Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: Thomas thomas041179@***.de
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 19:26:36 +0200
If you have, for some stupid reason, two deckers in your group, then is
there anything, that prevents them from using the same copy of a utility??
And if so, why can't you just "rent" a utility somewhere, copy it to your
deck, and get off much cheaper??
Message no. 2
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 13:47:22 -0400 (EDT)
On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Thomas wrote:

> If you have, for some stupid reason, two deckers in your group, then is
> there anything, that prevents them from using the same copy of a utility??

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you talking about
using the same executable at once? Like as a way to save active
memory/bandwidth? I'd say no.
If you're talking about buying one copy of a program and having
both of them load it and use it, then the answer is yes, absolutely.

> And if so, why can't you just "rent" a utility somewhere, copy it to your
> deck, and get off much cheaper??

No one's going to "rent" you code, simply because it's too easy to
copy it. When's the last time you walked into a software store and asked
them if you could "rent" Starcraft? Or how about "renting" Microsoft
Word? No one does it because there's no point (and no profit) in it,
because once you've loaded it onto your computer, you have it. Deck
utilities work the same way.
Also, recall that there's a difference between getting
source code and object code. Object code just runs. It's analogous to
the executable. You can't alter it, upgrade it, or change it, but you can
make multiple copies (i.e. to protect from corruption/tar
babies/whatever), and there's nothing stopping you from giving someone
else a copy. Source code allows you to change, alter, and upgrade the
program, but it's more expensive. But again, there's nothing stopping you
from giving someone else a copy.
But consider this: part of a program's code will represent its
iconography, or how it "looks" or "sounds" in the Matrix. Deckers are
a
notoriously individual lot. If you are buying off-the-rack utils or
getting them from friends, your programs look and feel exactly the same as
everyone else's. Where's the fun in that? And how cheesy is it to have a
beautifully sculped cyberknight icon that uses a seltzer bottle and a
clown horn as an attack program? That in and of itself is reason enough
to write your own code.

Marc
Message no. 3
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 15:54:52 -0400
At 13.47 08-30-99 -0400, you wrote:
>program, but it's more expensive. But again, there's nothing stopping you
>from giving someone else a copy.

And if you can compromise the source code, you can add something that
sends a quite message everyone in a while. (IF matrix connection active
AND decker not connected AND decker not connected for last three hours AND
low period in historical usage cycle, Then send disk image, operator
profile and operational logs to we.gonna.git.ya@****.star and erase all
logs of that message.) Have your fixer offer some new stuff to your decker
at reduced cost becuase it is 3rd or 4th world clone rather than a factory
origional. Not a 10% cost, but the kind of thing that is too good to be true.

>clown horn as an attack program? That in and of itself is reason enough
>to write your own code.

Maybe, but if you can get access to another decker's deck for twenty
minutes and "back it up", you have (a) made one helluva an enemy when he
finds out, (b) made it possible for him to get even bigger enemies, and (c)
can use him/her as a cover on your runs.
It's the same as using (for example) a third party's weapons, being sure
to leave behind a few brass (they were "missed" while sterilizing the area)
and magazines that can be backtraced to lots and/or manufacturers within
that country, wearing thier uniforms, using the same kind of explosives
they do (let a wrapper "accidently blow away" and leave prints that look
like it was being looked for, or a "dud" charge or some AP traps that can
be backtraced) and maybe something like a cigerette butt or gum wrapper of
a manufacture that isn't normal for your side (like Iraqi copies of those
nasty little black French things being left in the sands outside what used
to be an Iranian facility).


Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."
Message no. 4
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 16:06:21 EDT
In a message dated 8/30/1999 12:27:34 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
thomas041179@***.de writes:

>
> If you have, for some stupid reason, two deckers in your group, then is
> there anything, that prevents them from using the same copy of a utility??
> And if so, why can't you just "rent" a utility somewhere, copy it to your
> deck, and get off much cheaper??

In theory, you can have one "downloadable" copy of a utility in storage, and
have two deckers share the program. That is fine.

However, the concept of "rent" is something else entirely. In most cases,
those utilities have a limited lifespan of some sort (like the "One-Shot"
programming option") built directly into them.

Another thing we consider that you have to the Source Code for a given
program in order to actively make a copy. Copying the "operational program"
(utility in action) isn't going to make the cut (or the "paste" for that
matter).

-K
Message no. 5
From: lomion lomion@*********.escnd1.sdca.home.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 17:07:05 -0700
At 01:47 PM 8/30/99 -0400, Marc Renouf wrote:
>
>
>On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Thomas wrote:
>
>> If you have, for some stupid reason, two deckers in your group, then is
>> there anything, that prevents them from using the same copy of a utility??
>
> I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you talking about
>using the same executable at once? Like as a way to save active
>memory/bandwidth? I'd say no.

In a network setting it's most likely yes. It all depends on the platform that
the program is written for. IRL you see multiple instances everyday when you
goto a website, there are a number of "child" processes running whihc spawned
form a single program. One of the web servers i administer has seven different
instances of apache web server running, one for each site. Also if you are
familiar with UNIX at all, then from a shell you can run many different
programs that may be run by other users on the same server. Now server load
and latency may be factors here depending on how you wish to run the program.

It comes downto are these programs being developed with a multi-user OS in mind
or a single-user one? Considering the current trend is toward multi-user i'd
think that would be more prevalent given the pervasiveness of the Matrix in
shadowrun. Everyone uses it, whether they realize or not im many ways.

If it's using a copy of the program that comes under cracking the program.
There may be copy protection on the program or some sort of key is required
that needs to be generated. Both are comonly done today (think of warez
programs). I'd say it can be done, probably more easily by a decker than most
others. As for the sorce code debate vs. object code debate i;ve seen
elsewhere. Source code distribution depends on the license, if you have an
Open source license say like the GPL or BSD licenses then it would be easy to
modify the program. If its proprietary (think Microsoft) reverse engineering
applies.

--Lomion
Message no. 6
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Mon, 30 Aug 1999 22:05:53 -0400
quote message : IronRaven
> It's the same as using (for example) a third party's weapons, being sure
> to leave behind a few brass (they were "missed" while sterilizing the
area)
> and magazines that can be backtraced to lots and/or manufacturers within
> that country, wearing thier uniforms, using the same kind of explosives
> they do (let a wrapper "accidently blow away" and leave prints that look
> like it was being looked for, or a "dud" charge or some AP traps that can
> be backtraced) and maybe something like a cigerette butt or gum wrapper of
> a manufacture that isn't normal for your side (like Iraqi copies of those
> nasty little black French things being left in the sands outside what used
> to be an Iranian facility).
>
begin : message

Thank god there are people like you out there. Why can't I ever seem to find
players like this?

Whoever's player--or GM--IronRaven is, do me a favor and FedEx him to us
ASAP.
Message no. 7
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 00:01:28 -0400 (EDT)
On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, lomion wrote:

> > I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you talking about
> >using the same executable at once? Like as a way to save active
> >memory/bandwidth? I'd say no.
>
> In a network setting it's most likely yes.

[SNIP explanation involving servers and multi-user architecture]

All very well and good, but not appropriate to the matter at hand
IMHO. You're certainly correct about multiple instances of programs and
license-managed software, but the question dealt with utilities run by a
cyberdeck. That being the case, I think that it's a reasonable assumption
to say that deck utilities are being run by the deck (although they are
admittedly trying to manipulate the host into performing the desired
actions). Unless two deckers are decking from the same deck, sharing
programs during an actual Matrix run seems sort of dodgy. And if they
*are* running from the same deck, how are resources divided between the
signals? Who gets processor time, and what happens to your sleaze if your
partner's hogging up all the cycles running browse?
As for loading programs onto the host and allowing multiple
deckers to access them, I'd say that that's certainly an option for
command sets that deckers have uploaded to the host. And oh, what fun
that can be. Speaking as a GM that has run campaigns with tag-teaming
deckers, the possiblities are pretty cool.

Marc
Message no. 8
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 15:08:04 -0400
At 22.05 08-30-99 -0400, you wrote:
>Thank god there are people like you out there. Why can't I ever seem to find
>players like this?

It is basic covert/psyc war tactics. Blow something up, make it look like
someone else did it, get two of your enemies trying to kill eachother, and
sell both sides guns and intell while enjoying the floor show. This kind
of thing has been done for centuries. Read Machovelli (sp), Sun Tzu,
Clausowitz, Rommel, Patton and Napeleon for how to think "dirty".

I've got a larger example of this concept in action:
Iranian radar picks up something low over the ocean, and word comes from
the coast that it is Hinds in Iraqi colors. At the same time, some Mi-29s
and Mirage IIIs loaded with Chinese made missiles zip on across the desert,
and pop high to cover the choppers. Choppers land, drop troops in Iraqi
uniforms armed with AKs loaded with Iraqi and Jordanian ammo, RPG-7s, and
grenades, and Semtex from a lot known to have been sold to Iraq in the late
80s. They blow a powerplant, take off, hit the local defenses, and
everyone exits stage west towards Iraq.
In reality, those Hinds dropped below radar coverage and headed back to
the Liberian flagged, German crewed frieghter owned by a French company,
and hiden as deck cargo, constantly staying in sight of US and UK warships
and being inspected by those two nations, who are in on the joke. The
fixed wings dropped low and slow, and land at a US/Kuwaiti airfield where
the pilots demand "asylum" from political persecution in the US, which they
are immediately given. US and UK fighters on Southern Watch provide high
cover for everyone, and suppres the living crap out of everything except
for some things that AWACS designates as friendlies, with "gun cam" footage
being generated at some NRO facility besed off the location data from the
satellite crosslink on the AWACS and map data. The newsies never actually
see the pilots, just some men of Arab or Persian decent who are built and
dressed like pilots, we create a media blitz to back our State Department
while trying to get these mens' familys out (they actually don't exist, but
it will look like the Iraqis purged them), and the aircraft are broken down
and shipped to Wright-Pat, with the Kuwaitis being promissed a cut of the
intell take and some shiny new F-16s, more Longbow radars and a promise of
some rebuilt F-15s once we start getting Raptors.
Our special operations troopers go back to base with yet one more thing
that can never talk about, and hopefully no fatal training accidents
victems. The pilots go back to thier "Agressor" squadrons and are told to
forget, and they are mated up with thier birds in a few weeks. (We have a
number of foreign fighters and choppers, and can buy more Russian any day
we want.) The real gun camera and AWACS tapes are "accidently" destroyed
in a fire in an admin building (along with some other items of a sensative
nature). One of our few real friends in the area get some new toys. The
Iraqis look like crap and are out some air suppression gear, with the US
retaining the option of retaliatory Tomahawk strikes if the president has
made another "oops". The Iranians are pissed at the Iraqis and we may be
able to get a more secular, Western-friendly government into Tehran (who we
may be able to convice that "tech support" for other people's WMD programs
is a bad idea). And the media gets to complain about some shiney new
$30,000 toilet seats, with most of that money going to fund this operation.


The only thing that they don't mention in Wag the Dog is that when this
game is played for real, people die from design. Not irate farmers in a
largely random situation.

>Whoever's player--or GM--IronRaven is, do me a favor and FedEx him to us

I don't travel well, and I would have a hazardous materials rating, just
like any other form of explosives.



Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."
Message no. 9
From: Penta cpenta@*****.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 15:39:14 -0700
IronRaven wrote:
<snip cool story>
Shit. Is this for REAL? And...where can I get the evidence? And....thy sources?

John
Message no. 10
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 16:15:15 -0400
At 15.39 08-31-99 -0700, you wrote:
>Shit. Is this for REAL? And...where can I get the evidence? And....thy
sources?

Entirely theoretical, and entirely possible. AFAIK, this senario has
never happened, but there have been times where it has been in the US
intrest to take action without being readily traced, and even to place the
target and a third party at each other's throats.
Again, this senario is theoretical, much like a Tom Clancey novel.

The US owns something like three or four Hinds, around a dozen Hips, a
Halo (big cargo lifter that used to where Egyptian colors IIRC, don't know
what we traded for it), somewhere's around a wing of fighters,
fighter-bombers and tactical bombers, a whoel helluva lot of ground
vehicles, most of a sub, and I think we kept a frigate that had the crew
mutiney on it in the mid-70s.
Some came with defectors (on patrol near Siberia, eclare a flight
emergency, you and your wingman make a super fast run to the Bering, and if
you aren't shot down, switch to the GAURD freqs and start screaming for
asylum and landing directions to any place in Alaska), other were traded
for with people who switched suppliers (we got quite a bit from the
Egyptians this way), or were picked up as suveniers by us or our buddies
(the Isrealis are good for this). We've also bought some stuff since the
Wall went down, some of it on the black (stories abound of a late-model
T-80 with a full load of ammo and gas, the tool kits, a spare set of tracks
and tech manuals in both German and Russian being traded for a BMW, a big
screen TV and a half million dollars one dark night in Berlin, and promptly
stuffed in a C-5 and flown to Fort Irwin for evaluation). Most of them are
run as part of "Redlander Forces" in an opposing force role by some of the
best and brightest in the Army and Air Force, btu they are all prone to
recall to test centers for further evaluation, which is routinely classified.
The small arms are readily available, as is the ammo, in special
operations and "direct action" groups, with the foreign explosives needing
to be drawn from specialized sources, but still can be made available
within hours.
Getting the freighter is easy- we probably own one that fit the bill, and
it can't be traced to any US intrest. The US and the Brits get along, and
we have the crews of the vessels sworn to secrecy. Prefeerably, we stick
them near a carrier group that is rotating out, and whenever anyone else
looks at the freighter, they get told something like "we checked them
yesterday and they've been just sorta tagging along at the edge of viable
range- they ain't intell boat, they just like to have a cop around. You
mean you haven't heard about the pirates? They should have been in your
intell packet two days ago!"
Spoofing the media is easy- they aren't allowed onto airfields by the
Kuwatis without prior planning and aproval, from what I've been told. The
piltos get out of the cockpits with helmets on, and flight gear looks like
flight gear to most people, so unless the flags are wrong, most people
can't tell the differnce. Getting the "defecting pilots" isn't hard- they
can be arranged by the DoD, the CIA, MI5, you name it. They just ahve to
have lead time and the right appearance and accent. Faking the gun camera
footage can be done by ILM or Banned from the Ranch if they have the right
data, and the AWACS datatapes is even easier.
And paying with military hardware is done everyday.

Kinda makes you look at the evening news in a new light, don't it.



Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."
Message no. 11
From: Penta cpenta@*****.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 16:32:28 -0700
IronRaven wrote:
<sniplots>

> Kinda makes you look at the evening news in a new light, don't it.

Yup. But...Whaddabout the Iranians? What if we have people shot down? Hmmmm?

John
Message no. 12
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 17:06:46 -0400
At 16.32 08-31-99 -0700, you wrote:
>Yup. But...Whaddabout the Iranians? What if we have people shot down? >Hmmmm?

We have. "Training accident" is all too often a euphemism for dying on
the job in place you never were, doing things you never did to people you
never did them to. 99.999% of the time, there is nothing worse than some
bruises or a drug hangover for the other side. Only when it goes VERY,
VERY, VERY wrong do you use bullets. (Hey, Shaodwrunners- this is a HINT!)
When you are on the reciveing end, "terrorists", "insurgents",
"industrial
accidents" and "organized crime" all work.
Think about it.



Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."
Message no. 13
From: Penta cpenta@*****.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 17:22:34 -0700
IronRaven wrote:

> At 16.32 08-31-99 -0700, you wrote:

<snip explanation>

>

> Think about it.

I have....damn. Wonder what else they ain't telling.

John
Message no. 14
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 19:44:01 -0400
At 17.22 08-31-99 -0700, you wrote:
>I have....damn. Wonder what else they ain't telling.

JFK, RFK, JFK jr, Roswell, Socorro, a destroyer in the harbor in Philly,
stealth, anti-gravity, the moon shots, the space shuttle, a few hundred
tests on the US population of low-level chemical and biological weapons,
radiation exposures, MArylin Monroe, Elvis, Mr Hoffa, Hitler, Einstien, a
few dozen highly sensationalized shootings, water floridation (floride has
only two uses- one is as a dental clenser, one is as a component of rat
poison, where it effects certain portions of the brain, including those for
rational behavior), hypersonic aircraft, cloning, cybernetics, true magics,
mad cow desiese, certain vacines and who that cigerette smoking man is.

Half of that is a true obfuscation of evidence, the rest is all made up (I
hope). You decide- was Hitler's brain transplanted into Merylin Monroe and
later ordered Jimmy Hoffa to kill Elvis with an overdose of floride, but
when Hoffa failed, the aliens were given him as a going away present, and
the Kennedy brothers were greased becuase they whined about not being
allowed to go to?



Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."
Message no. 15
From: Penta cpenta@*****.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 19:54:27 -0700
IronRaven wrote:

> At 17.22 08-31-99 -0700, you wrote:
> >I have....damn. Wonder what else they ain't telling.
>
> JFK, RFK, JFK jr, Roswell, Socorro, a destroyer in the harbor in Philly,
> stealth, anti-gravity, the moon shots, the space shuttle, a few hundred
> tests on the US population of low-level chemical and biological weapons,
> radiation exposures, MArylin Monroe, Elvis, Mr Hoffa, Hitler, Einstien, a
> few dozen highly sensationalized shootings, water floridation (floride has
> only two uses- one is as a dental clenser, one is as a component of rat
> poison, where it effects certain portions of the brain, including those for
> rational behavior), hypersonic aircraft, cloning, cybernetics, true magics,
> mad cow desiese, certain vacines and who that cigerette smoking man is.
>
> Half of that is a true obfuscation of evidence, the rest is all made up (I
> hope). You decide- was Hitler's brain transplanted into Merylin Monroe and
> later ordered Jimmy Hoffa to kill Elvis with an overdose of floride, but
> when Hoffa failed, the aliens were given him as a going away present, and
> the Kennedy brothers were greased becuase they whined about not being
> allowed to go to?

ROFLOL.
Message no. 16
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 20:31:12 -0400
At 19.54 08-31-99 -0700, you wrote:
>ROFLOL.

