Military SF
Michael O. Akinde
I`ve read a deal in my time, Gordon R. Dickson`s Dorsai and Jerry Pournelle`s
Falkenberg`s Legions standing out most clearly to me as Military fiction. But
many SciFi and Fantas Novels occur during war (very few don`t). Would those be
called Military SF too?
I`d like to hear your opinions on this.
---
Veni, Vidi, Vici - Caesar.
Richard Treitel
|> What is it that causes Military SF to be distinguished from other
|> sorts of SF. I`ve read a deal in my time, Gordon R. Dickson`s
|> Dorsai and Jerry Pournelle`s Falkenberg`s Legions standing out most
|> clearly to me as Military fiction. But many SciFi and Fantas Novels
|> occur during war (very few don`t). Would those be called Military
|> SF too?
What is it that causes Military uniforms to be distinguished from
other sorts of uniforms. Many non-military uniforms are worn during
war (e.g. by cops, nurses, etc.). Would those be called Military
uniforms too?
-- Richard
If my employer holds these views, it hasn't told me.
Allan McInnes
> I`ve read a deal in my time, Gordon R. Dickson`s Dorsai and Jerry Pournelle`s
> Falkenberg`s Legions standing out most clearly to me as Military fiction. But
> many SciFi and Fantas Novels occur during war (very few don`t). Would those be
> called Military SF too?
I think the difference is that SF in general, while it may be set in a war, is
looking at other social and technological trends. Military SF, on the other
hand, examines the way that technological and societal changes affect that
ancient institution - the armed forces. Sometimes, the SF becomes the
background, and the story is really about the unchanging lot of the common
soldier.
Too many people in todays "liberal" world denigrate the military
because they do not understand it. This is a betrayal of the liberal
viewpoint, which purports to be tolerant, and not base it's decisions on
ignorant prejudice. Pournelle's Falkenberg stories, and Heinlein's Starship
Troopers are examples of an attempt to redress that imbalance, and give people
some understanding.
--
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Allan McInnes | "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."
| -Lazarus Long
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Jyrki Valkama
: I think the difference is that SF in general, while it may be set in a war,
: looking at other social and technological trends. Military SF, on the other
: hand, examines the way that technological and societal changes affect that
: ancient institution - the armed forces. Sometimes, the SF becomes the
: background, and the story is really about the unchanging lot of the common
: soldier.
: Too many people in todays "liberal" world denigrate the military
: because they do not understand it. This is a betrayal of the liberal
: viewpoint, which purports to be tolerant, and not base it's decisions on
: ignorant prejudice. Pournelle's Falkenberg stories, and Heinlein's Starship
: Troopers are examples of an attempt to redress that imbalance, and give
people
: some understanding.
This is so stupid I can't let it pass. Understanding, what understanding
from guys who have never fought? Those are just glorifications from guys
who have been safely behind real soldiers thru all their lives.
Only Military scifi writer I give respect is Drake, at least he participated
in war (Vietnam namely). Falkenberg stories are totally unrealistic, last
time people fought like that was in 1500-1800 Italy. when professional
mercenarys fought according strict rules during day and then retreated
to camp for good nights sleep. When Napoleon came into Italy and conquered
it, those mercenarys were swept away in no time.
Cheers! Jyrki Valkama
PS Clarke was in army too, but he never wrote MilScifi, instead couple
excellent stories about bureaucrycy and how to exploit it.
Mark Urbin
In article <3auan8$l...@bones.intellicorp.com>, treitel@bones (Richard Treitel) writes:
|>In article <3aq5us$4...@news.iesd.auc.dk>, stra...@kom.auc.dk (Michael O. Akinde) writes:
|>|> What is it that causes Military SF to be distinguished from other
|>|> sorts of SF. I`ve read a deal in my time, Gordon R. Dickson`s
|>|> Dorsai and Jerry Pournelle`s Falkenberg`s Legions standing out most
|>|> clearly to me as Military fiction. But many SciFi and Fantas Novels
|>|> occur during war (very few don`t). Would those be called Military
|>|> SF too?
Military fiction deals with aspects of military life or tradition. If a novel
deals with a refugee's travels through a war zone, it's not a military novel.
If it tells the story of a Mechanized Cav Trooper, how he got there, his
motivations for joining, his reasons for staying, his unit's history, etc...
then it's a military story.
In several case's Pournelle's military SF retells tales out of military
history. He just puts them on a different planet and upgrades some of their
equipment.
If you like Pournelle, go find all the H. Beam Piper books you can find.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Urbin DEC Video Interactive Information Services QA
Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot.
Opinions are mine! All Mine! DEC doesn't pay me to talk for them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Schilling
[discussion of military SF]
>This is so stupid I can't let it pass. Understanding, what understanding
>from guys who have never fought? Those are just glorifications from guys
>who have been safely behind real soldiers thru all their lives.
>Only Military scifi writer I give respect is Drake, at least he participated
>in war (Vietnam namely). Falkenberg stories are totally unrealistic, last
>time people fought like that was in 1500-1800 Italy. when professional
>mercenarys fought according strict rules during day and then retreated
>to camp for good nights sleep. When Napoleon came into Italy and conquered
>it, those mercenarys were swept away in no time.
You are, of course, aware that Jerry Pournelle (author of the _Falkenberg_
stories) is a combat veteran? Commanded an artillery battery during the
Korean war, as I recall.
And I am confused about your allegations about the "unrealism" of the
fighting in the _Falkenberg_ stories. The type of fighting presented
in said stories is almost exactly identical to that described by David
Drake, who you claim to respect. Including tne (inaccurate) parallels to
the Italian condottiere system you mention.
Only difference is, Drake completely ignores the political and strategic
aspects, where Pournelle describes these in great depth. And, in the
process, explains *why* that type of fighting has returned in his fictional
future.
Perhaps it is the political, and not the military, aspects of Pournelle's
work that so offends you?
--
*John Schilling * "You can have Peace, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * or you can have Freedom. *
*University of Southern California * Don't ever count on having both *
*Aerospace Engineering Department * at the same time." *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * - Robert A. Heinlein *
*(213)-740-5311 or 747-2527 * Finger for PGP public key *
David Gibbs
Jyrki Valkama <jval...@paju.oulu.fi> wrote:
>This is so stupid I can't let it pass. Understanding, what understanding
>from guys who have never fought? Those are just glorifications from guys
>who have been safely behind real soldiers thru all their lives.
>Only Military scifi writer I give respect is Drake, at least he participated
>in war (Vietnam namely).
There are other authors of military SF that have participated in wars.
- Allan Cole and Chris Bunch -- the Sten series
- The author of _The Forever War_ -- I think it is Joe Haldeman
was also a vietnam vet.
Maybe a more important/interesting question -- is there a noticeable
qualitative difference between the military sf written by veterans
and that written by civilians?
David Gibbs
(dag...@qnx.com)
Jyrki Valkama
: jval...@paju.oulu.fi (Jyrki Valkama) writes:
: (deleted)
: You are, of course, aware that Jerry Pournelle (author of the _Falkenberg_
: stories) is a combat veteran? Commanded an artillery battery during the
: Korean war, as I recall.
An artillerist? Same thing i.e safely behind combat lines.
I always wondered why in his books artillery was so much more important
than air force and why it was so accurate, well timed and so on.
(In Desert Storm he would have been on Iraq side after all Iraqis had
better artillery, faster and with more range. And we all know what happened)
: And I am confused about your allegations about the "unrealism" of the
: fighting in the _Falkenberg_ stories. The type of fighting presented
: in said stories is almost exactly identical to that described by David
: Drake, who you claim to respect. Including tne (inaccurate) parallels to
: the Italian condottiere system you mention.
Drake had combat experience and it shows. Everything is more realistic
and gripping, there is real blood and guts on scene. I can imagine
that Hollywood could make a movie from a Pournelle book, hardly from
Drake. Besides Drake's characters seem realistic and living, compared
to Pournelles cardboard figures.
Condottiere system was real and worked for a while at least, but then
there was no air force mucking things up (and competing with artillery).
To me the mercenary systems look remarkably similar, care to tell about
the alleged inaccuracies.
: Only difference is, Drake completely ignores the political and strategic
: aspects, where Pournelle describes these in great depth. And, in the
: process, explains *why* that type of fighting has returned in his fictional
: future.
My experience is exactly opposite: Drake describes politics well from
soldiers viewpoint, that is by hinting not overly preaching some agenda.
: Perhaps it is the political, and not the military, aspects of Pournelle's
: work that so offends you?
Another peeve. Interstellar stable monarchy , give me break!
In first place it is exactly opposite to stable even in his own books.
I understand rationale for that it's easy to get interesting civil wars,
succession wars etc. in that kind universe.
Second peeeve is that habit of his to create whole his universe just to
prove his protagonist, hero is right and everybody else wrong.
Just to be fair I'm not against Pournelles writings or the created imperial
universe, it is interesting locale, but I wouldn't like to live there. I read
from time to time his books, but always alternated to somebody's else.
Too much of MilSciFi is written by and for toy happy little boys.
(Thomas Clancy comes into mind.)
Cheers! Jyrki Valkama
Jyrki Valkama
: In article <3b1qo2$7...@ousrvr.oulu.fi>,
: Jyrki Valkama <jval...@paju.oulu.fi> wrote:
: >This is so stupid I can't let it pass. Understanding, what understanding
: >from guys who have never fought? Those are just glorifications from guys
: >who have been safely behind real soldiers thru all their lives.
: >Only Military scifi writer I give respect is Drake, at least he participated
: >in war (Vietnam namely).
: There are other authors of military SF that have participated in wars.
: - Allan Cole and Chris Bunch -- the Sten series
: - The author of _The Forever War_ -- I think it is Joe Haldeman
: was also a vietnam vet.
I forgot Haldeman, that is really a writer to respect, but then he writes
also about other things.
: Maybe a more important/interesting question -- is there a noticeable
: qualitative difference between the military sf written by veterans
: and that written by civilians?
Blood and Guts.
MilSciFi written by civilians and other non-combat people tends to be
gadget oriented. Vets have at least experience of being at the receiving
end of those gadgets. Basically it boils to the fact that in war people
tend to be killed, maimed and have other wonderful experiences.
Wars with robots, tin soldier figurines, are generally uninteresting.
Cheers! Jyrki Valkama
Dan Swartzendruber
>John Schilling (schi...@spock.usc.edu) wrote:
>: jval...@paju.oulu.fi (Jyrki Valkama) writes:
>: (deleted)
>
>: You are, of course, aware that Jerry Pournelle (author of the _Falkenberg_
>: stories) is a combat veteran? Commanded an artillery battery during the
>: Korean war, as I recall.
>
>An artillerist? Same thing i.e safely behind combat lines.
Safe behind the lines? I take it you've never of heard of counter
battery fire, then? And, until pretty recently, being in an artillery
unit was far from "safely behind the lines".
>I always wondered why in his books artillery was so much more important
>than air force and why it was so accurate, well timed and so on.
>(In Desert Storm he would have been on Iraq side after all Iraqis had
>better artillery, faster and with more range. And we all know what happened)
--
#include <std_disclaimer.h>
Dan S.
Jyrki Valkama
: In article <3b4ea0$i...@ousrvr.oulu.fi> jval...@paju.oulu.fi (Jyrki Valkama) writes:
: >John Schilling (schi...@spock.usc.edu) wrote:
: >: jval...@paju.oulu.fi (Jyrki Valkama) writes:
: >: (deleted)
: >
: >: You are, of course, aware that Jerry Pournelle (author of the _Falkenberg_
: >: stories) is a combat veteran? Commanded an artillery battery during the
: >: Korean war, as I recall.
: >
: >An artillerist? Same thing i.e safely behind combat lines.
: Safe behind the lines? I take it you've never of heard of counter
: battery fire, then? And, until pretty recently, being in an artillery
: unit was far from "safely behind the lines".
This is lame. This is all you could muster?
I was referring more to actual combat.
BTW being in an artillery unit is nowadays far more dangerous than previously.
It's so easy spot artillery and hit it as it's more stationary other units.
Only place more dangerous to be is in mortar/grenadelauncher (?) unit,
I have friend in such unit and he is quite fatalistic about his chanches
of survival i.e life expectancy about three minutes after first salvo.
Cheers! Jyrki Valkama
Christopher Weeks
Vietnam from 1969 to 1970, I believe.
Joe Haldeman was a combat engineer in the 4th Infantry Division
around 1968 or 1969. Wounded in action. _The Forever War_ is, in his
own words, an allegory of Vietnam, and one of the best sf novels written,
military or otherwise, IMHO. His non-sf novel _War Year_, poem "DX",
short story "Graves", and others are more directly about Vietnam.
Robert Heinlein was a Navy officer in the 1930s, served on an
aircraft carrier.
Brian Aldiss was in the (British) Royal Air Force in Burma during
the last years of World War II. His non-sf novel _The Hand-Reared Boy_
is partly based on this.
Arthur Clarke was in the Royal Air Force in WW2, J.G. Ballard was
also in the RAF during the 1950s, "Cordwainer Smith" was an officer in
the Office of Strategic Services and an advisor in China during World War
II, awarded the Bronze Star. Isaac Asimov was in the Army at the very
end of World War II. Harry Harrison was as well (see _Bill, The
Galactic Hero_). Etc. Etc.
I think my point is that many sf writers have served in the military.
Many have, at times, written sf or non-sf inspired or based on this.
Very few of them ever saw combat.
Most writers who write military sf, most writers who write
military non-sf, have never been in the military.
But the point to remember is that this is not relevant. "Write
what you know" is a fable. Just because one was in combat and one wasn't
doesn't automatically mean one will be a better writer of combat sf.
Always keep in mind that _The Red Badge of Courage_, considered
the best war novel ever written, was written by someone who never served
in combat, let alone the Civil War. Crane was hardly even alive when it
was being fought.
John Schilling
>John Schilling (schi...@spock.usc.edu) wrote:
>: jval...@paju.oulu.fi (Jyrki Valkama) writes:
>: (deleted)
>: You are, of course, aware that Jerry Pournelle (author of the _Falkenberg_
>: stories) is a combat veteran? Commanded an artillery battery during the
>: Korean war, as I recall.
>An artillerist? Same thing i.e safely behind combat lines.
As I understand it, the *reason* Pournelle (a very junior second lieutenant
at the time) commanded an artillery battery is because every other officer
in the battery was killed by enemy fire. In the space of about five minutes.
"Safely behind the lines", indeed. Do keep in mind that *both* sides in
a war are likely to have artillery.
[much deleted]
>Condottiere system was real and worked for a while at least, but then
>there was no air force mucking things up (and competing with artillery).
>To me the mercenary systems look remarkably similar, care to tell about
>the alleged inaccuracies.
Well, for starters, you seemed to have missed the fact that compact and
efficient surface-to-air missiles are quite common in in Pournelle's
future history; *every* infantryman in Falkenberg's Legion carries one,
for example. Thus, aircraft don't live very long over the battlefield
and there is "no air force mucking things up".
Also, in your original post you specifically pointed out, as a ridiculous
aspect of the condottiere system, the arbitrary rules against night
combat that allowed armies to get a comfortable night's sleep before
and after every battle. Whereas many of the battles in Pournelle's works
take place at night, and involve partisan/insurgent forces which don't
seem to respect arbitrary rules of war.
That's one "alleged inaccuracy" in your attack on Pournelle's work.
I wont't waste time dealing with all of the others; it is always easier
and faster to *create* nonsense than to refute it.
But it is increasingly clear that *you* are not a combat veteran, that
you have absolutely no understanding of warfare (modern or otherwise),
and that your principal complaint is that Pournelle's work does not conform
to your inaccurate impression of warfare; hence you must be right and he
must be wrong.
Nancy Lebovitz
he's written some violent jungle combat sf.
Nancy Lebovitz
Dan Swartzendruber
>Dan Swartzendruber (dsw...@pugsley.osf.org) wrote:
>: In article <3b4ea0$i...@ousrvr.oulu.fi> jval...@paju.oulu.fi (Jyrki Valkama) writes:
>: >John Schilling (schi...@spock.usc.edu) wrote:
>: >: jval...@paju.oulu.fi (Jyrki Valkama) writes:
>: >: (deleted)
>: >
>: >: You are, of course, aware that Jerry Pournelle (author of the _Falkenberg_
>: >: stories) is a combat veteran? Commanded an artillery battery during the
>: >: Korean war, as I recall.
>: >
>: >An artillerist? Same thing i.e safely behind combat lines.
>
>: Safe behind the lines? I take it you've never of heard of counter
>: battery fire, then? And, until pretty recently, being in an artillery
>: unit was far from "safely behind the lines".
>
>This is lame. This is all you could muster?
Lame? Why? I suppose I could have given more examples, but you
were the one making the blanket assertion about safety, not I.
>I was referring more to actual combat.
Sigh. Go back and read some descriptions of Civil War and
earlier engagements w.r.t. what happened to artillerymen
who were overrun by enemy cavalry or infantry. And in more
recent years, doctrine calls for heavy tactical air suppression
of enemy artillery. Remember what happened to Iraqi artillery
units during the Gulf War? Or do you somehow attach a mystical
significance to the fashion in which a soldier dies? Dead is dead.
>BTW being in an artillery unit is nowadays far more dangerous than previously.
>It's so easy spot artillery and hit it as it's more stationary other units.
>Only place more dangerous to be is in mortar/grenadelauncher (?) unit,
>I have friend in such unit and he is quite fatalistic about his chanches
>of survival i.e life expectancy about three minutes after first salvo.
Weren't you the one who just said it was safer? Make up your mind.
Jyrki Valkama
: >: jval...@paju.oulu.fi (Jyrki Valkama) writes:
: >: (deleted)
: >: You are, of course, aware that Jerry Pournelle (author of the _Falkenberg_
: >: stories) is a combat veteran? Commanded an artillery battery during the
: >: Korean war, as I recall.
: >An artillerist? Same thing i.e safely behind combat lines.
: As I understand it, the *reason* Pournelle (a very junior second lieutenant
: at the time) commanded an artillery battery is because every other officer
: in the battery was killed by enemy fire. In the space of about five minutes.
: "Safely behind the lines", indeed. Do keep in mind that *both* sides in
: a war are likely to have artillery.
And neither side has air force, which would swat artillery.
Instead there is artillery duels, which of course Falkenbergers always win
due their superiority (and innately knowing the right facts).
: >Condottiere system was real and worked for a while at least, but then
: >there was no air force mucking things up (and competing with artillery).
: >To me the mercenary systems look remarkably similar, care to tell about
: >the alleged inaccuracies.
: Well, for starters, you seemed to have missed the fact that compact and
: efficient surface-to-air missiles are quite common in in Pournelle's
: future history; *every* infantryman in Falkenberg's Legion carries one,
: for example. Thus, aircraft don't live very long over the battlefield
: and there is "no air force mucking things up".
There has been long time AA elements in wars and air force hasn't been
yet abolished. I didn't miss them, particularly I always wondered why
they are carrying all that dead mass on themselves, instead of getting
rid of it in first available opportunity like any sensible soldier.
Besides warhead which a man can carry hardly has any real punch,
like real wars have shown. Every man carrying a stinger, why not combine
it with good anti-tank weapon and with everything else like miniature
artillery. I wonder if you can fit them with Swiss army knife, maybe
it would be simple too heavy load for them.
BTW didn't Pournelle himself pointed the condottiere system as a source?
: Also, in your original post you specifically pointed out, as a ridiculous
: aspect of the condottiere system, the arbitrary rules against night
: combat that allowed armies to get a comfortable night's sleep before
: and after every battle. Whereas many of the battles in Pournelle's works
: take place at night, and involve partisan/insurgent forces which don't
: seem to respect arbitrary rules of war.
: That's one "alleged inaccuracy" in your attack on Pournelle's work.
You don't get even pedant point as you missed whole point.
It was sensible rule, sensible for mercenarys. Besides war was carried also
on night, but in different ways, where you think we got expression "cloak
and dagger".
I meant whole system with same rules throughout whole know Universe/Space
and everywhere the Fleet arbitrading and ensuring that there are no
nuclears, space fleets orbit bombing or other shenanigans ruining artillery
mans day.
BTW it occurred to me, are Falkenbergers carrying night goggles?
Because it reminds me how another friend from coastal artillery told how
he lost all confidence/respect for night fighting as he observed in field
excercises jaegers trying to infiltrate his fortress post. Particularly
it was fun trying to separate jaegers from other nigth walkers as jaegers
walked in military orthodox way little crouched hugging their weapons.
