2007 Australia ISOT to 1907 (ISOT)

On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 03:39:14 -0800 (PST), christopher fardell

Post by christopher fardell
What if Australia was moved back in time, by alien space bats, from
this date (25th December) this year, to the 25th December 1907.

The Orbital Space Weasels would use their nukes to send it back to the
Stone Age ... with a *glow*.

ISOTs are generally regarded as past their use by date ... sure, you
*can* post them (I am not one of the group's net.nazis) but you may
find more brickbats than bouquets coming your way.

Duck!

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

christopher fardell

2007-12-26 09:53:03 UTC

Post by Phil McGregor
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 03:39:14 -0800 (PST), christopher fardell

Post by christopher fardell
What if Australia was moved back in time, by alien space bats, from
this date (25th December) this year, to the 25th December 1907.

The Orbital Space Weasels would use their nukes to send it back to the
Stone Age ... with a *glow*.
ISOTs are generally regarded as past their use by date ... sure, you
*can* post them (I am not one of the group's net.nazis) but you may
find more brickbats than bouquets coming your way.
Duck!
Phil
Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I am well aware of the enemity held towards ISOT's on this newsgroup,
as I have searched for them, and there have been none for the past
three years (!). I was wondering how a re-introduction might go...

Phil McGregor

2007-12-26 11:30:19 UTC

Post by christopher fardell

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 01:53:03 -0800 (PST), christopher fardell

Post by Phil McGregor
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 03:39:14 -0800 (PST), christopher fardell

Post by christopher fardell
What if Australia was moved back in time, by alien space bats, from
this date (25th December) this year, to the 25th December 1907.

I actually think that they have a place ... but, be warned, as I said,
the net.nazis are not so forgiving ... still, they seem to have
disappeared up their arseholes for the holidays judging by their lack
of response, so maybe you will get away with it!

Good luck!

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

Allen W. McDonnell

2007-12-26 01:44:47 UTC

Post by christopher fardell
What if Australia was moved back in time, by alien space bats, from
this date (25th December) this year, to the 25th December 1907.

This needs more details. Does it replace the 1907 Australia or arrive in
the middle of empty ocean as an addition?

How do modern Australians feel about the royal family circa 1907?

Australia has lots of Uranium mined every year but no nuclear industry to
make use of it, unless they develope a bomb/power system those mines will be
mothballed.

So Australia 'invents' nuclear weapons in 1907 and provides them to the
British Empire and their King. Great Britain is even more aggressive than
OTL. While Australia lacks an large aircraft industry building personal
aircraft aka WW II type aircraft is not a great leap. Coupled with nukes
this makes the British Empire pretty much unbeatable.

Dan Goodman

2007-12-26 02:36:17 UTC

Post by Allen W. McDonnell
..

Post by christopher fardell
What if Australia was moved back in time, by alien space bats, from
this date (25th December) this year, to the 25th December 1907.

This needs more details. Does it replace the 1907 Australia or
arrive in the middle of empty ocean as an addition?
How do modern Australians feel about the royal family circa 1907?
Australia has lots of Uranium mined every year but no nuclear
industry to make use of it, unless they develope a bomb/power system
those mines will be mothballed.
So Australia 'invents' nuclear weapons in 1907 and provides them to
the British Empire and their King. Great Britain is even more
aggressive than OTL. While Australia lacks an large aircraft
industry building personal aircraft aka WW II type aircraft is not a
great leap. Coupled with nukes this makes the British Empire pretty
much unbeatable.

Not under all circumstances. For example, they're unlikely to use
atomic weapons against Irish rebels.

--
Dan Goodman
"I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers."
Tennessee Williams, A Streetcar Named Expire
Journal http://dsgood.livejournal.com
Futures http://dangoodman.livejournal.com
mirror 1: http://dsgood.insanejournal.com
mirror 2: http://dsgood.wordpress.com
Links http://del.icio.us/dsgood

merccurytravel

2007-12-26 03:40:24 UTC

Post by Dan Goodman
Not under all circumstances. For example, they're unlikely to use
atomic weapons against Irish rebels.
--
Dan Goodman

They are unlikely to support ANY 1907 Government. Alliances? Perhaps,
support? No.

Tony Bailey

bernardZ

2007-12-26 06:22:55 UTC

Post by Dan Goodman
Not under all circumstances. For example, they're unlikely to use
atomic weapons against Irish rebels.
--
Dan Goodman

They are unlikely to support ANY 1907 Government. Alliances? Perhaps,
support? No.
Tony Bailey

Agreed.

Nor can I see Australia 2007 supporting British nondemocratic rule over
India or South Africa nor can I see them agreeing to speed up the spread
nuclear weapons throughout the world.

p***@gmail.com

2007-12-26 09:53:37 UTC

But I think they will keep a close eye on Japan and try to isolate
them. Australia will be a major superpower in Asia (and the world?)
and the japanese will have a hard time trying to establish a Greater
Japanese Empire.

Moreover, I think that independence or selfrule for India will be
accomplished in the 1910s.

Allen W. McDonnell

2007-12-26 10:45:28 UTC

Post by bernardZ

Post by Dan Goodman
Not under all circumstances. For example, they're unlikely to use
atomic weapons against Irish rebels.
--
Dan Goodman

They are unlikely to support ANY 1907 Government. Alliances? Perhaps,
support? No.
Tony Bailey

Agreed.
Nor can I see Australia 2007 supporting British nondemocratic rule over
India or South Africa nor can I see them agreeing to speed up the spread
nuclear weapons throughout the world.

If the 1907 UK receives notice that Australia is not longer willing to
associate with them what is the likely response? Why send the Army and the
Navy to teach them a lesson of course! How many of those invaders are the
Australians willing to slaughter? More important how many of them can they
slaughter before they run out of anti-ship missiles and laser guided bombs?
Australia does not have a computer chip manufacturing capacity that I am
aware of, without chips their 2007 technology is going to run out of
ammunition in a few months, or much more quickly in a serious attack.

As I pointed out elsewhere, the spying and/or selling and/or stealing of a
physics textbook would have enough information in it for any 1907 power to
know 1) nuclear weapons are possible and 2) how they were developed OTL. It
might take them many years of sustained effort but by 1917 any of the major
players in 1907 could be nuclear equipped through their internal efforts.
If Australia is actively working on it they could have fission bombs in a
year.

You can't put the genie back in the bottle, Australia knows it exists so in
short order everyone else will know too. That's why government's hire
spies.

--
*******************************
Oxygen: - An intensely habit-forming accumulative toxic substance. As little
as one breath is known to produce a life-long addiction to the gas, which
addiction invariably ends in death. In high concentration it causes death
quickly, but even in a 20% dilution few survive more than a 0.8 century.

Isaac Asimov

Phil McGregor

2007-12-26 11:50:26 UTC

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 05:45:28 -0500, "Allen W. McDonnell"

Post by bernardZ

Post by Dan Goodman
Not under all circumstances. For example, they're unlikely to use
atomic weapons against Irish rebels.
--
Dan Goodman

They are unlikely to support ANY 1907 Government. Alliances? Perhaps,
support? No.
Tony Bailey

Agreed.
Nor can I see Australia 2007 supporting British nondemocratic rule over
India or South Africa nor can I see them agreeing to speed up the spread
nuclear weapons throughout the world.

Hmm. The tiny army scattered in penny packets all over the globe?

Post by Allen W. McDonnell
Australians willing to slaughter? More important how many of them can they

Lots?

They are *invaders* after all.

Anyway, the problem would be getting the UK Army *to* invade for no
good reason. Australia was independent in 1907. Had been since 1901.
Sure, we could waffle on about technicalities, but the reality was
that independence was since 1901.

Post by Allen W. McDonnell
slaughter before they run out of anti-ship missiles and laser guided bombs?

Since it is unlikely that the Brits have an amphibious landing
capability equal to that of the D-Day 6 June 44 fleet, they are going
to have to invade through *ports* ...

I wouldn't like to be them.

One LGB = one sunk ship, pretty much. One ASM/SSM = one sunk ship,
pretty much.

Oh, sure, the post-Dreadnought CAs and BBs, probably the BCs, and the
like will shrug off the ASMs or SSMs (which generally aren't
meaningfully armour piercing), but you can't invade a nation with the
crew of a BB.

All the cargo carriers and merchies ... die.

For that matter, the Federal Govt (well, the *current* one, can't say
for sure about the *last* lot) aren't fools ... if they wanted to
avoid dirtying *Australian* hands, why, just let the Yanks know that
we would be happy to give *them* preferential trade treatment in
return for them ... countering ... the UK bluff.

Or do the same for the *French* ... or *Japanese* ...

Lots of takers who'd like to see any UK government stupid enough to
try it taken down several pegs.

Post by Allen W. McDonnell
Australia does not have a computer chip manufacturing capacity that I am
aware of, without chips their 2007 technology is going to run out of
ammunition in a few months, or much more quickly in a serious attack.

We still produce small arms and artillery ammunition.

And we can easily produce lots of better weapons (well, relatively)
such as ... machineguns, assault rifles, heavy artillery etc.

As for computer chips, well, I am reasonably sure that we actually
*did*, fairly recently, manufacture the older ones (8088?) locally.
Whether we still do or not, I do not know.

There are, however, around 10 million PCs in Oz, and they aren't *all*
going "poof" when the ISOT occurs. So, you could cannibalise *them*.

Also, afair, there was some small scale prototyping facilities
available locally ... so, as long as their output went on the
military, no probs!

The $US1 Billion mass manufacturing plants for the latest chips may
not be here, but that's not the be all and end all.

If push came to shove, we could build vacuum tubes on a crash priority
program and there are enough engineers and designers still alive who
could give us 1960's era electronics from that ... or we could do
semiconductors a la transistors ...

The weapons we have, and the alliances we could make, would give us
more than enough breathing space.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

Jack Linthicum

2007-12-26 12:25:17 UTC

Post by Phil McGregor
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 05:45:28 -0500, "Allen W. McDonnell"

Post by bernardZ

Post by Dan Goodman
Not under all circumstances. For example, they're unlikely to use
atomic weapons against Irish rebels.
--
Dan Goodman

They are unlikely to support ANY 1907 Government. Alliances? Perhaps,
support? No.
Tony Bailey

Agreed.
Nor can I see Australia 2007 supporting British nondemocratic rule over
India or South Africa nor can I see them agreeing to speed up the spread
nuclear weapons throughout the world.

Hmm. The tiny army scattered in penny packets all over the globe?

Post by Allen W. McDonnell
Australians willing to slaughter? More important how many of them can they

Lots?
They are *invaders* after all.
Anyway, the problem would be getting the UK Army *to* invade for no
good reason. Australia was independent in 1907. Had been since 1901.
Sure, we could waffle on about technicalities, but the reality was
that independence was since 1901.

Post by Allen W. McDonnell
slaughter before they run out of anti-ship missiles and laser guided bombs?

Since it is unlikely that the Brits have an amphibious landing
capability equal to that of the D-Day 6 June 44 fleet, they are going
to have to invade through *ports* ...
I wouldn't like to be them.
One LGB = one sunk ship, pretty much. One ASM/SSM = one sunk ship,
pretty much.
Oh, sure, the post-Dreadnought CAs and BBs, probably the BCs, and the
like will shrug off the ASMs or SSMs (which generally aren't
meaningfully armour piercing), but you can't invade a nation with the
crew of a BB.
All the cargo carriers and merchies ... die.
For that matter, the Federal Govt (well, the *current* one, can't say
for sure about the *last* lot) aren't fools ... if they wanted to
avoid dirtying *Australian* hands, why, just let the Yanks know that
we would be happy to give *them* preferential trade treatment in
return for them ... countering ... the UK bluff.
Or do the same for the *French* ... or *Japanese* ...
Lots of takers who'd like to see any UK government stupid enough to
try it taken down several pegs.

We still produce small arms and artillery ammunition.
And we can easily produce lots of better weapons (well, relatively)
such as ... machineguns, assault rifles, heavy artillery etc.
As for computer chips, well, I am reasonably sure that we actually
*did*, fairly recently, manufacture the older ones (8088?) locally.
Whether we still do or not, I do not know.
There are, however, around 10 million PCs in Oz, and they aren't *all*
going "poof" when the ISOT occurs. So, you could cannibalise *them*.
Also, afair, there was some small scale prototyping facilities
available locally ... so, as long as their output went on the
military, no probs!
The $US1 Billion mass manufacturing plants for the latest chips may
not be here, but that's not the be all and end all.
If push came to shove, we could build vacuum tubes on a crash priority
program and there are enough engineers and designers still alive who
could give us 1960's era electronics from that ... or we could do
semiconductors a la transistors ...
The weapons we have, and the alliances we could make, would give us
more than enough breathing space.
Phil
Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Question: how much electricity does Australia generate now and how
much more would be needed to support a nuclear program? In addition,
how soon does the petrol run out? In 2006 Australia required 39% of
its oil to be imported, in 1910 the world production was 328 Mbbl,
just about enough to cover that 39% if nobody else gets any.

Phil McGregor

2007-12-26 12:37:58 UTC

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 04:25:17 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum
Question: how much electricity does Australia generate now

Answer: Enough.

Post by Jack Linthicum
much more would be needed to support a nuclear program? In addition,

Note: You're replying to *my* post. *I* said *n*o*t*h*i*n*g* about
supporting a nuclear weapons program.

*I* only mentioned conventional weapons.

Post by Jack Linthicum
how soon does the petrol run out? In 2006 Australia required 39% of

You answer your own question.

Post by Jack Linthicum
its oil to be imported, in 1910 the world production was 328 Mbbl,

Ever heard of "rationing"?

I know its a difficult concept for someone such as you to grasp, but,
well, *do* at least *try*.

Post by Jack Linthicum
just about enough to cover that 39% if nobody else gets any.

Or, of course, they could expand production ... with Aussie expertise
and technology!

In the meantime ... rationing works.

I really wonder about your lack of ... think through ... for want of a
better term ... can you *really* be as ... dense ... as you come
across as?

Answer: Based on repeated evidence -- Yes.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

Allen W. McDonnell

2007-12-27 10:34:54 UTC

Post by Jack Linthicum
Question: how much electricity does Australia generate now and how
much more would be needed to support a nuclear program? In addition,
how soon does the petrol run out? In 2006 Australia required 39% of
its oil to be imported, in 1910 the world production was 328 Mbbl,
just about enough to cover that 39% if nobody else gets any.

You need electricity from one power plant for a few months while you build
the Plutonium Production Reactors. If you use the USA/USSR model and just
build a whole group of them in a relatively isolated location with
electricity, good water and minimal access. With some common sense modern
environmental steps taken to avoid leaking waste from the reprocessing
process they can be turning freshly mined uranium into moderate quantities
of Plutonium inside of six months if it is a government priority project.
They won't be making any of the false starts the inventors did, just
modifying (for safety) the proven designs with the help of their own
physicists. Any other country in 1907 with a modest industrial base can do
the same, but at first only the Australians will be able to build effective
implosion compression devices. Unless one of the Britains or Americans or
Russians on vacation when the event happens to have worked on weapons
development, which I find unlikely but possible.

As for the oil question, undoubtedly there will be a few freighters at ports
pulled back, these can travle to the USA or Venezuela to fill up, they were
the biggest exporters after all. World export demand just doubled but I
would bet both VZ and USA will be happy to sell more oil especially if sold
modern well drilling technology that makes drilling dry holes much less
likely than it was in 1907.

Now for something completely different, think of the impact of films from
any video store in Australia. Transferring the media would be interesting,
you are going from silent poorly focused black and white to color with crisp
clear images. If 1907 can't make anything else they can make long play
records of the movie which though awkward would allow you to have both
visual and sound that would be exceedingly better than the best 2007
offered. I can see some enterprising individuals setting up such a system
to distribute the films and records to theaters in the North America and
Europe.
Now consider all the cultural messages and/or technologies revealed in a
regular rental store's video collection. I don't mean the documenteries
alone, I mean anything. King Kong. Superman. Sleepless in Seattle. Santa
Claus is Coming Too Town. Pearl Harbor in all its variations. The Day
After Tommorow. Silent Spring. All quiet on the Western Front.
Now if that seems to tough how about the book versions of all those stories?
No matter how you slice it the 1907 world is going to get some very strange
ideas about the 2007 world just from the fiction we choose to pass our time
with. Much will be seen by the western world as liscentuos, erotic,
radical. Interracial relationships appear occasionally in modern stories
and in general people are treated as people reguardless of skin color. In
1907 that was emphatically NOT the case. Hell watch Forrest Gump and think
about how people in 1907 would interpret the movie. It gives a distorted
view of US History from the 1950's to the 1990's.

