Re: [FT][SG][DS] Canada, the US Civil War II, and the structure

Adrian spake thusly upon matters weighty: 

> >  Within weeks, British and Canadian
> >> troops have deployed through almost all of the US, begin restoring
> >> order and start providing humanitarian relief.
> >
> >Neither we nor the British have enough troops even with callups to 
> >manage this. Maybe with significant US help. or UN help. 
> 
> 
> What about in 30 years?  After a long ugly conflict across our
southern
> border - would we be sitting around hoping that it doesn't spill this
way?
> When Canadian assets would be of strategic value for the combatants
(ie one
> side capturing water in Alberta and BC to destroy the agricultural
industry
> in California, dependant on imported water...) - would we not have to
> provide protection for ourselves.  What about the millions of refugees
that
> would flood across the border.  When enough came over, some US leader
might
> decide that Canadian territory is all-of-a-sudden looking good. 
Manifest
> destiny rears up again?

Sure, we'd build up. A defensive force. That's not an intervention 
force. We'd be stretched thin to secure our southern border, its so 
big. And add to which, if we wanted to intervene, we'd STILL need to 
defend that border, so in effect we'd be stretched even tighter than 
we are now. My argument, if anything, applies moreso.

> Canada put 45% of our military-age male population in uniform during
WW2.
> Over a million people, out of a total pop of what, nine million? 
Twelve
> million?
> Who's to say we won't have a much bigger military in 30 years - or
that we
> wouldn't start building it up after watching what happens in the US...

We probably would. But we CANNOT (without hooching our standard of 
living) put 45% or even 15% of our population under arms today. 
These people tend to be drawn from your productive classes, and we 
already have a burden in this country from non-producers and debts 
that mean we'd have difficulty supporting a general callup from the 
ranks of the working. OTOH, It is FAR more expensive to field an 
individual soldier these days, and will only get moreso in the 
future... if you don't want to field guys who've had three weeks of 
training and have bolt action rifles... and I think the economics of 
the rest of the GZGverse bring this out. I think that our military 
won't be big enough to accomplish much without the significant aide 
of remaining US military forces. 
  
> Also, we wouldn't be invading the US.  Helping the people there
restore
> order, provide humanitarian relief, etc etc.	We get invited in by the
US
> itself - or at least some factions there.  

I guess my point is we may provide them the force to tip the scales, 
and some know how in some areas, but we aren't going to be doing this 
without them or against them. 
 
> Think about Somalia - the Airborne Battle Group we sent took over a
HUGE
> area and very successfully calmed it down, organized aid distribution,
> built schools and medical clinics, helped organize a local police, etc
etc.
>  With only around a thousand troops - in a VERY militarized area.

An area with a far different geography, culture, and really not that 
much population. AND they had logistics assistance from US military 
airlift command. 

  The
> Airborne was WAY better than their potential "enemies", and though
surely
> greatly outnumbered, was able to organize in a way the locals weren't.
 Our
> troops deploying into the US would represent, in many cases, the only
> heavily armed fully-equipped force in an area.

Hmm. Unless you count every crackpot and gun nut. (Who don't have 
that much in the way of armour, but small arms there is no shortage). 
And I don't think we could enforce law in even one city like Chicago 
or LA. Look at the size of their PEACETIME police forces. Look at 
what happened in LA during the riots. No way even 5,000 will control 
this easily. And to field 5,000 foot sloggers, the army would need at 
least 25,000 to 40,000 people commited. 

And what about all the National Gaurd armouries that would have been 
looted? There'd be armour near as good as ours present. Plus we don't 
have the airlift capability to move our heavy armour easily, to the 
interior US, anymore than the Brits do. 

  And they could lead the way
> with food shipments, medical care, etc.  After a long civil war, the
> population would really only care about peace - having the fighting
stop
> and having some security.

Hmmm. I think history shows that is region dependent. I think you 
might be right in some places in the US. In others, I have my doubts.

  The Canadian and British forces might have to
> fight - but once they demonstrated that they were (a) not going to
take any
> abuse and are good at fighting, and (b) really only interested in
helping
> out by providing security and civil aid - they probably wouldn't have
to
> fight much.

This might be true. 

  If it were done right, we wouldn't need a lot of troops in any
> given area - just enough to be able to show some muscle - as long as
we had
> the ability to back them up with something powerful.

And HOPE we never run up against a renegade state governor with his 
national gaurd. For example, I know the NY NG has more helicopters, I 
believe also fighters, and a larger potential pool of recruits than 
all of Canada. And an economy that is better in shape, and a less 
distributed area to control. 