Well do they have space for night goggles as I seem to have forgotten that
little detail.
: I wont't waste time dealing with all of the others; it is always easier
: and faster to *create* nonsense than to refute it.
I'm tempted to point Pournelle's Universe as such nonsense, but I won't,
because it's actually hard work to create, it's easy refute by saying
"Phoof".
: But it is increasingly clear that *you* are not a combat veteran, that
: you have absolutely no understanding of warfare (modern or otherwise),
: and that your principal complaint is that Pournelle's work does not conform
: to your inaccurate impression of warfare; hence you must be right and he
: must be wrong.
It's a safe bet considering that I'm from Finland and we haven't had
lately fortune to achieve combat veterans. Those veterans from Winter War
and Continuation War tell of different reality than sanitized glorifications.
And what are you? And what makes you such a expert?
If we lower ourselves into level of personal insults instead of discussing
of matters. You lost your arguments?
One thing in his writing that has irked me has been his heroes absolute
righteousness, on the other hand, whole Imperial universe has been created
for them to be always right, so I can't much fault them for it.
Another Irk is that much vaulted Falkenberg's legionairres can't seem to
achieve much without Falkenberg being personally in situation and wiping
their collective asses.
Cheers! Jyrki Valkama
PS This is going to be ridiculosly like Pournelle-bashing only, he has
some merits, why don't we bash somebody who really deserves it?
Jyrki Valkama
: In article <3b4rhr$q...@ousrvr.oulu.fi> jval...@paju.oulu.fi (Jyrki Valkama) writes:
: >Dan Swartzendruber (dsw...@pugsley.osf.org) wrote:
: And in more
: recent years, doctrine calls for heavy tactical air suppression
: of enemy artillery.
Pretty much speaks for itself
Remember what happened to Iraqi artillery
: units during the Gulf War?
Which side Falkenberg would have been?
Or do you somehow attach a mystical
: significance to the fashion in which a soldier dies? Dead is dead.
People tend to be killed, isn't that the point of military history,
fiction. Unless you are contemplating of a kind of chess, chess
is good practice for war, but hardly makes a poignant tale.
: >BTW being in an artillery unit is nowadays far more dangerous
than previously.
: >It's so easy spot artillery and hit it as it's more stationary other units.
: >Only place more dangerous to be is in mortar/grenadelauncher (?) unit,
: >I have friend in such unit and he is quite fatalistic about his chanches
: >of survival i.e life expectancy about three minutes after first salvo.
: Weren't you the one who just said it was safer? Make up your mind.
I was saying it's going to be increasingly dangerous for artillery each year.
How is then justified bringing conventional heavy artillery to future
warfare. Pournelle does that by inventing arbitrary and complex rules,
heck whole Universe!
Cheers! Jyrki Valkama
PS There has been some speculation of my alleged polical orientation,
well let me be absolute clear: stable Interstellar Monarchy is an stupid idea!
Gee, I didn't know there were so many loyal monarchists in USA.
Dan Swartzendruber
>Dan Swartzendruber (dsw...@pugsley.osf.org) wrote:
>: In article <3b4rhr$q...@ousrvr.oulu.fi> jval...@paju.oulu.fi (Jyrki Valkama) writes:
>: >Dan Swartzendruber (dsw...@pugsley.osf.org) wrote:
>
>
>: And in more
>: recent years, doctrine calls for heavy tactical air suppression
>: of enemy artillery.
>
>Pretty much speaks for itself
>
> Remember what happened to Iraqi artillery
>: units during the Gulf War?
>
>Which side Falkenberg would have been?
He wouldn't. You're confusing two different issues. One was that
at most points in military history, being in the artillery hasn't
been any safer (in particular) than any other active combat role.
The other is the future history wherein artillery is one of the
predominate forces (this was already addressed by John Schilling,
as I recall). Air power, for reasons completely plausible to me,
isn't a viable counter to artillery (at least not on the various
colony worlds).
> Or do you somehow attach a mystical
>: significance to the fashion in which a soldier dies? Dead is dead.
>
>People tend to be killed, isn't that the point of military history,
>fiction. Unless you are contemplating of a kind of chess, chess
>is good practice for war, but hardly makes a poignant tale.
I've totally lost you here.
>: >BTW being in an artillery unit is nowadays far more dangerous
> than previously.
>: >It's so easy spot artillery and hit it as it's more stationary other units.
>: >Only place more dangerous to be is in mortar/grenadelauncher (?) unit,
>: >I have friend in such unit and he is quite fatalistic about his chanches
>: >of survival i.e life expectancy about three minutes after first salvo.
>
>: Weren't you the one who just said it was safer? Make up your mind.
>
>I was saying it's going to be increasingly dangerous for artillery each year.
>How is then justified bringing conventional heavy artillery to future
>warfare. Pournelle does that by inventing arbitrary and complex rules,
>heck whole Universe!
Sorry, but I've got to agree with John here. If you think Pournelle
has indulged in handwaving, you're on drugs.
>Cheers! Jyrki Valkama
>
>PS There has been some speculation of my alleged polical orientation,
>well let me be absolute clear: stable Interstellar Monarchy is an stupid idea!
Unsupported assertion. Care to enlighten us, or is it just easier
to throw around various criticisms of other people's work without
any hard data (especially for one with no credentials in this field -
at least none you've seen fit to share with us).
>Gee, I didn't know there were so many loyal monarchists in USA.
This is silly, Jyrki, and you should know better. My opinion, as a
historian, as to what is viable and what isn't, has absolutely zero
to do with my personal political preferences.
s...@xedoc.com.au
> This is so stupid I can't let it pass. Understanding, what understanding
> from guys who have never fought? Those are just glorifications from guys
> who have been safely behind real soldiers thru all their lives.
> Only Military scifi writer I give respect is Drake, at least he
> participated in war (Vietnam namely).
Joe Haldeman was also in Vietnam as (I think) an army engineer. His "The
Forever War" is one of the best pieces of military related SF.
> Falkenberg stories are totally unrealistic, last
> time people fought like that was in 1500-1800 Italy. when professional
> mercenarys fought according strict rules during day and then retreated
> to camp for good nights sleep. When Napoleon came into Italy and
> conquered it, those mercenarys were swept away in no time.
Yep. Too many lazy writer retelling stories of old battles. If I wanted to
read a book of military history I would!
Steve
----------------------------------------------------------
Steve Taylor
s...@xedoc.com.au
Xedoc Software Development
Jyrki Valkama
: In article <3ba205$2...@ousrvr.oulu.fi> jval...@paju.oulu.fi (Jyrki Valkama)
writes:
: >Dan Swartzendruber (dsw...@pugsley.osf.org) wrote:
: >: In article <3b4rhr$q...@ousrvr.oulu.fi> jval...@paju.oulu.fi (Jyrki
Valkama) writes:
: >: >Dan Swartzendruber (dsw...@pugsley.osf.org) wrote:
: >: And in more
: >: recent years, doctrine calls for heavy tactical air suppression
: >: of enemy artillery.
: >
: >Pretty much speaks for itself
: >
: > Remember what happened to Iraqi artillery
: >: units during the Gulf War?
: >
: >Which side Falkenberg would have been?
: He wouldn't.
No? And he being a mercenary?
(Yet another irk: Falkenberg's mercenarys don't behave like professional
mercenarys. Where is the haggling over price, loot?)
You're confusing two different issues. One was that
: at most points in military history, being in the artillery hasn't
: been any safer (in particular) than any other active combat role.
Much safer than being in frontline, it needs an unlucky break in battle-
lines or counter artillery to endanger artillery. As I recall in Korean
War North Koreans (and their allies) didn't do much bomb, usually it was
USAF, which bombed. Nowadays artillery has to compete with air force,
which one can drop more hardware over enemy. Artillery has it's place in
battlefield, but it's not as important as it was.
: The other is the future history wherein artillery is one of the
: predominate forces (this was already addressed by John Schilling,
: as I recall). Air power, for reasons completely plausible to me,
: isn't a viable counter to artillery (at least not on the various
: colony worlds).
On colony which is more viable: you travel with you artillery thousands
(tens of thousands) kilometers on non-existend roads to get to your enemy,
or whip your opponents with fast airstrike or orbitbomb him. You can make
several bombing runs on your hapless artillery wielder, in fact you can
visit several other systems meanwhile (it's cheaper too).
: > Or do you somehow attach a mystical
: >: significance to the fashion in which a soldier dies? Dead is dead.
: >
: >People tend to be killed, isn't that the point of military history,
: >fiction. Unless you are contemplating of a kind of chess, chess
: >is good practice for war, but hardly makes a poignant tale.
: I've totally lost you here.
That's your shame.
: >I was saying it's going to be increasingly dangerous for artillery
each year.
: >How is then justified bringing conventional heavy artillery to future
: >warfare. Pournelle does that by inventing arbitrary and complex rules,
: >heck whole Universe!
: Sorry, but I've got to agree with John here. If you think Pournelle
: has indulged in handwaving, you're on drugs.
Two things: 1) Sorry Dan!, I don't have any drugs for you.
2) Pournelle certainly doesn't handwave, he explains his reasoning and
he explains it and he explains it and to ensure that his message goes to
home he has build an universe in which his message is among the five forces
(...etc and the strongest force: "HERO is absolutely right").
: >PS There has been some speculation of my alleged polical orientation,
: >well let me be absolute clear: stable Interstellar Monarchy is an stupid
idea!
: Unsupported assertion. Care to enlighten us, or is it just easier
: to throw around various criticisms of other people's work without
: any hard data (especially for one with no credentials in this field -
: at least none you've seen fit to share with us).
Neither have you shown any credentials, besides in this field you need
only have credited in reading scifi books.
Monarchy is inherently unstable construction as history has proved again
and again. Either king has the power or he doesn't, any balancing king's
power is labil and returns to either. Observe for example how Swedish monarchy
has developed thru centuries: king choosen from/among/by chieftains,
hereditary monarchy, absolute monarchy, gradual transition to seremonial
monarchy. One could say that circle has been completed. Transition
from hereditary absolute monarchy to seremonial began when people started
to ask a simple question: "What if the next-in-line is an idiot?".
Before hereditary monarchy king's idiocy was not possible, power struggle
weeded out halfwits, hereditary (weak) king made a good rallying point,
problems became apparent as hereditary king became absolute power.
: >Gee, I didn't know there were so many loyal monarchists in USA.
: This is silly, Jyrki, and you should know better. My opinion, as a
: historian, as to what is viable and what isn't, has absolutely zero
: to do with my personal political preferences.
Come on Dan! Admit that you are closet loyalist planted by George III's
spies in purpose of bringing USA back under British Crown.
I bet Daughters of Revolution would be interested of your opinions.
Cheers! Jyrki Valkama
Dan Swartzendruber
>
>Dan Swartzendruber (dsw...@pugsley.osf.org) wrote:
>: In article <3ba205$2...@ousrvr.oulu.fi> jval...@paju.oulu.fi (Jyrki Valkama)
>writes:
>: >Dan Swartzendruber (dsw...@pugsley.osf.org) wrote:
>: >: In article <3b4rhr$q...@ousrvr.oulu.fi> jval...@paju.oulu.fi (Jyrki
>Valkama) writes:
>: >: >Dan Swartzendruber (dsw...@pugsley.osf.org) wrote:
>
>: >: And in more
>: >: recent years, doctrine calls for heavy tactical air suppression
>: >: of enemy artillery.
>: >
>: >Pretty much speaks for itself
>: >
>: > Remember what happened to Iraqi artillery
>: >: units during the Gulf War?
>: >
>: >Which side Falkenberg would have been?
>
>: He wouldn't.
>
>No? And he being a mercenary?
>(Yet another irk: Falkenberg's mercenarys don't behave like professional
> mercenarys. Where is the haggling over price, loot?)
Presumably done by the front office. Don't know about you, but I'm
not that interested in reading that aspect of the story.
> You're confusing two different issues. One was that
>: at most points in military history, being in the artillery hasn't
>: been any safer (in particular) than any other active combat role.
>
>Much safer than being in frontline, it needs an unlucky break in battle-
>lines or counter artillery to endanger artillery. As I recall in Korean
>War North Koreans (and their allies) didn't do much bomb, usually it was
>USAF, which bombed. Nowadays artillery has to compete with air force,
>which one can drop more hardware over enemy. Artillery has it's place in
>battlefield, but it's not as important as it was.
Jyrki, this is getting ridiculous. No one is claiming that being
an artillery solider is the most dangerous job. We were trying to
rebut your ridiculous assertion that it is safe, being a behind
the lines job. Aside from the point that at various times, it has
not been nearly so safe, there are many other jobs as a solider which
aren't as dangerous as a front-line grunt. Just because I'm not
right up front doesn't make it a cushy job like being a typist at
Fort Benning or some such...
>: The other is the future history wherein artillery is one of the
>: predominate forces (this was already addressed by John Schilling,
>: as I recall). Air power, for reasons completely plausible to me,
>: isn't a viable counter to artillery (at least not on the various
>: colony worlds).
>
>On colony which is more viable: you travel with you artillery thousands
>(tens of thousands) kilometers on non-existend roads to get to your enemy,
>or whip your opponents with fast airstrike or orbitbomb him. You can make
>several bombing runs on your hapless artillery wielder, in fact you can
>visit several other systems meanwhile (it's cheaper too).
Have you read (and paid attention to) the political points in these
stories? I'm really starting to wonder. Any kind of space capable
war machine wouldn't be allowed by the CoDo. And it's a much more
demanding level of tech support and cost to have high-tech airpower
on a random colony world. Falkenberg's legion carried their own
artillery train around with them; and rarely did they run into native
opposition with any sophisticated firepower.
>: > Or do you somehow attach a mystical
>: >: significance to the fashion in which a soldier dies? Dead is dead.
>: >
>: >People tend to be killed, isn't that the point of military history,
>: >fiction. Unless you are contemplating of a kind of chess, chess
>: >is good practice for war, but hardly makes a poignant tale.
>
>: I've totally lost you here.
>
>That's your shame.
Thanks, that disabuses me of any remaining doubts about where you
are coming from.
>: >I was saying it's going to be increasingly dangerous for artillery
> each year.
>: >How is then justified bringing conventional heavy artillery to future
>: >warfare. Pournelle does that by inventing arbitrary and complex rules,
>: >heck whole Universe!
>
>: Sorry, but I've got to agree with John here. If you think Pournelle
>: has indulged in handwaving, you're on drugs.
>
>Two things: 1) Sorry Dan!, I don't have any drugs for you.
> 2) Pournelle certainly doesn't handwave, he explains his reasoning and
>he explains it and he explains it and to ensure that his message goes to
>home he has build an universe in which his message is among the five forces
>(...etc and the strongest force: "HERO is absolutely right").
>
>
>: >PS There has been some speculation of my alleged polical orientation,
>: >well let me be absolute clear: stable Interstellar Monarchy is an stupid
>idea!
>
>: Unsupported assertion. Care to enlighten us, or is it just easier
>: to throw around various criticisms of other people's work without
>: any hard data (especially for one with no credentials in this field -
>: at least none you've seen fit to share with us).
>
>Neither have you shown any credentials, besides in this field you need
>only have credited in reading scifi books.
You've got it wrong, I'm afraid. This is not a symmetric situation
here. When you are arguing that a combat veteran who is also well
qualified in military history (and history in general) is completely
off the wall, the burden of proof is on you to disprove his thesis,
not on me to support it.
>Monarchy is inherently unstable construction as history has proved again
>and again. Either king has the power or he doesn't, any balancing king's
>power is labil and returns to either. Observe for example how Swedish monarchy
>has developed thru centuries: king choosen from/among/by chieftains,
>hereditary monarchy, absolute monarchy, gradual transition to seremonial
>monarchy. One could say that circle has been completed. Transition
>from hereditary absolute monarchy to seremonial began when people started
>to ask a simple question: "What if the next-in-line is an idiot?".
>Before hereditary monarchy king's idiocy was not possible, power struggle
>weeded out halfwits, hereditary (weak) king made a good rallying point,
>problems became apparent as hereditary king became absolute power.
This is a strawman. No one has said monarchies aren't inherently
unstable over the long term. On the other hand, some form of
monarchy has been one of the most common political systems in the
history of mankind.
>: >Gee, I didn't know there were so many loyal monarchists in USA.
>
>: This is silly, Jyrki, and you should know better. My opinion, as a
>: historian, as to what is viable and what isn't, has absolutely zero
>: to do with my personal political preferences.
>
>Come on Dan! Admit that you are closet loyalist planted by George III's
>spies in purpose of bringing USA back under British Crown.
>I bet Daughters of Revolution would be interested of your opinions.
Jyrki Valkama
: In article <3bcruj$q...@ousrvr.oulu.fi> jval...@paju.oulu.fi (Jyrki Valkama)\
writes:
: >: He wouldn't.
: >
: >No? And he being a mercenary?
: >(Yet another irk: Falkenberg's mercenarys don't behave like professional
: > mercenarys. Where is the haggling over price, loot?)
: Presumably done by the front office. Don't know about you, but I'm
: not that interested in reading that aspect of the story.
It's part of his job description.
: No one is claiming that being
: an artillery solider is the most dangerous job.
I was trying to point out that artillery is no longer as important as
it was.
: Have you read (and paid attention to) the political points in these
: stories? I'm really starting to wonder. Any kind of space capable
: war machine wouldn't be allowed by the CoDo.
Maybe you are finally near to get it: CoDo universe is created so that
there is important place for artillery (as it seems to be area where
Pournelle can excell).
And it's a much more
: demanding level of tech support and cost to have high-tech airpower
: on a random colony world. Falkenberg's legion carried their own
: artillery train around with them;
Along with AA missile? Those grunts must have strong backs.
and rarely did they run into native
: opposition with any sophisticated firepower.
Lucky for them (of course any such scenario would have been edited out off
the book).
: >: > Or do you somehow attach a mystical
: >: >: significance to the fashion in which a soldier dies? Dead is dead.
: >: >
: >: >People tend to be killed, isn't that the point of military history,
: >: >fiction. Unless you are contemplating of a kind of chess, chess
: >: >is good practice for war, but hardly makes a poignant tale.
: >
: >: I've totally lost you here.
: >
: >That's your shame.
: Thanks, that disabuses me of any remaining doubts about where you
: are coming from.
Now what that's supposed to mean?
Well perhaps I have to clarify my message. In real world when a human dies,
he is gone for ever. loss to universe/whatever.
In chess piece is removed from table and placed into drawer.
In beginning of next game pieces are taken back to table and new game
is ready to be played.
Pournelles persons IMHO are too much like chess pieces, interchangeable,
immortal (some die repeatedly again and again). One hardly cares for them.
: >: Sorry, but I've got to agree with John here. If you think Pournelle
: >: has indulged in handwaving, you're on drugs.
: >
: >Two things: 1) Sorry Dan!, I don't have any drugs for you.
: > 2) Pournelle certainly doesn't handwave, he explains his reasoning and
: >he explains it and he explains it and to ensure that his message goes to
: >home he has build an universe in which his message is among the five forces
: >(...etc and the strongest force: "HERO is absolutely right").
: >
Why didn't you answer for this? Do cede a point?
: >: Unsupported assertion. Care to enlighten us, or is it just easier
: >: to throw around various criticisms of other people's work without
: >: any hard data (especially for one with no credentials in this field -
: >: at least none you've seen fit to share with us).
: >
: >Neither have you shown any credentials, besides in this field you need
: >only have credited in reading scifi books.
: You've got it wrong, I'm afraid. This is not a symmetric situation
: here. When you are arguing that a combat veteran who is also well
: qualified in military history (and history in general) is completely
: off the wall, the burden of proof is on you to disprove his thesis,
: not on me to support it.
I have written about my opinions straight and honestly and I don't take
this as religiously as you. Did I happen to kick your holy cow?
Perhaps others have few comments about that, timeout for sanity check.
: This is a strawman. No one has said monarchies aren't inherently
: unstable over the long term. On the other hand, some form of
: monarchy has been one of the most common political systems in the
: history of mankind.
I just showed they are unstable, you challenged that point, it's you turn
to prove your point. Common has nothing to with stability, look how many
wars were warred over futile matters.
When Sparta's double monarchy was estabilished, it's creators ensured
an endless succession of civil, succession (how ironic!) and independence
wars (maybe they were concerned about their emploiment).
: >: >Gee, I didn't know there were so many loyal monarchists in USA.
