicated because the Gallup Poll wasn't yet in general<BR>
use...<BR>
<BR>
"Our recent poll shows that 71% of the peasants in the field are in favor of<BR>
the revolution, 12% think that the Committee for Public Safety isn't<BR>
guillotining enough aristocrats, spies and political opponents, 6% wish to<BR>
be let alone and allowed to eat cake, 6% are against the revolution because<BR>
they miss the snazzy outfits the aristocrats used to wear before times went<BR>
sour and 5% are undecided."<BR>
<BR>
Granted, I'll give you that it really helped that the various revolutionary<BR>
factions had the support of the peasantry... *but* as far as I understand,<BR>
that support really began to dwindle, and by the time things got bad enough<BR>
that they called in Napoleon, the peasants had little say in their destiny.<BR>
<BR>
One of the real problems with applying a Marxist class-based model to the<BR>
French revolution is that classes, as such, didn't really exist in France.<BR>
Class structures are "horizontal". The social structure of France was<BR>
"vertical", or privilege based. Of course, a really proper Marxist<BR>
revolution requires a degree of industrialization, which was really slow in<BR>
coming in France.<BR>
<BR>
It's tough too, because apparently the major scholar on the French<BR>
Revolution was himself a Marxist. Damn, I wish I could remember his name.<BR>
<BR>
Anyway, while I have friends who are Marxists, one of the failings that they<BR>
tend to have is that they try to hang a Marxist interpretation on anything<BR>
that has something resembling a hook. I tend toward being a Skocpol fellow<BR>
myself, even though I've got two major problems: One, I don't understand her<BR>
as well as I'd like, and two I'm not familiar with the various critiques on<BR>
her structuralist view of social revolutions.<BR>
<BR>
>"Elite" revolts that face opposition need mass support, or they will fail.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Only if the "masses" actually have some sort of direct connection to the<BR>
elite. Of course, the French Revolution went through a number of phases, and<BR>
the peasants were pretty active quite early on. Later on, they sat it out.<BR>
<BR>
>You don't, of course, get wars that are fought for just one reason.  But<BR>
>still:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Of course not.<BR>
<BR>
>Enter the Taiping Rebellion!<BR>
><BR>
>The second bloodiest war in human history was fought in China between 1851<BR>
>and 1864.  The body count has been estimated at around 30 million or so.<BR>
>The Taipings' central leader considered himself the younger brother of<BR>
>Jesus.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Youch... It's interesting, though, I hadn't realized that Jesus was Chinese.<BR>
;)<BR>
<BR>
ObTrav: You can have *lots* of fun with revolutions, especially when the PCs<BR>
are involved, even accidentally. All that the characters wanted to do was<BR>
deliver a package, now their ship has been impounded by the "people" and<BR>
their Imperial credits are looking really good to the population of the<BR>
planet, since the economy has gone hyper-inflationary.<BR>
<BR>
Do the characters join on the side of the well-dressed aristocracy... or do<BR>
they raise their fists and say, "Down with The Man! Power to the people!"?<BR>
If you're using the French Revolution as a model you can toss in artistes,<BR>
such as David, and any number of philosopher types to really increase the<BR>
fun you can have. You could have the "Grav-Ball Court Oath"! Of course, you<BR>
can have fun with the later "minor" revolutions as well.<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 21:43:21 -0800 (PST)<BR>
From: Kyle Schuant <kyle3054@yahoo.com><BR>
Subject: re: Laws of War<BR>
<BR>
What the conventions and protocols actually say:<BR>
<BR>
"The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and<BR>
to ensure respect for the present Convention in all<BR>
circumstances." <BR>
<BR>
"...Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be<BR>
a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are<BR>
parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their<BR>
