RE: [FH] FCT founding talk

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.