: >
: >: This is silly, Jyrki, and you should know better. My opinion, as a
: >: historian, as to what is viable and what isn't, has absolutely zero
: >: to do with my personal political preferences.
: >
: >Come on Dan! Admit that you are closet loyalist planted by George III's
: >spies in purpose of bringing USA back under British Crown.
: >I bet Daughters of Revolution would be interested of your opinions.
Cheers! Jyrki Valkama
Dan Swartzendruber
>
>Dan Swartzendruber (dsw...@pugsley.osf.org) wrote:
>: In article <3bcruj$q...@ousrvr.oulu.fi> jval...@paju.oulu.fi (Jyrki Valkama)\
> writes:
[snip]
>: No one is claiming that being
>: an artillery solider is the most dangerous job.
>
>I was trying to point out that artillery is no longer as important as
>it was.
>
>: Have you read (and paid attention to) the political points in these
>: stories? I'm really starting to wonder. Any kind of space capable
>: war machine wouldn't be allowed by the CoDo.
>
>Maybe you are finally near to get it: CoDo universe is created so that
>there is important place for artillery (as it seems to be area where
>Pournelle can excell).
Gosh, Jyrki, I'm so glad you know Pournelle's motivations for all
of the various details and such in his books. Kind of saves us
the hassle and bother of reading them. It's so much easier if you
just tell us it's his way of glorifying his former job. I'm just
bummed I wasted the money on the books I did get. Sigh...
> And it's a much more
>: demanding level of tech support and cost to have high-tech airpower
>: on a random colony world. Falkenberg's legion carried their own
>: artillery train around with them;
>
>Along with AA missile? Those grunts must have strong backs.
Don't be more dense than you have to. "Carrying around" referred
to taking their heavy weapons from job to job (and hence, from
planet to planet). And small, man-portable AA missiles even now
are quite portable.
> and rarely did they run into native
>: opposition with any sophisticated firepower.
>
>Lucky for them (of course any such scenario would have been edited out off
>the book).
A set of colony planets kept deliberately below the tech level of
the CoDo on Earth. This is implausible to you? I don't see why,
unless you just have a bug up your butt about Pournell and where/how
he chose to set this series of stories. Personally, at this point,
I'm about convinced you're not capable/willing to be even remotely
objective on this.
>: >: > Or do you somehow attach a mystical
>: >: >: significance to the fashion in which a soldier dies? Dead is dead.
>: >: >
>: >: >People tend to be killed, isn't that the point of military history,
>: >: >fiction. Unless you are contemplating of a kind of chess, chess
>: >: >is good practice for war, but hardly makes a poignant tale.
>: >
>: >: I've totally lost you here.
>: >
>: >That's your shame.
>: Thanks, that disabuses me of any remaining doubts about where you
>: are coming from.
>
>Now what that's supposed to mean?
It means I get the distinct impression you're more interested in
clever put-downs and sly rhetoric than a serious discussion.
>Well perhaps I have to clarify my message. In real world when a human dies,
>he is gone for ever. loss to universe/whatever.
>In chess piece is removed from table and placed into drawer.
>In beginning of next game pieces are taken back to table and new game
>is ready to be played.
>Pournelles persons IMHO are too much like chess pieces, interchangeable,
>immortal (some die repeatedly again and again). One hardly cares for them.
Stylistic and artistic criticism now. David Drake is hardly a master
crafter of believeable 3-dimensional characters in his military SF,
much as I like it. In any event, you're changing topics here. We
weren't (to my knowledge) critiquing Pournelle's characterization skills,
but rather, specific flaws (in your opinion) in his CoDo universe.
>: >: Sorry, but I've got to agree with John here. If you think Pournelle
>: >: has indulged in handwaving, you're on drugs.
>: >
>: >Two things: 1) Sorry Dan!, I don't have any drugs for you.
>: > 2) Pournelle certainly doesn't handwave, he explains his reasoning and
>: >he explains it and he explains it and to ensure that his message goes to
>: >home he has build an universe in which his message is among the five forces
>: >(...etc and the strongest force: "HERO is absolutely right").
>: >
>
>Why didn't you answer for this? Do cede a point?
No, it just seemed like silly Pournelle bashing. Kind of like the
folks who periodically assert that they don't like Heinlein's books
because he was a right-winger, Fascist, whatever.
>: >: Unsupported assertion. Care to enlighten us, or is it just easier
>: >: to throw around various criticisms of other people's work without
>: >: any hard data (especially for one with no credentials in this field -
>: >: at least none you've seen fit to share with us).
>: >
>: >Neither have you shown any credentials, besides in this field you need
>: >only have credited in reading scifi books.
>
>: You've got it wrong, I'm afraid. This is not a symmetric situation
>: here. When you are arguing that a combat veteran who is also well
>: qualified in military history (and history in general) is completely
>: off the wall, the burden of proof is on you to disprove his thesis,
>: not on me to support it.
>
>I have written about my opinions straight and honestly and I don't take
>this as religiously as you. Did I happen to kick your holy cow?
>Perhaps others have few comments about that, timeout for sanity check.
This is just a complete non-sequitur. You made a number of completely
unsupported assertions about the bogusness of the CoDo universe on
historical and military grounds, without any factual basis. I just
pointed out that if you want to do this, as the criticizer, the onus
is on you to show *why* he is wrong. Saying "my opinion is as good
as yours (or Pournelle's)" doesn't cut it.
>: This is a strawman. No one has said monarchies aren't inherently
>: unstable over the long term. On the other hand, some form of
>: monarchy has been one of the most common political systems in the
>: history of mankind.
>
>I just showed they are unstable, you challenged that point, it's you turn
>to prove your point. Common has nothing to with stability, look how many
>wars were warred over futile matters.
I think we're dealing with a language problem here. You're exactly
right that there is no necessary link between likelihood of monarchy
arising and it's stability. No one has argued that there is. On the
other hand, you've not shown that a monarchy can't be stable, either.
The internal stability of a monarchy is highly dependent on a number
of factors. I don't think even Pournelle claims that the Empire of
Man was long-term stable. His assertion seemed to be (IMO) that a
carefuly-defined monarchy was the best bet at the time (when the CoDo
was falling apart) to form some sort of relatively stable interstellar
association.
>When Sparta's double monarchy was estabilished, it's creators ensured
>an endless succession of civil, succession (how ironic!) and independence
>wars (maybe they were concerned about their emploiment).
John Schilling
>John Schilling (schi...@spock.usc.edu) wrote:
[extensive debate regarding technical/military aspects of CoDo universe]
>: But it is increasingly clear that *you* are not a combat veteran, that
>: you have absolutely no understanding of warfare (modern or otherwise),
>: and that your principal complaint is that Pournelle's work does not conform
>: to your inaccurate impression of warfare; hence you must be right and he
>: must be wrong.
>It's a safe bet considering that I'm from Finland and we haven't had
>lately fortune to achieve combat veterans.
Thank you. Just wanted to rule out the slight possibility that you might
be a surviving veteran of the Winter War (1939-1940).
And now, the key question: What on Earth makes you believe that you are
qualified to participate in this discussion?
Note that I do *not* believe that firsthand experience is necessary to write
on a subject. And others here (including two professional authors of military
SF) have argued that point much better than I can.
But *you* clearly *do* believe this. In your original post, you attacked
Pournelle and defended Drake for no other reason than your (inaccurate)
belief that Drake was a combat veteran and Pournelle was not.
By your own standards, you are not competent to write on any subject related
to military experience. Yet that is exactly what you have been doing, in
your detailed, technical criticisms of Pournelle's work.
And it is abundantly clear that you are making it up as you go along. The
major theme in your current arguments seems to be an assertion that the CoDo
universe was arbitrarily created as a playground for heavy artillery; yet
until a few days ago, you had absolutely no idea that Pournelle had artillery
experience. So this cannot be the real reason for your attacks on Pournelle.
I think an apology is in order. And I suggest that, before continuing this
discussion, it would be wise for you to spend some time studying military
science and history, and actually *reading* the works of Pournelle's CoDo
series. But I rather suspect you will not do any of these things :-(
Joel Rosenberg
>I was trying to point out that artillery is no longer as important as
>it was.
Turns out that the vast majority of war casualties are caused by
artillery. Read James Dunnigan's How to Make War; he makes a pretty
good case that armor and infantry merely exist to chase the enemy out
where the artillery can get at them.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rosenberg | For news about upcoming books, | My opinions are mine.
jo...@winternet.com | finger jo...@winternet.com | Whose are yours?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Macedon
PSU system is that I cannot reply directly to anything posted on the
net. I must get out of the usenet system altogether and go into another
menu altogether. Therefore, I must rely entirely on my memory for
names, subject titles and the jists of individual notes. This is also
why I cannot directly quote anything. The only way to keep track of any
of these things is to write them all out by hand! Quite annoying. But
the only way I can reply directly is via email.
In any case, your remarks about being annoyed when people get their
facts wrong in biology or military aspects is my same reaction to errors
of historical detail. I come back around to the same point: a good,
conscientious author checks details and, to paraphrase a friend,
practices the art of getting it right. Lazy authors do not. And, as
the number of bad historical novels attests, there are a lot of lazy
authors. BUT, as is also quite evident, one need not have a Ph.D in
history to get the facts *right*, either.
The same is true for any "specialization" which the story requires, be
it military, sciences, history, or even details about minor league
baseball (as David James Duncan's BROTHERS K evinces). But, obviously,
to do good research requires time; not all authors are willing to put in
the time. Some don't even realize how much there is to know and just
how far off base they are. 8}
\ | / | Macedon
-->*<-- | Department of History
/ | \ | Penn State University
SueShwartz
(Joel Rosenberg) writes:
>Read Dunnigan's HOW TO MAKE WAR.
Joel, you did know that as JDUNNIGAN, he's on GEnie along with ANOFI, Al
Nofi. Al is a denizen in my topic. The two of you would see eye-to-eye
about food, too. <G>
Urban Fredriksson
>Maybe you are finally near to get it: CoDo universe is created so that
>there is important place for artillery (as it seems to be area where
>Pournelle can excell).
Exactly my feeling too.
--
Urban Fredriksson u...@icl.se
"I have a very high threshold of tolerance for bad sf films."
-- Arthur C Clarke
Onno Meyer
>I was saying it's going to be increasingly dangerous for artillery each year.
>How is then justified bringing conventional heavy artillery to future
>warfare. Pournelle does that by inventing arbitrary and complex rules,
>heck whole Universe!
A small disclaimer: I've read just a few of the books (as a kind of
introduction to the "Mote..." universe).
I think we forget that the described worlds are not using future warfare.
The technology on many colony worlds is comparable to the 19th century
earth, with 21th century gadgets they can't produce or repair. Advanced
air power requires not just the planes but a real lot of infrastructure.
The Soviet Union tried to put a first-world army on a third-world infra-
structure and that wrecked their economy.
If you scratch computer systems that are used to cancel each other out
and nightview systems, the technology is more primitive than that of a
world war 1 army. Several worlds used river boats comparable to the
1850s designs. A screw would have been better (and they had to know it)
- that leaves technological problems as the only explanation for a wheel
as propulsion system.
Onno Meyer
--
* Onno Meyer - Kastanienallee 40 - 26121 Oldenburg - Deutschland *
* e-mail: Onno....@informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE *
Jyrki Valkama
: A small disclaimer: I've read just a few of the books (as a kind of
You succeeded to mention one reason I still read his stuff, that probably
is the only reason to consider his stuff as scifi.
: I think we forget that the described worlds are not using future warfare.
I don't certainly forget that! Falkenberg's legion stories are not scifi
(well, a little bit), they are just replayings of old scenarios, age old.
BTW colony world would be based on first-world infrastructure, by definition
because it would have been planted there by first-world power.
Can you think any justifications for the bureaucrycy: "We just put 50,000
settlers on planet Hellhole with no equipment, supplies. After the first
summer only 5000 were alive. Oh, BTW we used 80 trillion dollars for
transport. Yes we are aware that average gas chamber combined with
crematorium costs only 2 million dollars and as byproduct we could get
excellent raw material for soap."
American and Australian colonies had not significantly lower technological
infrastructure compared to British (many parts of Scotland were in much
worse shape).
Cheers! Jyrki Valkama
Jyrki Valkama
: Many have, at times, written sf or non-sf inspired or based on this.
: Most writers who write military sf, most writers who write
: military non-sf, have never been in the military.
: But the point to remember is that this is not relevant. "Write
: what you know" is a fable. Just because one was in combat and one wasn't
: doesn't automatically mean one will be a better writer of combat sf.
Thanks for the list, I have read some of their books.
It's certainly a fable if we consider field of SciFi, maybe except time-
travel stories. What irks me that SciFi, which is already full of gadgets,
is combined with Mil Fiction, which is of course full of hardware, resulting
monstrosity of full warehouse devoid of any human beings. Not all get
trapped into that warehouse playing with all those wonderful toys, but risk
is enormous. Then there are writers who don't even visit the warehouse instead
their information comes from secondary sources like mailorder catalogues.
Again for some strange reason name Tom Clancy pops up.
: Always keep in mind that _The Red Badge of Courage_, considered
: the best war novel ever written, was written by someone who never served
: in combat, let alone the Civil War. Crane was hardly even alive when it
: was being fought.
I bet he concentrated on the human element instead of describing in detail
the weapons used by both sides.
Cheers! Jyrki Valkama
Mark Urbin
In article <3b3dp8$q...@spock.usc.edu>, schi...@spock.usc.edu (John Schilling) writes:
|>jval...@paju.oulu.fi (Jyrki Valkama) writes:
|>[discussion of military SF]
|>>This is so stupid I can't let it pass. Understanding, what understanding
|>>from guys who have never fought? Those are just glorifications from guys
|>>who have been safely behind real soldiers thru all their lives.
|>>Only Military scifi writer I give respect is Drake, at least he participated
In one of the Falkenberg books, Pournelle describes a scene that actually
took place during an campain in Africa. The source for the description
of the battle is given in a short paragraph before the story started.
|>You are, of course, aware that Jerry Pournelle (author of the _Falkenberg_
|>stories) is a combat veteran? Commanded an artillery battery during the
|>Korean war, as I recall.
|>And I am confused about your allegations about the "unrealism" of the
|>fighting in the _Falkenberg_ stories. The type of fighting presented
|>in said stories is almost exactly identical to that described by David
|>Drake, who you claim to respect. Including tne (inaccurate) parallels to
|>the Italian condottiere system you mention.
|>Only difference is, Drake completely ignores the political and strategic
|>aspects, where Pournelle describes these in great depth. And, in the
|>process, explains *why* that type of fighting has returned in his fictional
|>future.
|>Perhaps it is the political, and not the military, aspects of Pournelle's
|>work that so offends you?
|>
|>
|>--
|>*John Schilling * "You can have Peace, *
|>*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * or you can have Freedom. *
|>*University of Southern California * Don't ever count on having both *
|>*Aerospace Engineering Department * at the same time." *
|>*schi...@spock.usc.edu * - Robert A. Heinlein *
|>*(213)-740-5311 or 747-2527 * Finger for PGP public key *
|>
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Urbin DEC Video Interactive Information Services QA
Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot.
Opinions are those of the writer's, not the writer's employer
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rosenberg
>From: suesh...@aol.com (SueShwartz)
>Subject: Re: Military SF
>Date: 28 Nov 1994 20:25:49 -0500
I know about Al Nofi, but I didn't know about Dunnigan. Neat. Roland Green
turned me on to him, along with Ian Hogg, a few years ago; yet another one I
owe Roland.
Graydon
: BTW colony world would be based on first-world infrastructure, by definition
: because it would have been planted there by first-world power.
: Can you think any justifications for the bureaucrycy: "We just put 50,000
: settlers on planet Hellhole with no equipment, supplies. After the first
: summer only 5000 were alive. Oh, BTW we used 80 trillion dollars for
: transport. Yes we are aware that average gas chamber combined with
: crematorium costs only 2 million dollars and as byproduct we could get
: excellent raw material for soap."
: American and Australian colonies had not significantly lower technological
: infrastructure compared to British (many parts of Scotland were in much
: worse shape).
Questionable assertion. American Colonies, New France, etc. were *not*
at the same tech level, as a matter of deliberate policy on the part of
the parent nations. The US maintained very high tarriffs for a long time
after gaining independence in order to catch up.
Co-Do colonies are deliberate dumping grounds for malcontents, etc., and,
like Australia, the gov't doing the dumping doesn't care what happens to
the dumped deportees.
Colonies produced by single nations or intrest groups (Friesland, Sparta,
Covenant, Xanadu) have better tech, but are still struggling under tech
import restrictions and population shortages - it takes only a thousand
people or so to to run a neolithic tech base, but millions to run ours,
and probably a few more millions to run the CoDo one.
Falkenberg's Legion never tries to fight on these planets; not only are
they peaceful, the Legion would get creamed, and they know it.
Without a large local tech base (which just plain takes *time* to
develop), you can't support significant air power. It is probably not
possible to support the US airforce with a smaller industrial nation -
300 million people is larger than the great majority of those colonies at
the time in question.
So I don't find the reliance on the lower tech base that surprising;
shipping spares over a year long supply line sucks a *lot* of flint.
Pournelle does hammer rather too hard on a bunch of dogmatic political
points, but it is hard to fault his tech extrapolation.
--
Graydon Saunders |"Who shall look from Alfred's hood
saun...@qucdn.queensu.ca | Or breathe his breath alive?"
@qlink.queensu.ca | -- The Ballad of the White Horse, G.K Chesterton
Jim Henry
In message <2z!#m...@qnx.com>
dag...@qnx.com (David Gibbs) writes:
DG>In article <3b1qo2$7...@ousrvr.oulu.fi>,
DG>Jyrki Valkama <jval...@paju.oulu.fi> wrote:
DG>>This is so stupid I can't let it pass. Understanding, what understanding
DG>>from guys who have never fought? Those are just glorifications from guys
DG>>who have been safely behind real soldiers thru all their lives.
DG>There are other authors of military SF that have participated in wars.
And for authors of fantasy...
Lord Dunsany fought in the Boer War and in the first World War.
Tolkien and C. S. Lewis both fought in the first World War also.
DG>Maybe a more important/interesting question -- is there a noticeable
DG>qualitative difference between the military sf written by veterans
DG>and that written by civilians?
They didn't write a *lot* about war, but compare Dunsany's _Tales
of War_ or the battles scenes in _The Lord of the Rings_ or _The
Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe_ with, say, Eddison (_The Worm
Ouroboros_ or Morris (the end of _The Well at the World's End_).
A bit hard to describe the difference exactly, but I'd say that
the answer to David's question is yes.
"This is War. This is what Homer wrote about." - C. S. Lewis on
his brief experience of battle. (chapter 12 of _Surprised by
Joy_).
* SLMR 2.1a * Internet: jim....@lightspeed.com
Benjamin Allan Smith
finally it's time for my two cents worth.
Regarding the debate of Artillery vs. Aircract, has anyone thought
how expensive it would be to field a mercenary unit? Pournelle's Falkenberg's
Legion is about Regimental to Division size. (3000 to 15000 people) How
many Divisions in the real world have thier own fighter or bombers? Even
if they had a few, they would only have a few. Aircraft are maintenance
intensive, expensive to operate, and take a lot of personel to keep the
unit flying. What's more aircraft can not take ground. They can bomb it,
and make the poeple their unhappy, but they cannot take ground. That is left
for the infantry. So if you were setting up a mercenary unit, would it
be worthwhile for you to have 10 aircraft which probably take up 500 odd
people to keep in the air, or a two comapanies of infantry? What's more
AvGas is expensive. My gradfather had a friend who had an F-86. The quoted
price was $1000 per hour in AvGas.
Even if you did have a small airforce with your mercenary unit.
How many aircraft could you afford to loose in combat? Someone mentioned
how in Desert Storm the Airpower squashed the Iraqis, but with how many
aircraft? 300? How effective would 20 have been? Suddenly each loss would
have a dramiatic impact in your offensive firepower. If a mercenary unit had
an airforce and it was know that the enemy had handheld SAMs, the commander
would need to carefully consider where and when to use his aircraft asset.
Also, a few rebels with handheld SAMs along the takeoff flight path would
do serious damage to you air force.
Looking at prices of equipment as a whole, what could a mercenaryy
commander afford to equip his troops with?
Assult rifles are ~$500.
