twilight2000-digest Tuesday, March 7 2000 Volume 1999 : Number 123 The following topics are covered in this digest: Rank (was RE: Game settings (Red Dawn)) Re: Rank (was RE: Game settings (Red Dawn)) Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: Alternate setting (Long) Re: Alternate setting (Long) Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) Re: re:choppers Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) Re: Some more questions Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) RE: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: Laws of War Re: Some more questions RE: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 22:13:28 -0600 From: "Walter" Subject: Rank (was RE: Game settings (Red Dawn)) > I think in the RDF Sourcebook it points out that in the U.S. Army, there > are not in fact many privates--by the time someone is in an operational > unit, he or she is at least a Spec-4. If you use the tables for other > forces (esp. those in RDF Sourcebook), you do get some privates. > > Another thing to remember is that it's a long war, and most of the > characters involved have been in the military for a few years. This means > that there won't be many people of the lowest ranks around, if > only because > of automatic promotions for time in service. There are 4 kinds of promotions (that I can think of anyway) that are given under non-wartime conditions in the US Army. I don't recall the specific or official names for them so I'll just describe them as best I can. If I get any of the finer details wrong, hopefully someone will correct me. (1) Freebie Promotions. If you have like 15 college credits (or some number like that) you enter service as an E2. I think 30 gets you E3 and 60 credits gets you E4. Or something like that. If you have a bachelors degree in anything and went to the ROTC courses you can enter as an O1 (2nd Lt. Butter Bar). (2) Time in Service Promotions. After so many months in service, you automatically become elligible for promotion. It doesn't happen automatically, your company CO has to put in a piece of paper, but in today's Army of whiners it is basically automatic unless you have some dings on your record. If they don't give you a promotion and you complain to the IG, your CO can end up explaining to an IG inspector why you are being discriminated against. So what used to be at the CO's discretion is now de-facto an automatic promotion. I think the times are something like this: 6 mos time in service E2, 12 mos time in service E3, 24 mos time in service E4. E5 is NEVER automatic by any strech of the imagination that I ever heard of. I've seen guys sit at E4 the whole 4 years I was in. If your CO doesn't send you to a promotion board for E5, it ain't gonna happen. Period. And they don't have to answer to people on why they don't send you from what I understand. In addition to the Time in Service requirements, there was a 'time in grade' requirement as well. It said you had to be of the rank you currently hold for a certain amount of time. I can't recall anymore what those times were. (3) Time in Service Waiver Promotions. Each quarter our company (the HHC company in the Battalion) got alloted a single waiver to be used at the CO's discretion. The number of waivers a company got were proportional to the number of lower enlisted (E1-E4) slots in the units TOE. Thus people in an understrength unit MIGHT be promoted a little bit faster. Infantry units would get more waivers per quarter than us, because they have more people. This waiver could eliminate the Time in Service requirements in section 2 above, but I don't think they could bypass the time in grade requirements with this. (4) Field Grade Officer's Order. Any O6 (Full Bird Colonel) or above can promote people on the spot, on his/her word alone, up to E5 (I think it's E5 anyway). Then, any O7 or above (the Generals, otherwise known as 'God on earth') can promote people up to E7 on the spot. I believe E8 and above is reserved by Dept of the Army. Of course, if you got an O8 telling them to promote you, they can probably have the paperwork done in a matter of 3 or 4 seconds... Besides, your CO (any CO) can make you an 'acting' anything in his command. This gives you the privilege of wearing the rank and the authority of the rank temporarily. Of course, it can be recinded at will. I remember our B Company 1st Sergeant was an E7 for a long time. He had the job and the stripes, just not the pay check. In war time, I'm not really sure what the policies are since we were never actually engaged in any firefights or took any casulties (and it never occured to me to ask when I was over there). My guess is that they would simply use the 'acting promotions' (which aren't techinically promotions) on a larger scale. Then, over time, the real promotions would start to catch up to the people who were already wearing the stripes. A lower CO could simply send a letter up the chain of command to the Brigade CO (an O6 usually), who could then give the real promotions based on the letter of recommendation when they got a chance. Anyway, I hope this helps people decide what to do about promoting people and rank. Walter *************************************************************************** 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 23:48:23 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Rank (was RE: Game settings (Red Dawn)) At 10:13 PM 3/6/00 -0600, Walter wrote: >In war time, I'm not really sure what the policies are since we were never >actually engaged in any firefights or took any casulties (and it never >occured to me to ask when I was over there). My guess is that they would >simply use the 'acting promotions' (which aren't techinically promotions) on >a larger scale. Then, over time, the real promotions would start to catch >up to the people who were already wearing the stripes. A lower CO could >simply send a letter up the chain of command to the Brigade CO (an O6 >usually), who could then give the real promotions based on the letter of >recommendation when they got a chance. > In WWII (and the U.S. Civil War for that matter), because of the rapid expansion of the Army, a lot of officers held temporary ranks considerably higher than their permanent ranks (they may have gotten the paychecks too--I'm not sure)--and after the war, when the Army contracted, they went back to the permanent ranks. I'm sure the same must have been true of senior NCO's. 