Long term consequences of the League's collapse

Weird Harold wrote:

Zakharra wrote:You're ignoring that one of the points of the Harrington Doctrine IS the use of military force if the GA/Manticore deems it necessary.

The Harrington Doctrine is an alternative to military force.

The GA will use military force against those systems that are perceived as a THREAT, not just systems that don't like them. The Silesian Confederacy as a whole or its individual parts did not like Manticore, but they were never a threat. In most cases, I would expect military force to be used to honor a mutual defense agreement -- and that mostly a threat of force to remind an aggressor that there is a mutual defense treaty and the GA will honor it.

/facepalm. You really are missing it aren't you? The Harrington Doctrine includes military action if diplomacy doesn't work. It's not just diplomacy and economics. Those are a huge part of the Harrington Doctrine,e but they aren't the only aspects of the HD. It has three parts, basically. Economic and diplomatic as carrots to form good relations and ties; economically so it fosters prosperity(and incidentally gives the MMM a grip on the shipping) and diplomatically for treaties, trade agreements, mutual defense pacts and such: and the military as the stick if diplomacy doesn't work.

As I understand it, the Silesian Confederacy no longer exists. It was split between the Andermani Empire and SKM and as far as I know, no longer exists as a political entity.

Zakharra wrote: There are going to be a fair number of systems that do not want to be Manticore's friend. Why can't you see that?

Not liking Manticore is NOT the same as being a threat to Manticore.

It doesn't matter if successor states like Manticore or the GA, as long as they don't become a threat. If a Successor State doesn't want trade and mutual defense treaties with Manticore or the GA, they are welcome to make treaties with some other polity or form their own treaty organizations. As long as they don't become a threat, as indicated by diplomatic and intelligence sources, they can go their own way without let or hindrance -- As New Tuscany was not turned into a cue-ball over their complicity in Manpower conspiracies against Manticore.

And if those new states grow beyond what the GA/Manticore is comfortable with? I believe a part of the HD is that Manticore would not allow -any- star nation to grow enough to pose a threat to them, ie a military that is close to theirs in capability and a large enough military and building capacity to pose a serious threat if shooting started. When that happens, the GA will have to make a judgement call, will it use military strikes to break apart/subdue the hostile polity?

Zakharra wrote:Human nature being what it is, most people of the SL will believe that it's the GA/Manticore's fault the SL collapsed.

The presence of SLN fleets and task forces in Manticoran space isn't "proof" of who attacked whom? Manticore is inside the information loop of the Solarian League, and if the Core Worlds won't listen to Manticore, perhaps they'll listen to Beowulf's account of bureaucratic over-reach by the Mandarins.

If your view comes to pass, then the Harrington Doctrine will have failed.

Again, the Harrington Doctrine is not just economics and diplomacy. It is military force when necessary.

The presence of Manticore ships in Solarian space, seizing as many of the wormhole junctions as possible, defying the SL at every turn. Don't forget, as readers we know far more information than anyone else in the books. They are operating on far more limited information and have to make decisions based on what they know and what they believe. For most Solarian citizens, the Solarian League was solid. Wirthout Mesa and the MAlign (covertly and for a very long time) and Manticore (fairly overtly) working to break the League, up, it might have lasted a good while longer. As it is, the common citizen will see Manticore as the reason the League collapsed and shattered their comfortable and safe world where THEY were a part of the greatest and most powerful human nation in the history of the galaxy.

Zakharra wrote:Off hand, I'd say the RF's. The Ga is going to be seen as the instigator and force that made the SL stumble and collapse.

If that is true, then the Harrington Doctrine will have failed and Manticore is doomed -- there won't be much point in more than one more book.

You really are stuck on that aren't you? Can't you see that the Harrington Doctrine is more than -just economic and diplomatic carrots?