Another thing to consider, if Australia can manufacture birth controll pills
( or Norplant devices or Depro Provera shots) they will set off a revolution
in womens health many decades early. Some will still want large families
but many will want to stop after 2 or 3. A lot of those who exist in 1917
will be different from the butterfly effects, but what about the millions
who will not have been conceived at all?

Phil McGregor

2007-12-27 13:22:26 UTC

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 05:34:54 -0500, "Allen W. McDonnell"

Post by Allen W. McDonnell
Another thing to consider, if Australia can manufacture birth controll pills
( or Norplant devices or Depro Provera shots) they will set off a revolution
in womens health many decades early. Some will still want large families

Well, no. They'll all be declared illegal as soon as any government
hears they exist.

The smarter ones will do what the Japanese do (did?) and say "long
term studies are needed to prove they are safe" and indicate that
*Australian* studies might be ... suspect ... and so *they* will have
to do the studies.

Now, we all know Appleby's rule ... never, ever, set up a research
project of this sort without first giving "informal guidelines" to the
people in charge.

Guess what those guidelines will be?

Sure, that won't stop them being *smuggled*. But there won't be mass
use of them outside of Oz any time soon even if they *are* available.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

DougL

2007-12-26 17:12:20 UTC

Post by Phil McGregor
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 05:45:28 -0500, "Allen W. McDonnell"

Post by Allen W. McDonnell
If the 1907 UK receives notice that Australia is not longer willing to
associate with them what is the likely response? Why send the Army and the
Navy to teach them a lesson of course! How many of those invaders are the

I really wanna see the scene where someone tells a RN admiral in 1907
that Australia has a modest but respectable navy 100 years in advance
of his and he's supposed to invade.

Anyone who knows enough to make it realistic care to write it?

Remember that in 1907 new capital warships could be obsolescent inside
a decade, if anything the 1907 admiral will OVERSTATE how big a
difference 100 years will make. HMS dreadnaught was designed in 1905,
launched in 1906, decommissioned in 1919, and scrapped in 1923. The
1907 admiralty was under no illusions that their ships were the
pinacle of the possible.

The 1907 British are accustomed to thinking in terms of progress, and
they're not idiots. They're not going to assume that an entire
CONTINENT 100 years in advance of them is going to be a pushover.

They will be very very polite, and they will try to establish trade
and commerce and to sign a government to government understanding/
alliance ASAP.

Post by Phil McGregor
Hmm. The tiny army scattered in penny packets all over the globe?

And you're also sending that tiny and nearly irreplacable professional
army up against a military 100 years in advance of theirs. From a
country with half the population of all of GB. Good luck.

I mean good luck not being shot by your own men when you deliver the
orders for the attack. The attack itself is beyond the help of mere
luck and can't work without significant ASB help.

The Aussies have 25,000 or so full time soldiers and another 15,000 or
so well trained and well equiped reservists. How big was the 1914 BEF
anyway? How many troops can they send much farther away in 1907? How
many of them to equal one 2007 Aussie on the field?

And again the Brits aren't total morons. They can do the math on this
one too.

Post by Allen W. McDonnell
Australians willing to slaughter? More important how many of them can they

Lots?

[Snip how to kill almost unlimited invaders and why the Aussies don't
need to bother to do it themselves.]

Look. I know some people have real trouble with this concept, but when
discussing large scale ISOTs with major military forces available to
the ISOT which go any substantial distance into the past. There's
something you need to remember.

The ISOT wins any and all defensive fights for a generation or more.

This isn't because the author is on their side. This is because
anything else is totally implausible.

They don't need to be supergeniouses to defend themselves, they just
need to avoid gratuitus stupidity. Send Australia to 1907 and they are
instantly the 900 lb guerrilla in international affairs. They can blow
it if they are stupid enough. Even without being too stupid they can
engage in imperial overstreach. But even then it's very unlikely that
anyone will invade and conquer them anytime soon.

DougL

Ed Stasiak

2007-12-26 23:03:20 UTC

Send Australia to 1907 and they are instantly the 900 lb guerrilla
in international affairs.

Seems that with ISOT's, people tend to forget that there are
all kinda other nationalities or ethnic groups living in the country
that has been sent back in time.

I wonder how many Al-Qaeda type fundi-Muslims there are in
2007 Australia? And what about Indians, Americans, Japanese,
Poles, ect.

Many will get out of Australia and head back to the "motherland"
of 1907, taking their 2007 knowledge with them in the hopes of
changing the future by giving their native country/ethnic group a
leg up.

Phil McGregor

2007-12-26 23:19:04 UTC

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:03:20 -0800 (PST), Ed Stasiak

Post by Ed Stasiak

Send Australia to 1907 and they are instantly the 900 lb guerrilla
in international affairs.

Seems that with ISOT's, people tend to forget that there are
all kinda other nationalities or ethnic groups living in the country
that has been sent back in time.
I wonder how many Al-Qaeda type fundi-Muslims there are in
2007 Australia? And what about Indians, Americans, Japanese,
Poles, ect.
Many will get out of Australia and head back to the "motherland"
of 1907, taking their 2007 knowledge with them in the hopes of
changing the future by giving their native country/ethnic group a
leg up.

Of course *some* will. Tho they'd have to be pretty ... single minded
(read: fanatically deluded) to want to give up the comforts of a 21st
century society for ... well, you get the picture.

Still, *some* will do it.

So what?

Having knowledge of future events/future technology is *not* the same
as being able to do anything *with* said knowledge.

For the knowledge: The local leaders will not *necessarily* believe
the truth, or will figure out perfectly stupid ways of doing things
that are *equally* stupid with or without your future knowledge.

For the technology: Go back to fundiland, by all means. You have squat
industrial base and squat money to buy it with. Enjoy.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

DougL

2007-12-27 01:49:31 UTC

Post by Phil McGregor
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:03:20 -0800 (PST), Ed Stasiak

Post by Ed Stasiak

Send Australia to 1907 and they are instantly the 900 lb guerrilla
in international affairs.

Seems that with ISOT's, people tend to forget that there are
all kinda other nationalities or ethnic groups living in the country
that has been sent back in time.
I wonder how many Al-Qaeda type fundi-Muslims there are in
2007 Australia? And what about Indians, Americans, Japanese,
Poles, ect.
Many will get out of Australia and head back to the "motherland"
of 1907, taking their 2007 knowledge with them in the hopes of
changing the future by giving their native country/ethnic group a
leg up.

Of course *some* will. Tho they'd have to be pretty ... single minded
(read: fanatically deluded) to want to give up the comforts of a 21st
century society for ... well, you get the picture.
Still, *some* will do it.
So what?
Having knowledge of future events/future technology is *not* the same
as being able to do anything *with* said knowledge.
For the knowledge: The local leaders will not *necessarily* believe
the truth, or will figure out perfectly stupid ways of doing things
that are *equally* stupid with or without your future knowledge.
For the technology: Go back to fundiland, by all means. You have squat
industrial base and squat money to buy it with. Enjoy.

Meanwhile Australia still has circa 30,000,000 people minus circa
3,000 idiots who went to fundiland and the 100,000 or so ambitious
types who went to GB or the USA or someplace similar (it would be more
on the ambitious types but the USA and GB are only gonna make so many
really good offers).

Meanwhile Australia still has the army, navy, and airforce. Almost all
the modern weapons. And all the modern industry. And the intact
libraries and universities. And....

900lb gorilla meet world.

The fanatic pro-X types who STAY IN AUSTRALIA and try to help X from
there will for the most part be far more effective than those that cut
themselves off by heading home on their own.

DougL

Ed Stasiak

2007-12-27 04:46:55 UTC

Post by DougL

Post by Ed Stasiak
Many will get out of Australia and head back to the "motherland"
of 1907, taking their 2007 knowledge with them in the hopes of
changing the future by giving their native country/ethnic group a
leg up.

I'm not trying to diminish ISOT Australia's gorilla status, only
pointing
out that in ISOT threads people tend to say "Australia will do this"
and
"Aussies will do that" while ignoring the fact that there are non-
Aussies
in the country who will have their own agenda and even many Aussies
who will go against the flow (skin-head Nazi types, hippy-dippy enviro
commies, etc).

It's more then just 2007 Australia vs. 1907 World.

Phil McGregor

2007-12-27 13:23:38 UTC

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 17:49:31 -0800 (PST), DougL

Post by DougL
Meanwhile Australia still has circa 30,000,000 people minus circa

Please, please. c. 20-22 million. Don't get carried away.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

DougL

2007-12-27 16:00:19 UTC

Post by Phil McGregor
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 17:49:31 -0800 (PST), DougL

Post by DougL
Meanwhile Australia still has circa 30,000,000 people minus circa

Please, please. c. 20-22 million. Don't get carried away.

Whoops. Sorry about that. I miss remembered the number.

DougL

Rich Rostrom

2007-12-27 12:16:22 UTC

Post by Ed Stasiak
I wonder how many Al-Qaeda type fundi-Muslims there are in
2007 Australia? And what about Indians, Americans, Japanese,
Poles, ect.
Many will get out of Australia and head back to the "motherland"
of 1907, taking their 2007 knowledge with them in the hopes of
changing the future by giving their native country/ethnic group a
leg up.

Of course *some* will. Tho they'd have to be pretty ... single minded
(read: fanatically deluded) to want to give up the comforts of a 21st
century society for ... well, you get the picture.

The choice is between:

living on a miserable dole in Australia,
and bending the knee to filthy unbelievers.
Australia is going to have a severe economic
crisis, and stranded tourists and such will
be last on the dole queue.

Or...

Returning to the Middle East to become
great sheiks and leaders, empowering
their own clans and tribes and countries
to dominate and to overthrow the infidel
invaders.

"Better to rule in hell than serve in heaven."

That's for Moslem Arabs.

There is also the issue of preferring life
where everyone talks one's language and the
culture is the one that one is comfortable
with.

For many others, there is the issue of
institutional loyalty. Diplomats are
sworn to allegiance to the nation. As
are soldiers (only the U.S. has any
significant number there, and that's
a few hundred).

Allen W. McDonnell

2007-12-27 10:00:47 UTC

Post by Ed Stasiak

Send Australia to 1907 and they are instantly the 900 lb guerrilla
in international affairs.

Seems that with ISOT's, people tend to forget that there are
all kinda other nationalities or ethnic groups living in the country
that has been sent back in time.
I wonder how many Al-Qaeda type fundi-Muslims there are in
2007 Australia? And what about Indians, Americans, Japanese,
Poles, ect.
Many will get out of Australia and head back to the "motherland"
of 1907, taking their 2007 knowledge with them in the hopes of
changing the future by giving their native country/ethnic group a
leg up.

I see this as a BIG factor for Europe and North America, not so much for
what are called third world countries in 2007.

Say you are a Canadian tourist of European heritage. Returning to Canada in
1907 you can probably make yourself quite comfortable just by working as a
consultant for bussiness or the government because you know a lot of things
without even realizing it. Rollerblades, radio, the fact that Canada in
2007 is a large oil exporter. Any random fact in your head can spark a
thoudsand ideas in the research and development departments of different
companies.

France, Germany, Italy, hell even Sweden and Norway. All of their
governments will pay well for what you know because Europe in 1907 is an
armed camp looking for advantages over each other.

If it turns out say France has specially skilled citizens willing to move
back to France and be treated very well it might spark WW I early as Germany
tries to defeat them in the field before they gain overwhelming
technological advantages. In this situation Germany might be allied with
Great Britain or the USA for the same reason.

The concept of a tank alone will make WW I a very different affair, attempts
to build long trench lines for warefare would be ineffective within a year
because by then Rolls Royce and Mercedes and Studebaker will be able to turn
out those 1918 models you can see on film footage.

No effective trenches means the war becomes one of manuver and logistics
rather like World War II without the millions of aircraft. Ramping up to
build a few thousand tanks is a very different thing from building an air
force.

j***@faf.mil.fi

2007-12-27 12:58:50 UTC

I wonder how many Al-Qaeda type fundi-Muslims there are in 2007 Australia?
And what about Indians, Americans, Japanese, Poles, ect.
Many will get out of Australia and head back to the "motherland"
of 1907, taking their 2007 knowledge with them in the hopes of
changing the future by giving their native country/ethnic group a
leg up.

I see this as a BIG factor for Europe and North America, not so much for
what are called third world countries in 2007.

"A medium factor for some parts of Europe and North America" would be
more accurate, given that from our viewpoint, many parts of Europe and
North America in 1907 would be Third World.

Let's take the groups that Ed mentioned. Americans tourists? Well, how
many of them would be black, or otherwise descendants of mixed racial
heritage? Would these people be interested in returning to the United
States of 1907, and suffer all the reigning attitudes of the period?
Apart from some enthusiastic, utopist fellows who would want to make
the difference and participate in the making of history, I doubt that
many would be interested.

Poles? The Polish residents in the 21st century Australia would be
willing to relocate to their ancient strife-torn, Russian-occupied
borderland, still under an effective military rule?

The Japanese people in Australia? Moving back to Japan in 1907? Post-
Nagasaki Japanese moving back to the Meiji Japan, still exultant from
the grand victory over Russia? Um.

And, of course, you mentioned Italians. How many Italian people of
today would be interested in returning to their country as it was in
_1907_?

Hell, I'm Finnish. I'd rather stay in Australia.

Post by Allen W. McDonnell
Say you are a Canadian tourist of European heritage. Returning to Canada in 1907 you can probably
make yourself quite comfortable just by working as a consultant for bussiness or the government because
you know a lot of things without even realizing it. Rollerblades, radio, the fact that Canada in 2007 is a large
oil exporter. Any random fact in your head can spark a thoudsand ideas in the research and development
departments of different companies.

Pause for a moment and think what the everyday life was like back in
1907, and compare it to ours. The decision that you describe may sound
simple, but it takes a hell of a lot of pioneer mentality to do it,
and I doubt that any random Canadian tourist, used to the comforts of
our era, would have the chops to make the effort.

As for professionals, they'd rather remain in Australia, the country
where they have established their professional networks and the only
country in the world where they can utilize their talents to the full
extent.

Cheers,

J. J.

Peter Bruells

2007-12-27 13:11:33 UTC

Post by j***@faf.mil.fi
Let's take the groups that Ed mentioned. Americans tourists? Well, how
many of them would be black, or otherwise descendants of mixed racial
heritage? Would these people be interested in returning to the United
States of 1907, and suffer all the reigning attitudes of the period?
Apart from some enthusiastic, utopist fellows who would want to make
the difference and participate in the making of history, I doubt that
many would be interested.

A good half will be women. In 1907, many would return to countries
where they can't vote. Finish woman, yeah, in 1906.

American woman in 1920.

British in 1928.

Germans in 1919.

In 1907? No, thanks, I think my wife would rather stay in Australia
and so would I. My country would be effectively gone and I'd gladly
take a oath to another democratic one.

David Tenner

2007-12-27 18:49:18 UTC

A good half will be women. In 1907, many would return to countries
where they can't vote. Finish woman, yeah, in 1906.
American woman in 1920.

Maybe the ones from Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and Idaho will want to
return.

1911 Encyclopedia Britannica: "In 5 states (Wyoming since 1869; Colorado,
1893; Utah, 1896; Idaho, 1896; and Washington, 1910) women are
electors..."

http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/bl1911_womenu.htm

--
David Tenner
***@ameritech.net

Peter Bruells

2007-12-27 19:03:40 UTC

Post by David Tenner

A good half will be women. In 1907, many would return to countries
where they can't vote. Finish woman, yeah, in 1906.
American women in 1920.

Maybe the ones from Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, and Idaho will want to
return.
1911 Encyclopedia Britannica: "In 5 states (Wyoming since 1869; Colorado,
1893; Utah, 1896; Idaho, 1896; and Washington, 1910) women are
electors..."
http://womenshistory.about.com/library/etext/bl1911_womenu.htm

Yes, all known. However, the majority of women in the US had far fewer
rights than they have today. To point out that they got it better in
some states or that they had it better than many of their
contemporaries misses the point.