I'm glad you find something so grim and well hiden so funny. <g>

Actually, go through that list:
-radiation testing is still largely classified, we haven't even touched
the tip of that iceberg.
-In the last 70s, an aresol virus was sprayed over several cities that
produced minor flu like symptoms, to test the effects of an atmospheric
release of of chembio agents, mostl likely by an ICBM. (This was admitted
only a few years ago, and is mentioned in an article in a Popular Mechanics
about three years ago) And we won't even get into LSD in the water, or
anything like that.
-I wasn't joking about floride, yet 95%+ of Americans live in areas where
the water is floridated. There have ben tests that shows that mice and
rats that don't consume enough floride to kill them become spontanously
agreesive and violent towards thier cage mates (How many highly publized
killings in the past few years have been commited by people who were "so
nice, we never saw it comming"), particularly when placed under crowding
and enviromental stresses. The tests were conducted in serveral places
over the past thirty years- try an industrial toxicology reference for a
bibliography.
-JFK's death will never be solved, and that is all there is to it.
-Marylin Monroe was but one of several women who slept with both JFK and
RFK, who died of "self inflicted injuries" such as ODs and bridge
abutments. Could just be a coincidence, but...
-Things like Roswell, the "Philedelphia Experiment", and others have all
been denied, but there are still to many sheets of paper that are blacked
out in the "declassified" papers. When 90% of a documents is blacked out
with marker, it may be "declassified", but it is still a "secret". Am
I
saying the popular beliefs of those incidents are true? No, but I'm not
denying them, either.

Secrets are a powerful weapon. If our counterparts in 2050+ can learn
that "knowledge is power", then we should truely take that lesson to heart.
Secrets are a form of darkness, and shadows can only exist where the
darkness is being invaded by the light. You and your alter egos should
strive to be lights in the shadows....



Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."
Message no. 17
From: Penta cpenta@*****.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 20:45:15 -0700
IronRaven wrote:

> -Things like Roswell, the "Philedelphia Experiment", and others
have all
> been denied, but there are still to many sheets of paper that are blacked
> out in the "declassified" papers.

Philadelphia Experiment?
Message no. 18
From: Iridios iridios@*********.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 21:41:25 -0400
Penta wrote:
>
> IronRaven wrote:
>
> > -Things like Roswell, the "Philedelphia Experiment", and
others have all
> > been denied, but there are still to many sheets of paper that are blacked
> > out in the "declassified" papers.
>
> Philadelphia Experiment?

<raising hand>
The U.S. Dept. of War (now the Defense Dept.),in the late '40s was
trying to develop a stealth technology for naval vessels (primarily).
Exact details of how they were trying is sketchy but popular theory
suggests that they were trying to "bend" light or maybe just bend
radar signals by generating a large EM field. The popular story says
that the test vessel literally disappeared for several minutes during
the first live test. When it came back, some claim that the personnel
and lab animals aboard the vessel came back, but many exhibited signs
of radiation burns and poisoning. Worse yet, there were some claims
that some personnel had literally phased through the decks and
bulkheads during the "missing" time and when the ship reappeared they
were literally stuck in the decks and still living. Now the Defense
Dept. still says there was no such experiment, and any documentation
that leads back to it or any heavily involved personnel are blacked
out big time. So what are they hiding?


--
Iridios
"Accept what you cannot avoid,
Avoid what you cannot accept."
Message no. 19
From: Mockingbird mockingbird@*********.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 08:50:14 -0500
----- Original Message -----
From: Iridios <iridios@*********.com>
To: <shadowrn@*********.org>
Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 1999 8:41 PM
Subject: Re: Second Hand


> Penta wrote:
> >
> > IronRaven wrote:
> >
> > > -Things like Roswell, the "Philedelphia Experiment", and
others have all
> > > been denied, but there are still to many sheets of paper that are
blacked
> > > out in the "declassified" papers.
> >
> > Philadelphia Experiment?
>

A quick search came up with http://www.ecafe.org/philadelphia/index.htm
who has this to say about it.

Working from Einstein's, officially uncompleted 'Unified Field
Theory', the U.S. Navy set about making their warships invisible to
the enemy by bending light around them using massive magnetic fields.
Actually, since light goes in straight lines, what we are really
talking about here is bending space (and time if you're looking at it
that way), which is a fairly common occurrence, but one more usually
associated with major planets than naval Destroyers.

Eyewitness accounts recall that it was all too successful, with the
USS Eldridge disappearing in a haze of green mist whilst being
experimented on off the coast of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, during the
fall of 1943. More curiously, the same ship was at the same
time, reported by passengers on the SS Andrew Furuseth to appear out of
nowhere in dock in Norfolk, Virginia, before springing back to its
original place in Philadelphia.

Which seems plausible in theory, tv's use magnets to move the electrons
streaming from the electron gun around the screen.

The Navy's official word on this is that the USS Eldridge was a
destroyer escort, not a destroyer and what people saw, thinking it was
some "stealth" technology apperatus was actually cabling used to degauss
the ship in mined waters. But then the Roswell incident was only a
weather balloon.

Now, to bring this back on topic, has anyone ever used this, or other
"legend" in Shadowrun? If so what and how (background info, go steal
this prototype, etc.)

Mockingbird
Message no. 20
From: Airwasp@***.com Airwasp@***.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:16:52 EDT
In a message dated 8/30/99 12:27:34 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
thomas041179@***.de writes:

> If you have, for some stupid reason, two deckers in your group, then is
> there anything, that prevents them from using the same copy of a utility??

There is nothing saying they can't share programs and frames all they want to.

> And if so, why can't you just "rent" a utility somewhere, copy it to your
> deck, and get off much cheaper??

As for renting a program or frame, it could be done, although the people on
the code end will want to have some way of knowing that the decker is not
going to hack the code on the program and disable or even extend the
usefulness (shelf-life) of the program (frame).

As for the second part, it all comes down to trust, or in the eyes of a
corporation, perhaps a way of ensuring that a job is completed within a short
time frame otherwise they tell the decker not to bother with completing the
task anyway.

-Mike B.
Message no. 21
From: Frank Pelletier (Trinity) fpelletier@******.usherb.ca
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 10:20:15 -0400
<Airwasp@***.com> once wrote,

> In a message dated 8/30/99 12:27:34 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
> thomas041179@***.de writes:
>
> > If you have, for some stupid reason, two deckers in your group, then is
> > there anything, that prevents them from using the same copy of a
utility??
>
> There is nothing saying they can't share programs and frames all they want
to.
>
> > And if so, why can't you just "rent" a utility somewhere, copy it to
your
> > deck, and get off much cheaper??
>
> As for renting a program or frame, it could be done, although the people
on
> the code end will want to have some way of knowing that the decker is not
> going to hack the code on the program and disable or even extend the
> usefulness (shelf-life) of the program (frame).
>

IIRC, there's a sourcebook somewhere that explicitly states that programs
cannot be copied (tremedous anti-copy mechanisms), or else gives you some
kind of test to successfully copy a program. (I think it was VR1, but don't
quote me). Besides, I think that a program you pay upwards of 250,000 nuyen
would have some sort of copy protection, and then some.

Anyways, think about it. Would you like a game where any stupid decker has
an Attack-10 (Area, Dinab-8) just because they burned it on a CD for 5
nuyen? It's all about game balance... (and common sense).

Trinity
---------------------------------------------
Frank Pelletier
fpelletier@******.usherb.ca

"Let them hate me, provided they fear me" - Atreus

Trinity on the Undernet and EFNet
Message no. 22
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 12:29:32 EDT
In a message dated 8/31/1999 4:23:25 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
cpenta@*****.com writes:

> > Think about it.
>
> I have....damn. Wonder what else they ain't telling.

Raven, John, guys, ... please take this one off list. Besides, you can feed
each other's obviously high levels of imagination all that much faster ;-)

-K
Message no. 23
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 12:35:23 -0400 (EDT)
On Tue, 31 Aug 1999, IronRaven wrote:

> -I wasn't joking about floride, yet 95%+ of Americans live in
> areas where the water is floridated. There have ben tests that shows
> that mice and rats that don't consume enough floride to kill them become
> spontanously agreesive and violent towards thier cage mates (How many
> highly publized killings in the past few years have been commited by
> people who were "so nice, we never saw it comming"), particularly when
> placed under crowding and enviromental stresses.

Okay, the rest of the stuff is reasonable, but every time I hear
this one it makes me crazy. Fluoride is there for your teeth. Talk to
someone who's more than 40 years old sometime and they'll tell you about
trips to the dentist's office and the unpleasantness that was having a
fluoride treatment, the whole point of which was to strengthen tooth
enamel.
Dentists very rarely administer fluoride treatments anymore. Why?
Because they don't *have* to. They realize how nasty it tasted, and now
that you get enough (trace amounts, really) from your drinking water, they
don't have to worry about it. It's actually *less* dangerous to get it in
small doses over time than it is to get a massive dose all at once (which
is true for most things).
If there's a conspiracy afoot, you must realize that that means
that *every* dentist in America is in on it.
Further, just because something is toxic to rats does *not* mean
it produces the same effects in humans. This is why testing on lab
animals isn't a true analog for testing on humans. Sure, it can give you
some ideas, but consider this: silicone doesn't cause breast cancer in
rats. It does in humans.
Finally, rats a pretty piss-poor behavior model for agressive or
violent behavior. They respond with spontaneous violence to crowding and
environmental stresses even *without* exposure to fluoride.

It's easy to lie with pseudo-science. Being net-denizens we've
all read that bogus warning about aspartame. It's easy to exaggerate
one's findings, and it's easy to lie. The media doesn't help, because
they'll sensationalize something when it comes out, but when it turns out
to be crap they'll print a tiny little retraction, a miniscule "oops" on
page D12 that completely torpedoes the story they've been running on the
front page for an entire week.

In short, unless you can show me some actual, honest-to-god
scientific *proof* that fluoridation of drinking water is a significant
danger to humans (and I have yet to see any that wasn't thoroughly
debunked by a variety of respectable researchers), I'm going to have to
keep drinking the water and enjoying the fact that I don't have to go to
the dentist every six months to have my tooth enamel fluoridated.

Marc
Message no. 24
From: Penta cpenta@*****.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 12:44:24 -0700
Ereskanti@***.com wrote:

> In a message dated 8/31/1999 4:23:25 PM US Eastern Standard Time,
> cpenta@*****.com writes:
>
> > > Think about it.
> >
> > I have....damn. Wonder what else they ain't telling.
>
> Raven, John, guys, ... please take this one off list. Besides, you can feed
> each other's obviously high levels of imagination all that much faster ;-)

No comment.:> Anyway, to bring this whole thing onto Shadowrun: I got to
thinking about much more factual "conspiracies", for example: Area 51. Whatever
DID happen to that place?

John
Message no. 25
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 13:06:29 EDT
In a message dated 9/1/1999 8:51:29 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
mockingbird@*********.com writes:

>
> Now, to bring this back on topic, has anyone ever used this, or other
> "legend" in Shadowrun? If so what and how (background info, go steal
> this prototype, etc.)

Actually I'm using it now in conjunction with the "Star Wars" legacy from the
United States.

-K
Message no. 26
From: Ereskanti@***.com Ereskanti@***.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 13:08:16 EDT
In a message dated 9/1/1999 9:25:53 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
fpelletier@******.usherb.ca writes:

>
> Anyways, think about it. Would you like a game where any stupid decker
has
> an Attack-10 (Area, Dinab-8) just because they burned it on a CD for 5
> nuyen? It's all about game balance... (and common sense).

True, but if you have the "Source Code" and not the "Object Code",
then this
is exactly what is done.

-K
Message no. 27
From: Da Twink Daddy datwinkdaddy@*******.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 14:24:48 -0500 (CDT)
> Okay, the rest of the stuff is reasonable, but every time I hear
> this one it makes me crazy. Fluoride is there for your teeth. Talk to
> someone who's more than 40 years old sometime and they'll tell you about
> trips to the dentist's office and the unpleasantness that was having a
> fluoride treatment, the whole point of which was to strengthen tooth
> enamel.

Well, that's what they _claim_ it is there for. Personally I don't belive
it. If it was possible to just drink floride and get the effect of a
floride treatment, dentists would just send you home with a bottle of
grape flovoured flouride and say take X much Y times a day for Z days.

They don't so that, they apply the flouride directly to the teeth. Why?
Because otherwise is won't work [as well].

> Dentists very rarely administer fluoride treatments anymore. Why?
> Because they don't *have* to. They realize how nasty it tasted, and now
> that you get enough (trace amounts, really) from your drinking water, they
> don't have to worry about it. It's actually *less* dangerous to get it in
> small doses over time than it is to get a massive dose all at once (which
> is true for most things).

I live in an area with florinated water, and I have to get flouride
treatments every 2-3 years. Sure, maybe it's not as often as every 6 mo.
but I still can't belive that has anything to do with the water. (I think
it's my florinated toothpaste -- direct contact with the enamel.)

Saying the trace ammounts in the water you drink can help you teeth is
fairly ludacris <sp>. If you belive in homeopathic solutions than, sure; I
don't.

> If there's a conspiracy afoot, you must realize that that means
> that *every* dentist in America is in on it.

Not really, the government don't need *every* dentist to say something
works to enact a law based on that. They just need a few [bribed] ones and
a few [bribed/killed] ones shut up.

> Further, just because something is toxic to rats does *not* mean
> it produces the same effects in humans. This is why testing on lab
> animals isn't a true analog for testing on humans. Sure, it can give you
> some ideas, but consider this: silicone doesn't cause breast cancer in
> rats. It does in humans.

Actually, there is still no connection definatively drawn between cancer
and silicon in humans or rats.

> Finally, rats a pretty piss-poor behavior model for agressive or
> violent behavior. They respond with spontaneous violence to crowding and
> environmental stresses even *without* exposure to fluoride.

Okay, I'll belive this. Rats are testy little critters.

> It's easy to lie with pseudo-science. Being net-denizens we've
> all read that bogus warning about aspartame. It's easy to exaggerate
> one's findings, and it's easy to lie. The media doesn't help, because
> they'll sensationalize something when it comes out, but when it turns out
> to be crap they'll print a tiny little retraction, a miniscule "oops" on
> page D12 that completely torpedoes the story they've been running on the
> front page for an entire week.

Hey the aspartame thing is true. You just have to understand that the
amount of aspertame in a packet [or box] of sweetener is <<< [much much
less than] the amount of aspartame they were giving the rats. (of course
scaled to human wieghts.) [Kinda like the Yellow5 tests.]

> In short, unless you can show me some actual, honest-to-god
> scientific *proof* that fluoridation of drinking water is a significant
> danger to humans (and I have yet to see any that wasn't thoroughly
> debunked by a variety of respectable researchers), I'm going to have to
> keep drinking the water and enjoying the fact that I don't have to go to
> the dentist every six months to have my tooth enamel fluoridated.

Da Twink Daddy
e-mail: bss03@*******.uark.edu
ICQ: 514984
Message no. 28
From: Wildfire Wildfire@*************.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 16:39:12 -0400
Da Twink Daddy wrote:

> Well, that's what they _claim_ it is there for. Personally I don't belive
> it. If it was possible to just drink floride and get the effect of a
> floride treatment, dentists would just send you home with a bottle of
> grape flovoured flouride and say take X much Y times a day for Z days.
>
>

Um, they do that, or at least did that. I think that I had a floride treatment
once or twice. Most of the time it was a mouthwash looking bottle with some
flavor or other that you measured in the cap, swished and made sure you didn't
swallow.

Wildfire
Message no. 29
From: Mark Fender markf@******.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 16:29:06 -0500
> > If there's a conspiracy afoot, you must realize that that means
> > that *every* dentist in America is in on it.
>
> Not really, the government don't need *every* dentist to say something
> works to enact a law based on that. They just need a few [bribed] ones and
> a few [bribed/killed] ones shut up.
>
For a truly wack conspiracy, chew on this: In America, hairdressers and
beauticians must be licensed by the state. This means that government
controls how we look!! Soon we'll all have flattops and be goose-stepping in
line!!
Message no. 30
From: Da Twink Daddy datwinkdaddy@*******.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 1999 17:47:58 -0400 (EDT)
> > Well, that's what they _claim_ it is there for. Personally I don't belive
> > it. If it was possible to just drink floride and get the effect of a
> > floride treatment, dentists would just send you home with a bottle of
> > grape flovoured flouride and say take X much Y times a day for Z days.
>
> Um, they do that, or at least did that. I think that I had a floride treatment
> once or twice. Most of the time it was a mouthwash looking bottle with some
> flavor or other that you measured in the cap, swished and made sure you didn't
> swallow.

Well, okay. I've actually had it two different ways. 1) They fill a mold
with a flavoured gel of high-concentrate floride. They stick in your mouth
and you bite down. The gel is quite viscous so, the bottom of the mold
doesn't leak all that much. You keep this there for what seems like an
eternity. Then they so they spray/vaccuum thing to remove all the excess
floride from your mouth. (This is direct, effective contact directly with
the enamel.) or 2) They give you some pink/purple liquid that you rinse
with 3x daily just like mouthwash. DO NOT SWALLOW. This isn't nearly as
concentrated as the gel but it probably 400x as concentrated as florinated
water. (This also isn't as effective as a floride treatment w/ the gel and
dentist know this... so they only do the mouthwash stuff if you don't want
to come in every week and your teeth are _realllllllly_ crappy.)

Either treatment doesn't sound like a good argument for florinated water
for me.

Da Twink Daddy
e-mail: bss03@*******.uark.edu
ICQ: 514984
Message no. 31
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 18:39:52 -0400
At 08.50 09-01-99 -0500, you wrote:
>Now, to bring this back on topic, has anyone ever used this, or other
>"legend" in Shadowrun? If so what and how (background info, go steal

I was in a position to be part of a multi-GM "road trip" from LA to NYC.
(Play "Born to be Wild", and imaginge a merc convoy- a number of bikers on
point and flanks, a van on compass with a baby dragon hanging his head out
the window, a LandRover with a ork sticking his head out of the moonroof
and letting his hair whip in the wind, and a big rig with a half crazed
chemist "surfiing" on the roof of the trialier that has Don Quotixe painted
on the sides, all tearing full bore through the desert with enough
firepower to deal with ANY bandit force.)
I was planning on having them stop in Roswell, and meet a very strange
Johnson, and be asked to go to the old Nellis AF reservation (which
includes Area 51). Unfortunately, it never happened, so I nver did much
more than just come up with the idea.
If if they had, they would have wakened near the edge of NAN territory
with no memory of what they did or why they have a large assortment of gold
and gems in the vehilces.


Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."
Message no. 32
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 19:08:50 -0400
>once or twice. Most of the time it was a mouthwash looking bottle with some
>flavor or other that you measured in the cap, swished and made sure you
didn't
>swallow.

Yah, don't SWOLLOW is just the point I've been trying to make.


Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."
Message no. 33
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 19:12:10 -0400
OK, this getting REAL OT, so this my last post.

> Further, just because something is toxic to rats does *not* mean
>it produces the same effects in humans. This is why testing on lab

Rats respond similiar to humans to most chemicals, especially mind
altering and CNS affecting stuff.
BTW, if it wasn't toxic, why does everyone tell you not to swollow that
crap in school, and the toothpaste tube have a warning not to swollow? I
don't think anything else in Crest is particularly toxic. Now those
floridation levels are leaps and bounds above water supplies and the
warnings are thier primarily for little kids, but some toxins loose thier
effect at a geometric rate in relation to body mass as well.

>violent behavior. They respond with spontaneous violence to crowding and
>environmental stresses even *without* exposure to fluoride.

Yes, crowding psychosis. Not be ruled out, but rats treated with large
quantites of floride were much more suceptable.

>all read that bogus warning about aspartame. It's easy to exaggerate

Which one, that when flash vaporized it as some CNS effects?

>scientific *proof* that fluoridation of drinking water is a significant
>danger to humans (and I have yet to see any that wasn't thoroughly

Two points- who payed for the tests, and who lobbied for the addition of
floride to water supplies. Either industry or the FDA (never above taking
bribes or covering thier own ass), and industry (not dentists or the AMA)
respectively.
I did not intend to make it sound like I think there is a 100% conenction,
but when something is (a) treated like it is toxic (at least to little
kids), and is (b) used in rat killer, I'm leary of swollowing it in ANY
amount.
Also, a point about "psuedo-science"- that was a charge leveled against
Einstien, Newton, Galileo, Archemedies, various flight pioneers, the
Curies, and just about everyone else who has contributed to modern science.
The only thing more popular is "psudo-science"'s sister, "heresy".


Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."
Message no. 34
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Wed, 01 Sep 1999 21:16:13 -0400
At 19.12 09-01-99 -0400, IronRaven wrote:
>>all read that bogus warning about aspartame. It's easy to exaggerate
> Which one, that when flash vaporized it as some CNS effects?

Sorry, I was thinking Equal, not Sweet-and-Low. Actually, look at who
sponsored some of those early studies- the sugar companies. However,
feeding any animal it's own weight in anything for a month will kill it
some how.


Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."
Message no. 35
From: Marc Renouf renouf@********.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 11:07:25 -0400 (EDT)
On Wed, 1 Sep 1999, Da Twink Daddy wrote:

> Well, that's what they _claim_ it is there for. Personally I don't belive
> it. If it was possible to just drink floride and get the effect of a
> floride treatment, dentists would just send you home with a bottle of
> grape flovoured flouride and say take X much Y times a day for Z days.

Actually, they do. There are several ways to get enough floride
for your teeth. Drinking water is one of them. I live in an area where
the drinking water has floride. I have good teeth. I have *never* had a
floride treatment (gel or wash) form a dentist. Neither has anybody I
know. Why? Because we don't need it. Why? Because we get it from the
drinking water.

> I live in an area with florinated water, and I have to get flouride
> treatments every 2-3 years. Sure, maybe it's not as often as every 6 mo.
> but I still can't belive that has anything to do with the water. (I think
> it's my florinated toothpaste -- direct contact with the enamel.)

See my above comment. Maybe your area doesn't do it enough.

> Saying the trace ammounts in the water you drink can help you teeth is
> fairly ludacris <sp>. If you belive in homeopathic solutions than, sure; I
> don't.

It's spelled "ludicrous," but until you can give me a reasonable
argument (i.e. backed by some evidence) that says that regular (daily)
exposure to a smaller amount of floride doesn't help one's teeth, you have
no basis for that statement. Perhaps you should instead say that you
*believe* it's ludicrous, not that it *is*.

> > If there's a conspiracy afoot, you must realize that that means
> > that *every* dentist in America is in on it.
>
> Not really, the government don't need *every* dentist to say something
> works to enact a law based on that. They just need a few [bribed] ones and
> a few [bribed/killed] ones shut up.

Yeah. And Abraham Zapruder worked for the KGB.

> > It's easy to lie with pseudo-science. Being net-denizens we've
> > all read that bogus warning about aspartame.
>
> Hey the aspartame thing is true. You just have to understand that the
> amount of aspertame in a packet [or box] of sweetener is <<< [much much
> less than] the amount of aspartame they were giving the rats. (of course
> scaled to human wieghts.) [Kinda like the Yellow5 tests.]

That's more or less exactly my point. If you get three orders of
magnitude more of *anything* it can and probably will kill you. Hell, if
you drink too much freakin' distilled, pure, fresh water it can kill you.
Does this mean that water is toxic? Should I avoid even trace amounts of
it?
Further, the aspartame thing is *not* true in a number of ways.
It directly linked aspartame to a number of specific health problems in a
causal role. These "findings" were totally unfounded. Like I said, it's
easy to lie with pseudo-science.

Marc
Message no. 36
From: Da Twink Daddy datwinkdaddy@*******.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Thu, 2 Sep 1999 12:10:47 -0500 (CDT)
> > Saying the trace amounts in the water you drink can help you teeth is
> > fairly ludicrous <sp>. If you believe in homeopathic solutions than, sure;
I
> > don't.
>
> It's spelled "ludicrous," but until you can give me a reasonable
> argument (i.e. backed by some evidence) that says that regular (daily)
> exposure to a smaller amount of fluoride doesn't help one's teeth, you have
> no basis for that statement. Perhaps you should instead say that you
> *believe* it's ludicrous, not that it *is*.

You are very right there. I don't have the authority to declare anything
ludicrous. I don't agree with most of your message but, I really don't
think either of us has a *solid* argument so, this is probably the last
I'll post on the subject. [I concede the point that is may or may not be
ludicrous.]

> > Hey the aspartame thing is true. You just have to understand that the
> > amount of aspertame in a packet [or box] of sweetener is <<< [much much
> > less than] the amount of aspartame they were giving the rats. (of course
> > scaled to human weights.) [Kind of like the Yellow5 tests.]
>
> That's more or less exactly my point. If you get three orders of
> magnitude more of *anything* it can and probably will kill you. Hell, if

True.

> you drink too much freakin' distilled, pure, fresh water it can kill you.
> Does this mean that water is toxic? Should I avoid even trace amounts of
> it?

No, but IIRC, the fluoride was given in the *tests* as small amounts.
Probably equal to swallowing your toothpaste every day. [So, yes > maybe
even >> than the amount in fluorinated water.]

> Further, the aspartame thing is *not* true in a number of ways.
> It directly linked aspartame to a number of specific health problems in a
> causal role. These "findings" were totally unfounded. Like I said, it's
> easy to lie with pseudo-science.

True, many people use the findings as reasons to actively avoid aspartame
and claim that it'll do every thing from cause cancer to blind you. Me, I
know the real findings (aka "If I feed a rat it's body weight in
chemicals per day for a week, it dies.") so I'm not worried about the
effect of it on me.

Da Twink Daddy
e-mail: bss03@*******.uark.edu
ICQ: 514984
Message no. 37
From: Thomas thomas041179@***.de
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 14:54:11 +0200
> At 17.22 08-31-99 -0700, you wrote:
> >I have....damn. Wonder what else they ain't telling.
>
> JFK, RFK, JFK jr, Roswell, Socorro, a destroyer in the harbor in Philly,
> stealth, anti-gravity, the moon shots, the space shuttle, a few hundred
> tests on the US population of low-level chemical and biological weapons,
> radiation exposures, MArylin Monroe, Elvis, Mr Hoffa, Hitler, Einstien, a
> few dozen highly sensationalized shootings, water floridation (floride
has
> only two uses- one is as a dental clenser, one is as a component of rat
> poison, where it effects certain portions of the brain, including those
for
> rational behavior), hypersonic aircraft, cloning, cybernetics, true
magics,
> mad cow desiese, certain vacines and who that cigerette smoking man is.

If the USA is so powerful, I just don't believ, they are not capable of
getting a City-map in which all chinese embassys are marked with DONT BOMB
THAT ONE
Message no. 38
From: Thomas thomas041179@***.de
Subject: AW: Second Hand
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 15:01:48 +0200
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

> At 08.50 09-01-99 -0500, you wrote:
> >Now, to bring this back on topic, has anyone ever used this, or
other
> >"legend" in Shadowrun? If so what and how (background info, go
steal

I´m using Lord of the Rings
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i

iQA/AwUBN8+2xx9VNWwCaFLIEQLj/ACg02l7ipFcKTAuWP+khkT5v6OWRDkAnjl/
FIKymJjAxnC7jRNpB2qgvJT7
=d/qm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Message no. 39
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 10:39:01 -0400
At 14.54 09-03-99 +0200, you wrote:
>getting a City-map in which all chinese embassys are marked with DONT BOMB
>THAT ONE

Offically, it was an accident.
One that occured within two months of a ChiCom sponsered spies being found
(in theory) at a nuclear lab, the reniging on the part of the Chinese on a
mionr promise about the treatment of "thought prisoners", a nasty little
game around Taiwan, a threat to Taiwan, the start of trade talks, a failure
to crack down on copyright pirates as they had promised at the last trade
talks, and other problems.
If that reallywas an "oops", you'll be able to knock me over with a
fether, becuase I will be quite physcially stunned. No one who can talk
off the record beleives it was an accident. It was a message. "Don't ****
with US."



Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."
Message no. 40
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 10:39:40 -0400
At 14.54 09-03-99 +0200, you wrote:
>getting a City-map in which all chinese embassys are marked with DONT BOMB
>THAT ONE

Offically, it was an accident.
One that occured within two months of a ChiCom sponsered spies being found
(in theory) at a nuclear lab, the reniging on the part of the Chinese on a
mionr promise about the treatment of "thought prisoners", a nasty little
game around Taiwan, a threat to Taiwan, the start of trade talks, a failure
to crack down on copyright pirates as they had promised at the last trade
talks, and other problems.
If that reallywas an "oops", you'll be able to knock me over with a
fether, becuase I will be quite physcially stunned. No one who can talk
off the record beleives it was an accident. It was a message. "Don't ****
with US."


Also, some of the things I mentioned are rather tounge in cheek, but maybe
only to Americans.



Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."
Message no. 41
From: Sommers sommers@*****.edu
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 11:47:54 -0400
At 10:39 AM 9/3/99 -0400, you wrote:
>At 14.54 09-03-99 +0200, you wrote:
> >getting a City-map in which all chinese embassys are marked with DONT BOMB
> >THAT ONE
>
> Offically, it was an accident.

Yup. And it looks like it was at least 3 different groups in the government
that screwed up.

> One that occured within two months of a ChiCom sponsered spies
> being found
>(in theory) at a nuclear lab, the reniging on the part of the Chinese on a
>mionr promise about the treatment of "thought prisoners", a nasty little
>game around Taiwan, a threat to Taiwan, the start of trade talks, a failure
>to crack down on copyright pirates as they had promised at the last trade
>talks, and other problems.

Lots of problems with China right now. Part of their problem is Money.
Their economy is slowing down, its estimated that about 40% of their banks
are technically insolvent, 40% of wages are tied up in low interest savings
accounts, and the government is starting to run up big debts trying to kick
start domestic spending.

Add on to that the worry of top leaders that economic downturn might lead
to social revolt, the thought that there might be 2 Chinas after all, and a
perceived problem that they are not being treated as the world power they
believe themselves to be, and the leadership is not happy.

They're letting it show.

> If that reallywas an "oops", you'll be able to knock me over with a
>fether, becuase I will be quite physcially stunned. No one who can talk
>off the record beleives it was an accident. It was a message. "Don't ****
>with US."

I would be incredibly stunned if it was anything BUT an accident. It was a
message to China that we screwed up because we didn't have good intel. If
it was anything else but, Clinton wouldn't have spent weeks grovelling to
them for forgiveness. If anything, it weakened our position with them,
because we were seen as losing a lot of face in the strike. Great PR value
for the Chinese.

If you are the US president and you want to send a clear message to a
country, you park a small fleet in the Straits of Taiwan to conduct
"Excercises" with Taiwan. You tell Congress that under the current
leadership you do not believe that China should be admitted to GATT. You
even threaten to revoke MFN status.

You don't pull a complete cluster**** like the embassy hit.

>Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
>http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
>"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
>Dismemberment."
>"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
>your philosophy."

Trying to come back On Topic to SR, how about screw-ups in running? Not
that everything went FUBAR, but there was some clerical error. Mr. Johnson
wants all of the material in locker 3-B at that Ares place up the street.
Problem is, it was supposed to be locker 3-D, but his boss screwed up the
handwriting. Or when they're renovating the local Novatech R&D to the best
defenses, some guy accidentally deletes part of the blueprints and a small
wall in the underground garage leads right into the place.

And I keep thinking how many runs have the potential to go just like "Lock,
Stock and Two Smoking Barrels."


Sommers
Insert witty quote here.
Message no. 42
From: Mark Fender markf@******.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 10:52:25 -0500
> > >Now, to bring this back on topic, has anyone ever used this, or
> other
> > >"legend" in Shadowrun? If so what and how (background info, go
> steal
>
> I´m using Lord of the Rings
>
So, the One Ring must be dropped into the Renraku reactor core? You're
gonna' have to expand that.
Message no. 43
From: David Yiannakos yiannako@*******.edu
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 12:40:03 -0400
<SNIP>
| And I keep thinking how many runs have the potential to go just like
"Lock,
| Stock and Two Smoking Barrels."
|
|
| Sommers
| Insert witty quote here.


Loved that movie. I just about fell out of my seat laughing. And it'd be
great fun if more runs went like that. I'd love to play in it.
Besides it ended up okay for the heros. "Well it seems that all the bad guys
are dead, we've got the money, and as far as I can tell, we haven't done
anything wrong."

---Dave ('s not here man)
Message no. 44
From: Wolfchild nathan.olsen@*******.msus.edu
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 12:47:15 -0500 (CDT)
On Fri, 3 Sep 1999, Sommers wrote:

> Trying to come back On Topic to SR, how about screw-ups in running? Not
> that everything went FUBAR, but there was some clerical error. Mr. Johnson
> wants all of the material in locker 3-B at that Ares place up the street.
> Problem is, it was supposed to be locker 3-D, but his boss screwed up the
> handwriting. Or when they're renovating the local Novatech R&D to the best
> defenses, some guy accidentally deletes part of the blueprints and a small
> wall in the underground garage leads right into the place.

Can't say we've ever had one of these, not to *my* knowledge anyways. We
just get situations where a couple runners end up running naked through an
international airport (unintentially).

GM makes us roll perception to see the completely naked shadowrunners
sprinting through the main terminal followed by airport security:

1 success: "You know that something is there, but little else"
2 successes: "You know something is definitely there, and suspect what
kind of thing it is"
3 successes: "You know what kind of thing it is and suspect its exact
nature"
4 successes: "You know what it is but have no specifics without further
examination"

*sounds of uncontrolled laughter*

And sadly, the run just went downhill from there.



Wolfchild - "Life ain't easy for a troll named Sue."
--
"Quin tu istanc orationem hinc veterem atque|"Let us spend one day as
antiquam amoves?" -Plautus, Miles Gloriosus|deliberately as Nature. . .
--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--|and not be thrown off the
"There are nights when the wolves are silent|track by every nutshell and
and only the moon howls." -George Carlin |mosquito's wing that falls on
Wolfchild <nathan.olsen@*******.msus.edu> |the rails." -H.D.Thoreau
Message no. 45
From: Thomas thomas041179@***.de
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 19:36:09 +0200
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


> If you are the US president and you want to send a clear message to
a
> country, you park a small fleet in the Straits of Taiwan to conduct
> "Excercises" with Taiwan. You tell Congress that under the current
> leadership you do not believe that China should be admitted to GATT.
You
> even threaten to revoke MFN status.

How often have the US tried to talk sombody into something?? Sure it
was a PR loss for the US, but nontheless I think the message was the
ultimate warning. Perhaps it will not change the chinese attitude, but
it states, that the US doesn't give a **** about PR, or the live of
innocents. This message was (in my opinion) not only delivered to the
chinese, but more to the whole world.
*******************************************
*DONT **** with us, becaues we will *
*bomb your embasies, napalm you *
* childrend and nuke your cities *
*******************************************
*
*
*
*
*
They also could have stuck this or a similar sign into the scatterd
chines embasies.
I'm sorry if I have offended any US-Citizens with this post

I'm also sorry, that I didn't come back to SR with this post


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i

iQA/AwUBN8/3EB9VNWwCaFLIEQJxugCgi6QocrdfI45XmhQKhn65fbTBEuwAoJt3
OXeKLA+ykvgfWbc9mcBLlkbs
=xZZx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Message no. 46
From: Thomas thomas041179@***.de
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 19:36:37 +0200
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


> > > >Now, to bring this back on topic, has anyone ever used this, or
> > other
> > > >"legend" in Shadowrun? If so what and how (background info,
go
> > steal
> >
> > I´m using Lord of the Rings
> >
> So, the One Ring must be dropped into the Renraku reactor core?
You're
> gonna' have to expand that.

