| From: | Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Another Dead Judge |
| Date: | Tue, 4 Aug 1998 13:47:26 -0400 |
>>But they don't pay anywhere near as much as they should (should be same
>>pages). And yes, they've backed down because in the cost analysis, it was
>>cheaper to pay some taxes than none at all.
>
>But why? You don't hand over money without good reason.
Like I said, it's cheaper. It's cheaper and easier for them to hand over
just enough taxes to keep the gov's military off their backs than to risk a
costly dust-up. So they pay a few mil in taxes. Cheaper than a couple of
hundred mil spent to recover after the UCAS air force bombs a factory into
oblivion. That's not only a good reason, it's an excellent reason.
>We're supposed to believe that the UCAS is going to buy the sinews of
>its national defence from a foreign power that says "By the way, we can
>crush you tomorrow if we feel like it"?
Ares is considered a "friendly" power. True or not, that's how the
congresscritters and many of the citizens see Ares.
And by your same argument, why would a small nation, like Saudi Arabia, buy
it's arms from us, when we could crush them if we so chose? Under that
reasoning, I'd expect them to buy Saab fighters, since Sweden isn't likely
to be rolling troops anywhere anytime soon.
>Ares can make no profit without sales, and yet to make sales of major
>military equipment it _must_ present as a stable, long-term ally.
Which is what they've done!
>Those "trained folks" are needed to defend Ares sites and property:
>weaken them too much and you're vulnerable. Those troops come at a
>price, Erik. Costs to train them, costs to equip them, costs to replace
>them - both to fill the gaps as men are deployed elsewhere, and to
>recruit replacements as troops are killed in action.
>
>Who's paying that cost? And if the answer's "nobody" then where's the
>return for Ares?
Where's the return? It's called protecting their current investments.
>>Paul, come on, don't get snippy. You know as well as I do that few on TK
>>or RN can dispute your knowledge of the military. But you've also got to
>>realize that FASA doesn't have this knowledge and may have made canon
>>statements regarding troop size without realizing if it was feasible or not.
>Remember, their sourcebooks are written as files generated by anonymous
>neo-Anarchists and held on a corporate-owned server (read Shadowplay for
>some speculation as to who _really_ controls Shadowland). What "a neo-
>anarchist believes" in a sourcebook and what the truth is, may be very
>different things.
But what the hell are we supposed to judge upon then? The only thing we
have to judge what the truth is regarding the fictional world of Shadowrun
is what the sourcebooks present, especially for those of us that aren't as
educated in the military arts as you are Paul.
Remember, the people that write these books are a lot closer to me in
knowledge of the military than they are to you. They don't know better,
but they are presenting the truth in Shadowrun.
>Likely force levels - about 400,000 active duty, made up of 150,000
>Navy, 50,000 Marine Corps, 200,000 Army and 100,000 Air Force.
Are we talking total troops, or only front line combatants? I was talking
about around 100K frontline combatants. Don't know at all how those ratios
would work out with REMFs and such.
FYI: the Air Force is doing a reorg of some sort, changing to a more rapid
deployment model, with I think 10 "Expeditionary Forces." Not sure of the
details though.
>In your version, the UCAS has fewer armed forces than the UK today,
>while being surrounded by real or potential enemies and still
>maintaining a division in attrition warfare over years. Not really
>credible.
Let's not also forget that the UCAS lost much of it's territory and a fair
amount of it's citizenry too (not all of it, but a fair portion). And
there's the fact that SR world population levels are absurdely low. That
may not factor into the military equation at all, but it's possible.
>Beg to differ. For both sides, conflict is too expensive to undertake.
>But the UCAS can smash any single corporation. The corporations combined
>have the power to destroy any nation... provided they remain united.
>
>What else explains Zurich-Orbital and the Corporate Court?
To keep them from destroying each other Paul. I thought that was the
obvious point of the CC and Z-O. It's an artificial cap on their
competition, allowing them to keep making money, maintain their position
and preserve themselves. Got nothing to do with the federal governments.
>>Totally agreed Paul. Again, I never claimed that the megas could compete
>>with the UCAS in the military side of the equation. That really is the
>>single edge that the UCAS and other nations have over the megas. Since the
>>UCAS doesn't need to make a profit, it can spend money on losing ventures
>>like a navy.
>
>"Losing" ventures indeed. It's the price of survival. (Hey, you're
>talking to a Brit here :) )
Losing venture as in it's not likely to make a profit. Yes, it may at
times be necessary for survival, but building and maintaining a navy isn't
likely to show up in the black on any accountant's spreadsheet.
>_That_ is the reality of unrestricted submarine warfare against
>commerce. If FASA and the "neo-anarchists" who write the sourcebooks
>have forgotten it, the UCAS Navy has not, and they've yet to produce a
>sourcebook of their own.
BTW, the whole neo-a thing is long since gone. Mike axed that concept a
while ago.
>>Snipe at the
>>military, the police, anyone that wields tremendous real power.
>
><Heh> Erik, you've spent paragraphs telling me how weak the UCAS
>military are.
ARGH!! I thought I had spent paragraphs saying that the military was the
UCAS's only real advantage. I don't think it's that strong, but it's still
strong enough to pound most folks.
>If they wield no real power then Marketeer has no business
>sniping at them, he should be attacking their Ares paymasters.
Anyone with a gun has power Paul, come on.
>Just suggest a better alternative. Too many friends have been in the
>position you describe: it's a little bit personal.
Again, I don't *have* to. I just have to make you justify your own.
>Remember, the military does _not_ make policy. The military carries out
>the orders it receives from the Government. Same in the UK as it is in
>the US, and as it ends up in the UCAS: elected officials say "Go!" and
>the soldiers go.
True. But I think Clausewitz would agree that politics and war go hand in
hand. Can't have one without the other, and both influence and affect the
other.
*sigh*
In the end, I return back to my original statement, as voiced by the
Marketeer, that it's all one big giant balancing act, where no one faction
has any clear cut advantage over the other. It's a massive intertangled
web and it would be suicide for either side to take on the other.
Erik J.
http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/dungeon/480/index.html
The Reality Check for a Fictional World
