Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Specter <james@***.UNM.EDU>
Subject: Militaries
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 1996 17:59:54 -0700
I was wondering. How do any of you treat the militaries (fed, corp, merc)
in your games? Which holds more power? What types of backgrounds do
characters have to have if they have ex-military characters?

James Meiers
Homepage: http://www.arc.unm.edu/~james
Message no. 2
From: Sight Unseen <toabo@****.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 01:42:39 -0500
At 05:59 PM 11/3/96 -0700, you wrote:
>I was wondering. How do any of you treat the militaries (fed, corp, merc)
>in your games? Which holds more power? What types of backgrounds do
>characters have to have if they have ex-military characters?
>
>James Meiers

As to holds the most power, I'd have to say (in traditional
economist fashion) that it depends. On an open field of battle, any
military from any major country could wipe out that of any megacorp or merc
unit. It's just a question of numbers there. But in smaller engagements?
Could go either way. It would depend on a variety of factors, particularly
who the opponents are. A lesser developed country can't field big units; it
may rely solely on mercs for its military. Your average corp soldier
probably has a little more training than the typical grunt in a national
force, but at the high end I'd say the elite troops of both sides are pretty
fragging deadly all around.
As far as military backgrounds, I'd say the sky is pretty much the
limit for various backgrounds, so long as you can invent a plausible story
to explain it. For instance, it'd be pretty hard to understand why a
brigadier general from the UCAS Army is now running the streets in Denver,
but in the Sixth World I wouldn't write it off as wholly impossible. So
you'd have to give a character a reason why he/she left the military and
decided to run the streets.
One caveat: Don't use the military as an easy way to for a
character to pick up tons of chrome without a good explanation behind it.
(This may not apply to mercs quite so much, depending on how you play them.
In the game I'm in, individual mercs are left to their own means to acquire
cyberware; the merc organization doesn't provide it for them. But if you
run the game differently, then the following will apply.) I mean, nobody is
going to invest tens (or hundreds) of thousands of nuyen into making a
charater a lethal killing machine and then say, "You want to resign and run
the streets? Null perspiration, chummer. Have a nice life."
First, they're not even going to put nuyen into a person that they
think will bail on them. The character originally had to be somebody that
his superiors felt would be loyal and would be lifelong soldier. (This will
be in direct proportion to the cost of the chrome. They may put in a
datajack for every grunt, but only real diehard partriots will get selected
for cyberarms or bioware.) So the character needs an event (or something
similar) that changed his life. You know, his superiors sold him out and
left him to die. He had a traumatic experience that changed his outlook on
life to the extent that he no longer wants to be in the military. She lost
it on a mission and they court-martialed her. She pissed off a superior who
retaliated by stalling her career. Whatever the reason, something about
this person or their environment changed in such a manner that this person
either wanted to leave the military or was forced out.
Second, no commander is going to watch a hundred thousand nuyen walk
out of his unit without a fight. (As before, the level of resistance will
vary in direct proportion with the cost of the chrome. They might let you
walk out with the cybereyes, but the cyberarm w/ integral gyromount is
getting lopped before you even think about opening the door marked EXIT.)
So now you need a reason why the character got away with his cool chrome.
Maybe he ran away. Maybe the military thinks everyone in her squad died on
that last mission. Maybe he faked his own death. Whatever the reason,
somehow this character got out without having to return the military's
investments.
So now you've got a character with great chrome with a good reason
why he left the military and another good reason why the military let him
leave with the chrome still attached. So are you done? Probably, but if
your GM is any good, he's just starting. A GM can use these reasons as plot
devices for the character. The guy left the military due to psychological
trouble resulting from the death of his entire platoon? Maybe the guy now
has flashbacks everytime he enters a firefight. She ran away from the
military? Now everytime she enters that country/corp territory she risks
being captured and executed for desertion. He faked his own death? Maybe
someone else discovered this information and using it as blackmail: work
for me or I'll let the military know where to find its lost property. (As
before, the level of risk to the PC will depend on the cost of the chrome.
Ten thousand nuyen worth may mean that the PC is a wnated criminal within
that country/corp territory. A hundred thousand nuyen worth may mean the
military sends out squads to find the PC and bring him [or his corpse]
back.) Don't let the PC off easy.
Message no. 3
From: Marcos Adi <adimar@*******.CO.IL>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 10:08:27 +0200
On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, Specter wrote:
> in your games? Which holds more power? What types of backgrounds do
> characters have to have if they have ex-military characters?

hello Specter.
In my campaign I decided that military forces became much smaller and
better trained. even the most simple "line" soldier is trained in night
warfare, HTH and knife combat. (to about army ranger level)
also there are other changes:
-tanks were abolished (to easily destroyed by antitank choppers)
-infantry's role has changed from a compliment for tank forces to the
roles of complimenting airforces (lasing targets and other forms of
targeting.)
-naval power has largely been transfered to subs (mostly caterpilar
drive-similar to jet engine for airplains, much easier to maintain, more
silent, etc)
-an adition of space weapon to the arsenal allows an unprecednt level of
destruction.

as for skills:
a line soldier min att(bod+qui+wp) firearms 4,rifle 6,unarmed 6,stealth 6
smartgunpalm link,radio(eccm 4) crypto 4,low light,flare compenstation
second level soldier min att(bod+qui+wp) firearms 6,rifle 8,unarmed 8,
knife 8, stealth 8
boosted reflexes3,radio(eccm 4) crypto 6,smartgun palmlink,low
light,flare compensation, etc
the best level of soldier(so called alpha team)
min att(bod+qui+wp) , skills of minimum 10, any beta cyberware etc

this represents the level of minimum skills althought there may be
variations for different units and for different positions with a unit
hope this helps.
Message no. 4
From: Technomancer <arvanit@***.UCH.GR>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 15:32:00 +0200
On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, Marcos Adi wrote:

> the best level of soldier(so called alpha team)
> min att(bod+qui+wp) , skills of minimum 10, any beta cyberware etc
>
I'd hate to be an enemy of these guys. Don't you think they are more than
the best? (I mean skills of 10 !?!)
*********************************************************************
* Technomancer * Modesty is one of my countless virtues *
* arvanit@***.uch.gr *
* http://www.csd.uch.gr/~arvanit/ *
*********************************************************************
Message no. 5
From: "Robert Pendergrast (Tom)" <3011_3@***.EDU>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 14:07:40 -0700
> as for skills:
> a line soldier min att(bod+qui+wp) firearms 4,rifle 6,unarmed 6,stealth 6
> smartgunpalm link,radio(eccm 4) crypto 4,low light,flare compenstation
> second level soldier min att(bod+qui+wp) firearms 6,rifle 8,unarmed 8,
> knife 8, stealth 8
> boosted reflexes3,radio(eccm 4) crypto 6,smartgun palmlink,low
> light,flare compensation, etc
> the best level of soldier(so called alpha team)
> min att(bod+qui+wp) , skills of minimum 10, any beta cyberware etc

Geez, remind me not to frag with you! Those guys are evil! <grin> I
like it !


---Tom---
Message no. 6
From: Specter <james@***.UNM.EDU>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 17:09:08 -0700
On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, Marcos Adi wrote:

> On Sun, 3 Nov 1996, Specter wrote: [I have a pretty good idea]
> hello Specter.
> In my campaign I decided that military forces became much smaller and
> better trained. even the most simple "line" soldier is trained in night
> warfare, HTH and knife combat. (to about army ranger level)
> also there are other changes:
I definitley see that in our forseeable future. It helps to have a
standard Army soldier that can kick ass as well as a Marine or Ranger
(If you want to debate which is better, keep it to yourself) and
with the reduced money to pay for more soldiers (or REMFers) they get
better equipment, like a possible BattleTac-type system.

> -tanks were abolished (to easily destroyed by antitank choppers)
But they have their advantages. They will still be needed for any serious
combat. APCs will be changed to wheeled or better tracked systems.

> -infantry's role has changed from a compliment for tank forces to the
> roles of complimenting airforces (lasing targets and other forms of
> targeting.)
Infantry is definitely needed to at least hold the enemy ground that has
been captured. I see direct infantry warfare, like Trench warfare, as
fading away. Most combat will involve tanks and fighter/bombers, with
infantry holding the area.

> -naval power has largely been transfered to subs (mostly caterpilar
> drive-similar to jet engine for airplains, much easier to maintain, more
> silent, etc)
I've been discussing this with a friend. Another friend of mine and
myself created and SSN for SR, and the first friend just created another
sub at "http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/6958/Typhoon.htm";. However,
I don't see the demise of the aircraft carrier because the role they play
now will definitely extend into the next century. (That being that they
are sent to an area whenever somethign comes up where the US wants to
assert their presence) Don't forget, supply ships also are part fo the
Navy, and like it or not, are cheaper overall to move supplies like tanks
and any number of things to a theater.

> as for skills:
> a line soldier min att(bod+qui+wp) firearms 4,rifle 6,unarmed 6,stealth 6
> smartgunpalm link,radio(eccm 4) crypto 4,low light,flare compenstation
> second level soldier min att(bod+qui+wp) firearms 6,rifle 8,unarmed 8,
> knife 8, stealth 8
> boosted reflexes3,radio(eccm 4) crypto 6,smartgun palmlink,low
> light,flare compensation, etc
> the best level of soldier(so called alpha team)
> min att(bod+qui+wp) , skills of minimum 10, any beta cyberware etc

First level attribute levels are good. About comparable with the basic
soldiers I consider best written so far on the Internet. Skills should be
a little more varied, like athletics and definitely without a doubt,
military etiquette. I don't see the military installing a lot of cyberware
when non-cyber equipment works just as well, especially when cyber is much
more expensive, and they are on a budget. However, I would count the ECM,
etc. and encryption as way past what a player can touch. However, at the
third level, your skills are getting out of hand. In case you
didn't know, I wrote the file for Delta Force, and Kjell wrote the SEALs
one, and these guys are better than our guys are, and ours are supposed to
be the very best (Although they do have high, 5-6+, Threat Ratings). We
don't use beta+ cyber unless the GM wants to and is feeling the military
really needed to spend their budget money last year, and then it's usually
Alpha at best unless they're _really_ lucky.

> this represents the level of minimum skills althought there may be
> variations for different units and for different positions with a unit
> hope this helps.
God help the bad guys if your military guys are that highly rated.
However, except to make a gun and initiative roll, military should be
played more role-playing than ROLL-playing. Even then, a high threat
rating helps. :-) (Happy?)

James Meiers
Homepage: http://www.arc.unm.edu/~james
"I am the shadow whom is supposed to show people the way."
Message no. 7
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 17:19:02 -0700
Specter wrote:
|
|On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, Marcos Adi wrote:
|
|I don't see the demise of the aircraft carrier because the role they play
|now will definitely extend into the next century. (That being that they
|are sent to an area whenever somethign comes up where the US wants to
|assert their presence) Don't forget, supply ships also are part fo the
|Navy, and like it or not, are cheaper overall to move supplies like tanks
|and any number of things to a theater.

Unless the CAS or the UCAS no longer want to be able to
project military forces anymore. And, based on what I've
read, I get the feeling that the UCAS and CAS are far more
worried about threats on their own borders (the NAN) then
countries overseas. Russia is not even close to being a
threat in 205+. The European countries are dealing with
their own problems. China has fragmented. etc, etc.
There are no overseas military threats anymore for the UCAS
or the CAS.

The MegaCorps are the ones that have the projectable
military forces now, to make sure that some nitwit country
doesn't screw with their assets.

I just don't see there being a need for the type of
aircraft carrier that the US fields today. Maybe something
similar to what the UK has, but nothing bigger than that.

Just my two-pence.

-David

/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~
Message no. 8
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 00:27:19 +0000
In message <Pine.SUN.3.91.961104085405.25659A-100000@*****.netvision.net
.il>, Marcos Adi <adimar@*******.CO.IL> writes
>hello Specter.
>In my campaign I decided that military forces became much smaller and
>better trained. even the most simple "line" soldier is trained in night
>warfare, HTH and knife combat. (to about army ranger level)

Knife and HTH? I don't see much use for this. If you're reduced to this
level you've lost the battle: the first rule of knife fights is that the
man with the working firearm wins.

>also there are other changes:
> -tanks were abolished (to easily destroyed by antitank choppers)

Not true, then or now: antitank helos are effective, but also
vulnerable. They're no more going to spell the demise of the tank than
the ATGM-armed infantryman did.