mutual relations...." (ie, you've got to follow the<BR>
rules even if the enemy doesn't, if you have already<BR>
agreed to the rules, eg, Allies didn't get to murder<BR>
Japs in camps just because the Japs hadn't signed the<BR>
Conventions)<BR>
<BR>
Also, you can't order reprisals against: medical<BR>
personnel, prisoners of war, the wounded and sick,<BR>
chaplains, or the civilian population. That's<BR>
everybody except the boys fighting, and probably they<BR>
don't care whether your shooting them is an attack or<BR>
"reprisal"; the bullet stings your bum just the same!<BR>
<BR>
Those who can wade through the legalese I recommend to<BR>
the following site for links to the full texts of the<BR>
conventions (war crimes down the bottom of the<BR>
screen):<BR>
http://www.hri.ca/uninfo/treaties/<BR>
<BR>
You'll note, by these standards, every party to every<BR>
conflict we can think have war criminals...<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
- --- Walter Smith <SmithW@HARTWICK.EDU> wrote:<BR>
> It seems I spoke too soon.<BR>
> <BR>
> My interpretation of the various Hague and Geneva<BR>
> conventions was<BR>
> incorrect. While it is true that the involvement of<BR>
> even one belligerent<BR>
> releases other belligerents from following the<BR>
> agreements, the<BR>
> release from the agreements appears to apply to all<BR>
> belligerents<BR>
> in the conflict, regardless of which side (or sides)<BR>
> they may be on.<BR>
> <BR>
> ObTrav: Wanna see what happens when a junior<BR>
> diplomat on the<BR>
> spot has a different understanding of the intent of<BR>
> a treaty than the<BR>
> senior who gave him his orders six months ago?<BR>
> Paging Mr. Retief...<BR>
> <BR>
> (Granted, Retief's interpretation of a treaty was<BR>
> generally 1000% <BR>
> better than his boss's...)<BR>
> <BR>
> Walt Smith<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 23:41:32 -0600<BR>
From: "Eris Reddoch" <eris@pcola.gulf.net><BR>
Subject: Re: Ortillery VS Gropos Long(was Re: Traveller Navigation and Gunnery)<BR>
<BR>
On 11/22/99 at 02:12 PM,  "DaveShayne" <daveshayne@email.msn.com> said:<BR>
<BR>
>>Well, the large number of nationalist movements, self-determination<BR>
>>movements, and so on that exist and have existed in the real world seem to<BR>
>>be placed in opposition to your reasoning.<BR>
<BR>
>True there are Welsh seperatists. And a lot more Welsh who are more<BR>
>or less happy being british. Then there are the Quebec seperatists.<BR>
>And twice in a row they've voted down independence.<BR>
>There are other examples, my point being that in any reasonably large<BR>
>population you will be able to find a number of quislings and a lot<BR>
>of people who won't care who is in charge as long as they have bread<BR>
>on the table and a reasonable expectation of having more of the same<BR>
>in the future.<BR>
<BR>
And what about Puerto Rico, the majority of US citizens would be<BR>
*more* than happy to give them their independence, and we wouldn't<BR>
object to them joining the union as a state is they wanted.  It<BR>
comes up for a vote down there from time to time, but everytime it<BR>
does they vote to remain a territory.  Then *we* get blamed for<BR>
their decision...sheeze!<BR>
<BR>
I'd take this to the Imperium, but I don't imagine the Emperor<BR>
lets systems vote to *leave* the empire.<BR>
<BR>
Eris<BR>
- -- <BR>
- -----------------------------------------------------------<BR>
"Eris Reddoch" <eris@pcola.gulf.net>    using MR/2 ICE #245<BR>
- -----------------------------------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 00:46:07 EST<BR>
From: JDoch226@aol.com<BR>
Subject: Digest Group Publications<BR>
<BR>
Can anyone comment on the quality of the out-of-print Digest Group items, <BR>
especially the Vargr and Aslan books?  Do they have unique content that's <BR>
worth seeking out?<BR>
Thanks,<BR>
Jed Docherty<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 00:52:47 -0500<BR>
From: "DaveShayne" <daveshayne@email.msn.com><BR>
Subject: Re: Traveller-digest V1999 #1380<BR>
<BR>
>From: "Chris Seamans" <semo@pil.net><BR>
<BR>
>>I was responding to the specific scenario of a worlds leaders deliberately<BR>
