From:	mneideng@****.caltech.edu (Mark L. Neidengard)
Subject:	Re: Government Reaction
Date:	Wed, 24 Jan 1996 19:40:15 -0800 (PST)

According to ANGLISS BRIAN EDWARD:
> Ok, a few quick comments on a couple of other responses to this before I
> go ballistic.
>
> Mark mentioned talking to the other corps and wreaking havoc if the Corps
> were doing nothing, as well as mentioning soveriegnity and unilateral
> action against Maxim.
>
> I don't think that the corps would let Maxim be desroyed by any nation,
> because it set's a really bad precedent. Letting any nation totally
> destroy a megacorp would say to the nations of the world that the Corps
> are fair targets, that extraterritoriality is useless and can be
> overridden at whim, etc. REALLY bad precedent. And while the corps may
> hate Maxim with a passion, the precedent would be SO bad that they'd
> fight to save it instead of letting it go up in flames.

I think it's a question of not giving the governments _reason_ to wreck,
nationalize, or otherwise hamper corporate options. For just the reasons you
mention here, I think the corps would _help_ the government just to make an
example of what happens when someone tries to circumvent their cartel. Having
corporate assets involved with the OP also puts the governments in your debt,
offsetting the "precedent" effect. Of course, the other corps would most likely
also be engaged in large-scale economic war against Maxim products, so maybe
the military intervention would be almost secondary.

> As for soveriegnity, the nations of the world with only a few exceptions have
> little to no control over the corporations, and the corporations fight to
> keep it that way. The majority of the nations can do NOTHING that the
> corps wouldn't like them too.

That's because a small number of the nations still wield a disproportionate
amount of power. For example, UCAS and CFS both have military resources above
and beyond that of any corporation (except Azatlan, which is also a country
in its own right). The corps _probably_ have individual weapon systems
superior to what the governments have, but the governments have the vast
advantage of strength of arms. Remember that maintaining full-blown military
units is _grossly_ unprofitable. Only a government would be as insane or as
powerful to field a Carrier Air Group (or several). Plus the militaries _do_
do their own research apart from their contractors...

> All the weapons that the national armies use are provided by the megacorps.

Just about all.

> Hell, if a nation tried to frag
> with the corps, they'd just stop delivering food, purifying the water,
> etc. and the same effects of Corp War would hit that nation without the
> collateral damage from combat. It wouldn't happen, and letting Maxim go
> down would set the precedent for this possibility. Think for a minute
> like Ares: If Maxim, who I'm allowing to be destroyed because it's
> currently expedient by a national government instead of by a corporate
> action, gets destroyed, how long will it be before the UCAS gets enough
> guts to attack my HQ in Detroit? Oh shit, maybe letting Maxim get
> destroyed isn't such a good idea after all....

I don't agree. While it's certainly open to the corps to try to boycott a
country, it's unlikely that such conditions could persist. The profit motive
to the other corps to sneak in anyway would be overwhelming. Also, if the
corps can boycott the nations, so can the nations boycott the corps. In fact,
the corps do _not_ actually run all the public utilities and stuff, though
they may have made essentially all the gear. It would be like Westinghouse
trying to shut down the our current-day nuclear power plants: they made the
reactors, but they don't furnish the personell that operate them. Also, if
they tried to _sabotage_ national operations, then the government would _really_
have an excuse to unload. Basically, I think that _given_ the justification
of Maxim performing a nuclear arms test, the government is _pretty_ free to
have its way. This is one of the chief reasons to _NOT_ do such a test in the
first place: giving your detractors an opportunity to shaft you.

> And Benjamin Schlitt said that the governments might hire shadowrunners
> and mercenaries to do the damage, because they are disposable,
> untracable, skilled, and don't endanger the national troops as much.
> Personally, this is what I would expect except in the rare cases of the
> Tirs and similar nations, who would do thier own dirty work. It may, in
> fact, be a way to justify some of the force brought to bear when the
> nukes are destroyed.

UCAS and CFS both have the troops to do this on their own.

> Just a final note. I'm not angry about the ultimatum as an idea. I'm
> angry that I wasn't given the opportunity to comment before it went out.
> As I mentioned above, I have serious problems with the world and power of
> the federal government as presented in the ultimatum and what it would
> mean for the SR world. It would alter the balance of power away from the
> corps, which would diverge severly from accepted FASA standards quite a
> bit, and for the above reasons. However, I'm not automatically abhorant
> to that idea, rather the idea that it was done far too quickly and
> without sufficient input from other parties, specifically me.

And as I've argued above, I'm against a world where the national governments
have too _little_ power in comparison to the corps. The idea is a sort of
dynamic equilibrium, which Maxim has disturbed by straying outside the radius
of convergence.
--
/!\/!ark /!\!eidengard, CS Major, VLSI. http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/~mneideng
"Fairy of sleep, controller of illusions" Operator/Jack-of-all-Trades, CACR
"Control the person for my own purpose." "Don't mess with the Dark
Elves!"
-Pirotess, _Record_of_Lodoss_War_ Shadowrunner and Anime Addict