| From: | shadowtk@********.demon.co.uk (Paul J. Adam) |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Maxim(forwarded from ShadowTK) |
| Date: | Thu, 25 Jan 1996 00:11:14 GMT |
plotd@********.itribe.net writes:
> First problem. Ignoring the format, there's no way that the UCAS
> government would send something to all Maxim employees. First, it
> wouldn't get through the firewalls and systems. Second, most of the
> employees would have no say in what Maxim execs do(like Velli). Third,
> this would have gone directly to Velli and the Board, as they're the only
> ones to have enough control to do what they want below. Finally, sending
> it to the Court seems reasonable, but not necessarily wise considering
> that the Court could see this as an intrusion into thier territory and a
> breach of etiquette.
To which I say... look at those areas of Warsaw around the Maxim facility.
National governments still have a responsibility to their citizens, just
as corporations are ultimately answerable to their shareholders. From
the fragmented reports emerging, the Maxim-Warsaw facility was not overrun,
therefore whoever attacked it did not achieve their aims.
What will the second wave be? Someone was willing to expend millions in
hardware and troops to destroy that facility. Since conventional weapons
failed...
Also, exactly where *is* Velli? Where is the Board? Are they advertising
their location?
Finally, this would go directly to the justices of the Court simply because
this represents unacceptable overspill of corporate conflict. It is intended
to send two messages: one, to Maxim, whatever games you wish to play, play
them elsewhere. Two, to the Court, avoid excessive measures laid
against the UCAS because we are taking action of our own.
The Court exists to prevent situations like this. Once they have occurred,
they can hardly protest at national governments wishing to avoid their
jurisdictions being used as warzones.
>> 1.1 This testing caused great risk to many organisations and individuals using
>> civilian communication and navigation systems. While no fatalities are
>> believed to have resulted from Maxim's nuclear test, this is the result
>> solely of good fortune, and the UCAS wishes to express its severest
>> displeasure at such irresponsible behaviour.
>
> The navigational blips should not have occured, since the moon was in the
> way and would have blocked most of the radiation and EMP, and what would
> have been left would not have powerful enough to damage the sattelites
> unless they were in geosynch or lunar orbit. Hell, there probably
> shouldn't have been any damage to any sattelites, realistically, but it
> made for a better story. But the GPS system today is a low earth orbit
> system, which is one hell of a lot further from a lunar detonation than a
> geosynchronous sattelite.
Read DEF STAN 08-15 and a few tech specs for GPS... navigational and
especially communications systems would be affected for about thirty seconds
even at that distance. Phase changes in signals, path changes... the sort
of thing that introduces errors of about 100-500 metres into a GPS fix
and messes up some satellite communications (comms depends very much where
the antennae were facing). A nuclear weapon throws out a lot of microwave
energy: satellites have very sensitive receivers for microwave energy.
> > 2 It has therefore been decided that any holdings of nuclear arms,
> > facilities for the production of nuclear arms, or development facilities
> > for the design and/or improvement of nuclear arms, in Maxim territories
> > located within or contiguous to the UCAS, its territories and dominions,
> > pose a clear and present danger to the people and properties of the UCAS.
>
> Problem: The UCAS has zero say in what Maxim does on thier territory
> due to the extraterritoriality laws. And the question arises regarding
> Ares Macrotech, who is known to have a good sized stockpile of weapons,
> and they're HQed in Detroit. Not only is thier nuke the one that blew up
> in Chicago, but I think it's more than fair to assume that at least part
> of thier stockpile is located on UCAS soil. They detonated a weapon on
> UCAS soil, not the far side of the moon, and the UCAS didn't issue a
> statement to Ares about nukes like this one. I would say that Ares is a
> little bit more of a known threat than Maxim. Now, they major difference
> is that Ares is an established corp that the others are leaving alone
> while Maxim is an upstart that the corps are screwing with. Still,
> please clarify and explain.
As you clearly said: Ares, Aztechnology, and many others have had nuclear
weapons for some time. It's a fact of life and the world has survived.
Maxim, however, are testing rather recklessly, and inviting extremely
active countermeasures. The current analogy would be the Non-Proliferation
Treaty. Several nations, including many hostile ones, have nuclear weapons:
the US doesn't panic. It does, however, act to prevent additional membership
of that club (Pakistan, for instance). Maxim's weapons are destabilising
and invite attack, and that attack involves major collateral damage.