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: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 17:33:39 +1100 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) >Sorry Jim, > >Gotta side with Cor on this one. I think it was loonz who said awhile back >that the PLA Navy doesn't have the capability to support an amphibious >assault, let alone a decent blue water navy to make the transition. I think you guys have gotten a little out of the groove here. I meant to say that I don't think the Chinese, in fact anyone, could deal with the US navy. In fact, if you combined the Soviet (80's) navy and the Chinese they'd still get hammered. The only way to get across the puddle with transports is to eliminate the US navy, you can't even nuke them without going under. If the US went head to head with the Sovs in Europe and the Chinese tried to sneak an invasion force in it still wouldn't work. Why? Because the yanks have simply the largest and most advanced navy ever, and they're not stupid enough to enter a scenario where they'll lose that advantage. Especially considering the economic cost that their large fleet in being has cost them. 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: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 01:52:52 EST From: Damage169@cs.com Subject: Re: Alternate setting (Long) In a message dated 3/6/00 6:56:25 AM Central Standard Time, "Jesse LaBranche" writes: << I really sort of put myself into a jam and was hoping that you guys could help out with ideas. I have been running a Sci-fi game that draws heavily upon a historical era known as the "Corporate Wars" these were, in essence WW3 in an alternate universe. --snip-- I was hoping that I could give the basic premise of the wars, what the characters were, and the things that have already been established in my other campaign, and get some help from the list in "fleshing out" details for running this. Suggestions on which modules/resources would be good in gathering ideas would help too, since I have everything that I have ever seen in the way of T2K materials. - --snip-- >> The best resource I can recommend for this is the R. Talsorian rpg "Cyberpunk 2020." Leaving aside all the cyber hoohah, the game setting and world history are almost precisely what you've described, especially the last series of sourcebooks R. Tal published, entitled "Firestorm: Stormfront" and "Firestorm: Shockwave." These two game books describe in fair detail a corporate war conducted by two of the larger arms manufacturing and security contracting companies in the CP 2020 world, including the effects of the war on the "nonparticipating" corporations and general populace. The rpg is based on the use of 10-sided dice, so conversion to T2K 1st Edition percentile system should be fairly straightforward, especially since the basic books include some rules on "current" firearms (like the FN-FAL, M-16, Beretta M92, etc.) use in the Cyberpunk system. The books I would suggest you try to find are: The basic rule book The "Firestorm" series (there were to be three books publ, but only two have been so far) Maximum Metal (vehicles, power armor, etc.) The Chromebook Styleguides (equipment books, recently republ in two compilations) The Corporation Guidebooks (three books, each detailing two rival corporations) "Land of the Free" and "Home of the Brave" (two sourcebooks detailing the remains of the US after society has fallen on rough times) Morgan Blackhand's Streetguide to Weaponry (guns, guns, guns and, oh, yes, guns) "Edge of the Sword" (this is not a Cyberpunk book, but is instead a compilation of modern weaponry, up to and including light rockets and mortars, described in game terms, with conversion notes for about twenty game systems in the back, including T2K) I hope this can be of some help. Simon Jester *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 18:11:05 +1100 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: Alternate setting (Long) >The best resource I can recommend for this is the R. Talsorian rpg "Cyberpunk >2020." Leaving aside all the cyber hoohah, the game setting and world history >are almost precisely what you've described, especially the last series of >sourcebooks R. Tal published, entitled "Firestorm: Stormfront" and >"Firestorm: Shockwave." >Simon Jester I actually use this for my game exclusively, I only use GDWs T2K for source material. I prefer it over the original rules, the combat is more realistic if you allow for a lot of COOL rolls. I do go on about this every time someone mentions it though! 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: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 02:44:53 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) At 05:33 PM 3/7/00 +1100, Jim & Peta Lawrie wrote: > I think you guys have gotten a little out of the groove here. I meant to >say that I don't think the Chinese, in fact anyone, could deal with the US >navy. In fact, if you combined the Soviet (80's) navy and the Chinese they'd >still get hammered. Actually, I think someone counted heads, and if you put all the navies in the world other than the USN together, they'd be less powerful than the USN. That's scary. 