The UESPA Question

[Capt_Jason]

The UESPA Question.

The United Earth Space Probe Agency. From TOS, we assume that it was an early operating authority for USS Enterprise in the episode "Tomorrow Is Yesterday", a number of uniform insignia and other devices have alluded to it. We also know from Star Trek "canon" that UESPA was responsible for the launch of space probe Friendship 1 ("Friendship One" (VOY)) and that this probe was launched circa 2067.

Such a surprisingly early date for this agency would seem to contradict the "global" picture of Earth at this time. Only 7 years have elapsed since the Vulcan first contact, and there still is the canon references to a "post-atomic horror" occuring as late as 2079. If one interprets "United Earth Space Probe Agency correctly, it would seem clear that, in order for this organization to exist, it would seem logical to assume that the planet must be..united, We know from ENT and a few TNG-related references that a 'united earth' was not possible until after 2113, perhaps even as late as 2150 if we read into Beverly Crushers commentary. So given the fact that a UE government was not in existence until 2150 or so, how then would a UESPA be possible only 14 years after an alleged global nuke holocaust?

Are there any alternative theories to explain it's existence?

As a matter fo fact, there are...

According to Geoffrey Mandel's USS Enterprise Officers Manual, UESPA was in existence at least by 1990 and was a sanctioned agency of the United Nations at that time.

The question I would like to put to you all then is IF assuming UESPA was in existence as early as 1990 and assuming it was a UN agency, what sequence of events would have to take place that would lead to its foundation in a world that was on the brink of a third global war in the Eugenics Wars? Which group of nations would be responsible for its financial and material requirements?

I realize that these questions may stretch the acceptibility envelope of the majority of you here, but for those of us who grew up with a period of time in which there was NO official Star Trek forthcoming and that it was up to clever and creative writers, artists and other enthusiasts (Read: FANDOM) to fill in those gaps in our understanding, finding a way to make sense of the complexity that is the Star Trek continuum would include stretching a few envelopes as a rule. For the time that this fandom material was produced, it made perfect sense to us at that time, and it was really only after 1987 that we were forced to accept this strange concept known as "canon".

Let us begin...

 

[aridas sofia]

It would need to be something separate and independent of the UN. An anti-national organization that eschews the very idea of a "United Nations" for the idea of a "United Earth." They would be against a federal global organization, and instead be insisting on one that promotes a homogenous world that dispenses with countries entirely.

Could such an "anti-UN" be explained as part of the Eugenics crisis of the 1990s? Sure. Could it be -- without national backing -- an instrument of cutting-edge space exploration?

That really strains credulity for any believable picture of the 1990s, altered history or not. I think this is just one area where Geoff got it wrong, and that he'd probably be the first to admit the need for a modification of that "UESPA" to be a "UNSPA" -- a parent organization that evolved into the UESPA decades later.

 

[Capt_Jason]

aridas sofia said:
It would need to be something separate and independent of the UN. An anti-national organization that eschews the very idea of a "United Nations" for the idea of a "United Earth." They would be against a federal global organization, and instead be insisting on one that promotes a homogenous world that dispenses with countries entirely.

You and I have gone the rounds over this subject many times now. Nevertheless, I have to point out the materials that Chuck Graham-to-Geoffrey Mandel had to work with in 1975 through 1980. Since it was clearly stated in the FJTM that it was representatives of the United Nations which signed the Articles of Federation on stardate 0965 (commonly attributed to the year 2127), then its reasonable to assume the UN never EVER suffered the indignity of reformation (i.e. the "New" United Nations, by extension a TNG+ concept) followed by a period of international decay (the "post atomic horror") and finally being abandoned altogether in favor of a "united earth". Furthermore, I do not suspect that Geoff Mandel was willing to suggest that FJ was "wrong" by suggesting a scenario involving utopic dreams of "one world". We both know that utopias are impossible. There will never EVER be a time in the history of this planet when we are "mercifully free" of the burdens of nationalism. It just isn't gonna happen. FJ knew this I suspect and so he sent the UN into the future as it were. Geoff was merely trying to work with what had been established in the treknical community of the time, and so, UESPA became an ideal-laden but decidely UN-based agency which, according to the EOM, lasted until 2262 when it was disbanded in favor of the "new" Galaxy Exploration Command.