>>sabotaging their own infrastructure not making a general point. If say<BR>
>>some political leader were to order you to destroy your source of income<BR>
>>in order to annoy some larger political body would you? Would your<BR>
>neighbor?<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
>It's happened, and it will most likely happen again (and again). It seems<BR>
>like you're assuming a modern American apathetic dynamic. There are<BR>
>astonishing examples in World War II, for example.<BR>
<BR>
Perhaps you could provide some so I know what your argument is?<BR>
Barring that, yes there was resistance to german occupation durring<BR>
the war. The industrial output of occupied territories was definitely<BR>
effected by sabotage, slow work, etc. But production continued.<BR>
And how long would people have kept up the resistance if the<BR>
UK/US/USSR hadn't been actively fighting the germans? A world<BR>
rebelling on the border may be able to count on outside support<BR>
or liberation but not neccessarily. And get a few jumps into the interior<BR>
and you can forget about outside assistance.<BR>
<BR>
<snips><BR>
<BR>
>>If they're fanatics who'd rather die than accept Impie rule they would.<BR>
>>But such people are rare in the extreme.<BR>
<BR>
>I don't think that they're as rare as you think. Vietnam (particularly apt,<BR>
>actually), Afghanistan... I can be here all day composing a list, and that<BR>
>would only focus on those after 1900 or so.<BR>
<BR>
Individual fanatics are not very rare. Whole societies of fanatics are<BR>
much less common. The fanatic society was what I meant. Sorry.<BR>
<BR>
<snip><BR>
<BR>
>I never said that *every* world would want to leave the Imperium, nor that<BR>
>every world that wants to leave will be commited. However, I think that it<BR>
>would be an eventuality that would happen, and would happen a number of<BR>
>times within the Imperium. After all, there are many, many worlds within<BR>
the<BR>
>Imperium.<BR>
><BR>
>Remember, the Imperium looks the other way with regard to the plight of<BR>
>worlds ruled by brutal regimes every day. It's going to be obvious to<BR>
>somebody that the Imperium *could* do something and chooses not to as long<BR>
>as the taxes are coming in. Give such a scenario, I don't know, one or two<BR>
>or six centuries and you're going to have people who have more than just a<BR>
>little dislike for the Imperium.<BR>
<BR>
Perhaps. But the imperium would also be more than willing to deal with<BR>
the victors of a proletarian revolution (Hah now you see my true sympathies)<BR>
as long as those same taxes keep roling in. It comes to a push(gambling<BR>
term,<BR>
means tie) IMHO. Oppressive regimes are tolerated but so are relatively<BR>
quick revolutions. In some instances I would expect some covert Impy help<BR>
to revolutionaries.<BR>
<BR>
><BR>
>Toss in the submerged cultural regions, which were at one time multi-world<BR>
>polities with long histories and (presumably) proud traditions, and which<BR>
>were brought into the Imperium by force.<BR>
<BR>
CF Scotland. Last I heard loyal subjects of the Queen. Yes there are lots of<BR>
reasons for worlds to rebel. There are also lots of reasons for the same<BR>
worlds<BR>
to remain loyal. Cultural inertia will result in most worlds in the imperium<BR>
remaining loyal. When worlds do rebel the marines deploy. As the Imps can<BR>
always count on overwhelming odds against any single world we can assume<BR>
the world will capitulate fairly soon. Then sift through the locals looking<BR>
for a<BR>
loyal government. Orbital bombardment only gets in the way.<BR>
><BR>
>>There are other examples, my point being that in any reasonably large<BR>
>>population you will be able to find a number of quislings and a lot of<BR>
>>people who won't care who is in charge as long as they have bread<BR>
>>on the table and a reasonable expectation of having more of the same in<BR>
>>the future.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
>If what you're saying is true, the Japanese could never have isolated<BR>
>themselves to the extent that they did. Incidentally, that isolation ended<BR>
>when the American Navy threatened to come back in a year and start<BR>