Not exactly, neither any of my NPCs is called Mithrandir. But the
general idea is to give the characters on of the great rings (most
probably Elronds) which makes the one who wears it invulnerable
against the insect-spirits. Then the whole world (Atztechnology
(leaded by one of the horrors), an alliance of the other corps, the
dragons and the elves) wants to have this rings. With the help of the
corp-alliance they will fight the insects and fullfill a quest to the
meta-plane of the insects. There will be a battle between mankind and
the insects. Most probably the charakters will not survive, but they
will manage to close the gap between the metaplane of the insects and
our world. So they traded their lives for some time, which mankind
will use (and need) to prepare for the upcoming war...

I know this would mean a sever change of the timeline, but as FASA so
often says: It's your game! Do with it what you want...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.0.2i

iQA/AwUBN8/yoB9VNWwCaFLIEQL96QCgwE4dDFM/CxVb6HaVedB/Y4yP9d0AoNhy
vnXfuqH3Q8HzGXeoCYi1EPJp
=Qslz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Message no. 47
From: Walter Scheper Ratlaw@*******.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 12:26:35 +0000 (GMT)
On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 10:39:40 -0400, IronRaven
<cyberraven@********.net> wrote:

>At 14.54 09-03-99 +0200, you wrote:
>>getting a City-map in which all chinese embassys are marked with DONT BOMB
>>THAT ONE
>
> Offically, it was an accident.
> One that occured within two months of a ChiCom sponsered spies being found
>(in theory) at a nuclear lab, the reniging on the part of the Chinese on a
>mionr promise about the treatment of "thought prisoners", a nasty little
>game around Taiwan, a threat to Taiwan, the start of trade talks, a failure
>to crack down on copyright pirates as they had promised at the last trade
>talks, and other problems.
> If that reallywas an "oops", you'll be able to knock me over with a
>fether, becuase I will be quite physcially stunned. No one who can talk
>off the record beleives it was an accident. It was a message. "Don't ****
>with US."
>
I heard that the CIA picked that target and only that target, and that
some people from China who might be of particular interest to the
intelligence community were in the embassy at the time. Course this
is all unconfirmed on my part, but if it were true then it would make
a lot of sense, especially in light of the Cox Report.

Walter
Message no. 48
From: Robert Blackberg Robert.Blackberg@***.fiserv.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 14:33:53 -0400
>>> Walter Scheper <Ratlaw@*******.com> 09/03/99 08:26AM >>>
>On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 10:39:40 -0400, IronRaven
><cyberraven@********.net> wrote:

>>At 14.54 09-03-99 +0200, you wrote:
>>>getting a City-map in which all chinese embassys are marked with DONT BOMB
>>>THAT ONE
>>
>> Offically, it was an accident.
>> One that occured within two months of a ChiCom sponsered spies being found
>>(in theory) at a nuclear lab, the reniging on the part of the Chinese on a
>>mionr promise about the treatment of "thought prisoners", a nasty little
>>game around Taiwan, a threat to Taiwan, the start of trade talks, a failure
>>to crack down on copyright pirates as they had promised at the last trade
>>talks, and other problems.
>> If that reallywas an "oops", you'll be able to knock me over with a
>>fether, becuase I will be quite physcially stunned. No one who can talk
>>off the record beleives it was an accident. It was a message. "Don't ****
>>with US."
>>
>I heard that the CIA picked that target and only that target, and that
>some people from China who might be of particular interest to the
>intelligence community were in the embassy at the time. Course this
>is all unconfirmed on my part, but if it were true then it would make
>a lot of sense, especially in light of the Cox Report.

>Walter


Paranoia runs rampant...and the ShadowRN listmembers are there!

Ya gotta love the Internet.

Come on folks, back to Shadowrun. :-)

Robert (no cool tagline, just a plain line____________)
Message no. 49
From: Sommers sommers@*****.edu
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 14:38:18 -0400
At 07:36 PM 9/3/99 +0200, Thomas wrote:

> > If you are the US president and you want to send a clear message to
>a
> > country, you park a small fleet in the Straits of Taiwan to conduct
> > "Excercises" with Taiwan. You tell Congress that under the current
> > leadership you do not believe that China should be admitted to GATT.
>You
> > even threaten to revoke MFN status.
>
>How often have the US tried to talk sombody into something?? Sure it
>was a PR loss for the US, but nontheless I think the message was the
>ultimate warning. Perhaps it will not change the chinese attitude, but
>it states, that the US doesn't give a **** about PR, or the live of
>innocents. This message was (in my opinion) not only delivered to the
>chinese, but more to the whole world.

I could believe that it was deliberate, and meant to send a message to the
Chinese not to screw with the US, except for one thing. It doesn't make
sense. If you want to send this message that the US is bad and is not going
to take any more ****, you do the deed and afterwards send to the Chinese
embassy in the US "Sorry about the mistake. Never happen again." And you
drop it.

You don't have the Press Secretary get up there and explain how horrible a
mistake it was and how sorry we are. You don't have generals from the
Pentagon and analysts from the CIA get up and explain exactly where the
chain broke down, and how the target was selected wrong. Most importantly,
the President of the US does not publicly call the Chinese Premiere and
apologize not once, not twice, but three times!

If you're a thief and hold someone up with a gun, you don't apologize
afterwards and ask if there is anything you can do to make it up to him. If
you're the US government and want to tell the world that you're a mean SOB,
you don't get up there after and apologize for two weeks explaining why it
was a big tragedy and mistake.

>I'm sorry if I have offended any US-Citizens with this post

Its not that I'm offended by the post. The problem is you're attributing to
malice and outright hostility that which was caused by accident. I think
you're giving too much credit to the government for their ability to keep
stuff covered up, and not enough credit for believing that the government
is that bloodthirsty.

Sommers
Insert witty quote here.
Message no. 50
From: Sommers sommers@*****.edu
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 14:50:35 -0400
At 12:26 PM 9/3/99 +0000, you wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Sep 1999 10:39:40 -0400, IronRaven
><cyberraven@********.net> wrote:
>
> >At 14.54 09-03-99 +0200, you wrote:
> >>getting a City-map in which all chinese embassys are marked with DONT BOMB
> >>THAT ONE
> >
> > Offically, it was an accident.
> > One that occured within two months of a ChiCom sponsered spies
> being found
> >(in theory) at a nuclear lab, the reniging on the part of the Chinese on a
> >mionr promise about the treatment of "thought prisoners", a nasty
little
> >game around Taiwan, a threat to Taiwan, the start of trade talks, a failure
> >to crack down on copyright pirates as they had promised at the last trade
> >talks, and other problems.
> > If that reallywas an "oops", you'll be able to knock me over
with a
> >fether, becuase I will be quite physcially stunned. No one who can talk
> >off the record beleives it was an accident. It was a message. "Don't ****
> >with US."
> >
>I heard that the CIA picked that target and only that target, and that
>some people from China who might be of particular interest to the
>intelligence community were in the embassy at the time. Course this
>is all unconfirmed on my part, but if it were true then it would make
>a lot of sense, especially in light of the Cox Report.

The CIA picked that target and only that target, because they are the
Intelligence Agency of the US and are supposed to tell the guys with the
bombs what would be good to blow up. That's like assuming that the Air
Force wanted it blown up because they wanted to blow up that and only that
target because they dropped the bomb. Its their job.

As to how it happened, it went something like this. Two big mistakes were
made. First, the actual target was supposed to be the headquarters for the
Yugoslav armies quartermaster corp (IIRC, but it was something like that).
It was a valid military target. The problem was that the maps of that part
of town were out of date, and so they had the right address but were
looking at the wrong street on the maps of the city. So it wasn't going to
hit the correct target, but some other building.

The other problem was that the Chinese embassy had just moved in the last 2
years from their old site down the street a few blocks to their new
location. This happened to be the same location that the planners had just
misidentified. But the CIA had missed that bit of information and were
still under the assumption that the embassy was blocks away.

Neither one of these errors were caught while going through the target
selection process, even though it was being checked multiple times for
accuracy. The problem was that the base information that they were relying
on to check against was off.

As an aside, both the CIA and State Department were both flooded the next
day with exact, updated locations for every embassy and consulate in the
city, from their respective countries...


Sommers
Insert witty quote here.
Message no. 51
From: Schizi@***.com Schizi@***.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Fri, 3 Sep 1999 15:37:53 EDT
In a message dated 9/3/99 2:51:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, sommers@*****.edu
writes:

> As an aside, both the CIA and State Department were both flooded the next
> day with exact, updated locations for every embassy and consulate in the
> city, from their respective countries...
>
So, you're saying that the US bombed the Chinese Embassy to get the exact
locations of other embassies that they DO care about?
:-)
(j/k)
Message no. 52
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 16:00:15 -0400
>I would be incredibly stunned if it was anything BUT an accident. It was a

I'm not saying it was bright- infact, it borders on stupidity. I would
not be suprised if was something that was mentioned jokingly, got taken out
of context, and some paper pusher decided it should be implemented.
However, I doubt that it the bombs were released int he wrong place.

>You don't pull a complete cluster**** like the embassy hit.

Like a said, purposeful, but not very bright.

>Trying to come back On Topic to SR, how about screw-ups in running? Not
>that everything went FUBAR, but there was some clerical error. Mr. Johnson

Like the time we forgot the C-12 to blow the lock, and everyone thought
someone else had grabbed it. We had to go home, explain to the J what had
gone wrong, and had to wait three weeks for the weather conditions to be
right. Took a 75% pay cut for it, too.
Or the time we grabbed the wrong suitcase, so instead of getting the
protype plans, we got black leather <cough> "play clothes", and had to go
back into the building. ("Look BEFORE we leave the room, BEFORE!!!")


Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."
Message no. 53
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 16:18:20 -0400
At 14.50 09-03-99 -0400, you wrote:
>misidentified. But the CIA had missed that bit of information and were
>still under the assumption that the embassy was blocks away.

OK, Sommers, you just go right on thinking that. <g>
Embassies are marked real clear when ever you stat playing with
airstrikes, becuase those kinds of OOPSes are an act of war. Thier
locations aren't classified, they are public knowledge, and prominently
marked on planning maps. And contrary to popular opinion, the Agency isn't
incompitent, only the politically appointed managers are.
When we can strike a target next to the Russian embasy and not even thier
rattle thier dishes, I find it hard that same night would result in this
kind of error.



Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."
Message no. 54
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 16:32:18 -0400
At 14.38 09-03-99 -0400, you wrote:
>I could believe that it was deliberate, and meant to send a message to the
>Chinese not to screw with the US, except for one thing. It doesn't make

Sommers, it's an act of war. The PRC could legally retailiate in any
method they felt like.
They know what it was, the US knows what it was, the UN knows what it was,
but no one is going to admit it in public for that reason.

>the President of the US does not publicly call the Chinese Premiere and
>apologize not once, not twice, but three times!

It's the PR game. We have, in action, declared war on China. We are not
a possision to be able to execute that option, and the public would not
support it. So, we cover our ass and hope they don't sink one of our
carriers. Expect to see something of ours blown up by someone with
connections to China within a year.

>If you're a thief and hold someone up with a gun, you don't apologize
>afterwards and ask if there is anything you can do to make it up to him. If

It's called community service is handed out in every court in this
country, and every day, and for crimes much more significant that just
criminal threatening and robbery.



Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."
Message no. 55
From: Sommers sommers@*****.edu
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 17:02:10 -0400
At 04:18 PM 9/3/99 -0400, you wrote:
>At 14.50 09-03-99 -0400, you wrote:
> >misidentified. But the CIA had missed that bit of information and were
> >still under the assumption that the embassy was blocks away.
>
> OK, Sommers, you just go right on thinking that. <g>

Unless some clear evidence come up to the contrary, that's all I can. And
if you say that it won't because the cover-up is that good, its really hard
to cover up the cause of something that made every paper in the world for 2
weeks.

> Embassies are marked real clear when ever you stat playing with
>airstrikes, becuase those kinds of OOPSes are an act of war. Thier
>locations aren't classified, they are public knowledge, and prominently
>marked on planning maps. And contrary to popular opinion, the Agency isn't
>incompitent, only the politically appointed managers are.

The embassies are very clearly marked on the maps, and are given to the
planners who decide what to bomb. And the locations are not classified, and
are marked on the planning maps. The part you have to remember is that
someone has to mark up those maps in the first place.

There are something like 142 countries that have webpages, meaning that
they have some presence outside of their country. So lets say 150 of them
have embassies outside of their countries. Each country has only one
embassy in every other country. That's over 22,000 embassies world-wide!
The CIA and State department don't just have to keep track of the Chinese
embassy in Yugoslavia, they have to have updates on where 150 or so of them
are.

I don't think that they're incompetent. I do think that with that many
different sites to keep track of (not to mention consulates and other
buildings), its entirely possible that every time one of them moves there
is a lag between the move and when the maps get updated.

> When we can strike a target next to the Russian embasy and not
> even thier
>rattle thier dishes, I find it hard that same night would result in this
>kind of error.

One doesn't have anything to do with the other. As far as is know, the
bombs that hit the embassy were right on target. The problem wasn't with
the tech, it was with the human planning that assigned the target in the
first place.

>Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
>http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
>"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
>Dismemberment."
>"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
>your philosophy."


Sommers
Insert witty quote here.
Message no. 56
From: Sommers sommers@*****.edu
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 17:20:20 -0400
At 04:32 PM 9/3/99 -0400, you wrote:
>At 14.38 09-03-99 -0400, you wrote:
> >I could believe that it was deliberate, and meant to send a message to the
> >Chinese not to screw with the US, except for one thing. It doesn't make
>
> Sommers, it's an act of war. The PRC could legally retailiate in any
>method they felt like.
> They know what it was, the US knows what it was, the UN knows
> what it was,
>but no one is going to admit it in public for that reason.

Yes it could be considered an act of war. China could publicly declare war
on the US and have every right to do so. Then we would declare war on them
and it would get very messy. But they can't legally do anything to us other
than sue for compensation for the building and the 4 people killed. And
we've already promised them that.

But if we were starting something we would actually have to deliver to them
an declaration of war. Accidents like this, and much bigger ones, do happen
and do not lead to wars or other retaliation.

> >the President of the US does not publicly call the Chinese Premiere and
> >apologize not once, not twice, but three times!
>
> It's the PR game. We have, in action, declared war on China. We
> are not
>a possision to be able to execute that option, and the public would not
>support it. So, we cover our ass and hope they don't sink one of our
>carriers. Expect to see something of ours blown up by someone with
>connections to China within a year.

First, the only thing that can be considered an action that declares war on
China is to walk up to them and say that we are at war with them. Anything
else is just provoking them into war. Which we were not doing because a)
there would be no support for it and b) there is no reason for it. There is
a big difference between strained relations between countries leading to
tariffs, loss of technology transfers, and the potential loss of markets,
and open warfare.

Second, the Chinese don't have anything that could sink a carrier. They
have a brown water Navy with 1 (!) submarine, and a large air force with
poorly trained pilots. They have good missiles, but they have to get them
launched first. There was a really good article in Time over the summer
that detailed the Chinese forces.

Third, the Chinese will not blow up anything of the US in the next year. We
blew up their embassy in the middle of a war. They aren't in any wars right
now. Anything they could touch is within their borders, in which case its
probably pretty obvious that they did it. That doesn't mean they can't
screw with us politically, like in the Security Council with votes on Iraq,
or similar things. But they won't rock the boat too much because of items
such as GATT.

Fourth, the reason that the Chinese got so worked up about it is because of
internal politics. They are having a lot more dissent again, and needed
something to focus attention on besides a lot of failed policies by the
present government. Nothing like whipping up furor against those Western
Imperialists. :)

Hell, for that matter, I could more easily see a conspiracy from the
Chinese. They purposefully move their embassy and don't make it known to
the CIA so that something like this can happen and they can wring
concessions from us later.

> >If you're a thief and hold someone up with a gun, you don't apologize
> >afterwards and ask if there is anything you can do to make it up to him. If
>
> It's called community service is handed out in every court in this
>country, and every day, and for crimes much more significant that just
>criminal threatening and robbery.

That's not what I meant. What I did mean was that it doesn't make much
sense to threaten someone, try to send a very imposing and gruff message,
and then back down and get all apologetic about the whole thing. It makes
you look worse than you did before the whole thing started, because you've
just undercut yourself.

>Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
>http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
>"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
>Dismemberment."
>"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
>your philosophy."



Sommers
Insert witty quote here.
Message no. 57
From: Sommers sommers@*****.edu
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 1999 17:26:45 -0400
At 03:37 PM 9/3/99 -0400, you wrote:
>In a message dated 9/3/99 2:51:18 PM Eastern Daylight Time, sommers@*****.edu
>writes:
>
> > As an aside, both the CIA and State Department were both flooded the next
> > day with exact, updated locations for every embassy and consulate in the
> > city, from their respective countries...
> >
>So, you're saying that the US bombed the Chinese Embassy to get the exact
>locations of other embassies that they DO care about?
>:-)
>(j/k)


More like the middle of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. Indy is dressed
up like the Ticket Taker on the blimp and throws the Nazi out the window.
Turns to the passengers and says "No ticket." At which point they can't
give them their tickets quick enough.

Same effect. :)


Sommers
Insert witty quote here.
Message no. 58
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 11:44:15 +0200
According to Mark Fender, at 10:52 on 3 Sep 99, the word on
the street was...

> > I´m using Lord of the Rings
> >
> So, the One Ring must be dropped into the Renraku reactor core? You're
> gonna' have to expand that.

I used that as the basis for a Paranoia adventure. The PCs got the
assignment of chucking an item whose name abbreviated to ONERING (but I
only gave them the full name) to a reactor in MDR sector; one of the NPCs
encountered was called El-R-OND, etc.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
De plaag is terug...!
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 59
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 13:30:39 +0100
In article <37CC8445.ECCC7791@*********.com>, Iridios
<iridios@*********.com> writes
>The U.S. Dept. of War (now the Defense Dept.),in the late '40s was
>trying to develop a stealth technology for naval vessels (primarily).
>Exact details of how they were trying is sketchy but popular theory
>suggests that they were trying to "bend" light or maybe just bend
>radar signals by generating a large EM field.

Actually they were just degaussing it - the only things it would have been
"invisible" to were magnetic mines...

>Now the Defense
>Dept. still says there was no such experiment, and any documentation
>that leads back to it or any heavily involved personnel are blacked
>out big time. So what are they hiding?

