Re: Homework Assignment

textfilter: chose text/plain from a multipart/alternative

Some good points raised in replies.

UN:

There was a suggestion that the UN, in order to be what it is in the
timeline, would have to evolve its own citizenship. In my mind, this is
an
absolute necessity as the requirements of any major power will be:

a) tax base to support military construction and operations
b) population base loyal to that faction and from which it can draw
soldiers
and sailors without mixed loyalties
c) territorial base for that construction and for the aforementioned
citizenry to live on free of coercion by other nations

No effectual force will ever exist in that context where:

a) funding for operations and capital procurements exists solely at the
discretion of various power blocks
b) personel are drawn from different power blocks (as sometimes they
won't
be available and they will ALWAYS have a second tier of ROE)
c) political interests will make it productive for policy and strategic
directives of this faction to be interfered with by the powers
contributing
troops and money

No independent foreign policy and strategic doctrine can truly exist
without
some form of revenue and staffing independence.

Beth:

Would like to see what you did, even off list. My theory is that real
history raises hackles, so any re-envisioning of it must too - somebody
will
be a winner, somebody a loser, and some observer will get nose out of
joint.
Even touching on the whole Arab-Israeli situation is inherently
perilous,
even with the intellectual coverage of 'its just a sci fi game'. But
maybe
that makes these discussions a bit useful as well in thinking about the
real
world's destinations while being able to treat them less heatedly. (I
mean,
we can envision victorian futures for games, and we don't seem to get
every
female gamer up in arms, despite the cultural view of the time being
ostensibly replicated implicitly into the future...)

To your other point about NI/IF:

I've had some discussions with friends who have ties to Israel. I
believe I
understand some of their thinking now somewhat better. I have also
spoken to
a number of Lebanese, Pakistani, and other co-workers and understand
some of
their perspective. There seems to be some fundamental differences that
appear to be resistant to mediation and a large historical memory (for
probably good reasons) that serves to limit and channel the overall
strategic decision making. There are some very human elements to the
problem
and I find that there are sympathetic points raised by multiple sides
(I'd
say there are more than two here).

I think projecting animosity into space from traditional fights is
accurate
as a consequence of this, but incomplete. Look at today for instance:
There
are people in other parts of the world, now expats for perhaps
generations,
from the region we are discussing - and they still hold very polarized
views
on things back there. So I suspect the difficulties and memory will
export
rather readily.

On the other hand, there are lots of signs that some folk that are
expats
and some that are of that descent as well as a fair number within the
region
are looking to come to resolutions and are willing to put more on the
table
and be more flexible. I think this is the incomplete part of the GZG
representation - it captures one of the two flavours, but both flavours
I
suspect will exist.

This may make NI and IF policy not so clearcut or perhaps sort of
schizophrenic at times, much like the real world. Or perhaps it would
lead
to splintering off of these factions (lord knows, the NAC seems to
promulgate splinter groups by its mere existence - no reason the same
does
not apply other places). I do think this second alternative perspective
needs to be seen somewhere in the fluff.

Now, some will cite the nuclear destruction of Israel as a rather large
point in the lasting emnity. I conclude that this would in fact be just
such
a thing for many people. But I draw people's attention to the only
example
of nuclear deployment against a nation state we already have. 70 years
later, we have relative peace and even good feeling between people in
the
countries that deployed the nuclear weapons and people in the country
that
were the target.

There are respects in which this analogy is weak (no reconstruction
efforts,
for one) but one has to think that this shows that time tends to change
outlooks. Even the fact that the British and French are allies now, or
the
US and British, or (somewhat) the Russians and the West are signs that
lasting emnities can change as generations of populations come and go
and
new issues and flavours arise in the geopolitics and cultures of the
day.

Note of course that even Japan has some military resurgent factions
today. I
don't think they have lasting emnity to the US, but they want Japan to
be
strong and defended (and given the neighbourhood, this might not be the
least sane idea).

How to write a timeline

The thing that is interesting is how do you capture these depths of
nuance
in a timeline write up? If you acknowledge the deeper dispersion of
views,
it might seem like there are no good reasons for larger military
conflicts
(hmmmm, the real world still seems to have them.....). It may read as
confusing for readers. But if you delve into the issues deeply enough to
provide sensible explanations of nuanced outcomes, you will be more
restrictive than Jon's original small blurb was stylistically and this
heavier approach will be more restrictive to the different individual
readers and will sap some of their individual interpretation (or allow
them
easier routes to feel the fluff does not reflect their prejudices).

This concern was part of why I suggest a number of these could
constitute
alternate history timelines. The game could afford to have 15 flavours
of
alternate timeline that to one extent or another hew to common factions
(so
Jon could continue sales in their current form) but there could be
enough
diversity of flavours to let gamers find one that fits their own outlook
more or less. I see nothing wrong with their being no single official
history, just a whole pile of interesting alternate options.

It would just be nice to consolidate them in a single place so somebody
could easily one-stop shop such a thing for ideas. In a way, a gzg-pedia
could do that but it would require some restructuring.

Anyway, that's part of my inspiration for the homework assignment.

Tom

-- 
Only solitary men know the full joys of friendship. Others have their
family; but to a solitary and an exile, his friends are everything.* 
*--
Willa Cather (1873 - 1947)Solitudinem fecerunt, pacem appelunt
-- Publius Cornelius Tacitus (from the book Agricola, attributed to a
speech
from Calgacus)