Re: Framework of nations

--- Derek Fulton <derekfulton@bigpond.com> wrote:

> Great, John can count at least up to three, Korea

How many more peace enforcement missions can you
recall, where the UN told a nation, "Stop.  Or we kick
your ass."  And then proceeded to kick their ass.

> and Iraq were definitely  are cases of self
interest. 

All actions a government takes are either in
self-interest or a violation of the trust of the
people of that nation.

> But the Balkans? Well since the US State 
> Department effectively torpedoed the a British
> sponsored European peace 
> plan it's only fair you clean up your government's
> mess ;) Sure the plan 
> probably might not have worked, but we'll never know
> now will we.

Funny, I thought the mess had been created and
perpetuated by an ineffectual UN mission led by the
Euros.	Yes, we told the people that created the mess
that they would not have another go-around on making
it worse.
 
> Yes, there's been other efforts by the US (logistic
> support in East Timor,  for example). But the bulk
of > the UN peace keeping missions are supported 
> by third world countries (eg: Indian Gurkas in
> Africa) 

Every single UN mission is dependant on US logistical
support.  The only exception I can think of was the
early phase of the East Timor mission where Australia
unilaterally took matters into it's own hands until a
UN operation could get off the ground.	Which I
applaud--and point out that if regional powers would
take care of messes in their back yards the US would
have to do a lot less.

> and the US hasn't been a ideal example of a UN
member > and no amount of apple pie and chest beating
is going > to change that.

Define "ideal".  No, we aren't ideal and damn well
never will be.	I would not want to live in a nation
that was an "ideal" UN member.	

> How do we imagine that the nations of the GZG-verse
> might be put together? 
> I think that how maritime empires from history
> managed without the benefit 
> of radio or satellites is a good place to start.

Indeed.  There will have to be a lot of autonomy on
the part of local "viceroys" or "Governor-Generals" or
"Exarch" or "Proconsul" or whatever.  Probably at this
stage, you'd have planetary authorities with
considerable autonomy in internal affairs selected
from the local populace by whatever method is the norm
(voting, or by the Soviet, or by shooting their way
into the Planetary Leader's Palace, or whatever), plus
a representative of the central authority with
complete authority in matters of defense and foreign
relations (power to order local military actions,
negotiate cease-fires or local trade agreements, etc).
 Plus the authority to drop the hammer on local
authorities who decide to violate the laws governing
the central authority (ie, if the NAC guarantees
religious freedom, and a NAC colony started by
seperatist Southern Baptists started opressing the
Amish in the next valley over, the Governor-General
would step in and resolve the conflict).

As a side note, this leads to some interesting
campaign ideas:

Planet X is balkanized, perhaps between notional
allies (NSL and NAC, FSE and ESU).  There are a lot of
local frictions (perhaps over resources only
extractable in a limited area, like a drug made from
flowers found only in a certain mountain range).  One
viceroy decides to launch a military campaign to
secure these resources.  He _has_ to achieve a victory
before the central governments can interefe.  They
won't make him give back the mountain range and they
won't smack his hands if he wins.  If he can't win,
then his career is over.

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com