Probably just the serious secrecy the US invoked about magnetic exploders
and their countermeasures back in WW2. (The saga of the Mark 6
Exploder and the Mark 14 torpedo springs to mind...)

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 60
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 13:33:44 +0100
In article <4.2.0.58.19990903170229.00969860@*****.engin.umich.edu>,
Sommers <sommers@*****.edu> writes
>Second, the Chinese don't have anything that could sink a carrier. They
>have a brown water Navy with 1 (!) submarine,

One Xia-class ballistic missile submarine, noisy and unreliable. Several Han-
class nuclear-powered hunter-killers, likewise - maybe equivalent to fUSSR
Victor Is. Three Kilo-class patrol submarines, badly trained crews, one still
in refit after they damaged it. A large fleet of elderly Romeo-class patrol
submarines, of extremely questionable serviceability and little combat use.


--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 61
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 13:50:10 +0100
In article <3.0.3.32.19990901191210.00a56f5c@***.softhome.net>,
IronRaven <cyberraven@********.net> writes
> Also, a point about "psuedo-science"- that was a charge leveled
against
>Einstien, Newton, Galileo, Archemedies, various flight pioneers, the
>Curies, and just about everyone else who has contributed to modern science.
> The only thing more popular is "psudo-science"'s sister,
"heresy".

Science is - typically - observing an effect, then identifying the causes.
Pseudoscience is the bargain-basement version of that - "I let my cat out
at night, the sun rises in the morning, therefore letting my cat out causes
the sun to rise" :)

Einstein's theories, like the others you mention, stood up because they
could be observed and verified independently, and especially because they
not only explained but predicted. The element scandium, the existence of
Pluto, are two examples.


--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 62
From: Airwasp@***.com Airwasp@***.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 09:28:00 EDT
In a message dated 9/3/99 9:11:21 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
thomas041179@***.de writes:

> > JFK, RFK, JFK jr, Roswell, Socorro, a destroyer in the harbor in Philly,
> > stealth, anti-gravity, the moon shots, the space shuttle, a few hundred
> > tests on the US population of low-level chemical and biological weapons,
> > radiation exposures, MArylin Monroe, Elvis, Mr Hoffa, Hitler, Einstien, a
> > few dozen highly sensationalized shootings, water floridation (floride
> has
> > only two uses- one is as a dental clenser, one is as a component of rat
> > poison, where it effects certain portions of the brain, including those
> for
> > rational behavior), hypersonic aircraft, cloning, cybernetics, true
> magics,
> > mad cow desiese, certain vacines and who that cigerette smoking man is.
>
> If the USA is so powerful, I just don't believ, they are not capable of
> getting a City-map in which all chinese embassys are marked with DONT BOMB
> THAT ONE

<Rant Mode Engaged>

Because we are not perfect like the rest of the world expects us to be, after
all, we are also human too, unless everyone in the USA has been reclassified
as Homo Americanus.

Besides, personally, being an American, I am tired of seeing the USA having
to be the nation which solves a lot of the problems of the world, especially
those of the European nations too. I know it is an attitude that we have
taken to be the policenation of the world but everyone else needs to grab
themselves by their own bootstraps and deal with the problems which affect
them even more.

Sure, the entire operation was a NATO one, but the situation in Kosovo
affected Europe far more than it did the USA. What did Europe do? A lot of
negotiations, and then NATO stepped in. Since the USA has the largest
presence in NATO we made up the bulk of the forces.

I do want to thank the other member nations of NATO that did send forces into
Kosovo for sending in what they did. But, IMO, Europe needs to do a lot more
to protect their own security interests nearest themselves on their own.

Perhaps then I will have even more respect for their leaders and their forms
of government, but that also highlights something else too. Europe is still
very bound by tradition, and by tradition, Europe, IMO, has always reacted
slowly and when they have, it was sometimes too late.

<End Rant>

My apologies, but I am tired of being crucified just because I'm an American
and damn proud to be one too. And just so some of you know, I lived in
Europe (Spain and Italy) for 15+ years when my father served in US Navy, so I
do know some of what I am talking about.

-Michael Bobroff
Message no. 63
From: Martin Murray martin.murray@**********.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 15:13:24 +0100
> <Rant Mode Engaged>
>
> Because we are not perfect like the rest of the world expects us to be,
after
> all, we are also human too, unless everyone in the USA has been
reclassified
> as Homo Americanus.
>


If I may, I'd like to add a little color to your statements. IMHO most
European's views of Americans (good and bad) come from the mouths of
Americans. As a whole I would classify the USA as a proud nation, not one to
shirk from its obligations. This pride (rightly or wrongly) often
translates itself as downright arrogance and this is where a lot of subtle
resentment comes from. I think every European has a stereotype of Americans
as loud camera-wielding tourists who have very different views and attitudes
to themselves. For the record this is not my view.

As to your point about Europe needing to sort out its own disputes, I have
only really one thing to say. The US has a history of involvement in
so-called internal problems. This, I believe stems from the fact that it is
the single most powerful nation on earth. With this power comes the
responsibility to wield it in a just manner. I think it would be fair to say
that some disputes that America (and others) have got involved in, in the
past, were really none of their business, but yet their generally just
nature obligated them to become invloved. Cynics out there will point out,
that wars only seem to start for economic reasons, oil and suchlike, this is
probably true, but most 'Western' nations have stable economies and don't
want to see them upset. If a wholescale war were to break out in the
Balkans, who is to say some small nuclear capable nation might not get
involved. A war in Europe would be disastrous for the whole planet, not just
Europe. That is why America has a certain amount of responsibility. I for
one am glad they do. Where would the world be if China, for argument's sake,
wielded the same amount of power and might. Up the creek, I'd say.

MJM
Message no. 64
From: Arclight arclight@*********.de
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 19:12:25 +0200
And finally, Michael Bobroff expressed himself by writing:

> <Rant Mode Engaged>

<snip>

> Besides, personally, being an American, I am tired of seeing the
> USA having
> to be the nation which solves a lot of the problems of the
> world, especially
> those of the European nations too.

<snip>

IMO these things come with being the only superpower left

> Sure, the entire operation was a NATO one, but the situation in Kosovo
> affected Europe far more than it did the USA. What did Europe
> do? A lot of
> negotiations, and then NATO stepped in. Since the USA has the largest
> presence in NATO we made up the bulk of the forces.

The USA could've simply stopped involvement of NATO, they just
didn't want to do so.

> I do want to thank the other member nations of NATO that did
> send forces into
> Kosovo for sending in what they did. But, IMO, Europe needs to
> do a lot more
> to protect their own security interests nearest themselves on their own.

You know that the contigent of US forces is actually not the biggest
one? They form(ed) the majority of aircraft, but not ground troops.

> Perhaps then I will have even more respect for their leaders and
> their forms
> of government, but that also highlights something else too.
> Europe is still
> very bound by tradition, and by tradition, Europe, IMO, has
> always reacted
> slowly and when they have, it was sometimes too late.

"Europe" isn't acting as a whole, it is acting as several independant
nations with their own interests. It is just normal that negotiations
of a large number of states take some time. Just look at the UN.

--
[arclight@*********.de]<><><><><><>[ICQ14322211]
Vorsicht Ritchie, ein Hochhäus!! - Wer?
<><><><[http://www.datahaven.de/arclight]><><><>;
Message no. 65
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Sat, 4 Sep 1999 20:18:01 +0200
According to Paul J. Adam, at 13:33 on 4 Sep 99, the word on
the street was...

> One Xia-class ballistic missile submarine, noisy and unreliable. Several Han-
> class nuclear-powered hunter-killers, likewise - maybe equivalent to fUSSR
> Victor Is. Three Kilo-class patrol submarines, badly trained crews, one still
> in refit after they damaged it. A large fleet of elderly Romeo-class patrol
> submarines, of extremely questionable serviceability and little combat use.

Didn't Russia just give a few Typhoons to China as payment for something?

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
De plaag is terug...!
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 66
From: Airwasp@***.com Airwasp@***.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 06:37:06 EDT
In a message dated 9/4/99 9:11:21 AM US Eastern Standard Time,
martin.murray@**********.com writes:

> As to your point about Europe needing to sort out its own disputes, I have
> only really one thing to say. The US has a history of involvement in
> so-called internal problems. This, I believe stems from the fact that it is
> the single most powerful nation on earth. With this power comes the
> responsibility to wield it in a just manner. I think it would be fair to
say
> that some disputes that America (and others) have got involved in, in the
> past, were really none of their business, but yet their generally just
> nature obligated them to become invloved. Cynics out there will point out,
> that wars only seem to start for economic reasons, oil and suchlike, this
is
> probably true, but most 'Western' nations have stable economies and don't
> want to see them upset. If a wholescale war were to break out in the
> Balkans, who is to say some small nuclear capable nation might not get
> involved. A war in Europe would be disastrous for the whole planet, not
just
> Europe. That is why America has a certain amount of responsibility. I for
> one am glad they do. Where would the world be if China, for argument's
sake,
> wielded the same amount of power and might. Up the creek, I'd say.
>
> MJM

Thank you MJM, thank you.

-Mike B.
Message no. 67
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 12:39:59 +0100
In article <199909041817.UAA12651@*****.xs4all.nl>, Gurth
<gurth@******.nl> writes
>Didn't Russia just give a few Typhoons to China as payment for something?

Nope. One report in a Hong Kong paper got grabbed and put on AP, then
repeated elsewhere, but the Russians are denying it and the Typhoon-class
SSBNs are still pierside.

If the Chinese wanted SSBNs they'd go for Deltas, not Typhoons - the
Typhoons were less than successful in service.

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 68
From: Sommers sommers@*****.umich.edu
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Sat, 04 Sep 1999 21:00:08 -0400
At 08:33 AM 9/4/99 , Paul J. Adam wrote:
>In article <4.2.0.58.19990903170229.00969860@*****.engin.umich.edu>,
>Sommers <sommers@*****.edu> writes
> >Second, the Chinese don't have anything that could sink a carrier. They
> >have a brown water Navy with 1 (!) submarine,
>
>One Xia-class ballistic missile submarine, noisy and unreliable. Several Han-
>class nuclear-powered hunter-killers, likewise - maybe equivalent to fUSSR
>Victor Is. Three Kilo-class patrol submarines, badly trained crews, one still
>in refit after they damaged it. A large fleet of elderly Romeo-class patrol
>submarines, of extremely questionable serviceability and little combat use.
>--
>Paul J. Adam

Thanks. I must have been remembering the one SSBN they have in their inventory.

Still, a few around for coastal defense, but that's about it. Nothing for
power projection.

Sommers
Insert witty quote here.
Message no. 69
From: Ken Ken@********.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 1999 12:46:28 -0400
> -----Original Message-----
> From: shadowrn-admin@*********.org
> [mailto:shadowrn-admin@*********.org]On Behalf Of Mark Fender
> Sent: Friday, September 03, 1999 11:52 AM
> To: 'shadowrn@*********.org'
> Subject: RE: Second Hand
>
>
> > > >Now, to bring this back on topic, has anyone ever used this, or
> > other
> > > >"legend" in Shadowrun? If so what and how (background info,
go
> > steal
> >
> > I´m using Lord of the Rings
> >
> So, the One Ring must be dropped into the Renraku reactor core? You're
> gonna' have to expand that.
>
>

Yah, right after the dwarves reclaim their mountain from Lofwyr
Message no. 70
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 09:57:06 +0200
According to Paul J. Adam, at 12:39 on 5 Sep 99, the word on
the street was...

> >Didn't Russia just give a few Typhoons to China as payment for something?
>
> Nope. One report in a Hong Kong paper got grabbed and put on AP, then
> repeated elsewhere, but the Russians are denying it and the Typhoon-class
> SSBNs are still pierside.

Ah, okay. I picked up that bit of "news" somewhere and didn't hear
anything more about it.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
De plaag is terug...!
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 71
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 15:47:05 -0400
At 13.33 09-04-99 +0100, you wrote:
>submarines, of extremely questionable serviceability and little combat use.

Put one of them on the bottom outside of one the ports we visit
(Basically, any in Korea, Taiwan or Japan), and they wait. Either that, or
we find out if the Russians really did have anything as bright as our
CAPTOR mines.


Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."
Message no. 72
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 15:58:08 -0400
At 17.02 09-03-99 -0400, you wrote:
>embassy in every other country. That's over 22,000 embassies world-wide!
>The CIA and State department don't just have to keep track of the Chinese

I am well aware of the number of embassies, consolates and attache's
offices in the world. And each one of those is a soverign territory of the
nation who they represent. Attacking one is just like attacking that
country or one of it's vessels at sea- an act of univited agression, and
thus a declaration of war. (Look, I don't care if you want a fight or not,
some pin head takes a swing at you, are in a fight even if he didn't
formally tell you.)
As for your argueemnet about they "don't just have to keep track of the
Chinese", I can probably find the mailing addresses of every Chinese (or
any one elses') representational office in North American and Europe in
about an hour. I've got to do a web search. I'm willing to bet money that
the CIA, DoD, StatDep and the FBI ALL have those lists in hard copy in
thier librbaries.
When you engage in these kinds of actions, one of the first choices has to
be "do we blow the crap out of the capitol", and if the answer is
"yes",
then you make list of the embassies in that city. IF they bolong to an
allied (or worse, neutral) country, they go on a big list of "things not to
shoot at".
During Desert Storm, we hit targets near to embassies of non-involved
countries (Sweden, the Swiss) without the advantage of things like GPS
guidence systems for bombs, but instead with laser tagging from aircraft.
I can not believe that (a) we didn't know where the Chinese emabasy was,
nor (b) we could have missed a target by over a mile with a GPS-guided
weapons system.

>buildings), its entirely possible that every time one of them moves there
>is a lag between the move and when the maps get updated.

They don't get moved over night. So taht tehy can continue to provide
services, they usually anounce several months, if not YEARS ahead of time,
and they tell everyone- thier foreign ministry, the press, the locals,
thier travelers and buisnesses, thier webpage. Moving an emabssy is not
like moving a household. They have literally tons of sensative items that
must be securelly moved, security arrangements ot be made, and emergency
action plans that must be written up ("Uh, boss, the embassy in Tehran is
reporting that people are storming the main gate.").
Trust me- you know when one of these damn things gets moved.

>the tech, it was with the human planning that assigned the target in the
>first place.

These days, EVERYTHING goes into a database, and is cross checked with the
"don't shoot list" of locations, and then is hand checked by several
humans. I find it harder to believe that anyone was actually stupid enough
to target it, than I do believing that FIVE TO SIX levels of review
(typical for airstrikes in urban areas, particularly ones crawling with
Western media with uplinks) failed to notice the error.


Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."
Message no. 73
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 16:18:52 -0400
At 17.20 09-03-99 -0400, you wrote:
>on the US and have every right to do so. Then we would declare war on them
>and it would get very messy.

Yes. If you would notice, I mentioned that we werenot a position to
persue such an option at this time. And if we ever have a president who is
that dumb, I hope this detail wastes him on the spot.

> But they can't legally do anything to us other
>than sue for compensation for the building and the 4 people killed.

I'm not talking about legal action, I'm talking about action in the real
world. "Legal" is a hard word to apply when terrorists and
revelutionanries are available, and all of the major players back them.

>But if we were starting something we would actually have to deliver to them
>an declaration of war.

And a GBU doesn't count? If someone swings on you, you are in a fight.
They don't have to tell you, and unless they are the strawl's stupidest
troll, they won't.
If you fire on soverign territory (including naval vessels, emabasiies,
consolates, and the like) OR send in armed forces without invitation, it is
an act of war. By making an act of war upon a nation, you have declared
war. (Pearl Harbor, the IRaqi invasion of Kuwait)

> Accidents like this, and much bigger ones, do happen
>and do not lead to wars or other retaliation.

Spanish-American war? War of 1812? World War I? They all started with
accidents of lesser improtance than hitting an Embassy.

>First, the only thing that can be considered an action that declares war on
>China is to walk up to them and say that we are at war with them. Anything

See above.

>launched first. There was a really good article in Time over the summer
>that detailed the Chinese forces.

I saw it- they forgot the fact that the Chinese have a lot to loose if
they feel like trying.

>Third, the Chinese will not blow up anything of the US in the next year. We
>blew up their embassy in the middle of a war. They aren't in any wars right

Don't be so sure. It may not be the Chinese, but thier proxies will do.

>Fourth, the reason that the Chinese got so worked up about it is because of
>internal politics. They are having a lot more dissent again, and needed

Such as Taiwan. They could hit a target in Taiwan and have something go
"astray", and as far as they are concerned, it would be totally legal, and
no one will state the obvious.

>Chinese. They purposefully move their embassy and don't make it known to
>the CIA so that something like this can happen and they can wring

You can't hide somethign like that.

>That's not what I meant. What I did mean was that it doesn't make much
>sense to threaten someone, try to send a very imposing and gruff message,

I agree with this, however, I doubt the IQ of the current NCA exceeds 200.
******* gutless idiots.

>you look worse than you did before the whole thing started, because you've
>just undercut yourself.

Again, no argueement- look at the past six years of foreign relations and
policy desisions.

I will admit that there is a small chance that the Chinese Embassy was an
oops, but a very small chance. My education, training and experince have
all taught me that there is no such thing as a coincidence, and damn few
true accidents. Especially at this level.



Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."
Message no. 74
From: Ken Ken@********.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 16:28:47 -0400
> At 17.02 09-03-99 -0400, you wrote:
> >embassy in every other country. That's over 22,000 embassies world-wide!
> >The CIA and State department don't just have to keep track of
> the Chinese
>
> I am well aware of the number of embassies, consolates and attache's
> offices in the world. And each one of those is a soverign
> territory of the
> nation who they represent. Attacking one is just like attacking that
> country or one of it's vessels at sea- an act of univited agression, and
> thus a declaration of war. (Look, I don't care if you want a
> fight or not,
> some pin head takes a swing at you, are in a fight even if he didn't
> formally tell you.)
> As for your argueemnet about they "don't just have to keep
> track of the
> Chinese", I can probably find the mailing addresses of every Chinese (or
> any one elses') representational office in North American and Europe in
> about an hour. I've got to do a web search. I'm willing to bet
> money that
> the CIA, DoD, StatDep and the FBI ALL have those lists in hard copy in
> thier librbaries.
> When you engage in these kinds of actions, one of the first
> choices has to
> be "do we blow the crap out of the capitol", and if the answer is
"yes",
> then you make list of the embassies in that city. IF they bolong to an
> allied (or worse, neutral) country, they go on a big list of
> "things not to
> shoot at".
> During Desert Storm, we hit targets near to embassies of
> non-involved
> countries (Sweden, the Swiss) without the advantage of things like GPS
> guidence systems for bombs, but instead with laser tagging from
> aircraft.
> I can not believe that (a) we didn't know where the Chinese
> emabasy was,
> nor (b) we could have missed a target by over a mile with a GPS-guided
> weapons system.
>
> >buildings), its entirely possible that every time one of them
> moves there
> >is a lag between the move and when the maps get updated.
>
> They don't get moved over night. So taht tehy can continue
> to provide
> services, they usually anounce several months, if not YEARS ahead of time,
> and they tell everyone- thier foreign ministry, the press, the locals,
> thier travelers and buisnesses, thier webpage. Moving an emabssy is not
> like moving a household. They have literally tons of sensative items that
> must be securelly moved, security arrangements ot be made, and emergency
> action plans that must be written up ("Uh, boss, the embassy in Tehran is
> reporting that people are storming the main gate.").
> Trust me- you know when one of these damn things gets moved.
>
> >the tech, it was with the human planning that assigned the target in the
> >first place.
>
> These days, EVERYTHING goes into a database, and is cross
> checked with the
> "don't shoot list" of locations, and then is hand checked by several
> humans. I find it harder to believe that anyone was actually
> stupid enough
> to target it, than I do believing that FIVE TO SIX levels of review
> (typical for airstrikes in urban areas, particularly ones crawling with
> Western media with uplinks) failed to notice the error.

Ok Let me put in a personal opinion here. If I had an embassy with Tons of
sensitive material inside. I wouldn't tell ANYONE when I was moving...well
maybe After the move was complete. Now that that's out of the way...

What I got from your post was that the U.S. MEANT to hit the Chinese
embassy. Why would they? I just don't see the reason for it. In SR Most
Megas don't operate in such a Heavy handed fashion, they like to do things
behind the scenes (that's why Runners get hired) and for business purposes
(most often). Nothing like an industrial accident just before the major
competition releases a product that might undercut one of yours. I have
heard that it was to redress wounded Honor for daring to steal Nuke
Technology. Why do something so obvious for something like that? I'm
hearing arguments for "Accident" and "Not Bloody Likely" Does anyone
have
any opinions as to "Why Would they do something like that?"

Now bear in mind that I'm not subscribing to either theory...but for the
sake of the question, lets assume that the U.S. meant to hit the embassy and
are darn proud of their marksmanship. What reason could they have...sounds
like something that a group of runners might be hired to find out
Message no. 75
From: Penta cpenta@*****.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 16:44:24 -0700
IronRaven wrote:

> >launched first. There was a really good article in Time over the summer
> >that detailed the Chinese forces.
>
> I saw it- they forgot the fact that the Chinese have a lot to loose if
> they feel like trying.

Such as? Well...what? Do elaborate. WHAT do they have to lose?

> >That's not what I meant. What I did mean was that it doesn't make much
> >sense to threaten someone, try to send a very imposing and gruff message,
>
> I agree with this, however, I doubt the IQ of the current NCA exceeds 200.
> ******* gutless idiots.
>

Wait...200 is genius level. Hm. Don't ya mean 100? *nitpick*:>

> >you look worse than you did before the whole thing started, because you've
> >just undercut yourself.
>
> Again, no argueement- look at the past six years of foreign relations and
> policy desisions.

A sane person's prayer: Let the next president, whomever that may be, KEEP Madeline
Albright and the current foreign policy staff. I think they finally got it right, on
that note. Policies change, but we NEED capable people there.

> I will admit that there is a small chance that the Chinese Embassy was an
> oops, but a very small chance. My education, training and experince have
> all taught me that there is no such thing as a coincidence, and damn few
> true accidents. Especially at this level.

Never underestimate human stupidity.
Message no. 76
From: Iridios iridios@*********.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 16:49:11 -0400
Ken wrote:

<big ol' snip>

> Ok Let me put in a personal opinion here. If I had an embassy with Tons of
> sensitive material inside. I wouldn't tell ANYONE when I was moving...well
> maybe After the move was complete. Now that that's out of the way...

Actually, it probably works in an embassy's favor if everyone knows
exactly when and where they are moving. Then their friends and
enemies are all watching and no one is likely to try anything under
such scrutiny.


> What I got from your post was that the U.S. MEANT to hit the Chinese
> embassy. Why would they?...

There could be any number of reasons. The most obvious (and probably
most accepted) is retaliation for the theft of nuclear secrets. But I
think that the Chinese were targeted for a more subtle reason. IMO
(and this is only my opinion as I have no evidence of any kind) the
Chinese were probably targeted because they were considering or were
already 'assisting' the Serbs; but as I said, there is absolutely no
evidence that I know of.


> ... I just don't see the reason for it. In SR Most
> Megas don't operate in such a Heavy handed fashion, they like to do things
> behind the scenes (that's why Runners get hired) and for business purposes
> (most often).

In SR, the Megas aren't involved in open conflict that provides them
with "Targets of Opportunity". If there were an out and out Corp War
that involved para-military forces and heavy ordinance, I'd think you
would see the occasional "miss".

> ... I have
> heard that it was to redress wounded Honor for daring to steal Nuke
> Technology. Why do something so obvious for something like that? I'm
> hearing arguments for "Accident" and "Not Bloody Likely" Does
anyone have
> any opinions as to "Why Would they do something like that?"

Subterfuge covering subterfuge covering yet more subterfuge. Publicly
it's claimed to be an accident (IMO a very unlikely probability) for
which America apologizes. The majority of people will see through
this because of the "events" preceding (the theft of American nuclear
secrets) and they will believe it is retalitory (which it is, but that
is only part of the reason). The retaliation story misdirects
attention from any real reason. Who knows, maybe China was backing
India or Pakistan and we (the U.S.) don't want them to do so (of
course this is hypocritical, since we are probably backing one
ourselves).


>
> Now bear in mind that I'm not subscribing to either theory...but for the
> sake of the question, lets assume that the U.S. meant to hit the embassy and
> are darn proud of their marksmanship. What reason could they have...sounds
> like something that a group of runners might be hired to find out


--
Iridios
"Accept what you cannot avoid,
Avoid what you cannot accept."
Message no. 77
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 16:50:01 -0400
At 16.28 09-06-99 -0400, you wrote:
>Ok Let me put in a personal opinion here. If I had an embassy with Tons of

That is EVERY emabassy.

>sensitive material inside. I wouldn't tell ANYONE when I was moving...well
>maybe After the move was complete. Now that that's out of the way...

OK, so you warn your citizens working and living in tht country, the other
embassies, buisnesses and the locals. OKaayyyyy........
You reaslise that you just defeated the purpose of having an mbassy?

>What I got from your post was that the U.S. MEANT to hit the Chinese

High probability, nearing surity.

>embassy. Why would they? I just don't see the reason for it. In SR Most

Are you new?
I stated on Friday that such an action can be a message.

Method, motive and opertunity are all there, and the apologies came to fast.

>behind the scenes (that's why Runners get hired) and for business purposes

Are you familiar with the concept of direct, covert operations taken by
operation elements of intelligence agencies, military special units and
"proxies".

>are darn proud of their marksmanship. What reason could they have...sounds
>like something that a group of runners might be hired to find out

OK, we are trying to get back to SR (the reason why I'm stopping this
thread from my terminal), but it would be easy- have the decker down;oad 18
months of news service data, searching for "China" as your primary keyword,
then "US" (and the eqivelents), "dispute", "disagreement"
and "issues", to
a bank of turtles (1 per runner) and everyone starts scanning. Write up a
report. Easy money, but not a lot of it.




Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."
Message no. 78
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 18:03:02 -0400
At 16.44 09-06-99 -0700, you wrote:
>> I saw it- they forgot the fact that the Chinese have a lot to
loose if
>> they feel like trying.
>Such as? Well...what? Do elaborate. WHAT do they have to lose?

Left a word out- the a lot MORE to loose, speaking manpowerwise. They
have a greater population, and they can more readily place them under arms.
Also, any conflict would be fought in Asia- thier supply lines would be
shorter.
To put it bluntly, if the US -hell, the "West"- would have thier ass
handed to them in conventional conflict with the PRC, simply becuase we are
so outsized.

>Wait...200 is genius level. Hm. Don't ya mean 100? *nitpick*:>

For three guys (Prez, SecDef and the Nat. Security Advisor), it isn't too
good.

>A sane person's prayer: Let the next president, whomever that may be, KEEP
>Madeline
>Albright and the current foreign policy staff. I think they finally got it
right, on

Staff, for the most part, yes. The vacume brain they take thier orders
from is the problem. Unfortunately, none of next year's canidates have
much int he way of foreign experince, unless Bush calls his dad.

>Never underestimate human stupidity.

Stupidity is never an accident.


Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."
Message no. 79
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 22:58:00 +0100
In article <3.0.3.32.19990906154705.0098184c@***.softhome.net>,
IronRaven <cyberraven@********.net> writes
>At 13.33 09-04-99 +0100, you wrote:
>>submarines, of extremely questionable serviceability and little combat use.
>
> Put one of them on the bottom outside of one the ports we visit
>(Basically, any in Korea, Taiwan or Japan), and they wait.

Got to get them there undetected, though... which in a Romeo is quite a
feat.

>Either that, or
>we find out if the Russians really did have anything as bright as our
>CAPTOR mines.

CAPTOR's antisubmarine only. The Russians had mobile mines, but a
Romeo's launch system is noisy as hell.

Still, mining's probably the best use for whichever Romeos are serviceable:
plays to a serious US weakness, at least.


--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 80
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Mon, 06 Sep 1999 18:49:17 -0400
At 22.58 09-06-99 +0100, you wrote:
>CAPTOR's antisubmarine only. The Russians had mobile mines, but a
>Romeo's launch system is noisy as hell.

OK, don't know a helluva lot about submarines. Anyway you cut it, I'm too
big for them and being stuffed in a metal sausage more than a few hours is
not a thing I'm real big on.
As for the CAPTORs, IIRC, they can perform target descrimination based off
of acustical signatures. Seed an approach, wait for the right kind of
target (big mother carriers, for example).
Carriers are tough, but a salvo of a dozen and a half torps would most
likely kill one.

>Still, mining's probably the best use for whichever Romeos are serviceable:
>plays to a serious US weakness, at least.

Well, can a Kilo dive deep enough and long enough on batteries to make it
a threat in ports in, say, Japan? I would think that if it could get close
enough, a deisel might be able to do the job, and I think I remember
reading the PRC has some Russian-made SSs.


Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."
Message no. 81
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 22:21:35 -0400
> > What I got from your post was that the U.S. MEANT to hit the Chinese
> > embassy. Why would they?...
>
> There could be any number of reasons. The most obvious (and probably
> most accepted) is retaliation for the theft of nuclear secrets. But I
> think that the Chinese were targeted for a more subtle reason. IMO
> (and this is only my opinion as I have no evidence of any kind) the
> Chinese were probably targeted because they were considering or were
> already 'assisting' the Serbs; but as I said, there is absolutely no
> evidence that I know of.

Rule One of American Miltary Actions: Never ascribe intent or conspiracy to
what can more easily be ascribed to accident or stupidity.
Message no. 82
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 22:34:41 -0400
> At 16.44 09-06-99 -0700, you wrote:
> >> I saw it- they forgot the fact that the Chinese have a lot to
> loose if
> >> they feel like trying.
> >Such as? Well...what? Do elaborate. WHAT do they have to lose?
>
> Left a word out- the a lot MORE to loose, speaking manpowerwise. They
> have a greater population, and they can more readily place them under
arms.
> Also, any conflict would be fought in Asia- thier supply lines would be
> shorter.
> To put it bluntly, if the US -hell, the "West"- would have thier ass
> handed to them in conventional conflict with the PRC, simply becuase we
are
> so outsized.

In any warfare concerning the U.S. military in open engagement versus the
Chinese military, the U.S. will win. This is a fact born out by years of
intensive analysis. Leaving out, for the moment, issues like nuclear
warfare, the Chinese military has no ability whatsoever to defeat the United
States military in conventional engagements.

Yes, the Chinese military has formidible manpower. However, they do not have
the industrial might to back it. Until very recently there was something
like one rifle for every five army personnel. The United States has more
than enough--okay, usually half broken and all too used--rifles, etc., for
their military. And if we had to mobilize, we have the ability to make
hundreds of thousands more in a very brief time.

In addition, the Chinese military has no countermeasures whatsoever for much
of our hardware. Technologically, they simply cannot keep up with the United
States.

Now, none of this is taking into account allies. China could, conceivably,
pull in a fair number of allies, including large chunks of the former Soviet
Union. However, we get most of Europe. I'll take Europe over Asia every day
of the week and twice on Sunday.

Yes, they've got manpower. But they have nothing else. We have manpower,
technology, equipment, and ECONOMIC [never underestimate that] and tactical
strength that they will never possess. [At least, not in the forseeable
future.]

Good point about supply lines, though. Most people underestimate the need
for support personnel and strategy, simply comparing things like number of
men under arms. Bravo.

> >A sane person's prayer: Let the next president, whomever that may be,
KEEP
> >Madeline
> >Albright and the current foreign policy staff. I think they finally got
it
> right, on
>
> Staff, for the most part, yes. The vacume brain they take thier orders
> from is the problem.

The American president has a frighteningly small effect on foreign policy,
as well as domestic policy. Mostly, its the people they call in as advisors
that count. Many people fail to believe this, since, in the rest of the
world, this just isn't true.


I should note that most of the things I've said are opinions. However, they
are backed up by a great deal of--very subjective--personal experience and
research. You might say it's my job.
Message no. 83
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Mon, 6 Sep 1999 22:38:28 -0400
> > Accidents like this, and much bigger ones, do happen
> >and do not lead to wars or other retaliation.

Now that's just insane. Of course they do. And as long as half of the
non-first-world countries are led by swaggering, tin-plated dictators with
delusions of grandure, they will continue to.
Message no. 84
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 12:05:48 +0200
According to IronRaven, at 15:58 on 6 Sep 99, the word on
the street was...

> As for your argueemnet about they "don't just have to keep track of the
> Chinese", I can probably find the mailing addresses of every Chinese (or
> any one elses') representational office in North American and Europe in
> about an hour. I've got to do a web search. I'm willing to bet money that
> the CIA, DoD, StatDep and the FBI ALL have those lists in hard copy in
> thier librbaries.

You could probably also simply contact an embassy in your country and ask
them the address of their embassy in [insert other country here].

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
De plaag is terug...!
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 85
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 12:05:49 +0200
According to IronRaven, at 16:18 on 6 Sep 99, the word on
the street was...

> > Accidents like this, and much bigger ones, do happen
> >and do not lead to wars or other retaliation.
>
> Spanish-American war? War of 1812? World War I? They all started with
> accidents of lesser improtance than hitting an Embassy.

I don't know about the first two, but WWI didn't start because Princip
killed Franz-Ferdinand. It started because the major world powers of the
time (France, Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia, the UK) were looking for
an excuse to start a war. Austra-Hungary seized the opportunity that the
murder presented them with (despite Franz-Ferdinand being unpopular with
the emperor) to try and force territorial concessions from Serbia. This
blew up in their faces over the next four years, of course, but fact is
that all the other powers could easily have chosen to stay out of the war.

> >First, the only thing that can be considered an action that declares war on
> >China is to walk up to them and say that we are at war with them. Anything

That's a rather unrealistic portrayal of events... Declaring war is the
"civilized" way of starting one, that's all.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
De plaag is terug...!
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 86
From: Gurth gurth@******.nl
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 12:05:49 +0200
According to abortion_engine, at 22:34 on 6 Sep 99, the word on
the street was...

> Yes, the Chinese military has formidible manpower. However, they do not have
> the industrial might to back it. Until very recently there was something
> like one rifle for every five army personnel. The United States has more
> than enough--okay, usually half broken and all too used--rifles, etc., for
> their military. And if we had to mobilize, we have the ability to make
> hundreds of thousands more in a very brief time.

That is assuming the US doesn't pull out when the first Americans
casualties get shown on TV... I doubt the Chinese would give up because a
few thousand of their troops get killed for nothing.

> Now, none of this is taking into account allies. China could, conceivably,
> pull in a fair number of allies

Not so sure... China isn't one of the most popular countries in the world
and their region, I believe.

> including large chunks of the former Soviet Union. However, we get most
> of Europe. I'll take Europe over Asia every day of the week and twice on
> Sunday.

Similarly, the US may have allies in various parts of the world, but those
allies would weigh their possible gains against their possible losses, and
in a war with China, I somehow doubt they'd want to get involved. Barring
perhaps countries like South Korea, which might see an opportunity to get
rid of the North in such a war, of course.

> Yes, they've got manpower. But they have nothing else.

How about the will to use it?

> Good point about supply lines, though. Most people underestimate the
> need for support personnel and strategy, simply comparing things like
> number of men under arms. Bravo.

Also don't forget that if the US were to fight a war with China, in Asia,
and the US would be on the winning hand, the'd be operating inside China --
with all the problems that come with that, such as partizans.