As an Army Air Corps colonel told me over drinks, "A dozen helicopters
in my rear area? Oh, dear, not good. A dozen tanks in my rear area?
Panic, old boy, total panic." Helos are effective, but lack durability
and persistence.

> -infantry's role has changed from a compliment for tank forces to the
>roles of complimenting airforces (lasing targets and other forms of
>targeting.)

Nope. Infantry's primary role is to take and hold ground, period. Air
and artillery ends up being counterproductive in, say, urban areas:
without lots of well-trained footsoldiers you can't contest ownership of
anything bigger than a village). Don't fall prey to the fallacy that
airpower wins wars.

> -naval power has largely been transfered to subs (mostly caterpilar
>drive-similar to jet engine for airplains, much easier to maintain, more
>silent, etc)

Uh... no. Sorry. Caterpillars have been studied, been examined, don't
and can't work until you change the composition of seawater.

Submarines don't do shore bombardment, don't move cargo, don't provide
air superiority. They are sea _denial_ assets, but that isn't enough by
itself: they stop your enemy using the sea, they do nothing to let you
exploit it.

> -an adition of space weapon to the arsenal allows an unprecednt level of
>destruction.

Why? Dropping small rocks isn't that big a deal. Dropping _big_ rocks
isn't much if any cheaper than using nuclear weapons. Space is useful,
but it's far from the be-all and end-all of armament: anything you want
to drop, you first have to lift up there and keep intact, and if you
have that sort of cheap surface-to-orbit capability you have a readymade
ICBM force already.

--
"There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy."
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 9
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 00:36:40 +0000
In message <199611050019.RAA17787@******>, David Buehrer
<dbuehrer@****.ORG> writes
>I just don't see there being a need for the type of
>aircraft carrier that the US fields today. Maybe something
>similar to what the UK has, but nothing bigger than that.

"Just to add a little spice to the runners' lives, and to slip a little
wedge of fear into their hearts, clearly visible out in the Sound is the
UCAS aircraft carrier _Koontz_, arriving from the Pacific theatre of
operations. As the carrier moves through Puget Sound, it conducts
repeated, heavy-duty air operations off the flight deck. Aircraft of all
types - conventional, VTOL and rotorcraft - are seen launching and
landing."
Elven Fire, page 26.

I can see the UCAS and Royal Navies maintaining their presence for a
simple reason: sea lanes. In a world of international commerce, where
the likely enemies are the corporations, being able to secure or to cut
the SLOCs is a mighty sword of Damocles, and corporations would _love_
the opportunity to bid for air wings' worth of fast jets. I figure
smaller carriers than today: 45-50ktons, probably conventionally
powered, eight to twelve in total with smaller escort groups than today.
2-4 on the West Coast homeported out of Seattle, the rest in the
Atlantic Fleet.

--
"There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy."
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 10
From: Specter <james@***.UNM.EDU>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 19:10:57 -0700
On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, David Buehrer wrote:

> Unless the CAS or the UCAS no longer want to be able to
> project military forces anymore.
Well, this doesn't have to apply only to the CAS (Who had one carrier
group as their Navy when they secceeded [Waitasec, wouldn't they get
Norfolk and Virginia? If anything, the UCAS would be suffering in the
naval area.], but I bet they've got more than one carrier by now) and
UCAS, but it can also apply to JIS or any other nation-state. The
Euro-Wars were 20 years ago, and if GB has full carriers (I think. Paul?),
then someone else in Europe will likely have them too, probably France. (I
have no idea on the condition of France in 2057).

> I just don't see there being a need for the type of
> aircraft carrier that the US fields today. Maybe something
> similar to what the UK has, but nothing bigger than that.
Okay, from _Bug City_, I know the UCAS does have this type of aircraft
carrier, but the USS Wolverine is in Lake Michigan! If the UCAS wants a
presence outside the Great Lakes and the Atlantic Coast, they are going to
need some full-sized carriers. (I know I'm repeating some things Paul
said, but they need to be said.) BTW, just because the timeline says the
_US_ had no presence outside North America by the 2030's (Wouldn't this
mean that the embassies are now defenseless?), doesn't mean the UCAS
government doesn't have a presence outside North America. Of course, as I
see it, there might be a UCAS military in any place Ares has soldiers,
but that's because I think the UCAS will aid Ares Macrotech somewhat if it
keeps an American corporation a part of the Big Eight.

James Meiers
Homepage: http://www.arc.unm.edu/~james
"I am the shadow whom is supposed to show people the way."
Message no. 11
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 20:56:32 -0700
Paul J. Adam wrote:
|
|In message <199611050019.RAA17787@******>, David Buehrer
|<dbuehrer@****.ORG> writes
|>I just don't see there being a need for the type of
|>aircraft carrier that the US fields today. Maybe something
|>similar to what the UK has, but nothing bigger than that.
|
|"Just to add a little spice to the runners' lives, and to slip a little
|wedge of fear into their hearts, clearly visible out in the Sound is the
|UCAS aircraft carrier _Koontz_, arriving from the Pacific theatre of
|operations. As the carrier moves through Puget Sound, it conducts
|repeated, heavy-duty air operations off the flight deck. Aircraft of all
|types - conventional, VTOL and rotorcraft - are seen launching and
|landing."
|Elven Fire, page 26.

I take it the carrier wasn't named after Stacey Koontz ;)

|I can see the UCAS and Royal Navies maintaining their presence for a
|simple reason: sea lanes. In a world of international commerce, where
|the likely enemies are the corporations, being able to secure or to cut
|the SLOCs is a mighty sword of Damocles, and corporations would _love_
|the opportunity to bid for air wings' worth of fast jets. I figure
|smaller carriers than today: 45-50ktons, probably conventionally
|powered, eight to twelve in total with smaller escort groups than today.
|2-4 on the West Coast homeported out of Seattle, the rest in the
|Atlantic Fleet.

Okay, you got me :) I would wonder whether or not the carriers have
fussion reactors though...

-David

/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~
Message no. 12
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 1996 22:47:15 +0000
In message <Pine.A32.3.95.961103175721.34396B-100000@*****.arc.unm.edu>,
Specter <james@***.UNM.EDU> writes
>I was wondering. How do any of you treat the militaries (fed, corp, merc)
>in your games?

Corporate militaries are very small, very well-equipped, and think
they're superbly trained :) They're basically showcase units optimised
for demonstrating hardware in the Desert Wars and other "event wars"
rather than serious fighting forces.

Major national militaries are far larger, generally slightly less well-
equipped, but much more effectively trained. Elite national units are a
match or better than anything a corporation fields: the British SAS
would wipe the floor with any corporate military arm. Smaller national
militaries range from small-but-deadly to poorly-trained conscript
hordes to contract mercenaries.

>Which holds more power?

In purely military terms, most major nations could eliminate the any
single corporation in about 72 hours. The problem is that it's far from
just a military engagement, and the corporations have enough economic
and political muscle to easily prevent this. The smaller nations are
pretty weak militarily: a corporate force, or a good merc unit, could
take them.

>What types of backgrounds do
>characters have to have if they have ex-military characters?

You generally need a good reason to be _ex_-military. If you're dealing
with a chromed-up ex-Special Forces supersoldier, he/she's not likely to
have simply declined to re-enlist and wandered out of base camp to
become a shadowrunner.

One of my PCs - Sergei Rusanov, now CO of a merc unit - was a Russian
_spetznaz_ sergeant who defected rather than obey a State Security order
to "sterilize" a village whose only crime was that a Russian convoy was
ambushed three miles away. His first two years were spent dodging
assassins before he was able to leverage a ceasefire. Even now he still
watches his back, but has at least been able to go back to St.
Petersburg a few times.

A good, simple background would be a ex-soldier who has a _lot_ of
skills, but had the wired reflexes removed on discharge (too expensive
and not cost-effective enough to take back the eyes, datajack and
smartlink, but the wires are big money). Say Skills A, Atts B, Tech C.

Or, if you kept the cyber, you're not likely to have been discharged
normally. You might have defected, deserted, been captured as a PoW and
forgotten only to escape, faced the fate of many Russians (escaped PoWs
who returned to their own side were routinely imprisoned as spies in
1941-42), been betrayed and left for dead (Elias in Platoon, if he'd
survived) but you have some pretty dirty laundry in your past, whether
yours or someone else's.

--
"There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy."
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 13
From: Sight Unseen <toabo@****.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 04:51:42 -0500
>Uh... no. Sorry. Caterpillars have been studied, been examined, don't
>and can't work until you change the composition of seawater.
Really? Isn't that what Clancy used in The Hunt For Red October?


Peace and Long Life,

Scott
Message no. 14
From: Sight Unseen <toabo@****.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 04:51:44 -0500
>Unless the CAS or the UCAS no longer want to be able to
>project military forces anymore. And, based on what I've
>read, I get the feeling that the UCAS and CAS are far more
>worried about threats on their own borders (the NAN) then
>countries overseas. Russia is not even close to being a
>threat in 205+. The European countries are dealing with
>their own problems. China has fragmented. etc, etc.
>There are no overseas military threats anymore for the UCAS
>or the CAS.
>
>I just don't see there being a need for the type of
>aircraft carrier that the US fields today. Maybe something
>similar to what the UK has, but nothing bigger than that.

Yeah, like the govt is ever going to be governed totally cost
conciously. The war hawks in the Congress and the military would never let
the doves totally dismantle the navy.

Peace and Long Life,

Scott
Message no. 15
From: Sight Unseen <toabo@****.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 04:51:44 -0500
>>also there are other changes:
>> -tanks were abolished (to easily destroyed by antitank choppers)
>
>Not true, then or now: antitank helos are effective, but also
>vulnerable. They're no more going to spell the demise of the tank than
>the ATGM-armed infantryman did.
Ditto that. Besides, in FoF it says that armor technology is
outpacing armor-piercing technology.


Peace and Long Life,

Scott
Message no. 16
From: Marcos Adi <adimar@*******.CO.IL>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 10:16:04 +0200
> First level attribute levels are good. About comparable with the basic
> soldiers I consider best written so far on the Internet. Skills should be
> a little more varied, like athletics and definitely without a doubt,
> military etiquette.

I only refered to combat skills the whole list would certainly include
the athletics and ettiquete you suggested plus specialization for every
soldier suh as demolition,communication etc. (even for first level soldiers.)

> more expensive, and they are on a budget. However, I would count the ECM,
> etc. and encryption as way past what a player can touch. However, at the
> third level, your skills are getting out of hand. In case you
> didn't know, I wrote the file for Delta Force, and Kjell wrote the SEALs
> one, and these guys are better than our guys are, and ours are supposed to
> be the very best (Although they do have high, 5-6+, Threat Ratings). We
> don't use beta+ cyber unless the GM wants to and is feeling the military
> really needed to spend their budget money last year, and then it's usually
> Alpha at best unless they're _really_ lucky.

When you talk about specwar being more about role playing (tactics) then
role playing I couldn't agree more. however that doesn't prevent specwar
operators from having exelent ratings in all of their skills (after all
the intensive training the go through is much more rigorus than any other
soldier.) - the combination of the great (10+) combat skills and the high
tactical (roleplaying) skills is what turns specwar operator (seals nad such)
into deadly oponents
When you talk about the cost of equiping\training a SpecWar operator
consider that the forces are much smaller. plus the cost of training
troops may be very high (for example the cost of training an israeli
fighter pilot exedes the 30 million dollar mark) so when you talk about
equiping specwar operators the sum of 10 mil a piece isn't out of the
reasonable range. (you could buy any beta ware you would like.)
again I stress this is true only for the best seal teams etc.
other lower quality specwar units will manage on regular cyberware.


hope this clarifies my position.

P.S the fact that 10+ skill monsters exists in my world doesn;t
necesarily mean that players will encounter them.
(although it doesn't mean they wouldn't encounter them either ;-)
Message no. 17
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 17:10:35 +0000
In message <1.5.4.16.19961104214926.26275acc@****.utexas.edu>, Sight
Unseen <toabo@****.UTEXAS.EDU> writes
>>Uh... no. Sorry. Caterpillars have been studied, been examined, don't
>>and can't work until you change the composition of seawater.
> Really? Isn't that what Clancy used in The Hunt For Red October?

HFRO is like, fiction :)

Clancy's an insurance salesman with service contacts, not an engineer,
and it sometimes shows. Caterpillar drives don't work efficiently and
are actually noisy as hell: they end up as very inefficient ways to
generate hydrogen and oxygen.

Good idea for a book. Doesn't work in practice. Trust me, I demonstrated
the lab model a few years after HFRO came out.