In fact, you found and quoted what the Harrington Doctrine was. Your own post in Post War Plans: Storm from the Shadows
Chapter Forty-four
(Honor Alexander-Harrington speaking)
wrote:"So if we get into an all-out war with the League, our strategy is going to have to have a very definite political element. We'll have to make it clear that the war wasn't our idea. We'll have to drive home the notion that we're not after any sort of punitive peace, that we're not trying to annex any additional territory, that we have no desire to conduct reprisals against people who don't want to fight us. We need to tell them, every step of the way, that what we really want is a negotiated settlement . . . and at the same time, we have to hit the League as a whole so hard that the fracture lines already there under the surface open right up. We have to split the League into separate sectors, into successor states, none of which have the sheer size and concentrated industrial power and manpower of the present league. Successor states that are our own size, or smaller. And we have to negotiate bilateral peace treaties with each of those successor states as they declare their willingness to opt out of the general conflict to get us to stop beating on their heads. And once we have those peace treaties, we have to not only honor them, but step beyond them. We need to use trade incentives, mutual defense pacts, educational assistance, every single thing we can think of to show them that we are—and to really be, not just pretend to be—the sort of neighbor and ally they'll want around. In other words, once we break the League militarily, once we splinter it into multiple, mutually independent star nations, we have to see to it that none of those star nations have any motive to fuse themselves back together and gang up on us all over again."


The implication there is that if necessary, military force will be used to keep anything the size of the Solarian League from ever forming again. This means the GA will attack the RF or any other large and growing star nation sooner or later as it's the RF's goal to become the successor of the SL. This includes other nations that form and grow to encompass large amounts of Solarian space. Manticore will not, by this Doctrine, allow -any- nation or nations to form out of the SLs corpse that they see as being able to threaten them

Zakharra wrote:I think the RF strategy is going to be much more subtle than people give credit for. As each system joins, they will probably use subtle means to get their people into the leadership positions. ... I don;t see the RF using force if it has too, until it is the strongest force in the area.

I agree that the RF strategy isn't going to be at all obvious. I do believe that the Harrington Doctrine is going to slow their growth and mute their message far more effectively than you might think.

The RF -- according to the plan laid out by Albrecht Detweiler -- is going to be relying on the chaos, panic, and need for trade and defense. The GA is going be working to minimize the chaos and offer the same benefits without demanding the loss of autonomy.

I can't disagree with that. The RF will have a benefit that Manticore won't have though, They are insiders, one of their own (Solarian). The overall gist of your post makes sense. /thumbs up

Zakharra wrote:That's the thing then, what if some of those states do grow large and are hostile to Manticore?

If a polity grows large enough to threaten the GA, the Harrington Doctrine will have failed. The idea is to remove the factors that drive polities to join into larger polities.

Again: Storm from the Shadows
Chapter Forty-four
(Honor Alexander-Harrington speaking)
wrote:"So if we get into an all-out war with the League, our strategy is going to have to have a very definite political element. We'll have to make it clear that the war wasn't our idea. We'll have to drive home the notion that we're not after any sort of punitive peace, that we're not trying to annex any additional territory, that we have no desire to conduct reprisals against people who don't want to fight us. We need to tell them, every step of the way, that what we really want is a negotiated settlement . . . and at the same time, we have to hit the League as a whole so hard that the fracture lines already there under the surface open right up. We have to split the League into separate sectors, into successor states, none of which have the sheer size and concentrated industrial power and manpower of the present league. Successor states that are our own size, or smaller. And we have to negotiate bilateral peace treaties with each of those successor states as they declare their willingness to opt out of the general conflict to get us to stop beating on their heads. And once we have those peace treaties, we have to not only honor them, but step beyond them. We need to use trade incentives, mutual defense pacts, educational assistance, every single thing we can think of to show them that we are—and to really be, not just pretend to be—the sort of neighbor and ally they'll want around. In other words, once we break the League militarily, once we splinter it into multiple, mutually independent star nations, we have to see to it that none of those star nations have any motive to fuse themselves back together and gang up on us all over again."


The Harrington Doctrine includes military force if necessary. Harrington recognizes that diplomacy and economic incentives do not always work.