--
Gurth@******.nl - http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
De plaag is terug...!
-> NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Unofficial Shadowrun Guru <-
->The Plastic Warriors Page: http://shadowrun.html.com/plasticwarriors/<-
-> The New Character Mortuary: http://www.electricferret.com/mortuary/ <-

GC3.1: 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?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 87
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 06:24:14 -0400
> > including large chunks of the former Soviet Union. However, we get most
> > of Europe. I'll take Europe over Asia every day of the week and twice on
> > Sunday.
>
> Similarly, the US may have allies in various parts of the world, but those
> allies would weigh their possible gains against their possible losses, and
> in a war with China, I somehow doubt they'd want to get involved. Barring
> perhaps countries like South Korea, which might see an opportunity to get
> rid of the North in such a war, of course.
>
Ah, but now you see the brilliance of recent US policy. "Hey, we helped you
every time you needed anything from The Great War on. We've got a problem
here, and it seems like it's time you returned the favor."
Message no. 88
From: Arclight arclight@*********.de
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 13:57:19 +0200
And finally, abortion_engine expressed himself by writing:

<snip>

> Yes, the Chinese military has formidible manpower. However, they
> do not have
> the industrial might to back it. Until very recently there was something
> like one rifle for every five army personnel. The United States has more
> than enough--okay, usually half broken and all too used--rifles,
> etc., for
> their military. And if we had to mobilize, we have the ability to make
> hundreds of thousands more in a very brief time.

You don't really need a rifle for everybody. Back in WW2,
the russians charged german positions with a rifle for every
fifth man. When he died, the one behind him took the rifle
and so on. When the last man took it, he was near enough to
the enemy to actually fight...
And as china has IIRC close to 2 billion people now, and
a lot more men than women, they could mobilize a _lot_ of
soldiers and would even have no decrease of the birth rate.

> In addition, the Chinese military has no countermeasures
> whatsoever for much
> of our hardware. Technologically, they simply cannot keep up
> with the United
> States.

Tech doesn't really help when you positions are attacked by
forces with a multiple of your own manpower. Back in the korean
war, when chinese forces attacked the UN units, they drove them
back to the southern coast. I doubt that they had _any_ tech
besides some tanks and rifles... sheer numbers aren't that bad.

<snip>

> Good point about supply lines, though. Most people underestimate the need
> for support personnel and strategy, simply comparing things like
> number of
> men under arms. Bravo.

As you say, this is chinas greatest advantage. I doubt a war
between the US and china would be fought in America

--
[arclight@*********.de]<><><><><><>[ICQ14322211]
Vorsicht Ritchie, ein Hochhäus!! - Wer?
<><><><[http://www.datahaven.de/arclight]><><><>;
Message no. 89
From: caelric@****.com caelric@****.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 05:00:03 -0700
At 01:57 PM 9/7/99 +0200, you wrote:
>And finally, abortion_engine expressed himself by writing:
>
><snip>
>
>
>You don't really need a rifle for everybody. Back in WW2,
>the russians charged german positions with a rifle for every
>fifth man. When he died, the one behind him took the rifle
>and so on. When the last man took it, he was near enough to
>the enemy to actually fight...
>And as china has IIRC close to 2 billion people now, and
>a lot more men than women, they could mobilize a _lot_ of
>soldiers and would even have no decrease of the birth rate.

In WW2, we didn't have automatic machinegun style grenade launchers, ala
Mk19, which is aapprox 200 rpm 40mm grenade launcher...thats 200 rouns per
minute of high explosive grenades.

>
>> In addition, the Chinese military has no countermeasures
>> whatsoever for much
>> of our hardware. Technologically, they simply cannot keep up
>> with the United
>> States.
>
>Tech doesn't really help when you positions are attacked by
>forces with a multiple of your own manpower. Back in the korean
>war, when chinese forces attacked the UN units, they drove them
>back to the southern coast. I doubt that they had _any_ tech
>besides some tanks and rifles... sheer numbers aren't that bad.
>

As I was trying to say by the Mk19 example, tech does matter. Sure, the
human wave strategy still has some usefulness, but as technology increases,
it's usefulness decreases. I would wager we could acheive air superiority
vs the Chinese Air Force w/o too many losses. Then, w/o resorting to
nuclear, close air support could take care of most human wave attacks. Or,
fuel air explosives, very effective against personnel.


><snip>
>
>> Good point about supply lines, though. Most people underestimate the need
>> for support personnel and strategy, simply comparing things like
>> number of
>> men under arms. Bravo.
>
>As you say, this is chinas greatest advantage. I doubt a war
>between the US and china would be fought in America
>

True, but....in any US vs China war, Taiwan is most likely going to be a
very close staging point, with Okinawa not too far away, either.

Yes, supply lines are a problem, but trust me, we (the US) have learned
alot from Desert Storm, the last large scale war on the other side of the
world.


Dave, a guy who used to work in military intelligence (yes, there is such
a thing)
Message no. 90
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 08:14:17 -0400
At 22.34 09-06-99 -0400, you wrote:
>In any warfare concerning the U.S. military in open engagement versus the
>Chinese military, the U.S. will win. This is a fact born out by years of

That analysis uses Western mores and points of view to determinet he
action of the oposition. From what I've seen, it fails to take into
account things like mass wave attacks with children in the front. Witness
the Iran-Iraq War- if it had not been for the use of chemwar, Iran would
have had better odds of winning than Iraq, even though Iraq had a rifle for
every trooper, fairly modern equipment and the best French, American and
Russian countermeasures of the American gear that Iran had (we won't
mention the leftovers that Russia sold the Ayatolla).
Thier edge in manpower is a considerable asset, and anyone who thinks that
technology can beat that, IMO, is kidding themselves. Meet it, maybe, but
not beat it.
You are also ignoring the homefront issue. Americans will not allow this
country to get into a major war. If Washington was reduced to a crater of
radioactive glass that stretched to Baltimore, maybe, but even then I would
have my doubts once CNN starts showing pictures of bodybags stacked like
firewood. I can't say how China would react, but they lack the sealift
capability to move troops further than Taiwan or Korea, so they would be on
thier home turf, which gets a lot of support.





Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."
Message no. 91
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 08:44:27 -0400
At 12.05 09-07-99 +0200, you wrote:
>I don't know about the first two, but WWI didn't start because Princip
>killed Franz-Ferdinand. It started because the major world powers of the

I know, but the excuse was what was (and still is) important. You never
want to look like you started a war, but rather had one forced on you.
That was the point I was trying to make. All of those were pre-existing
conditions that were just waiting for the right reason.



Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."
Message no. 92
From: Sommers sommers@*****.edu
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 10:30:52 -0400
At 08:14 AM 9/7/99 -0400, you wrote:
>At 22.34 09-06-99 -0400, you wrote:
> >In any warfare concerning the U.S. military in open engagement versus the
> >Chinese military, the U.S. will win. This is a fact born out by years of
>
> That analysis uses Western mores and points of view to determinet he
>action of the oposition. From what I've seen, it fails to take into
>account things like mass wave attacks with children in the front. Witness
>the Iran-Iraq War- if it had not been for the use of chemwar, Iran would
>have had better odds of winning than Iraq, even though Iraq had a rifle for
>every trooper, fairly modern equipment and the best French, American and
>Russian countermeasures of the American gear that Iran had (we won't
>mention the leftovers that Russia sold the Ayatolla).

Iraq had a million man army before the Gulf War, with quite a few of them
veterans from the Iran-Iraq war. I don't even think the allies got to half
of that number. We had air superiority and for months paved them flat. Our
tanks could shoot further than theirs and while on the move, which no
Russian or Chinese tank is capable of. I don't even want to think about
what MLRS systems would do to massed troops.

If we were to fight a war similar to the Korean War, we would lose. If we
fought a major war with the Chinese it would be more similar to the Gulf
War, with massive air strikes and bombardments to soften up positions for
ground troops.

One of the main reasons that the Kosovo conflict dragged on so long was the
lack of good targets to attack because of small troops concentrations, bad
weather and mountainous regions. China has large troop concentrations,
normal weather and a large area that is relatively flat.

> Thier edge in manpower is a considerable asset, and anyone who
> thinks that
>technology can beat that, IMO, is kidding themselves. Meet it, maybe, but
>not beat it.

If you use the technology to play to your strength, you have a decided
advantage. If you can prevent the other guy from playing to his strength,
you can win.

> You are also ignoring the homefront issue. Americans will not
> allow this
>country to get into a major war. If Washington was reduced to a crater of
>radioactive glass that stretched to Baltimore, maybe, but even then I would
>have my doubts once CNN starts showing pictures of bodybags stacked like
>firewood. I can't say how China would react, but they lack the sealift
>capability to move troops further than Taiwan or Korea, so they would be on
>thier home turf, which gets a lot of support.

That smacks of the Pearl Harbor syndrome. Japans government before World
War II saw the problems the US was having at home, its isolationist trend,
and decided that they would not get involved in a major war. How well did
it work out for them?

One of the first things that the US would do would be a clampdown on the
media coverage in the TOA. The military did learn some lessons from
Vietnam. How much is the media going to be allowed in to see the combat?
Not too much.

There are time when the American People would not stand for that kind of
war. But there are also circumstances when they will wholeheartedly support
a war. The problem is trying to figure out when that is.

>Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
>http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
>"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
>Dismemberment."
>"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
>your philosophy."


Sommers
Insert witty quote here.
Message no. 93
From: IronRaven cyberraven@********.net
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 10:34:26 -0400
At 05.00 09-07-99 -0700, you wrote:
>In WW2, we didn't have automatic machinegun style grenade launchers, ala
>Mk19, which is aapprox 200 rpm 40mm grenade launcher...thats 200 rouns per

Or the Chinese W-87 (or is it 37?), with 200 RPM, drum fed, and weighing
with tripod 37kg, compaired to the 80 something for a tri-pod mounted Mk 19.
That is light enough to use as foot company or special-issue platoon
weapon along with light and medium machine guns and maybe light mortars,
while our platoons and companies on foot are limited to SAWs, some M-60s,
M-203s, and maybe some mortars at the company level.

>As I was trying to say by the Mk19 example, tech does matter. Sure, the

And as I was pointing out, our technology may be good, but our "answers"
are based ont he doctrine of having vehilces around and approved by folks
who use Europe and the Middle East, and occasionally SE Asia, as the rule
of thumb. China on the other hand tests thier stuff for thier own
backyard, and its simple enough to fix with a hammer, a pair of pliers, a
socket wrench and number of curses while still being light enough to pick
up and move just about everything that doesn't have it's own motor. How
much of the US gear can make the same argueement? (retorical question)

>it's usefulness decreases. I would wager we could acheive air superiority

Big deal. Air power can't hit mobile targets unless someone can see them,
and unless they are in the open or in vehilces, we have a hell of a time
finding small groups of infantry.

>True, but....in any US vs China war, Taiwan is most likely going to be a

Is most likely going to be compromised from the git-go. Don't count on it.

>Okinawa not too far away, either.

Only if the Japanese are in on it. Otherwise, we have to go to Guam,
Diego Carcia and carriers, becuase NorKor would most likely be heading
south at the same time.

>Yes, supply lines are a problem, but trust me, we (the US) have learned
>alot from Desert Storm, the last large scale war on the other side of the
>world.

Where we had three months of unmolested airstrips and harbors to bring
everything in. We would not have that against China.


Kevin Dole, aka CyberRaven, aka IronRaven, aka Steel Tengu
http://members.xoom.com/iron_raven/
"Once again, we have spat in the face of Death and his second cousin,
Dismemberment."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in
your philosophy."
Message no. 94
From: Mad Hamish h_laws@**********.utas.edu.au
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 10:05:05 +1000
At 22:58 6/09/99 +0100, Paul J. Adam wrote:
>In article <3.0.3.32.19990906154705.0098184c@***.softhome.net>,
>IronRaven <cyberraven@********.net> writes
>>At 13.33 09-04-99 +0100, you wrote:
>>>submarines, of extremely questionable serviceability and little combat use.
>>
>> Put one of them on the bottom outside of one the ports we visit
>>(Basically, any in Korea, Taiwan or Japan), and they wait.
>
>Got to get them there undetected, though... which in a Romeo is quite a
>feat.

Gee, you haven't heard our new submarine class yet have you?
The Collins class, and there is a reason why I asked if you'd heard it
rather than if you'd heard of it. <g>

We appear to be gambling on it burning out all devices which locate objects
by sound due to over simulation.
--
****************************************************************************
The Politician's Slogan
'You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all
of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Fortunately only a simple majority is required.'
****************************************************************************

Mad Hamish

Hamish Laws
h_laws@**********.utas.edu.au
h_laws@******.net.au
Message no. 95
From: Mad Hamish h_laws@**********.utas.edu.au
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 10:24:08 +1000
At 22:34 6/09/99 -0400, abortion_engine wrote:
>
>In any warfare concerning the U.S. military in open engagement versus the
>Chinese military, the U.S. will win.

Quite likely, but let's not forget that the US has to worry about democracy
and keeping the politicians happy China doesn't have quite the same burden.
When US soldiers start coming back in body bags public opinion could stuff
up the military analysis extensively.

> This is a fact born out by years of intensive analysis.

At best it's an _opinion_ based on years of intensive analysis.

But let's not forget that the US military advice was "Sadaam's just going
on maneuvers. He's not going to do anything."

Bay of Pigs anyone?

> Leaving out, for the moment, issues like nuclear
>warfare, the Chinese military has no ability whatsoever to defeat the United
>States military in conventional engagements.

That would, IMO, depend upon where the battle was being fought. As I
understand things China does not have a force which can be deployed very
far from home, but it's quite effective nearby.
>
>Yes, the Chinese military has formidible manpower. However, they do not have
>the industrial might to back it. Until very recently there was something
>like one rifle for every five army personnel.

"Until very recently" doesn't mean much, what's the situation _now_?
What'll the situation be in 6 months?

> The United States has more
>than enough--okay, usually half broken and all too used--rifles, etc., for
>their military. And if we had to mobilize, we have the ability to make
>hundreds of thousands more in a very brief time.
>
Probably, but then again I don't know how you're equipped for replacing
soldiers.

>In addition, the Chinese military has no countermeasures whatsoever for much
>of our hardware.

Care to explain how much hardware can't be shot to pieces or blown up via
jets and missiles?

> Technologically, they simply cannot keep up with the United
>States.

Hong Kong?
In any case it's a matter of how much manpower trades off against technology.
>
>Now, none of this is taking into account allies. China could, conceivably,
>pull in a fair number of allies, including large chunks of the former Soviet
>Union. However, we get most of Europe. I'll take Europe over Asia every day
>of the week and twice on Sunday.

China will be happy to give you France...

>
>Yes, they've got manpower. But they have nothing else. We have manpower,
>technology, equipment, and ECONOMIC [never underestimate that] and tactical
>strength that they will never possess. [At least, not in the forseeable
>future.]

I don't know that I'd be too keen on bashing the Chinese tactical ability.
They haven't done too badly at times in the past. As for economic strength
that depends on how much of a pinch the politicians will put on the public...
>
>Good point about supply lines, though. Most people underestimate the need
>for support personnel and strategy, simply comparing things like number of
>men under arms. Bravo.
>
>> >A sane person's prayer: Let the next president, whomever that may be,
>KEEP
>> >Madeline
>> >Albright and the current foreign policy staff. I think they finally got
>it
>> right, on
>>
>> Staff, for the most part, yes. The vacume brain they take thier orders
>> from is the problem.
>
>The American president has a frighteningly small effect on foreign policy,
>as well as domestic policy. Mostly, its the people they call in as advisors
>that count. Many people fail to believe this, since, in the rest of the
>world, this just isn't true.
>
>I should note that most of the things I've said are opinions. However, they
>are backed up by a great deal of--very subjective--personal experience and
>research. You might say it's my job.
--
****************************************************************************
The Politician's Slogan
'You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all
of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.
Fortunately only a simple majority is required.'
****************************************************************************

Mad Hamish

Hamish Laws
h_laws@**********.utas.edu.au
h_laws@******.net.au
Message no. 96
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Tue, 7 Sep 1999 23:28:26 -0400
> >In addition, the Chinese military has no countermeasures whatsoever for
much
> >of our hardware.
>
> Care to explain how much hardware can't be shot to pieces or blown up via
> jets and missiles?

There isn't a tank round China has that can pierce the hide of an M1A1. And
they can't even see half the new fighter and bomber wings. The Czeks had far
better anti-air defense. Look how much good it did them. Missles need things
to lock on to. The United States is real keen on not giving them those
things.

> >Now, none of this is taking into account allies. China could,
conceivably,
> >pull in a fair number of allies, including large chunks of the former
Soviet
> >Union. However, we get most of Europe. I'll take Europe over Asia every
day
> >of the week and twice on Sunday.
>
> China will be happy to give you France...

China can have France. China can _keep_ France. :)
Message no. 97
From: Joesph Kerian jk1@*****.polarcomm.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 11:22:47 -0500
At 04:44 PM 9/6/99 -0700, it was written:
>> >That's not what I meant. What I did mean was that it doesn't make much
>> >sense to threaten someone, try to send a very imposing and gruff message,
>>
>> I agree with this, however, I doubt the IQ of the current NCA
exceeds 200.
Let's not forget our wonderful SACEur. When the Russia took over that
airfield, his reaction was to issue orders to bomb them. When three of his
immediate subordinates balked at the order, he tendered a resignation
(officially). Wonderful quote:"I am not going to start World War III over a
tiny piece of dirt in the most god-forsaken country on the planet."
Although I honestly I have no idea if he chose any targets himself, but
apparently he had the ability to do so, and he was hot-blooded enough to
intentionally bomb the Chinese.

>A sane person's prayer: Let the next president, whomever that may be, KEEP
Madeline
>Albright and the current foreign policy staff. I think they finally got it
right, on
>that note. Policies change, but we NEED capable people there.
No, Madeline needs to be thrown out, and quickly. She's too political.
Pres Clinton allowed her to pick and choose assignments based on the
advancement of her political career. Although this may make sense to some
people, it doesn't look good for the country. We should at least have the
illusion of being equally interested in the rest of the world's problems.

