RE: [FH] FCT founding talk

>>>>	  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
>>> [the] separation as basically peaceful with ships
>>> etc attached to the deal?
> 
--- CS Renegade <njg@csrenegade.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>> I can't see an independence movement starting out
>> in the NAC fleet <the crews would be mixed from 
>> all areas so as to avoid this risk>

From: ~ On Behalf Of John Leary
Sent: 04 June 2002 22:04
Subject: RE: [FH] FCT founding talk

> Think WWII commonwealth, RN, RCN, RAN, RNZN, ect..

I'm not certain about that parallel. Surely the 
ships of the navies you mention belonged to those
commonwealth governments? Were antipodean boats
ever assigned PQ duty or redeployed for the
desperate situation in the Atlantic?

(I don't know the answers to these questions, but
 list members please don't turn the thread into a
 general WWII naval discussion; it's supposed to
 be [FH].)

>> 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 should be obvious that most of the troops in
> [the War of the Americas] would have originated
> in the U.S..

Now we're getting into the thorny "what is the AC?"
question. Leaving aside those who find the whole
idea incredible, I believe that opinions varied
from a post-apocalyptic wasteland completely
rebuilt by the AC to an open confederation in
which most of the existing traditions of the US
are preserved.

A wicked little thought if most of the troops for
the above war did come from old US territories:
a war against some bellicose latinos is a good
way to occupy all those patriots while the more
pragmatic get on with rebuilding their towns and
cities.

We may find it more productive to take the NAC as
a given and restrict the discussion to the years
immediately before and after the 2159 secession.

>> I would make more of the fact that the two
>> outer colonies were involved;

> 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.

Very true if we're talking about a Hungarian
Uprising-style rebellion, but I don't see it
happening that way. If (and there is no evidence
to support this theory) the NAC permits a degree
of plurality and political debate and some freedom
of the press to go with it, then a simple campaign
to grant the colony greater rights* could have
been hijacked by the secessionists. The local
governor is overconfident and doesn't act in time,
nor does he report it for fear that it will
jeopardise his career. The news and some supporters
get back to Earth, where it ignites the imagination
of the local populace.

The "Why Cal-Tex?" question is thus answered by the
explanation that these areas that provided the
colonists for Austin and Fenris.

> 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 shipbuilding and repair facility
> at this location to allow operations against 
> the PAU if necessary.

Is www.projectrho.com/ft/astropolitical.gif?
By south, you mean trailward? But the FCT is
below Sol, whereas both the PAU and the IC are
above. Am I missing a symbol on Nyrath's maps
that indicate the presence of a base?

* nothing major, possibly just more permits to