Zakharra wrote: The Andermani Empire and Maya Sector, or the Silesian Confederacy aren't military threats. The Andermani Empire is a somewhat touchy ally, but they are on prickly good terms with Manticore. Not to mention the Manties did share their tech with the Empire, and the Empire knew it was eventually on the conquest list of the PRH.

What make you think Manticore won't share military technology with systems it signs mutual defense treaties with? It did with Grayson, Alizon, Erewhon, Torch, Marsh, Zanzibar, the Andermani, Beowulf, et al. Why should it stiff former SL members it wants to make friends with?

The Andermani were a threat in Honor Among Enemies but Manticore brought them in as Allies and shared Appollo with them -- despite a few commanders assigned to Eighth Fleet who would rather be shooting at Manties than at Havenites.

There's nothing to say the Andermani won't be a threat again. At the time, the Andermani were brought in as an ally against PRH, and the Silisian problem, which caused most of the trouble between the AE and SKM has been solved. Both sides there have incentive to maybe be friends.

Zakharra wrote:Half of the Silesian Confederacy is a part of the SEM now and the Maya Sector is on good terms (albeit secretive for now) with Manticore. Manticore has actively helped those places, especially in calming the chaos in Silesia. It is to note though, that Manticore didn't cause or start any problems in those areas either so they wouldn't be seen as an aggressor or responsible for the collapse of any governmental systems there.

Nitpick: The Silesian systems are protectorates of the SEM, not members.

Fortunately, Manticore isn't the only member of the Grand Alliance. Beowulf is, or soon will be, a member and the first of many Core Worlds to secede. Haven is seen as an opponent of Manticore's which will give some weight to their testimony as to who started the war. Grayson has separate intelligence assets around human settled space, although not as many as Haven, Manticore, and the Andermani.

Where there may be some prejudice against Manticore, there won't be against Haven, Grayson or the Andermani -- the latter not being involved in the war at all.

Fair points. I think the Silsian systems will become a full part of the SEM, as are the Talbott Quadrant systems. The thing with the other systems though is Manticore didn't help cause them to collapse either.

It's like saying that the wars/conflicts in our world not are caused by a super secret group like the Illuminati. It might be true, but without a lot of proof, it sounds like a cooky conspiracy theory. Right now, the GA has no conclusive proof that Mesa, the MAlign is behind everything. All it has is its word and the word of one scientist who is supposed to be a defector. For the most part, the Solarian citizens have no reason to believe that no matter how loudly the GA proclaims it. Especially when the GA is actively working to tear apart, attack the SL while the super secret group is literally nowhere to be seen. If the GA can get proof, it will be easier to convince more people.

Zakharra wrote: In the Solarian League, the confrontation with Manticore/MA/GA will be seen as the main reason the SL fell. You seem to be thinking that most if not all of the successor states will be friendly/neutral and have economic/diplomatic ties with Manticore/GA.

Most probably are going to have economic and diplomatic relations with all of the GA members as a group or singly. What I expect is that those who don't make peace with Manticore, at least on the surface, are going to suffer economic woes far longer than those who swallow their pride and declare neutrality.

Why would they? If they can get a decent merchant marine, why would they suffer? Would Manticore require the nations they have treaties with to not trade with the non complying nations/systems? Also remember many of the crews of the merchant ships are now a part of the military and are aboard warships, or now traveling in Silsian or Haven space, looking for trade and deals. I don't doubt a fair number of systems will make deals, but I don't see them cutting out other systems unless they don't like that system.

Zakharra wrote: Some of the warlords are going to be successful. I can't see all of them failing.

I'm certain there will be successful warlords; probably those who are smart enough to stop when they run up against a system with a mutual defense treaty with the GA, RF, or Andermani Empire.

The genesis of a Successor State isn't going to matter a great deal in the long-term shape of the ex-SL dominion. What is going to matter is whether the warlords and conquistadors know when to stop and rule the empires they have built out of the chaos. If they don't stop, sooner or later they're going to run into a mutual defense treaty with somebody bigger and badder than they are -- which is NOT necessarily going to be Manticore or the GA,

For the foreseeable future (the next 50-100 years), I don't see any other nation other than Manticore/ the GA that fits the bill. Over all though, I think you have some very good points with this. It's entirely possible some Core systems near the edge of the Shell will expand in that area rather than the Core.

