twilight2000-digest Monday, March 6 2000 Volume 1999 : Number 117 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: new timeline Re: new timeline Re: response(Starvation) Re: new timeline Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Some more questions Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) TW2K Items Available For Sale Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: u.s. defense spending [was Game settings (Red Dawn)] Re: A few newbie questions Thanks!!!!!:{) Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 00:31:32 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) At 07:28 PM 3/5/00 -0800, Jesse LaBranche wrote: > Just an added point though, because I do get the feeling that you'll all >blow the above question out of the water... How would YOU go about >explaining >the situation in Red Dawn in such a way that you would not be able to blow >it >out of the water just as easily? > I wouldn't. :) I just can't imagine anything plausible. And even _trying_ something like that would risk a nuclear war. 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: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 00:28:21 EST From: FlankerMan@aol.com Subject: Re: new timeline For land battles you could use the Steel Panthers Series. *************************************************************************** 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 21:31:05 -0800 (PST) From: GRAEBARDE Subject: Re: new timeline consider gdw world war 3 series. they have a pbem site at onelist. __________________________________________________ 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 00:39:20 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: response(Starvation) At 10:25 PM 3/5/00 -0600, Steve wrote: > > >Scott David Orr wrote: > >> >> > >> 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). >> > > Yes, you are correct, this is the famine I was thinking of, the link I was >trying to make is that these people could not forage, fish, hunt enough food in >the area to survive, if they could there would not be a famine, this would be >similar in effect to my dead river scenario, although the causes are completly >different, would that be accurate? > I suppose they probably did forage/hunt/etc. as much as they could, but the population was a lot more dense than it would be after WWIII (after all, the whole reason farming got more popular than hunting and gathering is that you can support a lot more people on a given amount of land). In any case, the problem wasn't that the land was suddenly less capable of producing food--the land was as good as before--the problem was purely political. > In this case the contamination is not from fallout, but rather a continual >toxic release into the ground water table and river system, when the river flooded >it increased the contamination on the surface soil as well. Yes, I agree with you >that radiation from a nuke disperses readily. I am not aware of any studies as to >the effects of reactor contamination in ground water. I think chernobyl would be >close, but in my campaign at the time many years ago, all of the reactors melt >down at the site, and are not contained, I gave this reaction 6 months of dumping >into the water systems. > Where do you get a truly continual source of contamination, though? Given that, yes, you'd have long-term problems, but I'd think that would be an unusual situation. > >> 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. > > I had to make a guess as to the effect of a series of nuclear reactors that >are in a state of meltdown that are expelling their contents into a River system, >and more importantly expelling into the water table below for a number of months. >I had to guess that this river would not dilute the toxins within at least hundred >miles down stream as this is a highly variable on many conditions. > I also felt that the water table would also be contaminated within 50 miles on >each side of the river. (A guess at best, I suppose) thus the huge radius along >the river. Hmmm... ...a lot of guessing, I wonder if I missed something? :o) > Okay, I suppose that makes sense--though obviously just walking around in the area isn't hazardous in itself. > When the river flooded in the spring, it would diffuse the toxins onto the land >and the volume of water would dilute the river. I do not know of any study of >nuclear meltdown effects on river ecology, if you have any leads on this it would >be appreciated for my fall campaign in Australia. > I'm not sure anyone's done anything like this.... 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 21:39:48 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: new timeline Calibur1@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 3/6/00 1:15:09 AM, fitek@ix.netcom.com writes: > > << Yes a pbem is what I had in mind-- I dont see an actual real time game > working > very well. Give each country a few days to respond. >> > > Everybody involved would also need a copy of, or at least access to, whatever > rules are used. > > -Billy Bob Actually if we had enough people I suppose there could actually be generals,etc. People who have the rules and fight the battles but don't run the entire country. *************************************************************************** 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 21:42:51 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Jesse LaBranche wrote: > Moving on back to Twilight, saying that someone wanted to run a Red Dawn > type setting. I think the list has shown well enough that doing it the way > Hollywood > did