As to Ares detonating a nuke in Chicago... it's debatable whether that could
be considered UCAS territory at that point. Claiming territory implies a
measure of control over it. But there would have been *massive* repercussions
involved in that event. Just because it didn't reach street level... Also,
the situation in Chicago can't quite be compared to the current one.
Read the note carefully: nowhere is the Maxim territory within the UCAS
the area of concern. Maxim are, however, liable in the tort of nuisance for
shrapnel, fallout etc. leaving their territory and entering the UCAS, and
the UCAS is entirely within its rights to minimise those risks *if* Maxim
is acting unreasonably. Whether Maxim is or not... time will tell.
(Defence engineers with some legal training. Damn, we're boring).
> > 3 It is the intention of the United Canadian and American States that
> > Maxim shall withdraw or destroy all nuclear arms and the facilities for the
> > production, design, development, testing and/or deployment of said arms, to
> > a location or locations not less than one hundred nautical miles from any
> > part of the UCAS within seven days of the reciept of this note.
>
> Ok, first major problem. In standard SR, the national governments simply
> do not have anywhere near the power to force this, and the Big 8 and Corp
> Court would not allow it to happen due to the tremendous and extremely
> dangerous precedent it would it set worldwide. Corps just do not let
> nations push them around and dictate what they do.
Whether you have the power to force it or not is one thing. If, though, the
UCAS believes the Big Eight want Maxim's nuclear program shut down...
Never underestimate the importance of expediency. Certainly, the UCAS could
never do this in normal circumstances: but it is already obvious that
Maxim is a loose cannon. Hence the copy to the Corporate Court: just in
case the Court decides that the UCAS absolutely must not take any direct
action. (Which opens an entirely new can of worms, of course...)
It comes down to this: if the UCAS makes a military move against Maxim's
known or suspected nuclear facilities for the solely declared purpose of
eliminating risk to itself (since other corporations are attacking said
facilities), will the Corporate Court stop its operations against those
facilities to support Maxim? History suggests otherwise. Nations still
exist and still have a duty to protect their citizens.
> > 3.1 Should such withdrawal or destruction be deemed impractical, unsafe or
> > uneconomic by Maxim, said arms and facilities shall be secured and
> > administered on a de facto basis by the armed forces of the UCAS within
> > forty-eight hours of the reciept of this note. This occupation shall be
> > deemed solely to protect the citizenry and property of the UCAS, and shall
> > not be judged to imply any change in the ownership of the arms or
> > facilities involved.
>
> Well, it would be called "trespassing on a sovereign nation's soil" as
> well as "occupation". The only way it would be legal is if ownership was
> exchanged. Otherwise, it breaks the UCAS's own laws regarding
> extraterritoriality. MAJOR problem.
Again, remember a lot of this is hot air (as are most diplomatic notes). But
legally, you do have the right to enter a neighbour's house to fight a fire
that might engulf your own dwelling... the sort of legal excuse usable here.
Nations are weak before corporations, not totally supine.
> > 3.3 The UCAS wishes to make clear that it claims no jurisdiction over Maxim
> > properties, personnel or facilities other than that required for the
> > protection of its citizenry, properties and territories. Where Maxim
> > properties, facilities and equipments must be destroyed or sold to the
> > UCAS to comply with the terms of 3.1, a value shall be negotiated between
> > Maxim and the UCAS and such sum paid to Maxim in compensation. Should
> > negotiation be unable to agree a value, then independent arbitration
> > shall be sought.
>
> If they have no jurisdiction over properties, personnel, or facilities,
> then this entire post is full of it and illegal according to law as I
> understand it in the SR UCAS. Again, unless the UCAS is declaring war on
> Maxim, it's illegal and the corps can't afford to let the UCAS dictate
> anything to any major corp, even Maxim.
Again, don't forget two vital points.
One: the corporate world has already been seen to move against Maxim. Who
is going to ride to Maxim's rescue?
Two: A lot of Polish civilians died in the 'collateral damage' from
Warsaw.
Again, remember that legally you are allowed to fight a fire in the house
next door without the owner's permission. That doesn't give you any
claim on his property or possessions.
All this assumes, of course, that the main focus of the note was Maxim.
> > 4 The UCAS also wishes to inform Maxim that compliance with this note is not
> > requested, it is required. Should compliance and co-operation not be
> > forthcoming, the UCAS will take active measures as necessary to secure its
> > aims as declared in (3 and 3.1) above. The Maxim Corporation shall be
> > held liable for all costs, liabilities, damage etc. arising out of
> > such active measures.