Rich Rostrom

2007-12-28 05:06:55 UTC

I think there would be more of the latter
than you realize. For one thing, there are
groups for which great historic grievances
were in train in 1907 - and now they would
have a chance to end them.

Armenians, Poles, black Americans, Koreans,
Chinese, Jews. How long before some Australian
or expat Jew hunts down that failed painter
in Vienna?

Remember, they don't necessarily go
as powerless refugees, but as avatars of
the future, with knowledge and power. Very
possibly these groups control the relation
between neo-Australia and the old regime.

The alternative is hanging out in Australia,
probably on a meager dole, due the economic
chaos.

Phil McGregor

2007-12-28 09:13:17 UTC

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:06:55 -0600, Rich Rostrom

Post by Rich Rostrom
Chinese, Jews. How long before some Australian
or expat Jew hunts down that failed painter
in Vienna?

If the Austrians don't arrest him first! Remember "Anschluss" wasn't
universally loved, even in 1938.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

Rich Rostrom

2007-12-28 20:05:01 UTC

Post by Phil McGregor
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:06:55 -0600, Rich Rostrom

Post by Rich Rostrom
Chinese, Jews. How long before some Australian
or expat Jew hunts down that failed painter
in Vienna?

If the Austrians don't arrest him first! Remember "Anschluss" wasn't
universally loved, even in 1938.

It will be a while before 1907 governments
act on 2007 retro-information against
individuals, especially for things they
haven't done yet.

Austria in 1907 can barely imagine the fall
of the Empire, much less the Anschluss.

Whereas vast numbers of contemporary Jews are
deeply aware of the Holocaust.

Phil McGregor

2007-12-28 22:52:55 UTC

On Fri, 28 Dec 2007 14:05:01 -0600, Rich Rostrom

Post by Phil McGregor
On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 23:06:55 -0600, Rich Rostrom

Post by Rich Rostrom
Chinese, Jews. How long before some Australian
or expat Jew hunts down that failed painter
in Vienna?

If the Austrians don't arrest him first! Remember "Anschluss" wasn't
universally loved, even in 1938.

It will be a while before 1907 governments
act on 2007 retro-information against
individuals, especially for things they
haven't done yet.

Yes, but it would be a while before 2007 Jews could form the idea to
and then actually travel to Vienna and track down that failed painter,
too ... I imagine, for example, that Australian Passports would *not*
be instantly recognised by 1907 governments, so *instant* reaction to
Vienna is not likely, for a start.

As for acting on future acts ... well, 1907 was a more authoritarian
time ... especially in Europe. There were still laws on the books
preventing the marriage of adult indigents (or what the authorities
*classed* as indigents), for example ... jumping a step and placing
'future' criminals in 'preventative detention' isn't a big one, I
would have thought.

YMMV.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Austria in 1907 can barely imagine the fall
of the Empire, much less the Anschluss.
Whereas vast numbers of contemporary Jews are
deeply aware of the Holocaust.

Well, we don't actually *have* 'vast numbers' of Jews in Australia ...
either relatively or absolutely ... only 0.5% (98k) compared to just
over 2% (5.7 million) in the US, for example.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

Peter Bruells

2007-12-28 20:14:56 UTC

Post by j***@faf.mil.fi
Apart from some enthusiastic, utopist fellows who would want to make
the difference and participate in the making of history, I doubt
that many would be interested.

And give him a job as a painter?

Phil McGregor

2007-12-28 22:54:05 UTC

Post by j***@faf.mil.fi
Apart from some enthusiastic, utopist fellows who would want to make
the difference and participate in the making of history, I doubt
that many would be interested.

And give him a job as a painter?

He evidently only missed by one or two places getting entry into the
Fine Arts Academy ... give him a scholarship. Sponsored by a Jewish
charitable organisation ;-)

Oh, the Irony!

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

Jack Linthicum

2007-12-28 23:47:12 UTC

Post by j***@faf.mil.fi
Apart from some enthusiastic, utopist fellows who would want to make
the difference and participate in the making of history, I doubt
that many would be interested.

And give him a job as a painter?

He evidently only missed by one or two places getting entry into the
Fine Arts Academy ... give him a scholarship. Sponsored by a Jewish
charitable organisation ;-)
Oh, the Irony!
Phil
Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

And commission a set of works, say decorating the Israelitische
Kultusgemeinde Wien (Jewish religious community of Vienna, hereafter
IKG) library.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~wessweb/LBI47-10-Hacken.pdf

Peter Bruells

2007-12-31 14:43:12 UTC

Post by j***@faf.mil.fi
Apart from some enthusiastic, utopist fellows who would want to make
the difference and participate in the making of history, I doubt
that many would be interested.

And give him a job as a painter?

He evidently only missed by one or two places getting entry into the
Fine Arts Academy ... give him a scholarship. Sponsored by a Jewish
charitable organisation ;-)
Oh, the Irony!

Hey, if it prevents Nazism AND saves a yet innocent life.....

Anyway, the paitings from him that I've seen aren't that bad. I've
certainly seen worse from people who actually went to art school.

Now, Hitler replaycing Bob Ross, that's an interesting picture.

j***@faf.mil.fi

2007-12-29 12:56:09 UTC

I think there would be more of the latter than you realize. For one thing, there
are groups for which great historic grievances were in train in 1907 - and now
they would have a chance to end them.

"One man can make a difference"? The thing to remember is that once
you leave the 2007 surroundings you're used to, you're immediately on
deadly ground.

Remember, they don't necessarily go as powerless refugees, but as avatars of
the future, with knowledge and power.
The alternative is hanging out in Australia, probably on a meager dole, due the
economic chaos.

Do you think that people who "hang out on a meager dole" would have
potential to convert themselves into "avatars of the future"? The fact
is that if you're at the low end of the social pyramid in 2007, you're
going to inevitably end up the same way also in 1907, especially if
you're stupid enough try your luck alone.

That hypothetical uptime Islamic fundamentalist attempt to seize the
Arabian oilfields you mentioned? How these people could become "great
sheiks and leaders to dominate and to overthrow the infidel invaders"?
There's one class example of counterproductive fantasizing. Even if
these uptime fellows would be able rally some of the local clans - and
that's one big if - their attempt to instigate any rebellion would be
guaranteed to end in disaster.

Think it over for a while. Since Australia would obviously not grant
these renegades any continuous material aid, these people would be
left without any futuristic edge and be completely on their own, just
like any historical group of 1907 outlaws and rebels. And how much
success did they have? At the end of it, these adventurers would be
directed to the Ottoman scaffold or the British gallows.

Also, "economic chaos" in Australia? Based on what? The effects of the
transition would be broadly comparable to a wartime blockade; and any
first-world nation has the means to adjust to such a shift.

And the lack of imported electronics that you mentioned would be fatal
to their economy why exactly? The pre-existing computer park would not
be enough to keep the country running? Australia *has* enough high-
tech gadgets already, and most of those are durable enough to last for
many years. So far, the country would do just nice, and in a couple of
years, they'd be able to substitute for the lack of new production.

For a moment, they'll be stuck with what they have, but really, with
the rest of the world a century behind them in technological terms,
being stuck is not that bad.

Cheers,

J. J.

Rich Rostrom

2007-12-29 20:53:42 UTC

I think there would be more of the latter than you realize. For one thing, there
are groups for which great historic grievances were in train in 1907 - and now
they would have a chance to end them.

"One man can make a difference"? The thing to remember is that once
you leave the 2007 surroundings you're used to, you're immediately on
deadly ground.

Different contexts, for pete's sake!

Same frog, different ponds!

In the era of colonialism, many a white man who
a nobody in Europe became an important official
in Asia or Africa.

Let's take a Japanese tourist with limited
English skills and some knowledge of technology.

What's he got to offer in 2007 Australia? Nothing.

What's he got to offer in 1907 Japan? A lot.

Post by j***@faf.mil.fi
That hypothetical uptime Islamic fundamentalist attempt to seize the
Arabian oilfields you mentioned? How these people could become "great
sheiks and leaders to dominate and to overthrow the infidel invaders"?

They bring knowledge (historical, technological)
that is far beyond anything the locals have. Also
a spirit of Arab nationalism that is going to
start some fires. Ottoman Turkey was already in
very bad shape; it will now be attacked by Greeks,
Kurds (there are some in Australia), Armenians,
and Arabs.

Post by j***@faf.mil.fi
Also, "economic chaos" in Australia? Based on what? The effects of the
transition would be broadly comparable to a wartime blockade;

Far more drastic than any wartime blockade.

Post by j***@faf.mil.fi
and any first-world nation has the means to adjust to such a shift.

That's a rather confident statement.

This is more drastic than any blockade,
and much more sudden.

Roughly 20% of Australia's economy is
trade-based. That evaporates instantly.

Another large part is dependent on imported
goods. That seizes up too.

U.S. military procurers these days are discovering
(unpleasantly) just how many things aren't made in
the U.S. any more. Many of these things aren't that
important in themselves, but they are required, and
they are not replaceable easily. Without the right
widgets - the particular widget designed into the
item... and widget-making all moved offshore...

Post by j***@faf.mil.fi
And the lack of imported electronics that you mentioned would be fatal
to their economy why exactly?

Because electronics is in _everything_
these days. Medicine, transportation,
manufacturing. Including a lot of consumables.

And the sources of this have gone completely.
There will be disruptions everywhere, and
here and there very painful binds that are
insoluble. Cheap little parts that wear out
and _can't_ be replaced.

A certain amount of stagger along and patch
things up is possible; but there would be
cascading and interlocking failures.

Australia is a continent, a large nation.
But on the scale of a modern economy,
Australia alone would be the equivalent
of a party of castaways.

Jack Linthicum

2007-12-29 21:20:58 UTC

I think there would be more of the latter than you realize. For one thing, there
are groups for which great historic grievances were in train in 1907 - and now
they would have a chance to end them.

"One man can make a difference"? The thing to remember is that once
you leave the 2007 surroundings you're used to, you're immediately on
deadly ground.

Different contexts, for pete's sake!
Same frog, different ponds!
In the era of colonialism, many a white man who
a nobody in Europe became an important official
in Asia or Africa.
Let's take a Japanese tourist with limited
English skills and some knowledge of technology.
What's he got to offer in 2007 Australia? Nothing.
What's he got to offer in 1907 Japan? A lot.

Post by j***@faf.mil.fi
Also, "economic chaos" in Australia? Based on what? The effects of the
transition would be broadly comparable to a wartime blockade;

Far more drastic than any wartime blockade.

Post by j***@faf.mil.fi
and any first-world nation has the means to adjust to such a shift.

That's a rather confident statement.
This is more drastic than any blockade,
and much more sudden.
Roughly 20% of Australia's economy is
trade-based. That evaporates instantly.
Another large part is dependent on imported
goods. That seizes up too.
U.S. military procurers these days are discovering
(unpleasantly) just how many things aren't made in
the U.S. any more. Many of these things aren't that
important in themselves, but they are required, and
they are not replaceable easily. Without the right
widgets - the particular widget designed into the
item... and widget-making all moved offshore...

Post by j***@faf.mil.fi
And the lack of imported electronics that you mentioned would be fatal
to their economy why exactly?

Because electronics is in _everything_
these days. Medicine, transportation,
manufacturing. Including a lot of consumables.
And the sources of this have gone completely.
There will be disruptions everywhere, and
here and there very painful binds that are
insoluble. Cheap little parts that wear out
and _can't_ be replaced.
A certain amount of stagger along and patch
things up is possible; but there would be
cascading and interlocking failures.
Australia is a continent, a large nation.
But on the scale of a modern economy,
Australia alone would be the equivalent
of a party of castaways.
--
| Decapitation is, in most instances, associated |
| with a decline in IQ. |
| |
| -- Professor Raymond Tallis |

There are many small machine shops in Australia, here is a list. Those
small parts will get made.

http://www.machineshopweb.com/shopsA2Z/australia.htm

There is a fair sized electronics industry http://www.aeema.asn.au/

Those imports are mostly luxury goods.

The Japanese tourist is more than likely going to be a representative
of either the automotive or electronics industry. There may be a
decision to be made as to whether to stay and fit in, or go to the
home country and try to raise a infant economy into a stage of
puberty. The same with any other non-Australian with a skill that
could translate into either working in Australia or making the old
home country an economic power.

j***@faf.mil.fi

2007-12-30 11:57:47 UTC

Post by j***@faf.mil.fi
Do you think that people who "hang out on a meager dole" would have
potential to convert themselves into "avatars of the future"? The fact is that if
you're at the low end of the social pyramid in 2007, you're going to inevitably end
up the same way also in 1907, especially if you're stupid enough try your luck
alone.

Different contexts, for pete's sake!
Same frog, different ponds!

Sorry, Rich, but no. A fellow whose only possibility in the 2007
Australia is to "hang out on a dole" has already failed to make it in
the open society of a modern welfare state with a relatively level
playing field.

Why on earth would this average person do _better_ in the hostile 1907
world, where he'd have to do some serious fighting, tooth and nail, in
order just to be somebody? Without any connections or background, of
course.

Post by Rich Rostrom
In the era of colonialism, many a white man who a nobody in Europe became an
important official in Asia or Africa.

This required a pioneer mentality, a willingness to start from the
scratch and a fighting spirit. Again, somehow I don't see these
qualities in an average uptime person who has ended at the low level
of the social pyramid in the considerably more comfortable world of
ours.

Besides, by the year 1907, the era of conquistadors is pretty much
over. Even the Scramble for Africa has ended, with the interest
spheres already settled between the European powers. And they don't
tolerate meddlers.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Let's take a Japanese tourist with limited English skills and some knowledge of
technology.
What's he got to offer in 2007 Australia? Nothing.
What's he got to offer in 1907 Japan? A lot.

Um. By the year 1907, the Meiji Japan has a number of people perfectly
fluent in English, so the "limited English skills" of this Japanese
person aren't much of an advantage. As for his "some knowledge of
technology", what would this be? Being able to fix a television
doesn't mean that he'd be able to reverse-engineer and design one,
least of all with the 1907 tool kit.

Leaving aside that this fellow is from post-Nagasaki Japan. How would
he (... and it would have to be "he") fit in the the conservative
social structure of the Meiji Japan?

They bring knowledge (historical, technological) that is far beyond anything the
locals have. Also a spirit of Arab nationalism that is going to start some fires.

Yeah, so? There was a spirit of Arab nationalism in 1907 even in our
timeline. The appearance of a few future adventurers is going to make
difference because...?

"Technological knowledge" means squat, because the 1907 Arabia has
absolutely no infrastructure allowing the uptimers to make use of
their (limited) knowledge. And again, these renegades could not rely
on Australian support in their private venture. They would be on their
own, with 1907 equipment and hardware, in a hostile world which has an
extremely nasty attitude towards rebellious uppity wogs.

In short, they'd be dead meat.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Ottoman Turkey was already in very bad shape; it will now be attacked by Greeks,
Kurds (there are some in Australia), Armenians, and Arabs.

Right, because the Ottoman Turkey immediately collapsed in the Balkan
Wars and the subsequent Italian invasion in our timeline.

How would those 1'500 Kurds in Australia mount their massive invasion?
And where did you get the idea of Kurds and Armenians cooperating
together? In the year 1907, these two ethnic groups are sworn enemies
with a history of bloody hostilities.

I'll grant you the 300'000 Greek Australians as a possible joker in
the pack, but again, there's the question of why exactly would people
who are used to the 21st century surroundings and comforts willingly
relocate to a country where tap water is considered a luxury,
electricity is practically unheard of in most households and the
social norms still include blood feud and subjugation of women.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Roughly 20% of Australia's economy is trade-based.
That evaporates instantly.

And they can be re-established just as instantly. Why do you assume
that the agricultural sector of the modern Australia, for example,
would not be important to the United Kingdom in 1907? Especially when
you keep in mind that the downtime Britain would be deprived of the
Australian agricultural imports just as sudden, and would be more than
willing to accept any deal.

Frankly, in time, the modern Australia would have the potential to
_outcompete_ more than a few 1907 countries.

Post by Rich Rostrom
U.S. military procurers these days are discovering (unpleasantly) just how
many things aren't made in the U.S. any more. Many of these things aren't
that important in themselves, but they are required, and they are not replaceable
easily.

Why replace them when you have them already? All that Australia has to
do is to keep up its advantage relative to the 1907 world. They can
afford to remain stagnant in some fields, and they can even afford to
accept taking a few backward steps.