Machine Guns ~$1000 to $2000
Wheeled vehicles: Land Rovers $25,000 hummers $50,000
Artillery (towed): Guess about $10,000 maybe $30,000
Tanks: guess--$5 million
Aircraft: $20 million
On top of this is food for the troops, pay and in Falkenberg's case pensions.
Food is ~$10 per trooper per day which is $100,0000 per day for our mythical
division level Mercenary unit. Assume that pay is $10,000 per year, which is
$30 per day (close enough for arguments sake). which means $300,000 perday
in payrool. Assume that averaged over time the average soldier uses 10
bullets a day. Bullets have got to cost $0.1 each, or $10,000 per day in
small arms ammuntion. Artillery shells have got to cost $10 each. Assume
artillery 20 guns, each shooting 20 shells a day, is $4000 a day in shells.
plus fuel, plus uniforms, plus random equipment. I wouldn't be
surprised if the cost to field a division for a day in a combat environment
would be $0.5 to $1million per day. Plus losses due to combat.
At this rate could you justify one $20 million aircraft against
20 to 40 days of operating expenses.
So the operative question is not could aircraft squash artillery,
but could a mercenary unit afford to have aircraft? Recalling from memory
Falkenberg's legion had ~4 helicopters, lots of infantry, artillery and
some armor. There was a comment that the Frieslanders were well off and
could afford tanks.
So to sum up, the fact the Falkenberg's legion didnot use
an air force, and used artillery is entirely resonable given the cost to
operature such a force.
-Benjamin Smith
Science Applications International Corporation
China Lake Naval Air Warfare Center
1972 Land Rover SIII 88
Jyrki Valkama
: jval...@paju.oulu.fi (Jyrki Valkama) writes:
: >John Schilling (schi...@spock.usc.edu) wrote:
: [extensive debate regarding technical/military aspects of CoDo universe]
: qualified to participate in this discussion?
My reading ability.
What makes you?
: Note that I do *not* believe that firsthand experience is necessary to write
: on a subject. And others here (including two professional authors of military
: SF) have argued that point much better than I can.
But it sure helps. Agreed they argued better and in matter of fact way.
: But *you* clearly *do* believe this. In your original post, you attacked
: Pournelle and defended Drake for no other reason than your (inaccurate)
: belief that Drake was a combat veteran and Pournelle was not.
It shows when it comes to combat scenes, particularly comparing them side by side.
: By your own standards, you are not competent to write on any subject related
: to military experience. Yet that is exactly what you have been doing, in
: your detailed, technical criticisms of Pournelle's work.
Yours have been more like wild accusations about my political leanings etc. i.e
anything but about the matter.
: And it is abundantly clear that you are making it up as you go along. The
: major theme in your current arguments seems to be an assertion that the CoDo
: universe was arbitrarily created as a playground for heavy artillery; yet
: until a few days ago, you had absolutely no idea that Pournelle had artillery
: experience. So this cannot be the real reason for your attacks on Pournelle.
You are seeing a functioning mind in action. My original argumentation was and is
still against that anachoristic condottiere system used in future universe.
In short: 1600's system with 1800's technology and ideology in 2200's century.
(Somebody is bound to nitpick the years, I used offhand to illustrate the point.)
As I said when you (or somebody else) mentioned Pournelle having being artillery
that it explained the absence of air power, it was only part of the problem,
but very telling.
Pournelle's combat scenes plain suck, nobody in real life and death situation wastes
his time in long winded speeches or in flag waving. People somewhere behind battlelines
may have time for such nonsense, grunts in front have little time or energy to waste.
: I think an apology is in order. And I suggest that, before continuing this
: discussion, it would be wise for you to spend some time studying military
: science and history, and actually *reading* the works of Pournelle's CoDo
: series. But I rather suspect you will not do any of these things :-(
I have read many of them, a friend of mine (that coastal artillery guy) has a number
of Falkenberg books, guess why he likes them. BTW about question of qualifications
may I give your a hint, here in Finland (and Scandinavia) we have this thing called
compulsory military service, with added bonus that officer has to be promoted from
ranks of soldiers.
History generally interests me, Pournelle's Future History concept is a creditable
achievement. After reading Mote in God's Eye I got interested about his other books,
I have some missgiving about the biological aspects in it, but other factors quite
much compensate them. Falkenberg stories I found lacking one crucial element: scifi,
there was no interaction of Mil and Scifi, merely Scifi was used to restrict Mil to
repeated anachoristic play acting. Saurons I found an interesting concept albeit bit
too much like caricature Nazis.
Cheers! Jyrki Valkama
: --
: *John Schilling * "You can have Peace, *
: *Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * or you can have Freedom. *
: *University of Southern California * Don't ever count on having both *
: *Aerospace Engineering Department * at the same time." *
: *schi...@spock.usc.edu * - Robert A. Heinlein *
: *(213)-740-5311 or 747-2527 * Finger for PGP public key *
BTW SAS? (others I don't know but this looks familiar)
Richard Treitel
In article <3ba205$2...@ousrvr.oulu.fi>, jval...@paju.oulu.fi (Jyrki Valkama) writes:
|> stable Interstellar Monarchy is an stupid idea!
|> Gee, I didn't know there were so many loyal monarchists in USA.
Heinlein may have been one. Several books and stories indicate.
Pournelle's empires are not shown as being any more stable than
terrestrial ones. His First Empire falls apart in Secession Wars and
the Second is badly worried about rebellions at the time of _Mote_.
-- Richard
If my employer holds these views, it hasn't told me.
David Mix Barrington
>
>In article <3b3dp8$q...@spock.usc.edu>, schi...@spock.usc.edu (John Schilling) writes:
>|>jval...@paju.oulu.fi (Jyrki Valkama) writes:
>|>[discussion of military SF]
>took place during an campain in Africa. The source for the description
>of the battle is given in a short paragraph before the story started.
>
Slight correction, if you're referring to _The Mercenary_, which has such
a note about the battle being based on the experience of an Ethiopian officer
serving with the UN in the Korean War.
I accept that Pournelle and Stirling know far more about combat than I do,
which isn't. The reason I find the CoDo novels such a guilty pleasure is that
I find them to be literally "fascist", almost to the extent of the deliberately
fascist parody _The Iron Dream_. (I would not say the same thing about
_Starship Troopers_ or anything by Heinlein.) Anyone want to argue the
similarities or differences between _Prince of Sparta_ and _TID_? (By _TID_
I refer to the alleged novel _Lords of the Swastika_ by an alternate universe
Adolf Hitler, not the package of novel and framing story. It's obvious that
Spinrad was not attempting to promote fascism!) This is a dangerous query,
and probably pointless in view of Godwin's Law and the tendency to equate the
words "fascist" and "bad" rather than discuss fascism as a specific political
system.
Dave MB
Urban Fredriksson
>How many aircraft could you afford to loose in combat?
Depends what you get for it, doesn't it? And if they're good
enough, you don't loose them.
>Artillery (towed): Guess about $10,000 maybe $30,000
$1 million is about what you have to pay for a modern howitzer.
>Artillery shells have got to cost $10 each.
A hand grenade cost $5, so I don't see how you came up with $10
for an artillery shell. The figure I recall is about $800.
> So the operative question is not could aircraft squash artillery,
>but could a mercenary unit afford to have aircraft?
Well, the customer pays for what the customer gets, so why not?
Doesn't have to be $50 million F-15Es, but something like Rutan's
Mudfighter.
--
Urban Fredriksson u...@icl.se He who dies with the most friends win.
James Nicoll
Jyrki Valkama <jval...@paju.oulu.fi> wrote:
>John Schilling (schi...@spock.usc.edu) wrote:
>
snip
>: But *you* clearly *do* believe this. In your original post, you attacked
>: Pournelle and defended Drake for no other reason than your (inaccurate)
>: belief that Drake was a combat veteran and Pournelle was not.
>
>It shows when it comes to combat scenes, particularly comparing them side
>by side.
I seem to recall from either _Heart of Darkness_ or an interview with
Pratt, that Drake was in Army Intelligence and that the closest he came to
death was when someone dropped a large bit of equipment from a helicopter
above him. I can't recall falling objects playing a major roll in his stories.
James Nicoll
--
"I'm glad I saw the galaxy, but I want to die in Brooklyn."
Mark Urbin
In article <3bklti$6...@kernighan.cs.umass.edu>, bar...@cs.umass.edu (David Mix Barrington) writes:
|>In article <3bg927$n...@jac.zko.dec.com> mur...@flamingo1.shr.dec.com writes:
|>> In one of the Falkenberg books, Pournelle describes a scene that actually
|>>took place during an campain in Africa. The source for the description
|>>of the battle is given in a short paragraph before the story started.
|>Slight correction, if you're referring to _The Mercenary_, which has such
|>a note about the battle being based on the experience of an Ethiopian officer
|>serving with the UN in the Korean War.
|>I accept that Pournelle and Stirling know far more about combat than I do,
|>which isn't. The reason I find the CoDo novels such a guilty pleasure is that
|>I find them to be literally "fascist", almost to the extent of the deliberately
|>fascist parody _The Iron Dream_. (I would not say the same thing about
|>_Starship Troopers_ or anything by Heinlein.) Anyone want to argue the
|>similarities or differences between _Prince of Sparta_ and _TID_?
Spart_ was reread earlier this year though. This a big kettle of fish you're
opening...
_TID_ was a filled with Ubermench plowing under the evil mutants. Big
rough, macho men riding motorcycles in metallic cavlary charges.
_POS_ had it's share of people cut from a heroic cloth. Pournelle did
sprinkle both sides of the conflict with larger-than-life types. One example
would be the rebel leader. She could fight, draw, seduce, lead armies, and
play the finacial markets successfully!
|> (By _TID_
|>I refer to the alleged novel _Lords of the Swastika_ by an alternate universe
|>Adolf Hitler, not the package of novel and framing story. It's obvious that
|>Spinrad was not attempting to promote fascism!) This is a dangerous query,
|>and probably pointless in view of Godwin's Law and the tendency to equate the
|>words "fascist" and "bad" rather than discuss fascism as a specific political
|>system.
|>
|>Dave MB
|>
|>
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Urbin DEC Video Interactive Information Services QA
Make it idiot proof and someone will make a better idiot.
Views expressed are mine, not DEC's.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Evans
>Heinlein may have been one. Several books and stories indicate.
Heh, heh. Worth quoting because the above line is applicable to so many
viewpoints, many of which contradict one another.
Jon
Benjamin Allan Smith
>Benjamin Allan Smith (ran...@sloth.ugcs.caltech.edu) wrote:
>How many independent real world mercenary divisions there are? Mercenarys tend
>to appear in singly or in small groups. Logistics, loot is one reason another
>is well placed distrust of real world countries, cities harboured against
>mercenarys.
Are there currenly large scale mercenary units in existance today?
No. I beleive the use of mercenaries is banned by the United Nations.
Could these units be created and break even in the world today? Maybe.
During the Gulf War, various nations paid the United States to help
defray the costs of war. After the fighting was over, more money had been
promised than the allies had used. Troops were kept ther and this money was
used up. One way of looking at it was that various nations (like Saudi
Arabia and Japan) contracted with the Unted States to provide troops to
further the paying nations interests. Now I admit this is not an entirely
true view of things. The United States did have interests in the region.
Some people view United Nations troops as mercenaries. they are
not fighting for their country. they are paid for by the UN and not their
country. You can't say that these soldiers have any alliegence to the UN.
Thier countries volunteered them for that duty.
Also just because ther haven't been mercenary units that didn't
loot the countryside, or that weren't swayed from one side to another by
being promised more money, doesn't mean that a professional, well behaved
and honorable unit could not be formed. If such units were in existance,
I wouldn't be surprised if they could find work. It is a lot cheeper to
keep a small standing army, and hire professional units when you need
them than to maintain the larger army or to train hordes of new recruits.
>Besides can you rule the world with one division and I don't mean mere factor
>of suppressor/suppressed, but also soldier/1000,000km^2 ?
>If I were plotting war on those scales and against such opposition I wouldn't
>choose fighting in one decisive battle. For example what could Falkenberg's
>legion do in Former Yugoslavia conflict, there is also in effect no-fly
>situation.
I believe that Falkenberg used indiginious units for holding
territory, and used his regiment in key parts of battles, as long range
recon and as a hard hitting reserve.
>: Aircraft are maintenance
>: intensive, expensive to operate, and take a lot of personel to keep the
>: unit flying.
>But it is sufficient, particularly if
>you are ready to use atom bombs. On colony world who is watching, who cares,
>who is going to make fuss and with what ability?
Atomic bombs are too easy. If people could use nukes, they wouldn't
need to hire Falkenberg's legion. I think that the reason this was part of the
Rules of Warfare, was to keep the fighting conventional and for merc units
to be a possibility.
Benjamin Smith
Science Applications International Corporation
China Lake Naval Air Warfare Center
be...@archimedes.vislab.navy.mil
Andrea Maja Fajdiga
>
>I was saying it's going to be increasingly dangerous for artillery each year.
>How is then justified bringing conventional heavy artillery to future
>warfare. Pournelle does that by inventing arbitrary and complex rules,
>heck whole Universe!
Well, I'm no military expert, so my finding the technical part of
his Co-Do stories pretty convincing does not mean a lot, but ..
most of the colonies Falkenberg's legion fights on does not have
a late-20th-century industrial base .. even though the primary
landing spots might feature some 21th century gadgets. Dumping
malcontents en-masse instead of smaller numbers of voluntary colonists
& lots of costly equipment might not be economically sound, but if
star-travel is reasonably cheap (on the same relative scale as shipping
convicts to Australia some centuries ago), it's politically sounder
than disposing of the "surplus" by killing them right on Earth ;-(.
And while the CD would have no problems taking care of the local
punny 19-20th century weapons if they were prepared to pay the price,
the basic premise of Pournelles universe is that nobody with means
to do something gives a damn about what happens in places with
no highly desireable real estate. Alas, I do not find that premise
farfetching.
BTW, I do not like his stories - among other things because they remind
me way to much of current events close to my home.
Andrea
MarekW
ran...@gluttony.ugcs.caltech.edu (Benjamin Allan Smith) writes:
> Atomic bombs are too easy. If people could use nukes, they wouldn't
>need to hire Falkenberg's legion. I think that the reason this was part of the
>Rules of Warfare, was to keep the fighting conventional and for merc units
>to be a possibility.
Atomic bombs don't do what you want. In one story Falkenberg drew most
of
the opposition into a large meeting in a sports stadium. Then he
warned
them several times to leave and then they killed all the ones that
didn't
leave. In the same story the Legion recruited a reliable core of
dependable locals to form a militia suitably responsible to the civil
authority (ie the good guys) and Falkenberg took the odium for the
massacre with him when he left.
No way you could meet all three of those with an atomic bomb.
(Or even ONE of them!)
Even when the sides are physically separate there would be concerns
about how many sides used nuclear weapons and for the possible
destruction of resources needed both sides after the war is over.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marek Wiechula | The opinions expressed here are my
wiec...@bionet.bio.dfo.ca | own and not my employer's.
U-E57104-Stephen Boyd
> The contention that only combat-vets can create convincing combat scenes
> because only THEY have experience is hogwash. It belongs to the "write
> what you know and ONLY what you know" venue of thinking which would, in
> fact, rule out writing SF at all since, of course, no one has really
> *experienced* any of this stuff so how can it be convincingly written
> about. IOW, the argument defeats itself.
> \ | / | Macedon
> -->*<-- | Department of History
> / | \ | Penn State University
I once read a quote that bears on this discussion. Supposedly,
someone overheard George Burns speaking to a companion in a restaurant
about the subject of acting. "It's all about honesty, my dear. Once
you learn to fake that, the rest is easy." The same could be said, to
some degree, about writing fiction.
Richard Treitel
In article <3blo8f$8...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>, ran...@gluttony.ugcs.caltech.edu (Benjamin Allan Smith) writes:
|> Are there currenly large scale mercenary units in existance today?
|> No. I beleive the use of mercenaries is banned by the United Nations.
Maybe the French Foreign Legion counts?
|> Also just because ther haven't been mercenary units that didn't
|> loot the countryside, or that weren't swayed from one side to another by
|> being promised more money, doesn't mean that a professional, well behaved
|> and honorable unit could not be formed.
But it seems to me that the people most likely to want its services
would be precisely the ones whose power depends on naked force rather
than any kind of popular consent, and so would be most afraid of a
competent, independent army on their soil. Another way to put this is
that some military governments are hard to distinguish from mercenary
armies that have taken over a country and forced it to pay them.
Note that most of the world's rich countries have formal alliances
with the U.S., whose armed forces (may not be perfect but) are fairly
professional and well-behaved. In exchange for which, these countries
buy U.S. weapons or licence the technology to make them. It's not a
mercenary arrangement in so many words, but they seem happy with it.
Jyrki Valkama
: Atomic bombs don't do what you want. In one story Falkenberg drew most
: of
: the opposition into a large meeting in a sports stadium. Then he
: warned
: them several times to leave and then they killed all the ones that
: didn't
: leave. In the same story the Legion recruited a reliable core of
: dependable locals to form a militia suitably responsible to the civil
: authority (ie the good guys) and Falkenberg took the odium for the
: massacre with him when he left.
And then he hadn't any common decency to turn himself in for
warcrimes and subsequently to be hanged.
It seems that episode justified all the subsequent civilian massacres
in Empire during it's reign. There are simply too many massacres,
they become not a exception but sound control method.
In the second Empire whole world was wasted.
: No way you could meet all three of those with an atomic bomb.
: (Or even ONE of them!)
Why waste time trying to concentrate to stadium, instead nuke the city,
world.
Regards Jyrki Valkama
Jyrki Valkama
waste so much money just to get rid of few people. Much easier would
be for example to put malcontents in a waitingroom under shuttle launch
pad and then launch the shuttle with really useful goods.
Sensible colonisation program is selfsufficient from the beginning at
least if it's done on good old fashioned capitalist way. Even preliminary
survey is paid by reseach grants from governement or by selling the
information on common market.
In ten or twenty years colony is source of much wealth, nobody wants to
kill the golden goose, if somebody tries it assasination is always handy
(physical or character).
American and Australian colonies were selfsufficient right from beginning
well not exactly helpful antives were needed, but then there was no survey
teams. I don't know of any restrictions forcing to lower tech.
The restrictions were mostly mercantile i.e forcing to commerce mainly
with England and thru English towns, mercantilism is a monarchic invention.
America (Virginia) become wealthy because of new cash crop: tobacco.
Incidentally tobacco was also reason for first indian wars, it's was much
easier and cheaper to grab the indian maize fields than to play pioneer
by cutting the forest.
Only people who could come with an idea of shuffling large amount of
people from place A to place B (and then to place C or A) and then
forgetting what to with them is in fact military (and the only people
who would be glad to waste billions of kredits in that).
CoDo stories are replays of Zulu, Boer Wars, mainly Zulu.
An old colonial era British slogan "In God and Maxim we trust" replaced
with something like "... Bofors we trust".
I wouldn't call them fascist stories, they are much older (but fertile
ground for fascism).
Cheers! Jyrki Valkama
Jyrki Valkama
: Questionable assertion. American Colonies, New France, etc. were *not*
: at the same tech level, as a matter of deliberate policy on the part of
: the parent nations. The US maintained very high tarriffs for a long time
: after gaining independence in order to catch up.
Would you care to give examples of that alleged policy?
Tariffs were after gaining indepence, North and South had different opinions
about what were sensible and useful tariffs.
: Co-Do colonies are deliberate dumping grounds for malcontents, etc., and,
: like Australia, the gov't doing the dumping doesn't care what happens to
: the dumped deportees.
British governement cared very much about deportees, later women were
transferred to counter possible nativization of men.
: So I don't find the reliance on the lower tech base that surprising;
: shipping spares over a year long supply line sucks a *lot* of flint.
Then what is the excuse for interstellar trade?
: Pournelle does hammer rather too hard on a bunch of dogmatic political
: points, but it is hard to fault his tech extrapolation.
I don't care about political opinions that has not prevented me from
reading material I wanted before. I just don't find his extrapolations
valid, his universe is transplanted from 1800 to 2200, just in excuse
to have few colony wars.
Urban Fredriksson
> Are there currenly large scale mercenary units in existance today?
How about the USMC? You don't have to be a US citizen to sign up
with them. Or the French Foreign Legion?
> I beleive the use of mercenaries is banned by the United Nations.
It isn't forbidden. What isn't (in most places at least) allowed
is to recruit troops in foreign nations, and not even the
embassies here will give you any assistance if you'd like to
join.