Could such an "anti-UN" be explained as part of the Eugenics crisis of the 1990s? Sure. Could it be -- without national backing -- an instrument of cutting-edge space exploration?

That really strains credulity for any believable picture of the 1990s, altered history or not. I think this is just one area where Geoff got it wrong, and that he'd probably be the first to admit the need for a modification of that "UESPA" to be a "UNSPA" -- a parent organization that evolved into the UESPA decades later.

To simply say that Geoff "got it wrong" again goes back to previous arguments on this subject, nor really is it a primary motivation for me to consider for this discussion. Whether the decision was right or wrong when the EOM was written, it WAS written. These were NOT yours or my choices to make in 1980, they were his and he clearly made them based upon a desire to promote continuity which was gradually solidifying in those days. Chuck Graham, it could be said, was the original guilty party in all of this when he boldy suggested that a "united earth" was in existence by the beginning of the 21st Century. However, he made no attempt to label it specifically as such. Geoff built upon this further along with Eileen Palestine in the Star Fleet Medical Reference Manual that Earth endured a "second dark ages" between 1997 and 2000, after which time, the winds of change were already ablow. In each case, these aforementioned authors, and artists took care to honor FJ's original intentions with the UN and the founding of the UFP. Building upon this long line of thought, I will continue to work with the original source material "as is".

Now, I would still like an answer to my opening questions. Given the conditions already mentioned above, HOW would it be possible, and WHO/WHAT would be responsible for its upkeep and such?

 

[aridas sofia]

A private, transnational group like these people --

http://www.uea.net/

who, in a world of profoundly weakened nation states, leverage much more power than such groups could leverage in our world. They marshall extraordinary resources because people's loyalties to nations have been supplemented/substituted with virtual loyalties -- to virtual communities. This United Earth is a central depot for all these loyalties, and becomes a de-facto agent of change, using its money and power to pull the world out of the Eugenics dark ages and into the new era of space colonization.

The United Nations exists at the same time, and can have its peace forces and such. And at some point the two merge to form the United Earth.

 

[Capt_Jason]

Unfortunately the website for this organization is down atm. I will keep an eye on this link though.

Ofcourse, I am able to consider alternatives, but certainly you of all here understand my position and my desire to use this stuff as is.

What your suggesting here I submit might best be served with the Internatonal Space Agency (ISA) concept introduced in VOY. I am not exactly sure what the tptb actually intended for this agency but I envision it as being the first commercial and privately-funded space agency. In one particular scenario, I envision the ISA as functioming in tandem with UESPA during the first half of the 21st Century, with its programs and intiatives designed to offer a "road to space" for the common folk or organizations that lacked sufficient manpower and resources on their own merit. Meanwhile, UESPA gains an ever-increasing hand in the stakes for space development and by 2030, as according to our own Mike Morrisette, UESPA has essentially replaced all global space agencies and administrations. Id be interested in hearing if Mike was thinking more along the lines of a UE scenario or if he intended for his take on things to be more UN-oriented. If the former is true, then I would be open to changing my paradigm a bit to accomodate his thoughts on the matter.

There have been some references made to a United Nations of Earth scenario, and some even go out of their way to suggest that a UNoE is REALLY what FJ was referring to in the TM. Im not so sure I buy that, considering his useage of the UN title.

I am unclear on just how this virtual community you suggest would be able to garner the manppower and resources necessary to effect changes on a truly global scale where international boundaries are no longer considered a hinderance. It would be a grand thought to think that a virtual community such as ours here could effect such sweeping and unifying changes as what you are suggesting. Despite my fierce loyalty to the materials in question, I am not without some space in my soul that wishes a truly unified and borderless world could exist where we could all just "get along". Unfortunately, I know human behavior. Even given three hundred years of steadily improving conditions, I am not so sure we could pull off anything approaching a United Earth governmental scenario. At best, I suspect, we MIGHT be capable of a Heinlein scenario with a Terran Federation of nation-states, but even THAT is stretching the envelope of acceptibility given our own nature.

