From:	Robert Watkins <bob@**.NTU.EDU.AU>
Subject:	Re: Desert Wars
Date:	Mon, 5 Jun 1995 22:15:30 +0930

WILLIAM FRIERSON wrote:
>
> This is one of the things that jars me right out of the game. The thought
> that corps who were worried about the bottom line would actually throw
> money away fighting a "commercial" war. Wars cost _MAJOR_ bucks. Just the
> cost of ordinance is sky high, let alone that of vehicles, training, pay
> for personnel, insurance, pension benefits for those killed, logistics etc.

They're not so much wars, as set-piece engagements. Logisitics are reduced
as the local countryside is friendly.

The battles, besides being sponsored by other corps, for advertising
purposes, allow corporations to resolve their differences in a manner both
sides are happy with, and allow those companies in weapons research to do
field testing of R&D weapons. Would _you_ buy a weapon that hadn't been
tested under the most rigourous conditions of modern warfare? No, it's a
reasonable bet that the Desert Wars aren't too much of a loss.

> I can't see a corp throwing money down a black hole like a war for nothing
> more than advertising. Hell, they don't to pay expense accounts. Why would
> they spend millions for a commercial?

It's not a commercial... think of it more as a movie. And how much do
movies cost these days? (Not to mention the defense contract spinoffs)

--
Robert Watkins bob@**.ntu.edu.au
Real Programmers never work 9 to 5. If any real programmers
are around at 9 am, it's because they were up all night.
*** Finger me for my geek code ***