twilight2000-digest Sunday, February 15 1998 Volume 1998 : Number 011 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: T2k webring: Copyrights Lenin, Iraq, this list... Peacekeeping Re: INTSUM update Re: Iraq Re: Lenin, Iraq, this list... Re: Lenin, Iraq, this list... Re: Iraq Re: Iraq Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer (BLOODY HUGE REPLY) Re: Lenin, Iraq, this list... Re: Peacekeeping Re: Dirty Iraqi Bastards Description (rough) of N&B weapons. Lenin Re: Description (rough) of N&B weapons. Re: Description (rough) of N&B weapons. Re: Lenin Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer Re: Lenin ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 11:25:49 -0800 From: Saul Basgen Subject: Re: T2k webring: Copyrights >Well, I just received a confirmation from writers of those sourcebooks, >and I have their permission to translate and publish text in WWW-pages, >so I am starting that work right away. Good to hear Teemu, I've eaten my words. :) Saul - ---- http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/home.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 14:11:42 -0600 From: Mitch Berg Subject: Lenin, Iraq, this list... First: Lenin WAS most definitely a dictator of the worst sort, unknown as such only because Stalin, Hitler and Mao succeeded him in the public conscience (and he'd been dead for 40 years before his crimes were documented publically). His record is amply documented, by Solzhenitzyn at the very least. The LOWEST credible figure for murders carried out under his regime (civil war NOT counted) was 2 million. To say he was not a dictator is revisionism in a similar league with denying the Holocaust. (I have a personal stake in this argument, of course - not for this list's public consumption). Patton once said that you shouldn't get into a fight where the benefits of winning are worth less than the lives of the men who'll die doing the winning. Since ousting Hussein isn't possible with a purely air campaign, and all of this moronic public warning of impending attack ensures that the weapons of mass destruction will survive as well, this criterion is virtually impossible to meet. I'm a conservative Republican, a military historian, and one with NO sympathies for genocidal dictatorships - and I don't think I can morally justify this attack. However - since this is a Twilight list, would it be possible to take the political talk offline? I'm on a half-dozen politics lists - I'm on this one for Twilight info. Whaddya say? Mitch Berg Humanware Design - www.humanwaredesign.com User Interface Design, Usability Analysis and Information Engineering. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 14:18:50 -0600 From: Mitch Berg Subject: Peacekeeping >Let's not forget the reputation of the British troops, here. If some dumb >fuck fired on us, he/she/it was most likely gonna be pushing up daisies the >next morning. I think it's worth pointing out that most of the quibbling about the effectiveness of the UN allies in Bosnia comes from those who weren't there. My US Army pals have nothing but regard for the Brits and most of the others - even the Italians get the occasional nod... ;-) T2K Angle - some of my most interesting adventures involved mixed bags of UNFOR troops in various parts of the world, being cast into uneasy alliances by their situations. Fun for referees! Mitch Berg Humanware Design - www.humanwaredesign.com User Interface Design, Usability Analysis and Information Engineering. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 19:49:08 +0000 From: Roger Stenning Subject: Re: INTSUM update At 11:01 14/02/98 -0800, you wrote: > >>Couple of questions for you, now, mate: Were there any images that failed >>to load for you, and how did you like the content? I'm darned glad to hear that. Looks like I might FINALLY have laid that bloody bug to rest, then. > Everything worked fine. The content is good, though skinny. I'm sure you >have plenty on the way... Oh, a few ideas are knocking around... I'm currently working on my other site, for Millennium's End, but fear not, we ARE working on a long-term addition to INTSUM... _____________________________________________________________ Cheers, Roger (Licenced Class 'B' UK Radio Amateur, call sign G1LIW) MURPHY was a bloody optimist. It Always goes wrong. ESPECIALLY if it's mission critical! e-mail: roger@isg.abel.co.uk Main RPG homepages, incorporating Millennium's End London E-Sourcebook: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/5037/ INTSUM Twilight:2000 website: http://www.abel.net.uk/~isg/index.html ICQ UIN: 7742586 _____________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 20:18:17 +0000 From: Roger Stenning Subject: Re: Iraq At 11:25 14/02/98 -0800, you wrote: >>At 20:47 13/02/98 -0800, you wrote: >> >>Saul - >> >>This is getting to be an interesting and emotive discorse, so apologies in >>advance if I unintentionally offend. No offence is meant. > > Yes, of course. : ) > >>No, but were he to release his Bio capability, especially the Anthrax he >>has, prevailing winds could carry the spores to the four corners of the >>globe. And kill us all. THAT is