Re: The GZGverse UN

John Atkinson wrote:

> > Judging from the fact that the "several major powers" which
attempted to
> > limit the UNSC's peacekeeping mandate in 2145 only
>
>?? Which timeline is that from?

The official one, but of course the UNSC was founded in 214*3* and not 
214*5*. Sorry for the typo :-)

> >managed to impose significant restrictions on UNSC ops in the
> >Outworlds and the Inner Colonies but *not* in the Core, it looks as
if these
> >"several major powers" didn't have that much control over the Core -
and
> >not because they kept each other in check (since this seems to have
been
> >the case in the Inner Colonies and Outworlds, where they *did* manage
to
> >limit the UNSC mandate), but because there were other powers which
dominated
> >the Core colonies.
>
>It sounds more to me that the potential damage in the
>Core systems would be the limiting factor, so a
>defacto truce would be in place policed by the UN.

Don't think so. If it had simply been a terror balance ("if you wipe out
my 
Core holdings I'll wipe out yours, so let's keep the fight elsewhere" - 
shades of the Cold War) there wouldn't have been any need for an active 
UNSC presence to prevent fighting in the Core, but the 2183 update seems
to 
suggest an active UNSC.

>Remember, Albion, the most densely populated planet in
>the NAC has the same population as England.

1) Albion does not appear to be located in the Core - if it had been, it

would've been settled much earlier. It was only settled in 2099, which 
means that the first extra-terrestrial colonies (established in 2069)
had a 
30-year head start over Albion.

2) The statement that Albion is the most densely populated planet in the

NAC is conjecture, since the canon doesn't actually say this <g> It also

implies that Terra is not "in the NAC" in spite of the NAC having vast 
territories and a large part of its population there, and in spite of
Earth 
being far more densely populated than Albion... which suggests that your

"in the NAC" means "controlled exclusively by the NAC", and that in turn

means that the Albion example says nothing whatever about planets with 
colonies from more than one power. Like, for example, the Core systems
<g>

> >My take on this is that most of the colonies in Centaurus and
Barnard's
> >were founded not by the major power blocs but by minor nations,
> >corporations and NGOs - quite possibly with the UN
>
>Why do you assume that the major powers would not fund
>the first human colonies?

Oh, they did establish the *first* colonies. The AC (later-to-become
NAC) 
and the EC (later to split into FSE and NSL) did establish the first 
colonies in 2069. But I don't think that they established the *most* 
colonies in the Core, nor that they control a very large part of the 
populations there.

>I don't see Nigeria launching many satellites, and even the second rank
>powers (Europe, Britain, China) were decades behind
>the superpowers.  Why should space colonization be any different?

Because the canon says so. The AC and the EC (later to become NAC and 
FSE/NSL respectively) launched their first FTL craft in 2069; the IF,
PAU 
and RH launched *their* first FTL craft in 2070 (ie. only one year
later), 
the ESU in 2072 and the LLAR and IC launch their first FTL craft in
2075.

That's not "decades behind" - it is a span of only six years.

> >(unlike the "major powers" whose main extraterrestrial territories
are in
> >the Inner Colonies and Outworlds).
>
>Who's main exclusively owned colonies. . .

The Outworlds are mainly exclusively owned. The Inner Colonies are at
least 
partly multi-national according to the "Situation Update: 2183" in the
FT2 
book.

> >By the 2180s the "UN" is therefore effectively a confederation of
Core
> >colonies and minor Earth states. Although the "major
>
>You do realize there aren't many minor Earth states left, right?  The 
>Asians are all in the	ESU, IC, or IFed.

Japan, Turkey, Iran and Afghanistan all appear to be independent - or at

least I can't find any canon mention of them being absorbed by any of
the 
major power blocs. Not sure about Taiwan either; it seems likely that
it'd 
fall to the ESU after the US collapse in 2049, but again there's no
mention 
about it in the timeline.

>The Africans are all in the PAU or IFed.  The Latin Americans are all
NAC 
>subjects.  Who's left in the category of "minor" Earth 
>states??  Monaco?  Oh wait, that's probably in the FSE.  We've got the 
>Swiss. . . The Swiss. . . and the Swiss.  Or are you counting the PAU,
IC, 
>OU, ScanFed, and IFed?

Probably not PAU, IC or IF.

This leaves ScanFed, Finland (unless it is part of the former or stayed 
with the NSL, but I don't find either option particularly likely), OU, 
Netherlands, and Switzerland, Turkey, those parts of the Balkans which 
didn't join any of ESU, FSE or RH, Iran, possibly Afghanistan (or at
least 
some of its successor states providing recruits for the UNSC gropos :-/
); 
and also numerous minor island states - very small in population, but
with 
vast ocean areas containing rather impressive natural resources. Maybe 
Japan as well, at least in the early period.

As I said these are minor Earth states compared to the big power blocs,
but 
by no means negligible in any of natural resources, population,
education 
or industry :-/

Later,

Oerjan
oerjan.ohlson@telia.com

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."