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: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 00:00:19 -0800 From: "Corey Wells" Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) > At 07:13 PM 3/6/00 -0800, Corey Wells wrote: > > > >I had a thought, well, maybe two: Does one have to be concerned with the > >Rules of War (ala the GC) if something isn't officially a war? How about > >War Crimes? I know that Crimes Against Humanity don't have to take place > >within the idea of a war, but what about the other things that don't exactly > >qualify as Crimes Against Humanity. If there's no war, is there a crime? > > > If you have uniformed combatants, it's officially considered a war, I believe. > > Scott Orr Ah, see, there's the question. Is that an international rule? Because, for the US, it isn't an official war unless it's ratified by congress. My question came about from a situation involving peacekeepers. You have an ethnic motivated civil war, and a third party peacekeeping force that doesn't have much power. Until recently, nothing had happened involving the peacekeepers. But then the situation flares up, with the PKs in the middle. Now, I'd believe that probably one of the rules for an International PK force is adherence to general rules of war, and probably the GC. But, what if it wasn't a peacekeeping force as such. What if it was just a third party that got stuck in the middle. It's not their war, so do they need to follow the rules, even if they commonly do during their wars? As a note about uniforms, often in civil wars, one side doesn't have uniforms. They may try to implement some sort of uniform, but usually wear whatever they have. Like our guerillas. So you'll find a motley collection of outfits in such a situation. Does that mean then that it's not a war? I understand, that to the common person, any major conflict would seem to be a war. But I think by definition in diplomacy, a war requires one side to declare against another. Otherwise, it's just a conflict, or sometimes just an incident. Remember, Korea wasn't a war, it was a Police Action (whatever that means...) 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: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 00:07:40 -0800 From: "Corey Wells" Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) > I think you guys have gotten a little out of the groove here. I meant to > say that I don't think the Chinese, in fact anyone, could deal with the US > navy. In fact, if you combined the Soviet (80's) navy and the Chinese they'd > still get hammered. > The only way to get across the puddle with transports is to eliminate > the US navy, you can't even nuke them without going under. If the US went > head to head with the Sovs in Europe and the Chinese tried to sneak an > invasion force in it still wouldn't work. > Why? Because the yanks have simply the largest and most advanced navy > ever, and they're not stupid enough to enter a scenario where they'll lose > that advantage. Especially considering the economic cost that their large > fleet in being has cost them. > Jim > I understood, Jim. I was just taking down a notch and saying that even if we didn't have our Navy to stop them, Chinese still couldn't carry out an amphibious invasion. Not enough ships to get enough troops here. We'd see them coming long enough to establish a nice, warm, welcoming committee for them :-) Even without the Navy, we'd have enough advance warning to decimate their transit fleet using just our Airforce. 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: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 04:06:15 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) At 12:00 AM 3/7/00 -0800, Corey Wells wrote: > >> If you have uniformed combatants, it's officially considered a war, I >believe. >> >> Scott Orr > > >Ah, see, there's the question. Is that an international rule? Yes. >Because, for >the US, it isn't an official war unless it's ratified by congress. You're confusing two different things (though quite understandably): the laws of war apply any time there are uniformed combatants involved, regardless who did or didn't declare war on whom or even regalrdess of whether it's international or a civil war. For these purposes, the term "war" means something different than the term "war" in the U.S. Constitution. >My >question came about from a situation involving peacekeepers. You have an >ethnic motivated civil war, and a third party peacekeeping force that >doesn't have much power. Until recently, nothing had happened involving the >peacekeepers. But then the situation flares up, with the PKs in the middle. >Now, I'd believe that probably one of the rules for an International PK >force is adherence to general rules of war, and probably the GC. > All the forces are bound by the rules, regardless of whom they're engaged with. >But, what if it wasn't a peacekeeping force as such. What if it was just a >third party that got stuck in the middle. It's not their war, so do they >need to follow the rules, even if they commonly do during their wars? > Well I think the rules sa that you treat neutrals (forces that aren't party to the conflict) in a different way--but once you start shooting people, they're no longer neutrals. In the latter sense, it's okay to shoot a peacekeeper, but not a third-party civilian. But yes, everyone has to follow