  This is how the force
> in Somalia worked.  Same in Bosnia.

Perhaps it would be the same. But neither of those was originally a 
300 million person state with the worlds most advanced and probably 
numerous stock of weapons up to and including nuclear 
inter-continental devices and the culture that the US has. I'm not 
sure the comparison isn't grapefruits and grapes.... but no one has 
tried it so its hard to know. IMHO, I think your suggestion, although 
interesting, won't be viable. Of course, as you pointed out, you are 
only trying to justify the history we know about.... (grin).

  Mostly successful, with some
> relatively small incidents of conflict.  We forced an end to the
fighting
> in Bosnia by sticking troops in the middle and saying "if you mess
with us
> and keep fighting, we'll bomb you into the stone age".

At which point the renegade US commander of strategic missile assets 
(if he doesn't like the look of us) says "Who'll be in the stone age 
buddy?"

A lot in our scenario depends on 
0) If we're asked in or not, and by who
1) The level of cohesion in the US military that remains
2) No one seeing the Canadian/British intervention as a takeover
3) No one really standing up to the Brits or Canucks with a force 
that can stop them dead

I think, in order to avoid 2 and 3, we'd need to ALWAYS be preceded 
or escorted by members of the US Federal Gov't, whatever is left of 
it. We'd have to assume for 0 that we were asked in by the remains of 
the legitimate government, and that the strategic nuclear assets had 
either been disabled or that the first step was assaults with US 
Gov't sanction to capture these sites. And we'd have to ensure the 
loyalty of the subsurface nuclear fleet. We can't have a Georgian 
U-boat commander sailing up the St. Lawrence with a Boomer and 
slagging Montreal, Ottawa, and Toronto... (although the last might be 
an improvement). 

> >It's an attempt to explain the GZGverse, look how hard a sell the EU 
> >had.... and it has problems with French Pride, British 
> >Nationalism, and Norwegian and Dutch law. I'll be convinced of 
> >your scenario when I see it.... (I don't think it is viable). 
> 
> 
> OK.  How do you suggest it happened.	(I use past tense 'cause we know
the
> NAC starts off with that membership - unless I'm mis-remembering the
> official timeline in the GZG books...  I've been trying to think of
the
> "how" and "why" to the story, given the "reality" of the official
history)

I'll post an alternative view shortly, which will in some particulars 
coincide with what you have posted, but I hope address some of what I 
see as the defficiencies. Do you mind if I integrate the ideas out of 
your stuff that I like?
 
> >What happened to the civil gov't of Canada? The military wouldn't 
> >have this capability in Canada. The Military will not organize 
> >elections in Canada nor the UK ever again I suspect. 
> 
> What do you mean?  The civil gov't of Canada were the ones who sent
our
> military into the US to help out. 

That's what I had thought, but I got a different impression from what 
you had written. 

 I was suggesting that the Brit/Can
> forces who go into the US take over control of the areas they are in
for a
> short period of time - like the UN did in Cambodia - just long enough
to
> organize decent elections and then let the Cambodians run themselves. 
Our
> military forces don't do the same thing in Canada - I was just
referring to
> the parts of the US that Brit/Can troops move into, the ones that are
> disorganized because of the fighting.  This happens for only enough
time to
> help the locals set up administration for themselves.

I see. I understand too, which is a better trick. :)

> >I think a lot of the Irish must have buggered of to somewhere like 
> >the colony of Tir'Na'Nog to continue their Irish independence. 
> >Someone pointed out and justly so that they are more likely to join 
> >with the EU than the English....
> >
> 
> I included the Irish 'cause I was sure I just read somewhere about the
> Irish and the Commonwealth starting tentative discussions about
Ireland
> rejoining.

Interesting. But I can't see the Irish putting themselves under Crown 
control again. Maybe trade with them, yes. 
 
> >Sounds British .... and possibly what would have originally been in 
> >place. Or perhaps the Prime Minister is elected.... like in Canada? 
> 
> The Prime Minister in Canada isn't elected as such.  We vote for our
local
> MPs by political party.  The party leader of the party with the most
seats
> in the House of Commons is by tradition asked to become the Prime
Minister
> and form the government.

Has it EVER happened any other way? Or if so, in the last 50 years? 
When most Canadians vote, they vote for their prime minister in their 
heads, if not in actuality. The hue and cry for the Crown selecting 
someone else would be vast. 

  Party leadership is determined solely by the
> members of the political party itself.

Before the elections though. 