--
"There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy."
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 18
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 21:01:28 +0100
Paul J. Adam said on 0:27/ 5 Nov 96...

> Knife and HTH? I don't see much use for this. If you're reduced to this
> level you've lost the battle: the first rule of knife fights is that the
> man with the working firearm wins.

It's a good thing to remember that line from The Untouchables: "if he
pulls out a knife, you pull out a gun"...

> >also there are other changes:
> > -tanks were abolished (to easily destroyed by antitank choppers)
>
> Not true, then or now: antitank helos are effective, but also
> vulnerable. They're no more going to spell the demise of the tank than
> the ATGM-armed infantryman did.
>
> As an Army Air Corps colonel told me over drinks, "A dozen helicopters
> in my rear area? Oh, dear, not good. A dozen tanks in my rear area?
> Panic, old boy, total panic." Helos are effective, but lack durability
> and persistence.

A helicopter should be relatively easy to take out if you can remain
hidden from it until it's too late. If you watch those gulf war pictures,
you see Iraqi soldiers a few kilometers away, through the helicopter's
night sight, but this won't work as well in a wooded or urban area IMHO.
To quote a Dutch air force helicopter pilot, "we're more afraid of one
guy with a .50 in a fox hole [than of radar-guided AA guns]."

> Nope. Infantry's primary role is to take and hold ground, period. Air
> and artillery ends up being counterproductive in, say, urban areas:
> without lots of well-trained footsoldiers you can't contest ownership of
> anything bigger than a village). Don't fall prey to the fallacy that
> airpower wins wars.

That's been proven time and again. Air attacks didn't bring the UK or
Germany to their knees in WWII, or North Vietnam in the 1960s/70s
(Linebacker II in 1972 destroyed all military targets around
Hanoi and Haiphong, and did get the North Vietnamese back to the
negotiating table, but that was all it did -- the war lasted for 2 1/2
more years), or Iraq in '91.

> Submarines don't do shore bombardment, don't move cargo, don't provide
> air superiority. They are sea _denial_ assets, but that isn't enough by
> itself: they stop your enemy using the sea, they do nothing to let you
> exploit it.

With the exception of the subs used by US Navy SEALs for moving troops
around, but that's what, three submarines?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
IMTDSNINVU
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 19
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 13:23:10 -0700
Gurth wrote:
|
|Paul J. Adam said on 0:27/ 5 Nov 96...
|
|> Submarines don't do shore bombardment, don't move cargo, don't provide
|> air superiority. They are sea _denial_ assets, but that isn't enough by
|> itself: they stop your enemy using the sea, they do nothing to let you
|> exploit it.
|
|With the exception of the subs used by US Navy SEALs for moving troops
|around, but that's what, three submarines?

I started thinking about the sub-base that one of the NAN
countries ended up with and... What if you use a sub as a
platform for launching magical attacks, specifically,
summoning elementals and then sending them after targets.
Oops, never mind. A mage could do that from any place. He
wouldn't need to get in close with a submarine. Oh well..
Maybe this post will spark someone else's imagination.

-David

/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~
Message no. 20
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 21:01:29 +0100
Specter said on 19:10/ 4 Nov 96...

> The Euro-Wars were 20 years ago, and if GB has full carriers (I think.
> Paul?), then someone else in Europe will likely have them too, probably
> France. (I have no idea on the condition of France in 2057).

The UK only has small carriers capable of handling helicopters and
Harriers. France has one or two carriers with conventional aircraft (I
think they got a new, nuclear one not too long ago).

However, France in the 2050s is fragmented. Southern Europe is a mess,
having gone back to city states that are constantly at odds with each
other, while northern Europe is still more or less as it is now
(border-wise, I mean).
My guess is that the northern half of France is the same as it is today,
while the southern half is a patchwork of small countries that can't live
with each other, and also can't live without each other.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
IMTDSNINVU
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 21
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 19:15:36 +0000
In message <Pine.A32.3.95.961104190453.48417A-100000@*****.arc.unm.edu>,
Specter <james@***.UNM.EDU> writes
>but the USS Wolverine is in Lake Michigan!

Anyone notice the joke?

USS Sable and USS Wolverine were two coal-fired paddle steamers
converted into training aircraft carriers and used in Lake Michigan
during World War 2. The only paddle-powered aircraft carriers in
history.

--
"There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy."
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 22
From: Specter <james@***.UNM.EDU>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 16:00:00 -0700
On Mon, 4 Nov 1996, David Buehrer wrote:

> Unless the CAS or the UCAS no longer want to be able to
> project military forces anymore.
Well this doesn't have to apply only to the former US. What about JIS or
some other nation-state? And megas _might_ field aircraft carriers, but it
probably isn't cost-effective (Paul, were you think one explaining
cost-effectiveness and the megacorp militaries in rec.games.frp.cyber? If
so, a little help here'd be nice.).

> I just don't see there being a need for the type of
> aircraft carrier that the US fields today. Maybe something
> similar to what the UK has, but nothing bigger than that.
Okay, from _Bug City_, I know the UCAS does have this type of aircraft
carrier, but the USS Wolverine is in Lake Michigan! If the UCAS wants a
presence outside the Great Lakes and the Atlantic Coast, they are going to
need some full-sized carriers. (I know I'm repeating some things Paul
said, but they need to be said.) BTW, just because the timeline says the
_US_ had no presence outside North America by the 2030's (Wouldn't this
mean that the embassies are now defenseless?), doesn't mean the UCAS
government doesn't have a presence outside North America. Of course, as I
see it, there might be a UCAS military in any place Ares has soldiers,
but that's becasue I think the UCAS will aid Ares macrotech somewhat if it
keeps an American corproation on the Corp C

James Meiers
Homepage: http://www.arc.unm.edu/~james
"I am the shadow whom is supposed to show people the way."
Message no. 23
From: Specter <james@***.UNM.EDU>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 16:09:14 -0700
On Tue, 5 Nov 1996, Gurth wrote:

> The UK only has small carriers capable of handling helicopters and
> Harriers. France has one or two carriers with conventional aircraft (I
> think they got a new, nuclear one not too long ago).
I was refering to Paul's file on the Royal Navy 2057. I thought there was
a full-sized carrier in it.

> However, France in the 2050s is fragmented. Southern Europe is a mess,
> having gone back to city states that are constantly at odds with each
> other, while northern Europe is still more or less as it is now
> (border-wise, I mean).
Oh. Okay. Thanks for the information.

James Meiers
Homepage: http://www.arc.unm.edu/~james
"When I graduate, I'm going to Bovine University."
- Ralph Wiggims, "The Simpsons"
Message no. 24
From: Sight Unseen <toabo@****.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 1996 22:50:48 -0500
>Good idea for a book. Doesn't work in practice. Trust me, I demonstrated
>the lab model a few years after HFRO came out.

Lab model? What exactly do you do?

Peace and Long Life,

Scott
Message no. 25
From: Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 11:30:45 GMT
Gurth writes

well i'll join in but i cannot definitely answer much, strange that.

> Specter said on 19:10/ 4 Nov 96...
>
> > The Euro-Wars were 20 years ago, and if GB has full carriers (I think.
> > Paul?), then someone else in Europe will likely have them too, probably
> > France. (I have no idea on the condition of France in 2057).
>
> The UK only has small carriers capable of handling helicopters and
> Harriers.
There have been rumour that the navy is thinking of replacing them, i
that made the news suggested 2 40-50kt ships was a possibility. It
might actually be more useful now the cold war is over as Un actions/
general flag waving finds a ship in that league a good base, the
Americans seem very keen on diplomacy (vs nations that ignore
diplomats) based on sailing carrier battle groups up and down the
coast. But i don't know, what we really need is someone on the list
who really knows militaries but has never been employed by one (hence
no worries over secrets/ knowing which stuff is out there etc)

> France has one or two carriers with conventional aircraft (I
> think they got a new, nuclear one not too long ago).
>
They certainly have one i think its two conventional sized carriers,
how big that is i'm not sure but they are not as large as the big US
stuff.

The US was supposed to have 15 battlegroups of 90-05Kt carrier plus 9-
10 support ships but they have never made 15 groups, let alone all
headed by a 75Kt plus nuclear powered carrier.

> However, France in the 2050s is fragmented. Southern Europe is a mess,
> having gone back to city states that are constantly at odds with each
> other, while northern Europe is still more or less as it is now
> (border-wise, I mean).
> My guess is that the northern half of France is the same as it is today,
> while the southern half is a patchwork of small countries that can't live
> with each other, and also can't live without each other.
>
Would seem reasonable northern France could keep at least one, the UK
is in plenty good enough shape in SR to keep its navy, actually give
the mess the rest of the world is in in SR there would be more
incentive to really restore the Royal Navy to carry out commerce by
Sea, theres a lot less countries left in a position to stand against
it.

The two bits of the USA could probably support a few each, Home port
doesn't matter much to Nuclear powered ships capable of
circumnavigating the globe many times on a refuel, though ports
capable of restocking them matter a lot. Again short the Soviet Union
and China carrier groups might actually be more useful, the primary
enemies capable of sending Nukes/submarines after tham have gone.

In one of the novels (i know but doesn't matter) a corp used Thor to
pursuade a US carrier group to backoff. Which argues thats a
solution, but sorry in practice a carrier is a small fast (30-33
knots now) target, build Thor with terminal guidance and someone will
install a solution though even if there's not few Corps can afford
to launch and use Thor, its kind of expensive to ut up satellites as
insurance, and enough to be 'able to do that again!' once you've
royally pissed the UCAS/CAS/UK etc., things falling from orbit take
time to arrive and the USA/Russia can track stuff down to 10cm in
orbit now, [In Star Trek 4 Spock was quite right to be concerned about
getting spotted, the kit exists, how good the coverage is i don't
know but.]

As to power plant, there have been a few notes that SR has cold
fusion technology for powering things like Aircraft carriers,
supertankers etc.

Mark
Message no. 26
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 07:48:51 -0700
Paul J. Adam wrote:
|
|In message <Pine.A32.3.95.961104190453.48417A-100000@*****.arc.unm.edu>,
|Specter <james@***.UNM.EDU> writes
|>but the USS Wolverine is in Lake Michigan!
|
|Anyone notice the joke?
|
|USS Sable and USS Wolverine were two coal-fired paddle steamers
|converted into training aircraft carriers and used in Lake Michigan
|during World War 2. The only paddle-powered aircraft carriers in
|history.

I was not aware of that. That's a pretty cool piece of history.

-David

/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~
Message no. 27
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 20:07:31 +0100
Sight Unseen said on 4:51/ 5 Nov 96...

> >Uh... no. Sorry. Caterpillars have been studied, been examined, don't
> >and can't work until you change the composition of seawater.
> Really? Isn't that what Clancy used in The Hunt For Red October?

THFRO is fiction, so I recommend to take whatever it says with a grain of
salt... The movie was good (I haven't read the book) but it is not a
100% real-world example of submarine technology.) Still, it wasn't pink
so that's one thing it has going for it :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
The flat earth society has been here today.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 28
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 20:07:31 +0100
Sight Unseen said on 4:51/ 5 Nov 96...

> >Not true, then or now: antitank helos are effective, but also
> >vulnerable. They're no more going to spell the demise of the tank than
> >the ATGM-armed infantryman did.
> Ditto that. Besides, in FoF it says that armor technology is
> outpacing armor-piercing technology.

Although that's been discussed before, I feel the need to add that that
line has probably been added to justify that SR weapons are so damn lousy
at penetratin armor :) Armor vs. armor piercing tech has nearly always
been a question of somebody designing armor that is pretty much able to
deal with most threats of the time, only to be made obsolete by better
weapons a short time later.

If all else fails, just use a bigger gun :)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
The flat earth society has been here today.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 29
From: "Paul J. Adam" <paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 19:32:30 +0000
In message <1.5.4.16.19961105185357.1a97d7ca@****.utexas.edu>, Sight
Unseen <toabo@****.UTEXAS.EDU> writes
>>Good idea for a book. Doesn't work in practice. Trust me, I demonstrated
>>the lab model a few years after HFRO came out.
>
> Lab model? What exactly do you do?

Currently a Major Sub-task Manager on the Sting Ray Life Extension
Project with GEC-Marconi Underwater Weapons Division. My job, at the
moment, seems to largely consist of kicking Lucas Aerospace in the
backside every couple of days :)

While I was still an undergrad I was recruiting at a local sixth-form
college and the model caterpillar was part of the dog-and-pony show.