whats' so fucking terrifying about this - >>he's done it with Chemical weapons. What the hell will stop him using Bio >>weapons? Kind words? Get real - the man's a damn maniac. The sooner he's >>dead an' gone, and the UN is monitoring the country properly, the better. > > Perhaps. Peter does not like Communist Ideology. In reference to what the >world has seen of 'Communist Ideology', I think it more appropriate to >assign it the term of dictatorship. Hardly surprising, given his background, really, is it? I have to agree that whatever you could call it, Dictatorship is the best all-round term for it. However, as witth all things, there are dictatorships, and dictatorships. For instance, the Government of Singapore is run by the military, effectively a military dictatorship, with some rather startlingly odd laws, the breach of which can land you in a hell of a lot of trouble. Long hair (on men, illegal). Chewing/bubble gum (proscribed items), and a few others, probably. In the case of Hussein, he's most definately NOT a benevolent Dictator. He murders his own population with chemical weapons. He wages a war of territorial acqusition (thanks for the definition, btw), and severely mistreats the population of Kuwait in the process. He used POWs as human shields, where the Geneva Convention REQUIRES those persons having POW status to be well protected, and kept away from the areas most likely to be struck in combat. Should I go on? At the very least, he's Irresponsible. At optimistic, he's crazy. At worst, he's a flippin' Psychotic. >Was it anything more? Propaganda was >very well done, but this is simply another tool for a dictator, and what >better tool than touting Communist ideology? This works two ways, mate. Examine the tools at his disposal, and the material he put out to his population. I'm not saying that we're perfect. Far from it - we've got massive social and cultural trouble that we need to address. He, however, is, by his actions, putting the world at risk. If we can't remove him from that country, and put him on trial - under CAPITAL War Crimes Charges, which I've no doubt he'll be found guilty of, then we need to specifically target him, and erase his presence from the planet. Or we may not survive even THIS year, let alone the Millennium. I view it a THAT dangerous a situation. > Roger, my fear is that what you say, is no less than what Peter dispises >so- as so many of us do. He does not have the 'right' to have weapons of >such and such, so he ought to be killed (by people who have chemical and >biological weapons more advanced and capable ten fold), so that the world >may have peace. For, in the name of stability and union, we can only have >one side with those most horrible weapons. Should someone stand up, they >must be knocked down- for surely the imperialists do not wish to give up >thier domineering hand of control. Let the 'coalition' forces take over >Iraq.... then... Iran... perhaps later Syria, Jordan... Then North Korea, >... we are not taking over the world, simply bringing peace, establishing >order! I That's actually not what I'm trying to say at all. The Hague convention, signed by pretty-much every country on Earth, with the exception of, I think, China and maybe a couple of smaller developing countries (I'm informed Iraq signed the protocols in the early 1960's), requires signatory countries to (a) stop, immediately, the production and storage or chemical and biological weapons, except for the SMALL scale production and storage of such materials as to develop defences against such. Research quantities are, I agree, hazardous, but by the same token, may kill, if an accident were to occur, significantly less than the amount of material that Hussien has. Which is at an offensive stockpile quatity. As to nuclear material, there are several agreements in force for this. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty is one, and China recenty signed that, too. It is designed to allow countries to use fissionable material for power generation, and for medical uses (such as in the treatment of cancers via radiotherapy), but not in military applications, such as nuclear bombs, or 'devices' as they're politely called, nowadays. The UN is the arbiter of all these agreements and treaties, and monitors the status of these protocols. They have the ultimate responsability of preventing the abuse of the signatory nations, and there are good reasons for this. No material of this nature (CBW) should be allowed to fall into the hands of one who would USE it. We've seen the terrible power of these weapons, and their usage has been outlawed by the laws of war, and quite rightly. Any nation, using these weapons, would have a hell of a lot of explaining to do in an international court, if in an external conflict. But when it's an internal conflict, as in the Kurds etc., what happens? THIS is my point. >>Altogether a different kind of threat, from what I've heard. They can go >>nuclear, I believe (only NK, SK ain't got nukes), but fall out is a lot >>less lethal that Anthrax. If you don't believe the relative threats of each >>weapon system, I invite you to check it