  I believe that if the PM were to
> die in mid-term, the deputy-PM would temporarily take over until the
party
> could organize a leadership convention, and the new leader would not
need
> to call an election until the end of the term of government. 

Except if he wanted the vote of confidence. That is correct.

 Whoever was
> elected leader of the party at that convention would by default become
the
> PM (unless they weren't a member of parliament, in which case a
backbencher
> in a solidly held riding would be asked to resign, and the party
leader
> would run for a Commons seat there).	This happened when Jean Cretian

Who is he? Jean Chretien (I believe).... 

> Someone else has suggested that the NAC Council (or whatever we decide
to
> call it) be more akin to the House of Lords in the UK - which from a
story
> point of view is interesting.

Hmmm. How so? 

> >You seem to be avoiding the tendency towards direct-er democracy we 
> >can see in Canada and the US today. 
> 
> Yes - quite on purpose.  While I personally like the idea of more
direct
> democracy in the world I live in - I think it is more interesting if
we
> give the NAC a slightly more authoritarian perspecive.  I don't like
the
> idea of the NAC becoming some kind of "perfect" capitalist liberal
> democracy - but again, this is solely from a story point of view.  The
> "direct" democracy happens at the local level, but it would be really
> difficult to run a light-years' spanning society as a direct
democracy.

Or at all for that matter.... :)

> hypothesized some democracy - we get to elect our reps for the NAC
council
> - but other than that, the NAC council is seen as this kind of distant
high
> place, maybe full of Lords and other Important People...  I wanted
there to
> be some feeling of distance from the general populace - particularly
if we
> bring back the nobility in areas other than the UK - "Duke of Memphis'
Own..."

Sure, but I think they have to be strongly limited by a Constitution 
(like the House of WInton in Weber's books). Otherwise the US would 
never sign on and many Canadians would have reservations. Does the UK 
of today even have a Constitution?
 
> I think a situation like this would become even more likely when the
> capital of the NAC moves off-Earth.

Yes, well. That's the least likely thing I've seen Jon do. 
 
> >And Ireland, a newly independent Scotland, and the fiercely 
> >nationalistic Wales would as soon jump into deep space in a pair 
> >of boxers as put themselves under English again...
> 
> They wouldn't be under English anything - the idea goes that they'd be
> partners with equal status, like the Canadians and Americans, etc
(equal in
> the sense that they are all independent founding members of the NAC).

That doesn't really matter. If they had to take their lead in foreign 
policy and military matters (which drags in trade and other things) 
from the Crown, they'd resent it. Or many of them would anyway. You 
probably can't appreciate the level of anti-monarchist or 
anti-english sentiment in these societies. It's not everyone, and no 
one (well a few nutbars) would go to war over it, but it exists. 

> They'd run their own local issues - especially things like cultural
stuff -
> and the bigger foreign trade and political affairs type issues would
be run
> by the joint NAC government.	As I pointed out, kind of like a
combination
> of the EU and NATO - of which they are already part...  

And the Crown is (yes or no?) supreme authority? Or is the King just 
a figurehead? The latter would be more palitable to the mass of those 
who don't like monarchs. OTOH, that might lead to the King being 
turfed period. 
 
> Besides, everybody knows that the Scots really run the UK anyway... :)

Heh. Only the banks.... and the places that make Scotch.....
 
> >> The member "states" (ie Canada, New England, Scotland) have control
> >> of health care, education, public works, natural resources,
> >> immigration, cultural policy, etc.
> >
> >I don't think resources. We've already argued they are the ultimate 
> >strategic resource in the future. 
> 
> That makes sense - but remember what happened when Trudeau created the
> National Energy Policy - we practically had a revolution in Alberta.

Yep. Provincialism rears its ugly head. I lived there for a while and 
boy did the NEP screw the Albertan coffers. And make them resent 
Ottawa. But for any star nation, this would be a must - a national 
level input into the control of resources. To avoid tension, you'd 
have to let the entrepeneurs have a free hand (that generates 
revenue) but you'd have to follow strategic reserve policies like the 
US does fairly aggressively. 

> People have a tendancy to want to have some control over what gets dug
up
> out of their backyards.  Can you imagine the tensions that would occur
if
> the NAC government  on Albion (which planet is the Capital???? I
forget the
> name) tried to tell Albertan oil producers what to do with their oil.

That's because that is the wrong approach. What they do is sponsor a 
lot of government exploitation of resources and control any newly 
discovered ones. They make a point to offer the Albertans some bones 
any time they need to affect oil distribution. If you give them a 
bone, they'll go along with a lot. 