The theory's fine, put a current through seawater in a magnetic field:
it behaves like the armature of a motor and moves, generating thrust.
The problem is far more of the energy goes into heating it up and
electrolysing it, so it's less than 1% efficient, and barring some
seriously unseen discovery it's stuck in the real of interesting but
impractical lab toys.

--
"There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy."
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 30
From: Sight Unseen <toabo@****.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 21:53:30 -0500
>Currently a Major Sub-task Manager on the Sting Ray Life Extension
>Project with GEC-Marconi Underwater Weapons Division. My job, at the
>moment, seems to largely consist of kicking Lucas Aerospace in the
>backside every couple of days :)

Paul, I don't understand all of that, but it sure sounds cool. <g>
More power to you, chummer.

Peace and Long Life,

Scott
Message no. 31
From: Sight Unseen <toabo@****.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 1996 22:12:26 -0500
> Armor vs. armor piercing tech has nearly always
>been a question of somebody designing armor that is pretty much able to
>deal with most threats of the time, only to be made obsolete by better
>weapons a short time later.

Love that arms race. <smirk>


Peace and Long Life,

Scott
Message no. 32
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 01:20:51 +0000
In message <199611061908.UAA23980@**********.xs4all.nl>, Gurth
<gurth@******.NL> writes
>Sight Unseen said on 4:51/ 5 Nov 96...
>> Ditto that. Besides, in FoF it says that armor technology is
>> outpacing armor-piercing technology.
>
>Although that's been discussed before, I feel the need to add that that
>line has probably been added to justify that SR weapons are so damn lousy
>at penetratin armor :) Armor vs. armor piercing tech has nearly always
>been a question of somebody designing armor that is pretty much able to
>deal with most threats of the time, only to be made obsolete by better
>weapons a short time later.
>
>If all else fails, just use a bigger gun :)

The lesson of armour versus warhead is that the warhead usually wins.
Current 120mm tank guns are rated as able to penetrate nearly a metre of
RHA (rolled homogenous armour), for instance. Composite armour helps
somewhat, but it remains a fact that within 2,000 metres a M1A1,
Challenger or Leopard 2 can destroy any tank target they see (including
each other).

Given that tank armour is hitting its limits (because 60-70 tons is the
heaviest you can get and still be moved by rail, cross bridges, etc)
while gun technology is moving towards 140mm and includes possibilities
like liquid propellant, electrothermal and electromagnetic cannon (all
with much higher muzzle velocities possible than the 'traditional' gun)
then the kinetic-energy round from a 120-140mm gun remains effectively
unstoppable.

And before anyone trots out the "Invincible Abrams" stuff from the Gulf
War, the Iraqis were using steel rather than tungsten in the penetrators
for their Rapira-3 125mm guns, hence their shot broke up on armour
rather than piercing. One of the most expensive false economies in
history.

--
"There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy."
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 33
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 01:41:30 +0000
In message <7B6DA1730B@******.eee.rgu.ac.uk>, Mark Steedman
<M.J.Steedman@***.rgu.ac.uk> writes
>Gurth writes
>> The UK only has small carriers capable of handling helicopters and
>> Harriers.
>There have been rumour that the navy is thinking of replacing them, i
>that made the news suggested 2 40-50kt ships was a possibility.

The three options for CV(F) are:

1 - Relife and refurbish the existing CVSs. Not preferred: they're too
limited for the jobs the RN finds itself doing.

2 - Three 20-30,000-ton STOVL carriers embarking JSF and helos in larger
numbers than the Invincibles.

3 - Two or three 30-50,000-ton CTOL carriers. My preferred option :)

> But i don't know, what we really need is someone on the list
>who really knows militaries but has never been employed by one (hence
>no worries over secrets/ knowing which stuff is out there etc)

Or someone who knows the difference between official and unofficial
information? In which case I volunteer :) Problem is, anyone in Britain
who gets access to decent gen will, civvie or military, have signed the
Dread Green Form (used to be blue, now it's green, wonder if there's any
significance to that?) indicating that they understand, and agree to be
bound by, the various Official Secrets Acts.

>> France has one or two carriers with conventional aircraft (I
>> think they got a new, nuclear one not too long ago).
>>
>They certainly have one i think its two conventional sized carriers,
>how big that is i'm not sure but they are not as large as the big US
>stuff.

One conventional, Foch (the other, Clemenceau, is for sale) and one
nuclear (Charles de Gaulle) coming into service soon. The French problem
is aircraft to fly from their CVs: the air wings are seriously decrepit
(old F-8s and Super Etendards).

>The US was supposed to have 15 battlegroups of 90-05Kt carrier plus 9-
>10 support ships but they have never made 15 groups, let alone all
>headed by a 75Kt plus nuclear powered carrier.

Currenty 12 CVBGs if you include the training carrier.

>Would seem reasonable northern France could keep at least one, the UK
>is in plenty good enough shape in SR to keep its navy, actually give
>the mess the rest of the world is in in SR there would be more
>incentive to really restore the Royal Navy to carry out commerce by
>Sea, theres a lot less countries left in a position to stand against
>it.
>
>The two bits of the USA could probably support a few each, Home port
>doesn't matter much to Nuclear powered ships capable of
>circumnavigating the globe many times on a refuel, though ports
>capable of restocking them matter a lot. Again short the Soviet Union
>and China carrier groups might actually be more useful, the primary
>enemies capable of sending Nukes/submarines after tham have gone.
>
>In one of the novels (i know but doesn't matter) a corp used Thor to
>pursuade a US carrier group to backoff.

"Paradise Lost" sourcebook, during the Hawai'ian secession.

>Which argues thats a
>solution, but sorry in practice a carrier is a small fast (30-33
>knots now) target, build Thor with terminal guidance and someone will
>install a solution though even if there's not few Corps can afford
>to launch and use Thor, its kind of expensive to ut up satellites as
>insurance, and enough to be 'able to do that again!' once you've
>royally pissed the UCAS/CAS/UK etc., things falling from orbit take
>time to arrive and the USA/Russia can track stuff down to 10cm in
>orbit now, [In Star Trek 4 Spock was quite right to be concerned about
>getting spotted, the kit exists, how good the coverage is i don't
>know but.]

Yeah... even Ares only has so many THOR shots. Nine CVBGs with the sort
of self-protection gear they usually have means you expend at least
eighteen THOR shots destroying the UCAS carrier capability. How many do
you have left after that, and how few are you prepared to go down to?

Bear in mind, for any corporate-versus-national conflict, the corp has
to not only defeat its opponent but remain strong enough to defend
against military or economic attack from other corps.

"And hot from Zurich-Orbital: as Ares Macrotech recover from their
bruising skirmishes against the UCAS and announce large provisions to
cover battle damage, Renraku offered Y132 per share - 20% above market
value - for Ares shares in what may become a hostile takeover,
exploiting Ares' weakness after the loss of two-thirds of its military
forces, the expenditure of its entire Space Warfare Force and the
destruction of several major sites within the UCAS. Damon Knight was
unavailable for comment, but several major investors have already
admitted to selling out.

"While the Ares share price continues to slide, the Renraku offer is
becoming increasingly popular, the main restraint being the expectation
that another AAA megacorp will enter the bidding with a better offer."

>As to power plant, there have been a few notes that SR has cold
>fusion technology for powering things like Aircraft carriers,
>supertankers etc.

Maybe not cold fusion, but I can see 50,000-ton-plus vessels benefiting
from fusion power. Not that different to a CVN, really... not so much
civilian vessels, unless the economics change a lot (how many nuclear
cargo ships are in service today?) but valuable for a CV, if only becaus
it frees bunker oil tankage for JP-8 and ordnance.

--
"There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy."
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 34
From: Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 11:35:16 GMT
"Paul J. Adam" writes
>
> The three options for CV(F) are:
>
Ah i couldn't remember the details, i just don't keep track of things
anything like accurately anough.

> 1 - Relife and refurbish the existing CVSs. Not preferred: they're too
> limited for the jobs the RN finds itself doing.
>
> 2 - Three 20-30,000-ton STOVL carriers embarking JSF and helos in larger
> numbers than the Invincibles.
>
> 3 - Two or three 30-50,000-ton CTOL carriers. My preferred option :)
>
Would be nice.

> > But i don't know, what we really need is someone on the list
> >who really knows militaries but has never been employed by one (hence
> >no worries over secrets/ knowing which stuff is out there etc)
>
> Or someone who knows the difference between official and unofficial
> information? In which case I volunteer :)
Good, its the tendancy of the Americans here thay have military
knowledge to have found it out by means that cannot be related.

> Problem is, anyone in Britain
> who gets access to decent gen will, civvie or military, have signed the
> Dread Green Form (used to be blue, now it's green, wonder if there's any
> significance to that?) indicating that they understand, and agree to be
> bound by, the various Official Secrets Acts.
Yeah thats the big problem. Very fond of that ar'nt they, you once
get employed by a company into anything like yours is and that act
tapes you up for ever.
To the non Brits here yes, that thing is seriously solid!, and i
haven't had anything to do with it.

USA
>
> Currenty 12 CVBGs if you include the training carrier.
>
Couldn't remeber the number and the books i've read are now out of
date anyway.

> >In one of the novels (i know but doesn't matter) a corp used Thor to
> >pursuade a US carrier group to backoff.
>
> "Paradise Lost" sourcebook, during the Hawai'ian secession.
>
Ok, the novels, 'house of the sun' for that place.

> Yeah... even Ares only has so many THOR shots. Nine CVBGs with the sort
> of self-protection gear they usually have means you expend at least
> eighteen THOR shots destroying the UCAS carrier capability. How many do
> you have left after that, and how few are you prepared to go down to?
>
And if the AAA has thor rated vs a CVBG i wonder what such a shot
would do to corporate HQ? :)

> "And hot from Zurich-Orbital: as Ares Macrotech recover from their
> bruising skirmishes against the UCAS and announce large provisions to
> cover battle damage, Renraku offered Y132 per share - 20% above market
> value - for Ares shares in what may become a hostile takeover,
While the UCAS generals rub there hands with glee at the free chance
to give their troops some real exercise.

>
> >As to power plant, there have been a few notes that SR has cold
> >fusion technology for powering things like Aircraft carriers,
> >supertankers etc.
>
> Maybe not cold fusion,
I mentioned that as SR has, wether it will happen in reality, well
....they've got to invent it first .

> but I can see 50,000-ton-plus vessels benefiting
> from fusion power. Not that different to a CVN, really... not so much
> civilian vessels, unless the economics change a lot (how many nuclear
> cargo ships are in service today?)
None that i've heard of.

> but valuable for a CV, if only becaus
> it frees bunker oil tankage for JP-8 and ordnance.
>
Also for Submaries as it avoids batteries. And the CV will also
appreciate no worries about fuel usage, charging about at 30knots a
lot must get through the stuff otherwise.

Mark
Message no. 35
From: Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 12:52:22 GMT
"Gurth" writes
>
> I don't know if I qualify for this... I've never been in any military, but
> it is one of my hobbies (that's what you get from being a modeller-turned-
> roleplayer :) and as a result I have somewhat of a library concerning
> ground-based forces. I never was too interested in navies, though :)
>
I've been interested for enough years and have read various books,
but i don't tend to be very up to date. Looks like Paul is the
closest but you never know. I also have stuff from Ultra modern
wargames rules i've played, yes really really leathal about sums up a
salvo from a batch of NATO MBT's.

> [aircraft carriers]
> > Would seem reasonable northern France could keep at least one, the UK
> > is in plenty good enough shape in SR to keep its navy, actually give
> > the mess the rest of the world is in in SR there would be more
> > incentive to really restore the Royal Navy to carry out commerce by
> > Sea, theres a lot less countries left in a position to stand against
> > it.
>
> You're saying they should restore the British Empire to its former glory?
> When Brittania ruled the waves and all that crap :)
careful :).
Well i can't somehow see things getting back to the stage where
Britians Navy equalled any 2 other countries, i doubt we could ever
afford it somehow, even in SR the UCAS Navy at least should be
bigger, they have more citizens to pay the taxes which always helps.
Also modern morals are nothing like those that had Britian busyily
conquoring any bit of the world it could. There is little reason to
doubt the commonwealth will continue to shrink, though my comment was
based on the fact that with China and the Russians even worse off and
France down to probably half size, Britain in SR is still at least
one nation [ok some bits of it are more than a bit fragged] so there
will be less competion out there.