>bombarding the country.<BR>
<BR>
I'm not as hip on Japanese history as I should be so if I make any<BR>
factual errors please correct me.<BR>
<BR>
Prior to this the only people who tried to break through to Japan were<BR>
the Chinese (who's fleet was destroyed in a storm(Kamikaze)) and the<BR>
Dutch (who traded there for a while but were kicked out.) To the best<BR>
of my knowledge nobody else even tried untill the Americans.<BR>
<BR>
This was also coincident with the Meiji restoration - a revolution of sorts<BR>
in which power shifted to the emperor that had previously been held by<BR>
warlords. The newly powerfull emperor, realizing that Japan's previous<BR>
isolation had led to stagnation, ordered a massive westernization<BR>
campaign. (Damned impressive too, they went from a feudal agrarian<BR>
backwater to an industrial power in less than 100 years)<BR>
So they were ready to do this any way and the US didn't cram<BR>
missionaries down their throats(which is what the dutch did that resulted<BR>
in their dismisal)<BR>
<BR>
><BR>
>Actually, after the West made their way to Asia and started trying to pawn<BR>
>off their shiny baubles the Asians frequently pulled inward and tried to<BR>
>isolate themselves. Some were successful, some were not.<BR>
<BR>
<snip><BR>
<BR>
>>Some people become adherents of the said dictator/ideology many don't.<BR>
>>The trick is to kill the adherents whilst leaving as untouched as posible<BR>
>>those who aren't.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
>If you'll pardon my saying so, that's an awfully shallow view. Charismatic<BR>
>dictators are not mesmers. They do not suddenly shift populations with<BR>
their<BR>
>stunning rhetoric. They are charismatic because they are a product of the<BR>
>culture that they are making their appeals to. Don't get me wrong, I'm not<BR>
>saying that their actual *presence* doesn't matter. I'm just saying that it<BR>
>goes far deeper than that. Ideologies, on the other hand, are not simply<BR>
>born overnight.<BR>
><BR>
>They accrete and develop over the course of long decades, even centuries.<BR>
>Let's keep going with the Nazi example. It's a good one. You kill the<BR>
>adherents. How do you find the adherents? There were hundreds of thousands<BR>
>of German citizens who had no qualms about going out and killing Jews.<BR>
There<BR>
>were members of police and para-military groups who sent back pictures of<BR>
>dead Jewish Poles - women and children and old folks - in the streets to<BR>
>their wives and children back home.<BR>
<BR>
Well you start With the SA, and SS and comb through records of party<BR>
mebership<BR>
etc. You will undoubtedly find/execute people in those groups who aren't<BR>
commited nazi's but we don't need to be perfect in this instance. You can<BR>
assume<BR>
most of the rest are merely pasive supporters who are willing to adopt<BR>
another<BR>
governing Ideology. Again some nasty war criminal types will slip through<BR>
the<BR>
cracks but again we aren't worried about perfect. What you wind up with is<BR>
a population which is statistically likely to not be significantly nazi. At<BR>
least<BR>
they won't act like them as long as the occupation holds. This is by the way<BR>
more or less how we dealt with the silly master race twits historically.<BR>
<BR>
><BR>
>There have been anthropological and sociological studies done which seem to<BR>
>strongly point the finger not at any one leader, nor any one group of<BR>
people<BR>
>(indeed, those who participated in the really nasty and atrocious acts were<BR>
>a decent cross section of the German populace), nor any general moral<BR>
>breakdown on the part of the German people it was the result of a long<BR>
>process and includes philosophy, religious development, folklore, political<BR>
>movements, outside influences, and many, many other factors.<BR>
<BR>
Yes and that same cross section of germans later accepted that Nazism<BR>
was wrong(at least when the allied troops were arround) Studies exist<BR>
that prove that almost anybody will perform the most heinous acts if<BR>
they perceive that those acts were ordered by an authority figure. (I<BR>
