twilight2000-digest Sunday, March 5 2000 Volume 1999 : Number 115 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: cold and extreme cold weather effects Re: cold and extreme cold weather effects Starvation, when does death occure. Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) re:choppers Re: response(Starvation) Re: u.s. defense spending [was Game settings (Red Dawn)] Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: u.s. defense spending [was Game settings (Red Dawn)] Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: u.s. defense spending [was Game settings (Red Dawn)] Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: u.s. defense spending [was Game settings (Red Dawn)] Red Dawn noway, but Red Star Lone Star? Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 18:40:17 +0100 From: Pedro Arnal Puente Subject: Re: cold and extreme cold weather effects At 07:04 27/02/00 -0800, you wrote: >The incident you mentioned to Army personnel occurred at >the Ranger camp in Florida. During that phase of training >you operate in the swamps and are perpetually wet. It is >also the third phase of training. By the time you get to >Florida you have been going for about six weeks on 2-3 >hours of sleep so in the best of weather you still have a >tendency to be "zombied". BTDT. They had a "norther" moce >in and dropped the temps into the 40's I beleive. They >jacked the NCOIC, but who would have gotten jacked if >they'd been on a real operation? > >===== >FORD > >Rangers! Lead the Way!!! >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. >http://im.yahoo.com >*************************************************************************** >To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com >with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. > > ...con treinta balas por cargador, hoy no sere yo el perdedor. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 09:50:36 -0800 (PST) From: GRAEBARDE Subject: Re: cold and extreme cold weather effects HELP!!! Can someone please translate the response, my Spanish dictionary is lost in the maze. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 10:29:17 -0800 (PST) From: GRAEBARDE Subject: Starvation, when does death occure. Steve: I think you approached the starvation in a very good [brilliant] way. It was not the HOG, but the PC's. They refused to accept "reality". That true in many cases of starvation. It "snuck up" on them so to speak. I assume they had an option of leaving the area in question, in which case, if they don't "what be will be". You can help the PC's intelligence by rolling their intelligence and giving them information you feel they would know [if they don't and should], but there are NO controlling attributes for common sense, THAT is up to the individual. I agree, in T2K world the environment is going to be hurting big time, but the recovery time for nature is remarkable once man stops interfering. I don't know about the toxic waste that will contaminate soil, but nature has a way of adaptation; I beleive it's called mutation, and not necessarily two headed monsters. It depends on the reproductive cycles of generations. It'll be noticeable first in smaller flora and fauna, that have cycles in months [ie insects and grasses] Those that survive adapt, the survival of the fittest. Interesting concept, starvation, and it needs to be implemented IMO in campaigns, esp where food supply is a problem. The game addresses it some what, but ambigiously. Why does half rations only inflict one fatigue point, until the PC has full rations for as many days as underfed or 10 days [I do realize recovery from adverse effects is accellerated in T2K]. If under half rations they suffer one point per day, recovering one fatigue level each day on full rations. The rules also state death from starvation on no food takes about 30 days, and several months on half rations. With that in mind, prolonged half rations should inflict more than one fatigue point, say one per week at least, accumulative of course. When does death occure? Try the concepept applied to battle trauma. If a person has attributes of 6, it takes six days on less than half rations to reach the point of incapacitation [all attributes at 1 since you can't go below one] If you applied a formual [say total of base level in strength, agility, constitution, and intelligence] as max level, death would occure in that number of days with no food, or weeks on less than half. Periodic full rations would only intterupt the process. Full rations would have to be had for at least a week, and those rations would have to be good, not just cabbage soup!!! To recover from the effects of starvation requires a diet including protein [preferably animal, but debateable.. I won't debate it:)], fats, and carbohydrates, as well as all the vitamins. Some nutrient disease a starving person might get are scurvy and beriberi [sp]. Both can incapacitate a victim before death occurs. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 14:31:33 -0600 From: "Fugitivus" Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) there was a show on discovery on the hind. most of it was on the one america has and is using in mock games somewhere. the show could have been better. but it is some of the best color footage i have seen of the chopper. i think they said they got it from the gulf war. but i have not watched it for awhile. aaron And there's story that we got our hands on some > downed Hinds from Afghanistan during their war. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 13:12:06 -0800 From: "Corey Wells" Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) > >Anybody remember a board game called Fortress America? > > > Yes, but no one took it seriously. :) > > Scott Orr > *************************************************************************** Actually, I was just asking if anyone else knew about the game. It was a decently fun game. Not as good as Axis and Allies, or even the Samurai game the produced (which has been re-released under a different name.) Though it also had a couple political points in it. Historically (though so far this hasn't held in the latter half of the century) Americans tend to drop defence after a major war. Probably part of the reason it hasn't held true was because of the "red Scare" and cold war. But I could see us easily thinking that we have a couple major defence systems, so we let the conventional forces dwindle. I guess it's more a statement about general American attitude than a political (partisan) statement. OCR __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 08:34:09 EST From: "Peter Grining" Subject: re:choppers Regarding choppers and the like I have Frank Frey's Air Module up along with the 'real' stats for the Mi-24 Hind versions: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/6480/T2K.html Peter Grining ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 17:23:35 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: response(Starvation) At 10:53 AM 3/5/00 -0600, Steve wrote: > > >GRAEBARDE wrote: > >> Steve: I don't know how you interjected starvation into >> the campaign, nor what the "nasty response" was, so I can't >> directly address your situation. As a HOG[gm], YOU control >> the flow of the game, and provide the resources to the >> players as YOU see it. >> > > I interjected starvation into the campaign in a very slow and deliberate >process, we had campaigned many months and I continued to reduce the food >supply (Water contamination see below). If one was to look at the state of >Ukraine after world WW2, many thousands of people starved to death, it was not >simply a matter of planting more food, or foraging and fishing more. Perhaps >Scott would have a better understanding of the cause, however the players never >realized that at some point they would starve. (starvation, a period of months >with out adequate food) > Sorry, can't help you--I don't know anything about this famine. Actually, are you sure you're not confusing it with the infamous Ukranian Famine of the 1930's? That one was caused by the collectivization of agriculture by the Soviet Union, and the resistance to it (people who didn't want to collectivize weren't fed). > As far as foraging and fishing, etc. I envisioned a much more devastating >world in "this particular campaign", I believe that most of us underestimate >the effects of radiation and fallout. Not to mention the destruction caused by >conventional weapons, and chemical spills, oil wells lit ablaze, etc. If one >was to add the effects of nuclear winter, growing crops would be much more >difficult then we ever imagined. > Remember that most types of fallout will have dissipated in the strength relatively quickly, and that at any rate they'll tend to disperse. Likewise, nuclear winter wouldn't last more than a year at most, if it occured at all (given the slow speed of the exchange in the game's timeline). And yes, chemical contamination could be nasty, but it tends to be localized, and unless you have a permanent source of pollution (like a factory or constant use of pesticides on farms), it's going to dissipate too--though its environmental effects (such as dead fish) will take much longer to recover. I can see having some problems, but environmental conditions ought to be improving gradually, since the sources of contaminants are no longer active (indeed, most of the normal pollution sources of the modern world are now gone--though some, like water pollution from lack of sewage systems, will have returend from the pre-modern era). >>>>>nor what the "nasty response" was, so I can't >>>>>>directly address your situation. > > The "nasty response" from my players was this; they simply refused to >acknowledge that they would have any dire problems with food supply, in fact >they balked at the idea. These players always thought there would all ways be >rivers to fish, deer to hunt, etc. > > The point I tried to convey is that this many not be the case. An environment >disaster (radiation, chemical, etc.) upstream a hundred miles, which is >leaching material, could kill nearly every thing tied to that river system. > > An example of this could be the huge vats of cyanide used in mining and >manufacturing, or meltdown of a nuclear reactor >without a soul trying to contain it; it would spew radioactive material for >months into a river system. I believe it would take an >enormous amount of time for this system to recover. Correct me if I am wrong. > > In the scenario they were in, everything off this river was dead or dying, >including people and wildlife. (Keep in mind I do not >have every river system a disaster although most probably are in T2K). > In this case, for hundreds of square miles around of the river system, the >people had to evacuate and this put enormous pressure on the remaining food >sources for hundreds of miles centering on the river system.(Oh, did I mention >the toxic river flooded its banks that spring) > Why for hundreds of square miles along the river? Even if the water is radioactive, and you wouldn't want to drink it or bathe in it, you'd just about have to be touching it for it to pose a problem. Radiation just doesn't carry that far. > So I hope you see that the underling conditions are much more complex then >they appear. (IMHO) Well that's always true. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 14:54:16 -0800 (PST) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Michael=20Cook?= Subject: Re: u.s. defense spending [was Game settings (Red Dawn)] - --- Corey Wells wrote: > Though it > also had a couple political points in it. > Historically (though so far this > hasn't held in the latter half of the century) > Americans tend to drop > defence after a major war. Probably part of the > reason it hasn't held true > was because of the "red Scare" and cold war. But I > could see us easily > thinking that we have a couple major defence > systems, so we let the > conventional forces dwindle. I guess it's more a > statement about general > American attitude than a political (partisan) > statement. > the reason that defense spending in america hasn't dropped dramatically since world war two has little to do with the 'red scare' and cold war, which were little more than excuses created by very effective propaganda. the real reason is that the u.s. defense department has been used as a funnel to move taxpayer money back into u.s. industry, and in effect to keep the american economy alive through the constant development of new weapons systems. one needs to look no further than the major airline manufacturers, or the ship construction companies (which have been almost completely wiped out in the last ten years because of the lack of new spending for navy vessels... especially subs). the same thing has existed in other industries as well, especially the high technology fields. without the sort of corporate welfare practiced in the u.s., the american economy would have collapsed long ago. michael cook. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 18:14:07 EST From: OrrinLadd@aol.com Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) In a message dated 03/04/2000 2:17:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, baiya@geocities.com writes: << When was the last time you've seen American guerillas? I think the closest would have been during the Civil War. >> What about the Phillipines during WWII? Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't there some guerillas operating there and in China when the Japanese invaded? Maybe not guerillas in the classic sense of civilians taking up arms, but didn't US personnel who managed to escape Corregidor and the Bataan Death March operate behind enemy lines without friendly support for some time. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 15:15:10 -0800 (PST) From: GRAEBARDE Subject: Re: u.s. defense spending [was Game settings (Red Dawn)] Well stated Mike __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 16:26:02 -0700 From: "JC" Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) >They were supposed to be charter flights--but charter operators have to >have licencses and such, and file flight plans (hell, Piper Cubs have to >file flight plans). First off, no one would believe that many charter >flights coming in at one time. Second, the charters would be immediatley >identifiable as belonging to Russian companies, unless the Russians >established front companies--and given the cost of airliners, the latter >just isn't feasible (you CANNOT launder the kind of money it takes to set >up an airline). Third, the FAA would quickly noticed that 90% of the >charter flights on a given day were deviating from flight plans. Fourth, >any plane capable of airdropping troops in large numbers, and especially >equipment, is not going to look like a normal airliner (it needs special >cargo bay doors). I like the movie as an action flick, but I have to use a hefty dose of suspension of reality. What bothers me about the scenario, is just how many airborne divisions would it take to make an invasion of the US plausible, and did the Soviet Union have the much airlift capacity? I know in the movie a lot of the troops were Cuban/South American, but I would think even at a generous estimate most of those countries would probably be only able to drop a reinforced brigade at most. The other thing I wonder about is where did all the transports come from. I just don't see the Soviets flying several divisions straight across the Atlantic, and if not I would think the US would have to notice their basing several dozen if not a hundreds of large transports in Cuba and other neighboring countries. I know we can airlift the entire 82nd Airborne, but that takes a pretty hefty chunk of our airlift capacity. I have to agree with Scott I think faced with that situation we would at least take a look at all that incoming traffic. There are several ANG interceptor squadrons based throughout the South and in the Midwest. I think someone would send up a few interceptors if only to take a look. Granted they could be using their own fighters as escorts, but then that would be a sure tip off that something was wrong. Yeah resupply is definately a problem. I don't think it would really be possible to maintain an operation the size of invading an America resupplying only by air. I also doubt coming in overland through say Mexico is really an option. I think there's enough major US units with heavy equipment in Texas and California to be able to cut off a supply route there fairly quick (ie the 1st Cav and 2nd or 3rd Armored at Ft. Hood, FMF Pacific in San Diego, not to mention the Texas NG pretty much has their own armored division). Regards, JC *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 16:25:51 -0800 (PST) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Michael=20Cook?= Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) - --- JC wrote: > actually supplying these troops would be impossible, > because there's no way > the next wave would get in--actually, the original > wave of planes would > never survive to land, even if they did manage to > drop their troops.> > > Yeah resupply is definately a problem. I don't > think it would really > be possible to maintain an operation the size of > invading an America > resupplying only by air. I also doubt coming in > overland through say > Mexico is really an option. I think there's enough > major US units with > heavy equipment in Texas and California to be able > to cut off a supply > route there fairly quick (ie the 1st Cav and 2nd or > 3rd Armored at Ft. Hood, > FMF Pacific in San Diego, not to mention the Texas > NG pretty much > has their own armored division). IF (and this is a biggie) some major port cities could be secured, resupply could be accomplished by ship. but again, just to support the initial dropzones, you'd need a lot of merchant boats, and since merchies move a lot slower than airliners, there would be a lot more time for someone to say "there's WAAYYY too much merchie traffic headed our way" and look into it. and all those ships would have to be right close to port when the airdrops happened, because those dropzones would need support in hours, not days or weeks. and satellites would have spotted the increased port activity in russia and elsewhere weeks before the invasion. and as soon as the initial strike happens, you have to have large surface assets in the region to defend your resupply ships, because unless you nuke san diego, norfolk, the other major USN ports, any exercising surface groups, etc, you are going to have the bulk of the USN atlantic and pacific fleets interdicting. thus, to add even further to the problem of surprise, the soviets now need to get their surface fleets into close proximity to the U.S. coasts without being detected. another major problem is how do you secure the many major metropolitan areas? you'd need huge numbers of garrison forces just to enforce a curfue, and even more to get city life, production and so forth moving again. and this is assuming that you can convince the majority of the population to cooperate. How do you keep several million hostile americans in line so that production in just a single city can get moving again? i've never actually seen Red Dawn, but from the detailed conversation here i'd have to agree that it is far more of an action movie than anything else. but thought provoking none the less, and that's never a bad thing. michael cook. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 19:22:59 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: u.s. defense spending [was Game settings (Red Dawn)] At 02:54 PM 3/5/00 -0800, Michael Cook wrote: > > >--- Corey Wells wrote: >> Though it >> also had a couple political points in it. >> Historically (though so far this >> hasn't held in the latter half of the century) >> Americans tend to drop >> defence after a major war. Probably part of the >> reason it hasn't held true >> was because of the "red Scare" and cold war. But I >> could see us easily >> thinking that we have a couple major defence >> systems, so we let the >> conventional forces dwindle. I guess it's more a >> statement about general >> American attitude than a political (partisan) >> statement. >> > >the reason that defense spending in america hasn't >dropped dramatically since world war two has little to >do with the 'red scare' and cold war, which were >little more than excuses created by very effective >propaganda. the real reason is that the u.s. defense >department has been used as a funnel to move taxpayer >money back into u.s. industry, and in effect to keep >the american economy alive through the constant >development of new weapons systems. one needs to look >no further than the major airline manufacturers, or >the ship construction companies (which have been >almost completely wiped out in the last ten years >because of the lack of new spending for navy >vessels... especially subs). the same thing has >existed in other industries as well, especially the >high technology fields. without the sort of corporate >welfare practiced in the u.s., the american economy >would have collapsed long ago. Some people have indeed argued that U.S. defense R&D is a hidden indistrial R&D subsidy. A couple of clarifications are in order, though. First, it's not at all clear that such subsidies are necessary for economic growth--no one is sure that the government is better at allocating R&D money than industry would be, and in any case R&D money allocated to defense, while it may have spin-offs, would probably do more for the economy if it were allocated specifically for industrial uses (the basic principle being that you get more of what you pay for if you pay for what you really want). Second, we need to avoid confusing defense spending in general with R&D spending. Defense spending in general is undoubtedly a drain on the economy, because it's money spent on doing something that (aside from the R&D benefits) has no direct return for the economy--economically, it's like buying cotton candy and ice cream. If the money were spent instead on business, a lot of it would be invested in the capital stock (both physical and human), and thereby increase