RE: NAC units, was Odd FT Idea

On 7 Jul 98, at 23:10, John Atkinson wrote:
> >Look at the example of Australia in about the 60s, population around 
> 15 >million and quite a thriving economy. Use a similar model for the
> middle >aged colonies and it seems quite reasonable.
> Right.  And Australia has a GNP (1995) of 337.9 Billion US dollars. 
> Compare to US's (1996) $7,567.1 Billions.  If we amalgamated tomorrow,
who
> do you think would dominate the union economically?  I find it
exteremely
> likely that Terra will continue to be the economic (and also
'spiritual',
> for lack of better term) heart of the Human Race for at _least_ the
next
> two centuries, especially if you suppose no colonization until the
2070s.
Hmm.. Depends on your capability to /apply/ that much larger economic
muscle. We've 
had this arguement before, but just to make a supposition - Australia
was possibly much 
more 'independant' as a colony when you had to spend 4 months (or
whatever) on 
schooner to get there and so did any form of communication. Same goes
for planet 
colonies to a degree. Doesn't matter that you have a much more powerful
economy if 
trade is next to nil. Doesn't matter if you have a bigger Navy if the
nearest ship is 3 
weeks  travel away. Unless you start thinking about permanent garrison
forces (with all 
the possible problems that entails) then I would suspect the planet
colonies to be pretty 
much left to their own devices a lot of the time.
Of course, given the vast majority of humanity seems to have been at war
for the recent 
past, I suppose garrison forces (either by an occupier or the 'correct'
faction for 
defensive purposes) are a very real possiblility.

			TTFN
				Jon
----------------------------------------------
"Reality never lives up to all that it used to be.."
	Beth Orton 'Best bit'
BWFC Fans Page - http://www.sar.bolton.ac.uk/bwfclist/home.html
BWFC mailing list - send 'subscribe' to BWFC-L-REQUEST@bolton.ac.uk