just wouldn't work. > What would you guys (both for and against the movie) set up to put > American > teen-agers into a combat situation where they'd have to fight a guerilla war > with > opposing forces? > Jim, more elaboration on the two scenarios and sub-scenarios that you > presented would be interesting too. > > Later. > > Jesse. > vanquer@email.msn.com Involve the US in another two prior wars or something along those lines, so the military is busy on the other side of the world. That I think would be a start. *************************************************************************** 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 21:43:06 -0800 (PST) From: GRAEBARDE Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) re: laws of war Were the nazi really concerned about the laws of war when it came to dealing with "partisans"? or the soviets? or the japaneese? I'm sure if the truth were know, there were incidents of the allies (american and commonwealth forces) not caring about laws of war at the moment of truth. The only thing dumber than war [no I'm NOT a dove] is the law of war.. in reality there are two laws of war: survive and win. It usually takes the second to be able to do the first against some forces. It's pesonal values that keep a "civil" person from committing "attrocities" on the battle field. After seeing a kid blow your buddy up you don't give a f**** if it's a soldier, dressed like a soldier, man, woman or child, you want to aveng your buddy.. When it comes down to it in the trenches you don't fight for the flag, you fight for you buddy.. not to let your buddy down. off the soap box fire when ready! ===== 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. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 21:43:48 -0800 From: "Jesse LaBranche" Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) > Isn't it terrible when someone asks you to put your money where your > mouth is? Heh. something that I think I am doing much more of these days it would seem. A couple of questions/problems... > Campaign setting - Teenage Freedom Fighters! > A hostile country decides to annex a small island country on which a > university campus resides. Rather than relive Grenada, the US sends in the > diplomats to sort it out - but the students have fled into the hinterlands > after the first acts of unbelievable cruelty. Any specific regions come to mind while you were writing this? Also, what would you consider the reasoning for the "unbelievable cruelty" in this scenario? > One NPC is required, a former serviceman (not a SpecFor please!) to > provide rudimentary training. Ideally he should be sick or disabled early, > perhaps in the initial breakout. Lol. First thing that came to my mind as soon as I read "One NPC is required" was a Green Beret as they are trained to instruct partisan forces, then the rest of your statement hit me :-) Okay, something along the lines of an ex-military history teacher, injured in the initial breakout might work out pretty well though, eh? > The island should be heavily populated and have a good relationship with > the kids facility, if the campus operated a clinic (provides an NPC doctor > and medical training) the populace may well hide the kids activities. The clinic makes a lot of sense to me. Are you suggesting the high populace so that it will be more difficult to figure out who is missing by taking a head count or for some other reason/s that I'm missing? > The invaders should be of a different ethnic type to the island > populace. Apparently for the purposes of helping the kids choose their targets more easily? > The campaign would be short, but when you're dead it was long enough! > The kids should have some sort of special intel that they should try to > get to the outside world, if the invaders know this they can step up their > efforts to eliminate the group. Lol. No concept that maybe if they are able to hold off long enough either a) Another military will be able to render aid, or b) They'll be able to get merc type help from elsewhere? > Possible variation. > A tourist resort is good for this, they are often islands. Perhaps the > mainland nation discovers a previously unavailable resource and sends in the > troops. On this note, what would be the purpose of a fight by the locals though? Also, in the same vein, doesn't an island seem to be a bit of a problem as it would be rather easy for a military group to "sweep" the island in a very short amount of time? For a "put your money where your mouth is" though, you did a great job on very short notice there :-) Jesse. vanquer@email.msn.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 21:44:32 -0800 (PST) From: GRAEBARDE Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Red Dawn was a nuclear war! __________________________________________________ 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 23:54:00 -0800 From: "Andrew Kolb" Subject: Some more questions This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0040_01BF86FE.13D67460 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable What weapon would be best for Mexican soldiers? How much starting money does a government agent get? If you were riding in a moving M113 APC would you be able to hear a = small single engine plane fly over at about 2000 feet? (Husky/Super Cub) Would a Canadian commando know how to make a primitive anti-personal = cluster bomb, that could be pushed out of the above mentioned plane? - ------=_NextPart_000_0040_01BF86FE.13D67460 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

What weapon would be best for Mexican soldiers?