Zakharra wrote:You really are stuck on that aren't you? Can't you see that the Harrington Doctrine is more than -just economic and diplomatic carrots?

In fact, you found and quoted what the Harrington Doctrine was. Your own post in Post War Plans: Storm from the Shadows
Chapter Forty-four
(Honor Alexander-Harrington speaking)
wrote:"So if we get into an all-out war with the League, our strategy is going to have to have a very definite political element. We'll have to make it clear that the war wasn't our idea. We'll have to drive home the notion that we're not after any sort of punitive peace, that we're not trying to annex any additional territory, that we have no desire to conduct reprisals against people who don't want to fight us. We need to tell them, every step of the way, that what we really want is a negotiated settlement . . . and at the same time, we have to hit the League as a whole so hard that the fracture lines already there under the surface open right up. We have to split the League into separate sectors, into successor states, none of which have the sheer size and concentrated industrial power and manpower of the present league. Successor states that are our own size, or smaller. And we have to negotiate bilateral peace treaties with each of those successor states as they declare their willingness to opt out of the general conflict to get us to stop beating on their heads. And once we have those peace treaties, we have to not only honor them, but step beyond them. We need to use trade incentives, mutual defense pacts, educational assistance, every single thing we can think of to show them that we are—and to really be, not just pretend to be—the sort of neighbor and ally they'll want around. In other words, once we break the League militarily, once we splinter it into multiple, mutually independent star nations, we have to see to it that none of those star nations have any motive to fuse themselves back together and gang up on us all over again."

Since you were so kind as to quote the passage I just looked up -- again -- I'll just add some highlighting of points you may have missed.

The Harrington Doctrine proposes to break the SL militarily, and THEN be the best neighbor any former SL member can imagine so the will not have a motive to form larger polities

The Doctrine does NOT propose to stomp down anyone who gets too big, it proposes remove any motive for agglomeration -- and to remove those motives by "...trade incentives, mutual defense pacts, educational assistance, every single thing we can think of..."

There is NO military component to the Doctrine after the SL fractures into Successor States. In the short term, the GA has to shatter the league, in the long term they have to be as helpful and non-threatening as possible to remove any desire to form larger polities.

You seem to be stuck in the short term consequences and doubt that Manticore can form lasting alliances with former enemies -- Haven and the Andermani would disagree with you.

There are bound to be a few hardcore "New Tuscany" types in the remnants of the SL, but they can be tolerated or ignored unless and until they become an actual threat to Manticore and/or the GA.

If you're correct and a majority of ex-SL members refuse to trade with Manticore, then the Harrington Doctrine will have failed.

PS: there is a lot more discussion about the confrontation with the League in Storm From The Shadows chapter Forty-four.

Zakharra wrote:Why would they? If they can get a decent merchant marine, why would they suffer? Would Manticore require the nations they have treaties with to not trade with the non complying nations/systems? Also remember many of the crews of the merchant ships are now a part of the military and are aboard warships, or now traveling in Silsian or Haven space, looking for trade and deals. I don't doubt a fair number of systems will make deals, but I don't see them cutting out other systems unless they don't like that system.

No, Manticore is not going to ban trade with systems they don't have treaties with, they just will charge them non-treaty rates for Wormhole passage and undercut their prices for return cargoes.

That is the way the MMM acquired such a large share of the merchant shipping -- they are simply cheaper than most competitors with lower insurance rates because of the RMN's commerce protection policies.

Any system that takes on the financial burden of building a State Shipping Line is going to need trade and mutual defense treaties with Manticore or pay higher junction fees and build a commerce protection force to keep insurance rates down to affordable levels.