--
Urban Fredriksson u...@icl.se
G=urban;S=fredriksson;OU1=swe2060;ORG=icl;PRMD=icl;ADMD=400net;C=se
urban.fredri...@oasis.icl.co.uk
Bill Oliver
>>it was.
>
>Turns out that the vast majority of war casualties are caused by
>artillery. Read James Dunnigan's How to Make War; he makes a pretty
>good case that armor and infantry merely exist to chase the enemy out
>where the artillery can get at them.
>--
It would be more correct to say that more injuries are
caused by fragments than by bullets, but you have to
remember that not all fragments come from artillery.
The type of conflict is critical. For instance,
in WWII, if you look at KIAs by theater, you will see
that 50% of lethal US Army casualties were caused by
shells (artillery and mortar) in the European theater, and
33% by bullets. However, in the Southwest Pacific theater,
28% of KIAs were caused by shells and 52% by bullets;
in the Pacific Ocean Theater 40% of lethal casualties
were caused by shells and 44% by bullets.
If one looks at hospitalizations instead of kills, then
shells consistently caused more injuries than bombs,
bullets, mines, or grenades -- though not necessarily the
majority of injuries.
In Vietnam, bullets accounted for 30% of the injuries
to US Army personnel, while artillery accounted for
only 3% (plus 19% by mortars), with 14% by booby traps,
12% by RPG, 11% by hand grenades, and 3% by antipersonnel
mines.
In the Northern Ireland experience of the British,
of course, the vast majority of injuries were caused
by bullets.
Tactical posture is important. Bullets cause more
injuries during search and destroy missions than
during base defense.
Type of terrain can be important.
In the 1982 Israeli-Lebanon War, 77% of total Israeli
wounded were due to shells and fragments (mortar, cannon,
rocket), and 23% to bullets. However, when comparing urban
with nonurban terrain, a difference emrges:
Urban Nonurban
Artillery and mortar 33% 17%
Small arms 18% 21%
RPG 19% 10%
Antitank 3% 10%
Bombs 2% 12%
Rockets 5% 9%
Grenades 6% 4%
Mines 4% 4%
Booby Traps 2% 1%
Source: Textbook of Military Medicine
vol 5: Conventional Warfare -- Ballistic, Blast, and Burn Injuries.
1991, Office of the Surgeon General, Department of
the Army, United States of America, publisher.
COL Russ Zajtchuk, MC, US Army, and
COL Ronald Bellamy, MC, US Army, eds.
billo
sd...@cas.org
>Low tech colonies is a romantic idea, in reality nobody is willing to
>waste so much money just to get rid of few people. Much easier would
>be for example to put malcontents in a waitingroom under shuttle launch
>pad and then launch the shuttle with really useful goods.
I'm coming into this in the middle, and may have missed much, but...
If you are setting up a colony anywhere the supply line is long/expensive,
"low tech" makes a lot of sense, especially if you can use your high
tech to design/construct the "low tech." If this sounds like a contradiction
in terms, it is because what I mean by high tech is all the wonderful
computer/large amounts of power/etc. stuff, while what I mean by low
tech is simple to maintain/reconstruct/copy and uses little or no generated
power. To put it another way, a light saber might be a neat thing to
have, but for a colony a machete made out of a good steel might be more
practical on a mass for mass basis - the machete doesn't need a power
supply, and a blacksmith can repair it. Yes, sharpening is a pain, but
it is easier than importing/constructing the replacement chip for the light
saber. Note that low tech does not always mean primitive. Likewise,
horses rather than tractors for the opening stage of colonization.
They are useable draft animals, self-reproducing (no factory needed),
and fuel on the vegetation (no fuel refinery/solar cell manufg. plant
needed). Your most likely load for a colony would be a mix of high-tech
for those applications where it is needed absolutely, and low tech for
everything else.
>
>Sensible colonisation program is selfsufficient from the beginning at
>least if it's done on good old fashioned capitalist way. Even preliminary
This is, of course, another argument for low tech - low tech equipment is
cheaper. Of course, few colonization programs have been done with the
idea of producing a self-sufficient colony - many have been done with
the idea of producing a source of raw materials which will have
sufficient wealth to buy some of the goods you (the colony founder) produce
from those raw materials. Many others have been founded for social/political
reasons (I want to get away from my king/we need to have a presence
in the new world to offset the Spanish/French/English/etc.) without
concern for profitibility.
>survey is paid by reseach grants from governement or by selling the
>information on common market.
>In ten or twenty years colony is source of much wealth, nobody wants to
>kill the golden goose, if somebody tries it assasination is always handy
>(physical or character).
If it works out so the colony is profitable for all, no one wants to kill it.
Of course, they may want to figure out ways to squeeze a little more
profit out of it...and kill it inadvertently. And there is that nasty
question of "profitable for whom?" If it is profitable for you, you don't
want to kill it, but I may have reasons to want to deny you that profit.
Or maybe I want to ...um... transfer that profit from me to you.
Cutting down the profitibility (with the intent of reversing what I
have done when I own it) may be a way of inducing you to sell.
Self-sufficiency, btw, does not equate to profitable. In fact, profit may
entail preventing self-sufficiency so that you can sell your colony
certain things at inflated prices - if 1 unit of raw materials can be bought
at home for 1 credit, and your zivsplat, made from those materials
with manufacturing costs of 0.5 credit (cost to you per zivsplat 1.5 credits)
sells - at home - for 2 credits, it can be profitable to set up a colony
that produces raw materials for which you return zivsplats at the rate
of 1 zivspalt for six units of raw materials (your cost/zivsplat = 2
credits including shipping; your return 6 credits less 2 credits shipping
costs = 4 credits; net profit from colony 2 credits per zivsplat vs.
net profit from at home sales of 0.5 credits per zivsplat). Of course,
this profit depends on your preventing anyone in the colony from making
zivsplats...
>American and Australian colonies were selfsufficient right from beginning
In the US, we just got done with a holiday called "Thanksgiving."
The traditional school play version is that it is based on the
Pilgrim's (social/economic colonists) giving of thanks for having
survived the year - with much aid. Then there is the story of the
Roanoke colony. etc.
>well not exactly helpful antives were needed, but then there was no survey
>teams. I don't know of any restrictions forcing to lower tech.
>The restrictions were mostly mercantile i.e forcing to commerce mainly
>with England and thru English towns, mercantilism is a monarchic invention.
>America (Virginia) become wealthy because of new cash crop: tobacco.
So did the tobacco factors in England (become wealthy). Some of the reasons
for the Revolution were economic - the English govt. felt the colonies
were a drag because of the cost of garrisons/governors/tax collectors -
the colonials felt they could do quite nicely without those, thank you.
Then there was the cost of manufactured goods - which were from the
mother country - in short, both sides felt they were losing money -
self-sufficiency had little to do with the conflict.
>Incidentally tobacco was also reason for first indian wars, it's was much
>easier and cheaper to grab the indian maize fields than to play pioneer
>by cutting the forest.
>
>Only people who could come with an idea of shuffling large amount of
>people from place A to place B (and then to place C or A) and then
>forgetting what to with them is in fact military (and the only people
>who would be glad to waste billions of kredits in that).
>
The CoDo doesn't forget people - they have a Bureau of Relocation that
has the task of moving those who are disruptive of the peace and stability
of the CoDominium to awares where their energies can be channeled in a
manner more suitable to the social welfare. This is where many of the
conflicts seem to arise. Being enlightened, the CoDo doesn't ship it
relocatees off to some uninhabited rock to sink or swim (or even to
an Australia) - that would be inhumane. Rather, it sends them to worlds
which already support functioning colonies (so that there exists an
infrastructure to support them). It doesn't forget them, it assigns
responsibility to the local authorities - and gives them h__l if they
don't care for the relocatees. Of course, where it sends relocatees...
that is where politics come in - they don't go to the profitable
worlds - that would interfere with the profits - this rules out the
colonies that have developed infrastructures and large populations -
they have the pull to avoid having too many relocatees settled on them.
Where they tend to go is the primarily sociopolitically-motivated colonies -
those settled by religious groups (frequently seeking a simpler life),
for instance, or those striving to find a place where they can avoid
damaging the ecology (live in harmony with nature). These colonies
have neither the political pull nor the profitibility to avoid
BuReloc ships, and their nature means they have not the technology to
mount effective resistance. In short, the reason the conflicts
occur on worlds with little warmaking capability is that the worlds
with good warmaking capability don't let the situations arise - they
keep BuReloc out politically, or by bribes, or by (quietly) force,
or at least its threat.
Also consider that, once BuReloc is in somewhere, the CoDo has an interest
in restricting the access to weapons - you don't want someone sitting
outside your spaceport the way the Muj did outside the airport at Kabaul.
Finally, note that there are politics within the CoDo which give rise to
a situation where mercenaries can exist - where did Falkenberg's outfit
start? And who was the friend that kept them going? What does the
Bronson faction mean to you?
>CoDo stories are replays of Zulu, Boer Wars, mainly Zulu.
>An old colonial era British slogan "In God and Maxim we trust" replaced
>with something like "... Bofors we trust".
>I wouldn't call them fascist stories, they are much older (but fertile
>ground for fascism).
>
Some of the military scenes are definitely borrowed tales, but the
politics (which are in part intended as a polemic against allowing
government to assume too much responsibility in exchange for
security) are borrowed from different times than you suggest.
As for fascism...in general, Falkenberg is trying to put right
situations arising from the failure/inability of local groups to
resist inappropriate assumptions/uses of authority by the larger
government. How is that fascist?
>Cheers! Jyrki Valkama
******************************************************************************
Renegade academician. They're a dangerous breed when they go feral,
academics are...a chemist, too.
-(James P. Blaylock in "Lord Kelvin's Machine")
My organization hasn't agreed with any of my opinions so far, and
I doubt they'll start now.
Stanley Roberts
sd...@cas.org
>MarekW (wiec...@bionet.bio.dfo.ca) wrote:
>: Atomic bombs don't do what you want. In one story Falkenberg drew most
>: of
>: the opposition into a large meeting in a sports stadium. Then he
>: warned
>: them several times to leave and then they killed all the ones that
>: didn't
>: leave. In the same story the Legion recruited a reliable core of
>: dependable locals to form a militia suitably responsible to the civil
>: authority (ie the good guys) and Falkenberg took the odium for the
>: massacre with him when he left.
>
>And then he hadn't any common decency to turn himself in for
>warcrimes and subsequently to be hanged.
Actually, if you had read the story, you would be aware that care was
taken to provide a legal basis for the action - no war crime. Considerable
warning was given before the firing - that the firing would be inevitable
was a consequence of the nature of his opponents.
>It seems that episode justified all the subsequent civilian massacres
>in Empire during it's reign. There are simply too many massacres,
>they become not a exception but sound control method.
>In the second Empire whole world was wasted.
>
>: No way you could meet all three of those with an atomic bomb.
>: (Or even ONE of them!)
>
>Why waste time trying to concentrate to stadium, instead nuke the city,
>world.
>
This was explained in the section of the original posters message you
deleted. Essentially, there were three objectives (the all three
refered to in the sentence you left), the combination of which
made the use of a nuke impossible (it was desired to leave a
functioning society behind). The use of nukes is not the solution
to all problems you seem to think it is. Sometimes, lesser force
is appropriate.
>Regards Jyrki Valkama
Joel Rosenberg
>From: oli...@cs.unc.edu (Bill Oliver)
>Subject: Re: Military SF
>Date: 5 Dec 1994 13:40:39 -0500
> Urban Nonurban
>
>billo
Neat. (I wasn't going to argue that only artillery causes causualties,
particularly when you include armies like the old NVA, which were very light
in artillery.)
Jyrki Valkama
: In article <3bugvt$h...@ousrvr.oulu.fi> jval...@paju.oulu.fi (Jyrki Valkama) writes:
: >MarekW (wiec...@bionet.bio.dfo.ca) wrote:
: >warcrimes and subsequently to be hanged.
: Actually, if you had read the story, you would be aware that care was
: taken to provide a legal basis for the action - no war crime. Considerable
: warning was given before the firing - that the firing would be inevitable
: was a consequence of the nature of his opponents.
Exactly the reasoning used by nazis.
: >It seems that episode justified all the subsequent civilian massacres
: >in Empire during it's reign. There are simply too many massacres,
: >they become not a exception but sound control method.
: >In the second Empire whole world was wasted.
: >
: >: No way you could meet all three of those with an atomic bomb.
: >: (Or even ONE of them!)
: >
: >Why waste time trying to concentrate to stadium, instead nuke the city,
: >world.
: >
: This was explained in the section of the original posters message you
: deleted. Essentially, there were three objectives (the all three
: refered to in the sentence you left), the combination of which
: made the use of a nuke impossible (it was desired to leave a
: functioning society behind). The use of nukes is not the solution
: to all problems you seem to think it is. Sometimes, lesser force
: is appropriate.
I pointed out that the precedence of wholesale slaughter was founded
in that single incident. Scale of slaughter escalated thru years,
culminating in destruction of whole world just for the danger that
rebellion might reach neighboring solarsystems. It was quite prominent
part of plot in Mote of God's Eye book.
Jyrki Valkama
Josh Kaderlan
Jyrki Valkama <jval...@paju.oulu.fi> wrote:
>sd...@cas.org wrote:
>: Actually, if you had read the story, you would be aware that care was
>: taken to provide a legal basis for the action - no war crime. Considerable
>: warning was given before the firing - that the firing would be inevitable
>: was a consequence of the nature of his opponents.
>
>Exactly the reasoning used by nazis.
>
you've got it exactly backwards; not only didn't the Nazis give warning
once the Final Solution was initiated, but they did quite a lot to give
the impression that *no one* was being killed. They didn't exactly go
about publicizing the conditions, or even the existence, of the death camps.
>I pointed out that the precedence of wholesale slaughter was founded
>in that single incident. Scale of slaughter escalated thru years,
>culminating in destruction of whole world just for the danger that
>rebellion might reach neighboring solarsystems. It was quite prominent
>part of plot in Mote of God's Eye book.
>
I don't remember ever reading a justification of the destruction of an
entire planet based on what Falkenberg did. I'd be kind of surprised if
anyone in the Second Empire knew that much about what Falkenberg did.
And the "scale of slaughter" did not escalate through years; there's a
big, big difference between the re-establishment of the Second Empire and
what Falkenberg did, before the First Empire was even an idea.
Josh
Benjamin Allan Smith
>ran...@sloth.ugcs.caltech.edu (Benjamin Allan Smith) writes:
>>Artillery (towed): Guess about $10,000 maybe $30,000
>$1 million is about what you have to pay for a modern howitzer.
I would believe $1 million for Self Propelled Guns, but a million
for a tube, 2 wheels, tow hitch, gears and maybe some computers?
>>Artillery shells have got to cost $10 each.
>A hand grenade cost $5, so I don't see how you came up with $10
>for an artillery shell. The figure I recall is about $800.
Oopps, editor grabbed a 0, I meant about $100 each, and these are
order of magnitude guesses.
>> So the operative question is not could aircraft squash artillery,
>>but could a mercenary unit afford to have aircraft?
>Well, the customer pays for what the customer gets, so why not?
I have the TO&E and such data for an infantry regiment dated 1 June 1944
at home. It also has things like units of fire. OVer the next month,
I'll sit down and figure out what it would cost to equip and use a Regiment
of infantry and I'll post it here.
Benjamin Smith
be...@archimedes.vislab.navy.mil
Benjamin Allan Smith
>In article <3blo8f$8...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>
>ran...@gluttony.ugcs.caltech.edu (Benjamin Allan Smith) writes:
>> Atomic bombs are too easy. If people could use nukes, they wouldn't
>>need to hire Falkenberg's legion.I think that the reason this was part of the
>Atomic bombs don't do what you want. In one story Falkenberg drew most
>of
>the opposition into a large meeting in a sports stadium. Then he
>warned
>them several times to leave and then they killed all the ones that
>didn't
>leave. In the same story the Legion recruited a reliable core of
>dependable locals to form a militia suitably responsible to the civil
>authority (ie the good guys) and Falkenberg took the odium for the
>massacre with him when he left.
Yes in this case, Falkenberg found a solution to the problem
that did not require infantry combat. What I was thinking about was in
all the cases where in Pournelle's worlds the disputes we settled
by land combat. A few Tac nukes would eliminate the opposition
if they were stupid enough to get caught bunched up. Remember,
that some of these worlds had satellite images, and could give
some good intelligence.
>Even when the sides are physically separate there would be concerns
>about how many sides used nuclear weapons and for the possible
>destruction of resources needed both sides after the war is over.
Why worry about the loss of resources. This is a univerese where
inhabitable worlds seem to be somewhat plentiful. Unlike Earth where
we have nowhere to run if we destroy our planet, they people can
flee to another planet. Besides, it will be the upper class that will
own the bombs and the means to escape, and leave the peons behind to
live in the ashes.
Benjamin Smith
be...@archimedes.vislab.navy.mil
Benjamin Allan Smith
>ran...@gluttony.ugcs.caltech.edu (Benjamin Allan Smith) writes:
>> Are there currenly large scale mercenary units in existance today?
>How about the USMC? You don't have to be a US citizen to sign up
>with them. Or the French Foreign Legion?
I must have a different definition of mercenary than you do. To
me, a mercenary unit is an organized, independant military unit that contracts
its services to various political entities.
The UNited States Marine Corp is a part of the United
States Navy. Likewise, the French Foreign Legion is a permanent part of
the French Military. I believe the deal with the FFL is that if
you serve for 5 years you are granted French citizenship. So these people
are fighting to be a part of their nation.
Benjamin smith
be...@archimedes.vislab.navy.mil
Jyrki Valkama
: In article <3c1b84$1...@ousrvr.oulu.fi>,
: Jyrki Valkama <jval...@paju.oulu.fi> wrote:
: >sd...@cas.org wrote:
: >: Actually, if you had read the story, you would be aware that care was
: >: taken to provide a legal basis for the action - no war crime. Considerable
: >: warning was given before the firing - that the firing would be inevitable
: >: was a consequence of the nature of his opponents.
: >
: >Exactly the reasoning used by nazis.
: >
: Eh? To what exactly are you referring? If it's to the Holocaust, then
: you've got it exactly backwards; not only didn't the Nazis give warning
: once the Final Solution was initiated, but they did quite a lot to give
: the impression that *no one* was being killed. They didn't exactly go
: about publicizing the conditions, or even the existence, of the death camps.
Read history about destruction Warsawa (Varsova), nazi propaganda quite
prominently said that it was destroyed because of resistance whence
destruction was fault of resistance not nazis.
Fate of Jews is much much of tale of people not wanting to believe that
kind of horror being possible.
: >I pointed out that the precedence of wholesale slaughter was founded
: >in that single incident. Scale of slaughter escalated thru years,
: >culminating in destruction of whole world just for the danger that
: >rebellion might reach neighboring solarsystems. It was quite prominent
: >part of plot in Mote of God's Eye book.
: >
: I don't remember ever reading a justification of the destruction of an
: entire planet based on what Falkenberg did. I'd be kind of surprised if
: anyone in the Second Empire knew that much about what Falkenberg did.
: And the "scale of slaughter" did not escalate through years; there's a
: big, big difference between the re-establishment of the Second Empire and
: what Falkenberg did, before the First Empire was even an idea.
I don't fault Falkenberg of destruction of world, but generations of
military surely studied situation and compared it to cindered Earth.
"What is people in stadium compared to city, what is city compared to
world, what is world compared to Empire?". Each time bets are bigger,
thinking ot "un-thinkable" is expanded to new areas.
In Mote of God's Eye fate of entire intelligent species is at stake.
Cheers! Jyrki Valkama
Jyrki Valkama
: In article <3bujon$h...@ousrvr.oulu.fi> jval...@paju.oulu.fi (Jyrki Valkama) writes:
: >Low tech colonies is a romantic idea, in reality nobody is willing to
: >waste so much money just to get rid of few people.
: I'm coming into this in the middle, and may have missed much, but...
: If you are setting up a colony anywhere the supply line is long/expensive,
: "low tech" makes a lot of sense, especially if you can use your high
: tech to design/construct the "low tech." If this sounds like a contradiction
: in terms, it is because what I mean by high tech is all the wonderful
: computer/large amounts of power/etc. stuff, while what I mean by low
: tech is simple to maintain/reconstruct/copy and uses little or no generated
: power.