>
> Seriously, to build a navy you need money -- I don't know what a ship
> costs, but I do know it's a hell of a lot more than a tank (and an M1A1
> MBT is yours for only 4,300,000 US dollars). Military forces are
> expensive to maintain, so countries with little money to spare won't be
> able to afford a powerful navy. I don't know if the UK in the 2050s falls
> into that category, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did.
>
I think it would be in a better position than most, ok its got toxic
zones etc but most of that damage is in areas that would not do the
ecconomy too much damage.
Warships get very expensive, i have the figure of arround stlg100Million
stuck in my head as a quote for new Frigates (or was it destroyers)
EACH! from the news a few years back.
I think the USA CVN's come out about $2 Billion each including air
wings etc, then you have to buy the 9 odd escort group ships as well.
Thers a big difference between that sort of level and 'powerful'
compared to the navies a lot of countries are like;ly to end up with
by 2050's SR though.

oh well all only IMHO., which could be wrong.

> > As to power plant, there have been a few notes that SR has cold
> > fusion technology for powering things like Aircraft carriers,
> > supertankers etc.
>
> That's mentioned in And So It Came To Pass, and it would be reasonable to
> assume the (U)CAS Navy has fusion-powered carriers -- I wouldn't be
> surprised if they'd funded a lot of the research in the first place.
>
Reasonable, they are sooner or later going to get the 'what do we do
with all these old fission reactors problem'. The problems here over
Sellafield etc, well!


Mark
Message no. 36
From: Jonathan Hurley <jhurley1@******.STEVENS-TECH.EDU>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 1996 10:36:53 -0500
Paul J. Adam[SMTP:shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK] wrote:
>In message <7B6DA1730B@******.eee.rgu.ac.uk>, Mark Steedman
><M.J.Steedman@***.rgu.ac.uk> writes

[SNIP]

>>In one of the novels (i know but doesn't matter) a corp used Thor to
>>pursuade a US carrier group to backoff.
>
>"Paradise Lost" sourcebook, during the Hawai'ian secession.
>
>>Which argues thats a
>>solution, but sorry in practice a carrier is a small fast (30-33
>>knots now) target, build Thor with terminal guidance and someone will
>>install a solution though even if there's not few Corps can afford
>>to launch and use Thor, its kind of expensive to ut up satellites as
>>insurance, and enough to be 'able to do that again!' once you've
>>royally pissed the UCAS/CAS/UK etc., things falling from orbit take
>>time to arrive and the USA/Russia can track stuff down to 10cm in
>>orbit now, [In Star Trek 4 Spock was quite right to be concerned about
>>getting spotted, the kit exists, how good the coverage is i don't
>>know but.]
>
>Yeah... even Ares only has so many THOR shots. Nine CVBGs with the sort
>of self-protection gear they usually have means you expend at least
>eighteen THOR shots destroying the UCAS carrier capability. How many do
>you have left after that, and how few are you prepared to go down to?

(Bit of background, I know (and played in) the game universe where Thor
shot was originated (The old FASA Renegade Legion universe), where
it was used ans an anti-tank artillery weapon (yes, it had terminal
guidance, and yes, if the targets had AA missle support, it died
horribly)

Anyway, something I thought of when I read _House of the Sun_.

Look in Lone Star Sourcebook for reference to the Ares Firetrack system.
It is a system of detectors to pick up incoming missles, connected to
bound elementals tasked to destroy these highlighted missles (bound service)

Now, with a few modifications, wouldn't that make a dandy way to neutralize
Thor projectiles.

CVN, or more probably, the accompanying Aegis-equivalent cruiser(Putting
the gear on a dedicated hull lets the carrier carry more aircraft, and
gives the owning Navy more flexibility) detects incoming Thorshot relatively
quickly after launch. Designates the target somehow. (The description in
LS Source is unclear. Depending on how you like your magic system, you
can either designate it by some tech means (long-range phased-array maser
or rapid-tracking laser seems to me to be the easiest to explain to an
elemental. "Engulf and destroy (or knock off target into the sea) the fast-
moving object that can be found by following the beam of energy.") or you
have some sort of "unique" focus to do the same thing. In either case, the
elemental has something similar to the above for a bound service. That
service is activated, the elemental intercepts, and removes the projectile.

>Bear in mind, for any corporate-versus-national conflict, the corp has
>to not only defeat its opponent but remain strong enough to defend
>against military or economic attack from other corps.
>
>"And hot from Zurich-Orbital: as Ares Macrotech recover from their
>bruising skirmishes against the UCAS and announce large provisions to
>cover battle damage, Renraku offered Y132 per share - 20% above market
>value - for Ares shares in what may become a hostile takeover,
>exploiting Ares' weakness after the loss of two-thirds of its military
>forces, the expenditure of its entire Space Warfare Force and the
>destruction of several major sites within the UCAS. Damon Knight was
>unavailable for comment, but several major investors have already
>admitted to selling out.

I beleive, now that Topcat is gone, most of us would agree that a single
corp attacking a large nation-state directly is futile for the corp.

(In fact, the doomsay scenario described in Corp Shadowfiles is a side-
effect of corp war between the AAA megas, not a goal.)

From a Gateway 2000 manual:
Sucking all the chips off your system board with an industrial strength wet/dry vac is not
covered by your warranty
mailto:jhurley1@******.stevens-tech.edu
Message no. 37
From: dhinkley@***.ORG
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 1996 20:08:05 +0000
Having just finished reading the 35 + messages currently on hand
under this subject heading , I would link to make a couple of
observations and comments on some of the elements of the threads
contained within.

Regarding the eternal struggle of gun vs armour vehicle. It is
struggle of innovation. That is one sides advantage lasts until the
next innovation in the opposing camp.

When one realizes that there are only three variables involved in
vehicle armour: The material the armour is made of, its thickness, and
the slope of the armour. Add the major design limiting factors of
ground pressure, weight, size, available propulsion systems, and the
internal volume needed for the crew that effect the service ability of
an armour vehicle. And one thing becomes clear, that during any given
historical period, the scope for innovation in armour vehicle design is
limited. This limit gives an advantage to the anti-tank weapon
systems.

This is not to say that at any given time the anti-tank weapon is
supreme but that it is relatively easier to design a the anti-tank
weapon to over come armour then the reverse.The contest does become a
much closer match if the man-portable limitation is placed on the
anti-tank weapon system.

The other factor to remember is that a armoured vehicle need not be
invulnerable to all fire to be effective. A MBT needs only to be
protected from the typical armament of APCs (25-30mm Auto cannon) to
be effective on the modern battle field.and APCs need only
protection from artillery shrapnel and small arms fire to be
effective. Further it can be argued that given the inability to create
a usable vehicle that is invulnerable to all fire that any protection
above these levels is of questionable cost effectiveness. That is if
I cannot design a tank with armour that will defeat your tank borne
anti-tank weapon there is little advantage to armour in excess of
that is need to defeat the weapons mounted on lesser armoured
vehicles.

Regarding Infantry:

The one irreplaceable element on the battlefield is the infantry man.
It is the only combat arm that can take and hold ground. The other
arms (armour, artillery, close air support) can greatly influence the
difficulty of accomplishing the infantry mission but they can not do
it. As a former Infantry Officer, I might be considered biased, but
that does not reduce the complete validity of the statement, only in the
amount of enthusiasm expressed in putting it forward..

Regarding Anti-Tank Helicopters:

You can not armour the rotor blade. If an ADA weapon system can see
(or detect) an attack chopper long enough it can kill it almost
every time. The question is whether the ADA can detect the chopper in
time. I once sat in a class at the Infantry School (U..S.Army, Fort
Benning, GA) where an ADA officer explained how the main gun on a
tank was an effective anti-helicopter weapon. To summarize his
argument the acquisition and flight time of an air launched wire guided
anti-tank was greater then the sum of the tank gun's flight time plus
the time need to train the tank gun. So if the tank crew could spot
the chopper in time it could always kill it. He never did grasp the
enormity of that "if", but he was right that an anti-tank can kill a
chopper. The Somalis' shot that American chopper down with a RPG-7
but it was an ambush, a very clever (but crude) ambush. They put a
individual armed with a RPG-7 on all the roofs surrounding the trapped
Rangers and then waited until a chopper flew.over.

On the current battlefield there is no preeminent weapon system but
rather it is an intergrated combined arms system. that reigns supreme.

Regarding Large Warships:

When properly maintained they have a long life span.

Older units can be up graded to approach the effectiveness of more modern units at much
lower capital cost. (Granted They may cost more to operate the equivalent
modern units.)

There are more ships about then those in the hands of the national
navies. In the United states their are several battleships and at
least one aircraft carrier that are in the hands of local historical
organizations. While none of them could be put to sea quickly, they
all could be rendered effective faster then a new unit could be
built.

Given the importance of Aircraft Carrier Battle Groups in American
Foreign policy it is likely that this capability will be maintained
long after the last overseas base is closed. Further the more chaos
at the nation state level in the world the more important force
projection through a CVBG becomes. The United States requires a
large amount of imports to function. Even given the population
reductions in the Shadowrun world the need for these imports will
continue to exist, they will move mainly by sea and will require at
least some degree of protection. in the world




David Hinkley
dhinkley@***.org
******************************************************
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve niether liberty or
safety.
Ben Franklin
Message no. 38
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 21:59:00 +0000
In message <199611122126.NAA29641@****.efn.org>, dhinkley@***.ORG writes
>Regarding Infantry:
>The one irreplaceable element on the battlefield is the infantry man.

Amen :)

>On the current battlefield there is no preeminent weapon system but
>rather it is an intergrated combined arms system. that reigns supreme.
>
>Regarding Large Warships:
>When properly maintained they have a long life span.

True, but a vital caveat is "properly maintained".

>There are more ships about then those in the hands of the national
>navies. In the United states their are several battleships and at
>least one aircraft carrier that are in the hands of local historical
>organizations. While none of them could be put to sea quickly, they
>all could be rendered effective faster then a new unit could be
>built.

No. Simply not true. I recommend you to Andrew Toppan (elmer@***.EDU)
who, among other naval interests, is closely involved with the
maintenance of USS Salem as a museum ship. There was also a debate at
length in sci.military.naval about the possibility of reactivating the
USS North Carolina.

If the Russians cannot maintain their ships in a condition such that
they can be sold (repeated attempts to sell Admiral Gorshkov have
foundered on the appaling material condition of the vessel. The Indian
INS Vikrant is completely unseaworthy and is unlikely to ever sail
again. Ditto the 25 de Mayo of the Argentine Navy.

Ships, without proper care, deteriorate fast. Look at some of the
Leander-class frigates moored in Portsmouth Harbour for use as target
hulks: they're visibly rotting.

Note that during the Falklands, vessels like HMS Tiger and HMS Bulwark
were not sent, useful though they might have been. In fact, when Bulwark
was taken for scrapping, her moorings and anchor had to be cut, and she
was totally incapable of moving under power.

>Given the importance of Aircraft Carrier Battle Groups in American
>Foreign policy it is likely that this capability will be maintained
>long after the last overseas base is closed. Further the more chaos
>at the nation state level in the world the more important force
>projection through a CVBG becomes. The United States requires a
>large amount of imports to function. Even given the population
>reductions in the Shadowrun world the need for these imports will
>continue to exist, they will move mainly by sea and will require at
>least some degree of protection. in the world

Hence the UCAS, UK, Japan and CAS at least maintain substantial navies.
Aztlan I'm less sure of simply because of a lack of tradition in the
region.
--
"There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy."
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 39
From: Forbidden Delirium <fdelirum@****.NET>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 18:16:52 -0500
>Hence the UCAS, UK, Japan and CAS at least maintain substantial navies.
>Aztlan I'm less sure of simply because of a lack of tradition in the
>region.

Hmm.. does it say in the books that Japan has a substantial navy? I would
tend to think that Japan would maintain only a very small defensive navy
and rely primarly on other countries for protection?

fd
Message no. 40
From: Mike Elkins <MikeE@*********.COM>
Subject: Re: Militaries -Reply
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 18:33:20 -0500
> I would tend to think that Japan would maintain only a very small defensive navy
> and rely primarly on other countries for protection?

Japan in 2057 is Imperial Japan. I'm reading between the lines a bit, but the
democratic, somewhat pacifist Japan of the late 20th century was, according to
FASA, a bit of a historical blip. Japan's might is still primarily
industrial/economic/technological, but in order to get the raw materials it needs it
has probably expanded onto the mainland and into the Philipenes etc. This
expansion is probably (from historical precedent) rather unpleasant for the
territories involved. I think we would have heard about it if Australia was an
imperial puppet state, but who knows? It would certainly look inviting.

I suspect Japan has also learned its lesson from WWII and has SIGNIFICANT
anti-sub warfare capability. If they can't protect their shipping they strangle.