How much starting money does a government agent get?

If you were riding in a moving M113 APC would you be able to hear a = small=20 single engine plane fly over at about 2000 feet? (Husky/Super Cub)

Would a Canadian commando know how to make a primitive anti-personal = cluster=20 bomb, that could be pushed out of the above mentioned=20 plane?

- ------=_NextPart_000_0040_01BF86FE.13D67460-- *************************************************************************** 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 21:47:53 -0800 From: "Jesse LaBranche" Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) > > Just an added point though, because I do get the feeling that you'll all > >blow the above question out of the water... How would YOU go about > >explaining the situation in Red Dawn in such a way that you would not be > >able to blow it out of the water just as easily? > I wouldn't. :) I just can't imagine anything plausible. And even _trying_ > something like that would risk a nuclear war. > Scott Orr Thus, you would have the same problem no matter how they attempted to create/explain such a scenario and thus either it should not have been done in the first place, or no attempt at reality should have been made? Not picking, just asking. Jesse. vanquer@email.msn.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: Sat, 4 Mar 2000 05:46:35 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: TW2K Items Available For Sale Ok people this is the list of the TW2K items in a local gaming store here in West Australia. The prices were the ones marked on each item when I checked them on the shelves and are in $Au. TW2K 1st Ed Box - $35 TW2K 2nd Ed - $27.10 Twilight Encounters Box - $35 Ruins of Warsaw - $12.10 US Army Vehicle Guide - $11 Going Home - $13.50 Free City of Krakow - $11 American Combat Vehicle Handbook - $18.40 Return to Warsaw - $11 Nautical / Aviation Handbook - $16 Pirates of Vistula - $11 Gateway to Spanish Main - $11 Allegheny Uprising - $13.20 Soviet Vehicle Guide - $13.20 Gazetteer - $21.60 Nato Vehicle Guide - $11 Armies of the Night - $11 Twilight Nightmares - $24.30 Heavy Weapons Guide - $11 You can get hold of the gaming shop by visiting the following web page. They do mail order stuff. http://www.valhallagames.com.au/ Oh and no I'm not getting a commission for passing this info on, although I probably should be claiming one :) Ballistix *************************************************************************** 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 21:53:50 -0800 From: "Jesse LaBranche" Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) > Jesse LaBranche wrote: > > Moving on back to Twilight, saying that someone wanted to run a Red Dawn > > type setting. I think the list has shown well enough that doing it the way > > Hollywood > > did just wouldn't work. > > What would you guys (both for and against the movie) set up to put > > American > > teen-agers into a combat situation where they'd have to fight a guerilla war > > with > > opposing forces? > > Jim, more elaboration on the two scenarios and sub-scenarios that you > > presented would be interesting too. > > Jesse. Peter Vieth wrote: > Involve the US in another two prior wars or something along those lines, so the > military is busy on the other side of the world. That I think would be a start. Wasn't the premise involved in that movie something along the lines of Europe already being engaged in war or something like that? (It has been awhile since I saw it). Jesse. vanquer@email.msn.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 01:05:05 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: u.s. defense spending [was Game settings (Red Dawn)] At 06:27 PM 3/5/00 -0800, Michael Cook wrote: > >some very good points scott, and the allocation >specifically for industrial uses is what is happening >now. the subsidies are still continuing in a lot of >areas, they are just more open now, and targeted right >at the industries themselves. i can't remember the >name of the govt organization that is involved in most >of the subsidies nowadays, but they are continuing. But the subsides on the whole are probably lower in the U.S. than in other industrialized countries, while our growth rates in recent years are higher. >the reason that the money was being routed through >defense spending with the use of the whole cold war / >red scare concoction, is that there is far less >accountability and questioning of the spending that >way. I think this is a very controversial thing to say--something that requires direct proof. All the evidence I've seen is that the money was given to defense because people were scared of the Communists. Defense industries