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

--- "Z. Lakel" <zlakel@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:

> 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?  

It almost did in 1973.	But even when the defenses on
the Golan Heights were down to about a half-dozen
operating tanks, they didn't use them.	I doubt Israel
would use nuclear weapons unless the Arabs broke
through and were burning kibbutzes to the ground. 
Furthermore, Israel faces an enemy with an avowed goal
not of removing it's government, but of killing every
Jewish man, woman, and child in Palestine.  This is a
truly abberational situation.

> 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.
 
Just because we made that decision does NOT mean that
it was predictable that we would have made that
decision.

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

I don't have the book on my, but Glen posted a summary
yesterday.


> 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?  

Wouldn't working in a slaughterhouse and killing
steers by the hundreds reduce the psychological blocks
for killing human beings by the hundreds?

Answer:  Theoretically, but most normal human beings
have a sense of proportion.

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

Depends on how politically active they are, how well
armed they are, settlement patterns (if 40% of the
planet's population is in one urban area, then they
are much easier to control) and a host of other
factors.

> First, allow me to appologise for not clerifying
> that I was speaking not-in-canon.  

We're discussing doctrine, which cannot be removed
from it's political context.

>As far as balance of power, I don't think
> such a thing exists.

Really--how would you describe the 17th-19th century
situation in Europe?  No one (except Napoleon) went
about conquering their neighbors and installing new
governments--and Napoleon found that when he started
doing that, all his neighbors ganged up on him and
took him down.	Further, he was not able to
sucessfully conquer his major enemies (Austria,
Russia, Britain) and replace their governments.  And
when he was defeated, what did the Allies do? 
Re-installed the old dynasty that Britain had been at
war with before the Revolution.  And the Brits,
French, Germans, and Russians went back to competing
for colonies.

> 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.  

Balance of Power doesn't presume totally static
situation.  It presumes a fluid situation, but one in
which only small adjustments are possible.  My power
shrinks today because I lost a province, but I'll get
it back next year.

> 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.

Not always true.  And specious argument.  Balance of
power implies that no one has the ability to wage wars
of conquest against major states.  Not that no one
wants to.

> A state following the BoP theory does quite well
> until it meets someone that
> refuses to believe in its little fantasy.  

Presuming, of course, that that someone has the
ability to throw off the balance of power.  No one
wants a balance of power and works to maintain it--you
merely acknowledge a situation that exists.  Balance
of power is maintained by the various nations
constantly striving to increase their own power, but
not having the ability to commit to an all-or-nothing
conquest attempt.

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com