[OT] UNSC

>Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001 09:21:34 -0800 (PST)
>From: "Mike J." <pmj6@yahoo.com>
>Subject: Re: [OT] UNSC
>
>- --- Corey Burger <burgundavia@crosswinds.net> wrote:
>> The UNSC provide a very good function. They protect
>> Earth and the inner 
>> colonies from being fought over. This incidentally
>> provides an excellent 
>> place to put your shipyards and training bases. Not
>> only are they not going 
>> to get attacked, I would imagine that the majority
>> of the human population 
>> still lives inside UN protected space, thus allowing
>> a large pool of labour 
>> which cannot be threatened.
>> 
>> Corey
>> 
>So basically it is a multilateral arms
>control/inspection regime in which all the major
>powers participate to keep their interstellar wars
>"limited"? Yes, that could work, although after a
>protracted conflict with heavy losses and no outcome
>in sight the temptation to break out of the regime in
>hopes of gaining some sort of advantage might be too
>great. Limited wars stay limited only if they are
>resolved quickly and losses are light. Otherwise they
>tend to expand into every available sphere of
>conflict.
>
>Mike J.

I could stand such a definition BUT... how come they are technologically
more advanced? Why should warring nations let their better scientists
slip
through to UN labs? Or, which is UN "home", where they can recruit or
prepare their own?... raw materials, I can understand UN can buy on the
free market (even if that mean the UN can be coerced by the supplying
countries/planets)... production could be handled in orbital factories,
out
of reach of national laws and protected by the Fleet but manpower? Core
systems and Earth are "protected" not "owned" by the UN...

And, in reference to Vietnam and Korea as successfully contained limited
war (as somebody wrote), they were not so heavy to request an
escalation,
even if some parties asked for it. Let's face it, Vietnam was long, but
definitely a sideshow, and Korea was a brief sideshow.

Bye