didn't complain about this, and certainly encouraged it, but helping those industries wasn't the primary motivation of policy-makers. >there was a lot more objective questioning of >govt policy forty or fifty years ago than there is >now, so it was likely a lot easier and safer for the >policy makers to send the money through defense. There was more objective questions of government policy? By what standard? How would you explain things like McCarthy's Red Scare? That was an entire governemtn policy which was based on fabricated evidence that nobody could confirm when the check on it. In fact, I could even argue that it's harder to "hide" subsides in the defense budget now because there's _more_ objective questioning of govenrment policy--that is, just saying that it's "for defense" doesn't cut it anymore; people want details, and the details had better be good. >...and >it isn't necessarily limited to simply a subsidy, it >is in some cases likely a "clean" method of converting >public tax dollars back into money for the rich. i'm >not saying that that is/was the use of the money, i'm >just saying that it is one possible destination. It's one form of pork-barrel spending--like any such spending it tends to favor groups which spend money on lobbying, and also the districts of powerful legislators. It's no different from any other spending, though, and this being a democracy, most of it is above-board. >> 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. >> > >agreed, to a certain extent. but basic defense >spending does have a positive effect on the economy, >when used in moderation. Producing cotton candy and ice cream would have precisely the same effect (minus the skills training a lot of enlisted personnel get--but you could make it high-tech cotton candy and ice cream; for that matter, you could pour money into cotton candy and ice cream R&D). >with a population the size of >the united states, there is a sizeable percentage that >is superfluous for whom there really is little or >no work. with a large professional armed forces, you >provide employment for part of this population, >atleast for some of their life. base construction and >improvement fuels the construction / resource >industries in a similar fashion to prison construction >(i won't get into the related issues with that though) >- it's not huge, but is substantial. as does basic >supply contracts - food, clothing, etc. yes the >personnel would still be buying food/clothing/etc if >they weren't in the military, but it means you can >turn this all to a few large suppliers, and thus >increase job security for the workers of those >suppliers and profits for the owners of those >suppliers. etc etc. but yes, r&d is the main positive >effect of military spending. vietnam eventually had a >negative effect because it was a war, because it was >eating up manpower, supplies, and equipment faster >than the govt could really afford to replace them, and >by the end of the sixties was starting to be >increasingly disruptive to productivity at home, due >to civil disobedience, reduced manpower for factories, >rising resource prices and reduced college grads, etc. > Okay, two responses to this. First of all, there's no "superfluous" portion of the population. The potential number of jobs in a country is exactly equal to the number of employable people. The reason for this is that if eveyrone is working, everyone is producing something for everyone else and buying things from everyone else--and the more people you have, the more things need to be produced and bought. The idea that there's only a certain amount of work to be done in an economy is known by economists as the "lump of labor fallacy". Now it is true that problems in the economy (such as the economic policies in Europe which discourage hiring and firing employees and moving capital from one industry to another) can create long-term high unemployment. In such a situation, military spending could suck up unemployment (though this probably isn't the best long-term solution)--but since it's not producing anything useful, you could just as easily (in fact more easily) give the people the money to stay home (you could give them more, in fact, because you don't have to buy the expensive toys). Mind you, having a job keeps these people off the streets, and gets them into the habit of working, which makes them productive later on, but that's a different issue--see below. Better yet, you could have those people producing something useful, rather than just consuming, which is what the military does. If the money spent on all those industries you mentioned actually goes into productive investment, it's a gift that keeps on giving. Thus, the problem