Post by j***@faf.mil.fi
And the lack of imported electronics that you mentioned would be fatal
to their economy why exactly?

Because electronics is in _everything_ these days. Medicine, transportation,
manufacturing. Including a lot of consumables.

Yes, and Australia has plenty of electronic gadgets already. It's a
respectable first-world nation. So?

The country has zillion computers, the computers that they already
have can last for decades without wearing out, even the _older_
computers can be cannibalized as a make-do solution in the 1907 world,
and meanwhile, they have the equipment and the know-how to eventually
produce their own.

They're not dependent on the imports remaining constant. Again, any
modern society can stand a blockade.

Post by Rich Rostrom
And the sources of this have gone completely.

The electronic appliances in Australia itself have disappeared?

I'm sort of wondering at this apparent paradox in your reasoning.
According to you, any band of brave future renegades would be able to
build a new life as succesful conquistadors in the 1907 world, relying
on their futuristic knowledge... yet at the same time, an entire
_nation_ with a modern infrastructure and functioning state networks
far ahead of anything in this downtime world would be heading towards
a sudden collapse.

Do you have some ideological inclinations at play here, possibly?

Cheers,

J. J.

Rich Rostrom

2007-12-31 01:28:18 UTC

Post by j***@faf.mil.fi
Sorry, Rich, but no. A fellow whose only possibility in the 2007
Australia is to "hang out on a dole" has already failed to make it in
the open society of a modern welfare state with a relatively level
playing field.
Why on earth would this average person do _better_ in the hostile 1907
world, where he'd have to do some serious fighting, tooth and nail, in
order just to be somebody? Without any connections or background, of
course.

As a visitor from the future, he becomes "somebody"
almost _automatically_. Every political faction would
be vying for the endorsement of the Future, to begin
with - trying to spin the retro-history as proof that
their policies or leaders are Right and those of the
opposition are Wrong. Every manufacturer would be vying
for every crumb of future tech knowledge.

Post by Rich Rostrom
In the era of colonialism, many a white man who a nobody in Europe became an
important official in Asia or Africa.

This required a pioneer mentality, a willingness to start from the
scratch and a fighting spirit.

Crap. The ranks of colonial officialdom
in 1907 were rife with men who were the
next thing to remittance men. Anyone who
"blotted his copybook" was, almost routinely,
dispatched to the colonies.

Colonial service was also the common road
for ambitious working-class and lower-middle
class chaps who were blocked at home.

Post by j***@faf.mil.fi
Besides, by the year 1907, the era of conquistadors is pretty much
over. Even the Scramble for Africa has ended, with the interest
spheres already settled between the European powers. And they don't
tolerate meddlers.

This is a complete misunderstanding of what
I wrote. I was analogizing from Australia 2007-
World 1907 to Europe 1907-colonies 1907.

Um. By the year 1907, the Meiji Japan has a number of people perfectly
fluent in English, so the "limited English skills" of this Japanese
person aren't much of an advantage.

The point is that in Australia, he is
_illiterate_ and _helpless_.

Turn it around. Suppose you were in 2007 Japan,
ISOTed to 1907. Assume you have no Japanese
and very little English. No money, no goods
except your luggage. What can you do in Japan?
Clean toilets? Pick up trash? Beg?

Post by j***@faf.mil.fi
As for his "some knowledge of technology", what would this be?

_Specifically_, who knows? But there are lots
of bits of technical knowledge that are commonplace
now which would be very valuable in 1907. How a
vacuum tube works. How newer gasoline engines work
(self-starters, Idunno what else: but a chap who's
spent the last 20 years in Nissan's design labs
could give a huge leg up to 1907 engineers).

Post by j***@faf.mil.fi
Leaving aside that this fellow is from post-Nagasaki Japan. How would
he (... and it would have to be "he") fit in the the conservative
social structure of the Meiji Japan?

How does he fit into the completely alien culture
of 2007 Australia? I think there is a personal
perspective issue here. As a Finn, you are a member
of a very small culture, which is very deeply penetrated
by foreign cultures and the "global culture". You are
very fluent in English, which makes you a "citizen of
the world", so to speak. The thought of being stranded
in Australia doesn't disturb _you_. You're used to being
a "fish out of water", or more precisely, a fish in a pond
with a lot of different waters in it.

A Japanese is from a much larger, much more distinctive and
self-sufficient culture; also one which is much more different
from Australia (or _anything_ else). I'm not saying Japan is
truly insular anymore; but it is still far more so than Finland.

Lots of south Asians who have very comfortable lives
in America retire to India in spite of all discomforts
because it's _India_: where they are at _home_.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Ottoman Turkey was already in very bad shape; it will now be attacked by Greeks,
Kurds (there are some in Australia), Armenians, and Arabs.

Who said anything about Kurds and Armenians
cooperating? But I would expect the bad history
of the last 100 years to be propagated into
1907 Kurds, alienating them from the Turks.
Perhaps not - the great division came as a
result of Kemalism. More likely, the Ottomans
move to avoid this.

Post by j***@faf.mil.fi
I'll grant you the 300'000 Greek Australians as a possible joker in
the pack, but again, there's the question of why exactly would people
who are used to the 21st century surroundings and comforts willingly
relocate to a country where tap water is considered a luxury,
electricity is practically unheard of in most households and the
social norms still include blood feud and subjugation of women.

Post by Rich Rostrom
Roughly 20% of Australia's economy is trade-based.
That evaporates instantly.

And they can be re-established just as instantly. Why do you assume
that the agricultural sector of the modern Australia, for example,
would not be important to the United Kingdom in 1907?

How does the food get from Australia to Britain?

Even assuming the shipping capacity is there,
Australia's docks are very possibly not compatible
with 1907 ships.

How does 1907 Britain pay 2007 for it?

What happens to the market for Australian wine?

All of Australia's import/export business
relations have been severed. Some can be
rebuilt over time. In the short term it
all shuts down.

Post by j***@faf.mil.fi
Frankly, in time, the modern Australia would have the potential to
_outcompete_ more than a few 1907 countries.

Eventually. In the short term, they hit a wall.

Eventually. What happens today, tomorrow, next week?

Yes. Australia can keep going for a while on the tech
inventory in hand. And they can _eventually_ work up
to manufacturing replacements.

But the two processes are on very different scales.

It will be a very iffy thing - can Australia ramp
up replacement production before the goods in service
collapse?

Post by j***@faf.mil.fi
And the lack of imported electronics that you mentioned would be fatal
to their economy why exactly?

Because electronics is in _everything_ these days. Medicine, transportation,
manufacturing. Including a lot of consumables.

Yes, and Australia has plenty of electronic gadgets already. It's a
respectable first-world nation. So?

I did mention "consumables".

Post by j***@faf.mil.fi
I'm sort of wondering at this apparent paradox in your reasoning.
According to you, any band of brave future renegades would be able to
build a new life as succesful conquistadors in the 1907 world, relying
on their futuristic knowledge...

I didn't write that. What I wrote was (summarizing)
people from other countries stranded in 2007 Australia
would have a large impact on their 1907 homelands; so
would 2007 Australian immigrant/ethnic populations. (Not
in the same way, obviously.)

Post by j***@faf.mil.fi
an entire _nation_ with

_parts_ of

Post by j***@faf.mil.fi
a modern infrastructure and functioning state networks
far ahead of anything in this downtime world would be heading towards
a sudden collapse.

Let's imagine several variant ISOTs, and just "modern",
"First World" countries:

U.S.
France
Australia
Sweden
Singapore
Iceland

At some point, down the scale, it is certain that the
2007 cannot maintain its tech level, and its 2007
economy will break down. Tech can be recovered, but
that will take many years.

Personally, I'm not sure that the U.S. would avoid
collapse in such a situation. I know, for instance,
that in American stores the proportion of consumer
goods made overseas is enormous. Electronics, power
tools, appliances, toys, clothing. Wal-Mart could be
described as China's U.S. marketing arm. Now add
in the proportion of manufacturing that goes through
Canada and Mexico at some stage.

High tech is similar. Now chop it all out _at_ _once_.

I don't know that much about Australian conditions.

I do know that Australia's economy is an order of
magnitude smaller than the U.S. and proportionately
more integrated with other economies and dependent
on them. More isolated (there is no Australian
analog to Canada); but that's a small mercy.

Ed Stasiak

2007-12-31 05:16:06 UTC

Post by Rich Rostrom
Same frog, different ponds!

But where would a foreign tourist get a job in an Australia that
is going thru all the disruptions of an "ISOT" event?

I'd think there would be all kinda lay-offs of native Australian
workers due to the loss of every single trading partner the nation
had in 2007.

For example; the Australian auto industry won't be able to make
many vehicles when X% of the necessary imported parts comes
to a complete halt (especially in these days of "just-in-time" parts
supply).

And if they ain't making cars, they're going to lay off their workers
and those workers are going to have to find jobs somewhere and
they'll be hired before some stranded tourist, even if the tourist is
a native English speaker from the UK or U.S.

Post by j***@faf.mil.fi
Why on earth would this average person do _better_ in the hostile
1907 world, where he'd have to do some serious fighting, tooth
and nail, in order just to be somebody? Without any connections
or background, of course.

We're talking about 1907, not 907. The western world is pretty
civilized by this time and a 2007 person with valuable skills (like
say, an American automotive industry engineer on vacation) would
be able to virtually write his own ticket in his 1907 homeland.

But if he stays in ISOT Australia, he'd be a jobless foreigner in a
nation where thousands of Aussies have just lost their jobs due to
the loss of every single trading partner the nation had in 2007.

Phil McGregor

2007-12-30 05:33:33 UTC

Post by j***@faf.mil.fi
many years. So far, the country would do just nice, and in a couple of
years, they'd be able to substitute for the lack of new production.

Umm, while I agree broadly with your arguments, I feel that, perhaps,
you have underestimated just how long it would be before Australia
could build, not entirely from scratch, but close enough, a modern
microelectronic manufacturing capability. Just a *tad* ... say a
generation rather than, strictly, a "couple" (= 2) years.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

e***@sympatico.ca

2007-12-30 20:23:27 UTC

Post by Phil McGregor
Umm, while I agree broadly with your arguments, I feel that, perhaps,
you have underestimated just how long it would be before Australia
could build, not entirely from scratch, but close enough, a modern
microelectronic manufacturing capability. Just a *tad* ... say a
generation rather than, strictly, a "couple" (= 2) years.

It depends on how far they want to go. To reach the level of fabs of
2007 may take decades, but a plant to duplicate 1970's TTL/RTL logic
chips would only take a year or two. Then they just have to stay
ahead of the game for the next couple of decades.

Phil McGregor

2007-12-30 23:28:56 UTC

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 12:23:27 -0800 (PST),

Post by e***@sympatico.ca

Indeed, as I believe I mentioned earlier, I am pretty sure that Oz
still has the capability to produce early 70's chips on a small,
prototype, base ... as has had until recently.

As I also noted, there are enough engineers around with experience in
vacuum tubes and transistors to allow for *vastly* improved tube tech,
for a stary ... sorta like Russia in the 70's ... they had the most
advanced vacuum tube tech in the world, and Radio Shack, evidently,
sourced most of the vacuum tubes they sold back when *from* the east
bloc ... pity that the rest of the world was going to microprocessors.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

mike

2007-12-30 06:02:58 UTC

Post by j***@faf.mil.fi
these uptime fellows would be able rally some of the local clans - and
that's one big if - their attempt to instigate any rebellion would be
guaranteed to end in disaster.
Think it over for a while. Since Australia would obviously not grant
these renegades any continuous material aid, these people would be
left without any futuristic edge and be completely on their own, just
like any historical group of 1907 outlaws and rebels. And how much
success did they have? At the end of it, these adventurers would be
directed to the Ottoman scaffold or the British gallows.

Imagine Abdul Aziz ibn Saud's reaction on some nobody from the
future, said he, who would rule what what would be Saudi Arabia
as King, not Sultan, be defender of Mecca and Medina, was a
tool of the Americans (what? not British or French or Turk?) and
didn't follow the 5 tenets of Islam. Lucky to leave his tent alive.

Don't think they would get much better response from the Hashemites
or Rashidis, either

So starting at the top is out of the question, and trying a popular
movement without a drop of noble blood and no sacks of Gold, well,
good luck with that.

**
mike
**

Allen W. McDonnell

2007-12-26 10:36:15 UTC

Post by Dan Goodman
Not under all circumstances. For example, they're unlikely to use
atomic weapons against Irish rebels.
--
Dan Goodman

They are unlikely to support ANY 1907 Government. Alliances? Perhaps,
support? No.
Tony Bailey

I think that would all depend on Australian politics, something I am poorly
acquainted with. However, you are missing something key here, you don't
need a government cooperation really, all you need is individual
scientists/engineers or a small movement to feed knowledge to the UK. With
30 million or so in population Australia has two choices. They can either
cooperate on a large scale with the UK/USA or they can have spies recruited
from amongst their population as soon as the powers of 1907 figure out it is
worth spying on them.

Given their existing aircraft even with no other factor that makes them
espionage worthy to all the leading powers of 1907.

Smuggling a few physics/engineering textbooks out of a lightly populated
country with a huge coastline is not all that difficult either.

Knowledge will get out. How will the powers of 1907 use that knowledge?
Will they be offering alliances or making threats? The world of 1907 is
much more trigger happy than the world of 2007, and that includes places
like India where Gandhi has not been convincing people that non-violent
resistance can be effective.

A 2007 Cessna armed with under wing machine guns would be able to knock down
anything the world of 1907 could put in the air with a reasonable pilot. I
wouldn't want to see one in a close air support role getting hit by ground
fire, but against anything in the air it would be the best machine out
there. And Australia has the skills to mass produce something purpose
built, not just adapt a solid design like the Cessna company designs. I am
not sure they are up to copying the F-22 Raptor right off the bat, but
building copies of WW II aircraft like the Mosquito fighter/bomber would be
a piece of cake, they have all the designs in their archives. They could
get rich just exporting WW II era aircraft, whomever they sell too is
unbeatable for a few years until the other countries buy or steal the
technology for themselves.

Phil McGregor

2007-12-26 11:35:18 UTC

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 05:36:15 -0500, "Allen W. McDonnell"

Post by Allen W. McDonnell
acquainted with. However, you are missing something key here, you don't
need a government cooperation really, all you need is individual
scientists/engineers or a small movement to feed knowledge to the UK. With
30 million or so in population Australia has two choices. They can either

~20-22 million, IIRC.

Half the population of the UK, approximately, for 1907 ... but vastly
more productive.

I wonder whether we could get "Imperial Preference" down solid?

Of course, given that the products we *could* manufacture would be so
far ahead of anything the locals have, why *wouldn't* the Empire *beg*
for "Imperial Preference" in trade ... "Please, please, sell *us* the
goodies first!"

Post by Allen W. McDonnell
cooperate on a large scale with the UK/USA or they can have spies recruited
from amongst their population as soon as the powers of 1907 figure out it is
worth spying on them.

Why bother? Simply relocate. If you really want to become an English
Squire, and you have marketable high tech knowledge or skills, simply
move there.

I can't see the Commonwealth moving to prevent it ... not even if
Philip Ruddock was still in charge of Migration ;-)

Post by Allen W. McDonnell
Smuggling a few physics/engineering textbooks out of a lightly populated
country with a huge coastline is not all that difficult either.

Why would we bother to stop it, even if it were possible?

Knowledge =/ ability to turn it into anything useful quickly.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

Allen W. McDonnell

2007-12-26 10:17:26 UTC

Post by Dan Goodman

Post by Allen W. McDonnell
..

Post by christopher fardell
What if Australia was moved back in time, by alien space bats, from
this date (25th December) this year, to the 25th December 1907.

This needs more details. Does it replace the 1907 Australia or
arrive in the middle of empty ocean as an addition?
How do modern Australians feel about the royal family circa 1907?
Australia has lots of Uranium mined every year but no nuclear
industry to make use of it, unless they develope a bomb/power system
those mines will be mothballed.
So Australia 'invents' nuclear weapons in 1907 and provides them to
the British Empire and their King. Great Britain is even more
aggressive than OTL. While Australia lacks an large aircraft
industry building personal aircraft aka WW II type aircraft is not a
great leap. Coupled with nukes this makes the British Empire pretty
much unbeatable.