Here is a thought though, what if the UESPA office is established as a sort of liason between this "virtual community" and the UN proper? I had not considered that particular potentiality before. I would need you to elaborate a bit more on your thoughts on this end. Bare in mind though that, at least in the Graham/Mandel scenario, UESPA was founded sometime prior to 1990 well before the outbreak of the Eugenics Wars. Could this liason office somehow have arisen either during the orbital nuke platform "crisis" of the late 60s/early 70s ("Assignment: Earth")? What if, instead of the '67 Outer Space Treaty, we got the United Space Initiative that the Spaceflight Chronology (2003) suggests? Would the conditions for an early UESPA then be more reasonable?

I know that in previous discussions, you mentioned a scenario where there would be an "eastern bloc UE" and a western bloc UN as it exists today. I would be curious to hear if you have developed this concept any further. As always, I ask you to convince me, though granted, its not so easy in this hobby of ours

Nevertheless, I have always respected your opinion and your input on subjects like this. As always I can work with a number of different outcomes. If it were up to me, we would not have developed interplanetary spaceships by 1990 (and with them their hokey artificial gravity) and the "900 years" figure suggested in "The Squire of Gothos" starts looking more realistic. Then again, we could be ALL wrong and the answer to practical artificial gravity is as simple as apple pie. . . or as simple as a flying belt recovered from a Thrint stasis box recovered from wreckage found on the Moon in either 1974 or 1976.

What do ya think?

 

[Sci]

Capt_Jason said:
The UESPA Question.

The United Earth Space Probe Agency. From TOS, we assume that it was an early operating authority for USS Enterprise in the episode "Tomorrow Is Yesterday", a number of uniform insignia and other devices have alluded to it. We also know from Star Trek "canon" that UESPA was responsible for the launch of space probe Friendship 1 ("Friendship One" (VOY)) and that this probe was launched circa 2067.

Such a surprisingly early date for this agency would seem to contradict the "global" picture of Earth at this time. Only 7 years have elapsed since the Vulcan first contact, and there still is the canon references to a "post-atomic horror" occuring as late as 2079. If one interprets "United Earth Space Probe Agency correctly, it would seem clear that, in order for this organization to exist, it would seem logical to assume that the planet must be..united, We know from ENT and a few TNG-related references that a 'united earth' was not possible until after 2113, perhaps even as late as 2150 if we read into Beverly Crushers commentary. So given the fact that a UE government was not in existence until 2150 or so, how then would a UESPA be possible only 14 years after an alleged global nuke holocaust?

The nations of Earth aren't united, but that doesn't stop the United Nations from using that as its name.

UESPA may not have originally been a government institution. Perhaps it was a private space agency that later became associated with United Earth?

BTW, I wouldn't presume that UESPA was actually an early operating authority for Kirk's Enterprise. That would be like calling the English Navy an early operating authority for a ship of the United Kingdom Royal Navy. Better to just call the establishment of the Federation Starfleet in "Court Martial" a retcon, though of course we can presume that UESPA was perhaps the agency to which the United Earth Starfleet of ENT belonged.

 

[Sci]

aridas sofia said:
It would need to be something separate and independent of the UN. An anti-national organization that eschews the very idea of a "United Nations" for the idea of a "United Earth." They would be against a federal global organization, and instead be insisting on one that promotes a homogenous world that dispenses with countries entirely.

That's an interesting concept, but it doesn't make a lot of sense. How can United Earth be a unitary state? You're talking about trying to govern an entire planet of thoroughly diverse and previously conflicting peoples, in wildly varying locales, with wildly varying governmental needs. A planetary federal state makes far more sense than a planetary unitary state, just out of sheer logistics.