Manticore and the GAs main problem isn't going to be hostile star nations or systems trying to steal their trade position, it is going to be transtellar corporations -- like Kalikainos (sp) Shipping -- that are going to be severely hurt by the collapse of the League economy. I mention Kalikainos because the CEO has been revealed as a co-conspirator in the Monica affair and a hard-core anti-manticore fanatic on the order of Adm Byng.

Technodyne Industries of Yildin aren't likely to survive the short-term, but a lot of formerly very rich people are going to bear a grudge against Manticore and have the technical knowledge to cause trouble.

Zakharra wrote:

Weird Harold wrote: Zakharra wrote: Some of the warlords are going to be successful. I can't see all of them failing.



I'm certain there will be successful warlords; probably those who are smart enough to stop when they run up against a system with a mutual defense treaty with the GA, RF, or Andermani Empire.
...
If they don't stop, sooner or later they're going to run into a mutual defense treaty with somebody bigger and badder than they are -- which is NOT necessarily going to be Manticore or the GA,

For the foreseeable future (the next 50-100 years), I don't see any other nation other than Manticore/ the GA that fits the bill. Over all though, I think you have some very good points with this. It's entirely possible some Core systems near the edge of the Shell will expand in that area rather than the Core.

I named two alternatives to Manticore/GA -- The RF and the Andermani. Erewhon and Maya are also candidates for riding to the rescue of a treaty partner and stomping an over-reaching warlord. For that matter, Marsh has the capability now and Torch will have the capability beyond the short-term.

It's entirely possible some former-SL state with Manticore Lite (export) technology could play the Seventh Cavalry.

Weird Harold wrote:

Zakharra wrote:You really are stuck on that aren't you? Can't you see that the Harrington Doctrine is more than -just economic and diplomatic carrots?

In fact, you found and quoted what the Harrington Doctrine was. Your own post in Post War Plans: Storm from the Shadows
Chapter Forty-four
(Honor Alexander-Harrington speaking)
wrote:"So if we get into an all-out war with the League, our strategy is going to have to have a very definite political element. We'll have to make it clear that the war wasn't our idea. We'll have to drive home the notion that we're not after any sort of punitive peace, that we're not trying to annex any additional territory, that we have no desire to conduct reprisals against people who don't want to fight us. We need to tell them, every step of the way, that what we really want is a negotiated settlement . . . and at the same time, we have to hit the League as a whole so hard that the fracture lines already there under the surface open right up. We have to split the League into separate sectors, into successor states, none of which have the sheer size and concentrated industrial power and manpower of the present league. Successor states that are our own size, or smaller. And we have to negotiate bilateral peace treaties with each of those successor states as they declare their willingness to opt out of the general conflict to get us to stop beating on their heads. And once we have those peace treaties, we have to not only honor them, but step beyond them. We need to use trade incentives, mutual defense pacts, educational assistance, every single thing we can think of to show them that we are—and to really be, not just pretend to be—the sort of neighbor and ally they'll want around. In other words, once we break the League militarily, once we splinter it into multiple, mutually independent star nations, we have to see to it that none of those star nations have any motive to fuse themselves back together and gang up on us all over again."

Since you were so kind as to quote the passage I just looked up -- again -- I'll just add some highlighting of points you may have missed.

The Harrington Doctrine proposes to break the SL militarily, and THEN be the best neighbor any former SL member can imagine so the will not have a motive to form larger polities

The Doctrine does NOT propose to stomp down anyone who gets too big, it proposes remove any motive for agglomeration -- and to remove those motives by "...trade incentives, mutual defense pacts, educational assistance, every single thing we can think of..."

There is NO military component to the Doctrine after the SL fractures into Successor States. In the short term, the GA has to shatter the league, in the long term they have to be as helpful and non-threatening as possible to remove any desire to form larger polities.

You seem to be stuck in the short term consequences and doubt that Manticore can form lasting alliances with former enemies -- Haven and the Andermani would disagree with you.

There are bound to be a few hardcore "New Tuscany" types in the remnants of the SL, but they can be tolerated or ignored unless and until they become an actual threat to Manticore and/or the GA.

If you're correct and a majority of ex-SL members refuse to trade with Manticore, then the Harrington Doctrine will have failed.