I was thinking more of trucks, horse-drawn carriages may be a romantic,
beautifully bucolic, sight, but they were totally exterminated by
18-wheelers. Keeping horses needs also an infrastructure and large one too
mainly because it's so inefficient. Horses need food, grooming, shoes,
veterinaries etc. How do you feed horses on totally different world,
anything green is not horse food, horses are notoriously finicky in that
regard. All those little activities use the profits made by using horses,
whence development is slow, way slooow. On Earth development lasted
hundreds of years until the age of Industrial Revolution, part of benefits
of Industrial revolution was expanded use of horses. Ind. Revolution
predated and necessiated the use of horse.
Does anybody think that investors like to hear that horses are cheap (which
they aren't!), but also before investments are paid back hundreds of years
has passed, net profit being fraction of what others make in one year.
Low tech constructed by high tech is low tech, horseshoe is horseshoe
and spare horseshoe has to made by said low tech.
Low tech doesn't mean that people using it are of low intelligent,
on the contrary. Blacksmith is one of those jobs you don't learn by book.
You have to be apprentice of blacksmith for years before you qualify,
who teaches the first blacksmiths and then subsequent generations
(one generation only? "Congrats lad! In twenty years you are out of job!").
To put it another way, a light saber might be a neat thing to
: have, but for a colony a machete made out of a good steel might be more
: practical on a mass for mass basis - the machete doesn't need a power
: supply, and a blacksmith can repair it. Yes, sharpening is a pain, but
: it is easier than importing/constructing the replacement chip for the light
: saber.
For that you need to import blacksmith and his workshop too.
Why not whole new machineshop full of spare parts and competent repairing
personnell, till the manufacturing plant arrives/is built?
: If it works out so the colony is profitable for all, no one wants to kill it.
: Of course, they may want to figure out ways to squeeze a little more
: profit out of it...and kill it inadvertently.
Granted if it's conducted by loyal monarchist Americans. What if the
colonisation project is conducted Russians or Japanese?
And there is that nasty
: question of "profitable for whom?"
: this profit depends on your preventing anyone in the colony from making
: zivsplats...
Mercantilism is a dead idea. Only result of it is small profit paid slowly
(about speed of horse drawn cart, size only a fraction of cart load).
: >American and Australian colonies were selfsufficient right from beginning
: In the US, we just got done with a holiday called "Thanksgiving." <-q
: The traditional school play version is that it is based on the |
: Pilgrim's (social/economic colonists) giving of thanks for having |
: survived the year - with much aid. Then there is the story of the |
: Roanoke colony. etc. |
|
: >well not exactly helpful natives were needed, but then there was no survey
: >teams.
: So did the tobacco factors in England (become wealthy). Some of the reasons
: for the Revolution were economic - the English govt. felt the colonies
: were a drag because of the cost of garrisons/governors/tax collectors -
: the colonials felt they could do quite nicely without those, thank you.
: Then there was the cost of manufactured goods - which were from the
: mother country - in short, both sides felt they were losing money -
: self-sufficiency had little to do with the conflict.
That is also why Interstellar Empire doesn't work, doesn't work,
it rebels, it tries to get independence.
: for instance, or those striving to find a place where they can avoid
: damaging the ecology (live in harmony with nature). These colonies
: have neither the political pull nor the profitibility to avoid
: BuReloc ships, and their nature means they have not the technology to
: mount effective resistance.
You managed to mention the only reason why there could be horse drawn
colonies. They have one effective defence: nobody bothers to rob them.
Especially if natives resort to guerilla war.
Does the name Vietnam ring bell? Vietnam war was not succesful, pretty,
justified or conventional, maybe that's the reason Pournelle avoids it.
: Finally, note that there are politics within the CoDo which give rise to
: a situation where mercenaries can exist - where did Falkenberg's outfit
: start? And who was the friend that kept them going? What does the
: Bronson faction mean to you?
Certainly Falkenberg needed sponsoring, he was lousy mercenary,
and would have died dirt poor on his own.
: Some of the military scenes are definitely borrowed tales, but the
: politics (which are in part intended as a polemic against allowing
: government to assume too much responsibility in exchange for
: security) are borrowed from different times than you suggest.
But not from modern era, we such ungentlemanly things like aircraft,
nuke and guerilla.
: As for fascism...in general, Falkenberg is trying to put right
: situations arising from the failure/inability of local groups to
: resist inappropriate assumptions/uses of authority by the larger
: government. How is that fascist?
One leader guiding the hapless masses and giving them law and order?
Sounds familiar.
Cheers! Jyrki Valkama
Onno Meyer
>Low tech colonies is a romantic idea, in reality nobody is willing to
>waste so much money just to get rid of few people. Much easier would
>be for example to put malcontents in a waitingroom under shuttle launch
>pad and then launch the shuttle with really useful goods.
[...]
>Only people who could come with an idea of shuffling large amount of
>people from place A to place B (and then to place C or A) and then
>forgetting what to with them is in fact military (and the only people
>who would be glad to waste billions of kredits in that).
>Cheers! Jyrki Valkama
Consider that this was a government program. Government programs don't
always make sense, and they're often influenced by outside pressure.
Assume there is a population that wants the government to deal with
troublemakers, do it as cheap as possible, but on the other hand doesn't
want to jail them or kill them.
Even if killing those "involuntary colonists" would make _economic_
sense, it might cause a revolution once the word gets out (and the
secret would be leaked sooner or later). This revolution could either
come from the underclasses who are likely to end up in those programs
or from the upper class that discovers it hasn't the stomach to
commit this mass-murder.
If the people are shipped to a world with breathable atmosphere and
left to fend for themselves, that is completely different - nobody
is actually murdering them, and they might get a pair of solid boots
and a knife to make the upper class at home feel good about the
program - not as if they are turned out naked.
Then there are those colonies founded by nations who actually want
them to prosper - for them your points about the ration between
colonists and equipment apply.
Onno Meyer
--
* Onno Meyer - Kastanienallee 40 - 26121 Oldenburg - Deutschland *
* e-mail: Onno....@informatik.Uni-Oldenburg.DE *
Henry Troup
>>warcrimes and subsequently to be hanged.
Remember, a war crime is an act performed by the losing side. The
ones on our side have different names.
After all, just who was hanged for using atomic weapons?
--
On December 6th, remember Genevieve Bergeron, Helene Colgan, Nathalie Croteau,
Barbara Daigneault, Anne-Marie Edward, Maud Haviernick, Barbara Maria Kueznick,
Maryse Laganeire, Maryse Leclair, Anne-Marie Lemay, Sonia Pelletier, Michele
Richard, Annie St-Arneault, Annie Turcotte // I don't speak for BNR.
Henry Troup
There are no army scale one. There are several places to find mercenaries,
though. A company in Aldershot, England, called "Security Advisory Services"
(read the initials!) is one agency, well attested to exist.
Off-topic for this group.
Urban Fredriksson
> I must have a different definition of mercenary than you do.
Mercenary = Soldier for a nation he does not belong to, if it is
not allied to his own nation.
> To
>me, a mercenary unit is an organized, independant military unit that contracts
>its services to various political entities.
Mercenary unit = Unit employing mercenaries. I'll be willing to
agree that the unit as such isn't mainly a mercenary unit unless it
mainly employs mercenaries, but the "independent" part has got
nothing to do with it.
> The UNited States Marine Corp is a part of the United
>States Navy.
Yes, but what do you call the foreign citizens employed in it? I
can't see how they're not mercenaries.
> I believe the deal with the FFL is that if
>you serve for 5 years you are granted French citizenship.
Never heard that from anyone who served there, or from anyone else
for that matter.
--
Urban Fredriksson u...@icl.se He who dies with the most friends win.
James Christopher Ellis
>: If you are setting up a colony anywhere the supply line is long/expensive,
>: "low tech" makes a lot of sense, especially if you can use your high
>: tech to design/construct the "low tech." If this sounds like a contradiction
>: in terms, it is because what I mean by high tech is all the wonderful
>: computer/large amounts of power/etc. stuff, while what I mean by low
>: tech is simple to maintain/reconstruct/copy and uses little or no generated
>: power.
>
>I was thinking more of trucks, horse-drawn carriages may be a romantic,
>beautifully bucolic, sight, but they were totally exterminated by
>18-wheelers. Keeping horses needs also an infrastructure and large one too
>mainly because it's so inefficient. Horses need food, grooming, shoes,
>veterinaries etc. How do you feed horses on totally different world,
>anything green is not horse food, horses are notoriously finicky in that
>regard. All those little activities use the profits made by using horses,
>whence development is slow, way slooow. On Earth development lasted
>hundreds of years until the age of Industrial Revolution, part of benefits
>of Industrial revolution was expanded use of horses. Ind. Revolution
>predated and necessiated the use of horse.
>
Ignorance is bliss, ain't it Jerky?
"18-wheelers need gas, maintenance, tires, mechanics etc. How
do you drive 18-wheelers without road, any old crude oil is not
diesel, 18-wheelers are notoriously finicky in that regard. All
those activities require high-tech whence development is slow,
way slooow. On Earth development lasted hundreds of years until
the age of Henry Ford, part of benefits of Industrial revolution
was infra-structure to make 18-wheelers. Ind. Revolution _far_
predated and was required before the use of 18-wheelers."
>Does anybody think that investors like to hear that horses are cheap (which
>they aren't!), but also before investments are paid back hundreds of years
>has passed, net profit being fraction of what others make in one year.
>
"Does anybody think that the investors like to hear that
18-wheelers are cheap (which they aren't!), but also hundreds of
years of investments are required before 18-wheelers are made,
net profit being dick-all."
>Low tech constructed by high tech is low tech, horseshoe is horseshoe
>and spare horseshoe has to made by said low tech.
>Low tech doesn't mean that people using it are of low intelligent,
>on the contrary. Blacksmith is one of those jobs you don't learn by book.
>You have to be apprentice of blacksmith for years before you qualify,
>who teaches the first blacksmiths and then subsequent generations
>(one generation only? "Congrats lad! In twenty years you are out of job!").
>
Easier to bang a horseshoe out of pig iron than a transaxle.
>
>For that you need to import blacksmith and his workshop too.
>Why not whole new machineshop full of spare parts and competent repairing
>personnell, till the manufacturing plant arrives/is built?
>
Blacksmith needs << machineshop, therefore _far_ cheaper. Makes
sense if you are wasting cash to transport useless involuntary
colonists, eh Jerky?
>: If it works out so the colony is profitable for all, no one wants to kill it.
>: Of course, they may want to figure out ways to squeeze a little more
>: profit out of it...and kill it inadvertently.
>
>Granted if it's conducted by loyal monarchist Americans. What if the
>colonisation project is conducted Russians or Japanese?
>
What the f*ck...?
>
>Mercantilism is a dead idea. Only result of it is small profit paid slowly
>(about speed of horse drawn cart, size only a fraction of cart load).
>
What the double f*ck...?
>
>That is also why Interstellar Empire doesn't work, doesn't work,
>it rebels, it tries to get independence.
>
What the googleplexed f*ck...?
>Does the name Vietnam ring bell? Vietnam war was not succesful, pretty,
>justified or conventional, maybe that's the reason Pournelle avoids it.
Sounds like the war on Sparta to me. Did you read the same
books I did?
>
>Certainly Falkenberg needed sponsoring, he was lousy mercenary,
>and would have died dirt poor on his own.
>
Ex-squeeze me? Sphincter say what?
>
>But not from modern era, we such ungentlemanly things like aircraft,
>nuke and guerilla.
>
To which CoDo reply with Naval Bombardment. Like this...
<PLONK>!!!
Biff
--
"And men cried out to the Creator, saying, O Light of the Heavens,
Light of the World, let the Promised One be born of the mountain,
according to the prophecies, as he was in ages past and will be in
ages to come. [...] Let the Dragon ride again on the winds of time."
Hans Rancke-Madsen
>sd...@cas.org wrote:
>: In article <3bugvt$h...@ousrvr.oulu.fi> jval...@paju.oulu.fi (Jyrki Valkama) writes:
>: >MarekW (wiec...@bionet.bio.dfo.ca) wrote:
>: >And then he hadn't any common decency to turn himself in for
>: >warcrimes and subsequently to be hanged.
>: Actually, if you had read the story, you would be aware that care was
>: taken to provide a legal basis for the action - no war crime. Considerable
>: warning was given before the firing - that the firing would be inevitable
>: was a consequence of the nature of his opponents.
>Exactly the reasoning used by nazis.
It's quite an achievement to pack such a lot of nonsense into one short
sentence. First of all you state that the nazis reasoned like this
without bothering to explain exactly what the parallels are. Take another,
similar, example: Some law enforcement officers contrive to corner some
armed criminals. They warn the criminal to throw down their arms. The
subsequent firefight is inevetable as a consequence of the nature of the
criminals. Are the police guilty of provoking the fight? (They provoked
the fight all right. The question is, was that a bad thing to do? Should
they rather have let the criminals escape, knowing that by cornering them
a firefight was almost inevetable?)
Then you imply that anything the nazis did or approved of is bad, without
any need for further arguments. Much of what they did and approved of is
repugnant, no argument there; but you can't argue the other way. (Or rather,
it is a common, fallacious, debating trick to do so. The old 'guilt by
association' trick).
Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
ran...@diku.dk
------------
"I used to argue the matter at first, but I'm wiser now. Facts
are stubborn things, but not half so stubborn as fallacies."
- Stella Maynard in "Anne of the Island"
Josh Kaderlan
(Unless I missed something really big, and I don't think I did.) The
destruction of Earth might have been a precedent for the Empire (although
I highly doubt that -- cadets in the academies are required to go see
Earth, to see what the Empire is trying to avoid on a larger scale), but
Falkenberg's actions certainly weren't. It was one incident, on one
world. The destruction of Earth is seen in the Empire as a tragedy.
Are you implying that the Empire might not have had valid reasons for
destroying the Moties? It seems to me that if the events of *The
Gripping Hand* hadn't come to pass, one or the other species would be but
a fading memory.
Josh
>Cheers! Jyrki Valkama
Urban Fredriksson
>Urban_Fr...@icl.se (Urban Fredriksson) writes:
>>ran...@sloth.ugcs.caltech.edu (Benjamin Allan Smith) writes:
>>>Artillery (towed): Guess about $10,000 maybe $30,000
>>$1 million is about what you have to pay for a modern howitzer.
> I would believe $1 million for Self Propelled Guns, but a million
>for a tube, 2 wheels, tow hitch, gears and maybe some computers?
You're of course entitled to your beliefs, but that's actually
what people pay for a Bofors FH-77B.
Joel Rosenberg
>From: h...@bnr.ca (Henry Troup)
>Subject: Re: Military SF
>Date: 7 Dec 1994 18:50:33 GMT
>>>And then he hadn't any common decency to turn himself in for
>>>warcrimes and subsequently to be hanged.
>Remember, a war crime is an act performed by the losing side. The
>ones on our side have different names.
>After all, just who was hanged for using atomic weapons?
>--
>
I always find it sadly humorous when Hiroshima messages are posted on December
7th.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rosenberg | For news about upcoming books, | My opinions are mine.
jo...@winternet.com | finger jo...@winternet.com | Whose are yours?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bofinger
> Mercenary = Soldier for a nation he does not belong to, if it is
> not allied to his own nation.
So you consider the international brigade, that fought on the
Republican side in in the Spanish civil war, to be composed of
mercenaries?
A few hundred years ago there was a battle fought (in Spain, as a
matter of fact) where the English army was commanded by a Frenchman,
and the French army was commanded by an Englishman. Neither of these
commanders was a mercenary. The Frenchman had fled France because
protestantism was being suppressed there. The Englishman was a Jacobin
-- a catholic supporter of the Stuarts, who had been deposed in the
Glorious Revolution.
I suggest an alternate defintion: one whose principle motive for
fighting is that (s)he is being paid to do it (or at least hoping for
booty).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Bofinger AARNet: dxb...@huxley.anu.edu.au
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rosenberg
>> I believe the deal with the FFL is that if
>>you serve for 5 years you are granted French citizenship.
>Never heard that from anyone who served there, or from anyone else
>for that matter.
I've heard it several places, among them from a bookstore manager who used to
be in the Legion.
Jyrki Valkama
: jval...@paju.oulu.fi (Jyrki Valkama) writes:
: >sd...@cas.org wrote:
: >: In article <3bugvt$h...@ousrvr.oulu.fi> jval...@paju.oulu.fi (Jyrki Valkama) writes:
: >: >MarekW (wiec...@bionet.bio.dfo.ca) wrote:
: >: Actually, if you had read the story, you would be aware that care was
: >: taken to provide a legal basis for the action - no war crime. Considerable
: >: warning was given before the firing - that the firing would be inevitable
: >: was a consequence of the nature of his opponents.
: >Exactly the reasoning used by nazis.
: It's quite an achievement to pack such a lot of nonsense into one short
: sentence. First of all you state that the nazis reasoned like this
: without bothering to explain exactly what the parallels are.
I just knew it! I should have pointed an exact point in historybook with
complete instructions to read it. I assumed that people still remember
what was disscussed in history lessons (I know for most people they were
boring and some snored happily thru classes).
One specific point to start is to read about destruction of Warsawa in Poland
in WWII by Germans. Nazis claimed (probably still claim) that they just had to
do it because people fought back. In one propaganda poster Nazis even
accused Brits for destruction because Brits had encouraged Polish Army to
fight back.
Take another,
: similar, example: Some law enforcement officers contrive to corner some
: armed criminals. They warn the criminal to throw down their arms. The
: subsequent firefight is inevetable as a consequence of the nature of the
: criminals. Are the police guilty of provoking the fight? (They provoked
: the fight all right. The question is, was that a bad thing to do? Should
: they rather have let the criminals escape, knowing that by cornering them
: a firefight was almost inevetable?)
Somebody has watched too many Dirty Larry's, and has subsequently difficulties
to tell differences between reality and movies.
: Then you imply that anything the nazis did or approved of is bad, without
: any need for further arguments. Much of what they did and approved of is
: repugnant, no argument there; but you can't argue the other way. (Or rather,
: it is a common, fallacious, debating trick to do so. The old 'guilt by
: association' trick).
I just pointed a rather thought provoking parallel in Future History and
real history. I thought that people would then think about it.
Evidently some people take any critical discussion about CoDo universe
as a blasphemy against their god.
Cheers! Jyrki Valkama
Trister K
Yes, well, Pournell's CoDo books are jolly good fun, I enjoyed them very
much and had no problem suspending my disbelief because they are
internally consistant and flow logically from his premises.
On the other hand, anyone who believes that they are serious historical
speculation, or that the political situations are in any way similar to
the way actual human beings conduct themselves is, well, foolish.
At no time in human history has any set of "Rules" for warfare been
consistantly observerd in pratice. From time to time there have been such
codes that were popularly understood by various combatants, but anyone who
thinks that they were ever honored in the breach has been learning his
history from reading old Gordon R. Dickson novels and not from reading
history.
Don't get me wrong, I like this stuff, have read all the Childe Cycle
books (and wish he'd write the ones about Giovonni Acuto) but all this
stuff, Dickson, Pournell etc. really has to be read as metaphorical speech
about current and historical milatary subjects, otherwise it's just
laughable . . .
My nominee for best MilSF? (Glad you asked)
The Men In the Jungle - Norman Spinrad
Trister K
>Date: 30 Nov 1994 02:42:31 GMT
>Message-ID: <3bgoqn$8...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>
>I've been watching this debate of which authors can write Military SF and
>finally it's time for my two cents worth.
...>Regarding the debate of Artillery vs. Aircract, has anyone
thought
>how expensive it would be to field a mercenary unit?
<Much painstaking calculation snipped>
You have brilliantly proven that such a thing makes no sense today, the
beauity of Skiffy is that a simple auctorial handwave (Fusion powered,
nano-tech built fighter jets! They run on water and cost a dollar! Get'em
whilst they'er hot!) can make you excellent points moot.
sd...@cas.org
comments "out of context" because I saw them in another post. I also am told
some of my posts may have been repeated multiple times during the efforts to
fix the feed - apologies to any in the outside world who were inconvenienced.
>In article <3c3ta2$8...@ousrvr.oulu.fi>,
>Jyrki Valkama <jval...@paju.oulu.fi> wrote:
>>sd...@cas.org wrote:
>>
>>: I'm coming into this in the middle, and may have missed much, but...