with Vietnam was simpler than what you mention: the problem was that, in essence, the money given to the military was spent and then flushed down the toilet. None of it was invested in anything that would improve the economy in the future. By contrast, some portion of money in private hands is always invested. All of the above being said, one thing the military can do is to take people who might previously be considered unemployable and give them training. But of course you don't have to use _defense_spending_ to do this. If you put the same amount of money in job-training programs, imagine what you'd accomplish. > >but i agree with you, too much defense spending is not >a good thing in the long run. one needs to look no >further than the soviet union. i think i read >somewhere that they were spending somewhere in the >realm of 20-30% of their GNP on their military. no >country can survive like that. > Indeed. >> 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. >> > >probably, but forty years ago that wouldn't have been >the case. Yes, it was the case. That's precisely why Eisenhower made such a big deal of drastically cutting defense spending--that was why he wanted to stress nuclear weapons, because they were cheaper. It was also true a few years earlier after WWII. In fact, you'll find that any time a country goes through a long war, the economy heats up at the begining of the war, but then starts to show signs of serious damage after a few years--if the war goes on very long, an economy will actually collapse (for example, Germany in WWI). >the initial development of the u.s. high >tech sectors is a direct result of military r&d. forty >years ago, how would you justify pouring billions and >billions of dollars into the development of high >technology? you'd have a huge outcry, with lots of >critics saying it was a money pit and so forth. so you >develop the industry through defense expenditures, >justifying it with the red scare. and i think (correct >me if i'm sadly mistaken here) the high tech sectors >have really been the only major growth sectors since >the end of the cold war. Well, here you get into arguing counterfactuals: are you sure that if the military hadn't put all that money into R&D, and let the private sector keep it, that the private sector wouldn't have put enough into R&D to make up for it? Keep in mind that the private-sector R&D, since it would be spent on more directly useful projects, would have been cheaper, and that only a small portion of defense spending was R&D; therefore, if private industry put even a fraction of the money saved on defense spending into high-tech R&D, it's quite conceivable you would have gotten the same advances you had historically, if not more. > >another huge r&d subsidy source was nasa. and it >wasn't just that either. the space exploration >component of it, and specifically the race to the >moon, provided an aim for american society, something >to capture the people's imagination and give them >something to work towards. Yes, and this is enough to justify it, without having to pretend that it was justified economically--economic spin-offs _reduced_ the effective cost, but from a purely economic standpoint the money would have been better spent on direct economic investments. >so for a time it also fed >the social 'economy' as well. this is something that >is totally lacking today, and is one of the strong >arguments for funding a drive to colonizing mars. of >course, today's economic situation means that such a >drive would likely cripple the american economy, >unless it was a drive taken in cooperation by all the >industrialized nations, which isn't going to happen. >we can hardly even cooperate long enough to get the >international space station built, let alone explore >mars and eventually build a self-sustaining population >there. but something needs to be done to fuel people's >minds, and capture their imaginations with something >other than cheap consumer goods. But that's not an _economic_ reason for doing it--at least in the short-term (anything less than hundreds of years), exploring the solar system, despite any spin-offs, would be a net economic loss, not a gain. 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: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 00:08:29 -0800 From: "Andrew Kolb" Subject: Re: A few newbie questions Thanks!!!!!:{) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0055_01BF8700.19C11FE0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Thanks every body!!! I appreciate the help! Andreew - ------=_NextPart_000_0055_01BF8700.19C11FE0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
    Thanks=20 every body!!!  I appreciate the help!
