Re: [FT] UNSC (emotional rant)

--- Donald Hosford <Hosford.Donald@acd.net> wrote:

> A) UN/Taxes

> What does this mean?	 The UN in order to have an
> impressive fleet, must also > have impressive
taxes/donations/ect.  Maybe it's own > research
> labs/shipyards/ect.

OK, I'll buy this.

> B) UN/Territory
>    Where does it get territory?  Three sources that
> I can think of:
>    1) Treaties with the big four.  (probably some
> kind of "diplomatic > one-ups-man-ship")

"Sir, we have to give the UN something.  The FSE just
granted them an annual contribution of umpteen million
Francs a year.	If we don't give them some Marks, the
FSE will have too much influence over UN decisions."

>    2) Base grants by the poor nations.  (Just think
> -- granting the UN basing > rights in your boarders
will give you a powerfull > military you don't have to
> pay for, and it will make your billigerant neighbors
> think twice before > causing trouble for you...and
you make a little cash > for your poor economy on
> the side.)

I buy this, but see below.

> C) UN/goodguy
>   1) why not?  In a setting where everyone is out
> for themselves, shouldn't > there be someone to look
after those who can't? > After all, the "big four" are

No--why should there be?  Jon Tuffley had made the
pronouncement on-list, ex cathedra, "There are no good
guys" in his timeline.

> outnumbered in the UN by everyone else.  (Last I
> heard the UN had 167 or so > members...knock some
off of that for the various > timeline changes, and
the
> total still stands over 100 vs just 4.)  Just
> because the "big four" were > bigger wouldn't mean
that they would always get > their way in the UN.

Actually, there are less than 20 governments
representing the entire territory of Terra.  Nations
that actually have turf on Terra include:

ESU
NAC
NSL
FSE
ScanFed
PAU
IF
Netherlands
Switzerland
Indonesian Commonwealth
OU
Japan
Romanov Hegemony.

Plus the non-canonical IAS.

That's exactally 14 UN members, plus off-planet
members.

> D) UN/Strength
> Its my opinion that the UNSC has to be a formidable
> force...otherwise the > "Core Systems" agreement
would be totally ignored by > the "big four".  The
only
> thing a bully truly respects is a strong force
> against him.	Then he's nice > because he has to be.
> Just how strong?  Now there is a good question. 
> Probably strong enough to > take out one of the big
four by itself...that would > put them on par with the
> "big four".

No.  All they have to be is strong enough to tip the
balance.  IE: ESU attacks a NAC territory in Sol
System.  NAC by themselves are stalemated with ESU,
but with UN firepower, all of a sudden the ESU is
outgunned enough to make a difference.

> Besides...in reality...noone wants to be on a
> constant war footing.  There > would be huge gaps
of...(dare I say it?)...peace.	> Yes the dreaded "P"
word of > generals and admirals alike...

"Peace is a theoretical ideal deduced from the fact
that there have been pauses between wars."
      --Jerry Pournelle

“Peace is a condition in which no civilian pays any
attention to military casualties which do not achieve
page-one, lead-story prominence-unless that civilian
is a close relative of one of the casualties.  But, if
there ever was a time in history when “peace” meant
that there was no fighting going on, I have been
unable to find out about it.”
      --Robert Heinlein

In the US, there have been 10 years in our entire
history in which the US Armed Forces have not been
somewhere shooting someone, teaching people to shoot
each other, or deployed to some country to threaten to
do so.	

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/