out in your Public Library. It's >>all there, in black and white. > > Black and white. :) .... so I suppose on the grand scale of justice, North >Korea nuking millions of people (if indeed they have that capability) is >less bad than Anthrax. Maybe so. Surely economics do not sit on either side >of the scale... Actually, no, it ain't. Note my paragraph above. >>> What the world worries... which part? >> >>The educated part. Others are living (for the moment) in blissful >>ignorance, the lucky sods. > > Show me some educated folks in Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, New Guinea, >Russia (Siberia to a good extent), Argentina, Chile, Peru, Nicaragua, >Belize, Niger, Chad, Angolia, (... ...) that care about Iraq. Some, >perhaps... I was actually suggesting examples, but in not so many words. Try the peruvian indians, in the really remote areas. try some African tribes, in similar situations. Try areas where thay are so remote, that they are unable to keep up with world events, and modern educational methodology. That help? >>> Do you mean the imperialist powers ought to have completely invaded Iraq? >> >>Kindly define 'Imperialist'. The word has connetations that I find rather >>insulting, but I'd like to be sure I'm not misunderstanding you. > > I'm sorry to have insulted. I don't mean to imply that the citizen's of >the respective countries are imperialist peoples, but that the government's >certainly are. My imperialist comments are directed mostly towards the >United States, but England, France also have a part in it too. > Imperialism... : >1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition >or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other >nations. > >>>Now, I think, that would have been a little too blatant of them. >>>Imperialists of today are on a more watchful eye, they must take great care >>>with practicing thier domination. >> >>I'll wait for the definition before replying to that... I wouldn't have said that the coalition forces were inperialistic as you define it. They were assembled to perform the task of removing Iraqi forces from Kuwait, and stop HIS Imperialistic attempts. This they did, I'll agree, but the threat's not over, and won't be, until his weapons of mass destruction are removed fro his control. Forever. If invading Iraq, and doing the job by force of arms is the only way we can perform this, then I'll quite willingly re-join the British Army to go over there and help in the task, even at the cost of my life, to make the world a safer place. I don't obviously relish the idea. Hell, it could get me dead, and I'd like to life forever , but I'm that scared by the entire mess that we've gotten ourselves into, that I'm seeing it may be the only recourse we have to a safer world for our decendents. Opinions? _____________________________________________________________ Cheers, Roger (Licenced Class 'B' UK Radio Amateur, call sign G1LIW) MURPHY was a bloody optimist. It Always goes wrong. ESPECIALLY if it's mission critical! e-mail: roger@isg.abel.co.uk Main RPG homepages, incorporating Millennium's End London E-Sourcebook: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/5037/ INTSUM Twilight:2000 website: http://www.abel.net.uk/~isg/index.html ICQ UIN: 7742586 _____________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 20:22:43 +0000 From: Roger Stenning Subject: Re: Lenin, Iraq, this list... At 14:11 14/02/98 -0600, you wrote: >However - since this is a Twilight list, would it be possible to take the >political talk offline? I'm on a half-dozen politics lists - I'm on this >one for Twilight info. Whaddya say? >Mitch Berg It has rather run away with us, hasn't it. I'll be happy to continue off list, and free it up for it's intended use - THE game! Anyone who wants to continue with this discussion, feel free to email me directly. Pity I got your message after sending off a lengthy discourse, but that's life! Sorry! Later, guys! _____________________________________________________________ Cheers, Roger (Licenced Class 'B' UK Radio Amateur, call sign G1LIW) MURPHY was a bloody optimist. It Always goes wrong. ESPECIALLY if it's mission critical! e-mail: roger@isg.abel.co.uk Main RPG homepages, incorporating Millennium's End London E-Sourcebook: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/5037/ INTSUM Twilight:2000 website: http://www.abel.net.uk/~isg/index.html ICQ UIN: 7742586 _____________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 12:42:54 -0800 From: Saul Basgen Subject: Re: Lenin, Iraq, this list... >First: Lenin WAS most definitely a dictator of the worst sort, unknown as >such only because Stalin, Hitler and Mao succeeded him in the public >conscience (and he'd been dead for 40 years before his crimes were >documented publically). His record is amply documented, by Solzhenitzyn at >the very least. The LOWEST credible figure for murders carried out under >his regime (civil war NOT counted) was 2 million. To say he was not a >dictator is revisionism in a similar league with denying the Holocaust. (I >have a personal stake in this argument, of course - not for this list's >public consumption). Ok, I'll discuss this with you privately. >However - since this is a Twilight list, would it be possible to take the >political talk offline? I'm on a half-dozen politics lists - I'm on this >one for Twilight info. Whaddya say? Certainly Mitch. Saul - ---- http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/home.