 
 
   =20 Andreew
- ------=_NextPart_000_0055_01BF8700.19C11FE0-- *************************************************************************** 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, 6 Mar 2000 17:05:09 +1100 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) >The only thing dumber than war [no I'm NOT a dove] is the >law of war.. in reality there are two laws of war: survive >and win. It usually takes the second to be able to do the >first against some forces. It's pesonal values that keep a >"civil" person from committing "attrocities" on the battle >field. After seeing a kid blow your buddy up you don't >give a f**** if it's a soldier, dressed like a soldier, >man, woman or child, you want to aveng your buddy.. When it >comes down to it in the trenches you don't fight for the >flag, you fight for you buddy.. not to let your buddy down. Thats absolutely true, and even though a lot of whitewash occurs about how the 'good' side won through virtue it's obvious that the side that killed a lot won. But . . . Laws of war are so incredibly vital it's hard to enumerate their many ramifications, I'll do the biggie though. Rules of Engagement, War Laws etc stop institutionalised war-murder. Everyone knew that the Nazi's where breaking the accepted law and it aided in the commitment that was shown against their forces. Soldiers know that they have to kill the enemy. When under stress they can blur the distinction of who the enemy is and this leads to 'atrocities'. Laws stop this from becoming a general principle, the soldier is aware he's done the wrong thing and if caught he'll be punished. It stops him taking out his angst against the civilian population, it stops the civilian population from becoming hopelessly alienated from the present military force. Soldiers are less likely to serve well in a war where no quarter is give (see chechnya), home support for a war where the captured soldiers are shot out of hand is likely to take a seesaw ride of fanatascism and hostility. Not good for extended campaigns. So while the reality out in the shattered cities may be different, the powers that be try and limit the killing to the approved channels. Jim *************************************************************************** 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 22:08:26 -0800 From: "Jesse LaBranche" Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) Graebarde wrote: > re: laws of war > Were the nazi really concerned about the laws of war when > it came to dealing with "partisans"? or the soviets? or the > japaneese? I'm sure if the truth were know, there were > incidents of the allies (american and commonwealth forces) > not caring about laws of war at the moment of truth. > The only thing dumber than war [no I'm NOT a dove] is the > law of war.. in reality there are two laws of war: survive > and win. It usually takes the second to be able to do the > first against some forces. It's pesonal values that keep a > "civil" person from committing "attrocities" on the battle > field. After seeing a kid blow your buddy up you don't > give a f**** if it's a soldier, dressed like a soldier, > man, woman or child, you want to aveng your buddy.. When it > comes down to it in the trenches you don't fight for the > flag, you fight for you buddy.. not to let your buddy down. This reminds me of something I saw once in a WW2 movie that I cannot remember anything else about or the name of, but a German officer was quoting someone and said: "There you stand with your laws and here I stand with my bayonet we shall see which prevails." Something else that always seems to bother me though is a great deal of the things brought up in the Geneva Convention... I have a lot of trouble with the concept that you're not allowed to use weapons causing "undue pain and suffering". On these lines, I recall that shotguns, glass, and frag weaponry was generally off-limits. What I keep wondering is what use are these types of regs and why are they still part of the code? I mean machineguns are used for clearing jungle...Shotguns to get rid of snakes...Frags to scare off animals... Is NBC warfare within, or outside, GC rules at this point? I will admit that the little bit of knowledge that I have on it is 15 years old and was something like 2 hours while in BASIC, but I do remember most of what we were told there. At the time it seemed like a mess of hogwash to me and I keep having trouble reconciling the intent of the code with the actions that I would expect of myself and others when put into such a conflict. Especially, if that conflict were "in my back yard". I guess I am wondering what the current rulings are (if anyone knows) and what everyone thinks of the individual rulings of the code. Something like "I agree with it fully" or "It sucks" is of no real use though. On a more T2kish note, how much do you think the code would be followed during WW3? Final note and I'll shut-up. I am asking for opinions and discussion here, but hoping that we can all avoid the potential "flammage" that such a discussion *could* become- so just as a pre-warning, please give responses to this thread some thoughts before responding so nobody steps on somebody else's toes- and if I have done so here, accept my apologies in advance. Jesse. vanquer@email.msn.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 01:15:13 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) At 09:43 PM 3/5/00 -0800, GRAEBARDE wrote: >re: laws of war > >Were the nazi really concerned about the laws of war when >it came to dealing with "partisans"? or the soviets? or the >japaneese? I'm sure if the truth were know, there were >incidents of the allies (american and commonwealth forces) >not caring about laws of war at the moment of truth. Well we were discussing legality, not how various forces had respected the laws in practice.... > >The only thing dumber than war [no I'm NOT a dove] is the >law of war.. in reality there are two laws of war: survive >and win. I think you'll have a very hard time finding a professional soldier (especially an officer) who agrees with that. Some of them are ruthless and just don't care, and a lot (even most) of them cut corners, but the laws of war are "laws" precisely because these are the things that everyone agrees you shouldn't do even to enemies--even if it decreases your own chances of survival. That is to say, these laws are _real_ and really affect human behavior in war. 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. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1999 #117 *************************************