Re: [FT] UNSC (emotional rant)

I have been sitting quietly...listening to this thread...and now I feel
the
need to reveal some thoughts...

A) UN/Taxes
    Well...NO government can operate in a vacuum...(ie: no income, with
lots
of
out-go...)  I strongly beleve that there are some things that
governments are
perfectly suited for:  Common defense, Health of its populous, Safety
standards, ect.
What does this mean?   The UN in order to have an impressive fleet, must
also
have impressive taxes/donations/ect.  Maybe it's own research
labs/shipyards/ect.

I did have a rather strange conversation reciently with a man who was
for "no
governments".  He felt that all of our problems were directly related to
governments.  (ie: wars -- fought between governments...ect) Now before
you
can say "CHAOS!"  He explained that his idea was the humble insurance
companies.  Example:  If someone was making an unsafe product -- say
cars --
then that company should pay much higher insurance rates than
normal...until
they got tired of the higher preniums and made better ones.   Ya
know...he
never did get around to explaining who would do the rate setting...

B) UN/Territory
   Where does it get territory?  Three sources that I can think of:
   1) Treaties with the big four.  (probably some kind of "diplomatic
one-ups-man-ship")
   2) Base grants by the poor nations.	(Just think -- granting the UN
basing
rights in your boarders will give you a powerfull military you don't
have to
pay for, and it will make your billigerant neighbors think twice before
causing trouble for you...and you make a little cash for your poor
economy on
the side.)

  3)  Exploration/claiming unused/unknown territory.  (Not every
floating
piece of matter in the core area will have a member nation's flag on
it...)

C) UN/goodguy
  1) why not?  In a setting where everyone is out for themselves,
shouldn't
there be someone to look after those who can't?  After all, the "big
four" are
outnumbered in the UN by everyone else.  (Last I heard the UN had 167 or
so
members...knock some off of that for the various timeline changes, and
the
total still stands over 100 vs just 4.)  Just because the "big four"
were
bigger wouldn't mean that they would always get their way in the UN.

  2)  This is Science Fiction!	(Emphasis on the word fiction)	Fiction
means
that some or all of the material is made up.  (ie: having some or no
similarity to reality.)
 That means that Jon and company can say what they like.  (basing some
of it
on real bits adds flavor and interest.)

  3) The differances noted on the list between the UN of 2001 and
2183/ect.
Yes these are some big changes...but it does seem concievable over a
period of
2 centuries.  You know -- the UN making changes slowly over a long
period.  It
would be more UNbelievable for there to be no differances.

  4)  The only constant in life is: "Change"  Anyone who resists it will
get
run over...
  You have two choices:  Try to adapt to whats happening or upcoming, or
sit
there and do nothing.  If your strategy is already flexible, you might
not
have to do anything...but very few strategies are flexible enough. 
(This also
applies to biology...ask Beth [our resident expert] on this.)

D) UN/Strength
Its my opinion that the UNSC has to be a formidable force...otherwise
the
"Core Systems" agreement would be totally ignored by the "big four". 
The only
thing a bully truly respects is a strong force against him.  Then he's
nice
because he has to be.
Just how strong?  Now there is a good question.  Probably strong enough
to
take out one of the big four by itself...that would put them on par with
the
"big four".

Lastly...what really annoys me most is when peaple say something like: 
"That
(something) is BAD/annoying now, and will always be so."  "That change
never
happens..."  This is a blind/sad way to build a futurehistory.	The
future
holds so much uncertanty.  Especially when one is trying to create a fun
game
and something about reality is in the way of that fun game...

Besides...in reality...noone wants to be on a constant war footing. 
There
would be huge gaps of...(dare I say it?)...peace.  Yes the dreaded "P"
word of
generals and admirals alike...

Donald Hosford