>> I will admit that there is a small chance that the Chinese Embassy
was an
>> oops, but a very small chance. My education, training and experince have
>> all taught me that there is no such thing as a coincidence, and damn few
>> true accidents. Especially at this level.
>Never underestimate human stupidity.
Okay, let's take a look at American propaganda during this whole thing. We
were told, that our President was very involved with the selection of
individual targets. This is obviously a popularity stunt, but there are two
possibilities. Either he was choosing targets, or he wasn't.
If he was, his rediculous apologies are easy to explain. The man has as
much backbone as a jellyfish. He has responded in similer fashion every
time he's been caught doing something he shouldn't have. If he was
involved, it's also pretty obvious it was not intentional (at least from him).
If he wasn't involved, he could still be trying to apologize for the
perception of personal responsability. No-one wants to look like that much
of an idiot. On the other hand, if he wasn't involved, it is impossible to
say if it was intentional or not. There are probably 3 or 4 people in the
world (possibly less) who know the truth.
Let's remember here, the Chinese Communist Party donated millions to his
last campaign. Americans(my apologies the rest of the continent :) seem to
have decided that this isn't important. Now, put this into the mix and you
have a VERY SR type of situation.
A President (or CEO) who supposedly has been bought with another company's
money, seems to order his own company to 'accidently' strike the
purchasers, then he apologizes profusely. What the **** is going on?

As for China's response, don't fret over it. China is too saavy to make
the mistake of trying to avenge one stupid little embassy in a warzone.
They milked it for international opinion for a while, encouraged the idea
that it was revenge for tech theft, organized a protest (might as well get
some people behind your own government while you're at it), and then
dropped the subject. Now, if China starts bombing a country that we have an
embassy in, I wouldn't be surprised if our's got hit, but other than the
history books and discussions like this, I think it's pretty much over.

--Joe

Crater, Dwarf Magician
"Dwarves can't fling spells eh? Chummer,
you've been playing too much AD&D (9th Ed)."
Message no. 98
From: Angelkiller 404 angelkiller404@**********.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 02:10:18 -0400
>> China will be happy to give you France...
>
>China can have France. China can _keep_ France. :)
>


Ah, but does China _want_ France?


-----
AK404

http://freespeech.org/ak404/
http://gibbed.com/parasiteve/
ICQ: 2157053

"You fool, pain is my friend! Allow me to introduce you to him!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!"
Message no. 99
From: Arclight arclight@*********.de
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 11:59:11 +0200
And finally, abortion_engine expressed himself by writing:

<snip>

First, GridSec, excuse me for replying
to a closed threat :)

> There isn't a tank round China has that can pierce the hide of
> an M1A1. And
> they can't even see half the new fighter and bomber wings. The
> Czeks had far
> better anti-air defense. Look how much good it did them. Missles
> need things
> to lock on to. The United States is real keen on not giving them those
> things.

The serbs you mean

<snip>

> > China will be happy to give you France...
>
> China can have France. China can _keep_ France. :)

What's wrong with france??? Could you
please explain, perhaps off-list, as I am not
US...

--
[arclight@*********.de]<><><><><><>[ICQ14322211]
All suspects are guilty, serious. Otherwise they
wouldn't be suspects, would they?
<><><><[http://www.datahaven.de/arclight]><><><>;
Message no. 100
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 14:19:33 +0100
In article <3.0.5.32.19990908100505.00872ca0@**********.utas.edu.au>,
Mad Hamish <h_laws@**********.utas.edu.au> writes
>Gee, you haven't heard our new submarine class yet have you?
>The Collins class, and there is a reason why I asked if you'd heard it
>rather than if you'd heard of it. <g>

We ran a cartoon from "The Australian" in one of our briefings... a Collins
sinking an enemy ship just by her radiated noise :)

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 101
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 14:33:34 +0100
In article <3.0.3.32.19990906184917.009894f8@***.softhome.net>,
IronRaven <cyberraven@********.net> writes
>At 22.58 09-06-99 +0100, you wrote:
>>CAPTOR's antisubmarine only. The Russians had mobile mines, but a
>>Romeo's launch system is noisy as hell.
>
> As for the CAPTORs, IIRC, they can perform target descrimination based
>off
>of acustical signatures. Seed an approach, wait for the right kind of
>target (big mother carriers, for example).
> Carriers are tough, but a salvo of a dozen and a half torps would most
>likely kill one.

A CAPTOR mine uses a Mark 46 torpedo as payload: it won't reliably home
on a surface ship, and with only 100lb of warhead it won't do much even if
it does. There's very little room to make it bigger or more lethal: it has to
fit a 21" torpedo tube, after all.

Not too hard to lay ground mines, though, and those can also be set to
target various types of signature (acoustic, pressure, magnetic)

>>Still, mining's probably the best use for whichever Romeos are serviceable:
>>plays to a serious US weakness, at least.
>
> Well, can a Kilo dive deep enough and long enough on batteries to make it
>a threat in ports in, say, Japan?

Not easily: the Japanese ASW forces are pretty good. The Kilo would have
to snorkel most of the way.

A Kilo can go ~20 knots for an hour or less, or up to three days at less
than five knots, or somewhere in between on batteries. After that its
batteries are dead flat and it _must_ come to the surface, raise a snorkel
and run its diesels.

>I would think that if it could get close
>enough, a deisel might be able to do the job, and I think I remember
>reading the PRC has some Russian-made SSs.

Three IIRC. They've already broken one Kilo (inadequate crew training)
though...

Submarines are one of the archetypal areas where having a Big Shiny Toy
means less than nothing without the infrastructure to make use of it.

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 102
From: David Hinkley dhinkley@***.org
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 11:56:17 -0700
From: caelric@****.com
Date sent: Tue, 07 Sep 1999 05:00:03 -0700
To: shadowrn@*********.org
Subject: RE: Second Hand
Send reply to: shadowrn@*********.org

> At 01:57 PM 9/7/99 +0200, you wrote:
> >And finally, abortion_engine expressed himself by writing:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >
> >You don't really need a rifle for everybody. Back in WW2,
> >the russians charged german positions with a rifle for every
> >fifth man. When he died, the one behind him took the rifle
> >and so on. When the last man took it, he was near enough to
> >the enemy to actually fight...
> >And as china has IIRC close to 2 billion people now, and
> >a lot more men than women, they could mobilize a _lot_ of
> >soldiers and would even have no decrease of the birth rate.
>
> In WW2, we didn't have automatic machinegun style grenade launchers, ala
> Mk19, which is aapprox 200 rpm 40mm grenade launcher...thats 200 rouns per
> minute of high explosive grenades.

The key to victory with human wave attacks is to have more people then he
has ammunition. Or to put another way if he has anyone still standing when
you gun goes click, you loose.

And then there is the minimum range problem with grenade launchers. At
one poinit the Military Police branch was considering M19 armed Humvees
for convoy protection, they thought it would be great weapon to break up an
ambush with. That was until it was pointed out that most "near" ambushes
happened inside the arming distance.

>
> >
> >> In addition, the Chinese military has no countermeasures
> >> whatsoever for much
> >> of our hardware. Technologically, they simply cannot keep up
> >> with the United
> >> States.
> >
> >Tech doesn't really help when you positions are attacked by
> >forces with a multiple of your own manpower. Back in the korean
> >war, when chinese forces attacked the UN units, they drove them
> >back to the southern coast. I doubt that they had _any_ tech
> >besides some tanks and rifles... sheer numbers aren't that bad.
> >
Sheer numbers when used to make human wave attacks while being
effective undercertain conditions on the battle field, are a big downer on the
Home Front. Remember Chinese soldiers have mothers too. Absent a
positive feeling for religous martyrdom like that present in Iran during the Iran-
Iraq War or a heroic defense of the motherland, high causulty rates cause
real long term problems on the home front.

Now if you mean, a major numrical superiority, with a close to tech parity
and reasonable supply levels, I am not sure that I would use the words "aren't
that bad." My preference is major military advantage.

> As I was trying to say by the Mk19 example, tech does matter. Sure, the
> human wave strategy still has some usefulness, but as technology increases,
> it's usefulness decreases. I would wager we could acheive air superiority
> vs the Chinese Air Force w/o too many losses. Then, w/o resorting to
> nuclear, close air support could take care of most human wave attacks. Or,
> fuel air explosives, very effective against personnel.

Assuming that visablity is good enough, a little low clouds or fog and close air
support is questionable at best. As a former Infantryman, I would not like to
be near close air dropping fuel air weapons near me in a fog. No thank you.

>
>
> ><snip>
> >
> >> Good point about supply lines, though. Most people underestimate the need
> >> for support personnel and strategy, simply comparing things like
> >> number of
> >> men under arms. Bravo.
> >
> >As you say, this is chinas greatest advantage. I doubt a war
> >between the US and china would be fought in America

No, that is where it would be won. Too many boys coming home in boxes and
there is a likelyhood that the ever present anti-war movement would get the
popular support it needs to force a political end to the conflict.

> >
>
> True, but....in any US vs China war, Taiwan is most likely going to be a
> very close staging point, with Okinawa not too far away, either.
>
> Yes, supply lines are a problem, but trust me, we (the US) have learned
> alot from Desert Storm, the last large scale war on the other side of the
> world.

But not enough to keep the cargo lift available. If you do not belive that we
used up all our good luck, as some logistians express soon after the war, we
could do it again only if we replaced the ships we downsized away and
upgrade our cargo aircraft fleet.


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. 103
From: Zixx t_berghoff@*********.netsurf.de
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 23:01:05 +0200
On 3 Sep 99, at 17:20, Sommers wrote:

> > >I could believe that it was deliberate, and meant to send a message to the
> > >Chinese not to screw with the US, except for one thing. It doesn't make
> >
> > Sommers, it's an act of war. The PRC could legally retailiate in any
> >method they felt like.
> > They know what it was, the US knows what it was, the UN knows
> > what it was,
> >but no one is going to admit it in public for that reason.
>
> Yes it could be considered an act of war. China could publicly declare war
> on the US and have every right to do so. Then we would declare war on them
> and it would get very messy. But they can't legally do anything to us other
> than sue for compensation for the building and the 4 people killed. And
> we've already promised them that.
>
> But if we were starting something we would actually have to deliver to them
> an declaration of war. Accidents like this, and much bigger ones, do happen
> and do not lead to wars or other retaliation.

Ever heared of something called World War No.1?


Tobias Berghoff a.k.a Zixx
ICQ: 9293066

A society without religion is like a crazed psychopath without a loaded .45

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK------------
GAT/CS/S/IT d--- s+:-- !a>? C++(++++)
UL++(++++) P+ L++ E W+ N+ w---() O-
M-- PS+(+++) PE- Y+>++ t+(++) 5+ X++
R* tv b++ DI(+) D++ G>++ e>+++++(*)
h! r--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK-------------
Message no. 104
From: Paul J. Adam Paul@********.demon.co.uk
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 22:20:31 +0100
In article <199909081856.LAA14728@******.efn.org>, David Hinkley
<dhinkley@***.org> writes
>The key to victory with human wave attacks is to have more people then he
>has ammunition. Or to put another way if he has anyone still standing when
>you gun goes click, you loose.

Depends - he needs enough to get through the obstacles and FPFs in front
of my position, overwhelm me and my men in hand-to-hand combat, and
then somehow he needs to hold the position against the counterattack or
CPEN force.

The _big_ problem with human waves is that it's harder to move men than
ammunition. You want to move a thousand men, you need fifty trucks.
One Bedford of rifle ammo will pretty much immunise the defenders
against running out of ammunition. You end up telegraphing your
punches.


The even bigger problem is vulnerability. How long do you spend exposed
to SFMG, artillery and mortar fire? How long do human-wave attackers
spend fighting through the barbed wire in front of your position, how
many die in the minefields... et cetera et cetera.


If all else fails... how many of those human wavers have NBC suits? Call in
airburst GB on your own position and get your people in NBC Black.



>And then there is the minimum range problem with grenade launchers.

Twenty metres or so, IIRC.
>At
>one poinit the Military Police branch was considering M19 armed Humvees
>for convoy protection, they thought it would be great weapon to break up an
>ambush with. That was until it was pointed out that most "near" ambushes
>happened inside the arming distance.

That _is_ for urban terrain.

>Sheer numbers when used to make human wave attacks while being
>effective undercertain conditions on the battle field, are a big downer on the
>Home Front. Remember Chinese soldiers have mothers too. Absent a
>positive feeling for religous martyrdom like that present in Iran during the Iran-
>Iraq War or a heroic defense of the motherland, high causulty rates cause
>real long term problems on the home front.

Note that Iranian human wave attacks failed to decisively defeat Iran.

>Now if you mean, a major numrical superiority, with a close to tech parity
>and reasonable supply levels, I am not sure that I would use the words "aren't
>that bad." My preference is major military advantage.

Yep, but "human wave attack" usually means throwing a howling horde
over the top at the enemy, with the participants having - if they're lucky -
an AK or cheap SMG and a couple of spare mags.

Once you've trained a man to be a skilled infantryman, to know his NBC
drills, to be a decent shot... once you've issued him a rifle, enough ammo
to be useful, chemical warfare gear, perhaps even an APC for him and his
squad to ride in... he becomes a valuable resource and not to be casually
wasted. Expended when necessary yes, wasted no.

--
Paul J. Adam
Message no. 105
From: Penta cpenta@*****.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Wed, 08 Sep 1999 19:06:02 -0700
Joesph Kerian wrote:

> Let's not forget our wonderful SACEur. When the Russia took over that
> airfield, his reaction was to issue orders to bomb them. When three of his
> immediate subordinates balked at the order, he tendered a resignation
> (officially). Wonderful quote:"I am not going to start World War III over a
> tiny piece of dirt in the most god-forsaken country on the planet."
> Although I honestly I have no idea if he chose any targets himself, but
> apparently he had the ability to do so, and he was hot-blooded enough to
> intentionally bomb the Chinese.

Do you REALLY have any evidence for any of this, or is it just political? (well-known,
or ADMITTED politically biased magazines and such do NOT count. Using normal standards
of journalism.)

> No, Madeline needs to be thrown out, and quickly. She's too political.
> Pres Clinton allowed her to pick and choose assignments based on the
> advancement of her political career. Although this may make sense to some
> people, it doesn't look good for the country. We should at least have the
> illusion of being equally interested in the rest of the world's problems.

This is in relation to Warren Christopher, and a SecState who was little more than a
stoolie for his boss (At least, that's how I saw Baker..I was 7 when the Gulf War
happened, so...). Also, Albright has ACTUAL diplomatic experience, as UN ambassador
(and I think some else. I forget.)...Unlike some of the last few.
Message no. 106
From: abortion_engine abortion_engine@*******.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 1999 23:44:35 -0400
> > > China will be happy to give you France...
> >
> >China can have France. China can _keep_ France. :)
>
> Ah, but does China _want_ France?
>
No one wants France. The FRENCH don't want France. [Which explains why they
keep giving it to other people.]
Message no. 107
From: Joesph Kerian jk1@*****.polarcomm.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 15:29:52 -0500
At 07:06 PM 9/8/99 -0700, Penta challenged:
>> Let's not forget our wonderful SACEur....
>Do you REALLY have any evidence for any of this, or is it just political?
(well-known,
>or ADMITTED politically biased magazines and such do NOT count. Using
normal standards
>of journalism.)
Okay, this discussion has gone pretty far afield. So if there are
responses, let's move over to private email, but I feel a need to respond
to a credibility challenge in a public arena.
Depends on what you're asking about. If you're talking about the Asia
thing, check out Fox News. My quote was a commentator putting words in one
of the player's mouth, the quote wasn't quite that direct (at least it
wasn't in Newsweek). His resignation in the face of insubordination by 2
American and 1 British generals/admiral regarding an order to attack the
airfield came across AP. Let me see what I can find....

Okay, from the Dept Of State:
http://secretary.state.gov/www/briefings/9908/990802db.html contains a
reference to a Newsweek article. Incidently, that's an excellent source to
learn how to handle official-speak for your games. That denial sounds
kind-of.... too official.
After a couple more minuites of searching, I got this:
http://newsweek.com/nw-srv/issue/06_99b/printed/int/eur/ovin0706_3.htm .
Although the article was fairly sympathetic to Clark, somehow implying that
he isn't a political general just as much as his replacement(The last
paragraph doesn't count), here's the quote:
"At the end of the war, Clark was so anxious to stop the Russians from
stealing a march to Pristina airport that he ordered an airborne assault to
take the field before them. But Gen. Mike Jackson, the British commander on
the ground in Kosovo, wouldn't carry out Clark's orders. Subsequently, a
frustrated Clark asked Adm. James O. Ellis Jr, the American officer in
charge of NATO's Southern Command, to order helicopters to land on the
runways so that the big Russian Ilyushin transports couldn't land. Ellis
balked, saying Jackson wouldn't like it. "I'm not going to start World War
III for you," Jackson later told Clark."
The AP had a similer article [07-29-1999; Page: A06; Section: News], which
I can't seem to find a copy of (at least one that I won't have to pay for).
The AP tells a slightly different story, but the critical element, the
order to drop armed aircraft on Russian-held territory (in the AP they
combined the two orders,which mislead me) in a hostile action, remains the
same.
If you don't feel these articles say what I said they did, I really don't
think it's worth arguing about anymore. :]

>> No, Madeline needs to be thrown out, and quickly. She's too
political.
>> Pres Clinton allowed her to pick and choose assignments based on the
>> advancement of her political career. Although this may make sense to some
>> people, it doesn't look good for the country. We should at least have the
>> illusion of being equally interested in the rest of the world's problems.
>
>This is in relation to Warren Christopher, and a SecState who was little
more than a
>stoolie for his boss (At least, that's how I saw Baker..I was 7 when the
Gulf War
>happened, so...). Also, Albright has ACTUAL diplomatic experience, as UN
ambassador
>(and I think some else. I forget.)...Unlike some of the last few.
No arguements about her experiance... but IMHO she should have stayed in
that arena.
--Joe

Crater, Dwarf Magician
"Dwarves can't fling spells eh? Chummer,
you've been playing too much AD&D (9th Ed)."
Message no. 108
From: Joesph Kerian jk1@*****.polarcomm.com
Subject: Second Hand
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 1999 16:52:13 -0500
Sorry, my message and Gridsec's <thwap> crossed each other in my email client.
--Joe

Crater, Dwarf Magician
"Dwarves can't fling spells eh? Chummer,
you've been playing too much AD&D (9th Ed)."

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Second Hand, 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!