Re: The GZGverse UN

--- Oerjan Ohlson <oerjan.ohlson@telia.com> wrote:

> >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.

Not so. The UNSC is confidence-builder and policeman
of truce in Core Worlds, like their role in the Sinai.
 The UN mission in the Sinai couldn't stop either the
Israeli or Egyptian armies if those two nations wanted
to fight, but it's a confidence builder.  I see UNSC's
role in the Core as being the compromise adopted by
the Big players because they don't trust each other,
but they also see a need to limit themselves to
colonial warfare. 
 
For an example of this style of warfare in history, we
need only look at the Roman/Persian wars (prior to the
idiot, monster, and usurper Phokas), the 18th century
wars between the European states, the Cold War, and
British colonial competition with France, Russia, and
Germany.  In those cases absolute total warfare would
have been far more damaging even to the victor than
the potential gains would have been, so rivals settled
their differences with small issues.  A city here, a
border province there, fighting over a colony,
installing a friendly head of state in some minor
buffer kingdom (see: Armenia), etc.

> > >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.

None of them individually do, that's why no one can
easily gain advantage which is why there's more to be
lost than gained from fighting there.  That doesn't
mean that the Core colonies constitute an independant
power bloc in and of themselves.
 
> >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 doesn't mean that their space programs are of the
same size.  Massive population/wealth/technology
concentrations will result in better programs.
 
> > >(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.

Right.	You're agreeing with me.
 
> >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. 

Actually, Japan is specifically mentioned as being a
client state of the NAC.  And while Iran and
Afghanistan aren't mentioned, Pakistan is mentioned as
being in the IFed.  I really don't see the IFed
absorbing Pakistan without going through Iran first. 
And I also don't really see Afghanistan remaining
independant while surrounded by two mutually hostile
expansionistic powers.	YMMV.  But I don't see a
coalition of Afghanistan, Turkey, Iraq, and Taiwan
being able to dictate to the ESU or the NAC.  

> 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, 

I had assumed ScanFed, but you'd know better.  My
thought was that Finland might be looking across the
border at an expansionistic Communist state, decide
that any port in a storm is better than none, and go
ScanFed regardless of what the average Finn might
think about uniting with Sweden under other
circumstances.

> Netherlands, and Switzerland, Turkey, those parts of
> the Balkans which 
> didn't join any of ESU, FSE or RH, Iran, possibly

Balkans is a clusterfuck that will never amount to
anything.  Been there, done that, got the verdammt
T-shirt.

> 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.

None of which added together have the power to push
around the Germans, much less the Germans,
French/Italians/Spanish, the Chinese/Russians, and the
Brits/'Mericans all simultaneously.

Now, those little guys together may have wheeled and
dealed and played the big guys off each other to get
what they want.  But they damn well didn't dictate
terms.
 
John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better