PS: there is a lot more discussion about the confrontation with the League in Storm From The Shadows chapter Forty-four.

I'll have to pick up the book, Storm from the Shadows at some point.

You're missing one of the biggest points of the Doctrine. It includes military force at some point if the diplomacy and economic incentives fail. And make no mistake, at some point they -will- fail because they never work 100% of the time. If you're claiming that if force is used at some point after the break up, then the Harrington Doctrine is already a failure from the very start. At some point, there will be some push to reform the League in some manner (we already know that's the main push of the RF, so violence is going to result there even if the GA doesn't discover that the RF is the MAlign for awhile). Economic incentives and ties and diplomacy is all and good, but they are never 100% effective. I'd say they aren't even 60% effective. At the end though, none of those policies will work or have any backbone because to enforce them it comes down to the naked use of violence and the threat of military action to back up the policies.

I think there will be a very strong incentive among much of the SL to reform it, to recapture the glory days of the SL with better government. This is something the GA and Manticore in particular is going to be very much against. "we have to see to it that none of those star nations have any motive to fuse themselves back together and gang up on us all over again." is the relevant passage here. I'm not denying that the Economic and diplomacy are not going to work on many of them, but I'm not going to believe it will work well on most of the systems. I think the HD has a bad chance of backfiring badly if/when it's realized that Manticore is interfering and actively working to prevent any of the successor states from growing too large (in Manticore's eyes). At some point they are going to realize they're being manipulated to stop growing at a certain size. That's why I think the Doctrine is unrealistic, because at some point it's going to run into political reality and ambition.


A question, why do you think I'm stuck on the short term consequences and can't form any lasting alliances with former enemies? What says that one will always make alliances with former enemies? Who says nations that are friends won't become enemies at some point? Nothing. There is no guarantee that a friend will always stay a friend or that you can change an enemy into an ally/friend. There's no guarantee that any large successor state won't be a threat to Manticore. There's no guarantee that the Andermani Empire or Haven won't become a threat to Manticore again in the future either. So using them as an example isn't necessarily sound because no one can predict the future. There's a saying I ran across on another forum. It is this: The universe is not required to be in perfect harmony with human ambition. It fits here. The human explored galaxy is not required to be in perfect harmony with Mantoicore's ambitions. The long term consequences (within a hundred years) could very well mean that a number of the successor states don't have economic ties to Manticore. I'm not going to assume that the SEM will still be sitting on top of the heap and having prevented any successor states from growing too large. Or that current allies will always stay allies.


I am accepting the very real possibility that a goods chunk of the SL will always be an enemy of Manticore no matter what Manticore does. does this mean Manticore will have failed? Not really. It just means there are political realities that are different than Manticore's. What works for Manticore will not necessarily work for other nations. They aren't Manticore. They don't have Manticore's government, beliefs or wormhole Junction. Many of those worlds are a lot older than Manticore and have very deep roots and ancient cultures that are very different than Manticore's. There could very well be the rise of a nation that is built along the lines of the RH, but doesn't want to be ruled from Manticore. The prevalence of the Manty merchant fleet can spur incentives to make their own ships as efficient and effective as the SEMs fleets. Most of the SL isn't tied to the MWJ so the travel times in much of SL space will be based on the speed of the ship in question.


I think on our viewpoints about how the aftermath of the League's collapse will play out and what the Harrington doctrine really is (you think it doesn't include military force in it, I do think it does), we will have to agree to disagree. Clearly we have differing views and we're not going to convince the other to really change their mind. In the end it's going to be Mr. Weber's decision how it plays out and what the political/stellar landscape will be like.

I'd like to leave this thought for you though; What's good for Manticore is not necessarily good for other star nations.

kzt wrote:

Zakharra wrote:Manticore is going to make sure NONE of the successor states are ever a threat to it. Diplomacy and economic ties won't always work. And the GA and RF are going to get into a shooting war sooner or later, so there goes the Harrington Doctrine by your reasoning, yes?

