Re: Close Orbit Support (COS) a.k.a. CSS (Close Space Support)

> Both France and Nazi Germany had large stockpiles of
> chemical weapons during WWII and did not use them.
> Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and did
> not use them either.

I conciede that the France and Nazi Germany example has relevance. 
However
it illustrates only one situation and I was speaking in generalities.
Therefore, I should ammend the strength of my statement to say that such
a
goverment would be likely to use WMD's.  As a counter example, do you
think
Isrial(sp?) would hesitate to use any weapon they possess top defend
themselves from their neighbors should it come to that?  Concerning
Iraq,
were they really threatoned with ceasing to exist by the U.S.?	I mean,
it's
the same government in power now as it was then.

> IMNSHO, the MT description is suited for particle beam
> usage, which is the "canon" (From FT) description of
> human beam batteries.  The DS description indicates a
> differing, more specialized system.

Point Taken.  As I don't have MT, what are the rules/stats for the
specialised ortillery system?

> Depends on the nation.  Look at the gyrations we go to
> to avoid harming civvies in the US of A's military
> actions at present.  I have a feeling that some
> superpower conflicts will take on an early 18th century
> feel--deliberately limited wars for deliberately
> limited gains using limited means.

"Some" being the opperative word here.	Certianly a portion of actions
will
occur as you suggest, but non-limited wars will happen, and while the
U.S.
abhores harming noncombatents, not everyone does, and that is the key. 
You
assume a given code of conduct which cannot be assumed as given to apply
to
all nations.

> > You're using nuclear or worse weapons on each other
> > in space, why wouldn't that extend to the
> > ground?
>
> Because people don't live in space, and if they do
> they live in big metal cans that are radiation
> shielded.  Because most food is not grown in space.
> Because the Sierra Club can't get all hot and bothered
> about hard vacuum.  Because the radiation from a space
> battle won't linger on and cause trouble for the next
> 500 years.

Ah, the nuclear depth charge argument.	However, couldn't the ample use
of
nukes in one setting reduce the psycological blocks for using them in
another?  If nuclear weapons are never used and are seen as something
untouchably deadly, it's much harder to convince yourself it's ok to use
them on someone when compared to if they are routeenly used?  how much
easier is it to order a weapon that you allways fire to be target at a
different target than it is to use a weapon that you never use?
Psycologically that is.

> > Also, I'm sure the peoples of Earth will be
> > horrified to hear about
> > millions of inocent K'V being killed.
>
> Specious argument--the only ground battles vs. the K'V
> have been on human-inhabited planets.

Even better, make that "How many K'V civvies will be horrified to hear
about
millions of innocent Hu'Mon being killed?"

> Depends on how many inhabitants you've got.  Beth ran
> the population figures for New Serbia and came up with
> under half a million inhabitants.  And it's not a
> brand new colony.  On the other hand, with really
> cheerful estimates New Constantinople checked in at
> over 80 million.  That's not going to be that far from
> the top end of non-Core colonies.

How many troops would it take to controll pops of those sizes?

> "And thought I was going to win long term."  Who,
> between the ESU and NAC is going to win long term?  I
> mean, they've been around for better than a century
> and a half and have clashed intermittantly ever since.
>  They aren't going to topple each other barring some
> truly strange events.  You're thinking in WWII, Final
> Crusade To End Evil terms.  I think the GZGverse
> portrays a world where no one really can afford to
> think in those terms, instead reverting back to
> Balance of Power concepts.

First, allow me to appologise for not clerifying that I was speaking
not-in-
canon.	As far as balance of power, I don't think such a thing exists.
Instead, I feel that nations are either becoming more powerfull or
decreasing in power.  Their power never remains static as is implied in
the
BoP theory.  All (all being inclusive within reason and expecting
statisticly outlying events) apparent balances of power are brought
about by
all the nations involved believing in the BoP theory--it's a
self-fuffilling
prophesy.  An excelent historical example is the Alexandrian successor
states.  They all engaged in little wars w/ each other w/ limited
objectives
and _Republican_ Rome rolled right over them (not quite that simple, but
still).  The reason for that is that Republican Rome fought wars w/ 2
possible ends--the destruction of their enemies, or their own
distruction.
A state following the BoP theory does quite well until it meets someone
that
refuses to believe in its little fantasy.  As for the GZG-verse, asuming
the
NAC and ESU continue hostilities and still exist after the KV go away,
I'd
expect a lesser power (UN perhaps?) to gradually expand and mess w/
their
ongoing war.  BoP thinking causes nations to stagnate and lose power
while
more victory-oriented thinking causes said nations to gain power, and
how
could a nation _not_ afford to think in the term that will best help it
increase its strength?

Zachariah Lakel