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 16:01:35 EST From: Grimace997@aol.com Subject: Re: Iraq With all of these comments flying around, I just had to chime in on this one. << >Kindly define 'Imperialist'. The word has connetations that I find rather >insulting, but I'd like to be sure I'm not misunderstanding you. I'm sorry to have insulted. I don't mean to imply that the citizen's of the respective countries are imperialist peoples, but that the government's certainly are. My imperialist comments are directed mostly towards the United States, but England, France also have a part in it too. Imperialism... : 1. The policy of extending a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political hegemony over other nations. There's nothing wrong with being Imperialistic if the nation is making an attempt towards peace and "fair play" for the rest of the world. Sure the U.S. oversteps its bounds at times, but it is mostly with a kind heart that it does so. I realize Iraq is different, but the U.S. is looking out for the safety of other nations when it is worried about Saddam possessing Biological weapons. And to stick up for the British, they are simply doing what allies do, they support the decisions made by others, if those decisions seemed reasonable and logical. The British has ceased to be as Imperialistic as they were, and I don't believe that they have asperations to ever acquire what they previously had. If you believe that no nation should make an attempt to stop Saddam, then I believe that you live in an unrealistic world, where UN resolutions alone can alter the course of fanatical people. We, as a nation, and as a UN member, gave the Iraqis a chance to give up their weapons of destruction in a peaceful like manner. They would not follow suit accordingly. That was their mistake. It may not be fair of us to force ourselves upon these people, but we are, so they should humor us. I know how I would feel if a nation imposed those sanctions on the U.S., but if that nation was more powerful than the U.S., then I believe the U.S. should conform. Same goes for Iraq. If they don't they should be prepared to face the consequences. Whether those consequences come from a nation that is imperialistic, or a nation that is operating with a moral sense of responsibility, it doesn't matter. It will happen either way. >>Now, I think, that would have been a little too blatant of them. >>Imperialists of today are on a more watchful eye, they must take great care >>with practicing thier domination. > >> They are under a more watchful eye because they choose to. If any of the bigger nations (USA, Britian, Germany, France, etc) wanted to operate under an unrestrained, imperialistic doctrine, then they could. The world nations are simply trying to be better than that. There's an old saying that goes, "Those that do not remember history are doomed to repeat it." I believe our nations attempt to remember, and some things we will avoid. Others we will not. That is our course in history. Enough for me, thanks for your time. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 15:43:58 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Iraq Saul Basgen wrote: He does not have the 'right' to have weapons of > such and such, so he ought to be killed (by people who have chemical and > biological weapons more advanced and capable ten fold), I thought the U.S had no chemical weapons... ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 15:40:09 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer (BLOODY HUGE REPLY) Roger Stenning wrote: > > > And especially as > >>he's proved his capability and willingness to use the fucking stuff. I've > >>seen training films of the rsults of exposure to the muck. It AIN'T a nice > >>way to go out, folks. > > > > I suppose the threat from North Korea to the South, in this thier most > >desperate hour, isn't just as threatening. > > Altogether a different kind of threat, from what I've heard. They can go > nuclear, I believe (only NK, SK ain't got nukes), but fall out is a lot > less lethal that Anthrax. If you don't believe the relative threats of each > weapon system, I invite you to check it out in your Public Library. It's > all there, in black and white. > Correct me if I'm wrong (sorry for this oversimplification), but nukes are just supposed to blow lots of stuff up so your army can march right past. Bio weapons just make places uninhabitable (for a long LONG time). - -- Peter Vieth Fitek@ix.netcom.com IGZ Handle: Fitek ICQ UIN: 3660410 Web page: http://www.netcom.com/~Fitek/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 15:46:03 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Lenin, Iraq, this list... Yes, if Lenin wasn't a dictator, then it was strange company that he kept. - -- Peter Vieth Fitek@ix.netcom.com IGZ Handle: Fitek ICQ UIN: 3660410 Web page: http://www.netcom.com/~Fitek/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 23:39:57 +0000 From: Roger Stenning Subject: Re: Peacekeeping At 14:18 14/02/98 -0600, you wrote: >>Let's not forget the reputation of the British troops, here. If some dumb >>fuck fired on us, he/she/it was most likely gonna be pushing up daisies the >>next morning. > >I think it's worth pointing out that most of the quibbling about the >effectiveness of the UN allies in Bosnia comes from those who weren't there. > >My US Army pals have nothing but regard for the Brits and most of the >others - even the Italians get the occasional nod... ;-) > >T2K Angle - some of my most interesting adventures involved mixed bags of >UNFOR troops in various parts of the world, being cast into uneasy >alliances by their situations. Fun for referees! I've been looking for an angle for a tournament scenario for some time, now... that's about as good as they get. Thanks for the idea! _____________________________________________________________ Cheers, Roger (Licenced Class 'B' UK Radio Amateur, call sign G1LIW) MURPHY was a bloody optimist. It Always goes wrong. ESPECIALLY if it's mission critical! e-mail: roger@isg.abel.co.uk Main RPG homepages, incorporating Millennium's End London E-Sourcebook: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/5037/ INTSUM Twilight:2000 website: http://www.abel.net.uk/~isg/index.html ICQ UIN: 7742586 _____________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 15:41:39 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Dirty Iraqi Bastards Hehe. I remember when an Apache took 40 prisoners. KAPPAABZ@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 98-02-13 17:42:45 EST, you write: > > > Iraq had a good chance of winning in the > > previous war but they couldn't have built up their military yet (lets > > hope). He's crazy but is he that stupid? > > I wouldn't go so far as to say he had a good chance of actually winning (and > here I assume you mean militarily) , but he did have a good chance of > inflicting alot more casualties on the coalition war machine. > Saddam used tactics he had used from the Iran/Iraq war and built up his forces > and defences accordingly, but failed to realize that the Coalition wouldn't > fight the war the way he wanted us to fight it. Sure he used weapons of > terror against civilian targets, maybe he used chemical weapons against US > troops, but overall the Iraqis (at the point of the ground operations) were so > demoralized and hungry that they did indeed surrender in droves. > And without ALOT of troops willing to fight for him against an array of that > magnitude, it was hopeless. > > Chris - -- Peter Vieth Fitek@ix.netcom.com IGZ Handle: Fitek ICQ UIN: 3660410 Web page: http://www.netcom.com/~Fitek/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 00:23:11 +0000 From: Roger Stenning Subject: Description (rough) of N&B weapons. At 15:40 14/02/98 -0800, you wrote: >Correct me if I'm wrong (sorry for this oversimplification), but nukes >are just supposed to blow lots of stuff up so your army can march right >past. Bio weapons just make places uninhabitable (for a long LONG time). They're both really area denial weapons. Nukes, when popped, have several characteristics, listed below in no real priority: 1. Blinding flash. You look at it, you're blind. 2. MASSIVE blast effect. Will quite literally blast everything in it's area of effect to molecule-sized parts. Outsode the immediate area, there will be massive devastation. The area of effect varies with yield size. 3. Radiation. Lots of it. You catch too much of it, you die, and not very nicely, either. 4. Fall out. Causes wide-area radiological hazards, see 3 for effects. Depending on where the nuke pops, and whether fall-out hits a given area, troops CAN march through, but I wouldn't recommend it. Your (mutant) kids would never forgive you. Bio weapons are designed to kill. Simple as that. They do this by acting as super-strong strains of viruses that have either little/no known antidotes (vaccines/serums), or by crippling the victims. The effects/symptoms depends on the specific agent and vestor used, but in all cases, the results as likely to be highly unpleasant. To say the least. Both are classed as weapons of mass destruction, and rightly so. Hope that clears that up. _____________________________________________________________ Cheers, Roger (Licenced Class 'B' UK Radio Amateur, call sign G1LIW) MURPHY was a bloody optimist. It Always goes wrong. ESPECIALLY if it's mission critical! e-mail: roger@isg.abel.co.uk Main RPG homepages, incorporating Millennium's End London E-Sourcebook: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/5037/ INTSUM Twilight:2000 website: http://www.abel.net.uk/~isg/index.html ICQ UIN: 7742586 _____________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 16:10:59 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Lenin Think back to the Russo-Polish war-- Lenin wanted Poland so he could bring the revolution to Germany. And if he wasn't a murderer, then I suppose nothing happened in Lithuania. - -- Peter