EVERY SINGLE core world can easily pose a threat to Manticore, simply by investing a comparable percent of the GSP in the military. Any average core world could easily build a Grayson scale navy. 10 average core worlds can build a military that would be larger than the RMN, the GSN and the IAN, combined. This would not be trivial undertaking and would be pretty painful in terms of taxes etc, but they could do it if they decided they needed to without bankrupting themselves.

Have they done that today? No. They don't see the need. However they are capable of doing this within a very short time period.

So yeah, given that there are up to 1000+ core worlds, your approach is probably not going to be what they actually do.

I would note to Zakharra that no state has ever been able to ensure that there will never be a threat to it. The Solarian League came closest to that ideal, but a thousand years of relative peace (especially in the Core) made them complacent. No guarantee that sometime in the future the same doesn't happen to the Manties--and the SEM does have threats--Andermann, Haven, Grayson, Maya, Erewhon (true, not threats now, but with nearly equal military technology, what happens 100 years in the future?
I would note that Germany and England were long-time 'unofficial' allies through the 19th century to keep French ambitions in check (**and yes, Modern Germany didn't come into being until 1871, but all y'all know what I'm talking about) and Germany and Russia were 'partners' in the 1930's right through the partition of Poland. Friendships--even the closest ones--come and go on the winds of planetary/polity interests.

Now, kzt has been adamant in making his point that given the way the MWW has described his universe, many if not all the "Core Worlds" have the technology and resources to eventually do what the Manties have done, and probably do it quicker than they have (they already know it can be done). And in this he is undobtedly right.

SO outside of a "Pax Manticoran" solution, how does the SEM and the other members of the GA survive?

I'll leave out the economic part lest this grow to long, but I'll remind you of Cpt(P) Gweon's briefing in ART. Just because he's a MAlignment plant doesn't mean that his analysis is invalid.

No, my point of interest is the MINDSET of the people and leadership of the SL worlds--not the bureaucrats and bought politicians whose eyes we have been seeing things through, but the actual planets and their governments, who actually have to do stuff, like pick up the trash and arrest aircar thieves and inspect fusion plants...you know, actual day-to-day functioning.

Now remember, the SL (from the timeline in the Pearls) was founded in 925PD (I think that has been argued a bit, but I'll use it). Give us 300 years to expand, settle down, get rid of pirates and warlords and other troublemakers, and you have 1220--which means that for the Core Worlds (and a fair amount of the Shell, IMHO) you have systems that have had 700 years--that's SEVEN CENTURIES--of peace. Yes, some have probably had a revolution or two or a civil war (see Saltash or even Erewhon), but they have not faced an outside threat (thanks to the ISLN) or even a pirate (see ISLN), but the primary condition is peace.

Think about that for a minute, We are currently in perhaps the longest time between Wars directly involving the Great Powers in our history (69 years and counting)
and despite all the conflicts we know about, the prevaliing condition for the "First World" is peace. And it is what the newest generation is used too.

Now imagine what 700 years of peace does to the pschye of a World.

Maybe nothing. But I think it makes it that much harder for a planet (or planets) to mobilize their people for war...IF THERE IS ANOTHER OPTION.

And that is what the GA must do--provide that other option, something that will allow a populace frightened by the Manties, but equally frightened at the prospect of all-out war to find a way back to the peace and prosperity they have known all of their lives.

How the GA does this and how well it works will have to be a major part of the next book(s).

The Verge and Protectorates will be another story. But they are not the topic here. I'll rant about them another time.

Wonderfully interesting topic, my thanks to kzt, dreamrider, and especially Zakharra and Weird Harold for all the point-counterpoint debate.

IMHO as always. YMMV.

I think it's time for another reality check. Yes, it is possible to speculated on potential outcomes, and even to predict trends and general outcomes, based upon what we know.