the rules. >As a note about uniforms, often in civil wars, one side doesn't have >uniforms. They may try to implement some sort of uniform, but usually wear >whatever they have. Like our guerillas. So you'll find a motley collection >of outfits in such a situation. Does that mean then that it's not a war? > If they're making an effort to make themselves recognizable as combatants, so that you can tell them apart from the civilains, taht's enough--even if it's just armbands or what have you. If they don't do that, no, they aren't uniformed combatants, but rather common criminals. You don't have to treat them as POW's, or any niceties like that. >I understand, that to the common person, any major conflict would seem to be >a war. But I think by definition in diplomacy, a war requires one side to >declare against another. Otherwise, it's just a conflict, or sometimes just >an incident. Remember, Korea wasn't a war, it was a Police Action (whatever >that means...) > But the rules still did apply (otherwise you open some huge loopholes). 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: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 02:08:09 -0800 From: "Corey Wells" Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) > > You're confusing two different things (though quite understandably): the > laws of war apply any time there are uniformed combatants involved, > regardless who did or didn't declare war on whom or even regalrdess of > whether it's international or a civil war. For these purposes, the term > "war" means something different than the term "war" in the U.S. Constitution. > But, for the US, that's all that matters... Anything else is just a matter of international diplomacy. We only might care what our bigger allies think (and sometimes, we ignore them as well.) > > > > Well I think the rules sa that you treat neutrals (forces that aren't party > to the conflict) in a different way--but once you start shooting people, > they're no longer neutrals. In the latter sense, it's okay to shoot a > peacekeeper, but not a third-party civilian. But yes, everyone has to > follow the rules. > But I would think that a bit strict. So, as a neutral, I don't have the right to shoot BACK at someone when their shooting at me? I'd still like to maintain my neutrality in the conflict, but I'm being shot at. Damn straight I'm going to shoot back, and to hell with international "rules" about POWs... I'm not in a war, so they are not prisoner's of war. And such an issue has come up often in the last half of the century, usually involving US servicemen. Remember; in Somalia, Bosnia, and a few others (can't come up with them, but I bet the case can be made for Viet Nam as well, at least from the Vietnamese perspective) we weren't at war, even though we were fighting. So, the captured scouts weren't considered a prisoners of war, even though we tried to get it declared that they were.. Considering that, they were treated fairly well... Not as well as we would have liked, but a lot better than they could have been. > > >I understand, that to the common person, any major conflict would seem to be > >a war. But I think by definition in diplomacy, a war requires one side to > >declare against another. Otherwise, it's just a conflict, or sometimes just > >an incident. Remember, Korea wasn't a war, it was a Police Action (whatever > >that means...) > > > But the rules still did apply (otherwise you open some huge loopholes). > > Scott Orr But this begs the question of a civil war. Though they fit the definition of war as presented my Webster's, they often don't by way of International Relations. The involved government often calls it an insurgency. That's why rebels aren't given the latitude as an opposing army might. Think about it a bit. By your definition of uniforms, and we can throw in something about there needing to be two nations involved, then the Montana Freemen were an opposing army, and the actions there were a war (okay, only when shots are fired...) I can get enough people together, put uniforms on, declare Sacramento an independant State. The government then must follow the "rules" of war when dealing with me. And what rules are out there? The only written ones I know about are the GC. I'd be surprised if there isn't anything in them covering declarations. As it is, most International rules are unwritten, but followed by a long standing tradition of mutual cooperation. That's a basis of diplomacy. Before the GC, it was a "rule" that a country must declare war, formally, before attacking. In fact, that was part of the deal with Japan and Pearl Harbor. Now, unless it's in the GC, I'd wager that it's an unwritten rule. So, if the is no law written down, it only goes as far as a mutual interpretation will allow it. And then, it can only be implemented if there is a force big enough to enforce it. Usually, it's only the losers that get into trouble. That's why the US doesn't want there to be an independent, international court overseeing war crimes. We don't want our soldiers being held accountable to anyone but us. 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: Tue, 07 Mar 2000 21:30:51 EST From: "Peter Grining" Subject: Re: re:choppers >From: "Fugitivus" >Reply-To: twilight2000@lists.imagiconline.com >To: >Subject: Re: re:choppers >Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 03:32:03 -0600 > >some interesting stuff on this page. > >aaron > > > 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 Cheers aaron, further updates have stalled as I've been concentrating on Harpoon stuff and working out PBEM mechanics for a near future Merc:2000 campaign. Need more PBEM experience. Any game going that require players? Peter ______________________________________________________ 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: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 10:54:31 -0000 From: "Mark Oliver" Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) - ----- Original Message ----- From: Scott David Orr To: Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 3:38 AM Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) <<< If you have uniformed combatants, it's officially considered a war, I believe. >>> There has to be a declaration of war for it to be "officially" a war. For example the Argentinian invasion of the Falkland Islands was not a war, it was a "conflict". As for what the differences are between a "war" and a "conflict" I really couldn't answer. Part of it must lie in the fashion in which the battle was waged. During the Falklands conflict the UK didn't strike at Argentina itself (though plans were apparently in the offing) and did limit itself to attacks on Argentinian units within the exclusion zone (with the possible exception of the Belgrano, I know it was leaving the zone but can't recall if it had left when it was sunk). A "war" would have been more unlimited with strikes being made at Argentine itself and any Argentinian unit being a target. Perhaps a "conflict" has limited aims. Anyhow from a "war crimes" point of view I do believe that the Falklands could still be considered. Within the last couple of years the UK police did travel to the Falklands to investigate alledged war crimes committed by UK forces. If those claims did have basis whether those soldiers would have been tried for war crimes of something else is an unanswered question. Certainly the soldiers were expected to adhere to the rules of war. In Northern Ireland UK soldiers have not been convicted of war crimes as there was not a war, what soldiers have been convicted and imprisoned with was "regular" murder or man-slaughter. In those cases I also believe that the soldiers were convicted under civil rather than military law. So regardless of whether the nation who is responsible for the guilty solders percieves itself at war or not the rules of war must be followed and the solders will be held accountable. Regards, Mark *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 11:11:10 -0000 From: "Mark Oliver" Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) - ----- Original Message ----- From: Scott David Orr To: Sent: Tuesday, March 07, 2000 2:30 AM Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) <<< I think the feelings of Chile were critical here: especially since the whole deal that alowed a transition to democracy depended on him not being tried. >>> Protection of Chiles democracy was not the reason given for his release by certain politicians in the UK, Margaret Thatcher being a prime example. Pinochets support of the UK was seen as sufficient reason to justify his release and denial of the extradition request. The UK Government tried hard to stick within the law and may well have found a legal excuse to release him while hiding the real reason of protecting Chiles democracy. Had Thatcher been in power we might have seen the same legal excuse produced but with the real agenda being Pinochets support in the early 80's, then again knowing Thatcher maybe she woudn't have bothered with the excuse. Anyhow the point of this is that there is no hard definition of "war crimes" or "crimes against humanity". Being on the "right" side at the right time will excuse all manner of terrible actions and attrocities. In the T2K world you might find that the remains of the US Military would turn a blind eye to any "war crimes" comitted by US solders struggling to get out of Poland after the battle of Kalisz. More importantly the players might be ordered to assist a war lord who has perpertrated human rights abuses simply becuase that war lord is offering support to the US forces in Europe. Regards, Mark *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 02:59:22 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Some more questions I think if my memory serves me correctly with my military aviation history, that the very first bomb dropped by an aircraft was either a mortar round or a grenade. It was dropped in WW1 by an allied pilot I think. 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: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 03:20:30 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) Man I like to throw spanners in the works :) > > You're confusing two different things (though quite understandably): the > > laws of war apply any time there are uniformed combatants involved, > > regardless who did or didn't declare war on whom or even regalrdess of > > whether it's international or a civil war. For these purposes, the term > > "war" means something different than the term "war" in the U.S. > Constitution. So what does the US consider a war???. I think they still consider Vietnam a conflict don't they?....I wonder when they'll accept that it was a war... > (and sometimes, we ignore them as well.) only sometimes??? > > Well I think the rules sa that you treat neutrals (forces that aren't > party > > to the conflict) in a different way--but once you start shooting people, > > they're no longer neutrals. In the latter sense, it's okay to shoot a > > peacekeeper, but not a third-party civilian. But yes, everyone has to > > follow the rules. Well it's not ok to shoot a peacekeeper...The truth is that the peacekeeper can only shoot at you if (and this is normal australian roe's) the enemy fires upon you first, or you are defending yourself or another person from harm. Similar to the self defence ruling, although warnings have to be given that your about to shoot. 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: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 08:46:53 -0500 From: "Garcia, Abel" Subject: RE: Game settings (Red Dawn) >-----Original Message----- >From: Ballistix >it would be >relatively >easy to start having people enter the country as immigrants. At 08:24 PM 3/6/00 -0500, Garcia, Abel wrote: >1.) This would be more difficult than might appear on the surface. The US does >control immigration and our internal spy agency (FBI) does a pretty good job >spying on non-US citizens. One of the most recent unsung victories of the >FBI was catching middle eastern agents (terrorists) before they even reached >America by turning them in to the French and British government authorities; >this was in conjunction of the President's bombing of so called "Terrorist >Training Bases" in the middle east a little over a year ago. >2.) This is perhaps the same reason that Chinese spying was "allowed" to >continue for so long at Los Alamos: to catch other spies. Los Alamos has a >lot of history, but it is no longer the leading R&D house for nuke >technology; and if you know who the spy is you can control what he "learns" >AND if you then turn around and "allow" US companies (like *THE* Company) >sell the Chinese so called missile technology then maybe, just maybe, you >can nullify the effectiveness of their missiles... >3.) When the President relented on selling the "PDG" scrambling technology >abroad it wasn't just because it was on the internet and across the globe >already -it was because the US government has "cracked" this now obsolete >technology. From: Scott David Orr What's your evidence for this? Point one above about the FBI's successful interdiction were from detailed follow up news stories about that terrorist leader based in Afghanistan; apparently all the agents had one common error on their phony passports that could be communicated abroad (the stories would not reveal the error.) Point two is just common knowledge of counter spy operations; The US still has not arrested the Chinese Los Alamos researcher. The CIA is not gathering more evidence against him (heck the probably won't even try him) the are watching his contacts. Point three is simply deductive reasoning. If the US is constantly upgrading their technology for secure communication and they were vehemently opposed to _PDG_ and now are not, but in fact encouraging it's export, well it stands to reason that they either "figured it out" or more likely pressured its creator (IRS?) to reveal his backdoors for the sake of "National Security". Abel 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. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 06:45:36 -0800 From: "Jesse LaBranche" Subject: Re: Laws of War > > > You're confusing two different things (though quite understandably): > the > > > laws of war apply any time there are uniformed combatants involved, > > > regardless who did or didn't declare war on whom or even regalrdess of > > > whether it's international or a civil war. For these purposes, the term > > > "war" means something different than the term "war" in the U.S. > > Constitution. > So what does the US consider a war???. I think they still consider Vietnam > a conflict don't they?....I wonder when they'll accept that it was a war... > Ballistix I don't know enough of the "technicalities" to really go in-depth enough to explain this to you, but I will give it a try with my knowledge. When the US enters a conflict (be it Police-action, War, whatever) the overall results will be the same for the country that we enter, except of course whether we win it or not apparently. The "difference" between these acts are technical within the makeup of the Constitutional, Federal, and Military code. Part of it is who's in charge of making policy and what can be done. So, to you and me something like Korea or Viet Nam was a war- but there are technical differences within our own legal frameworks that had to make a distinction. Hope that helped some. 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: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 06:46:27 -0800 From: "Jesse LaBranche" Subject: Re: Some more questions > I think if my memory serves me correctly with my military aviation > history, that the very first bomb dropped by an aircraft was either > a mortar round or a grenade. It was > dropped in WW1 by an allied pilot I think. > Ballistix It was a grenade IIRC. 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: Tue, 7 Mar 2000 08:02:02 -0600 From: "Kevin O'Dell" Subject: RE: Laws of War (Was game settings, then Red Dawn :-) <> > >I had a thought, well, maybe two: Does one have to be concerned with the > >Rules of War (ala the GC) if something isn't officially a war? How about > >War Crimes? I know that Crimes Against Humanity don't have to take place > >within the idea of a war, but what about the other things that don't exactly > >qualify as Crimes Against Humanity. If there's no war, is there a crime? > > > If you have uniformed combatants, it's officially considered a war, I believe. Wasn't Vietnam and Korea both considered Police actions? Both had military forces there. If it was later declared a war would the men who fought and did war crimes, would they be eligible for standing trial or would the fact that they happened before it was called a war make a difference? *************************************************************************** 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 #123 *************************************