Re: [FT] Size of "Countries" in FT

At 18:17 06/12/98 +0000, you wrote:
>On Fri, 4 Dec 1998, Tony Wilkinson wrote:
>>	Which brings me back to the point I was originally trying to
make. The OU,
>> in keeping with the character of the Australia/Pacific region today,
will
>> be very spread out with some planets being potentially very valuable
if
>> they can  be exploited at some time in the future.
>
>that has quite a good ring to it - the ou colonises all those dusty
little
>outback worlds which everyone else passes by, and so is scattered
across a
>great swath of space, with worlds in the cracks between the other
powers;
>many colonies with small populations and relatively little output, but
>there a still a lot of worlds in the ou.
>
	Go careful on the dusty hey mate. That only happens for half the
year. 
	Not quite what I was thinking but I do like it. It would explain
why the
OU is relatively neutral, they can't afford to be otherwise. 
	My original idea was that like Antartica, the OU had claimed and
nominally
had rights to a large chunk of space but hadn't got out to exploit it
all
due to costs and so on and were constantly fearful of others moving in
on it.
	A combination of both would put the OU in a really dicky
situation. It has
a large number of as yet uninhabited claimed planets that it cannot be
certain of defending and yet cannot pull back from for reasons of
internal
politics and votes from all those scattered colonies. The OU also cannot
form strong alliances because it's territory borders and is within
everyone
elses space and could only be defended sucessfully under the most
favourable circumstances. The flip side might be that the OU is
therefore
in a position to play mediator/peacemaker to the other nations. Also OU
planets would then make the perfect places for trade missions as all
would
be virtually open/free ports to everyone. The OU might also have strong
links to the UN (the Iraqis believe we do now).
	
>>	I do not mean to sound bitter and apologise if I do and for not
making
>> myself clearer at the start.
>
>bitter? you don't sound at all bitter, and you were as clear as anyone
>could ask you to be. your apology is entirely unwarranted - i demand
that
>you retract it!
>
>Tom
>

	Oh, if you insist :)

	Tony.
	twilko@ozemail.com.au

>
>