productivity in the future. It's true that you can get a _short-term_ boost in economic growth in a war, by increasing defense expenditures (you could, in fact, do the same by buying cotton candy and ice cream), but you can't do this for very long, because ultimately you're robbing the country of productive investment--thus, this is a good thing for bringing a country out of a depression caused by an economy that's just stopped moving, with factories ideal and people out of work, and we see this effect in World War II, but in the long term it hurts the economy, as we saw in the later stages of Vietnam. To answer your specific examples, yes, the end of the Cold War has hurt major ship and airplane builders--but the money that's been saved and used on more productive investment has probably done more good in other sectors of the economy than the harm done to those specific industries. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 19:32:59 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) At 04:26 PM 3/5/00 -0700, JC wrote: >actually supplying these troops would be impossible, because there's no way >the next wave would get in--actually, the original wave of planes would >never survive to land, even if they did manage to drop their troops.> > >Yeah resupply is definately a problem. I don't think it would really >be possible to maintain an operation the size of invading an America >resupplying only by air. I also doubt coming in overland through say >Mexico is really an option. I think there's enough major US units with >heavy equipment in Texas and California to be able to cut off a supply >route there fairly quick (ie the 1st Cav and 2nd or 3rd Armored at Ft. Hood, >FMF Pacific in San Diego, not to mention the Texas NG pretty much >has their own armored division). > Even with overland resupply, most of the supplies would have to be shipped by sea first to Mexico--and that ain't gonna happen. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 19:31:19 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) At 06:14 PM 3/5/00 EST, OrrinLadd@aol.com wrote: >In a message dated 03/04/2000 2:17:16 AM Pacific Standard Time, >baiya@geocities.com writes: > ><< > When was the last time you've seen American guerillas? I think the closest > would have been during the Civil War. >> > >What about the Phillipines during WWII? There were guerillas in WWII in the Philippines; the Americans involved were mostly military personnel who escaped capture. When I was in grade school I read a reall good autobiographical account by one of them called _An_American_Guerilla_in_the_Philippines_. I would imagine that a lot of the Filipino guerillas were members of the Philippine Scouts military units, but I'm sure that not all of them were. >Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't >there some guerillas operating there and in China when the Japanese invaded? I don't think there were a significant number of Americans involved here, though a few people were dispatched to observe/advise Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalists (AFAIK they never strayed very far from his HQ, though). There may well have been stuff that I'm not aware of, though. >Maybe not guerillas in the classic sense of civilians taking up arms, but >didn't US personnel who managed to escape Corregidor and the Bataan Death >March operate behind enemy lines without friendly support for some time. Yes--in fact many of them operated until the islands were liberated (see the book I mentioned above). They were in contact by radio with U.S. forces, and did occasionally receive supplies (especially ammo) by submarine. (The guy in the book ruefully recalled that a good bit of the subs' very limited storage space was occupied [no joke] by things like "I Shall Return" candy bars.) Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 17:18:26 -0800 From: "Corey Wells" Subject: Re: u.s. defense spending [was Game settings (Red Dawn)] > the reason that defense spending in america hasn't > dropped dramatically since world war two has little to > do with the 'red scare' and cold war, which were > little more than excuses created by very effective > propaganda. the real reason is that the u.s. defense > department has been used as a funnel to move taxpayer > money back into u.s. industry, and in effect to keep > the american economy alive through the constant > development of new weapons systems. one needs to look > no further than the major airline manufacturers, or > the ship construction companies (which have been > almost completely wiped out in the last ten years > because of the lack of new spending for navy > vessels... especially subs). the same thing has > existed in other industries as well, especially the > high technology fields. without the sort of corporate > welfare practiced in the u.s., the american economy > would have collapsed long ago. > > michael cook. > __________________________________________________ That would likely be true through the 70's and into the 80's. But the original from the late 40's through 50's was really the scare. I think it was more an affect, than a cause or reason behind, that it supported industry. And once we got into the 80s, the civilian market is what has supported our industry. I've heard as well about the "vast" military-industrial complex. But, if you were to look at the industries, you'd probably find that defence contracting hasn't accounted for a significant (i.e. necessary) percentage of American industry. I'll give you ship building. But that's one aspect, and also could have survived if it looked into other markets (where do all the super tankers, and the huge cargo vessels Japan uses, come from?) And granted, the demise of the ship building industry may have had a big affect on the steel industry, but we know also that the automobile industry had as big, if not bigger, affect. I think you overstated the value of defence contracting to American industry and economic strength. In fact, our economy probably would have grown earlier, and faster, if money wasn't being sucked into taxes then funneled into defence materials that hardly get used. There was a big debate earlier about the cost/value of war. War tends to stimulate industry, but hurt general economy. You build armies, big enough so that no one will challenge you. But then, they sit there useless (and may have been a waste of funds.) On the other hand, you build but fight, the only thing that would keep the building going is to replace losses. Wouldn't that be a waste as well? I think a better investment would be in toilet paper. Each unit has a one time use. But the need is continuous, so there will always be demand. At least in the US. Doubt will see the widespread use of bedets (spelling) during my lifetime. Cor __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 17:22:36 -0800 (PST) From: GRAEBARDE Subject: Red Dawn noway, but Red Star Lone Star? I'm enjoying the input on the feasibility of Red Dawn.. If nothing else it has made people think.. atleast in hind sight. It's been pointed out that there is no way an overland invasion would be supported from Mexico. To this I agree. If the Mexican government went Marxist, probably preceded by Revolution, the USA would probably get their hands dirty south of the border.. it wouldn't be the first time.. Which leads to the question: how could the situation in Mexico escillate far enough in T2K timelines for the Cuban brigade to enter the Texas Front through Mexico. I realize the bombs are falling, and the third Battle of the Atlantic is raging and such, but would/could intell sources fail to see what was going on, given the scale of preperation needed? What did I miss [or forget]? By the book 49th Armored Div [TX ANG] was still in Texas. By the time of the invasion it would not be operating out of armories, but full mobilized at Hood. There were other Army units in the 5th Army Area, both regulars and reserves. Everyone seemed to get caught with thier pants down and got clobbered by a Soviet brigade and the Mexican army??. Fire Away!!!!!!! __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 17:20:40 -0800 From: "Corey Wells" Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) > << > When was the last time you've seen American guerillas? I think the closest > would have been during the Civil War. >> > > What about the Phillipines during WWII? Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't > there some guerillas operating there and in China when the Japanese invaded? > Maybe not guerillas in the classic sense of civilians taking up arms, but > didn't US personnel who managed to escape Corregidor and the Bataan Death > March operate behind enemy lines without friendly support for some time. But that is exactly not what guerillas are, in the sense we were discussing. In fact, that may not even fit the general definition of guerillas, even if the type of fighting does fit the definition of guerrilla-warfare. I'd think that trained personnel, operating behind enemy lines, would be more like commandos than guerillas. Cor __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 17:44:47 -0800 (PST) From: GRAEBARDE Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) commandos vs guerrilla Commando's usually operated from bases NOT behind enemy lines, while running operations behind enemy lines. Guerrilla's operate AND live behind enemy lines.. Are my definitions off too much? __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 18:04:25 -0800 From: "Corey Wells" Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) > commandos vs guerrilla > > Commando's usually operated from bases NOT behind enemy > lines, while running operations behind enemy lines. > Guerrilla's operate AND live behind enemy lines.. Are my > definitions off too much? > __________________________________________________ Probably not. But, the discussion was still dealing with untrained civilian fighters (or mostly untrained.) If Guerilla can be used for either untrained civilians, or trained military personnel, then we need a new term. I'd agree that either could carry out guerilla warfare, as that is the way of conducting operations/tactics, and isn't concerned with who carries them out. And as I think of it, it is probably commonly accepted that the Viet Cong were guerillas. But, a lot of Viet Cong were trained by NVA, or other SOF/Advisor personnel. And they tended to be organized a lot like regular army, and had an uniform of sorts (the pajamas?) So I guess that guerilla doesn't apply to untrained civilian fighters, but to anyone operating behind lines, often out of contact with a higher command (which would eliminate VC...) One thing to look at, though they'd have a higher command, and probably a base on friendly sides, doesn't US SOFs often operate behind enemy lines for extended periods. Even sometimes establishing a forward base of sorts that would be considered inside enemy territory? Would that then make Green Berets operating in such a circumstance, guerillas? Cor __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1999 #115 *************************************