>>: If you are setting up a colony anywhere the supply line is long/expensive,
>>: "low tech" makes a lot of sense, especially if you can use your high
>>: tech to design/construct the "low tech." If this sounds like a contradiction
>>: in terms, it is because what I mean by high tech is all the wonderful
>>: computer/large amounts of power/etc. stuff, while what I mean by low
>>: tech is simple to maintain/reconstruct/copy and uses little or no generated
>>: power.
>>
>>I was thinking more of trucks, horse-drawn carriages may be a romantic,
>>beautifully bucolic, sight, but they were totally exterminated by
>>18-wheelers. Keeping horses needs also an infrastructure and large one too
>>mainly because it's so inefficient. Horses need food, grooming, shoes,
>>veterinaries etc. How do you feed horses on totally different world,
>>anything green is not horse food, horses are notoriously finicky in that
>>regard. All those little activities use the profits made by using horses,
>>whence development is slow, way slooow. On Earth development lasted
>>hundreds of years until the age of Industrial Revolution, part of benefits
>>of Industrial revolution was expanded use of horses. Ind. Revolution
>>predated and necessiated the use of horse.
>>
You wouldn't use carriages, you would use wagons, although I don't
doubt that carriages would make a comeback for the reason of
romance :-)
18-wheelers require a huge infrastructure. Not just the infrastructure to
build the trucks, but the infrastructure to construct the roads, build the
bridges, etc. for them to use - try taking your 18-wheeler cross country.
Properly designed horse-drawn vehicles have very respectable cargo-carrying
capabilities - not up to an 18-wheeler - and they can use much simpler roads
(in part due to the lower weight/vehicle load, of course). You could, of
course, use smaller trucks to avoid the roadway infrastructure requirements,
but this still sticks you with the infrastructure costs of maintainence and
manufacture. (If you doubt the capabilities of horse-drawn vehicles, look into
the logistics of the German Army in the late 1930's or the supply of London
in the 19th century.)
>
>
>>Does anybody think that investors like to hear that horses are cheap (which
>>they aren't!), but also before investments are paid back hundreds of years
>>has passed, net profit being fraction of what others make in one year.
>>
>
Cheap is a relative term. Horses are most definitely cheap relative to
the cost of 18-wheelers, especially in the initial stages of colonization,
when your transport requirements will not require long-distance hauling.
(Please note again, btw, that you are going to see a mix of technologies -
the colony will certainly include some motorized vehicles initially -
earth movers, etc. - for specific applications, but these would be
limited to the numbers needed, and support might well be over the
supply line - the parts would not be of local manufacture.)
Horses and other animals that eat fodder of varying sorts also make sense
from the point of view of terraforming - either the animals can eat the
local vegetation, in which case they are self-fueling, or you feed them
off the fast-growing grasses you use to crowd out the local vegetation
when you are establishing an environment for your humans to live in. In
either case, you get a useful by-product - fertilizer at low infrastructure
cost relative to petroleum/solar cells/etc.
>
>>Low tech constructed by high tech is low tech, horseshoe is horseshoe
>>and spare horseshoe has to made by said low tech.
Yes and no - low tech constructed by high tech can incorporate
refinements that would not be seen in low tech emerging from
low tech. These refinements will be more in the design area, of
course - most old-fashioned wagons were overengineered because
the designers worked empirically without a knowledge of how to
calculate where stress/strain would occur. A wagon designed
using current techniques can be lighter, and use less in the way
of materials for its construction, than the old low tech-low tech
wagons. Likewise, modern hand tools benefit from the greater
understanding of ergonomics that we have today.
>>Low tech doesn't mean that people using it are of low intelligent,
>>on the contrary. Blacksmith is one of those jobs you don't learn by book.
>>You have to be apprentice of blacksmith for years before you qualify,
>>who teaches the first blacksmiths and then subsequent generations
>>(one generation only? "Congrats lad! In twenty years you are out of job!").
>>
Who teaches the first mechanics? One advantage of high tech is a lot
can be done to simplify the procedures. To go to your blacksmith
example, an optical pyrometer might be a handy high-tech tool to include
in your blacksmith kit - saves lots of trial and error in learning to
guess when the iron has been heated just right, and is small enough
and cheap enough to include in your supply loads. I have no objection
to mixing tech, and would expect it to be done (unless the colony
was one that was being founded by a group that wanted to reject
all high tech, of course). You seem to be assuming that doing things
one way means you can't do them another. As for your concern over
obsolecence, one advantage you have in the colony is that you know
that some jobs are going to become obsolescent and so you can plan for
it - thus, it is "Congrats lad! In twenty years you get a pension"
for some, and for others, its "Congrats lad! In ten years we begin training
you as a mechanic, and your job is guaranteed." (By the way, there are
several good books on blacksmithing fundamentals. Practice is essential
in this as in any other occupation, and apprenticeships are probably
the best way to learn, but there are self-taught blacksmiths. One of
whom made some toys I gave away last Christmas - fascinating to
talk to, with funny stories about his early mistakes.)
>>For that you need to import blacksmith and his workshop too.
>>Why not whole new machineshop full of spare parts and competent repairing
>>personnell, till the manufacturing plant arrives/is built?
>>
Compare the average quantity of tools and number of personnel required
for an average motor pool with that required for the average community
of Amish (who still use horse-drawn vehicles). Bear in mind that a
manufacturing plant is not a substitute for a repair facilty - disposable
18-wheelers strike me as unlikely, anyway - and so your plant does not
replace the repair depot. Bear in mind the relative increase in complexity
for motorized vehicles when different models are needed for different
tasks relative to that for low-tech vehicles.
Will manufg. plants come? Sure, eventually. But are they part of your
start-up? Not unless you are putting a truly massive colony down - and
the colonies in the CoDo universe are not that big.
>
>>: If it works out so the colony is profitable for all, no one wants to kill it.
>>: Of course, they may want to figure out ways to squeeze a little more
>>: profit out of it...and kill it inadvertently.
>>
>>Granted if it's conducted by loyal monarchist Americans. What if the
>>colonisation project is conducted Russians or Japanese?
>>
I have the feeling this sentence is somehow garbled. The history of
Russian and Japanese colonial efforts does not suggest that they are
any less (or more) prone to errors than Americans, whether under a
monarchy or not.
>>
>>Mercantilism is a dead idea. Only result of it is small profit paid slowly
>>(about speed of horse drawn cart, size only a fraction of cart load).
From here on, the material seems hopelessly garbled. If I ever see the
original post, perhaps it will make more sense.
Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew
> Hans Rancke-Madsen (ran...@diku.dk) wrote:
> : jval...@paju.oulu.fi (Jyrki Valkama) writes:
> : >sd...@cas.org wrote:
> : >: jval...@paju.oulu.fi (Jyrki Valkama) writes:
> : >: >MarekW (wiec...@bionet.bio.dfo.ca) wrote:
> : >: Actually, if you had read the story, you would be aware that care was
> : >: taken to provide a legal basis for the action - no war crime. Considerable
> : >: warning was given before the firing - that the firing would be inevitable
> : >: was a consequence of the nature of his opponents.
> : >
> : >Exactly the reasoning used by nazis.
> : It's quite an achievement to pack such a lot of nonsense into one short
> : sentence. First of all you state that the nazis reasoned like this
> : without bothering to explain exactly what the parallels are.
>
> I just knew it! I should have pointed an exact point in historybook with
> complete instructions to read it.
Well, it would have been helpful. Hitler & Co were involved in all kinds
of shenanigans - specific pointers are always useful.
> I assumed that people still remember
> what was disscussed in history lessons (I know for most people they were
> boring and some snored happily thru classes).
This thread is quickly going downhill, I am afraid. Let's keep ad hominem
out of it, shall we?
> One specific point to start is to read about destruction of Warsawa in Poland
> in WWII by Germans. Nazis claimed (probably still claim) that they just had to
> do it because people fought back. In one propaganda poster Nazis even
> accused Brits for destruction because Brits had encouraged Polish Army to
> fight back.
Well, strategically, they didn't *have* to do it - I would even argue that
they might have been better off with Warsaw controlled by Polish
anticommunists causing all kind of trouble for the Red Army later on.
OTOH, it wasn't exactly "people" who "fought back" in August-September
1944. We are talking about a reasonably well organized army taking over
when the Germans withdrew in late July. Then, when the Red Army decided
not to cross Vistula (Wisla), the Germans came back.
Tactically, the German Army couldn't afford leaving an enemy beachhead in
the very center of their lines and had to take it back, breaking the
backbone of the Polish anticommunist Resistance in the process. Exactly
what Stalin had hoped they would do. However, they encountered significant
resistance; eventually Hitler went overboard and ordered a massive
demolition operation "to teach them a lesson".
All things considered, I don't think your analogy is helpful.
> : Take another,
> : similar, example: Some law enforcement officers contrive to corner some
> : armed criminals. They warn the criminal to throw down their arms. The
> : subsequent firefight is inevetable as a consequence of the nature of the
> : criminals. Are the police guilty of provoking the fight? (They provoked
> : the fight all right. The question is, was that a bad thing to do? Should
> : they rather have let the criminals escape, knowing that by cornering them
> : a firefight was almost inevetable?)
> Somebody has watched too many Dirty Larry's, and has subsequently difficulties
> to tell differences between reality and movies.
I find Hans' example perfectly valid. You don't seem to think so. Would
you like to tell us why?
> : Then you imply that anything the nazis did or approved of is bad, without
> : any need for further arguments. Much of what they did and approved of is
> : repugnant, no argument there; but you can't argue the other way. (Or rather,
> : it is a common, fallacious, debating trick to do so. The old 'guilt by
> : association' trick).
> I just pointed a rather thought provoking parallel in Future History and
> real history. I thought that people would then think about it. [snip]
I find it useful to spell out my parallels, especially when using
emotionally charged examples.
--
Ahasuerus
John Schilling
>Urban_Fr...@icl.se (Urban Fredriksson) defines "mercenary" thus:
>> Mercenary = Soldier for a nation he does not belong to, if it is
>> not allied to his own nation.
>So you consider the international brigade, that fought on the
>Republican side in in the Spanish civil war, to be composed of
>mercenaries?
[example deleted]
>I suggest an alternate defintion: one whose principle motive for
>fighting is that (s)he is being paid to do it (or at least hoping for
>booty).
Of course, this definition would include an awful lot of people serving
in national armies. And exclude the majority of the people normally
labelled as "mercenaries". I rather doubt very many people join the
French Foreign Legion for the high pay.
And, relevant to the discussion at hand, it would exclude the fictional
character of John Christian Falkenberg, and probably most of his officers.
Note the answer to the question: "Who are you *really* working for?",
which comes up more than once in Pournelle's works.
Without spoiling things, suffice it to say money is *not* the motive.
--
*John Schilling * "You can have Peace, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * or you can have Freedom. *
*University of Southern California * Don't ever count on having both *
*Aerospace Engineering Department * at the same time." *
*schi...@spock.usc.edu * - Robert A. Heinlein *
*(213)-740-5311 or 747-2527 * Finger for PGP public key *
Jyrki Valkama
: Jyrki Valkama (jval...@paju.oulu.fi) wrote:
: > Hans Rancke-Madsen (ran...@diku.dk) wrote:
: > : jval...@paju.oulu.fi (Jyrki Valkama) writes:
: > : >sd...@cas.org wrote:
: > : >: jval...@paju.oulu.fi (Jyrki Valkama) writes:
: > : >: >MarekW (wiec...@bionet.bio.dfo.ca) wrote:
: > : >
: > : >Exactly the reasoning used by nazis.
: > I just knew it! I should have pointed an exact point in historybook with
: > complete instructions to read it.
: Well, it would have been helpful. Hitler & Co were involved in all kinds
: of shenanigans - specific pointers are always useful.
: > I assumed that people still remember
: > what was disscussed in history lessons (I know for most people they were
: > boring and some snored happily thru classes).
: This thread is quickly going downhill, I am afraid. Let's keep ad hominem
: out of it, shall we?
Well then write your own opinion about Military Scifi!
: > One specific point to start is to read about destruction of Warsawa in Poland
: > in WWII by Germans. Nazis claimed (probably still claim) that they just had to
: > do it because people fought back. In one propaganda poster Nazis even
: > accused Brits for destruction because Brits had encouraged Polish Army to
: > fight back.
: Well, strategically, they didn't *have* to do it - I would even argue that
: they might have been better off with Warsaw controlled by Polish
: anticommunists causing all kind of trouble for the Red Army later on.
: OTOH, it wasn't exactly "people" who "fought back" in August-September
: 1944. We are talking about a reasonably well organized army taking over
: when the Germans withdrew in late July. Then, when the Red Army decided
: not to cross Vistula (Wisla), the Germans came back.
I was referring the German attack against Poland, you remember the beginning
of WWII, and Poland had defence alliance with England and France.
: All things considered, I don't think your analogy is helpful.
: > : Take another,
: > : similar, example: Some law enforcement officers contrive to corner some
: > : armed criminals. They warn the criminal to throw down their arms. The
: > : subsequent firefight is inevetable as a consequence of the nature of the
: > : criminals. Are the police guilty of provoking the fight? (They provoked
: > : the fight all right. The question is, was that a bad thing to do? Should
: > : they rather have let the criminals escape, knowing that by cornering them
: > : a firefight was almost inevetable?)
: > Somebody has watched too many Dirty Larry's, and has subsequently difficulties
: > to tell differences between reality and movies.
: I find Hans' example perfectly valid. You don't seem to think so. Would
: you like to tell us why?
Hans' example is not valid it's way too vague.
For first police have standing orders what to do in those situations.
If there is no imminent danger to general public or there are no hostages,
police don't start shooting if there is no reason for it. Negotiation,
disarming, etc., is tried first. Foulmouthing is not sufficient provocation,
besides a police is supposed to be immune to provocations. If criminals
try to shoot at people (cops are people too), then police is entitled to
take necessary means to ensure the safety of people. Notice that shooting
criminals is only one solution among others and not always best or safest.
: > I just pointed a rather thought provoking parallel in Future History and
: > real history. I thought that people would then think about it. [snip]
: I find it useful to spell out my parallels, especially when using
: emotionally charged examples.
Exactly how far I should go in s-p-e-l-l-i-n-g t-h-e p-a-r-a-l-l-e-l-s?
Go read a history book, it's faster.
Regards Jyrki Valkama
Jyrki Valkama
: jval...@paju.oulu.fi (Jyrki Valkama) writes:
: >Low tech colonies is a romantic idea, in reality nobody is willing to
: >waste so much money just to get rid of few people. Much easier would
: Consider that this was a government program. Government programs don't
: always make sense, and they're often influenced by outside pressure.
: Assume there is a population that wants the government to deal with
: troublemakers, do it as cheap as possible, but on the other hand doesn't
: want to jail them or kill them.
That is a possibility but a small one. The historically existing system
arose when British governement noticed that colonies had shortage of
manpower and there were lot of men rotting in prisons. Technical skills
were not so much needed strong backs yes, but in future more likely
situation would be more likely other way around. Brain drain to colonies
and to space generally would be probably more acute problem.
: If the people are shipped to a world with breathable atmosphere and
: left to fend for themselves, that is completely different - nobody
: is actually murdering them, and they might get a pair of solid boots
: and a knife to make the upper class at home feel good about the
: program - not as if they are turned out naked.
Why bother with boots or knife, why waste them, he is not likely to
write back to Earth? You can sell the boots again, better keep the knife
to yourself.
: Then there are those colonies founded by nations who actually want
: them to prosper - for them your points about the ration between
: colonists and equipment apply.
They are probably more numerous, after all you need only one Hellhole.
Cheers! Jyrki Valkama
Josh Kaderlan
Jyrki Valkama <jval...@paju.oulu.fi> wrote:
>Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew (aha...@clark.net) wrote:
>
>: I find Hans' example perfectly valid. You don't seem to think so. Would
>: you like to tell us why?
>
>Hans' example is not valid it's way too vague.
>For first police have standing orders what to do in those situations.
>If there is no imminent danger to general public or there are no hostages,
>police don't start shooting if there is no reason for it. Negotiation,
>disarming, etc., is tried first. Foulmouthing is not sufficient provocation,
>besides a police is supposed to be immune to provocations. If criminals
>try to shoot at people (cops are people too), then police is entitled to
>take necessary means to ensure the safety of people. Notice that shooting
>criminals is only one solution among others and not always best or safest.
>
open fire on the police, then what would you have the police do? Don't
you think that returning fire is reasonable under those circumstances,
even though the police "provoked" the opening fire by cornering the
criminals?
>: > I just pointed a rather thought provoking parallel in Future History and
>: > real history. I thought that people would then think about it. [snip]
>
>: I find it useful to spell out my parallels, especially when using
>: emotionally charged examples.
>
>Exactly how far I should go in s-p-e-l-l-i-n-g t-h-e p-a-r-a-l-l-e-l-s?
>Go read a history book, it's faster.
>
Oh, come on. No one knew exactly what the hell you were talking about.
Hell, I thought you were talking about the destruction of the Warsaw
ghetto after the uprising. Reading a history book isn't faster, not when
you're considering the entire Nazi period. I'm just finishing a course
in Nazi Germany, and I didn't see to what you were referring. Would it
have taken *that* long to simply spell things out?
Josh
Jyrki Valkama
: We've been having some trouble with our feed, and so I responding to these
: comments "out of context" because I saw them in another post. I also am told
: some of my posts may have been repeated multiple times during the efforts to
: fix the feed - apologies to any in the outside world who were inconvenienced.
No problems here, sofar.
: >In article <3c3ta2$8...@ousrvr.oulu.fi>,
: >Jyrki Valkama <jval...@paju.oulu.fi> wrote:
: >>sd...@cas.org wrote:
: You wouldn't use carriages, you would use wagons, although I don't
: doubt that carriages would make a comeback for the reason of
: romance :-)
Showing status/wealth will be very much alive even in non-tech colony :-)
: 18-wheelers require a huge infrastructure. Not just the infrastructure to
: build the trucks, but the infrastructure to construct the roads, build the
: bridges, etc. for them to use - try taking your 18-wheeler cross country.
: Properly designed horse-drawn vehicles have very respectable cargo-carrying
: capabilities - not up to an 18-wheeler - and they can use much simpler roads
: (in part due to the lower weight/vehicle load, of course). You could, of
: course, use smaller trucks to avoid the roadway infrastructure requirements,
: but this still sticks you with the infrastructure costs of maintainence and
: manufacture. (If you doubt the capabilities of horse-drawn vehicles, look
into
: the logistics of the German Army in the late 1930's or the supply of London
: in the 19th century.)
Try imagining of building those roads etc. with horse power. Horse powered
infrastructure would be extremely slow and smallscale, which would mean
paradoxially large inefficient infrastructure. Barely able to sustain
itself and not at all if you count the original investment. Another very
big problem would be that slow and smalscale, but large, system means
a bottleneck in otherwise fast system. Collecting and delivering goods
is very slow and inefficient, imagine a space shuttle waiting that final
wagon load across continent.
: >>Does anybody think that investors like to hear that horses are cheap (which
: >>they aren't!), but also before investments are paid back hundreds of years
: >>has passed, net profit being fraction of what others make in one year.
: >>
: >
: Cheap is a relative term. Horses are most definitely cheap relative to
: the cost of 18-wheelers, especially in the initial stages of colonization,
: when your transport requirements will not require long-distance hauling.
: (Please note again, btw, that you are going to see a mix of technologies -
: the colony will certainly include some motorized vehicles initially -
: earth movers, etc. - for specific applications, but these would be
: limited to the numbers needed, and support might well be over the
: supply line - the parts would not be of local manufacture.)
There is no reason why things don't stay in that stage, by continuing to use
trucks and earthmovers, one automated prefabbed manufacturing plant would
produce enough spareparts,trucks etc. for whole colony and much faster.
: Horses and other animals that eat fodder of varying sorts also make sense
: from the point of view of terraforming - either the animals can eat the
: local vegetation, in which case they are self-fueling, or you feed them
: off the fast-growing grasses you use to crowd out the local vegetation
: when you are establishing an environment for your humans to live in. In
: either case, you get a useful by-product - fertilizer at low infrastructure
: cost relative to petroleum/solar cells/etc.
"Colony Bugony, population: 20 million ... main export: horse manure"
If local flora is compatibible follows naturally that local fauna may find
horses as an easy food, and I don't mean only predators, germs are plentiful.
If local flora is incompatibible, horses are competing with humans of
food. You have to clear the fields, you know.
: >>Low tech constructed by high tech is low tech, horseshoe is horseshoe
: >>and spare horseshoe has to made by said low tech.