 

[Capt_Jason]

The nations of Earth aren't united, but that doesn't stop the United Nations from using that as its name.

Well, this is precisely why I argue that a UN-based UESPA could have existed in the manner suggested in the EOM. It may very well have been a progressive agency of the United Nations with absolutely no requirement for a United Earth to make it possible. However, there is a great deal of merit to what Aridas is suggesting and I am sure that he will elaborate a bit more on his line of thought.

UESPA may not have originally been a government institution. Perhaps it was a private space agency that later became associated with United Earth?

You would ofcourse be asked to present a detailed case for WHO/WHAT this mystery agency was before it decided to step up its efforts and become a global concern.

BTW, I wouldn't presume that UESPA was actually an early operating authority for Kirk's Enterprise. That would be like calling the English Navy an early operating authority for a ship of the United Kingdom Royal Navy. Better to just call the establishment of the Federation Starfleet in "Court Martial" a retcon, though of course we can presume that UESPA was perhaps the agency to which the United Earth Starfleet of ENT belonged.

Accepted. I guess I should have clarified that statement a bit more. In the Star Trek Chronology reference, the Okuda's make the suggestion that perhaps UESPA was an early operating authority for Enterprise at that time. We know from various TNG sources that UESPA survives well into the 24th Century (per various ship plaques which make visual reference to it). In the scenario that my site supports currently, UESPA is succeeded by the Galaxy Explorartion Command in 2262, but whether or not it actually fades into history..is another matter of intrigue.

 

[Sci]

Capt_Jason said:

UESPA may not have originally been a government institution. Perhaps it was a private space agency that later became associated with United Earth?

You would ofcourse be asked to present a detailed case for WHO/WHAT this mystery agency was before it decided to step up its efforts and become a global concern.

Such an explanation would be mostly conjecture, since we don't know much in the way of anything about the immediate post-First Contact global political and economic situation. My immediate urge is to presume that UESPA is a private organization (in the vein of Richard Branson's Virgin Space line) that was founded by the Indonesian investors established in the novelization of Star Trek: First Contact to have been the ones to finance Cochrane's Phoenix project, as an outgrowth of that endeavour.

We know from various TNG sources that UESPA survives well into the 24th Century (per various ship plaques which make visual reference to it).

I would suggest ignoring most ship plaques -- they're all full of injokes that are obviously not part of Trek continuity.

 

[aridas sofia]

Sci said:
How can United Earth be a unitary state? You're talking about trying to govern an entire planet of thoroughly diverse and previously conflicting peoples, in wildly varying locales, with wildly varying governmental needs. A planetary federal state makes far more sense than a planetary unitary state, just out of sheer logistics.

The need for intermediary forms of human organization to govern a large and complex population does not necessitate nations. It has resulted in nations over the last several hundred years, but that is a reflection of the stage of our civilization's technological and social development and not ordained by some underlying and enduring structural paradigm. In fact, the very same technologies that gave rise to the state will, as they evolve, make it less and less pertinent. Other forms of organization will compete for the loyalties of people with the result of a complex patchwork of shifting allegiances to virtual and real groups, some of which will remain national and some that will have no borders whatsoever.

If you would like to read a rather lucid work on the subject, pick up Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld's "The Rise and Decline of the State", (Cambridge University Press, 1999, ISBN 0-521-65629-X). He puts it more concisely than I have done in his introduction:

"The state, which since the middle of the seventeenth century has been the most important and most characteristic of all modern institutions, is in decline. From Western Europe to Africa, either voluntarily or involuntarily, many existing states are either combining into larger communities or falling apart. Regardless of whether they fall apart or combine, already now many of their functions are being taken over by a variety of organizations which, whatever their precise nature, are not states."

As for an "Eastern bloc UE," there as many ways to answer the question Jason raised as there are monkeys and keyboards. That particular idea was based on a certain alternative history slant, and this is grounded a little more on a certain realpolitik.