Not under all circumstances. For example, they're unlikely to use
atomic weapons against Irish rebels.

Hardly necessary for the Brit's to use nuke on Irish Rebels (tm) in 1907!
Besides the obvious fact that they didn't use overwhelming force in OTL,
what reason would they have in ATL that would justify doing so in their own
worldview?

christopher fardell

2007-12-26 09:55:03 UTC

Post by christopher fardell
What if Australia was moved back in time, by alien space bats, from
this date (25th December) this year, to the 25th December 1907.

This needs more details. Does it replace the 1907 Australia or arrive in
the middle of empty ocean as an addition?

It replaces the 1907 Australia

Post by Allen W. McDonnell
How do modern Australians feel about the royal family circa 1907?

Not sure

Post by Allen W. McDonnell
Australia has lots of Uranium mined every year but no nuclear industry to
make use of it, unless they develope a bomb/power system those mines will be
mothballed.
So Australia 'invents' nuclear weapons in 1907 and provides them to the
British Empire and their King. Great Britain is even more aggressive than
OTL. While Australia lacks an large aircraft industry building personal
aircraft aka WW II type aircraft is not a great leap. Coupled with nukes
this makes the British Empire pretty much unbeatable.

I don't think this would happen. I don't see, any Australian
government supporting the British Government's policies in India and
Africa...

Jack Linthicum

2007-12-26 11:40:33 UTC

Post by christopher fardell
What if Australia was moved back in time, by alien space bats, from
this date (25th December) this year, to the 25th December 1907.

This needs more details. Does it replace the 1907 Australia or arrive in
the middle of empty ocean as an addition?
How do modern Australians feel about the royal family circa 1907?
Australia has lots of Uranium mined every year but no nuclear industry to
make use of it, unless they develope a bomb/power system those mines will be
mothballed.
So Australia 'invents' nuclear weapons in 1907 and provides them to the
British Empire and their King. Great Britain is even more aggressive than
OTL. While Australia lacks an large aircraft industry building personal
aircraft aka WW II type aircraft is not a great leap. Coupled with nukes
this makes the British Empire pretty much unbeatable.

Young Einstein?

Phil McGregor

2007-12-26 12:38:44 UTC

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 03:40:33 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum
Young Einstein?

Yahoos are serious?

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

Jack Linthicum

2007-12-26 13:00:18 UTC

Post by Phil McGregor
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 03:40:33 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum
Young Einstein?

Yahoos are serious?
Phil
Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I asked on another post what effort Australia could expend to reach
what all of the other posters seem to feel is a given: nuclear
capability and a 21st century energy use. Splitting the beer atom
seems to be about the extreme limit.

Dan

2007-12-26 15:09:05 UTC

Post by Phil McGregor
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 03:40:33 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum
Young Einstein?

Yahoos are serious?
Phil
Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

OK so Australia has 2 big choices cooperate with the British Empire
but try to influence it or force compllete and total independance.
The 1901 act gave nominal independance but it was post WWI before a
true independant forign policy developed.

The decision will be infuenced by both the attitude of GB and an
internal Australian debate.

The other big question is where does it get supplies for 21st
centuary lifestyle. Oil has already been mentioned in 1907 Sudia
Arabia does not yet exist, Iran has oil and a major British refinary-
the Dutch East Indies have barely been exploited yet, the US and the
Caribean are major source of world exports.

does Australa cooperate or just take what it needs?
Oil from Persia and cooperate with British Empire?
oil from US and boom in Texas and California?
Oil from new Australian mandate/colony of Indonesia after swift
Australian Dutch war?

GB sees Australia as major resource so need for Anglo French or
Russian ententes so GB stays out of alt WWI .

How does *Australia cope with immigration pressure?
how many Europeans travelled to US 1907-14, they now all want to go to
Australia.

Jack Linthicum

2007-12-26 15:34:05 UTC

Post by Dan

Post by Phil McGregor
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 03:40:33 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum
Young Einstein?

Yahoos are serious?
Phil
Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

OK so Australia has 2 big choices cooperate with the British Empire
but try to influence it or force compllete and total independance.
The 1901 act gave nominal independance but it was post WWI before a
true independant forign policy developed.
The decision will be infuenced by both the attitude of GB and an
internal Australian debate.
The other big question is where does it get supplies for 21st
centuary lifestyle. Oil has already been mentioned in 1907 Sudia
Arabia does not yet exist, Iran has oil and a major British refinary-
the Dutch East Indies have barely been exploited yet, the US and the
Caribean are major source of world exports.
does Australa cooperate or just take what it needs?
Oil from Persia and cooperate with British Empire?
oil from US and boom in Texas and California?
Oil from new Australian mandate/colony of Indonesia after swift
Australian Dutch war?
GB sees Australia as major resource so need for Anglo French or
Russian ententes so GB stays out of alt WWI .
How does *Australia cope with immigration pressure?
how many Europeans travelled to US 1907-14, they now all want to go to
Australia.

I note that the two ships the 2007 Aussies have are helicopter
carriers, probably more useful than full off aircraft carriers as the
helos can land in 1907 world and the conventional aircraft can't.
Australia has a fairly substantial petroleum industry and no nuclear
power plants, the idea of sharing the expertise from the petro with
the other nations is tantalizing. The exchange should probably be
food, especially if the emigration is substantial.

Saudi doesn't exist yet, Abdul-Asiz won't invade the Najd for another
8 years, and control Arabia for another 20. The British have a system
of protectorates in the Gulf and at least Kuwait and Najd are
considered Ottoman. Might be useful to live off the other oil
producing nations for a while and cultivate the Gulf sheikhs. Remember
until about 1960 most the area was still living in the 18th century
with a few 20th century toys.

Would 2007 Australia make some move to eliminate Lenin or let that
ride? How about killing an 18-year old Hitler? Bin Ladin's
grandfather? etc. etc.

at 20m 2007 Australia is not very big so every soldier sent out to
guard a colony is a subtraction from the working force.

1907 pops, wiki

Russia ca. 150,000,000
United States 87,008,000
Germany 62,010,000
Dutch East Indies (Netherlands) 45,880,000
Japan 40,000,000
Austria-Hungary 40,000,000
United Kingdom 39,700,000
France 38,343,000
Italy 33,640,700
Ottoman Empire 28,000,000

Australia has a substantial Navy
http://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/amphib.html
http://www.navy.gov.au/ships/default.html

Phil McGregor

2007-12-26 23:19:30 UTC

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 05:00:18 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 03:40:33 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum
Young Einstein?

Yahoos are serious?

Yahoos *are* serious.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

The Horny Goat

2007-12-27 00:33:54 UTC

Post by Phil McGregor
Yahoos *are* serious.

They weren't even serious when it was Jonathan Swift writing about
them.

Phil McGregor

2007-12-27 13:26:17 UTC

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by Phil McGregor
Yahoos *are* serious.

They weren't even serious when it was Jonathan Swift writing about
them.

Napoleon is Dynamite!

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

Rich Rostrom

2007-12-27 00:28:05 UTC

Post by christopher fardell
What if Australia was moved back in time, by alien space bats, from
this date (25th December) this year, to the 25th December 1907.

Leaving aside the psychological and cultural
impacts of a ****MIRACLE****...

1) Australia becomes the most important
nation on earth instantly.

2) Australia's economy collapses, due to
the absence of all import and export
partners. Massive shortages of oil.
Australia's 2007 technological base
depends on supplies of tech goods
90% made elsewhere. (Does Australia
have even one wafer fab line for
manufacture of integrated circuits?
Certainly Australia makes none of
the equipment used in a wafer fab
line.) Disk drives, LCD displays,
CRTs, power supplies, etc - all made
in East Asia. Does Australia make its
own toner cartridges? Electronic assemblies
for automobile engine systems - almost
certainly imported. Pharmaceuticals?
How long can Australia maintain its bit
of the Internet? The DNS root servers are
in the U.S. Or its telecom system.
Some things die instantly, for instance
GPS service, satellite telecom.

How long can Australia maintain its
software base? 97% of the developers
and source code are elsewhere and now
gone. Open-source becomes a necessity,
because the source to, say, Windows is
gone. Even OSS is problematic, because
a lot of it lives in repositories not
in Australia.

3) Australia's knowledge base is enormous,
100 years ahead of the world, but cannot
be contained. One would guess that the
embassies and consulates in Australia
have copies of encyclopedias and reference
books, which they would ship out to their
home countries.

4) Cultural crisis. 2007 Australia is the Future,
right? And the future is "post-Christian",
feminist, "multi-cultural" - especially under
the Labor government. Expect the Australian
government to begin teaching the world about
the Hideous Evils of White Imperialism, especially
Evil Imperialist Britain, and Evil Imperialist
Capitalist America. Much of the Australian Left
will see this as a [not-God]-given opportunity
to do over the 20th century and get Socialism
_right_. Since they control the Australian
government, that will be the message. There will
be sympathetic reactions in the British 1907
left, and even perhaps in the British government
which was Liberal at the time.

There will be a conflict - Australian conservatives
pointing out the OTL catastrophes of Socialism and
how it ultimately ended in Blairism, China's "Red
Capitalism", the fall of the USSR, while capitalism
flourished. Getting that narrative out when the
government is putting out the opposite will be hard.

5) Australia's military, such as it is, rules the
world, until it runs out of ammo, fuel, and
spare parts. All arms races stop - what possible
use is a dreadnought now? Efforts to assimilate
neo-tech into arms starts. Australia will try to
leverage its temporary dominant position into a
U.N.-with-teeth... If I read the entrails correctly
the Rudd government is mostly "transnational
progressive" in sentiment, and would seek that end.
Also general disarmament - all current arms now
obsolete, why build new when the alt-UN will maintain
peace?

6) Cultural crisis B: the embassies etc will return
to home countries bearing 2007's knowledge and
views. The knowledge gives them power, but the
views will be for the most part radical. In some
cases the returnees can work with the home government,
in other cases not.

Japan: probably can work; will get a terrifying warning
of what militarism and imperialism could buy them, a
tempting view of what capitalism could achieve for them.

Britain: could work, some. Perhaps I overestimate the
flexibility of the 1907 Liberals. I can't see Britain
making any effort at all to assert authority over 2007
Australia. The future end of the Empire and so on: I
think that was already understood, at a certain level.
100 years off, yes things would be different.

South Africa: no work at all, obviously. The exiles
become agitators for revolution, with the backing
of Australia.

India: similar, but not as explosive. There is no
_internal_ reactionary force to be overcome; there
was never the stone wall against independence and
civil equality that there was in South Africa against
black citizenship. The Raj was not foundationally
oppressive as Apartheid was; the returnees could
live with working to evolve it. After all the Indian
Congress is there, Gandhi is there - progress is
possible, and the returnees know it happened OTL.

China: OT1H, nominal Communists versus the Imperial
House. OTOH, Chinese nationalism is a powerful force,
and 1907 was a period of Chinese national decline to
the nadir of 1920-40. The returnees might swallow their
"Red" sentiments and attempt to collaborate with the
Imperial regime in restoring China's national dignity.
This might lead to early repudiation of the monarchy,
as the returnees have decisive evidence of the monarchy's
failure. There will however be explosive resistance from
die-hard reactionaries.

Korea: see South Africa, sort of. Or more like China.
Korea was still nominally independent in 1907. 1907
Japan will object to the returnees. Australia may be
inclined to back them, or to stifle them for better
relations with Japan.

Germany: Should work some. As in Japan, the returnees
have warnings to give against foolish and disastrous
paths not to follow. The Kaiser won't be happy, but
the Chancellor and ministers will listen, and there
will surely be huge interest in the new tech.

France: Very full cooperation. Warnings against the
dangers from the anglophones and others; possibly a
cooperative effort to sustain France's Great Power
status. Some friction over anti-colonialist sentiment
among returnees, but France is the biggest and most
unabashed residual colonial power today; I would guess
that the returnees will embrace the mission civilatrice
and all that.

U.S.: Hmm. TR will grab hold and run away with much
of this. OTOH the race issue will start some fires
burning. The U.S. will have not only the returning
embassy staff but also a fair number of returning
tourists (average 35,000/month, figure a typical
two-week trip, so about 18,000 caught in Australia).
Many of these will be black, and will absolutely reject
returning to Jim Crow America, or else return to agitate
for immediate civil rights reform. U.S. military in Oz
varied from 171 to 803 in the 2000s. There will be
some black officers. TR was, unfortunately,
a racist. (He stated privately that full democracy was
impossible in the American South because there were
too many blacks - even majorities - there, who were
incapable of functioning as citizens.) Also female
officers.

Russia: Work, I think. As in China, the nationalist
desire to preserve the country will overcome any
ideological distaste for the monarchy of 1907. The
returnees are not even nominal Reds. Again, however,
the monarchy is incompetent and might be repudiated.
Neo-tech medicine might displace Rasputin, which
could only help.

Austria: ????

Turkey: ????

Other ugly ones: Ireland, Vietnam, Indonesia, Ukraine,
Finland, _Poland_.

Saudi Arabia: will suddenly be out of money and
have no homeland at all, really. However, the
returnees will be keenly aware of the need to
secure the Saudi oilfields ASAP if P.

7) The spread of neo-tech.

This will happen on two fronts.

A) 2007 textbooks and handbooks will be grabbed to
upgrade the 1907 tech base as fast as possible.

B) There will be an effort to maintain the existing
2007 tech base as long as possible, substituting
1907 labor where usable.

These efforts will be complementary, for a while at
least. There is no way for 2007 tech to replace 1907
in daily work of food production, transport, printing,
weaving, mining, metal-working, construction. OTOH
2007 tech will be very valuable for some things and
there will be a concerted movement to ramp up required
supporting tech.

For instance,

A) A leap forward in IC engine technology to self-starters
of ca 1930. Vacuum tube based radios. Antibiotics and sulfa drugs.

B) Hand-made spark plugs for 2007 engines.

Allen W. McDonnell

2007-12-27 01:19:35 UTC

Rich that was very well thought out and explained. Thanx for your input!

bernardZ

2007-12-27 08:18:08 UTC

Disagree with much of this. Australians are used to not having access
top things that Europeans and Americans have in abundance. We also are
good at maintaining overseas technology way past its use-by date.

Having said that

Post by Rich Rostrom
Pharmaceuticals?

In this stupid POD the most important and immediate issue for Australia
is smallpox for the rest of the world it will be aids.

Syd Webb

2007-12-29 01:29:35 UTC

"The Tasmanians, in spite of their human likeness, were entirely swept
out of existence in a war of extermination waged by European
immigrants, in the space of fifty years."
- HG Wells, _The War of the Worlds: Book One - The Coming of the
Martians_

Tender readers,

I find myself with some time on my hands and - sadly - have nothing
better to do am choosing to respond to one of Kit Fardell's fanciful
scenarios of the University of New England, or in this case UNE writ
large - Australia - going through Some Hole In Time.

Post by christopher fardell
What if Australia was moved back in time, by alien space bats, from
this date (25th December) this year, to the 25th December 1907.

Naturally this is a scenario we should approach rigorously, if we are
to do it real justice. So are you all sitting comfortably? Then we
shall begin.

Plausibility
============

As Luke Schleusener has noted before, this NG is constrained by its
position in the hierarchy of soc.history.what-if

Soc - we need to be writing about humans and, importantly, humans
interacting in society or societies.

History - we need to be writing about times of written history

What-if - we need to be writing about plausible points of divergence;
what might have been but for a human decision or a chance natural
phenomena.

Given this, a quibbler might find two faults with Kit's scenario.

Firstly, 25 December 2007 isn't really historical. There have been no
learnèd books published on the era. Yet. OTOH Beatrix gave me for
Christmas the book _Poll Dancing_ by Mungo MacCallum which is a
history of Australian from 1 December 2006 to 24 November 2007. So if
25 December 2007 isn't historical it soon will be.[1]

Secondly, there is the Some Hole In Time aspect. For a long time it
was thought that time travel was impossible - in fact you can still
find some websites to this effect. We know now that time travel
occurs regularly at the sub-atomic level - the reason that electrons
can be so hard to pin down is that the buggers are jumping backwards
and forward in time. Less frequently we have time travel at the meta-
quantum level, the Paasikivi-Fagerholm effect. Here a volume of
several cubic metres may travel as much as five minutes into the past.