can't cite them off hand but they are in any first year Psych/Soc text)<BR>
Set yourself up as the authority and most Humans will obey you.<BR>
<BR>
>Not at all. After all, rocks are cheap, battle-dress, grav tanks and<BR>
trained<BR>
>operators are not.<BR>
<BR>
Ah but the marines will get the job done. The rock probably will not.<BR>
Terrorism rarely works. And when it does it takes a long time.<BR>
Long as in decades.<BR>
<BR>
<snip><BR>
<BR>
>So what you're saying is that nailing, say, a city of 10,000, at no danger<BR>
>to the Imperium, is going to be different from entering into a ground war<BR>
>that could have many, many more casualties and could cost the Imperium a<BR>
>hell of a lot more?<BR>
<BR>
Yes because just nailing cities doesn't necesarily impose control.<BR>
Marines impose control. And again the ground forces will be a good deal<BR>
less random in their application of force. I cannot stress that last<BR>
sentance<BR>
enough. It's the key to the whole problem. If you want willing Imperial<BR>
subjects you need to at least appear to avoid indiscriminate killing.<BR>
<BR>
><BR>
>>Maybe not Hitler but how about the Krupps? Or the general staff?<BR>
>>Or even confronting Hitler in 36 or 37 when the wermacht was still<BR>
>>A small and mostly obsolete force instead of the much larger army<BR>
>>of 39.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
>Fair enough, but do you honestly think that bribing Hitler, or Lenin, or<BR>
>Castro would have succeeded? Do you think that Hitler would have been<BR>
>interested in money?<BR>
<BR>
Not Hitler(as I said in my post) but the other senior Nazi's were so damn<BR>
corrupt you could have bought them for a packet of American Airlines<BR>
honey roasted peanuts.<BR>
<BR>
<snip><BR>
<BR>
>>On the subject of Castro. I was going to go there but I won't.<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
>It's a good idea not to, considering the fact that he's still in power. ;)<BR>
<BR>
I'm more woried about the exiles in miami... those people hold grudges.<BR>
<BR>
<snip><BR>
<BR>
>Fair enough, although I'm not sure that anybody *really* follows "civilized<BR>
>rules of war" these days. Folks tend to avoid the nukes, chem and bio<BR>
>weapons simply because they know that the situation will most likely<BR>
>escalate to the point that they'd be wiped off the face of the earth.<BR>
<BR>
As well as the fact that none of these weapons is very useful in a<BR>
military sense. Nukes destroy whatever they hit - If you want something<BR>
you can't nuke it. Chem and bio weapons have a nasty habit of biting you<BR>
on the ass if your not very carefull. They are used occasionaly against<BR>
civilian populations these days. They don't appear to have decided the<BR>
course of any wars. They certainly haven't stopped any (I'm primarily<BR>
thinking of the Iran/Iraq/Kuwait/Kurd mess here.)<BR>
<BR>
<snip><BR>
<BR>
>>and eventually you can't keep the<BR>
>>fiction<BR>
>>of a benevellent Imperium going and lots of worlds and probably quite a<BR>
few<BR>
>>fleets rebel and the next thing you know....<BR>
><BR>
><BR>
>I didn't know that there was a fiction of a benevolent Imperium.<BR>
<BR>
Any government that wishes to last as long as the Imperium has lasted<BR>
has to cultivate at least the appearance of benevolency. If everybody thinks<BR>
the imperium is the problem the imperium falls. QED.<BR>
<BR>
<snip><BR>
<BR>
>Um... Okay, sure. In one case the war wasn't over until the infantry<BR>
>occupied the country, in the other the war was over before the infantry<BR>
>occupied the country. You'll have to excuse me when I say it sounds like<BR>
>you're trying to have your cake and eat it too.<BR>
<BR>
Perhaps I am. My point was that occupation was necesary even with<BR>
the nasty nuke terror weapon victory. In both instances it was conventional<BR>
force which beat the enemy and occupation(Which continues to this day in<BR>
both instances) that sealed the victory. The use of terror weapons in both<BR>
instances didn't change the eventual outcome.<BR>
<BR>
>Actually, no. It's not closer in spirit to what I'm talking about. I'm not<BR>
>talking about strategic bombing in any way, shape or form. I'm talking<BR>