Double-Domed Mike
Message no. 41
From: Sight Unseen <toabo@****.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 21:34:59 -0500
At 06:16 PM 11/13/96 -0500, you wrote:
>>Hence the UCAS, UK, Japan and CAS at least maintain substantial navies.
>>Aztlan I'm less sure of simply because of a lack of tradition in the
>>region.
>
> Hmm.. does it say in the books that Japan has a substantial navy?
I would
>tend to think that Japan would maintain only a very small defensive navy
>and rely primarly on other countries for protection?
>
Shyeah, right! And how do you think Japan landed troops in San
Fransisco? Japan does considerably more than maintain a "very small
defensive navy," to be sure.

Enigma
Message no. 42
From: Forbidden Delirium <fdelirum@****.NET>
Subject: Re: Militaries -Reply
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 18:57:24 -0500
At 06:33 PM 11/13/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Japan in 2057 is Imperial Japan. I'm reading between the lines a bit, but
the
>democratic, somewhat pacifist Japan of the late 20th century was,
according to
>FASA, a bit of a historical blip. Japan's might is still primarily

Hmm. Damn.. I wish we had a Japan Sourcebook, seems like a damn fine
place to run games from anyway. Ah well, maybe Gurth will write one.

fd
Message no. 43
From: Forbidden Delirium <fdelirum@****.NET>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 18:58:10 -0500
At 09:34 PM 11/13/96 -0500, you wrote:
> Shyeah, right! And how do you think Japan landed troops in San
>Fransisco? Japan does considerably more than maintain a "very small
>defensive navy," to be sure.

Japan landed troops in San Fransisco? Where did this come from? Must of
missed that..

fd
Message no. 44
From: olafur gunnarsson <olafurg@******.IS>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 00:26:57 GMT
>At 06:16 PM 11/13/96 -0500, you wrote:
>>>Hence the UCAS, UK, Japan and CAS at least maintain substantial navies.
>>>Aztlan I'm less sure of simply because of a lack of tradition in the
>>>region.
>>
>> Hmm.. does it say in the books that Japan has a substantial navy?
>I would
>>tend to think that Japan would maintain only a very small defensive navy
>>and rely primarly on other countries for protection?
>>
> Shyeah, right! And how do you think Japan landed troops in San
>Fransisco? Japan does considerably more than maintain a "very small
>defensive navy," to be sure.
>


They landed troops using marine forces airlifted into the city from Japan.
They would have made a landing in Los Angeles too but a Ucas Naval group was
there so they diverted the second group to back up the one landing in San fran.
im not saying that Japan doesnt have substantial naval forces just they
werent used during the landing in Free cal.
Remember the occupation of Free Cal happens so soon after the Indian war
that Japan wouldnt have had much time to built up a strong fleet.But id say
that in 2057 they would have fixed that problem.
Expecialy since many megacorps have considerable sea assets. (Aztech has at
least one Aircraft carrier mention in the Seattle sourcebook cant remember
the name).
well enough with my ramblings.
-Olafur G
Message no. 45
From: Midn Daniel O Fredrikson <m992148@****.NAVY.MIL>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 19:46:45 -0500
On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Forbidden Delirium wrote:

> >Hence the UCAS, UK, Japan and CAS at least maintain substantial navies.
> >Aztlan I'm less sure of simply because of a lack of tradition in the
> >region.
>
> Hmm.. does it say in the books that Japan has a substantial navy? I would
> tend to think that Japan would maintain only a very small defensive navy
> and rely primarly on other countries for protection?
>
> fd
>
Remember, this isn't the Japan of today. It is the reformed Imperal
Japan, of an attitude similar to that of pre WWII japan. It would be very
unlikely that they would depend on anyone.
Message no. 46
From: Brian W Allison <ballison@*******.WAM.UMD.EDU>
Subject: Re: Militaries -Reply
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 20:32:13 -0500
> territories involved. I think we would have heard about it if Australia was an
> imperial puppet state, but who knows? It would certainly look inviting.

Two things would stop that.

1) The Outback came alive with mana storms - few can survive the deep
outback.

2) The natives have plenty of magic - they never tossed it out of their
culture like the Japanese did.



Brian W. Allison

Computer Scientist Vocalist Would-be Poet Bicycler Scuba Diver
Hacker(0xca) Nerd(79) GenX(21) #include <witticism.h>
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~ballison

--- Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail is not welcome at this account ---
--- and will result in a US$500 fee per US Code Title 47 Sec 227. ---
Message no. 47
From: Midn Daniel O Fredrikson <m992148@****.NAVY.MIL>
Subject: Re: Militaries -Reply
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 19:51:02 -0500
On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Mike Elkins wrote:

> > I would tend to think that Japan would maintain only a very small defensive navy
> > and rely primarly on other countries for protection?
>
> Japan in 2057 is Imperial Japan. I'm reading between the lines a bit, but the
> democratic, somewhat pacifist Japan of the late 20th century was, according to
> FASA, a bit of a historical blip. Japan's might is still primarily
> industrial/economic/technological, but in order to get the raw materials it needs it
> has probably expanded onto the mainland and into the Philipenes etc. This
> expansion is probably (from historical precedent) rather unpleasant for the
> territories involved. I think we would have heard about it if Australia was an
> imperial puppet state, but who knows? It would certainly look inviting.
>
> I suspect Japan has also learned its lesson from WWII and has SIGNIFICANT
> anti-sub warfare capability. If they can't protect their shipping they strangle.
>
> Double-Domed Mike
>
And with Japan's signicant expansion into space, I would be surprised if
they are not one of the leaders in space-based weapon system, such as
"Thors hammer" or "brilliant pebbles". Considering also how the
effiecy
of lasers has increased enough to allow personal laser weapons, it is much
more likely that they could have massed arrays of space based lasers. And
you thought that the solar power plants were just for commercial profit.:)
Message no. 48
From: Midn Daniel O Fredrikson <m992148@****.NAVY.MIL>
Subject: Re: Militaries -Reply
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 19:55:12 -0500
> At 06:33 PM 11/13/96 -0500, you wrote:
> >Japan in 2057 is Imperial Japan. I'm reading between the lines a bit, but
> the
> >democratic, somewhat pacifist Japan of the late 20th century was,
> according to
> >FASA, a bit of a historical blip. Japan's might is still primarily
>
> Hmm. Damn.. I wish we had a Japan Sourcebook, seems like a damn fine
> place to run games from anyway. Ah well, maybe Gurth will write one.
>
> fd
>
Sure, if you are Japanese. If you are foreign, they would just be waiting
for excuse to remove your corpse from their precious soil. If you were
metahuman, they wouldn't even wait. Look at what they do to their own
people who "change".
Message no. 49
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 00:54:34 +0000
In message <3.0.32.19961113181649.00965800@****.net>, Forbidden Delirium
<fdelirum@****.NET> writes
> Hmm.. does it say in the books that Japan has a substantial navy? I
>would
>tend to think that Japan would maintain only a very small defensive navy
>and rely primarly on other countries for protection?

How did Japan land and maintain an expeditionary Marine force in San
Fransisco without a substantial navy?

--
"There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy."
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 50
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 00:57:17 +0000
In message <199611140026.AAA03737@*****.mmedia.is>, olafur gunnarsson
<olafurg@******.IS> writes
>They landed troops using marine forces airlifted into the city from Japan.
>They would have made a landing in Los Angeles too but a Ucas Naval group was
>there so they diverted the second group to back up the one landing in San fran.
>im not saying that Japan doesnt have substantial naval forces just they
>werent used during the landing in Free cal.

They would _have_ to have those forces. Otherwise, the UCAS naval group
sits off San Fransisco. How do those Marines get resupplied? By air? Mr
Transport, meet Mr Surface-To-Air Missile. Or by sea? A large enough
battle group that the UCAS backed down, rather than fight?

>Remember the occupation of Free Cal happens so soon after the Indian war
>that Japan wouldnt have had much time to built up a strong fleet.

Their fleet today is pretty impressive, more so if pitted against a if
US that has lost almost the entire West Coast.


--
"There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy."
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 51
From: Pete <Pete@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 01:16:34 +0000
In article <3.0.32.19961113181649.00965800@****.net>, Forbidden Delirium
<fdelirum@****.NET> writes
>>Hence the UCAS, UK, Japan and CAS at least maintain substantial navies.
>>Aztlan I'm less sure of simply because of a lack of tradition in the
>>region.
>
> Hmm.. does it say in the books that Japan has a substantial navy? I
>would
>tend to think that Japan would maintain only a very small defensive navy
>and rely primarly on other countries for protection?

Considering the alleged financial power base of Japan in 205*, it would
seem reasonable to assume that they would formulate a reasonable force
to defend their own country, including a reasably sized navy... They
would certainly not allow themselves to be held to ransom by another
country's military might.. And in the future that Fasa have offered us,
there are few enough countries left with the kind of military might
fielded today that could do it.

I'm very much of the opinion that Japan of the future would be subject
to the kinds of terrorist attacks that are so prevelant in a lot of
Anime. (And no nightlife I'm not making yet *another* film reference)

It seems quite reasonable for a powerful and rich nation to want to
defend itself, by any means necessary, preferably by relying on forces
it owns, and can trust, rather than a military force that may have to be
called away at any time to defend something else... :)


JMTPW

--
Pete Sims
Civilisation advances by extending the number of important operations which we
can perform without thinking about them.
Message no. 52
From: Forbidden Delirium <fdelirum@****.NET>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 21:57:48 -0500
At 07:46 PM 11/13/96 -0500, you wrote:
>Remember, this isn't the Japan of today. It is the reformed Imperal
>Japan, of an attitude similar to that of pre WWII japan. It would be very
>unlikely that they would depend on anyone.

Alright, I think somebody mentioned this to a small extent but exactly
what areas does Japan control in 2057? What's going on in Asia 2057?

fd
Message no. 53
From: olafur gunnarsson <olafurg@******.IS>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 06:04:55 GMT
>In message <199611140026.AAA03737@*****.mmedia.is>, olafur gunnarsson
><olafurg@******.IS> writes
>>They landed troops using marine forces airlifted into the city from Jap=
an.
>>They would have made a landing in Los Angeles too but a Ucas Naval grou=
p was
>>there so they diverted the second group to back up the one landing in S=
an
fran.
>>im not saying that Japan doesnt have substantial naval forces just they
>>werent used during the landing in Free cal.
>
>They would _have_ to have those forces. Otherwise, the UCAS naval group
>sits off San Fransisco. How do those Marines get resupplied? By air? Mr
>Transport, meet Mr Surface-To-Air Missile. Or by sea? A large enough
>battle group that the UCAS backed down, rather than fight?
>
>>Remember the occupation of Free Cal happens so soon after the Indian wa=
r
>>that Japan wouldnt have had much time to built up a strong fleet.
>
>Their fleet today is pretty impressive, more so if pitted against a if
>US that has lost almost the entire West Coast.

Well im just quoting what they say in the Neo anarch guide to north Ameri=
ca.
Were it Says that that they airlifted in and remember,even if there were
Ucas Battlegroups in Los Angeles Free Cal had allready revolted and was n=
o
longer under Ucas Protection.And in fact Japan Was invited in.The way thi=
se
happened was that Free cal
in a bid to get the Ucas to extend some aid to it in thier fights with
eather Tir Tairngire or Aztlan cant remember wich.Started talks with the
Japanese empire.
Making sure that the Ucas Goverment knew of this.Unfortunatly Japan moved=
to
fast for eather the Ucas or Free Cal Goverment.So suddenly Japan landed
troops to "help":) Free Cal against thier enemys.Off course once they had
taken San Fran they did nothing simply setting the city up as an
protectorate and letting the rest to rot for all they care. And like i sa=
id
before there is no mention off any Japanese ships being used until way af=
ter
San Fran had been taken.And while the Ucas might have lost the entire wes=
t
coast they still have at that time the Hawaí´í Fleet is being kept =
in Los
Angeles
waiting to be moved to a Ucas port and another part of the Pacific fleet =
is
in Seattle.
If the Japanese had set out to attack using thier own fleet The Ucas migh=
t
have had time to react and order those fleets to intercept them.It seems =
to
me that the major reason why the Japanese manage to land there is that th=
e
Ucas couldnt decide on what to do :) probably the Army and goverment bein=
g
paralyzed by the Indian wars the Cas and Free cal Succesion the Awakening
etc etc.