You probably have encountered the Passikivi-Fagerholm event in your
lives, tender readers. You put something down, leave the room, come
back to look for it and it's gone. The problem is you've just entered
room2 - an instance of your room where you (in another TL) has already
moved the object. It is this empty room2 that you have now entered
thinking it is room1. Under Kapodistrias' corollary - the so-called
'rubber band effect' - the original room1 will return a few minutes
later so when you re-enter it you find the lost object thinking _But I
already looked there._

The rubber band effect is not always reliable and sometime you are
left with room2. In this case the missing item - car keys, sweater,
spouse - is never coming back.[2]

But try as we might it won't be possible to have a Passikivi-Fagerholm/
Kapodistrias event that will send a whole continent back a century.
However appealing the idea of sending Australia through Some Hole In
Time - an 'Oz Hole' for short - it just isn't physically possible.

So a rigorous WI is out of the question. But can we do a thought
experiment in this festive season when our thoughts might be moved by
flip, by Wombat Lager, by OP rum or, in special cases, by all three?
Of course we can: this is s.h.w-i - an anarchic bunch for whom the
normal laws do not apply.

What is Australia?
==================

We need first to understand our parameters - we certainly don't want
an 'anything goes' thread.

So is Australia just the mainland - excluding Fraser, Kangeroo and the
other lesser island? Is it all states and territories but excluding
formal dependencies like the Cocos/Keeling Islands and Christmas
Island? Or do we include everything including the informal
dependencies like the Solomons, Vanuatu and Timor L'Este?

Every choice is pregnant with significance. But to move forward let
us say the eight states and territories but not NSW's Lord Howe
Island. We won't make the Oz Hole _too_ big.

Further more we'll shift the 200nm Australian Fishing Zone and the
airspace above it. Does this sound about right

The 2007 ATL
============

In Kit's scenario the world gradually wakes up on 2007's Feast of the
Nativity to discover Australia is gone. On balance, the quality of
s.h.w-i improves. As for the wider consequences it's probably too
soon to say.

So let us leave the 2007 ATL and instead observe the 1907 ATL...

The Human Tragedy
=================

The Oz Hole is a catastrophe, both for the temporal immigrants and the
temporal aborigines. Australia in OTL is a vibrant melting pot with
citizens and visitors from all over the world. Most of the temporal
immigrants will have friends and family left up-time. In addition
Australians are great holders and users of passports, travelling to
foreign countries at a clip that might amaze the Nigerians and
Americans among my readership. Consequently there are a vast number
of permanent separations. Worse, there is no certainty that those up-
time are still living happily. From the perspective of the immigrants
all their near and dear have been snuffed out. Twenty million people
have been cut off from the rest of the world, apart from a bunch of
clueless Edwardians in various overseas countries.

Let us not forget the tragedy for the temporal aborigines. Families
in the UK, NZ, Canada, the USA, Italy, Greece and other places had, in
1907, relatives and friends in Australia. They are gone, to God knows
where, and with the telegraph in place the bad news will travel fast.

The twelve days of Christmas in 1907/08 are a time of despair and
anguish. The anguish is most deeply felt in Australia and the
Aussies, always prone to mental illness and alcoholism, succumb as you
might expect.

The Australian Reaction
=======================

Australia has always bee reliant on great powers. Form 1788-1941 it
was the British Empire; from 1942 onwards the USA. There is no longer
a great power as the Australian government would understand it - just
a bunch of uncouth, racist, imperialistic nation-states.[3]

It's a dangerous world out there - no sense in making it more
dangerous. The censorship and the imprisonments begin...

The World Reaction
==================

There will be steamers en route to Australia from New Zealand, the
Dutch East Indies and the UK. Sone the temporal aboriginals will be
getting a first-hand look at 21st century technology. This will be
controlled. At a time of national disruption and the risk of national
annihilation people on either side of politics would not begrudge a
government who took the approach, "We will decide who comes into our
country, and the circumstances in which they come in."[4]

But the word will get out. The significant aboriginal states of
Europe, the Americas and Japan will learn that Australia has great
secrets, vast treasures and a low population. The chief emotions of
the aboriginal states will be greed and fear.

The Problem of Foreigners
=========================

Among the temporal immigrants there may be those with great love - or
great hatred - towards the aboriginal nation-states. There is always
the risk that a temporary-resident Indian or an American tourist might
chose to act in a way contrary to Australia's interest - that they
might seek to share knowledge that will remove the Australian
advantage.

It's a dangerous world out there - no sense in making it more
dangerous. The censorship and the imprisonments begin...

The Problem of Resources
========================

Australia is a great trading nation. The flip side of this is that
she is not self-sufficient for all her needs.

Some of these needs cannot be met in the world of 1907.[5]
Technological degradation will be a consequence, until substitutes can
be made.

Some of these needs can be met from overseas, aboriginal sources.
Resource security will become an important concern for the government.

Will the Be War?
================

Yes.[6] While the European powers had a rivalry in 1907 they could
also act in concert against The Other as need be, as evidenced by
their recent response to the Boxer Rebellion. Both fear and greed
will cause them to want to attack Australia.

Equally an increasingly autocratic government in Canberra, paranoid
and greedy for foreign resources will be seeking to establish a new
world order in keeping with Australia's needs.

We have noted above how the Australian government will feel compelled
to fight the inevitable war. The question for the logistics geeks is
this: How will the atom bombs be delivered to Hamburg, New York and
(regrettably) London? The F-111s are long ranged but there will still
need to be staging bases. Or could a submarine deliver frogmen with
luggable weapons to the ports in question? What is the range of
Collins class boat and how might it refuel?

Will there be Famine, Pestilence and Death?
===========================================

Oh, yes. Any Australia v The Rest of the World naval war could cause
severe disruption to sea trade to the detriment of countries dependant
on food imports. [The UKoGBaI comes immediately to mind.]

But worse than famine will be disease. Australia has a very low rate
of HIV infection thanks to far-sighted precautions instituted in the
1980s. But HIV positive people do exist and if they are allowed to go
overseas the disease will spread. But what are the other diseases,
unknown to the aboriginals, that the immigrants could spread - either
accidentally or deliberately? Remember, the aboriginal world does
not, as yet, have the secret of antibiotics.

The Logical Consequences
========================

By 1911 a _modus vivendi_ will be established. Australia will have
carved out a security zone including New Zealand and the Dutch East
Indies. 'Secrets' will be given to aboriginal countries on a
controlled basis in exchange for t/r/i/b/u/t/e royalties. The delayed
federal election is promised for 1912/2012 unless there are unexpected
circumstances.

Goods are provided from Australia to the aboriginal countries as
well. Illegal pharmaceuticals, colour off-set printed pr0n,
televisions that only show _Neighbours_ and Kylie, and new age
religious works prove surprising popular albeit socially disruptive.

Oddly in this TL people see Australians as overbearing and obnoxious.
You just can't help some folk.

[1] Of course we won't _really_ know what happened in 2007 until the
National Archives are opened in 2037 under the Thirty Year Rule. And
so the very best s.h.w-i scenarios of Australia in 2007 won't appear
until the expiration of the BoB, or Ban on Britney.

[2] Happily in the absence of a body you're not going to have to do
gaol time.

[3] There was going to be a marvellous pithy footnote going here but,
alas! the margins of the BoP are too narrow.

[4] If any reader observes that my portrayal of the Australian
government would have been more realistic had the Oz Hole occured on
25 October 2007 I shall be forced to invoke the BoP.

[5] It's an odd mix. Australia can readily make atom bombs if
required but not ammunition for the Leopard II and Abrams tanks. If
Australia has to fight a war it will not be conventional.]

[6] This is a Some Hole In Time scenario after all. There will also
be a same-sex love scene but not one that you'd enjoy.

- Syd

--
"Oh, it's evil. But is it evil enough? I want a coffin nail for
the whole subgenre. A stake in the heart, a lethal injection."
- Carlos O Yu

c***@gmail.com

2007-12-29 02:53:38 UTC

Post by Syd Webb
Secondly, there is the Some Hole In Time aspect.

I pop in for just a few minutes, and Syd makes me snork. Well done,
Syd.

Post by Syd Webb
On balance, the quality of
s.h.w-i improves.

Snork again.

But -- on balance? No.

Doug M.

Remus

2007-12-30 05:52:23 UTC

Post by christopher fardell
What if Australia was moved back in time, by alien space bats, from
this date (25th December) this year, to the 25th December 1907.

Reading through this thread some of the posts seem somewhat
interesting.

Two points I would like to make is that:

1. It seems likely that these time traveling Austrialians are not
going to
become mindless lackeys of Edward VII. In formal matters they will
probably say that they hold aliegance to Elizabeth II, and although
it
seems feasible that they could possibly support the 1907 UK against
other early 20th century world powers at the time it does not seem
altogether certain either. They are probably not going to mass
produce nuclear weapons and missiles and then give them over with
the command codes to the 1907 UK parliament with no deliberation,
to act in service to some historical figure.

2. Tourist travel from the airports will probably be grounded when it
is
realized that there are no longer any large airports outside of
Australia
designed for the purpose of accomodating commercial jet air travel
as it existed in the later 20th century. Flights already in the air
without
enough fuel to return home might be among some of the first contacts,
however, if they are somehow able to survive the landing at least
somewhat
intact. Many tourists may not be able to get a flight back.

Dan Goodman

2007-12-30 07:09:46 UTC

Post by Remus
1. It seems likely that these time traveling Austrialians are not
going to
become mindless lackeys of Edward VII. In formal matters they will
probably say that they hold aliegance to Elizabeth II

For added complications: Elizabeth II is visiting Australia when the
displacement occurs....

Jack Linthicum

2007-12-30 12:33:17 UTC

Post by Dan Goodman

For added complications: Elizabeth II is visiting Australia when the
displacement occurs....
--
Dan Goodman
"I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers."
Tennessee Williams, A Streetcar Named Expire
Journalhttp://dsgood.livejournal.com
Futureshttp://dangoodman.livejournal.com
mirror 1: http://dsgood.insanejournal.com
mirror 2:http://dsgood.wordpress.com
Linkshttp://del.icio.us/dsgood

Better, one of the Princes is in Australia when the displacement
occurs. Straight out of Birmingham's trilogy.

merccurytravel

2007-12-30 18:53:00 UTC

Post by Jack Linthicum
Better, one of the Princes is in Australia when the displacement
occurs. Straight out of Birmingham's trilogy.

Jack,

It wouldn't matter who was in the country - the republic would probably
arrive as quickly as it takes to organise a referendum and process the
appropriate legislation.

Tony Bailey

Jack Linthicum

2007-12-30 19:00:52 UTC

Post by Jack Linthicum
Better, one of the Princes is in Australia when the displacement
occurs. Straight out of Birmingham's trilogy.

Jack,
It wouldn't matter who was in the country - the republic would probably
arrive as quickly as it takes to organise a referendum and process the
appropriate legislation.
Tony Bailey

Thread on another newsgroup puts that the next time we collide with
Mars. The complications of creating new forms of government both
within states and at the federal level at a time when there is a
sufficiency of confusion over such simple things as eating and
protecting the populace seems like a request for anarchy..

Unless Australians are uniform in their opinions and have a system
already formulated, forget it.

Phil McGregor

2007-12-30 23:34:13 UTC

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 11:00:52 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum
Better, one of the Princes is in Australia when the displacement
occurs. Straight out of Birmingham's trilogy.

Jack,
It wouldn't matter who was in the country - the republic would probably
arrive as quickly as it takes to organise a referendum and process the
appropriate legislation.
Tony Bailey

Thread on another newsgroup puts that the next time we collide with
Mars. The complications of creating new forms of government both
within states and at the federal level at a time when there is a
sufficiency of confusion over such simple things as eating and
protecting the populace seems like a request for anarchy..
Unless Australians are uniform in their opinions and have a system
already formulated, forget it.

Mirabile dictu!

Jack is *right* ... for the first time in ... years.

Especially the last bit ... there *is* no uniformity of opinion.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

Jack Linthicum

2007-12-30 20:41:49 UTC

Post by Jack Linthicum
Better, one of the Princes is in Australia when the displacement
occurs. Straight out of Birmingham's trilogy.

Jack,
It wouldn't matter who was in the country - the republic would probably
arrive as quickly as it takes to organise a referendum and process the
appropriate legislation.
Tony Bailey

You, of course, figure that would take, what?, a week maybe two?

First your present government is going to have some sort of consensus
that says that is the answer. National legislature I would presume
would make that decision.

Then you have to write a constitution for the national government and
find a way to get it ratified by all the states. In the meantime one
or more states may decide they want to change their constitutional
basis. I would give it five years at a minimum before you got a
republic.

In the meantime you are going to have little things like treaties and
trade agreements with the rest of the world, maybe even some shaking
out with Great Britain over who can do what. Not very likely you will
get a real republic for quite while.

http://rspas.anu.edu.au/pah/human_rights/papers/2001/Williams.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Australia
http://www.caslon.com.au/constitutionprofile1.htm
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AJHR/2003/22.html

Phil McGregor

2007-12-30 23:39:34 UTC

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 12:41:49 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum
Better, one of the Princes is in Australia when the displacement
occurs. Straight out of Birmingham's trilogy.

Jack,
It wouldn't matter who was in the country - the republic would probably
arrive as quickly as it takes to organise a referendum and process the
appropriate legislation.
Tony Bailey

Well, *that* didn't last long.

Back on track as a know nothing.

It would require amending the Constitution and that requires a
Referendum ... a majority vote overall *PLUS* a majority vote in each
of a majority of states (i.e. 4 of the 6).

This is why, for your information, that Referenda in Australia fail
more often than succeed ... an ABSOLUTE need is that ALL sides the the
Referendum support it, as worded, or it goes down in flames. Even if
they all support it, the track record isn't that crash hot.

I wouldn't hold my breath. Aussies are actually pretty conservative
when it comes to changing the Constitution ... like most established
democracies, I guess.

Post by Jack Linthicum
Then you have to write a constitution for the national government and
find a way to get it ratified by all the states. In the meantime one

I cannot believe how lacking in a clew you are ... write on the
chalkboard 100 times "Australia in NOT the USA. The State Governments
play NO role in Constitutional Amendments."

Do get a fucking clew before you ram your foot in your mouth deeper.

Oh, and you had a link to the Constitution ... proof positive that you
NEVER actually read ANYTHING you post as a 'proof'.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

Jack Linthicum

2007-12-31 00:12:17 UTC

Post by Phil McGregor
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 12:41:49 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum
Better, one of the Princes is in Australia when the displacement
occurs. Straight out of Birmingham's trilogy.

Jack,
It wouldn't matter who was in the country - the republic would probably
arrive as quickly as it takes to organise a referendum and process the
appropriate legislation.
Tony Bailey

Well, *that* didn't last long.
Back on track as a know nothing.
It would require amending the Constitution and that requires a
Referendum ... a majority vote overall *PLUS* a majority vote in each
of a majority of states (i.e. 4 of the 6).
This is why, for your information, that Referenda in Australia fail
more often than succeed ... an ABSOLUTE need is that ALL sides the the
Referendum support it, as worded, or it goes down in flames. Even if
they all support it, the track record isn't that crash hot.
I wouldn't hold my breath. Aussies are actually pretty conservative
when it comes to changing the Constitution ... like most established
democracies, I guess.

Post by Jack Linthicum
Then you have to write a constitution for the national government and
find a way to get it ratified by all the states. In the meantime one

I cannot believe how lacking in a clew you are ... write on the
chalkboard 100 times "Australia in NOT the USA. The State Governments
play NO role in Constitutional Amendments."
Do get a fucking clew before you ram your foot in your mouth deeper.
Oh, and you had a link to the Constitution ... proof positive that you
NEVER actually read ANYTHING you post as a 'proof'.
Phil
Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

You have never lived in a republic, have you? Especially a federal
republic. States do what states do, and there might be one or more
that decide they don't like the new setup.

The Horny Goat

2007-12-31 02:07:59 UTC

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:12:17 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum
You have never lived in a republic, have you? Especially a federal
republic. States do what states do, and there might be one or more
that decide they don't like the new setup.

Since when does a constitutional amendment in the United States
require all states' ratification?

Jack Linthicum

2007-12-31 10:52:43 UTC

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:12:17 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum

Since when does a constitutional amendment in the United States
require all states' ratification?