>
> Again, see above. Maxim would not take illegal operations on thier
> "national" territories very well at all.
Who are they going to run to for help? They are already in defiance of the
Corporate Court (Warsaw made that obvious).
> > 6 Any nation, corporation or organisation activating any nuclear, biological
> > or chemical weapon within the UCAS will be treated as having committed an
> > act of war against the UCAS and be liable to retaliation in kind, or of any
> > lesser degree deemed appropriate.
>
> No problem here either. Why do you think the test was done on the far
> side of the moon in the first place? And anyone using biological or
> chemical weapons is breaking various international bans and would likely
> get nailed except in the case of world war.
That has never stopped a number of nations: why would it stop corporations?
A direct threat tends to work better. As for high-orbit testing... there
are *horrible* risks involved there. A fault in the missile, for instance,
could deliver twenty-odd kilograms of plutonium into or near a major
city. If it goes up, it can easily come down again... If Maxim wanted to
minimise the risks, they would have gone for an underground test. Instead,
they took a non-negligible risk to test their weapon in outer space.
And why does a corporation care about inter*national* bans? :) If those
apply, Maxim is already in breach of the 1972 ABM treaty.
> > +++++END DIPLOMATIC NOTE
> >
> > This officially constitutes 'delivery'. The clock is running, people.
> >
> > Translation, for the cerebrally impaired, is that we don't really care
> > what Maxim does with its nuclear firecrackers. What we care about is
> > all that collateral damage to voting taxpayers caused by your corporate
> > infighting. Madam Velli, please understand that the above is neither a warning,
> > nor idle posturing. We *will not* permit the sort of damage Warsaw just
> > suffered to be inflicted on any of our cities.
> In my not even remotely close to trying to be humble opinion, the UCAS is
> a lame duck just like the CAS, Carib. League, most of the NAN, and 99% of
> all the national governments in the world. Because of this, they would
> not be in any position to demand this or to threaten any major
> corporation with a whole hell of a lot. And the UCAS has a very large
> percentage of the military keeping the bugs in Chicago. There's not a
> prayer that the UCAS has the power to require this.
First thing: you don't need much military power to strangle a corporation
*if* the corporation is isolated. The UCAS still has carrier battle groups:
Maxim in North America still has to export goods by sea. Maxim may find
itself handicapped in exporting from North America, or move supplies to that
continent. Against a corporation backed by the Court? Not a chance. Against
an isolated straggler? Easily.
The Court would IMHO go for the negotiated settlement. The UCAS government's
note goes largely unprotested 'due to the unacceptable behaviour of Maxim
*as judged by the Corporate Court*' - key emphasis there. The point? That
if you defy the Court you are *completely* on your own, while if Maxim had
co-operated the UCAS would have found itself staring into a blank wall of
opposition. The Court retains its say in defining 'acceptable' behaviour
and gains a stick to wave at dissenters: misbehave and even governments
are allowed a turn kicking your asses.
Secondly: national militaries exist to protect the citizens of their nations
and take their job very seriously indeed. Maxim's behaviour has already
invited major carnage onto Warsaw. Is a UCAS city next? If you think
professional soldiers would sit back and trust corporations to fight it
out with 'minimal collateral damage', then the entire basis of military
service has been destroyed. In sixty years that's an extremely large
assumption IMHO (as a military man myself).
And the effect of something as simple as a 10% attrition rate per journey of
Maxim vehicles while on UCAS highways is far from insignificant to Maxim's
bottom line, yet remarkably easy to achieve. Corporations are extremely
vulnerable if they can be singled out. What is at issue is whether Maxim
will be so isolated, or whether the Corporate Court will act to protect it.
> I'm going to leave off responding to this post for quite some time, as I
> wait for responses. I'm sure there will be some.
Oh, absolutely :) As I said, governments are weak: not totally supine.
Even in the case of being supine... check out Libyan broadcasts after
Eldorado Canyon in 1986, or Iran after Praying Mantis in 1989 :) Or,
for that matter, Iraq state TV during early 1991. Strong words from all
of them, promising Death to America and so on.
What you say is one thing: whether that relates to any actual capability is
entirely another. If the UCAS is genuinely helpless here, the note is
a mere bureaucratic formality to save face. If it has some power to act, the
note is a vital prelude. Hence the lengthy timescales involved compared to the
likely pace of events (to allow for the fact that a diplomatic response would
be immediate... any more forceful riposte would need days at the minimum).
--
Paul J. Adam
