Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
I don't know anything about Tom Clancy novels, so this may explain why it confuses me on how these two match up.
|
I haven't really either, but it's basically what TV Tropes calls "Twenty Minutes Into the Future". Main differences from today are:
- It's 2005, natch
- Jack Ryan is the President
- Japan went crazy and started a war ... with Russia or China or something?
- A lot less Mulsim terrorism, in fact IIRC at one point in the fic someone said something to the effect of everyone was still in kumbayah celebration mode after averting some Middle East crisis.
- There's a small amount of sci fi stuff like a laser-based audio surveillance gadget (can "hear" through a window by measuring ... sound wave vibrations or something)
The idea is that although the Inner Sphere worlds obviously have access to all this future stuff (even though it's old to them), they don't have Earth's huge industrial base, intact knowledge base, scientists and whatnot, etc. etc. And obviously Earth is initially in no shape to go on the offensive (lacking, you know, spaceships), but defensively attackers are going to be so ridiculously outnumbered that having crazy super armor and lasers and shit isn't going to let them walk all over us. And then we get to start making that stuff ourselves, and it's a whole different ballgame. It's not like the Inner Sphere is going to unite against us or anything.
P.S. Since I have your attention I'd like to apologize for abandoning that other thread. Even if we weren't making much progress ... I just got distracted, and then procrastinated, and forgot about it entirely for days ... let me put it this way, I haven't even dared go in there because the procrastination reached critical mass and now I can't stand to face my misdeed. Am I silly? 
|
Ah... makes sense then... that does sound interesting... small invading force "from the future" vs an indefinite force on earth. Such a weird combo selecton though. Of course we've got Phoneix Wright VS Prof Layton... so...
As for the PS, I wouldn't worry about it. I mean lets be honest, that's probably the only way a debate from us is going to end unless it's something that's particularly proveable.
Seemed less a debate about the facts of the matter and more a philisophical debate on ones duty to defend one's self when the effort level is near effortless. You believe that once someones proved it to enough people, they can stop, while I believe it's not person proven based but effort based. You keep proving it no matter how many people you've proven up until it takes a decent amount of effort to convince a small amount of people... because it takes no effort and there is no reason to not pile evidence.