Well just my humble ideas:)
-Olafur G
Message no. 54
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Militaries -Reply
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 10:33:13 +0100
Forbidden Delirium said on 18:57/13 Nov 96...

> Hmm. Damn.. I wish we had a Japan Sourcebook, seems like a damn fine
> place to run games from anyway. Ah well, maybe Gurth will write one.

Yeah, right :) I know as much about Japan as you can from watching ten
minutes of Japanese lessons on TV over the past two weeks or so, for want
of something better to do at the time :)

Or were you referring to NERPS: Neo-Anarchist's Guide To The World?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
superficial urgency
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 55
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 10:33:13 +0100
Forbidden Delirium said on 18:58/13 Nov 96...

> Japan landed troops in San Fransisco? Where did this come from? Must of
> missed that..

Try the Neo-A Guide to North America (NAGNA, now out of print), and the
California Free State sourcebook. Japanese marines landed in SF in 2037 or
so, invited by the California governor at the time. (From the CFS book, it
seems the idea was that the UCAS/whoever wouldn't allow this to happen,
but the gamble went wrong and nobody opposed the landings.)

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
superficial urgency
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 56
From: Forbidden Delirium <fdelirum@****.NET>
Subject: Re: Militaries -Reply
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 06:37:09 -0500
At 10:33 AM 11/14/96 +0100, you wrote:
>Or were you referring to NERPS: Neo-Anarchist's Guide To The World?

Is there such a tome in development? I don't believe I've seen it on
Paolo's site, so therefor I must conclude that it doesn't exist yet. :)

fd
Message no. 57
From: Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Militaries -Reply
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 13:07:16 GMT
Forbidden Delirium writes

> At 10:33 AM 11/14/96 +0100, you wrote:
> >Or were you referring to NERPS: Neo-Anarchist's Guide To The World?
>
> Is there such a tome in development? I don't believe I've seen it on
> Paolo's site, so therefor I must conclude that it doesn't exist yet. :)
>
Its the present project. If you think you can help write it or
comment join the NERPS list.

How long it will take, well.... but some folks are hard at it so
maybe not so long.


Mark
Message no. 58
From: Glenn.Robertson@***.EDU
Subject: Re: Militaries -Reply
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 13:53:14 -0700
On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Midn Daniel O Fredrikson wrote:

> "Thors hammer" or "brilliant pebbles". Considering also how the
effiecy

Uhh, I must have missed that but what are "brilliant pebbles?"

<Confused and questioning my pet rock on the subject>
Glenn
Message no. 59
From: Midn Daniel O Fredrikson <m992148@****.NAVY.MIL>
Subject: Re: Militaries -Reply
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 16:37:38 -0500
Sorry for the confusion... "brilliant pebbles" was one of the many 'Star
Wars' ideas. The concept was to have a orbital platform (ie satelight)
with a number of small, guided kinetic kill weapons (ie rock propelled
rocks...more or less). When a ICBM was launched, the satellight would
detect the heat signature and release of the 'pebbles'. The rocket would
start accelerating down towards the upcoming missle, using small rocket
thrusters to correct for flight path error so the rock would hopefully
inpact with the rising missle. (good luck) The idea was when a 50lb
object hit a ICBM with a velocity of 5k to 10k mile/h, you don't need an
explosive warhead due to the amount of kinetic energy. I have no idea how
for SDI actually got with the concept though.

On Thu, 14 Nov 1996 Glenn.Robertson@***.EDU wrote:

> On Wed, 13 Nov 1996, Midn Daniel O Fredrikson wrote:
>
> > "Thors hammer" or "brilliant pebbles". Considering also how
the effiecy
>
> Uhh, I must have missed that but what are "brilliant pebbles?"
>
> <Confused and questioning my pet rock on the subject>
> Glenn
>
Message no. 60
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Militaries -Reply
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 22:35:34 +0000
In message <Pine.SOL.3.91.961114135208.4058C-100000@********.asu.edu>,
Glenn.Robertson@***.EDU writes
>Uhh, I must have missed that but what are "brilliant pebbles?"

Kinetic-energy guided weapons intended as part of SDI. Presumably clever
and smaller than "smart rocks" and much cleverer and far smaller than
"dumb boulders".

--
"There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy."
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 61
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 22:22:21 +0000
In message <199611140604.GAA11844@*****.mmedia.is>, olafur gunnarsson
<olafurg@******.IS> writes
>Well im just quoting what they say in the Neo anarch guide to north Americ=
a.
>Were it Says that that they airlifted in and remember,even if there were
>Ucas Battlegroups in Los Angeles

So? At thirty knots, you cover 720 miles a day. The whole advantage of a
Navy is that you can get where the trouble is, fast.

>Making sure that the Ucas Goverment knew of this.Unfortunatly Japan moved =
to
>fast for eather the Ucas or Free Cal Goverment.So suddenly Japan landed
>troops to "help":) Free Cal against thier enemys.Off course once they had
>taken San Fran they did nothing simply setting the city up as an
>protectorate and letting the rest to rot for all they care. And like i said
>before there is no mention off any Japanese ships being used until way aft=
er
>San Fran had been taken.And while the Ucas might have lost the entire west
>coast they still have at that time the Hawaí´í Fleet is being kept i=
n Los
>Angeles
>waiting to be moved to a Ucas port and another part of the Pacific fleet is
>in Seattle.

So, why couldn't they interfere with the airlift?

Check out Crete and, especially, Arnhem for examples of airborne-only
operations. You need air superiority. One UCAS carrier group a within
four hundred miles of San Franscisco denies the Japanese that
superiority.

Also, you might be surprised at the quantities of supplies it takes to
support a fighting unit: enough Imperial Marines to credibly garrison
San Fransisco would tie up dozens of heavy-lift airliners just for
logistics. You're saying the US Navy sat on its hands and failed to
intervene?

They had a reason not to, and the likeliest is the Imperial Japanese
Navy.

>If the Japanese had set out to attack using thier own fleet The Ucas might
>have had time to react and order those fleets to intercept them.

Like they did in December 1941? ;)

--
"There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy."
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 62
From: David Buehrer <dbuehrer@****.ORG>
Subject: Re: Militaries -Reply
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 17:16:25 -0700
Paul J. Adam wrote:
|
|Glenn.Robertson@***.EDU writes
|
|>Uhh, I must have missed that but what are "brilliant pebbles?"
|
|Kinetic-energy guided weapons intended as part of SDI. Presumably clever
|and smaller than "smart rocks" and much cleverer and far smaller than
|"dumb boulders".

I suddenly have a vision of tiny little force one earth
elementals flying through the air, flapping their little
arms as fast as they can. :)