: Yes and no - low tech constructed by high tech can incorporate
: refinements that would not be seen in low tech emerging from
: low tech. These refinements will be more in the design area, of
: course - most old-fashioned wagons were overengineered because
: the designers worked empirically without a knowledge of how to
: calculate where stress/strain would occur. A wagon designed
: using current techniques can be lighter, and use less in the way
: of materials for its construction, than the old low tech-low tech
: wagons. Likewise, modern hand tools benefit from the greater
: understanding of ergonomics that we have today.
Try using that with pig iron, locals have to be able to use and work it.
Besides using CAD/M to get better horseshoes sounds dubious, why waste good
tool to that, design more durable axle instead.
: >>who teaches the first blacksmiths and then subsequent generations
: >>(one generation only? "Congrats lad! In twenty years you are out of job!").
: >>
: Who teaches the first mechanics? One advantage of high tech is a lot
: can be done to simplify the procedures.
Streamlined modern (future) tech is easier. Or would you trust plastic
horseshoe (no nitpicking please).
: To go to your blacksmith
It was not my idea.
: example, an optical pyrometer might be a handy high-tech tool to include
: in your blacksmith kit - saves lots of trial and error in learning to
: guess when the iron has been heated just right, and is small enough
: and cheap enough to include in your supply loads.
Why stop there? Bring whole works, when you are at it.
I have no objection
: to mixing tech, and would expect it to be done (unless the colony
: was one that was being founded by a group that wanted to reject
: all high tech, of course).
If people are willing to reject all tech they are free to do that.
I have done enough chores in farm and in woods to regard a tractor and
a chainsaw as jolly good inventions.
: you as a mechanic, and your job is guaranteed." (By the way, there are
: several good books on blacksmithing fundamentals. Practice is essential
: in this as in any other occupation, and apprenticeships are probably
: the best way to learn, but there are self-taught blacksmiths. One of
: whom made some toys I gave away last Christmas - fascinating to
: talk to, with funny stories about his early mistakes.)
How did he live meanwhile?
I have no skills in blacksmithing, but I have an uncle working as
teacher in school for mechanics for forest industry, what he does with
acetylene welder and few machineparts is impressive, if there is time
beautiful toys too.
: of Amish (who still use horse-drawn vehicles).
That is their decision. What percentage of food production of USA they
are responsible, 50% perhaps?
Bear in mind that a
: manufacturing plant is not a substitute for a repair facilty - disposable
: 18-wheelers strike me as unlikely, anyway - and so your plant does not
: replace the repair depot. Bear in mind the relative increase in complexity
: for motorized vehicles when different models are needed for different
: tasks relative to that for low-tech vehicles.
Certainly streamlining of systems is necessary.
: Will manufg. plants come? Sure, eventually. But are they part of your
: start-up? Not unless you are putting a truly massive colony down - and
: the colonies in the CoDo universe are not that big.
Probably repair pool and manufacturing plant are among the first things to
arrive, after all you have to get colony started, preferrably near the shuttle
launch pad, you surely want to be able to fix the shuttle.
: >>Granted if it's conducted by loyal monarchist Americans. What if the
: >>colonisation project is conducted Russians or Japanese?
: >>
: I have the feeling this sentence is somehow garbled. The history of
: Russian and Japanese colonial efforts does not suggest that they are
: any less (or more) prone to errors than Americans, whether under a
: monarchy or not.
You certainly are a latecomer, this thread is a offshoot of Military SF
-thread. There seems to exist people who take everything they read seriously
and have difficulties to discern between reality and fiction.
Some are plain wacko and in desperate need to fuck (read jcellis's article).
By Russians I referred to their experience in Siberia and Japanese were for
a possible future technology (prefabs etc.).
Cheers! Jyrki Valkama
Jyrki Valkama
: In article <3cfigi$b...@ousrvr.oulu.fi>,
: Jyrki Valkama <jval...@paju.oulu.fi> wrote:
: >Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew (aha...@clark.net) wrote:
: >
: you think that returning fire is reasonable under those circumstances,
: even though the police "provoked" the opening fire by cornering the
: criminals?
Did they open fire? Who shot the first shot? These are questions police
have to answer surely, what does the written report say.
If criminals are cornered, they are already boxed.
: Oh, come on. No one knew exactly what the hell you were talking about.
: Hell, I thought you were talking about the destruction of the Warsaw
: ghetto after the uprising. Reading a history book isn't faster, not when
: you're considering the entire Nazi period. I'm just finishing a course
: in Nazi Germany, and I didn't see to what you were referring. Would it
: have taken *that* long to simply spell things out?
What is happening to today's school. Nazi reasoning and propaganda was always
one subject of courses (if nothing else the convoluted reasoning was a fun
thing to follow thru).
Cheers! Jyrki Valkama
PS Ask a police more about this, chances are he won't shoot you.
Josh Kaderlan
Jyrki Valkama <jval...@paju.oulu.fi> wrote:
>Josh Kaderlan (jek...@cac.psu.edu) wrote:
>
>: Oh, come on. No one knew exactly what the hell you were talking about.
>: Hell, I thought you were talking about the destruction of the Warsaw
>: ghetto after the uprising. Reading a history book isn't faster, not when
>: you're considering the entire Nazi period. I'm just finishing a course
>: in Nazi Germany, and I didn't see to what you were referring. Would it
>: have taken *that* long to simply spell things out?
>
>What is happening to today's school. Nazi reasoning and propaganda was always
>one subject of courses (if nothing else the convoluted reasoning was a fun
>thing to follow thru).
>
parallel, you have the responsibility to make it reasonably easy for
people to see what you're talking about, IMNSHO. I know enough about
Nazi propaganda to have an idea of their "reasoning," thank you very
much. *You* didn't make it clear what the hell you were talking about.
Josh
Urban Fredriksson
>Urban_Fr...@icl.se (Urban Fredriksson) defines "mercenary" thus:
>> Mercenary = Soldier for a nation he does not belong to, if it is
>> not allied to his own nation.
>So you consider the international brigade, that fought on the
>Republican side in in the Spanish civil war, to be composed of
>mercenaries?
Yes. It's true that the Swedes who went there and didn't return
got a monument erected in memory of them, but the Swedes who
fought on the American side in the Viet Nam war and didn't
survive, didn't -- In Sweden that is, they are of course listed
on the one in USA.
There also *seems* to be two kinds of mercenaries in former
Yugoslavia, those fighting for what they see as the "good" side
and those who do it for money; But since you never can tell other
people's motivations for certain, I don't think it's meaningful
to label some "mercenaries" and some not.
To me, "mercenary" is neither "good" nor "bad".
Examples of people who are not mercenaries according to me:
UN troops, because they are actually employed by their own
governments (with the exceptions I've previously noted);
The Swedish volunteers in Finland, because the Swedish government
gave those on active service permission to go anyway, and
furnished military equipment to Finland.
>I suggest an alternate defintion: one whose principle motive for
>fighting is that (s)he is being paid to do it (or at least hoping for
>booty).
I think you should *at least* include those who do it because
they want adventure; try to get away from something; or like to
commit violence.
jo...@winternet.com (Joel Rosenberg) writes:
>In article <urf.786867677@sw2001> Urban_Fr...@icl.se (Urban Fredriksson) writes:
>>> I believe the deal with the FFL is that if
>>>you serve for 5 years you are granted French citizenship.
>>Never heard that from anyone who served there, or from anyone else
>>for that matter.
>I've heard it several places, among them from a bookstore manager who used to
>be in the Legion.
Does he have a French passport? If not, then the argument that he
wasn't a mercenary because of the offer of citizenship is invalid
in his case, at least.
--
Urban Fredriksson u...@icl.se Knowledge is power: Read!
Tom Burke
ran...@gluttony.ugcs.caltech.edu "Benjamin Allan Smith" writes:
> [snip]
> Are there currenly large scale mercenary units in existance today?
> No. I beleive the use of mercenaries is banned by the United Nations.
>
With one exception (sort of); the Brigade of Gurkhas is a mercenary force. As I
understand it, the current position is that the UK Government has contracted
with the Nepalese Government for the latter to provide the Gurkhas. The UK
Government pays the Nepalese Gov a fee (which I think covers pay); the UK Govt
equips the Brigade.
Tom Burke
David Mix Barrington
>In article <urf.786867677@sw2001> Urban_Fr...@icl.se (Urban Fredriksson) writes:
>
>>> I believe the deal with the FFL is that if
>>>you serve for 5 years you are granted French citizenship.
>
>>Never heard that from anyone who served there, or from anyone else
>>for that matter.
>
>I've heard it several places, among them from a bookstore manager who used to
>be in the Legion.
I have nothing to add to the factual debate, but I'll note that Pournelle's
CoDo Marines are sometimes compared to the FFL (I vaguely recall a reference
to the FFL as their "nucleus") and that Spartan citizenship in the Pournelle/
Stirling books is earned, with military service being a big brownie-point
earner. Five years for citizenship sounds about like what they had, though
of course during the action of the last two books we'd assume all enlistments
are "for the duration of the emergency"...
Any info on whether more in this series is planned? Apparently, Stirling is
busy with a new Draka book and Pournelle is drafting legislation....
Dave MB
Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew
> : > One specific point to start is to read about destruction of Warsawa in
> : > Poland in WWII by Germans. Nazis claimed (probably still claim)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> : > that they just had to do it because people fought back. In one
> : > Brits had encouraged Polish Army to fight back.
> : [discussion of the events of 1944 which led to the destruction of ~90%
> : of Warsaw snipped]
> I was referring the German attack against Poland, you remember the beginning
> of WWII, and Poland had defence alliance with England and France.
OK, so we are discussing September 1939 when the USSR and Germany divided
Poland. Fine. But what does it have to do with the "destruction of
Warsawa" which took place in 1944?
--
Ahasuerus
Version 0.0.1 of the alt.fan.heinlein FAQ now available:
FTP: ftp.clark.net:/pub/ahasuer/heinlein.faq
WWW: in a few days
Tom Burke
[snip]
> In the Northern Ireland experience of the British,
> of course, the vast majority of injuries were caused
> by bullets.
I don't know the actual proportions (I don't have the figures), but I think
you're forgetting bombs. Certainly the impression in recent years was that most
attacks on soldiers and policemen were by remote-controlled bomb or mine -
which you could regard as the nearest thing the terrorists had to artillery. A
famous example would be the Warren Point killings.
Sectarian murders - by both sides - in recent years tended to be by gun.
--
Tom Burke
Jyrki Valkama
so this is the second post.
As I see there is three possible ways how low tech colonies might arise.
Lost colony arising from unknown foul up in interstellar travel.
Back to nature people get their unspoiled, virgin world.
Governement fuck up political or logistical might result a low tech colony.
These categories are not necessarily separate, any combination might happen,
but I regard these only as low probability situations.
Cheers! Jyrki Valkama
George Swan
Joel Rosenberg <jo...@winternet.com> wrote:
>In article <3c505p$f...@bcarh8ab.bnr.ca> h...@bnr.ca (Henry Troup) writes:
>>From: h...@bnr.ca (Henry Troup)
>>Subject: Re: Military SF
>>Date: 7 Dec 1994 18:50:33 GMT
>
>>>>And then he hadn't any common decency to turn himself in for
>>>>warcrimes and subsequently to be hanged.
>
>>Remember, a war crime is an act performed by the losing side. The
>>ones on our side have different names.
>
>>After all, just who was hanged for using atomic weapons?
Leo Szilard, an early atomic researcher, and a member of the
Manhattan Project, wrote a science fiction story entitled:
"My Trial as a War Criminal". Highly recommended.
James Beauregard Kennedy
Tom Burke <T...@greenoak.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3blo8f$8...@gap.cco.caltech.edu>
> ran...@gluttony.ugcs.caltech.edu "Benjamin Allan Smith" writes:
Well,
>> Are there currenly large scale mercenary units in existance
today?
>> No. I beleive the use of mercenaries is banned by the United Nations.
>>
>
>With one exception (sort of); the Brigade of Gurkhas is a mercenary force. As I
>understand it, the current position is that the UK Government has contracted
>with the Nepalese Government for the latter to provide the Gurkhas. The UK
>Government pays the Nepalese Gov a fee (which I think covers pay); the UK Govt
>equips the Brigade.
There's another exception to the mercenaries:
Vatican City! :)
After all, the Vatican has the _Swiss Guards_....
Aren't they actually considered as mercenaries as well???
Best regards,
--
James Beauregard Kennedy =======????-DID YOU KNOW-????=======
jken...@whale.st.usm.edu = Kennedy means "Ugly head" or =
Mississippi State Alumnus = "knothead" in Gaelic. =
--Loyal, Lovable, Literate-- =====================================
Rebecca Leann Smit Crowley
: What is happening to today's school. Nazi reasoning and propaganda was always
: one subject of courses (if nothing else the convoluted reasoning was a fun
: thing to follow thru).
I've had some difficulty following your argumentation due to the
broken nature of your English. Is this what you meant to say?
"The underlying reasoning and philosophy of Nazi propaganda has
always been the subject of school coursework, and fun, too, because
the convoluted reasoning is interesting to trace."
Assuming this is what you mean by your words quoted above, it just
flat isn't and hasn't ever been true in the U.S. as a whole.
All too many American History and World History courses in public
school systems in the U.S. (remember, there is no national system
of education a la France etc. -- curriculum can vary widely
within a city, much less within the nation as a whole) run out
of time in the year before they reach WWII. And when they do
cover WWII, the focus on the Nazis tends to be overwhelmingly
on the treatment of Jews, in my limited experience. If Poland
gets mentioned, it gets treated as a football between Stalin
and Hitler and little else.
I missed the beginning of this discussion, which seems to have
a fairly tight focus on Drake, Pournelle, etc. I don't suppose
I missed anything about H. Beam Piper, did I?
Ah, well.
--
Rebecca Crowley standard disclaimers apply rcro...@zso.dec.com
..then I'll sever your renal artery with a pair of nail clippers. Finally,
I'll eat your heart. In the marketplace.
Jyrki Valkama
: > : Jyrki Valkama (jval...@paju.oulu.fi) wrote: [snip]
: OK, so we are discussing September 1939 when the USSR and Germany divided
: Poland. Fine. But what does it have to do with the "destruction of
: Warsawa" which took place in 1944?
Well Germans destroyed Warsawa three times in WWII.
First time was in 1939 when Germans advanced to outskirts of Warsawa, due
to the determined resistance (first time Polish had chance for that),
Germans couldn't take the city right away. After some time Polish army,
that little that existed, in Warsawa asked for truce, but commanding officer
of Germans Brauschvich declined and demanded immediate surrender. After that
Germans started bombing with some 400 planes, with some transport planes
dropping fire bombs. Warsawa surrended officially somewhat later, but then
suddenly Germans hadn't any hurry, it took five days before German troops
entered city.
There may be creeped some errors in that, it's been several years since I
read about it.
Regards Jyrki Valkama
Hans Rancke-Madsen
what I would have.
jval...@paju.oulu.fi (Jyrki Valkama) writes:
>Josh Kaderlan (jek...@cac.psu.edu) wrote:
>: In article <3cfigi$b...@ousrvr.oulu.fi>,
>: Jyrki Valkama <jval...@paju.oulu.fi> wrote:
>: >Ahasuerus the Wandering Jew (aha...@clark.net) wrote:
>: >
>: Yes, but if the criminals, after being told to throw down their weapons,
>: open fire on the police, then what would you have the police do? Don't
>: you think that returning fire is reasonable under those circumstances,
>: even though the police "provoked" the opening fire by cornering the
>: criminals?
>Did they open fire? Who shot the first shot? These are questions police
>have to answer surely, what does the written report say.
>If criminals are cornered, they are already boxed.
You're twisting and turning here, but the fact remains that I'm postulating
a situation that I, and others, seem to consider plausible: That a group of
law enforcement officers find themselves in a position to come between a
group of armed criminals and said criminals' way out. That they know about
these criminals and knows that if cornered they will most likely start
shooting. That they choose to bar the way nevertheless. That the criminals
do indeed try to shoot their way out. And that they are consequently shot
down.
The actions of the lawmen in this example led to the killing of these
criminals. Falkenberg's actions led to the killing of a number of citizens.
In both cases the people killed could, theoretically, have avoided death
by complying with the orders of respectively the lawmen and Falkenberg.
However, in both cases the instigators of the situation were nearly sure
that their opponents would not comply. Are they both quilty of a crime,
or, if not, what is the essential difference that makes one party not
guilty and the other guilty?
Hans Rancke
University of Copenhagen
ran...@diku.dk
------------
"Free speech gives a man the right to talk about the
'psycology' of an amoeba, but I don't have to listen".
Elihu Nivens in 'The Puppet Masters'
Jyrki Valkama
: Jyrki Valkama (jval...@paju.oulu.fi) wrote:
: : What is happening to today's school. Nazi reasoning and propaganda was always
: : one subject of courses (if nothing else the convoluted reasoning was a fun
: : thing to follow thru).
: I've had some difficulty following your argumentation due to the
: broken nature of your English. Is this what you meant to say?
: "The underlying reasoning and philosophy of Nazi propaganda has
: always been the subject of school coursework, and fun, too, because
: the convoluted reasoning is interesting to trace."
Rather like it was one subject among others. History was not always
interesting, but that reasoning was interesting to follow thru.
Tracing is a little bit too mild word and gives an impartial detached
impression. Nazism puts heavy weight to thing about followers and leaders.
: Assuming this is what you mean by your words quoted above, it just
: flat isn't and hasn't ever been true in the U.S. as a whole.
I was more appalled about Danish school as one poster was seemingly from
Denmark.
: on the treatment of Jews, in my limited experience. If Poland
: gets mentioned, it gets treated as a football between Stalin
: and Hitler and little else.
Poland was subject because it was the "official" beginning of WWII and
the holocaust of Jews, which was largely conducted in Poland.
: I missed the beginning of this discussion, which seems to have
: a fairly tight focus on Drake, Pournelle, etc. I don't suppose
: I missed anything about H. Beam Piper, did I?
The topic of this thread has been wandered everywhere except in MilScifi.
Please tell something about H. Beam Piper, or any opinion about anything.
Or now that this thread has focused to Nazis, how about real nasty kind
of Nazis in Scifi, althought they rarely have gotten into actual Military
part, usually their attempts have been foiled before that.
: Ah, well.
Yeah, how about that?
: ..then I'll sever your renal artery with a pair of nail clippers. Finally,
: I'll eat your heart. In the marketplace.
Nasty, but somewhat petty imagery.
Cheers! Jyrki Valkama
Rob Ruggenberg
>>Urban_Fr...@icl.se (Urban Fredriksson) defines "mercenary" thus:
>>> Mercenary = Soldier for a nation he does not belong to, if it is
>>> not allied to his own nation.
>>So you consider the international brigade, that fought on the
>>Republican side in in the Spanish civil war, to be composed of
>>mercenaries?
>Yes.
So, how about the Swiss Guard in the Vatican? Is the Roman Catholic Church
employing mercenaries?
- Rob
______________________
Rob Ruggenberg
The Netherlands
E-mail: ro...@iaehv.nl
Nothing is so firmly believed as that which we least know.
(Michel de Montaigne)
_________________________________________________________
Rebecca Leann Smit Crowley
: Rather like it was one subject among others. History was not always
: interesting, but that reasoning was interesting to follow thru.
: Tracing is a little bit too mild word and gives an impartial detached
: impression. Nazism puts heavy weight to thing about followers and leaders.
"Tracing" the logic should be "impartial and detached" as befits
a student. It says nothing about the subject. Again, I think some
of our difficulties lie in problems of language comprehension.
: The topic of this thread has been wandered everywhere except in MilScifi.
: Please tell something about H. Beam Piper, or any opinion about anything.
Pournelle quite liked Piper's writing, which frequently revolved
around primitive situations on other planets. Piper's focus
was often on pseudo-Vikings, so I thought perhaps you might
have some interest in it.
: : ..then I'll sever your renal artery with a pair of nail clippers. Finally,
: : I'll eat your heart. In the marketplace.
: Nasty, but somewhat petty imagery.
Other than the nail clippers, it is almost entirely Shakespearean. Well,
except before that, it's pure Greek. You can find very similar
imagery in insults, I am told, to this day in the common language
of inhabitants of islands in the Aegean.
--
Rebecca Crowley standard disclaimers apply rcro...@zso.dec.com
Anything worth fighting for is worth fighting dirty for.