 

[Capt_Jason]

As for an "Eastern bloc UE," there as many ways to answer the question Jason raised as there are monkeys and keyboards. That particular idea was based on a certain alternative history slant, and this is grounded a little more on a certain realpolitik.

My friend, you are sometimes THE most insufferably cryptic person alive today! There are many degrees and forms of realpolitik so I am compelled to ask...what particular flavor are you talking about here? Explain yourself, Mister!

I feel I have to re-emphasize my thoughts above here:

Here is a thought though, what if the UESPA office is established as a sort of liason between this "virtual community" and the UN proper? I had not considered that particular potentiality before. I would need you to elaborate a bit more on your thoughts on this end. Bare in mind though that, at least in the Graham/Mandel scenario, UESPA was founded sometime prior to 1990 well before the outbreak of the Eugenics Wars. Could this liason office somehow have arisen either during the orbital nuke platform "crisis" of the late 60s/early 70s ("Assignment: Earth")? What if, instead of the '67 Outer Space Treaty, we got the United Space Initiative that the Spaceflight Chronology (2003) suggests? Would the conditions for an early UESPA then be more reasonable?

How about this? Does this line have any potential in explaining a few things?

 

[aridas sofia]

I'm trying to help you here, but there are more and less probable scenarios. That's what I mean by realpolitik -- make the least number of assumptions possible.

I am assuming that the Internet will spread to most of the world and involve the vast majority of the world's population in virtual communities. Those communities -- that know no borders -- will begin to compete with nation-states for the loyalties of their citizens. They will provide certain services for fees, and that, too will compete with the services provided by national governments.

Nations won't go away. They might end up as vestiges of the past, with largely honorary officials serving in largely symbolic posts. But their current role -- as a primary organizational structure for humanity -- will pass on.

So, in the 1990s of an alternate reality that has a preternaturally accelerated space program, but retains the developments we have seen in our world as a result of Cold War and space expenditures (like the WWW and Internet), a UN might be quite a force to reckon with, but it will either be based on a model of confederated nations or it won't. I see no reason why it wouldn't. But as these changes wrought by virtual communities take hold, the UN will either adapt or be supplanted by some other organization that takes the changes into account.

In any event, I'm assuming the UN doesn't adapt, and that another organization rises. It is the UEA -- United Earth Alliance. It advocates ignoring borders and seeing the world as one big homogenous globe with shared problems that aren't being addressed by the UN or its members. It might advocate space colonization as part of the solution, and that is where you get your early UESPA. It would be a specific part of this organization, and might negotiate with nations and with the UN for the use of its space hardware and other resources.

That is the way I'm approaching it in order to stay as true to the old fandom stuff as I can and still be able to look myself in the mirror. This "UEA" can limp along, slowly growing in power and influence through the 21st century, surviving when nations fall and the UN fails, and rise as the great, Trekkian one-world-government of the future.

God forbid.

 

[Sci]

aridas sofia said:

Sci said:
How can United Earth be a unitary state? You're talking about trying to govern an entire planet of thoroughly diverse and previously conflicting peoples, in wildly varying locales, with wildly varying governmental needs. A planetary federal state makes far more sense than a planetary unitary state, just out of sheer logistics.

The need for intermediary forms of human organization to govern a large and complex population does not necessitate nations.

Right off the bat, as a Political Science major, I'm going to have to object to your use of terminology here. A "nation" is not a form of political organization. It is, rather, a group of people who share a common identity -- typically a common origin, language, history, and culture. The term you are looking for is "state" -- this is the form of political organization that has domination over a specific area of land and which has the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. Many states are nation-states -- that is, they are states that are principally associated with a specific nation, such as Israel or France. Others are multinational states, such as the United States or the United Kingdom, in which multiple nations in large numbers live. There are also stateless nations, such as the Kurds and the Palestinians.

Precision of terminology here becomes very important.

It has resulted in nations over the last several hundred years, but that is a reflection of the stage of our civilization's technological and social development and not ordained by some underlying and enduring structural paradigm. In fact, the very same technologies that gave rise to the state will, as they evolve, make it less and less pertinent. Other forms of organization will compete for the loyalties of people with the result of a complex patchwork of shifting allegiances to virtual and real groups, some of which will remain national and some that will have no borders whatsoever.

That may well be. But I don't see any indication in Trek that that has happened in its version of Earth's history -- and there have been numerous mentions of extant polities surviving within United Earth, including references to a European Hegemony, United States of America, Canada, Great Britain, and others.

If you would like to read a rather lucid work on the subject, pick up Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld's "The Rise and Decline of the State", (Cambridge University Press, 1999, ISBN 0-521-65629-X). He puts it more concisely than I have done in his introduction:

"The state, which since the middle of the seventeenth century has been the most important and most characteristic of all modern institutions, is in decline. From Western Europe to Africa, either voluntarily or involuntarily, many existing states are either combining into larger communities or falling apart. Regardless of whether they fall apart or combine, already now many of their functions are being taken over by a variety of organizations which, whatever their precise nature, are not states."

That's one school of thought within modern international studies, but it's hardly the only one. Just as many people have been arguing, especially in the post-9/11 world, that the state may in fact become far more powerful than it has traditionally been, what with the rise of both greater powers for states such as the US (claimed for use in its war on terror) and the union of extant states into interstate organizations that may eventually assume the characteristics of states such to the point that they become states themselves, such as the European and African Unions.

But, again, what may or may not happen in the real world is distinct from what happens in Trek -- and Trek seems to indicate that the current states of today have survived, albeit in an altered form, as sub-polities of United Earth.

Personally, I can't say that I'd find the idea of United Earth being a unitary state to be a good idea. If that were to happen, there would be a very real danger of indigenous cultures across the globe being wiped out -- suppressed and disregarded and sublimated in favor of one particular culture's achieving global dominance. I don't like the idea of Anglo-American culture doing that to other cultures; I don't like the idea of French culture doing that to other cultures; I don't like the idea of Russian or Chinese or Aboriginal Australian or North American First Nations or any culture doing that.

Diversity is a good thing. It is a source of strength, and if there were to ever be a planetary state, it is my sincere hope that such a state would utilize a federal system so as to facilitate the survival of the diverse cultures that exist throughout the globe. Federalism can also help alleviate intra-state conflicts if executed properly -- it's certainly working well enough in the United States, and the United Kingdom is starting to become a quasi-federalist system, what with the Scottish Parliament and Weslh and Northern Irish Assemblies. And as US Senator Joseph Biden has noted, it may well do quite a bit to alleviate the conflict in Iraq these days.

Unitary states work well for smaller and more homogenous cultures. But for a planetary state? I really think federalism is the way to go.

 

[aridas sofia]

I later wrote "nation-state". But going with just "nation," let's check the definition at dictionary.com:

1. a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own: The president spoke to the nation about the new tax.

"...to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own."

Looks political to me. But that is just me... not a political science major.

A political science and history graduate, yes. And a M.A. in history and even half a Ph.D.

But, I still might be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.

As for the rest, I'm not arguing about what is in Trek or is not in Trek, or what will happen or won't happen in our reality. I'm explaining my perception of one possible scenario that attempts to indulge in as few assumptions as possible and happens to meet Jason's criteria.

 

[Capt_Jason]

Here is a mini-timeline of events which I feel might be crucial to this discussion, as well as an opportunity for me to detail the angle I would like to work from. I have also included a link to a specific articles at my website which might help those unfamiliar with the technical fandom angle to gain some insight on the particular sources that I will cite over the course of the discussion:

1967- The Outer Space Treaty is signed.

1968- The intervention of Agent Gary Seven prevents an orbital nuclear missile platform from detonating in Earth's atmosphere. This event is the primary divergent point between the "canon", fandom and real-time continuums.

1969- The first lunar landing.