  We
> have a hard enough time doing it now in Canada, let alone when you're
> talking an interplanetary administrative area.  I figure the NAC
Council
> would generate resource policy and guidelines, but a lot of the
specifics
> would be determined locally.

Sure. But not strategic decisions like "We're embargo'ing the ESU". 
Or "No Japanese Corporation shall own more than a 25% share of a 
Canadian Resource Extraction cartel". 

  The NAC government would need some control,
> perhaps even a lot - but there would need to be some balance between
> central control for strategic reasons and "local" concerns.

Yep.
 
> Absolutely.  Cost of providing services in more than one language vs.
> possible costs of social conflict and disintegration over
language/cultural
> issues.  I'm suggesting that if they agree from the very beginning
that
> those costs are a necessary part of doing business and aren't open to
> negotiation, people will get used to the idea and get on with things.

This too may be utopian. I think it'll be very hard to convince most 
folk of this. Some for fiscal reasons, others because they can't 
stand the other folks - bigots and provincial rednecks. Look at the 
great flightless bird that national bilingualism is in Canada. The UK 
and the US don't officially have this. You're suggesting 
Tri-lingualism for all. Wow. 

  It
> would be convenient to think that the entire population of South
America
> will learn English when the NAC takes over, and same for the Hispanic
pop'n
> in the US (many of whom do speak English already) - but I like the
idea of
> a somewhat multi-lingual-tolerant society in which these various
groups are
> at least partially accounted for.  We know that the main language of
> business, government, the military, etc will be English - but still...

How about: All gov't stuff is English. But in local areas, it is 
translated into ANY language where more than 20% of a consituency  
speaks that language as a first language. That way you've got one 
common language for the country, but each area can support its own 
linguistic minorities to give them a sense of inclusion.

> Just imagine the Queen's Own Royal Buenos Aires Dragoons charging into
> battle in their Challenger MK XII Grav Tanks, singing God Save the
Queen in
> Spanish... :)

That is an image and a half. 
 
> >Do you have NAC wide rights? Or are you subject to different laws and

> >rights in different areas? This would be problematic I think. Esp 
> >given the differences between a law system based on the Napoleonic 
> >seigneurial system and one based on an English or US system. How do 
> >you resolve these differences?
> 
> 
> Same way there are presently different "rights" in different states in
the
> US or in different countries in the EU.

And Federal Law takes precedence in some areas. And in others, bitter 
fights break out. Sounds like the GZGverse all right.

The NAC Constitution.... what does it say? Do you have the right to 
bear arms? The right to freedom of expression? Is there such a 
document?

> >What about letting small groups form independent enclaves?
> >What are the provisions for leaving the NAC if you want to?
> 
> Independent enclaves?  Sure, why not.  As long as they followed the
basic
> tenets of the NAC-wide laws/rights.  This might work similarly to how
the
> system of Native Law is developing on Canadian First Nations lands.
> Assault is still assault on a reservation, but they may provide a very
> different form of "punishment" for the crime - we've seen this sort of
> resolution a few times recently, with a judge providing a "sentence"
based
> on local elders' recommendations.  
> 
> Leaving the NAC?  Well...Harrumph!  Why would anyone want to?  :-)

Duck the question! (chicken). 
 
> >> The New Anglian Armed Forces
> >> 
> >> The largest branch of the NAC government, the New Anglian Armed
> >> Forces is composed of ...
> >
> >They should not be so. They should be a tool of government, not a 
> >part of it. That implies they control things rather than are 
> >controlled. 
> 
> I agree - didn't mean to imply that.	The NAC armed forces would very
much
> be subordinate to the civilian leadership.  What I meant was that they
were
> part of the government in the same way that the Canadian Armed Forces
are
> part of "the government" - the Department of National Defense is the
> largest government department (I believe);  certainly it has one of
the
> largest budgets of any government department, and the 'Forces are all
> Federal employees.

To be correct, they are part of the Civil Service, that works for the 
governement. They are not, in fact, part of the government. The gov't 
is entirely composed of elected officials. (And maybe a few appointed 
types). The Civil Service works for them. Although oft times it 
forgets this...
 
> Thanks for taking the time to read it through and give me some
thoughtful
> responses!

Just trying to arrive at the most *potentially* possible scenario 
where we don't have too many 'leaps of faith' or steps outside the 
character of the participants (while still fitting Jon's view of the 
world). 

Tom.  
/************************************************
Thomas Barclay		     
Voice: (613) 831-2018 x 4009
Fax: (613) 831-8255

 "C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot.  C++ makes
 it harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg."
 -Bjarne Stroustrup
**************************************************/