Vieth Fitek@ix.netcom.com IGZ Handle: Fitek ICQ UIN: 3660410 Web page: http://www.netcom.com/~Fitek/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 17:25:59 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Description (rough) of N&B weapons. Roger Stenning wrote: > They're both really area denial weapons. Nukes, when popped, have several > characteristics, listed below in no real priority: > 1. Blinding flash. You look at it, you're blind. > 2. MASSIVE blast effect. Will quite literally blast everything in it's area > of effect to molecule-sized parts. Outsode the immediate area, there will > be massive devastation. The area of effect varies with yield size. > 3. Radiation. Lots of it. You catch too much of it, you die, and not very > nicely, either. If you're close enough the ionizing radiation will turn your blood into hydrochloric acid. Of course you can also be burned. > 4. Fall out. Causes wide-area radiological hazards, see 3 for effects. > > Depending on where the nuke pops, and whether fall-out hits a given area, > troops CAN march through, but I wouldn't recommend it. Your (mutant) kids > would never forgive you. > How much does NBC gear help? Unless I have confused rads with millirems... why are the radiation tolerances so low in t2k? From what I know you can take several thousand rads of exposure before it becomes very dangerous. I thought it was that if you live by power lines or something you take maybe a 100 rads a year. - -- Peter Vieth Fitek@ix.netcom.com IGZ Handle: Fitek ICQ UIN: 3660410 Web page: http://www.netcom.com/~Fitek/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 02:49:05 +0000 From: Roger Stenning Subject: Re: Description (rough) of N&B weapons. At 17:25 14/02/98 -0800, you wrote: >Roger Stenning wrote: > >> They're both really area denial weapons. Nukes, when popped, have several >> characteristics, listed below in no real priority: >> 1. Blinding flash. You look at it, you're blind. >> 2. MASSIVE blast effect. Will quite literally blast everything in it's area >> of effect to molecule-sized parts. Outsode the immediate area, there will >> be massive devastation. The area of effect varies with yield size. >> 3. Radiation. Lots of it. You catch too much of it, you die, and not very >> nicely, either. > >If you're close enough the ionizing radiation will turn your blood into >hydrochloric acid. Of course you can also be burned. Mr. Crispy time... >> 4. Fall out. Causes wide-area radiological hazards, see 3 for effects. >> >> Depending on where the nuke pops, and whether fall-out hits a given area, >> troops CAN march through, but I wouldn't recommend it. Your (mutant) kids >> would never forgive you. >> > >How much does NBC gear help? Not that much, unfortunately. The respirator does the most, by preventing the particulate fallout from entering your lungs. The radiation's another thing. Only way to stop it is either a hell of a lot of sheilding, which is metal, and thus a bit too heavy to walk in, or distance, which is better. >Unless I have confused rads with millirems... Pass. Never took that much medical know-how on board. >why are the radiation tolerances so low in t2k? From what I know you can >take several thousand rads of exposure before it becomes very dangerous. >I thought it was that if you live by power lines or something you take >maybe a 100 rads a year. Best bet: Talk to a quack. Should know a bit more. Or read a couple of nuclear medicine texts . Later! _____________________________________________________________ Cheers, Roger (Licenced Class 'B' UK Radio Amateur, call sign G1LIW) MURPHY was a bloody optimist. It Always goes wrong. ESPECIALLY if it's mission critical! e-mail: roger@isg.abel.co.uk Main RPG homepages, incorporating Millennium's End London E-Sourcebook: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/5037/ INTSUM Twilight:2000 website: http://www.abel.net.uk/~isg/index.html ICQ UIN: 7742586 _____________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 23:02:19 EST From: Pmj6@aol.com Subject: Re: Lenin In a message dated 98-02-14 21:02:21 EST, you write: << Think back to the Russo-Polish war-- Lenin wanted Poland so he could bring the revolution to Germany. And if he wasn't a murderer, then I suppose nothing happened in Lithuania. >> I hate to say this ( I am Polish by birth), but the Russo-Polish war took place only because Poland invaded Ukraine in the hope of tearing that region of Russian Empire away and making it a part of Poland. Jozef Pilsudski, leader of Poland at the time, was invited by White Russian generals to participate in operations against Bolsheviks but refused because Russians would not give him what he wanted. One year later, when the Red Army was busy fighting elsewhere, he ordered the invasion which initially went well, with Polish army capturing Kiev. Within a few weeks the tide has turned and Russians were tearing into Poland, only to be defeated at the gates of Warsaw. The peace Pilsudski signed with Bolsheviks was on terms worse than what Lenin offered him a year earlier, before Pilsudski's attack. As far as Lithuania is concerned, it was an independent country until 1939, long