Tweet
The thread on USAF and USN units makes me think that we need to draw a distinction between trying to nail down general patterns in Twilight: 2000 and specific instances. What I should have said in my early replies to the speculation on the fates of USAF personnel is that in general we should expect to see the excess personnel reassigned to Army units for the reason others and I have given. However, this is not to say that in any particular locale the general rule holds true. I"ve violated the rule myself. In Silver Shogunate, the airmen at Nellis AFB form an ad hoc light motorized force. Granted, this group moves to Sacramento and is incorporated into Sixth US Army, but thus far there is nothing to say that the senior Army leadership in California doesn"t decide that the so-called Nellis Group should be kept intact and used for security missions in the Bay Area and the Central Valley. Of course, they could simply be broken up and used as individual reinforcements, too.
My point is that statements of general patterns are not meant to stifle anyone"s creativity. Conversely, we as creative writers should not feel the need to create an overarching rule in order to have our fun with a particular scenario. My work is an example of creating an exception to the overall pattern for the sake of telling a good story. The US Coast Guard is supposed to be almost completely absorbed into the US Navy structure in 2000; yet, I have written a scenario in which a substantial enclave of the USCG controls a portion of New Englandin violation of canon, no less. Some of the other possibilities mentioned in the USAF and USN thread, such as a USAF SF squadron (or wing) with gun trucks acting as it own combat element or a naval infantry battalion, would make for very interesting reading. I continue to maintain that there is little overall logic to maintaining separate USAF and/or USN formations doing the job of the Army/Marines infantry or MPs while incorporating civilian replacements and foreign troops into the Army. Nevertheless, circumstances in a particular location can develop their own logic. The Joint Chiefs or theater commanders don"t have to give a local solution their premeditated blessing for circumstances to result in a naval infantry battalion.
Webstral
My point is that statements of general patterns are not meant to stifle anyone"s creativity. Conversely, we as creative writers should not feel the need to create an overarching rule in order to have our fun with a particular scenario. My work is an example of creating an exception to the overall pattern for the sake of telling a good story. The US Coast Guard is supposed to be almost completely absorbed into the US Navy structure in 2000; yet, I have written a scenario in which a substantial enclave of the USCG controls a portion of New Englandin violation of canon, no less. Some of the other possibilities mentioned in the USAF and USN thread, such as a USAF SF squadron (or wing) with gun trucks acting as it own combat element or a naval infantry battalion, would make for very interesting reading. I continue to maintain that there is little overall logic to maintaining separate USAF and/or USN formations doing the job of the Army/Marines infantry or MPs while incorporating civilian replacements and foreign troops into the Army. Nevertheless, circumstances in a particular location can develop their own logic. The Joint Chiefs or theater commanders don"t have to give a local solution their premeditated blessing for circumstances to result in a naval infantry battalion.
Webstral
(credit to General Pain)
Comment