twilight2000-digest Friday, March 27 1998 Volume 1998 : Number 016 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: Does anybody have new scenarios? Re: twilight2000-digest V1998 #14 Re: Civgov vs Milgov Re: Civgov vs Milgov Re: Civgov vs Milgov Re: Civgov vs Milgov Re: Civgov vs Milgov Re: Civgov vs Milgov On discussions Re: Civgov vs Milgov Re: Civgov vs Milgov Re: On discussions Re: On discussions Re: On discussions Re: Civgov vs Milgov Re: Civgov vs Milgov Re: Civgov vs Milgov Discussions Re: On discussions Re: Civgov vs Milgov Chinese Army Re: Civgov vs Milgov Whining about failures to seat delegations, the UCMJ, and being i n the minority. (was RE: On discussions) Re: Whining about failures to seat delegations, the UCMJ, and being i n the minority. (was RE: On discussions) Re: Whining about failures to seat delegations, the UCMJ, and being i n the minority. (was RE: On discussions) History update Re: Civgov vs Milgov Military Adventures Links update Re: Civgov vs Milgov Re: Chinese Army Re: Civgov vs Milgov Re: Chinese Army Re: Military Adventures Re: Civgov vs Milgov ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 09:49:52 -0400 From: wardlow Subject: Re: Does anybody have new scenarios? give them a natural disaster, aid to the civil power senario Vlad johnson@hrem.mpi-stuttgart.mpg.de wrote: > I would like the list. I'm always interested in other post-WWIII books. Always > get for character and scenario ideas. > > Andy ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 08:45:49 -0800 From: Pablo Escoverra Subject: Re: twilight2000-digest V1998 #14 Brian K. Flood & Ann Marie Henke wrote: > I agree fully that THE CHARACTERS in the books are unbelievable - that is > the first thing I would get rid of if I turned it into a campaign. They are > WAY to cliche; not to mention, it ain't a whole lot of fun to play a > character that someone else designed. Its the plotline itself that I think > could be adapted to a campaign - not necessarily every battle (most Sure - I can see the whole Blueprint for Renewal concept being a good campaign, and I agree that the characters were 'hoaky' to say the least. One thing about the series, did you ever find it odd that the entire US government basically hinged their entire reconstruction plan on four men? With the implied importance that the author gave this program in the books you would think he would have more than one armored car with four soldiers out searching for the key people. A good book with definate adaptability to the T2k world is called 'The Last Ship' by William Brinkley. It deals with a US Navy Guided Missile Cruiser that somehow survives a Nuclear confrontation. If you can get past all the poetic waxing about how great it is to be a sailor ( as a former USN member I can say it isn't ) there is really a good story there. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 16:03:32 -0500 From: Andrew Borelli Subject: Re: Civgov vs Milgov Whether you feel it's realistic or not, the Civgov/Milgov thing makes for better adventuring. While I wasn't crazy about how Civgov and Milgov were done, and I *certainly* didn't like New America, it makes sense that in a disaster of that scale, civil and military authority - and the chain of command that make them what they are - might very well disentegrate. While I have enormous respect for military personnel and their sense of duty to the people they serve, in a disaster of that magnitude it stands to reason that, quite possibly, our armed forces would in fact splinter into armed camps working for a variety of different folks claiming authority over the United States. Granted, while it IS fiction, look at how many looney groups try to take over in the early stages of The Stand. Fiction or not, history's taught that entropy usually wins, and human nature has not improved since man first walked the Earth. How often did the Roman royal family plot to kill each other? How many plots were there against the Emperor or the Empire? Sometimes, the army was an unwilling pawn in those games. While I couldn't see today's US senators trying anything quite as drastic - nor could I see a United States serviceman ever agreeing to such an action - after a massive nuclear catastrophe and subsequent social breakdown, the rules might change quite a bit. Also, talking about adventure ideas in the same vein, anybody ever see "Seven Days in May"? If you really want to get the PCs involved in a thick conspiracy story with plenty of potential for action and adventuring, use some of those ideas and apply them to a Merc: 2K or T:2K adventure. wardlow wrote: > > I tend to agree with KAPPAABZ the T2K version is the more likely senario to > happen. The military Commander legally cannot relinquish command until the proper > duly appointed representative relives him. > Vlad > P.S. I'm ex-military myself and I would be following the military commander's lead > no matter what. > > KAPPAABZ wrote: > > > In a message dated 98-03-25 21:51:46 EST, you write: > > > > >I find the TW2000 idea of > > >placing of Civgov vs. Milgov extremely hard to stomach..... > > > > > > > > > > Which part, specifically, of this is the hard