time after Lenin's death. What are you referring to? Regards, Mike Jasinski ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 22:41:07 EST From: Pmj6@aol.com Subject: Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer In a message dated 98-02-13 23:19:32 EST, you write: << The trigger for the Gulf conflict, as we all know, was the invasion by Iraq, of the saovereign state of Kuwait, which is Oil-Rich. Hussein's iam was NOT the recovery of a former province. It was the gain of the oilfields. Pure and simple. And THAT was his big mistake. It provided a threat to the stability of price to the rst of the world's oil, and thus a threat to the economies of those contries, which they wouldn't stand for. OPEC pricing aside, military actions to hike oil prices is another thing entirely. Then he decides to tell the UN to poke off, and starts to rebuild his stocks of C&B weapons. Again, not wise, esp as he's reported to have enough of the bloody stuff to wipe out the globe twice over. And especially as he's proved his capability and willingness to use the fucking stuff. I've seen training films of the rsults of exposure to the muck. It AIN'T a nice way to go out, folks. And you wonder why the world is worried... >> I agree with most of what you said. Come to think of it, though, the world (outside of the US) is apparently not all that worried. Of course, it may well be the world just wants the US to do all the heavy lifting here (more Realpolitik). Still, Saddam Hussein has had chemical weapons and means to deliver them since early 1980's, yet the US never felt threatened by his arsenal back then, when it was used to blunt Iranian human-wave attacks. I first learned about all this in the Army (I was a 54B, an NBC Specialist, whose job is to protect friendly troops from effects of such weapons) in the late 1980's, and noone expressed much alarm about Saddam's chemical weapons. Our moral indignation was reserved for other countries back then. As crazy as Saddam might seem, I am sure he is sane enough to realize that as soon as he used any of these weapons on US allies (or any country that can retaliate with nuclear weapons, including Israel), Iraq would find itself under nuclear attack. Since Hussein's #1 goal is to stay in power my guess is he will not go that far. He could have made life of Coalition troops in the Gulf very difficult back in '90-'91 with chemical weapons, but the threat of nuclear retaliation was enough to make him refrain from using them even when it looked like the Allies would press on to Baghdad. Nevertheless, I would sleep better with some sort of assurance that Saddam does not have an ability to launch a chemical or biological attack. Air attacks against his chem/bio facilities may not wipe out his weapons program, but will set him back a couple of years. Then again, we lived for 40 years with the knowledge that someone in the Kremlin could launch a nuclear attack of magnitude Saddam could only dream of. Who knows, maybe we'll learn to live with Saddam's chemical arsenal as well (as scary as that sounds)? Deterrence does work, after all. Regards, Mike Jasinski ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 15 Feb 1998 05:08:31 +0000 From: Roger Stenning Subject: Re: Re Grady's question and Saul's answer At 22:41 14/02/98 EST, you wrote: >I agree with most of what you said. Come to think of it, though, the world >(outside of the US) is apparently not all that worried. Of course, it may >well be the world just wants the US to do all the heavy lifting here (more >Realpolitik). Still, Saddam Hussein has had chemical weapons and means to >deliver them since early 1980's, yet the US never felt threatened by his >arsenal back then, when it was used to blunt Iranian human-wave attacks. I >first learned about all this in the Army (I was a 54B, an NBC Specialist, >whose job is to protect friendly troops from effects of such weapons) in the >late 1980's, and noone expressed much alarm about Saddam's chemical weapons. >Our moral indignation was reserved for other countries back then. I was an MP (Royal Military Police), equivalent US MOS would be CMF95B - Military Police. Left as a Corporal, after seven happy years. The briefings we has on CBW were nightmarish. >As crazy as Saddam might seem, I am sure he is sane enough to realize that as >soon as he used any of these weapons on US allies (or any country that can >retaliate with nuclear weapons, including Israel), Iraq would find itself >under nuclear attack. Since Hussein's #1 goal is to stay in power my guess is >he will not go that far. He could have made life of Coalition troops in the >Gulf very difficult back in '90-'91 with chemical weapons, but the threat of >nuclear retaliation was enough to make him refrain from using them even when >it looked like the Allies would press on to Baghdad. Then it did. What if he doesn't blink, this time? >Nevertheless, I would sleep better with some sort of assurance that Saddam >does not have an ability to launch a chemical or biological attack. Air >attacks against his chem/bio facilities may not wipe out his weapons program, >but will set him back a couple of years. Which