Re: National Characteristics?

Well I am not to sure that you could say that the "OU" is a client state
of
the NAC. Even though
some of the major players in the Union are from NAC stock there are
other
factions that where
once controlled by the FSE and from past experience would be not to
happy
with them, I mean
would you be happy if the colonizing power decided to test nukes in your
back yard and you
had no say in it.

In my opinion they would no so readily have alot of FSE equipment, more
so
PAU or old NAC
equipment which has been modified and upgraded to OU standard.

Well thats my thought :-)

Ciao
Paul Frigo
groucho@goldweb.com.au
paulf@defcen.gov.au

-----Original Message-----
From: John Leary <realjtl@sj.bigger.net>
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk <FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk>
Date: Monday, 9 February 1998 16:18
Subject: Re: National Characteristics?

>ROBERTSON,Brendan wrote:
>>
>> We know the OUDF produces some Stargrunt vehicles under licence from
the
>> FSE (from Owen's orbat) so they would probably source the basic
escort
>> hulls from the same source (repeat business).   The few cruiser's the
>> OUDF use would likely be custom built at home, predominately as
support
>> ships (ADAF & missiles/SMBs would fit this role).  The largest
military
>> ship they possess would be a battlecruiser or escort carrier,
>> Any comments?
> Owen?
>>
>Brendan,
>
>The following is a preconceived idea with no basis in reality,
>and not much in sci-fi.
>
>     I take from your statemants that the 'OU' is to a large
>extent still a client state of the NAC.  Depending upon how
>far flung the 'OUs' assets are would drive the fleet construction
>program.   The potential for conflict with one of the larger (FSE,
> ESU) powers would create a large fleet if the 'OU' were completely
>independent. (and not otherwise protected by treaty agreements.)
>  The supplier of such a fleet would be: NAC, FCT, FSE and possibly
>Swedish and/Dutch.
>
>Just a thought.
>
>Bye for now,
>John L.
>
>(If I can get some quiet time this week I'll send part two.)