part? > > > > Imagine, if you will, that you, as a junior officer, with a long career ahead > > of you, are suddenly thrust into the horrors of war. Not one hundred hours, > > not 6 weeks, but over three years of extended conflict and combat. The last > > orders from the commander in chief of the armed forces of the United States, > > was a proclamation of war, and martial law. Then there was no more Commander > > in chief, or secretary of defence, or vice president, or secretary of state, > > etc, etc., > > The Chairman of the Joint Cheifs is now in charge of all military forces, and > > will gladly accept the legetimate civilian authority of the US. But certain > > things must happen for that authority to be considered legitimate. > > As a junior officer, who do you follow (remember, as an officer a career is > > made by a good conflict, and alot of kissing the right ass)? > > Who is right? the commander in chief for remaining faithful to the last > > orders given to him by his superior, or the "Civilian Government" with an > > "elected" president, and shootings on the congress floor over who was really > > elected to that seat by a district they've never even seen? > > can you now see the delima? > > Sure there are certain issues about it which stretch the bounds of belief, but > > this is a role-playing game, and in and of itself, makes it a fantasy game. > > Key word being Fantasy. - -- I remember a time when... The suburbs were sunny and bright, The cities were down and out, Reagan was president, and Pac-Man was king. Man, I miss those days... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 16:45:22 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Civgov vs Milgov At 09:47 AM 3/26/98 -0400, wardlow wrote: >I tend to agree with KAPPAABZ the T2K version is the more likely senario to >happen. The military Commander legally cannot relinquish command until the >proper duly appointed representative relives him. >Vlad >P.S. I'm ex-military myself and I would be following the military commander's >lead no matter what. > So you'd violate your oath of office? I agree that in this specific case, where arguably there IS no legitimate civilian authority, the military might well refuse to obey the illegitimate government (though it would be likely to help organize new elections as quickly as possible). But I can't see officers following a would-be military dictator under other circumstances--junior officers might do it out of deference or intimidation, but senior officers wouldn't. Scott Orr ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 19:27:13 EST From: GTN750 Subject: Re: Civgov vs Milgov I took alot of ideas from The Ashes series by William Johnston. Not the characters but the different governments. just food for thought. Glenn ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 22:50:41 EST From: KAPPAABZ Subject: Re: Civgov vs Milgov In a message dated 98-03-26 17:07:26 EST, you write: >So you'd violate your oath of office? The oath I took (not of office- I'd have to be elected for that) was to defend the United States from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. And to obey the orders of the officers appointed over me. The whole Issue isn't black and white, but enormous shades of grey. But I can't see officers following a would-be military dictator under other >circumstances What military dictator? >junior officers might do it out of deference or >intimidation, but senior officers wouldn't. Junior officers have careers to think about. Senior officers? Hmm............. Since I am not one, and never have been one, I don't honestly know about that.... Nor will I attempt to act like I do. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 20:23:27 -0800 From: Pablo Escoverra Subject: Re: Civgov vs Milgov I think you guys should trade E-mail adds or ICQ numbers and battle out this dispute in a personal forum. I have grown tired of your argument, as I am sure others on this list have also. KAPPAABZ wrote: > In a message dated 98-03-26 17:07:26 EST, you write: > > >So you'd violate your oath of office? > > The oath I took (not of office- I'd have to be elected for that) was to defend > the United States from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. And to obey > the orders of the officers appointed over me. > > The whole Issue isn't black and white, but enormous shades of grey. > > But I can't see officers following a would-be military dictator under other > >circumstances > > What military dictator? > > >junior officers might do it out of deference or > >intimidation, but senior officers wouldn't. > > Junior officers have careers to think about. Senior officers? > Hmm............. > Since I am not one, and never have been one, I don't honestly know about > that.... > Nor will I attempt to act like I do. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 22:11:42 -0800 From: Saul Basgen Subject: Re: Civgov vs Milgov >Junior officers have careers to think about. Senior officers? >Hmm............. >Since I am not one, and never have been one, I don't honestly know about >that.... >Nor will I attempt to act like I do. he he he... ... ... but.. but ... .. ... ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 22:19:31 -0800 From: Saul Basgen Subject: On discussions >I think you guys should trade E-mail adds or ICQ numbers and battle out this >dispute in a personal forum. I have grown tired of your argument, as I am sure >others on this list have also. > hmmm... but what better forum of debate than the public one... it stimulates peoples tongues... stimulates action in thought.... so mayhap this public does not want to be addressed with such issues- but so long as they are military related aren't they relevant to this list? .. in some debates, some may claim to know things they do not, and some may assume to know what others know, or do not. Why aggravate over the ignorance? ... if prolonged... then I see your position to stand... but the prolonged debate has been military, only recently has character come in, as it is destined to do. My point simply is that this does not mean we must shoot in the foot the discussion, simply accept and continue on- lest we wish to bury discussion, bury thought. , Saul ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 01:17:12 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Civgov vs Milgov At 08:23 PM 3/26/98 -0800, Pablo Escoverra wrote: >I think you guys should trade E-mail adds or ICQ numbers and battle out this >dispute in a personal forum. I have grown tired of your argument, as I am sure >others on this list have also. > Well, tough. This is a topic relevant to TW2000, and so I have absolutely no reservations about discussing it. It's not even an "argument", just a discussion, and since it involves several people, it's easier to do it here than in email anyway. But again, since it's completely on-topic, there's no reason to take it to email in the first place. Scott Orr ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 01:22:32 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Civgov vs Milgov At 10:50 PM 3/26/98 EST, KAPPAABZ wrote: >In a message dated 98-03-26 17:07:26 EST, you write: > >>So you'd violate your oath of office? > >The oath I took (not of office- I'd have to be elected for that) was to defend >the United States from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. And to obey >the orders of the officers appointed over me. > No, it wasn't. Read it again: you swore to defend the Constitution, not the U.S. And the oath to obey orders applies only to _legal_ orders. BTW, a pedantic note. :) I don't know if you were an enlisted man or an officer, but if you were an officer, you did take an "oath of office"--the "office" part being where the word "officer" comes from. >The whole Issue isn't black and white, but enormous shades of grey. > > But I can't see officers following a would-be military dictator under other >>circumstances > >What military dictator? > Huh? It was a hypothetical conjecture, not a reference to an actual person. >>junior officers might do it out of deference or >>intimidation, but senior officers wouldn't. > >Junior officers have careers to think about. I don't think "career" is the utmost consideration in a post-nuclear environment; at least not in the sense that we normally think about it. >Senior officers? >Hmm............. >Since I am not one, and never have been one, I don't honestly know about >that.... >Nor will I attempt to act like I do. > Well, I read books, and therefore I know many things that are outside my personal experience. This after all is the entire reason for the invention of language. Scott Orr ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 23:12:50 -0800 From: Pablo Escoverra Subject: Re: On discussions Saul Basgen wrote: > >I think you guys should trade E-mail adds or ICQ numbers and battle out this > >dispute in a personal forum. I have grown tired of your argument, as I am sure > >others on this list have also. > > > > hmmm... but what better forum of debate than the public one... it > stimulates peoples tongues... stimulates action in thought.... so mayhap > this public does not want to be addressed with such issues- but so long as > they are military related aren't they relevant to this list? .. in some > debates, some may claim to know things they do not, and some may assume to > know what others know, or do not. > Why aggravate over the ignorance? ... if prolonged... then I see your > position to stand... but the prolonged debate has been military, only > recently has character come in, as it is destined to do. My point simply is > that this does not mean we must shoot in the foot the discussion, simply > accept and continue on- lest we wish to bury discussion, bury thought. > > , Saul I don't see a relevant issue in this topic, Saul and Scott. The whole discussion is totally useless to the playing of the game in my opinion. That said I will just leave you guys to be picky about the motivation of your characters, and say no more about it. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 23:14:23 -0800 From: Pablo Escoverra Subject: Re: On discussions so mayhap this public does not want to be addressed with such issues- but so long as they are military related aren't they relevant to this list? .. in some Mayhap? I don't think I have ever seen that word used seriously before. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 00:08:27 -0800 (PST) From: "Jeffrey P. Cherpeski" Subject: Re: On discussions I for one have enjoyed the discussion, but then I enjoy watching Crossfire on CNN. :) If you don't want to read it, set your e-mail filter to delete it. On a more serious note, I am getting rid of my TW 2000 stuff. I have everything but Twilight Nightmares and The Last Battle. I am going to auction it off. I will be posting the info early next week. So keep your eyes open if you are looking for a certain item. E-mail if you want more details. ===================== Jeff Cherpeski cherpesk@scs.unr.edu Carson City, Nevada ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 09:12:00 -0400 From: wardlow Subject: Re: Civgov vs Milgov The military oath says to relinquish your charge of duty to duly appointed personel only. If there is question as to legitamacy of the personel requesting the change over, you cannot relinquish your command or post. In a case such as where by the legitamacy of the requesting party is in question, you have to proceed under the command of the highest ranking officer or NCO who has properly confirmed authority. Where in this is my violation of oath of office. I would be violating my oath if I turned over command to a recently made government whose legitamacy is in question. As a military commander the first thing would be to restore stablity and then hold elections or to find the next official in line for command and follow his lead. Where none was clear in this case the military commander was right in retaining control until proper authority could be established. The military is sworn to the country not the politician. The polititian is only recognized as in a position of authority when he or she is given that authority though the will of the country, through it's duly elected officials. In the abscence of authority, the military acts in the best perceived interests of the country it is sworn to. However if the legitimacy of authority is confirmed then the wishes of the reigning political body must be followed as the will of the country, even above the wishes of the Commanding Officer. Vlad Scott David Orr wrote: > At 09:47 AM 3/26/98 -0400, wardlow wrote: > >I tend to agree with KAPPAABZ the T2K version is the more likely senario to > >happen. The military Commander legally cannot relinquish command until the > >proper duly appointed representative relives him. > >Vlad > >P.S. I'm ex-military myself and I would be following the military commander's > >lead no matter what. > > > So you'd violate your oath of office? I agree that in this specific case, > where arguably there IS no legitimate civilian authority, the military > might well refuse to obey the illegitimate government (though it would be > likely to help organize new elections as quickly as possible). But I can't > see officers following a would-be military dictator under other > circumstances--junior officers might do it out of deference or > intimidation, but senior officers wouldn't. > > Scott Orr ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 13:40:15 +0000 From: Christopher A Cranston <9607794c@student.gla.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Civgov vs Milgov >Date: Thu, 26 Mar 1998 20:23:27 -0800 >From: Pablo Escoverra >To: twilight2000@MPGN.COM >Subject: Re: Civgov vs Milgov >Reply-to: twilight2000@MPGN.COM > >I think you guys should trade E-mail adds or ICQ numbers and battle out this >dispute in a personal forum. I have grown tired of your argument, as I am sure >others on this list have also. I think this discussion is very relevant to the background of the twilight 2000 world so this mailing list is the ideal place for it. Chris Cranston, 9607794c@student.gla.ac.uk ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:41:34 EST From: GTN750 Subject: Re: Civgov vs Milgov I feel the discussion is relevant to T2000. so let 'em talk Glenn ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 23:01:57 -0500 From: bell029@ibm.net Subject: Discussions We had these discussions all the time in my unit. And, since it is relevant, go for it. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 08:09:47 -0800 From: Saul Basgen Subject: Re: On discussions >so mayhap >this public does not want to be addressed with such issues- but so long as >they are military related aren't they relevant to this list? .. in some > >Mayhap? I don't think I have ever seen that word used seriously before. heh, it's archaic.... my English teacher didn't approve either... one of my love's is Poe and Lovecraft, both who fequent archiac words such as that... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 08:38:35 -0800 From: Saul Basgen Subject: Re: Civgov vs Milgov >Well, I read books, and therefore I know many things that are outside my >personal experience. heh... yeah true enough.. tread carefully though... I've read bunches and bunches on the military, but have never served. Anyone who has, knows a great deal more than myself- literate or not. There are those things you can read, and those things that you must experience to fully understand... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 12:12:48 EST From: GTN750 Subject: Chinese Army Hey guys. I know you helped me with the French Army before but does anyone have info on the Chinese Army.(numbers of men and what state they are in, in 2000.) i am statoned on Ft. Benning "the home of the infantry" and the libraries are horrible here. Also a good book to get ideas is Future Wars ' Hot Spots of the World' by Col.(ret) Duboy,Trevor. (i hope i spelled it right, don't have my book with me.) It covers ever hot spot in the world and gives a good run down on how a war in that area might occur. Glenn ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 13:18:35 -0400 From: wardlow Subject: Re: Civgov vs Milgov All the books in the world cannot prepare you for the reality of the Military. The marines have a saying "unit, corp, God, and Country". If you're military... you're family if not.... you're meat for the tiger! Even a soldier from a rival army will get more respect that a civilian. The military will protect the civilian but they know that without the baptism of fire the civilian isn't worth much and is considered inferior. People who have never been under fire don't understand that the only person that you can truly trust is your brother in steel. He's the one that will watch over you when you sleep. He's the one that takes the bullet meant for you or pulls you to safety if you take one. He's the one that, although he or she is so scared that he or she will puke for hours after the fight, will charge beside you to kill the enemy and face death in the process. Your fellow warrior is the one who'll hear your confessions of fear and past misdeads, yet still risk his life with you and for you tomorrow. He or she is the one who will mourn you and carry your memory into the future and sing your praise at the bar and raise their glass in your honour. Books don't prepare you for the nightmares you have for the rest of your life and the paranoia you will live with for ever. They don't prepare you for not being able to sleep more than 15 - 30 minutes at a stretch for the rest of your life. They don't prepare you for the fact that after only your fellow soldiers will ever consider you normal or be able to understand you. You will always be alone unless your with fellow warriors. Only they count. Perhaps this can explain why not siding with a disputed civilian authority as in T2K over your own commander is such a believable possibility. Vlad Saul Basgen wrote: > >Well, I read books, and therefore I know many things that are outside my > >personal experience. > > heh... yeah true enough.. tread carefully though... I've read bunches and > bunches on the military, but have never served. Anyone who has, knows a > great deal more than myself- literate or not. There are those things you > can read, and those things that you must experience to fully understand... ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 12:01:34 -0600 From: "Reed DE (David) at MSXSSC" Subject: Whining about failures to seat delegations, the UCMJ, and being i n the minority. (was RE: On discussions) Pablo whined: > so mayhap > this public does not want to be addressed with such issues- but so long > as > they are military related aren't they relevant to this list? .. in some The "public" as a whole, if judged by individual opinions, never wants to address anything. Preferring instead to watch heinefeld and other miscellaneous opiates. Perhaps we could also discuss who died and left you to decide what the "public" wanted? > Mayhap? I don't think I have ever seen that word used seriously before. Try reading more books. You know, the one's with no pictures. ObT2k: Are there criteria in the UCMJ or other applicable body of law which would cover these exigencies? I don't recall one from any constitutional law classes, but we never treated the UCMJ in much detail. What *would* be required for the military to "recognize" the civilian government as legitimate? If only some seats were compromised or believed to be, then the appropriate house could refuse to seat the offending delegation until the issues were resolved (it's happened) without the whole bicameral body being construed as illegitimate... Or the President-elect. However, if the Joint Chiefs, or the remainder thereof or it's successors, were cut of a more dictatorial cloth, then perhaps any "excuse" could be tendered for failure to recognize the 'legitimate' civilian authority, and hence the confusion that resulted as some wiser senior staff elect to follow the civilian claimants. I'll have to go back and re-read Loren's 'prophecies' to see if that's what was intended. I can see one or both situations occurring, possibly simultaneously. Cornfused yet? Not a happy world to live in, but then, is any? - ----------------------------------------------------------------- David Reed dreed@shellus.com 713.245.2656 Shell Services International "Of course you don't understand it, that's what 'alien' means!" ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 10:49:45 -0800 From: Saul Basgen Subject: Re: Whining about failures to seat delegations, the UCMJ, and being i n the minority. (was RE: On discussions) >Pablo whined: > >> so mayhap >> this public does not want to be addressed with such issues- but so long >> as >> they are military related aren't they relevant to this list? .. in some > >The "public" as a whole, if judged by individual opinions, never wants to >address anything. Preferring instead to watch heinefeld and other >miscellaneous opiates. hrm... actually that was me,... who 'whined'.. I was not addressing the 'public as a whole', for if I were, I don't suppose 'this public' would fit well with that... I had been refering to the general population of this list... >Perhaps we could also discuss who died and left you to decide what the >"public" wanted? ? >> Mayhap? I don't think I have ever seen that word used seriously before. > >Try reading more books. You know, the one's with no pictures. he he he Saul ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 11:04:32 -0800 From: Pablo Escoverra Subject: Re: Whining about failures to seat delegations, the UCMJ, and being i n the minority. (was RE: On discussions) Reed DE (David) at MSXSSC wrote: > Pablo whined: > > > so mayhap > > this public does not want to be addressed with such issues- but so long > > as > > they are military related aren't they relevant to this list? .. in some > > The "public" as a whole, if judged by individual opinions, never wants to > address anything. Preferring instead to watch heinefeld and other > miscellaneous opiates. > > Perhaps we could also discuss who died and left you to decide what the > "public" wanted? > > > Mayhap? I don't think I have ever seen that word used seriously before. > > Try reading more books. You know, the one's with no pictures. Like Maybe ' How to be an expert on everything ' by David Reed? ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 11:40:49 -0800 From: Saul Basgen Subject: History update I've updated my history pages, correcting mostly spelling, grammar, and appearance. I've added in some bits and pieces in an attempt to make the history a bit more encompassing. Please let me know what you think, what should be added, taken out, ect. http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/Twilight/Rules/Chapter1/Chapter1.html Saul ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 14:47:56 EST From: GTN750 Subject: Re: Civgov vs Milgov I have to agree with siding with Milgov. From someone who fought in Desert Storm and in Somalia and deployed to Haiti, I have more respect for the a fellow soldier, from any country than MOST civilians. It is the job of the military to obey the commands of a Lawfully ELECTED government. I hope those scenarios never come up, in the context of a fantasy game like T2000 it has some substance. Well enough ramblings. Glenn ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 12:42:45 -0000 From: David Elrick Subject: Military Adventures This just got sent to me, but I haven't had a chance to check it yet. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ---------------------- Anyone who's interested in running military adventures may want to check out the following URL: http://www.specialoperations.com/ It's dedicated to real-world Special Ops groups and has a link to just about every non-classified USArmy officer's/ soldier's handbook published (updated as of Jan '98). Sniper tactics, explosives use, equipment, mobility considerations, combat engineering, communications, etc. are all covered in detail. It's enough to add a lot of background "color" to an adventure. Keep in mind, though, that this is real military stuff and the military *loves* abbreviations. Of course, that _is_ one way to drive PCs nuts.... - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ---------------------- Hope it's useful to somebody. Kind Regards Dave Elrick ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 13:44:19 -0800 From: Saul Basgen Subject: Links update Another update on Links, a few more have been added to the listing of Twilight: 2000 web ring sites. http://www.seattleu.edu/~musides/Twilight/Miscellanious/TwiLinks.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 18:05:47 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Civgov vs Milgov At 08:38 AM 3/27/98 -0800, Saul Basgen wrote: > > >>Well, I read books, and therefore I know many things that are outside my >>personal experience. > > heh... yeah true enough.. tread carefully though... I've read bunches and >bunches on the military, but have never served. Anyone who has, knows a >great deal more than myself- literate or not. There are those things you >can read, and those things that you must experience to fully understand... > But by the same token, someone who's been in the military has only had the experience of a single career. He or she may be especially likely to assume erroneously that his or her own experience (which may be very unique--really good or bad officers, a service that's different from the others, or whatever) generalize to the entire military, or even all militaries. Studies of the military (in history, political science, or industrial/organization pyschology) certainly rely on the experiences of actual soldiers, but one thing they're careful to do is survey a wide sample of soldiers in order to come to conclusions that are generalizable--therefore, even for someone who's been there, reading books would be a good idea. Scott Orr ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 18:09:44 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Chinese Army At 12:12 PM 3/27/98 EST, GTN750 wrote: >Hey guys. I know you helped me with the French Army before but does anyone >have info on the Chinese Army.