-David

/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\ dbuehrer@****.org /^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\/^\
"His thoughts tumbled in his head, making and breaking
alliances like underpants in a dryer without Cling Free."
~~~http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/1068/homepage.htm~~~~
Message no. 63
From: Midn Daniel O Fredrikson <m992148@****.NAVY.MIL>
Subject: Re: Militaries -Reply
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 19:44:21 -0500
> |
> |>Uhh, I must have missed that but what are "brilliant pebbles?"
> |
> |Kinetic-energy guided weapons intended as part of SDI. Presumably clever
> |and smaller than "smart rocks" and much cleverer and far smaller than
> |"dumb boulders".
>
> I suddenly have a vision of tiny little force one earth
> elementals flying through the air, flapping their little
> arms as fast as they can. :)
>
> -David
hmm... if an earth elemental is moving at 1000 kph when it manafests, does
it continue to move that fast until acted upon by an outside force?!?
Message no. 64
From: Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 21:56:38 -0500
>>Hence the UCAS, UK, Japan and CAS at least maintain substantial navies.
>>Aztlan I'm less sure of simply because of a lack of tradition in the
>>region.
>
> Hmm.. does it say in the books that Japan has a substantial navy?
I would
>tend to think that Japan would maintain only a very small defensive navy
>and rely primarly on other countries for protection?
>
Japan has no formidable armed forces because the US doesn't let them.
Following WW2, Japan wasn't allowed to have a standing military any longer...

However, in the future, where the UCAS has it's own problems to deal with at
home, I think that Japan would have ample oppurtunity to start their own
military...

Besides, ever watch a Godzilla flick? Japan has a HUGE army... They just
call it their "Monster Force" <grin>

-Bull-the-'zilla-watching-decekr-turned-GM


=======================================================
= Bull, aka Chaos, aka Rak, aka Steven Ratkovich =
= =
= chaos@*****,com =
= =
= "Order is Illusion! Chaos is Bliss! Got any fours?" =
=======================================================

"You could use a good Kiss!"
-Han Solo, "The Empire Strikes Back"
<a corrected once more quote>
Message no. 65
From: Bull <chaos@*****.COM>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 1996 22:00:24 -0500
>At 09:34 PM 11/13/96 -0500, you wrote:
>> Shyeah, right! And how do you think Japan landed troops in San
>>Fransisco? Japan does considerably more than maintain a "very small
>>defensive navy," to be sure.
>
> Japan landed troops in San Fransisco? Where did this come from?
Must of
>missed that..
>
Check teh main book, in the opening history section, where it talks about
the Cal Free STate... Japan came in and helped California secede, and in
the process, basically took over, although "officially" they don't run Cal Free


=======================================================
= Bull, aka Chaos, aka Rak, aka Steven Ratkovich =
= =
= chaos@*****,com =
= =
= "Order is Illusion! Chaos is Bliss! Got any fours?" =
=======================================================

"You could use a good Kiss!"
-Han Solo, "The Empire Strikes Back"
<a corrected once more quote>
Message no. 66
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 11:53:42 +0100
Bull said on 21:56/14 Nov 96...

> Japan has no formidable armed forces because the US doesn't let them.
> Following WW2, Japan wasn't allowed to have a standing military any longer...

What is the Japanese Self-Defense Force if not a military? Japan and
Germany were both prohibited from forming a military after WWII, but
those bans were lifted a decade or so later, when the countries had been
reformed in a way acceptable to the Allies.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
A little bit more on-edge.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 67
From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
Subject: Re: Militaries -Reply
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 11:53:42 +0100
Glenn.Robertson@***.EDU said on 13:53/14 Nov 96...

> > "Thors hammer" or "brilliant pebbles". Considering also how
the effiecy
>
> Uhh, I must have missed that but what are "brilliant pebbles?"

A Star Wars (SDI, not the movie) weapon: the idea was to have a satellite
shoot a load of small projectiles at very high speed at an incoming ICBM;
the particles would have so much energy that they could destroy the
missile at a relatively low cost.

For an example of the effect this could have, all you have to do is look
at what happened to a cockpit window of a Space Shuttle when it was hit
by one small flake of paint.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
A little bit more on-edge.
-> NERPS Project Leader & Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/plastic.html <-

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version 3.1:
GAT/! d-(dpu) s:- !a>? C+(++)@ U P L E? W(++) N o? K- w+ O V? PS+ PE
Y PGP- t(+) 5+ X++ R+++>$ tv+(++) b++@ DI? D+ G(++) e h! !r(---) y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Message no. 68
From: Mark Steedman <M.J.Steedman@***.RGU.AC.UK>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 12:35:49 GMT
olafur gunnarsson writes

> Expecialy since many megacorps have considerable sea assets. (Aztech has at
> least one Aircraft carrier mention in the Seattle sourcebook cant remember
> the name).

well they are a special case, they are effectively the country of
Atzlan, that carrier (i can't remember) is probably 'technically'
Atzlan not Aztechnology, the country would need a navy, just as
theres so little difference Aztechnology can go 'you pay for it'
we'll play with it' :)

Mark
Message no. 69
From: olafur gunnarsson <olafurg@******.IS>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 17:41:27 GMT
>>>Hence the UCAS, UK, Japan and CAS at least maintain substantial navies.
>>>Aztlan I'm less sure of simply because of a lack of tradition in the
>>>region.
>>
>> Hmm.. does it say in the books that Japan has a substantial navy?
>I would
>>tend to think that Japan would maintain only a very small defensive navy
>>and rely primarly on other countries for protection?
>>
>Japan has no formidable armed forces because the US doesn't let them.
>Following WW2, Japan wasn't allowed to have a standing military any longer...
>
>However, in the future, where the UCAS has it's own problems to deal with at
>home, I think that Japan would have ample oppurtunity to start their own
>military...
>
>Besides, ever watch a Godzilla flick? Japan has a HUGE army... They just
>call it their "Monster Force" <grin>


I think i said this before somewere:)
But Japan Does have an army today. Its just not called an Army.
During the Korean war America became afraid that commies were taking over
the world and decided to allow Japan limited military forces but becuse the
constitution forced on the japanese they were not allowed to have a standing
army.
So the US army in hand with some Politicians japanese and Us made some changes.
They set up a new police force wich had the job of resisting foriegn
invasions or some such drivel.They then armed them with tanks fighters and
all the modern toys of warfare.so now Japan has something like 25000
Soldiers (they just arent called soldiers but cops).But as far as i know
they have little or no Navy except for a few coast guard cutters and such:).
Wonderfull how you can do anything you want as long as you call it something
else.
Maybe ill get away with murder if i call it.hmm social restructuring to make
more space for comming generations what do you think:).
-Olafur G
Message no. 70
From: Pete <Pete@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 1996 16:54:05 +0000
In article <199611151054.LAA04804@**********.xs4all.nl>, Gurth
<gurth@******.NL> writes
>Bull said on 21:56/14 Nov 96...
>
>> Japan has no formidable armed forces because the US doesn't let them.
>> Following WW2, Japan wasn't allowed to have a standing military any longer...
>
>What is the Japanese Self-Defense Force if not a military? Japan and
>Germany were both prohibited from forming a military after WWII, but
>those bans were lifted a decade or so later, when the countries had been
>reformed in a way acceptable to the Allies.

What I think Bull was trying to say was that Japan had been banned from
building and maintaining an "offensive" military, they were only allowed
to maintain a force to defend their own lands and territorial waters, no
more Yamato, and Musashi class Battleships, and definately no carriers.
Of course after the crash, this will have changed, and with Japan's
increased economic power in 205*, they will need a substantial military
to protect themselves.
--
Pete Sims
Civilisation advances by extending the number of important operations which we
can perform without thinking about them.
Message no. 71
From: Sight Unseen <toabo@****.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Militaries -Reply
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 21:03:37 -0500
<SNIP! SDI stuff>
>
>For an example of the effect this could have, all you have to do is look
>at what happened to a cockpit window of a Space Shuttle when it was hit
>by one small flake of paint.

So in the 2050's, are the space junk problems worse than they are
today, or did somebody do something to clean it up?



Enigma
Message no. 72
From: dhinkley@***.ORG
Subject: Re: Militaries -Reply
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 1996 23:21:15 +0000
> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 1996 18:57:24 -0500
> From: Forbidden Delirium <fdelirum@****.NET>
> Subject: Re: Militaries -Reply


> At 06:33 PM 11/13/96 -0500, you wrote:
> >Japan in 2057 is Imperial Japan. I'm reading between the lines a bit, but
> the
> >democratic, somewhat pacifist Japan of the late 20th century was,
> according to
> >FASA, a bit of a historical blip. Japan's might is still primarily
>
> Hmm. Damn.. I wish we had a Japan Sourcebook, seems like a damn fine
> place to run games from anyway. Ah well, maybe Gurth will write one.
>
> fd

There is a group in Japan doing an on-line sourcebook. I found it
from Paulo's site.


David Hinkley
dhinkley@***.org
******************************************************
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve niether liberty or
safety.
Ben Franklin
Message no. 73
From: Elfman & Danita <elf-dani@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 1996 13:05:39 -0700
> From: Gurth <gurth@******.NL>
>
> Bull said on 21:56/14 Nov 96...
>
> > Japan has no formidable armed forces because the US doesn't let them.
> > Following WW2, Japan wasn't allowed to have a standing military any
longer...
>
> What is the Japanese Self-Defense Force if not a military? Japan and
> Germany were both prohibited from forming a military after WWII, but
> those bans were lifted a decade or so later, when the countries had been
> reformed in a way acceptable to the Allies.
>
I think I read or heard somewhere that the (American approved) post war
Japanese Constitution has a section that prohibits an "offensive" army.
They do have a military but it is only a defensive army, whatever that
means 8-).

So Germany and Japan weren't allowed to have armies, protected by the
superpowers for that reason, and have become economic powers today. Kinda
tells us something doesn't it?

Sgt Pepper

Visit Elfman's World at http://www.spots.ab.ca/~elf-dani
or Danitaville at http://www.spots.ab.ca/~elf-dani/index.html
Message no. 74
From: Sight Unseen <toabo@****.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 04:48:39 -0500
>So Germany and Japan weren't allowed to have armies, protected by the
>superpowers for that reason, and have become economic powers today. Kinda
>tells us something doesn't it?
>
>Sgt Pepper

I once heard a lecture in a Poli Sci class many years ago about a
study of history indicates that those civilizations that focused on
developing a strong economy tended to flourish over time. Those
civilizations that focused on military strength tended to collapse.
Extend that theory into the 2050's. Makes sense, neh? <g>



Enigma
Message no. 75
From: "Paul J. Adam" <paul@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 1996 21:53:53 +0000
In message <3.0.16.19961120005006.2aef3c4a@****.utexas.edu>, Sight
Unseen <toabo@****.UTEXAS.EDU> writes
> I once heard a lecture in a Poli Sci class many years ago about a
>study of history indicates that those civilizations that focused on
>developing a strong economy tended to flourish over time. Those
>civilizations that focused on military strength tended to collapse.
> Extend that theory into the 2050's. Makes sense, neh? <g>

Except that if you neglect your military, you get swamped by your
neighbour who didn't.

I'd suggest Keegan's "A History of Warfare". Most civilisations develop
defences as a first priority, whether the Great Wall, the cherta forts,
or Hadrian's Wall. And most of the major civilisations were based on
military conquest, not economic might.

Study how long Sparta held what should have been an untenable position
in the Greek power, based entirely on their military might, for an
extreme example.

--
"There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy."
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 76
From: Sight Unseen <toabo@****.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 22:45:34 -0500
At 09:53 PM 11/20/96 +0000, you wrote:
>In message <3.0.16.19961120005006.2aef3c4a@****.utexas.edu>, Sight
>Unseen <toabo@****.UTEXAS.EDU> writes
>> I once heard a lecture in a Poli Sci class many years ago about a
>>study of history indicates that those civilizations that focused on
>>developing a strong economy tended to flourish over time. Those
>>civilizations that focused on military strength tended to collapse.
>> Extend that theory into the 2050's. Makes sense, neh? <g>
>
>Except that if you neglect your military, you get swamped by your
>neighbour who didn't.
>
Yeah. I think the theory wasn't that you focused on one to the
exclusion of the other, but if you placed considerably more emphasis on one
over the other. The theory may only have applied to mature civilizations,
too. (I apologize if I seem a little vague, but poli sci wasn't my major
and it was close to 5 years ago that I heard the lecture. <g>) Still,
military conquest alone can't work forever; a strong economy is an
important component of long term success for a civilization.


Enigma
Message no. 77
From: "Q (not from Star Trek)" <Scott.E.Meyer@*******.EDU>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 1996 20:38:59 -0600
On Thu, 21 Nov 1996, Sight Unseen wrote:

> At 09:53 PM 11/20/96 +0000, you wrote:
> >In message <3.0.16.19961120005006.2aef3c4a@****.utexas.edu>, Sight
> >Unseen <toabo@****.UTEXAS.EDU> writes
> >> I once heard a lecture in a Poli Sci class many years ago about a
> >>study of history indicates that those civilizations that focused on
> >>developing a strong economy tended to flourish over time. Those
> >>civilizations that focused on military strength tended to collapse.
> >> Extend that theory into the 2050's. Makes sense, neh? <g>
> >
> >Except that if you neglect your military, you get swamped by your
> >neighbour who didn't.
> >
> Yeah. I think the theory wasn't that you focused on one to the
> exclusion of the other, but if you placed considerably more emphasis on one
> over the other. The theory may only have applied to mature civilizations,
> too. (I apologize if I seem a little vague, but poli sci wasn't my major
> and it was close to 5 years ago that I heard the lecture. <g>) Still,
> military conquest alone can't work forever; a strong economy is an
> important component of long term success for a civilization.
>
>
> Enigma
>
Well, start developing your commerce, increase your technology, start
selling to other countries and make some powerful allies. What country
would want to destroy their only source of _____? Just look at the
Phoenicians, they didn't need a powerful military to gain status, just a
ready supply of indigo.

-Q

---------------------------------------
Should "anal-retentive" be hyphenated?

Scott "Q" Meyer
Scott.E.Meyer@*******.edu
http://johnh.wheaton.edu/~smeyer
Message no. 78
From: "Paul J. Adam" <shadowrn@********.DEMON.CO.UK>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 1996 00:05:01 +0000
In message <Pine.ULT.3.95.961121203417.565B-100000@*****.wheaton.edu>,
"Q (not from Star Trek)" <Scott.E.Meyer@*******.EDU> writes
>Well, start developing your commerce, increase your technology, start
>selling to other countries and make some powerful allies. What country
>would want to destroy their only source of _____? Just look at the
>Phoenicians, they didn't need a powerful military to gain status, just a
>ready supply of indigo.

Which African nation has the most mineral resources? South Africa.

Which African nation spends most on its armed forces? South Africa.

Not meant as a slam on SA in any way, just a small observation: if you
sit on useful resources, you'd better defend them.


Phoencian seafarers were famous/notorious for their agressiveness, and
the Phoenicians were quite renowned as a naval power, _because_ of their
indigo monopoly. They needed sea power to sell their goods, and to
defend them: hence, while weak by land, the Phoenicians were noted for
their naval power.

Again, in the 2050s naval power is the counterweight to corporate
economic muscle. Goods move by sea, and nations can afford navies while
corporations can't.

--
"There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy."
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"

Paul J. Adam paul@********.demon.co.uk
Message no. 79
From: "M. Gotthard" <s457033@*******.GU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 12:30:34 +1000
> Which African nation has the most mineral resources? South Africa.
>
> Which African nation spends most on its armed forces? South Africa.
>
> Not meant as a slam on SA in any way, just a small observation: if you
> sit on useful resources, you'd better defend them.
>
Witness the Gulf War. Hell, i've got in trouble for slandering America
before (*grin*) but the only reason they stepped in was because of the
threat to the oil market.If it was for humanitarian reasons, then they'd
be in every little tin-pot dicatatorship in the world.

> Again, in the 2050s naval power is the counterweight to corporate
> economic muscle. Goods move by sea, and nations can afford navies while
> corporations can't.
>
Not again.... *sigh*

I'm going to shut up, seriously i am.

Bleach
Message no. 80
From: Droopy <droopy@*******.NB.NET>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 01:01:14 +0000
Bleach wrote:

> Witness the Gulf War. Hell, i've got in trouble for slandering America
> before (*grin*) but the only reason they stepped in was because of the
> threat to the oil market.If it was for humanitarian reasons, then they'd
> be in every little tin-pot dicatatorship in the world.

<sigh> there was no threat to the oil market, or our oil supply. In
fact, the US was getting more oil from Iraq than Kuwait at the time.
I even spent a couple of weeks baby sitting a Conoco pumping station
near the Euphraytes River (no one home at the time.)

The Gulf War was a PR bonanza for Bush, plain and simple. The PR
started to dry up before he could get the rest of us into Baghdad, and it
ended. 'nuff said.


--Droopy
droopy@**.net
Message no. 81
From: "M. Gotthard" <s457033@*******.GU.EDU.AU>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 1996 08:53:36 +1000
> > Witness the Gulf War. Hell, i've got in trouble for slandering America
> > before (*grin*) but the only reason they stepped in was because of the
> > threat to the oil market.If it was for humanitarian reasons, then they'd
> > be in every little tin-pot dicatatorship in the world.
>
> <sigh> there was no threat to the oil market, or our oil supply. In
> fact, the US was getting more oil from Iraq than Kuwait at the time.
> I even spent a couple of weeks baby sitting a Conoco pumping station
> near the Euphraytes River (no one home at the time.)
>
I don't really want another epic debate thread starting here, but I
just wanted to point out that I was considering more the monopoly
market situation that would have developed with Iraq controlling
more than 60% of the oil market. OPEC all over again, anyone?

Feel free to disagree with me, but please take it to private mail.
Thanks

Bleach
Message no. 82
From: Mike Buckalew <mike_buckalew@******.COM>
Subject: Re: Militaries
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 17:01:27 -0700
>more than 60% of the oil market. OPEC all over again, anyone?

And on the lighter side, Embargo is O Grab Me spelled backwards.


Buck
(Mike Buckalew)
buck@******.com

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS d- s-: a C++ !U !P !L !E W+ N o? K? $w--- !O $M+(++)
!V PS+(+++) PE++ Y+ PGP- t+ 5+ !X R++ tv+>(+++) b++ DI+++
D---- G e++ h--- r+++ y?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Militaries, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!