Australia has only six states, one, say Western Australia, could
decide it doesn't want to play. Something that comes up from time to
time OTL, by the way. It doesn't affect the ratification but it can
play hob with actual government. I don't know what the vote would need
to be for a republic, but I doubt that four would suffice.

Phil McGregor

2007-12-31 15:27:49 UTC

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 02:52:43 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:12:17 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum

Since when does a constitutional amendment in the United States
require all states' ratification?

You are a clewless cretin.

You are incapable of grasping that the State Governments PLAY NO ROLE
in determining the Constitution, or changes thereto.

Only the *voters* can do this. In the way I already explained ... in a
*national* referendum.

Your scenario is moronic and cretinous and pays not the slightest
attention to anything resembling the facts of the constitution and
what has been explained to you.

Do stop trying to replace frackypoo as the group moron.

Fuckwit.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

Phil McGregor

2007-12-31 06:55:42 UTC

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:12:17 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum
You have never lived in a republic, have you?

I *do* live in a Republic.

Post by Jack Linthicum
specially a federal republic.

It is called the "Commonwealth of Australia".

We have an appointed Head of State, like many Republics ... the Queen
is a mythical figurehead who has no power of any sort ... the HOS, the
Governor General, has all the power, such as it is, of the HOS
position and had to neither consult nor obey the Queen in their
exercise of it.

Like *many* Federal Republics, the States have no powers over the
National Constitution.

All a FR has to have to *be* an FR is that the constituent states
cannot be dissolved unilaterally by the FRG and the constituent states
have powers that are specifically theirs ... both of which conditions
apply to the Commonwealth of Australia.

Note for Morons: "Commonwealth" is a literal translation, via 15th
century english, of the latin *res publica* ... which non-morons know
is the root word for ... "Republic"

Post by Jack Linthicum
States do what states do, and there might be one or more
that decide they don't like the new setup.

And in the Commonwealth (Republic in all but name) of Australia it
doesn't matter a ratfuck whether the states do or don't.

They don't, and never have had, a say in it.

Which is the point ... you are simply too fucking clewlessly
*ignorant* to understand that ..,.

a) The US system of government does NOT universally describe how
Federal Republics operate [1]

and

b) That we were discussing *Australia* where the system DOES NOT have
any State input as to the Federal Constitution in the way they do in
the US.

Get a fucking clew and, like I said, stop posting links as "proof"
when you obviously haven't either a) read, b) comprehended, or c) both
the key ones, such as the Commonwealth constitution.

If you weren't such a dense blockhead without of the inkling of how
downright ignorant you are I am sure you would be an embarrassment to
your fellow Americans ... except that *that* status has been,
heretofore, sewn up by frackybabe.

Keep working at it, and you just might replace him.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

Jack Linthicum

2007-12-31 10:55:51 UTC

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:12:17 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum
You have never lived in a republic, have you?

I *do* live in a Republic.

Post by Jack Linthicum
specially a federal republic.

It is called the "Commonwealth of Australia".
We have an appointed Head of State, like many Republics ... the Queen
is a mythical figurehead who has no power of any sort ... the HOS, the
Governor General, has all the power, such as it is, of the HOS
position and had to neither consult nor obey the Queen in their
exercise of it.
Like *many* Federal Republics, the States have no powers over the
National Constitution.
All a FR has to have to *be* an FR is that the constituent states
cannot be dissolved unilaterally by the FRG and the constituent states
have powers that are specifically theirs ... both of which conditions
apply to the Commonwealth of Australia.
Note for Morons: "Commonwealth" is a literal translation, via 15th
century english, of the latin *res publica* ... which non-morons know
is the root word for ... "Republic"

Post by Jack Linthicum
States do what states do, and there might be one or more
that decide they don't like the new setup.

And in the Commonwealth (Republic in all but name) of Australia it
doesn't matter a ratfuck whether the states do or don't.
They don't, and never have had, a say in it.
Which is the point ... you are simply too fucking clewlessly
*ignorant* to understand that ..,.
a) The US system of government does NOT universally describe how
Federal Republics operate [1]
and
b) That we were discussing *Australia* where the system DOES NOT have
any State input as to the Federal Constitution in the way they do in
the US.
Get a fucking clew and, like I said, stop posting links as "proof"
when you obviously haven't either a) read, b) comprehended, or c) both
the key ones, such as the Commonwealth constitution.
If you weren't such a dense blockhead without of the inkling of how
downright ignorant you are I am sure you would be an embarrassment to
your fellow Americans ... except that *that* status has been,
heretofore, sewn up by frackybabe.
Keep working at it, and you just might replace him.
Phil
Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

name "many" federal republics. I get about about five: USA, Canada,
Brazil, Switzerland, Germany. Russia is a fake federal republic but
you can add them, for six. Others?

I was not posting those links as "proof" of anything, not many even
know that Australia had a referendum on a republic and it lost with
54% negative vote.

Peter Bruells

2007-12-31 14:50:15 UTC

Post by Jack Linthicum
name "many" federal republics. I get about about five: USA, Canada,
Brazil, Switzerland, Germany. Russia is a fake federal republic but
you can add them, for six. Others?

Austria, of course. Mexico - the OTHER United States. Iraq, for
Christ's Sake. Does India count or is it too small to warrant
attention? Argentinia too. There's a couple of smaller ones, too.

Jack Linthicum

2007-12-31 15:18:34 UTC

Post by Jack Linthicum
name "many" federal republics. I get about about five: USA, Canada,
Brazil, Switzerland, Germany. Russia is a fake federal republic but
you can add them, for six. Others?

Austria, of course. Mexico - the OTHER United States. Iraq, for
Christ's Sake. Does India count or is it too small to warrant
attention? Argentinia too. There's a couple of smaller ones, too.

I will accept those, except Iraq, unless you consider it to be an
American state. Those are provinces and they were ruled from Baghdad.

There are 192 nations in the UN, less than 10% are federal republics.
The present Australia Constitution has federal provisions that Phil
seems to either not know about or ignore. Those constitutional
amendments need to be voted in by an absolute majority of each house,
those voters come from the six states. There also seems to be a need
to get a "majority of the states" ie four of the six, to get the
constitution amended.

"When a proposed law is submitted to the electors the vote shall be
taken in such manner as the Parliament prescribes. But until the
qualification of electors of members of the House of
Representatives becomes uniform throughout the Commonwealth,
only one-half the electors voting for and against the proposed law
shall be counted in any State in which adult suffrage prevails.
And if in a majority of the States a majority of the electors voting
approve the proposed law, and if a majority of all the electors
voting also approve the proposed law, it shall be presented to the
Governor-General for the Queen's assent." Section 128, Australian
Constitution

Phil McGregor

2007-12-31 15:44:42 UTC

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 07:18:34 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum
name "many" federal republics. I get about about five: USA, Canada,
Brazil, Switzerland, Germany. Russia is a fake federal republic but
you can add them, for six. Others?

Austria, of course. Mexico - the OTHER United States. Iraq, for
Christ's Sake. Does India count or is it too small to warrant
attention? Argentinia too. There's a couple of smaller ones, too.

Fuckwit, I TOLD YOU THAT.

The STATE GOVERNMENTS HAVE NO SAY.

Only the electors do.

However, cretin, there is NOT, as in the US, and as you seem convinced
of applies in Australia, NO STATE BY STATE REFERENDA on constitutional
changes.

The State Governments PLAY NO PART *A*T* *A*L*L*.

There is a *s*i*n*g*l*e* NATIONAL referendum. ONE.

The results of that *s*i*n*g*l*e* NATIONAL referendum are counted to
see ...

a) If there is an overall majority

and

b) In which states a majority of the voters resident there voted for
the referendum.

To be accepted, Referenda *must*, obviously (even to cretins such as
you, it seems) pass test (a) ... then, they must pass test (b) in four
of the six states.

Now, and this is evidently where your single brain cell dies or turns
to mush ... THERE ARE NO STATE BY STATE REFERENDA.

STATE GOVERNMENTS DO NOT ORGANISE, RUN, OR OTHERWISE HAVE ANY CONCRETE
ROLE IN THE REFERENDA ... it is all run BY THE COMMONWEALTH.

Quoting the Constitution when you are patently too moronic to
understand what it means is NOT proof of ANYTHING.

Except that you are a complete fuckwit.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

Phil McGregor

2007-12-31 15:37:36 UTC

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 02:55:51 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:12:17 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum
You have never lived in a republic, have you?

I *do* live in a Republic.

Post by Jack Linthicum
specially a federal republic.

It is called the "Commonwealth of Australia".
We have an appointed Head of State, like many Republics ... the Queen
is a mythical figurehead who has no power of any sort ... the HOS, the
Governor General, has all the power, such as it is, of the HOS
position and had to neither consult nor obey the Queen in their
exercise of it.
Like *many* Federal Republics, the States have no powers over the
National Constitution.
All a FR has to have to *be* an FR is that the constituent states
cannot be dissolved unilaterally by the FRG and the constituent states
have powers that are specifically theirs ... both of which conditions
apply to the Commonwealth of Australia.
Note for Morons: "Commonwealth" is a literal translation, via 15th
century english, of the latin *res publica* ... which non-morons know
is the root word for ... "Republic"

Post by Jack Linthicum
States do what states do, and there might be one or more
that decide they don't like the new setup.

And in the Commonwealth (Republic in all but name) of Australia it
doesn't matter a ratfuck whether the states do or don't.
They don't, and never have had, a say in it.
Which is the point ... you are simply too fucking clewlessly
*ignorant* to understand that ..,.
a) The US system of government does NOT universally describe how
Federal Republics operate [1]
and
b) That we were discussing *Australia* where the system DOES NOT have
any State input as to the Federal Constitution in the way they do in
the US.
Get a fucking clew and, like I said, stop posting links as "proof"
when you obviously haven't either a) read, b) comprehended, or c) both
the key ones, such as the Commonwealth constitution.
If you weren't such a dense blockhead without of the inkling of how
downright ignorant you are I am sure you would be an embarrassment to
your fellow Americans ... except that *that* status has been,
heretofore, sewn up by frackybabe.
Keep working at it, and you just might replace him.

name "many" federal republics. I get about about five: USA, Canada,
Brazil, Switzerland, Germany. Russia is a fake federal republic but
you can add them, for six. Others?

Sixty seconds, cretin ... that's all it took.

Argentina
Austria
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Brazil
Comoros Union
Ethiopia
German Federal Republic
India
Iraq
Madagascar
Mexico
FS Micronesia
Nigerian Federal Republic
Russia Federation
Switzerland
United States

I mean, yeah, sure, Comoros Union is not widely known as an FR, but,
for a yank, one would have *thought* you might guess at Mexico.

But, of course, you're a self-demonstrated and self-taught moron.

You could ... well, no, *you* COULDN'T ... add to this, historical
examples ...

Republic of the Seven United Netherlands (15811795)
United Provinces of Central America (1824-1840)
"Great Colombia" (1819-1831), later Colombia (federal republic until
1886; unitary republic after 1886)
Confederate States of America (1861-1865)
Weimar Republic (German Empire 1919-1933)
Federal Republic of Cameroon (République Fédérale du Cameroun)
(1961-1972)
Czechoslovakia (1969-1992)
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922-1991)
Yugoslavia (1945-2003)
Serbia and Montenegro (2003-2006)
Uganda (1962-1966)

Same sixty seconds.

Post by Jack Linthicum
I was not posting those links as "proof" of anything, not many even
know that Australia had a referendum on a republic and it lost with
54% negative vote.

55% nationally.

More importantly, there was not a majority in a SINGLE STATE.

Now, cretin, the State Governments have NOTHING to do with this. The
*voters* of each state are simply counted as a single electorate and
you need BOTH a plurality of the total national poll *and* a plurality
in FOUR OF THE SIX STATE 'ELECTORATES'

Please, get a grip on something resembling reality.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

Jack Linthicum

2007-12-31 15:58:43 UTC

Post by Phil McGregor
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 02:55:51 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:12:17 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum
You have never lived in a republic, have you?

I *do* live in a Republic.

Post by Jack Linthicum
specially a federal republic.

It is called the "Commonwealth of Australia".
We have an appointed Head of State, like many Republics ... the Queen
is a mythical figurehead who has no power of any sort ... the HOS, the
Governor General, has all the power, such as it is, of the HOS
position and had to neither consult nor obey the Queen in their
exercise of it.
Like *many* Federal Republics, the States have no powers over the
National Constitution.
All a FR has to have to *be* an FR is that the constituent states
cannot be dissolved unilaterally by the FRG and the constituent states
have powers that are specifically theirs ... both of which conditions
apply to the Commonwealth of Australia.
Note for Morons: "Commonwealth" is a literal translation, via 15th
century english, of the latin *res publica* ... which non-morons know
is the root word for ... "Republic"

Post by Jack Linthicum
States do what states do, and there might be one or more
that decide they don't like the new setup.

And in the Commonwealth (Republic in all but name) of Australia it
doesn't matter a ratfuck whether the states do or don't.
They don't, and never have had, a say in it.
Which is the point ... you are simply too fucking clewlessly
*ignorant* to understand that ..,.
a) The US system of government does NOT universally describe how
Federal Republics operate [1]
and
b) That we were discussing *Australia* where the system DOES NOT have
any State input as to the Federal Constitution in the way they do in
the US.
Get a fucking clew and, like I said, stop posting links as "proof"
when you obviously haven't either a) read, b) comprehended, or c) both
the key ones, such as the Commonwealth constitution.
If you weren't such a dense blockhead without of the inkling of how
downright ignorant you are I am sure you would be an embarrassment to
your fellow Americans ... except that *that* status has been,
heretofore, sewn up by frackybabe.
Keep working at it, and you just might replace him.

name "many" federal republics. I get about about five: USA, Canada,
Brazil, Switzerland, Germany. Russia is a fake federal republic but
you can add them, for six. Others?

Sixty seconds, cretin ... that's all it took.
Argentina
Austria
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Brazil
Comoros Union
Ethiopia
German Federal Republic
India
Iraq
Madagascar
Mexico
FS Micronesia
Nigerian Federal Republic
Russia Federation
Switzerland
United States
I mean, yeah, sure, Comoros Union is not widely known as an FR, but,
for a yank, one would have *thought* you might guess at Mexico.
But, of course, you're a self-demonstrated and self-taught moron.
You could ... well, no, *you* COULDN'T ... add to this, historical
examples ...
Republic of the Seven United Netherlands (1581-1795)
United Provinces of Central America (1824-1840)
"Great Colombia" (1819-1831), later Colombia (federal republic until
1886; unitary republic after 1886)
Confederate States of America (1861-1865)
Weimar Republic (German Empire 1919-1933)
Federal Republic of Cameroon (République Fédérale du Cameroun)
(1961-1972)
Czechoslovakia (1969-1992)
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (1922-1991)
Yugoslavia (1945-2003)
Serbia and Montenegro (2003-2006)
Uganda (1962-1966)
Same sixty seconds.

Post by Jack Linthicum
I was not posting those links as "proof" of anything, not many even
know that Australia had a referendum on a republic and it lost with
54% negative vote.

55% nationally.
More importantly, there was not a majority in a SINGLE STATE.
Now, cretin, the State Governments have NOTHING to do with this. The
*voters* of each state are simply counted as a single electorate and
you need BOTH a plurality of the total national poll *and* a plurality
in FOUR OF THE SIX STATE 'ELECTORATES'
Please, get a grip on something resembling reality.
Phil
Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

54.4%

Still less than 10% of UN members, some of those are "federal" by
sleight of hand

I would suggest you read Section 128 of your constitution and this
little bit from the U NSW

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UNSWLJ/1998/5.html

The Horny Goat

2007-12-31 21:57:36 UTC

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 02:55:51 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum
name "many" federal republics. I get about about five: USA, Canada,
Brazil, Switzerland, Germany. Russia is a fake federal republic but
you can add them, for six. Others?

WTF? Canada has a G-G and Betty Windsor and Mrs. Jean was elected by
an electorate of one. How does that make us a republic?

Horst Koehler isn't in the same role as George Bush - that's Mrs.
Merkel's job...but unlike Mrs. Jean he IS elected.

You can't play Humpty Dumpty ("'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty
said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to
mean, neither more nor less.'" in Through the Looking Glass) with
words in real life.

That doesn't work - not even on SHWI.

Phil can frequently be a pain but on this point you're just dead
wrong.