about<BR>
>the use of terror weapons. Two entirely different things.<BR>
<BR>
Actually strategic bombing = terror weapons in most respects.<BR>
It is possible for a heavy bomber to be given a tactical mission which<BR>
tends to confuse things a little. Everything else that SAC does is target<BR>
civilian populations.<BR>
<BR>
>What do you think happens when you let loose the battle-dress marines and<BR>
>the grav tanks? Do you think the infrastructure of the country remains<BR>
>intact? Do you think that the Imperium will avoid nailing strategic<BR>
targets?<BR>
<BR>
If they're smart they will. Tactical targets win wars. Strategic targets<BR>
absorb explosives.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<snip><BR>
<BR>
>...the difference with rock dropping is that you don't *really* damage the<BR>
>infrastructure all that much. After all, you nail a city and the civilian,<BR>
>industrial and military infrastructure of that city is *gone*. Poof. Not<BR>
>there to rebuild in the first place.<BR>
<BR>
If there was anything in that city you wanted you will have to rebuild it.<BR>
If thers wasn't anything in the city you wanted I doubt your fanatical<BR>
fight to the last sophont revolutionaries will be impressed with it's<BR>
destruction.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
>Compare that to the effects of a ground war, in which you're going to have<BR>
>to destroy the enemy's industrial capacity if you want them to stop<BR>
>fighting.<BR>
<BR>
Why? You need to destroy the enemies will to resist. Wether his industry<BR>
is still standing or not is not relevent. CF Poland 39, France et al 40.<BR>
Germany was still producing armaments to the end of the war.<BR>
<BR>
>People forgive and forget pretty quickly. Even ground wars can end with the<BR>
>same kind of feelings that you're talking about. Take Germany's position at<BR>
>the end of World War I, for example.<BR>
<BR>
The peace was severely bungled after the great war. Germany was not occupied<BR>
and onerous conditions were imposed on the germans by the alies. Which<BR>
probably wouldn't have led to the next war if the depression hadn't<BR>
destroyed<BR>
the worlds economy and the french hadn't insisted that the germans continue<BR>
to<BR>
repay reparations. IMTU the 3I has learned this lesson well, "Don't kick<BR>
somebody<BR>
when they're down."<BR>
<BR>
Make with this what you will<BR>
<BR>
David Shayne<BR>
<BR>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<BR>
Old version - Build a better mousetrap and<BR>
the world will beat a path to your door.<BR>
New version - Build a better mousetrap and<BR>
some @$*% will build a better mouse.<BR>
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++<BR>
<BR>
------------------------------<BR>
<BR>
End of Traveller-digest V1999 #1384<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-yg03.mx.aol.com (rly-yg03.mail.aol.com [172.18.147.3]) by air-yg02.mail.aol.com (vx) with ESMTP; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 00:49:50 1900<BR>
Received: from  lists.imagiconline.com (lists.imagiconline.com [204.85.32.11]) by rly-yg03.mx.aol.com (v65.4) with ESMTP; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 00:49:38 1900<BR>
Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost)<BR>
	by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) with SMTP id AAA07711;<BR>
	Tue, 23 Nov 1999 00:48:45 -0500 (EST)<BR>
	(envelope-from owner-traveller@lists.imagiconline.com)<BR>
Received: by lists.imagiconline.com (bulk_mailer v1.12); Tue, 23 Nov 1999 00:48:36 -0500<BR>
Received: (from majordom@localhost)<BR>
	by lists.imagiconline.com (8.9.3/8.9.2) id AAA07671<BR>
	for traveller-digest-outgoing; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 00:48:36 -0500 (EST)<BR>
	(envelope-from owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com)<BR>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 00:48:36 -0500 (EST)<BR>
Message-Id: <199911230548.AAA07671@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 #1384<BR>
Reply-To: traveller@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
Sender: owner-traveller-digest@lists.imagiconline.com<BR>
<BR>
</HTML>