BUT, even with humanity restricted to only one planet, as we are right now, there are so many factors involved in every aspect of the human experience that it is nigh impossible to calculate exact outcomes to any one single event or development. Moreover, we have this unfortunate tendency to want to compartmentalise our world into neat little boxes - politics go there, economics here, climate goes into that obscure box over in the back, etc. and so forth. We forget, or deliberate ignore because it does not serve our purposes, that every aspect of our lives and the world around us is not only intimately interconnected but also interdependent. When we ignore that truth, we run the risk of making faulty predictions and analyses.

To be frank, making any kind of precise prediction or analysis wrt to future developments in a universe so extensive and complex as one where humanity has spread to thousands upon thousands of star systems over the course of two millennia of history must be utterly impossible, no matter how much effort one puts into it. The amount of data one would need to gather and process in order to do so is simply too vast.

THAT, more than anything else, is what will cause the Mesan Alignment's grand plan to fail.

Lastly, none of the above even considers the unpredictability of human behaviour, or the fact that every human being is a free agent, in the sense that no one can predict with absolute certainty what any human being will decide to do at any given moment.

Weird Harold wrote:The Doctrine does NOT propose to stomp down anyone who gets too big, it proposes remove any motive for agglomeration -- and to remove those motives by "...trade incentives, mutual defense pacts, educational assistance, every single thing we can think of..."

There is NO military component to the Doctrine after the SL fractures into Successor States. In the short term, the GA has to shatter the league, in the long term they have to be as helpful and non-threatening as possible to remove any desire to form larger polities.

Manticore could no more fight at the same time every single League system independently than it could fight them all in one chunk as part of the League! And as you say, there's no point trying to fracture the League if you immediately start giving those fractured chunks every reason to want to recombine into something large enough to give Manticore pause.

(I'm also reminded of the scene when they where discussing Haven, pre-peace treaty obviously, where they conceded that there was no way they could police the entirety of Haven to ensure they didn't build secret R&D and production facilities to eventually crush Manticore. And whilst the GA is much larger than Manticore, the League is similarly much larger than Haven!)

Technically I suppose aggressive military action (as opposed to showing the flag, actions in support of mutual defence agreements or suppression of piracy/slavery etc) is on the range of options that could be used in support of the Harrington Doctrine. However it must surely be one the Manticorans would never want to use? Indeed I really can't see any circumstances in which it would do anything except make things worse?

Now intelligence gathering surely is an integral part, and the selective leaking of some of that intelligence could well be too. (It would, after all, be a real shame(TM) if the private habits of that rabidly anti-mangy politician became public now wouldn't it? ) One might even go so far, in extreme cases, as to authorise the occasional bit of covert action - oops, did someone get mugged? Crime, it's a real problem isn't it? But even that has it's risks if it gets tied back to you, or worse if people think it's tied back to you.

Zakharra wrote:You're missing one of the biggest points of the Doctrine. It includes military force at some point if the diplomacy and economic incentives fail.

You've said this several times, but I don't interpret that text the same way. I do not see any mention of use of military force to keep the successor states small enough. I disagree with your interpretation.

SWM wrote:

Zakharra wrote:You're missing one of the biggest points of the Doctrine. It includes military force at some point if the diplomacy and economic incentives fail.

You've said this several times, but I don't interpret that text the same way. I do not see any mention of use of military force to keep the successor states small enough. I disagree with your interpretation.

SWM, it does in fact imply the use of military force to prevent the League's successor states from becoming big enough to once again threaten the Star Empire's survival.

It doesn't say so in so many words, but the implication is quite clear, I think.

hanuman wrote:

SWM wrote:
You're missing one of the biggest points of the Doctrine. It includes military force at some point if the diplomacy and economic incentives fail.

You've said this several times, but I don't interpret that text the same way. I do not see any mention of use of military force to keep the successor states small enough. I disagree with your interpretation.

SWM, it does in fact imply the use of military force to prevent the League's successor states from becoming big enough to once again threaten the Star Empire's survival.

It doesn't say so in so many words, but the implication is quite clear, I think.

That's my reading of it too. Because there are some times when diplomacy or economic incentives to possible allies/enemies won't work. When that happens you're left with two alternatives, accept the situation as it is, or use military force to try and stomp it into the ground.