The Horny Goat

2007-12-31 21:57:36 UTC

Post by Jack Linthicum
You have never lived in a republic, have you?

I *do* live in a Republic.

Post by Jack Linthicum
specially a federal republic.

What do you mean by 'no powers'? Pretty much anybody can propose an
amendment which if ratified by the prescribed procedure (referendum in
your country, by a vote of the national and provincial legislatures in
mine) for amendment gets passed into law no?

Let's ignore the powers that are legally there but never exercised -
I'm fairly sure neither Michaelle Jean nor Betty W. were consulted on
sending Canadian troops to Afghanistan and if they come home it will
be Stephen Harper not the aforementioned excellent ladies calling the
shots.

That's why folks tend to regard democracies with non-elected HOS's as
non-republics while saving the term Republic for those with elected
heads of state even if those heads are not also executive (e.g.
France).

The main constitutional difference I can see between Oz and Canada is
that ratification is done by referendum down under and by the Feds
plus 7 out of 10 provinces comprising 50+% of the national population
in ours. Any other significant differences that you can think of?

Whereas in the Excited States of 'Murica and in most European states
the Head of State is popularly elected generally not at the same time
as the Head of Government. Neither the Governor-General nor Betty
Windsor ever have to face re-election which is why OUR HOS's tend to
be less powerful than those who are elected.

Jack Linthicum

2007-12-31 12:25:37 UTC

Post by Phil McGregor
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 12:41:49 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum
Better, one of the Princes is in Australia when the displacement
occurs. Straight out of Birmingham's trilogy.

Jack,
It wouldn't matter who was in the country - the republic would probably
arrive as quickly as it takes to organise a referendum and process the
appropriate legislation.
Tony Bailey

Well, *that* didn't last long.
Back on track as a know nothing.
It would require amending the Constitution and that requires a
Referendum ... a majority vote overall *PLUS* a majority vote in each
of a majority of states (i.e. 4 of the 6).
This is why, for your information, that Referenda in Australia fail
more often than succeed ... an ABSOLUTE need is that ALL sides the the
Referendum support it, as worded, or it goes down in flames. Even if
they all support it, the track record isn't that crash hot.
I wouldn't hold my breath. Aussies are actually pretty conservative
when it comes to changing the Constitution ... like most established
democracies, I guess.

Post by Jack Linthicum
Then you have to write a constitution for the national government and
find a way to get it ratified by all the states. In the meantime one

I cannot believe how lacking in a clew you are ... write on the
chalkboard 100 times http://www.hcourt.gov.au/speeches/cj/cj_20oct05.html australia
Do get a fucking clew before you ram your foot in your mouth deeper.
Oh, and you had a link to the Constitution ... proof positive that you
NEVER actually read ANYTHING you post as a 'proof'.
Phil
Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

If you knew your country's history you would know that the model for
your federal union was and is that the United States. To say the
states in Australia have no role in modifying the constitution, I
would like to see that as a cite. By the way are the qualifications
for voting the same in every Australian state? What is a "protected
class"?

http://www.hcourt.gov.au/speeches/cj/cj_20oct05.html australia

"At the end of the 19th century there were only three models of
Federalism to which the framers of our Constitution could look:
Switzerland, Canada and the United States of America. The Swiss model
provided no guidance. The Canadian model was rejected because it gave
more power to the central government than would have been accepted in
some of the Australian colonies. In particular, the division of
legislative power in Canada gave enumerated heads of power to the
Provinces and residual power to the Federal Government. Furthermore,
at the time, the Federal Government had a veto over provincial
legislation. It was the United States model that attracted the framers
of the Australian Constitution. In that model, enumerated powers were
given to the central government, and residual powers were left with
the States. State judges were appointed by the States.

The United States Constitution reflected a more rigid separation of
powers than existed in the United Kingdom, or in the Australian
colonies. Article I dealt with the legislature. Article II dealt with
the executive. Article III dealt with the judicature. That model was
followed in Australia: Chapter I of our Constitution dealing with the
Parliament, Chapter II dealing with the Executive Government; and
Chapter III dealing with the Judicature. Of course, there were
significant differences from the United States. Australia adhered to
the Westminster form of responsible government, under which executive
power was exercised by ministers who were members of the Parliament,
and responsible to it. Furthermore, Australia was to be a Federal
union under the Crown."

Phil McGregor

2007-12-31 15:53:06 UTC

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 04:25:37 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 12:41:49 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum

You are a moron. You do not have a fucking clew.

The Australian constitution took some elements from Federal
Constitutions active in the 1890s. It was not modelled, as you so
blithely claim *on* the US Constitution.

As for a cite that the States have no role in modifying the Australian
constitution ... the Constitution, moron.

The problem is that you are of insufficient mental ability to
understand the big words.

See the section on Referenda, dimwit.

Cite from Wikipedia ...

=====

Alteration of the Constitution
Main article: Chapter VIII of the Australian Constitution

Chapter VIII specifies the procedures for amending the Constitution.
Section 128 provides that constitutional amendments must be approved
by a referendum. Successful amendment requires:

1) an absolute majority in both houses of the federal parliament; and

2) the approval in a referendum of the proposed amendment by a
majority of electors nationwide, and a majority in a majority of
states.

The referendum bill must be put to the PEOPLE by the GOVERNOR-GENERAL
between two and six months after passing parliament. After the
constitutional amendment bill has passed both the parliamentary stage
and the referendum, it then receives Royal Assent from the
Governor-General. When proclaimed, it will be in effect, and the
wording of the Constitution will be changed.

An exception to this process is if the amendment bill is rejected by
one house of Federal Parliament. If the bill passes the first house
and is rejected by the second, then after three months the first house
may pass it again. If the bill is still rejected by the second house,
then the Governor-General may choose to still put the bill to the
PEOPLE'S vote.

====

Capitalisation is for morons.

Note. The vote is put by the CROWN (the GG ... the Federal Government,
in effect) DIRECTLY TO THE PEOPLE in ONE, NATIONWIDE, SIMULTANEOUS
vote. No State by State referenda RUN by the states as in the US.

Fuckwit.

You are merely demonstating how big a fool you are ... repeatedly and
serially.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

The Horny Goat

2007-12-31 22:11:20 UTC

Post by Phil McGregor
The Australian constitution took some elements from Federal
Constitutions active in the 1890s. It was not modelled, as you so
blithely claim *on* the US Constitution.

I'd argue the Australian constitution took more from the British North
America act of 1867 (the old Canadian constitution in other words)
than the US Constitution.

One technical question: who administers Australian elections? I assume
some minister has the electoral office as part of his/her portfolio?

In the USA, the actual administration of elections is done by the
states since all levels of government are voted on at the same time.
There is no national electoral office and thus ballots come in all
shapes and sizes. This is how we got the ineffable dangling chads.

In Canada there are separate Chief Electoral Officers at the federal
and provincial level with our municipal elections typically being
handled by the Chief Clerk (who has a LOT of other jobs than running
elections). This creates a degree of standardization not typical of
the USA.

Can I safely assume that the same person ultimately responsible for
administering referenda is the same person responsible for your
national elections? I expect it goes without saying that in Australia
if said individual ever allowed anything that anyone at the State or
Federal level thought was credibly dodgy, he/she would be out on his
keester in near-record time?

[Might I add that I'm surprised that in a referendum that was decided
54-46 that NONE of the states had a majority the other way. I fully
understand how of course but I'm surprised it was that close across
the board.]

Ken Oleson

2007-12-31 01:50:15 UTC

Post by Jack Linthicum
Better, one of the Princes is in Australia when the displacement
occurs. Straight out of Birmingham's trilogy.

Jack,
It wouldn't matter who was in the country - the republic would probably
arrive as quickly as it takes to organise a referendum and process the
appropriate legislation.
Tony Bailey

You, of course, figure that would take, what?, a week maybe two?
First your present government is going to have some sort of consensus
that says that is the answer. National legislature I would presume
would make that decision.
Then you have to write a constitution for the national government and
find a way to get it ratified by all the states. In the meantime one
or more states may decide they want to change their constitutional
basis. I would give it five years at a minimum before you got a
republic.
In the meantime you are going to have little things like treaties and
trade agreements with the rest of the world, maybe even some shaking
out with Great Britain over who can do what. Not very likely you will
get a real republic for quite while.

Prime Minister--presumably with the backing of Parliment--informs
Governor-General that he (the GG) is now "President of the Republic of
Austalia".
Government goes on as before, except any and all referecnes to
"Governor-General" become references to "President".
Instant republic: you now have more or less as long as you need to
(re)write and ratify the constitution, without interference from those
annoying
1907 Saxe-Coburgs, or any random Winsdors that happend to be in
Australia.

Easy.

--
Oly.

Phil McGregor

2007-12-31 07:00:57 UTC

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 17:50:15 -0800 (PST), Ken Oleson

Post by Ken Oleson
Prime Minister--presumably with the backing of Parliment--informs
Governor-General that he (the GG) is now "President of the Republic of
Austalia".
Government goes on as before, except any and all referecnes to
"Governor-General" become references to "President".
Instant republic: you now have more or less as long as you need to
(re)write and ratify the constitution, without interference from those
annoying1907 Saxe-Coburgs, or any random Winsdors that happend to be in
Australia.
Easy.

Indeed. This is the "minimal changes" solution suggested by some. And
it would work because, effectively, the Commonwealth is *already* a
Republic (after all, that's what "Commonwealth" is a 15th century
English translation of!) in all but name.

The only reason why such a simple solution won't get up is because the
devil, as usual, is in the details.

The Federal Government *and* all the Opposition have made it plain
that they want a HOS appointed either by the Parliament or by the PM,
as the GG is.

The *people*, on the other hand, have made it plain (did before the
referendum, during it, and after it as well) that *they* want an
*elective* ... that is a *popularly* elected ... HOS, and that's the
main reason why the referendum failed and why all future referenda
that don't provide for this will fail for many years to come.

We could discuss why the pollies are at odds with the people over
this, but, simply put, it's because they're idiots.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

Dan Goodman

2007-12-30 21:07:37 UTC

Post by Jack Linthicum
Better, one of the Princes is in Australia when the displacement
occurs. Straight out of Birmingham's trilogy.

Jack,
It wouldn't matter who was in the country - the republic would
probably arrive as quickly as it takes to organise a referendum and
process the appropriate legislation.
Tony Bailey

Maybe. There would be at least some opposition.

Jack Linthicum

2007-12-30 21:24:11 UTC

Post by Dan Goodman

Post by Jack Linthicum
Better, one of the Princes is in Australia when the displacement
occurs. Straight out of Birmingham's trilogy.

Jack,
It wouldn't matter who was in the country - the republic would
probably arrive as quickly as it takes to organise a referendum and
process the appropriate legislation.
Tony Bailey

Maybe. There would be at least some opposition.
--
Dan Goodman
"I have always depended on the kindness of stranglers."
Tennessee Williams, A Streetcar Named Expire
Journalhttp://dsgood.livejournal.com
Futureshttp://dangoodman.livejournal.com
mirror 1: http://dsgood.insanejournal.com
mirror 2:http://dsgood.wordpress.com
Linkshttp://del.icio.us/dsgood

There was a vote on a Republic in 1999, it failed with 54% "no" votes.

Phil McGregor

2007-12-30 23:32:59 UTC

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 05:53:00 +1100, "merccurytravel"

Post by Jack Linthicum
Better, one of the Princes is in Australia when the displacement
occurs. Straight out of Birmingham's trilogy.

Jack,
It wouldn't matter who was in the country - the republic would probably
arrive as quickly as it takes to organise a referendum and process the
appropriate legislation.

Which is to say, not any time soon.

The Republic couldn't get up last time because no-one in their camp
could accept that the people wanted a popularly elected Head of State.

Unless the pollies accept that, and I can't see their reasons for
*not* accepting it have magically changed somehow by being suddenly in
1907, any Referendum would almost certainly fail.

Frankly, I could never see the point ... we *are* a Republic already,
the HOS is appointed by the PM, not the Queen, and the Q has no real
say in the appointment. Ditto the state GGs.

There is precedent for continuing to have a government with an absent,
mythical, almost, HOS and a real HOG/HOS appointed by someone on the
ground on their mythical behalf ... Horthy's Hungary coming to mind,
for example.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

Jack Linthicum

2007-12-31 00:13:37 UTC

Post by Phil McGregor
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 05:53:00 +1100, "merccurytravel"

Post by Jack Linthicum
Better, one of the Princes is in Australia when the displacement
occurs. Straight out of Birmingham's trilogy.

Jack,
It wouldn't matter who was in the country - the republic would probably
arrive as quickly as it takes to organise a referendum and process the
appropriate legislation.

Which is to say, not any time soon.
The Republic couldn't get up last time because no-one in their camp
could accept that the people wanted a popularly elected Head of State.
Unless the pollies accept that, and I can't see their reasons for
*not* accepting it have magically changed somehow by being suddenly in
1907, any Referendum would almost certainly fail.
Frankly, I could never see the point ... we *are* a Republic already,
the HOS is appointed by the PM, not the Queen, and the Q has no real
say in the appointment. Ditto the state GGs.
There is precedent for continuing to have a government with an absent,
mythical, almost, HOS and a real HOG/HOS appointed by someone on the
ground on their mythical behalf ... Horthy's Hungary coming to mind,
for example.
Phil
Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, Australia does remind me of Hungary between the wars. Really?

Phil McGregor

2007-12-31 07:02:36 UTC

On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:13:37 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum
Yes, Australia does remind me of Hungary between the wars. Really?

Since you have demonstrated your complete, total, and utter lack of
anything even vaguely resembling a clew about Australia, I wouldn't at
all be surprised if it did.

Which is a reflection on your clewlessness.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

Jack Linthicum

2007-12-31 10:59:22 UTC

Post by Phil McGregor
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:13:37 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum
Yes, Australia does remind me of Hungary between the wars. Really?

Since you have demonstrated your complete, total, and utter lack of
anything even vaguely resembling a clew about Australia, I wouldn't at
all be surprised if it did.
Which is a reflection on your clewlessness.
Phil
Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

ISOTs are generally regarded as past their use by date ... sure, you
*can* post them (I am not one of the group's net.nazis) but you may
find more brickbats than bouquets coming your way.

Phil McGregor

2007-12-31 15:55:17 UTC

On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 02:59:22 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum

Post by Phil McGregor
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:13:37 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum
Yes, Australia does remind me of Hungary between the wars. Really?

ISOTs are generally regarded as past their use by date ... sure, you
*can* post them (I am not one of the group's net.nazis) but you may
find more brickbats than bouquets coming your way.

You might at least properly attribute this cite ... to me ... though
only a moron studying to be a cretin ... my, that's YOU, linthipoo,
would actually post it in reply to what I said ... as it is as
irrelevant as much of your posts are ... the ones that aren't
completely wrong, that is.

Phil

Author, Space Opera (FGU); RBB #1 (FASA); Road to Armageddon;
Farm, Forge and Steam; Orbis Mundi; Displaced (PGD)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Email: ***@pacific.net.au

v***@gmail.com

2007-12-31 18:02:31 UTC

Post by Phil McGregor
On Mon, 31 Dec 2007 02:59:22 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum
You might at least properly attribute this cite ... to me ... though
only a moron studying to be a cretin ... my, that's YOU, linthipoo,
would actually post it in reply to what I said ... as it is as
irrelevant as much of your posts are ... the ones that aren't
completely wrong, that is.
Phil

Flipt "Cracker" MakeQuacker,

You love abuse. You think about abuse. You do abuse.

John Freck

Jack Linthicum

2007-12-31 18:09:24 UTC

Post by v***@gmail.com

Flipt "Cracker" MakeQuacker,
You love abuse. You think about abuse. You do abuse.
John Freck

And in Gay Bar dialect

The Horny Goat

2007-12-31 21:57:35 UTC

Post by Phil McGregor
On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 16:13:37 -0800 (PST), Jack Linthicum

Post by Jack Linthicum
Yes, Australia does remind me of Hungary between the wars. Really?

I just assumed Jack was either making a lame joke about Australia and
that country next door to Hungary with a somewhat similar sounding
name or making an even more inept reference to Cordwainer Smith's
Norstrilia where they had a permanently vacant head of state position
so that the PM or whatever he was called in that book was also Regent
though their was neither a monarch nor an heir apparent.

Jack Linthicum

2007-12-31 22:11:22 UTC