Re: FCT, Small is Relative.

At 13:20 18/09/98 -0500, you wrote:
>Niall spake thusly upon matters weighty: 
>
>> Wouldn't free Caltech be a rather powerful entity for its size as it
seems
>> to have good natural resources and large populations?
>
>If dependence on petroleum as a source of energy has been overcome 
>and alternate types of plastics invented, then Texas oil might not 
>matter. The internecine US wars that led to and followed the NAC 
>takeover probably hurt silicon valley. Plus, by separating, they have 
>a need to fund a bunch of things they never had to before (embassies, 
>etc.). So it is debatable whether FCT would actually be an economy 
>out of scale to its population or not. I think this is a 'what's your 
>preference' situation. I'm not saying they are poor, but I don't 
>think relatively speaking, that they'd be as powerful as they would 
>in today's world if they were separate and united. But they'll always 
>be colorful....
> 
>/************************************************
>Thomas Barclay 	      

While I know petrol may not be as important by this point in time (cold
fusion anyone?) it seems likely that it would have accumulated both good
infrastructure and various other resources as they become available.
Presuming of course any bothered to continually invest various tax money
and the like back into the economy.  I agree that they may not be
powerful
relative to great powers but also they would have to be strong enough to
stop themselves being absorbed by other larger power blocs.  Its almost
back to the UN argument that yes they could be beaten but the cost to
the
aggressor would be so high as to weaken them badly.  

They remind me a little of the smaller European powers (Portugal,
Holland)
in previous centuries.	

Anyway you're right, they basically add something fun to the game.
--------------------
Niall Gilsenan,
DIT Cathal Brugha St,
Dublin 1,
Ireland.

ngilsena@indigo.ie
--------------------
The miscellany (Sci-Fi combat games)
http://members.tripod.com/~Cwintel/Scifi.html