(numbers of men and what state they are in, in >2000.) i am statoned on Ft. Benning "the home of the infantry" and the >libraries are horrible here. > > Also a good book to get ideas is Future Wars ' Hot Spots of the World' by >Col.(ret) >Duboy,Trevor. (i hope i spelled it right, don't have my book with me.) It >covers ever hot spot in the world and gives a good run down on how a war in >that area might occur. I think it may be Trevor Dupuy, but I'm not positive. Scott Orr ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 18:15:28 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Civgov vs Milgov At 01:18 PM 3/27/98 -0400, wardlow wrote: >All the books in the world cannot prepare you for the reality of the Military. I don't wnat to be prepared for the reality of the military; rather, I want to understand what military officers will likely do in situation X. And in fact, all the service in the world in the real military won't prepare me to answer that question--I would have a good idea of what _I_ would do, and the people I've worked with, and perhaps a decent guess about the whole armed service or even the whole military, but I'd probably have less understanding than an actual expert on the subject in question. In fact, if it's impossible to learn from other people--including from books--we might as well not be talking or otherwise using language. After all, if I can't possibly understand the military without having been in it, then it must logically be true that there is absolutely no purpose for telling me about it. Right? And of course, there would be no point to your instructors at boot camp actually giving your instructions either.... >The marines have a saying "unit, corp, God, and Country". If you're >military... you're family if not.... you're meat for the tiger! Even a soldier >from a rival army will get more respect that a civilian. The military will >protect the civilian but they know that without the baptism of fire the >civilian isn't worth much and is considered inferior. People who have never >been under fire don't understand that the only person that you can truly trust >is your brother in steel. He's the one that will watch over you when you >sleep. He's the one that takes the bullet meant for you or pulls you to safety >if you take one. He's the one that, although he or she is so scared that he or >she will puke for hours after the fight, will charge beside you to kill the >enemy and face death in the process. Your fellow warrior is the one who'll >hear your confessions of fear and past misdeads, yet still risk his life with >you and for you tomorrow. He or she is the one who will mourn you and carry >your memory into the future and sing your praise at the bar and raise their >glass in your honour. Books don't prepare you for the nightmares you have for >the rest of your life and the paranoia you will live with for ever. They don't >prepare you for not being able to sleep more than 15 - 30 minutes at a stretch >for the rest of your life. They don't prepare you for the fact that after only >your fellow soldiers will ever consider you normal or be able to understand >you. You will always be alone unless your with fellow warriors. Only they >count. Perhaps this can explain why not siding with a disputed civilian >authority as in T2K over your own commander is such a believable possibility. Presumably, wouldn't all that pale in comparison to your honor-bould commitment to defend the civilians? I mean, the Corps doesn't exist for its own sake. Scott Orr ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 16:05:31 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Chinese Army There is another book similar to this, but its in a format more appropriate for games (with percent chances on a particular outcome with modifiers for different events). I don't remember the name but I have it written down somewhere.... I'll try and find it. All I remember is that is written by a wargame designer. GTN750 wrote: > > Hey guys. I know you helped me with the French Army before but does anyone > have info on the Chinese Army.(numbers of men and what state they are in, in > 2000.) i am statoned on Ft. Benning "the home of the infantry" and the > libraries are horrible here. > > Also a good book to get ideas is Future Wars ' Hot Spots of the World' by > Col.(ret) > Duboy,Trevor. (i hope i spelled it right, don't have my book with me.) It > covers ever hot spot in the world and gives a good run down on how a war in > that area might occur. > Glenn - -- Peter Vieth Fitek@ix.netcom.com IGZ Handle: Fitek ICQ UIN: 3660410 Web page: http://www.netcom.com/~Fitek/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 16:11:12 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Military Adventures Pretty interesting page... David Elrick wrote: > > This just got sent to me, but I haven't had a chance to check it yet. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---------------------- > Anyone who's interested in running military adventures may want > to check out the following URL: > > http://www.specialoperations.com/ > > It's dedicated to real-world Special Ops groups and has a > link to just about every non-classified USArmy officer's/ > soldier's handbook published (updated as of Jan '98). > Sniper tactics, explosives use, equipment, mobility > considerations, combat engineering, communications, > etc. are all covered in detail. It's enough to add a lot of > background "color" to an adventure. Keep in mind, though, > that this is real military stuff and the military *loves* > abbreviations. Of course, that _is_ one way to drive PCs > nuts.... > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > ---------------------- > > Hope it's useful to somebody. > > Kind Regards > > Dave Elrick - -- Peter Vieth Fitek@ix.netcom.com IGZ Handle: Fitek ICQ UIN: 3660410 Web page: http://www.netcom.com/~Fitek/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 27 Mar 1998 22:55:04 -0400 From: wardlow Subject: Re: Civgov vs Milgov True you can learn some basics from the books and in theory the military protect the civilians but when in wartime operations in your own country or in a country engaged in civil war the distinctions between good guy bad guy gets blurry for the average grunt because foe and friend speak the same language and wear the same face, soon the standard operating proceedure becomes "Kill them all...... let god sort them out" eg: the My Lai syndrome. Vlad p.s. sorry if I sounded a little harsh in the last message but some times I still am a little bit aggressive, paranoid. Comes with the mileage. I apologize if I offended. Scott David Orr wrote: > At 01:18 PM 3/27/98 -0400, wardlow wrote: > >All the books in the world cannot prepare you for the reality of the > Military. > > I don't wnat to be prepared for the reality of the military; rather, I want > to understand what military officers will likely do in situation X. > > And in fact, all the service in the world in the real military won't > prepare me to answer that question--I would have a good idea of what _I_ > would do, and the people I've worked with, and perhaps a decent guess about > the whole armed service or even the whole military, but I'd probably have > less understanding than an actual expert on the subject in question. > > In fact, if it's impossible to learn from other people--including from > books--we might as well not be talking or otherwise using language. After > all, if I can't possibly understand the military without having been in it, > then it must logically be true that there is absolutely no purpose for > telling me about it. Right? And of course, there would be no point to > your instructors at boot camp actually giving your instructions either.... > > >The marines have a saying "unit, corp, God, and Country". If you're > >military... you're family if not.... you're meat for the tiger! Even a > soldier > >from a rival army will get more respect that a civilian. The military will > >protect the civilian but they know that without the baptism of fire the > >civilian isn't worth much and is considered inferior. People who have never > >been under fire don't understand that the only person that you can truly > trust > >is your brother in steel. He's the one that will watch over you when you > >sleep. He's the one that takes the bullet meant for you or pulls you to > safety > >if you take one. He's the one that, although he or she is so scared that > he or > >she will puke for hours after the fight, will charge beside you to kill the > >enemy and face death in the process. Your fellow warrior is the one who'll > >hear your confessions of fear and past misdeads, yet still risk his life > with > >you and for you tomorrow. He or she is the one who will mourn you and carry > >your memory into the future and sing your praise at the bar and raise their > >glass in your honour. Books don't prepare you for the nightmares you have for > >the rest of your life and the paranoia you will live with for ever. They > don't > >prepare you for not being able to sleep more than 15 - 30 minutes at a > stretch > >for the rest of your life. They don't prepare you for the fact that after > only > >your fellow soldiers will ever consider you normal or be able to understand > >you. You will always be alone unless your with fellow warriors. Only they > >count. Perhaps this can explain why not siding with a disputed civilian > >authority as in T2K over your own commander is such a believable possibility. > > Presumably, wouldn't all that pale in comparison to your honor-bould > commitment to defend the civilians? I mean, the Corps doesn't exist for > its own sake. > > Scott Orr ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1998 #16 ************************************