| From: | Erik Jameson <erikj@****.COM> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: Another Dead Judge |
| Date: | Tue, 4 Aug 1998 18:48:06 -0400 |
>>Ares is considered a "friendly" power. True or not, that's how the
>>congresscritters and many of the citizens see Ares.
>
>Of course, it then needs to maintain that image.
Yes. And they learned the lesson that you get more with honey than salt.
They get far more concessions from the UCAS by being sweet and nice than by
being belligerent. It seems that most corps, even megas, follow this
general concept.
>There's a case to be made (not decisive, but it's not out of the
>question) that Ares sees close linkage with the UCAS as a long-term
>survival advantage: perhaps, over time, making Ares/UCAS equivalent to
>Aztechnology/Aztlan.
Going to be even more difficult to do once Villiers new corp gets' going.
>Or, better yet, the Japan-United States axis: Japan makes many of the
>subcomponents and wields considerable economic power, but is grossly
>outmatched militarily and is entirely dependent on US military hardware
>(though Mitsubishi produce tanks and fighters and warships, they are
>licenced US designs or very close derivatives thereof).
This actually would probably be a much better example. There's a reason
why people in DC are concerned about the Japanese economy, because it has
already started to affect ours. If we think globalization has intertangled
things today, then just wait until some corporations are nations unto
themselves.
>>But what the hell are we supposed to judge upon then?
>
>Reality, Erik?
Agreed. But again, we all know that SR doesn't model combat realistically.
It's an abstraction, and one that people have been futzing over since day
one. Just because *we* might know something is real is 1998, doesn't mean
that the authors of SR were privvy to the same knowledge for writing about
2050. Again, if *I* were to write a SR book about the military, it'd be
rife with errors that you would destroy. And I'll repeat it again, FASA's
writers are generally closer to my level of knowledge than yours. Now, Jon
Setzo is former military and seems to know a heck of a lot more, but he's
pretty new to the game also. I'm pretty sure his first SR book was Rigger
2. Others, like Steve Kenson, write various books, including location
books, so he's making statements about armed forces without the high level
of knowledge you have.
>>>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.
>>
>Total force. A _long_ way down from today, but still formidable. There
>would IMO be sizeable reserve forces, mostly land troops (Army/Marine
>Reserve and Metroplex Guard) taking the total well past a million in
>full mobilisation, but that would impose serious economic problems if
>sustained.
So how many front-line combatants would that mean?
>>BTW, the whole neo-a thing is long since gone. Mike axed that concept a
>>while ago.
>
>Whatever, the neo-A routine is what the earlier books were using.
Just FYI.
>Talk to the politicians, not to their footsoldiers, if you want to
>change policy. Ranting at the troops... is just grandstanding. Achieves
>nothing except to alienate and annoy them.
Ack, I hate this. I'm normally on your side in this arguement, it's not
familiar territory at all from this side of things. I will rest and say
that it is NOT the role of the the soldier to simply "do or die" and while
many a soldier clings to that credo, I reject it utterly. It is not always
the politicians fault; the military could have found another way to carry
out an order. It's not always the militaries fault either.
>Clausewitz' analysis of warfare is useful, but as idealised as his
>contemporary Marx's examination of economics.
True, his concepts aren't terribly applicable to real warfare, but he is
still quite useful, much as Sun Tzu. And since I tend to argue based more
on general concepts and theory, he's very useful to me.
>>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.
>
>Actually (perhaps I misread it) you presented as advocating corporate
>dominance.
I think I did move heavily to that side as a reaction to your (apparent)
extremity advocating federal dominance. But originally, I was trying to
say that it's all heavily interwoven and it's a balancing act, for all
parties. We only have to look at the current Asian financial crisis and
the global affects it's having to get a glimpse of how interdependent the
economy of 2060 is going to be.
>Both sides have a vested interest in not disturbing that balance. Which
>might make many of 2059's captains of industry and national leaders very
>nervous, as Ares snuggles close to the UCAS: that combination of
>economic and military might would be a very potent force.
>
>Though, again, it's a counterweight to Aztlan/Aztechnology, who might be
>expected to be making some folk nervous...
>
>Perhaps FASA intend to move towards a bipolar world? Certainly human
>nature is happier when it has a bad guy to demonise.
Not likely. Consider the eventual outcome of the Blood in the Boardroom
plot. The Japanacorps lose one of their own to Russia, their Hong Kong
arch-enemy finally gains power, and Ares now has two other megas to compete
with in North America. If anything, they've spread the power around so
that the economy is even more interwoven.
That does still leave the Azzies and SK to demonize. We'll just have to
sit back and wait and see what FASA does.
Erik J.
http://www.fortunecity.com/rivendell/dungeon/480/index.html
The Reality Check for a Fictional World
