RE: [FH] FCT founding talk

--- CS Renegade <njg@csrenegade.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>	  I would suggest that the FCT starts at the 
> >> same level of experience and ability the NAC
> >> has when it is formed.  ...
> 
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
> > Why would they get this level already? Do you see
> > they're separation as basically peaceful with ship
> > etc attached to the deal?
> 
> I can't see an independence movement starting out
> in the NAC fleet (the second solar war has just
> finished and the third round is less than ten years
> away, so the crews have more than enough threats
> to worry about). I can't imagine that the Admiralty
> would be foolish enough to permit unmixed crews if
> there was any danger of internal dissent; it's more
> likely to be case of throw the recruits into a
> training school (enlisted ranks) or the Academy
> (midshipmen), mix thoroughly then post individually
> to existing crews as berths become vacant.
--------
Think WWII commonwealth, RN, RCN, RAN, RNZN, ect..
While representation would be present on vessels
of the different fleets, as it is today, the 
'seconded' staff would be there for precedure
learning.

> Any sort of political unrest is more likely to
> start on the ground, amongst the civilians. Why
> Cal-Tex should be more apt to (or successful at)
> revolution than the occupied terrestrial LLAR
> territory is a mystery; ...
-------
You must be kidding, there is not an army in 
the world that can occupy the U.S. without
help from inside.

it's possible that having
> fought for the crown in the War Of The Americas,
> the population was considered reliable enough to
> participate in the early Anglian colonisation 
> drive. 
-------
It should be obvious that most of the troops in that
war would have originated in the U.S..

I would make more of the fact that the two
> outer colonies were involved; the flames of open
> revolt would stand less chance of being stamped
> out before becoming established if the fire started
> in a remote part of the confederation. Early
> demonstrations on Earth would have been in support
> of this movement.
-------
It is not logical that the break would start in 
a colony and spread, the colony is easily isolated
and the break would be contained/starved out of 
existance.
 
> However, we can't ignore the fact that canon
> history clearly states that California and Texas
> declare themselves independent from the NAC, and
> that these states claim all rights to the colonies
> on Austin and Fenris rather than vice-versa. This
> may be because by 2159 no power has a totally free
> hand in the inner systems. 
-------
For the reason stated in the prior paragraph, the 
break was most likely an organized action that
incorperated the colony worlds and a sufficiently 
large portion to the NAC fleet to make the deal 
a de-facto situation that the NAC had to accept
or risk a civil war.   Would the U.N. fleet have 
helped, anything to hurt the big guy on the block
would have be accepted.   The U.N. would have liked 
the NAC to become a 2nd/3rd rate power, and have 
and new 3rd/4th rate power to deal with.   That
type of thinking would have been understood by the
NAC/FCT and would have made the break a cooperative
rather than a hostile effort.

Prohibited by UN mandate
> from employing orbital weaponry or moving in large
> numbers of troops, and after much diplomatic
> protest the NAC have no option but let the
> defection go and learn from their mistakes.
> 
> This doesn't protect the outer colonies, which have
> been the playpen and safety valve for the great
> powers and will continue to be so for the next 24
> years. I take the token military strikes to be NAC
> raids to recover vessels and personnel trapped in
> FCT ports and to recover any other assets best kept
> in crown hands.
> 
> Why doesn't the NAC employ brute force against New
> Pasadena? They've been caught flat-footed by the
> entire Free Cal-Tex movement and don't know how
> reliable the rest of the American-born contingent
> is, apart from the Canadians. The admirals know
> that even crew born in the FCT will at worst have
> divided loyalties, but the politicians don't
> understand that and elect to play safe. The FCT
> is magnanimously allowed to go its own way with
> the hope that it will become an ally rather than
> a foe.
-------
Stratigically the is a must.

> As to ships, the home-designed FCT vessels
> presumably don't appear until after the rebellion.
> Whatever ships were employed for local police
> duties are it until the shipyards get going,
> although barring a protective treaty the NAC are
> unlikely to have insisted on the return of every
> vessel if they don't want to see a less vulnerable
> (backspace ten) principled power move in. By 2187
> the FCT have ships capable of standing in the line
> againt Kra'vak at Rhienhold.
-------
One need to look at the starmap to understand the
proposed situation.   The FCT planets are FAR south
of the core, this means that the NAC established a
shpbuilding and repair facility at this location 
to allow operations against the PAU if necessary.
(The real reason this location was chosen was to 
allow players with an independant streak to use
the FCT to leave the 'known' area thru the 
FCT board edge colony.	 Providing unlimited
possibilities for the prospect of meeting 
personally designed races and ships.)

Bye for now,
John L.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup