Compared to plague-ridden overcrowded sprawls like New York, and most European cities, they are.

People with rights tend to have more pull when they complain about living conditions, and people who are monitored 24/7 have little defence about getting found out, taken aside and shot. (refering to disease control)
I'm hazy about VITAS fluff, but what if there were no infected there?

Well, a camp that no-one wants to go near might be bad IF it gets infected, but the infection might never get there. Also, magical healing might work against a disease even if it stumps classical scientists.

I think there just has to be a suspension of disbelief that the camps were not affected by VITAS. Because yeah,with those kinds of living conditions, all it would have taken was the even the slightest exposure.

edit: someone beat me to it.

Sure, why not, I mean they did so good against "guns, germs and steel" the first time, I'm sure they'd look forward to a rematch.

Yeah, yeah, responding twice to the same post, I know. But I had to think about the second part for a while.

From an economic standpoint, parts of Canada should be literal gold mines for the NAN. The Alberta oil sands, North America's answer to Saudi Arabia, would be in NAN hands. And fossil fuels are still a big part of the energy supply even in the 2070s. Similarly, very lucrative potash (fertilizer for the world), gold and diamond mines are in Saskatchewan, Northwest Territories and Nunavut. These are currently and would continue to be in the 2070s huge sources of wealth for the government and people through taxes and royalties.

An egregious oversight in the balkanization of N. America is that Québec stayed all in one piece. A huge chunk of it, if the Ghost Dance would actually do what the fluff says, would be taken back by the Cree. Specifically, the chunk that has all the hydro-electric dams that supply electricity to a lot of the northeast of the continent. If the oil sands were to go, this would go too.

Probably the following belongs in another thread, but a strong argument could be made that a more successful go of independence would be made by Ontario than by Québec, for all the language and culture rhetoric.

Well, the Maya and the Inuit are back to the numbers they had before the arrival of Europeans. In Canada anyway, the birthrate among First Nations peoples is way above the national average. Maybe the 'rematch' is already underway.

Well on a more serious note some Mexicans are into the native ancestry thing. We have approx 20 million illegal aliens in the USA now, and about 10% of our population is immigrants from south of the boarder. If you include Mexicans with native ancestry into the native American #s well then 20 million fluffs that 1% quite a bit. So even without time traveling Aztecs you can have a decent native population to start with.

Or people that would be more than willing to shoot their former white boss in the face in exchange of a new gonvernment where he/she would have a voice.

I was speaking specifically about the Aztec, but most if not all first nations were badly hurt by the introduction of European diseases, and technology.

All would be about right; even the most conservative estimates put the death toll from European diseases at greater than 75% of the native North American population. Though to be fair, there isn't evidence that much of it was done deliberately.

Another thing about the population numbers though, I believe today that NA heritage is considered to be 1/4 or higher - I doubt that was the standard that the new NAN held, so you are potentially looking at a much much larger population base.

Quebec got away with because the Balkanization Recipe basically calls for any "oppressed" "conquered peoples" to "rise again". And Quebec is that for Canada; or at least the one foreigners actually know about. The same reason the NAN didn't pop up in the CAS; they already had a different "rise again" thing going on.

Shadows of Europe makes this even more obvious.

I'm just thinking about the U.S. typical response to threats, or acts of violence. A couple nuts flew 4 planes into 3 buildings and a field, and the U.S. didn't surrender. It leveled 2 other countries, one of which had NOTHING to do with the incident in question. So I don't exactly see surrender being an option of choice if the GGD happened. The pressure against the native populations would have increased exponentially, possibly resulting in either an accidental or intentional genocide, but NOT the surrender of over 1/2 of North America.

Do you mind keeping the racism and lying down and the spelling correct?

having volcanoes suddenly appear in heavily populated cities? yea I think we'd probably break out the biological and chemical weapons if nukes didn't work (which is the biggest pile of BS) and conventional weapons were not enough. I have a hard time with suspension of belief on conventional weapons not being adequate. Tanks and artillery don't care about storms. cruise missiles don't care about weather, and fighter jets travel so fast and have so much power that any possible weather they can blast through and not notice much.

I can buy balkinization. I can't buy genocidal balkinization were its small groups breaking off from the main part of USA. And as evidence of what happens when a group tries to leave the union, even peacefully, look at the US war of northern aggression. They destroyed the south for leaving and murdered civilians and even had a razed earth strategy, Sherman's March.

You mean the Civil War to preserve the union? Against the side that repeatedly said in public, 'this war is about our right to own humans'?

I think that may be simplifying the causes of the conflict a little too much.

Well would you rather me post a dissertation? I'd rather not take us off topic. Simplifying things doesn't change the basic point I was trying to make.

And who are you quoting on that? Putting quotes one a statement you make does not make it true. I could easily say no I mean the War of Northern Aggression started by the side that said repeatedly in public 'this war is to murder and destroy those who won't sell us cotton and other raw materials for a cheep cheep price'. But I will not do it because its a faulty show of evidence and it further sidetracks the thread.

Here is a point where simplifying is worse than posting nothing at all.

May I kindly point out that political discussions not directly related to shadowrun are against the TOS. If you would care to discuss the causes of a war which has little if anything to do with the SR timeline using such politically charged overtones, might I suggest finding a more appropriate forum?

perhaps; but of late I have less patience for misuse of quotes and the like when arguing.

<- Born in Connecticut. Agrees with Daylen. Thinks "War of Northern Aggression" is the correct term. Flees that part of the discussion.

There really are two basic issues. (Look! Over there!)
1) It seemed like a good idea in the 80's. It's really hard to look at a current sourcebook with 2010 eyes and not wonder what people were smoking. We look at the NAN in terms of Terrorism because Terrorism is the conflict of today. But the foundation for all of this was laid during the end of the Cold War.
We look at politics with eyes that have seen Clinton, Bush, and Obama, judging source material written after 8 years of Reagan. We're looking at Apple II GS material with iPhone eyes.

2) We're trying to be realistic with a fantasy world. At some point, something is going to make someone go "huh?". There is bound to be "the least believable material" somewhere in the book. Maybe it's the NAN. Maybe it's that a Dragon can be elected president by people who hate elves and dwarves. Maybe it's Buttercup. Maybe it's Berlin. Whatever it is, there's something that's going to make less sense then everything else.

There's no way a conversation that turns towards the American Civil War is going to (a) end well, and (b) avoid turning political. I've had many, many, more than my fair share of such conversations in places much more civil and supposedly-professional than Dumpshock (I'm talking national academic conferences, here), and seen it happen a dozen times.

Let's just pretend the last half dozen posts weren't ever made, huh, gang? Nothing good can come of this. Let's just squelch that line of conversation before the mods have to come in and shut down a 30 page thread over it.

Am I missing something? Why would a city need suspension of belief?

At first, I'm inclined to agree, but I kind of find myself wondering if there may have been some kind of under-the-table alliance between Separatist elements in Quebec and the SAIM once it became clear that the Natives had a real shot at doing something. Don't take any of Quebec and we won't participate against you, which takes out a huge chunk of the Canadian system from the Anglo side of the fight. Instead of an oversight, maybe it's a key piece of the geopolitical puzzle of the Ghost Dance War upheaval.

2015 - Anarchy Version I - tear down the city. Drive everyone else to wall you in.
2023 - Anarchy Version II - burn down the city that you tore down 8 years ago.
2038 - Anarchist Paramedics - save the people who burned down and then tore down the city because no one cares (because everyone else is on the OTHER side of the wall).
2058 - The corporate invasion. "Bugs! Bugs! Trust the organized people with guns who are shooting at you! We're here to help. Bugs!"
(Seriously, what was left in Berlin at that point that made it worth invading?)
2060 - The anarchists sign a treaty with the corporations. Apparently the anarchists have someone in charge who can sign a treaty.

The suspension of disbelief is required to believe that there's a city even standing there.

I'm not sure. After all, the Allied Forces certainly tried to bomb and burn down everything in Berlin, and there was still stuff worth fighting over.

Same could be said of London as well, only on the Axis side. Well, OK, German. I don't think the Italians tried much after their biplanes were shot down during the Battle of Britain.

For the record, I didn't quote anything at all. I paraphrased. If you want the reference, I could provide it, but I certainly did nothing that could qualify as 'misuse' or 'faulty evidence'.

I vote for the President Dunkelzahn as the most crazy. Iconically awesome, though.

Have you ever read the "Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union" that the government of SC issued to justify it's secession? http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp

Look at the issues it focused on.

As Critias posted before:


4. Discussion of politics, religion, and sex are prohibited, except as they directly pertain to Shadowrun or another game. Discussions on these subjects will be watched closely, and any innapropriate posts may result in warnings or suspensions.

Is the Secession letter from South Carolina that started the Civil War really Politics? Or is it firmly in the grounds of history?

Since you can't discuss the letter without getting into politics, does it really matter? And comments not meant to lead to discussion are rather pointless.

You cant' talk about the Civil War without going into politics? in 2010? REALLY?

And given that the South seceded again in the Shadowrun timeline, AND the NAN take over of 60% of the North American Landmass. I think that it's a perfectly valid point to bring up when talking about the reasons for the NAN secession.

The US claims not to have biological or chemical weapons past the ammounts needed for defensive research (ie just enough to test how effective counter agents are) which is why we have a policy that any WMD justifies the use of a nuke. Nukes = Chem = Bio.

With the the bulk of the ICBM silos in the area's claimed by the NAN, and the uncertainty over how magic can stop conventional attacks, or even bombers and sub launched missiles, the US has to consider the NAN demands.

I think another possible polarizing issue would be Red state vs Blue state (don't ask me which is which, I can never remember). If the voters in the areas that are due to be surrendered are primarily from "the other" political party. It doesn't cost the current political leadership as much, in fact they get to spare their politcal base from the effects of a long and costly war, on American soil, by taking all the people who are from the opposition and shunting them off into another country. All you need is a pen to redraw the border.

That seems very in theme, a corrupt, desperate government taking the easiest road to preserve their own political power. Add in corporate lobby groups that advocate balkinization as a way to increase the relative power of their respective corps and now you have a weak political leadership grabbing onto whatever hope they can find of retaining power.

/boggle

I saw a fistfight almost break out in one of my grad school PolSci Civil War classes over similar issues - we had to wrestle the two guys to the ground to get them to stop. While that level of response may be a little over the top, as Critias said, even at national level academic conferences, screaming matches breaking out are not that uncommon.

So yes, many people still consider this to be a relevant political topic.

And they're wrong; the issue is settled. Silly people.

Today, we can argue about the NAN secession, though. I still think 'magic scary' is plenty of reason for me. *shrug*

They also gave up a good deal of land that didn't do much for the NAN- or at least the Ute. Then again, the Ute weren't very good at administration.

Shave off some serious drain on the resources and keep their major population centers (except CalFree, but who cares about them?) and leave the grasslands and desert as the home of the braves.

You also have the camps to think about - those type of things really sap American political will. Add in a corrupt government that the people don't trust, and a potential war on American soil, fear of magic, and I don't think many politicians would have felt secure enough in their support to advocate WMD use or even sending in the troops.

I don't think any politician would ever advocate a nuclear strike on their own soil.

I think that the US started schlepping their nukes out of the Midwest after Lone Eagle, though - and I wouldn't be surprised if world leaders were quietly talking to one another about their deterrence options failing around that time.

I don't know how feasable that would be. ICBM's are not the easiest things to transport. They are fueled with horrifically toxic chemicals. They are easy to break with lateral stresses. You would need specialized equiptment just to get them out of the silos.

Even if you get the nukes out, where are you going to put them? And who is going to pay for all this? Remember the government is in a fiscal shambles.

They would be faced with many of the problems that the Russians were faced with in the 90's. An enormous stockpile of weapons that they can't afford to maintain, decomission, or move to a secure location. Abandoning them in place sucks, but at least the people that will be taking them over are sort of greenish treehuggers.

I guess it's my turn to /boggle140
Up in the North, we kinda think of the civil war as.. done and over almost 150 years ago.
But I'm an immigrant so I don't have a visceral reaction to it.

Also, remember most of those ICBM's are built for hitting Russia/China. They cant' fly up and come back down only 200 miles away.
I suspect the answer is more of. Seal the Silos, cripple the hardware and get out.
The Weather wasn't really the big issue with the NAN.. it was the volcanoes popping up out of nowhere.

Was it still the US by then or had it become the UCAS already?
Either way, when faced with recovering from the first VITAS out break that made the black plague look like a common cold, and then the return of magic, and the NAN's surprising knowledge and expertise compared to the just bubbling up Hermetic mages that the Government could find and was still very skeptical about.

The NAN had not suffered from the VITAS outbreak. So, even though the Indian population was only 1% tops, almost 1/2 of the US/UCAS population had died by then. They probably were afraid to wage a land war in the continental United States against a foe of unknown strength. Add to that the North/South unrest. I dunno, the United States has shown a tenacity when sneak-attacked that makes me doubt the outcome.

On the topic of Missile Silos, how hard it is to move missiles out, etc. etc.

They make nice homes: http://www.missilebases.com/ Be sure to click on the "Properties for sale" link on the left of the site.

The whole "Nukes in Silos" bit is really Cold War. They're about as current as Commodore 64s. About the best use for a missile silo in Shadowrun is as a privately owned site. The nice thing is that location and plans are available, both for the GM and for the hackers.

Stop it right now! Understand?

Awesome link... thanks. Talk about your secret base from which to plan the conquest of the world! Mwahahahahahaaaa.

Hmm. In that context, I'd say they'd trash the rockets and the computers, and schlep the fissile material to their 'secured' bunkers Back East, perhaps around Aberdeen way. Squatters can bust into the silos and start breaking the rocketry down to resell as scrap or as walls and roofs for their shantytowns.

Rockets are cheap. Warheads, now they're expensive.

The problem would be removing the warheads quickly as the NAN Magician-assisted army of pissed off AmerIndians come down the stairway. Something about getting revenge or some such. Can't fathom why.

Ha! No kidding. However, I'd figure on the NANnies to be telling the white man to take his poison back to his homeland, and keep it out of theirs.