is something. But I'd rather he not have it at all. >Then again, we lived for 40 years with the knowledge that someone in the >Kremlin could launch a nuclear attack of magnitude Saddam could only dream of. >Who knows, maybe we'll learn to live with Saddam's chemical arsenal as well >(as scary as that sounds)? Deterrence does work, after all. Because, strange as it was, there weren't any madmen in the Kremlin, just meglomaniacs, albeit with a lot of common sense. Hussein apparently has none, and is psychopatic as well, which is NOT a good combination, by any stretch of the imagination. Any more relies to me on this should be directed to my own e-mail address. We _should_ keep the list free for the RPG subjects, IMHO. _____________________________________________________________ Cheers, Roger (Licenced Class 'B' UK Radio Amateur, call sign G1LIW) MURPHY was a bloody optimist. It Always goes wrong. ESPECIALLY if it's mission critical! e-mail: roger@isg.abel.co.uk Main RPG homepages, incorporating Millennium's End London E-Sourcebook: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/5037/ INTSUM Twilight:2000 website: http://www.abel.net.uk/~isg/index.html ICQ UIN: 7742586 _____________________________________________________________ ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 14 Feb 1998 22:09:10 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Lenin Pmj6@aol.com wrote: > > In a message dated 98-02-14 21:02:21 EST, you write: > > << Think back to the Russo-Polish war-- Lenin wanted Poland so he could > bring the revolution to Germany. And if he wasn't a murderer, then I > suppose nothing happened in Lithuania. > >> > > I hate to say this ( I am Polish by birth), but the Russo-Polish war took > place only because Poland invaded Ukraine in the hope of tearing that region > of Russian Empire away and making it a part of Poland. Jozef Pilsudski, > leader of Poland at the time, was invited by White Russian generals to > participate in operations against Bolsheviks but refused because Russians > would not give him what he wanted. One year later, when the Red Army was busy > fighting elsewhere, he ordered the invasion which initially went well, with > Polish army capturing Kiev. Within a few weeks the tide has turned and > Russians were tearing into Poland, only to be defeated at the gates of Warsaw. > The peace Pilsudski signed with Bolsheviks was on terms worse than what Lenin > offered him a year earlier, before Pilsudski's attack. > > As far as Lithuania is concerned, it was an independent country until 1939, > long time after Lenin's death. What are you referring to? > > Regards, > Mike Jasinski Well, rather than explain I pulled this off the internet. ATTEMPTS TO BOLSHEVIZE EASTERN EUROPE Since the October revolution of 1917, Russia had been governed by a council of commissars, a small elite group of the Bolshevik party presided over by Lenin. Soviet Russia's new leaders, Trotsky in particular, made known their intention to export their brand of political philosophy to other countries. Prisoners of war from the Central Powers watched the revolutionary events unroll before their eyes and often took part in it themselves. Then after they were freed by the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, most of them returned to their own countries. Deeply impressed by what they had seen in Russia in October, 1917, some of them began to spread Bolshevik ideas. Since the end of the war, all European socialist parties had been wrestling with the problem of what stance to take on the Bolshevik revolution: should they continue to remain loyal to the tradition of parliamentary reform, or follow Russia to work toward revolution to install a dictatorship of the proletariat? Supporters of the Bolshevik model met with Lenin in Moscow on March 2, 19l9, and laid the foundation for the Third Socialist International. Socialists from countries ruined and defeated by the war were the most receptive to the Bolshevik solutions, and tried to adapt them to their own situations. The Russo-Polish War A barely revived Poland had to confront Soviet Russia on the issue of their common border. Here, however, the Bolshevik threat took a different form from that in Bulgaria and Hungary. To begin with, Poland had a common border with Soviet Russia, a border that was still hazy in early 1919. Many Poles still cherished the hope of returning to the historical borders of Greater Poland of the 18th century, but in this their interests ran counter to those of the young Baltic states born from the ruins of old Russia. However, as the German troops gradually evacuated Russian and Baltic territories they had occupied in 1915-1916, the Red Army took their place and began attacking the armies of the young Baltic republics and of Poland. From April to August, 1919, General Pilsudski counter-attacked vigorously, retaking Brest-Litovsk, Grodno, Wilno and most of White Russia from the Soviets. - -- Peter Vieth Fitek@ix.netcom.com IGZ Handle: Fitek ICQ UIN: 3660410 Web page: http://www.netcom.com/~Fitek/index.html ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1998 #11 ************************************