Re: Combat in 2180

For advance manufacturing (compare today to 1800 A.D.) all that is
needed would be dies and programes, with the techology to travel space,
I would think that manufacturing plants could be changed like changing
software in computers today......

Michael Brown wrote:
> 
> Questions, questions, questions...  Just how much HEAVY industry does
a startup
> (10-50 years) colony have?  Will the plans for 100+ year old (2080?)
equipment
> be available?  How do you get the steel in the sizes needed to make
artillery?
>  Or is artillery made from Plastic?
> 
> Unless the colony sets these things up fairly early, the war could be
over
> before they retool.
> 
> Michael Brown
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:   Adrian Johnson
> Sent:   Thursday, December 02, 1999 1:34 AM
> To:	  gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> Subject:	  RE: Combat in 2180
> 
> >This is a good summation of my point.  What I was trying to say is
that
> apart
> >from standing colonial/regular forces we would not be seeing much in
the
> way of
> >armor or artillery in the colonies.	I find it hard to justify a
colony with
> >the	industrial capacity of the scale needed to make field guns and
tanks.
> >
> >Part of what prompted this was the claim that Drug Lords were MAKING
their
> own
> >155s and ammo.  Most countries just don't have the excess capacity to
MAKE
> >these, buy yes, make no.
> 
> Well... They choose not to 'cause it's cheaper to buy them and not
maintain
> the infrastructure to produce their own.  It's all about spending
> priorities.  A colony of 10,000 with machinery capable of doing basic
> machinework (lathes, drill-press, stamping equipment, etc) could
produce
> "low-tech" artillery or mortars if they wanted to - even if they made
them
> one at a time.  Bicycle manufacturers in Britain were producing
weapons
> within months during WWII when the country decided that they needed
STENs
> rather than bicycles.  Sure there's a difference between a STEN and a
105
> howitzer, but not much relatively speaking...  They could hand-build
> armoured vehicles one at a time if they REALLY needed them, provided
access
> to the raw material - but it would take a SERIOUS commitment on the
part of
> the colony leaders to do something like that.  It is hard to justify a
> colony with the political commitment necessary to deny their citizens
what
> they want/need in terms of agricultural equipment, etc so that the
meagre
> resources of the colony could be turned to produce arty and armoured
> vehicles - particularly in an economically efficient (ie large scale
> production) way.  It is not unreasonable to hypothesize a colony with
the
> industrial capability to potentially make SOME if they really needed
to -
> it really isn't THAT complex.
> 
> We can, I think, safely assume that the science of manufacturing
technology
> will have advanced enough by 2180 that even their "low tech" equipment
on a
> "primative" colony would be modern by our standards:	miniturization,
> automation, etc etc etc would have 200 years to develop - it's not
like
> they're going to be using 19th century-level technology...  And even
if
> they were, remember that the industrial capability of the Northern
States
> in the US pre Civil War was fully capable of producing "modern"
weapons (or
> ones very similar) like the STEN smg I mentioned earlier - if they had
had
> the design.  They COULD have produced "modern" (well, modernish)
breech
> loading rifled cannon a-la the late 1800's with their industrial
technology
> - had they the designs...  The colonies of 2180 will have "primative"
> industrial technology by THEIR standards, not necessarily by OURS -
but
> they will still have our designs - which will be more than capable in
their
> context...
> 
> So on Earth they are using Replicators and out on the fringes they
only
> have 50 year old nanobuilders.  Those hick farmers take five times as
long
> to produce their light howitzer than the Replicators back on earth.
> Positively primative, I say... :)
> 
> My $0.02
> 
> Adrian
> 
> Adrian Johnson
> ajohnson@idirect.com

Michael Brown wrote:
> 
> Questions, questions, questions...  Just how much HEAVY industry does
a startup
> (10-50 years) colony have?  Will the plans for 100+ year old (2080?)
equipment
> be available?  How do you get the steel in the sizes needed to make
artillery?
>  Or is artillery made from Plastic?
> 
> Unless the colony sets these things up fairly early, the war could be
over
> before they retool.
> 
> Michael Brown
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From:   Adrian Johnson
> Sent:   Thursday, December 02, 1999 1:34 AM
> To:	  gzg-l@CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
> Subject:	  RE: Combat in 2180
> 
> >This is a good summation of my point.  What I was trying to say is
that
> apart
> >from standing colonial/regular forces we would not be seeing much in
the
> way of
> >armor or artillery in the colonies.	I find it hard to justify a
colony with
> >the	industrial capacity of the scale needed to make field guns and
tanks.
> >
> >Part of what prompted this was the claim that Drug Lords were MAKING
their
> own
> >155s and ammo.  Most countries just don't have the excess capacity to
MAKE
> >these, buy yes, make no.
> 
> Well... They choose not to 'cause it's cheaper to buy them and not
maintain
> the infrastructure to produce their own.  It's all about spending
> priorities.  A colony of 10,000 with machinery capable of doing basic
> machinework (lathes, drill-press, stamping equipment, etc) could
produce
> "low-tech" artillery or mortars if they wanted to - even if they made
them
> one at a time.  Bicycle manufacturers in Britain were producing
weapons
> within months during WWII when the country decided that they needed
STENs
> rather than bicycles.  Sure there's a difference between a STEN and a
105
> howitzer, but not much relatively speaking...  They could hand-build
> armoured vehicles one at a time if they REALLY needed them, provided
access
> to the raw material - but it would take a SERIOUS commitment on the
part of
> the colony leaders to do something like that.  It is hard to justify a
> colony with the political commitment necessary to deny their citizens
what
> they want/need in terms of agricultural equipment, etc so that the
meagre
> resources of the colony could be turned to produce arty and armoured
> vehicles - particularly in an economically efficient (ie large scale
> production) way.  It is not unreasonable to hypothesize a colony with
the
> industrial capability to potentially make SOME if they really needed
to -
> it really isn't THAT complex.
> 
> We can, I think, safely assume that the science of manufacturing
technology
> will have advanced enough by 2180 that even their "low tech" equipment
on a
> "primative" colony would be modern by our standards:	miniturization,
> automation, etc etc etc would have 200 years to develop - it's not
like
> they're going to be using 19th century-level technology...  And even
if
> they were, remember that the industrial capability of the Northern
States
> in the US pre Civil War was fully capable of producing "modern"
weapons (or
> ones very similar) like the STEN smg I mentioned earlier - if they had
had
> the design.  They COULD have produced "modern" (well, modernish)
breech
> loading rifled cannon a-la the late 1800's with their industrial
technology
> - had they the designs...  The colonies of 2180 will have "primative"
> industrial technology by THEIR standards, not necessarily by OURS -
but
> they will still have our designs - which will be more than capable in
their
> context...
> 
> So on Earth they are using Replicators and out on the fringes they
only
> have 50 year old nanobuilders.  Those hick farmers take five times as
long
> to produce their light howitzer than the Replicators back on earth.
> Positively primative, I say... :)
> 
> My $0.02
> 
> Adrian
> 
> Adrian Johnson
> ajohnson@idirect.com