1974 or 1976- Apollo 20 recovers a slaver stasis box from the lunar far side. The stasis box contains a flying belt whch utimately lead to the first artificial gravity systems in Earth spacecraft.

1977 or 1980- The United Space Initiative is signed by members of the United Nations. Under the auspices of this new initiative, the Office of the United Earth Space Probe Agency is established as an oversight committee for the peaceful development of space systems and technology for the benefit of Earth and it's future.

1984- The Heavy Transport Development Project is announced by the US and participating members of the UESPA office. Among the participatory contractors for developing this new spacecraft type are the United States, Russia, China, and Australia.

1988- Construction begins on the DY-100 Savannah Class Transport, the first true interplanetary Earth spacecraft.

1992- Khan Noonien Singh's power bases expands to encompass nearly 1/4 of planet Earth, from Asia to the MIddle East.

1993-- Eugenics supermen simultaneously sieze control in order forty nations on Earth. This is the era of the Eugenics Wars, the third and final global war on planet Earth.

1994- The United Nations Peace Forces are founded. The UNPF undertakes the "wars to end tyranny', a global gampagin which will last between 1994 and 2000.

1996- Khan and the remnants of eugenics loyal to his regime, escape Earth aboard S.S. Botany Bay (DY-102). Whole regions of Earth experience a second "dark ages" which lasts for nearly 3.5 years.

2000- The United Nations rises to prominence around this time, having succesfully conducted its global campaigns to combat the threat of global tyranny wherever it may have occured, while simultaneously playing a decisive role in the relief and recovery of the third world and those regions of Earth most impacted by the scourge of the Eugenics Wars.

A link to a crucial piece of fanon that I am basing my case on can be found here at my site:

A Brief History of Star Fleet

Edit: I'd also like to point out that certain elements of this discussion carry over into the following thread, which covers the Eugenics Wars in detail:

Timeline Challenge #1: The Eugenics Wars

 

[Sci]

aridas sofia said:
I later wrote "nation-state". But going with just "nation," let's check the definition at dictionary.com:

1. a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own: The president spoke to the nation about the new tax.

"...to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own."

Looks political to me. But that is just me... not a political science major.

A political science and history graduate, yes. And a M.A. in history and even half a Ph.D.

But, I still might be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.

I'd say so. The distinction between a nation and a state is a fairly basic thing that they teach pretty early in poli sci courses -- and a dictionary like that one is more likely to record the common-but-inaccurate meaning than the one that you, as a graduate, know is the correct term.

 

[Capt_Jason]

Well, I didn't intend for this to become yet another pissing match, gentlemen. If we could concentrate on thinking in a more alternative mode so to speak here, I would greatly appreciate the input.

 

[Timo]

As far as alternatives go, we could say that there was no United Earth Space Probe Agency when Friendship One was launched.

Just look at the organization calling itself DASA. You know, Deutsche Aerospace AG. I mean, Daimler-Benz Aerospace. That is, DaimlerChrysler Aerospace AG. (Currently known as "one third of EADS".)

It is often advantageous for commercial or political entities to hang on to their cool acronyms even when their actual name or the very basis of ownership or management is radically changed. UESPA might well be one of those. Perhaps Friendship One was launched by the United Europe or by Universal Exports, while only Friendship Sixty-Eight was created by the United Earth?

Timo Saloniemi

 

[aridas sofia]

Re: The UESPA Question *DELETED* *DELETED*

Post deleted by aridas sofia

 

[Forbin]

Timo said:
As far as alternatives go, we could say that there was no United Earth Space Probe Agency when Friendship One was launched.

Just look at the organization calling itself DASA. You know, Deutsche Aerospace AG. I mean, Daimler-Benz Aerospace. That is, DaimlerChrysler Aerospace AG. (Currently known as "one third of EADS".)

It is often advantageous for commercial or political entities to hang on to their cool acronyms even when their actual name or the very basis of ownership or management is radically changed.

I work for ITT - International Telephone and Telegraph. I don't think we currently have a divison that makes either of those things any more.