RE: [FH] FCT founding talk

Well put all...

There's an interesting (and fun) sci-fi/fantasy book called, "The
Warlock 
in spite of himself" by...  Damn, is it Stasheff?  Anyway, in it, he 
espouses that a democracy needs, amoung other things, a 
frontier...  Somewhere to worry about, to get those "adventurous" people

out of your hair, to allow people to make it "big", etc...  (Some might 
even say a chance for those bent on challenging the law can find it
easier, 
more profitable, while being away from the "normal" law abiding
people...)

FCT could definitely have been that, and may still be so for the 
NAC...	Especially given the history of those two places, and their
traditions.

Just a thought.
Rand.

At 07:09 PM 6/4/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>I generally have not given Canon History more than the cursory look
>necessary to acclimate to the discussions here, and to identify figures
:),
>but I did read this and I have to say it has some pretty well reasoned
>thoughts. In short, nice, Renegade.
>
>I am intrigued enough to want to toss in some other possibilities.
>
>I picture a situation in which FTC comes into being, but has not left
the
>NAC fold. Economically it certainly seems that they would continue to
depend
>heavily upon the NAC and could not burn any bridges. As you mention,
>self-defense would be an issue, and hardly appear immediately in
organized
>implementation. There would be considerable need for cooperative
efforts, at
>least in the short term, and they remain English-speaking cousins no
matter
>what...
>
>so, my thoughts:
>
>With the ESU political/military situation, perhaps decency allowed the
FTC
>to be born with more of a NAC Commonwealth status maturing into full
>independence over time. I imagine some in the NAC would believe it (the
FTC)
>would never work and they would have to come back, "so let them learn
the
>hard way".
>
>FTC could almost serve as the outlet for any other separatist
tendencies.
>Its success could provide an emigration target for other like-minded
>citizens. This could server a dual benefit - put meat on the bones of
the
>FTC spirit in its infancy  and draw down the very social/political
elements
>the NAC would not be sorry to see go. This would allow the FTC success
to
>mitigate its repetition.
>
>Were the FTC claimed colonies in any sort of position that the NAC
gained an
>advantage vis-à-vis the ESU by drawing down in the lull between the
wars?
>
>Perhaps the NAC was still concerned enough with the ESU that they were
>unwilling to commit the resources they imagined were necessary to bring
the
>worlds back under the Crown.
>
>But again, I am not up on my Canon so I do not know... Does it state
that
>events were peaceful and orderly, or were they more chaotic and
political
>ill-will remains "today"? I imagine at a minimum some "incidents" must
have
>occurred but the governments 'will must have held things together in
some
>fashion for the current state to have taken form (though that may be an
over
>simplification).
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
>[mailto:owner-gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU]On Behalf Of CS Renegade
>Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2002 10:35 AM
>To: gzg-l@csua.berkeley.edu
>Subject: RE: [FH] FCT founding talk
>
>
> >>	  I would suggest that the FCT starts at the
> >> same level of experience and ability the NAC
> >> has when it is formed.  ...
>
>--- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
>
> > Why would they get this level already? Do you see
> > they're separation as basically peaceful with ship
> > etc attached to the deal?
>
>I can't see an independence movement starting out
>in the NAC fleet (the second solar war has just
>finished and the third round is less than ten years
>away, so the crews have more than enough threats
>to worry about). I can't imagine that the Admiralty
>would be foolish enough to permit unmixed crews if
>there was any danger of internal dissent; it's more
>likely to be case of throw the recruits into a
>training school (enlisted ranks) or the Academy
>(midshipmen), mix thoroughly then post individually
>to existing crews as berths become vacant.
>
>Any sort of political unrest is more likely to
>start on the ground, amongst the civilians. Why
>Cal-Tex should be more apt to (or successful at)
>revolution than the occupied terrestrial LLAR
>territory is a mystery; it's possible that having
>fought for the crown in the War Of The Americas,
>the population was considered reliable enough to
>participate in the early Anglian colonisation
>drive. I would make more of the fact that the two
>outer colonies were involved; the flames of open
>revolt would stand less chance of being stamped
>out before becoming established if the fire started
>in a remote part of the confederation. Early
>demonstrations on Earth would have been in support
>of this movement.
>
>However, we can't ignore the fact that canon
>history clearly states that California and Texas
>declare themselves independent from the NAC, and
>that these states claim all rights to the colonies
>on Austin and Fenris rather than vice-versa. This
>may be because by 2159 no power has a totally free
>hand in the inner systems. Prohibited by UN mandate
>from employing orbital weaponry or moving in large
>numbers of troops, and after much diplomatic
>protest the NAC have no option but let the
>defection go and learn from their mistakes.
>
>This doesn't protect the outer colonies, which have
>been the playpen and safety valve for the great
>powers and will continue to be so for the next 24
>years. I take the token military strikes to be NAC
>raids to recover vessels and personnel trapped in
>FCT ports and to recover any other assets best kept
>in crown hands.
>
>Why doesn't the NAC employ brute force against New
>Pasadena? They've been caught flat-footed by the
>entire Free Cal-Tex movement and don't know how
>reliable the rest of the American-born contingent
>is, apart from the Canadians. The admirals know
>that even crew born in the FCT will at worst have
>divided loyalties, but the politicians don't
>understand that and elect to play safe. The FCT
>is magnanimously allowed to go its own way with
>the hope that it will become an ally rather than
>a foe.
>
>As to ships, the home-designed FCT vessels
>presumably don't appear until after the rebellion.
>Whatever ships were employed for local police
>duties are it until the shipyards get going,
>although barring a protective treaty the NAC are
>unlikely to have insisted on the return of every
>vessel if they don't want to see a less vulnerable
>(backspace ten) principled power move in. By 2187
>the FCT have ships capable of standing in the line
>againt Kra'vak at Rhienhold.