GURPS Lucifer-5?

[fchase8]

Originally Posted by warellis

Except wouldn't tech like this allow Appalachia to be less isolated compared to historically? The biggest problem the Appalachia region faces OTL, even now, is that the mountainous terrain often makes it difficult to expand stuff like internet access or other rather essential things nowadays.

Here, the tech in use can cut down on those issues with infrastructure growth.

In theory, yes, but there would be no economic push for it. Even interest in coal would be tough, as it would be too heavy/voluminous to transport via torchships. And no New Deal type government to push for government investment in the region.

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

The best bet for West Virginia would be to market themselves for hunting and tourism. With the mineral wealth from space, there would be no economic reason for mining in Appalachia. You might actually have former Appalachian miners moving into space because they have experience working in mines.

I could definitely see this. Once in a while, a torchship brings some big city hunters & tourists from the East Coast, to enjoy the 'quaint' region.

Though, even if there's not interest in West Virginia coal, there still would be in its lumber (can't get that in space), and so clear-cut away its natural beauty.

I really like the idea of Appalachian miners in space - still oppressed and exploited. And now it would be 'Workers of the Worlds, Unite!'

[warellis]

Do you think, at least in the US, that some of the gun control laws of the ATF, like forbidding suppressors due to claiming that they'll be used to poach, would still be a thing in this setting?

I remember reading that back then you could easily buy dynamite for use for example.

[adm]

My father, and Grand Father bought dynamite in the 1950's to blow out stumps in Missouri.

[Flyndaran]

Dynamite isn't "that hard" to produce on one's own. Horribly dangerous to screw around with large amounts of nitroglycerin, but not difficult chemistry.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by warellis

Do you think, at least in the US, that some of the gun control laws of the ATF, like forbidding suppressors due to claiming that they'll be used to poach, would still be a thing in this setting?
.

The Gun Control Act of 1934 was primarily brought on by the explosive growth in crime created first by Prohibition and the Great Depression. Taking a step further back one of the arguments for passing Prohibition was to conserve grain during WWI.

So with no WWI and no Great Depression (in the US at least) it's entirely possible that there would be no sensationalized crime wave and no market in the US (again at least) for big gun control legislation.

The date of divergence is also quite close to the birth of the UK's first wave of major gun control. That was sold (IIRC right after WWI) as being needed to keep guns out of the hands of the IRA.

"Troubles" in Ireland are still quite likely in some form but without a WWI things _could_ go differently. Especially as Britain might not have more pressing matters. with improved economic possibilities resulting from rocketplane travel all over the globe and torchships to the planets peace next door might look attractive.

Again, I want to stress that I do not particularly think this a likely outcome but it might just be possible.

Also, with rocket-powered troop carriers presenting threat of beachheads anywhere and everywhere a Swiss-style program of universal military preparedness might look like the answer. So that takes us back to different possibilities in gun control.

[fchase8]

Without WWI or the Great Depression, there also isn't as strong a government to enforce gun control in America.


Though the 'winds of change' wouldn't have been snuffed entirely. It's easy to just 'freeze time' at the moment of divergence, add in some advanced tech, and call it a parallel. Sometimes I think even the GURPS Alternate Earths is guilty of that.

Progressives were on the march in 1908, Wilson, Roosevelt, even Taft (in his way). There would be reforms, even with superscience but no WWI. For instance, the franchise would still expand in the U.K., maybe not as fast as IRL, but that was where things would go.

What about female suffrage? I know that WWI was a big factor in that, but it was a big cause beforehand. The Germans & French might not pass it (IRL France didn't pass it until after WWII), but U.K. & U.S. might, eventually. Maybe it's a big present day issue in 1938 Lucifer-5.

The gung-ho nature of Lucifer-5 doesn't seem to fit with Prohibition, but that was always an outlier IRL. There would still be dry counties across America, far from the torchships.

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Also, with rocket-powered troop carriers presenting threat of beachheads anywhere and everywhere a Swiss-style program of universal military preparedness might look like the answer. So that takes us back to different possibilities in gun control.

I hadn't thought of that - that would be a big fear. In U.K. before WWI, there was a great fear of Imperial Germany launching a naval invasion (no matter how unlikely). That was from Germany's naval build-up trying to match the British Navy - with torchships, Germany would be an equal to Britain, or even have an edge (thanks to St. Petersburg).

Note that this could happen in Europe, but not America. The U.S. would still be isolationist, believing the oceans could protect it, and the off-world rivalry far, far away.

[warellis]

I guess invasion literature would be a big thing still?

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by fchase8

Note that this could happen in Europe, but not America. The U.S. would still be isolationist, believing the oceans could protect it, and the off-world rivalry far, far away.

Invading the US by rocket-plane is hard to make work because of decentralization but the distance is basically not a problem.

When the time to cross the Atlantic shrinks from something like a week to 2 hours or less the US wouldn't have much faith in oceans any more.

[AlexanderHowl]

Strangely enough, the Germans would have been better off with investing the money they spent on the dreadnoughts on artillery and submarines. With more submarines, they could have sank the British and French fleets and not bothered with soft targets like cargo ships. With more artillery, they could have just established a superior defense along the French border and chewed their troops to hamburger with only a quarter of the troops (and sent the other troops to roll back the Russians to the Urals). The Central Powers could have divided European Russia by the end of 1915 and swung around to crush Greece, Italy, Romania, etc in 1916. By the end of 1917, they would have controlled the eastern half of Europe, and could have probably forced the French and British to sue for peace.

[warellis]

Originally Posted by AlexanderHowl

Strangely enough, the Germans would have been better off with investing the money they spent on the dreadnoughts on artillery and submarines. With more submarines, they could have sank the British and French fleets and not bothered with soft targets like cargo ships. With more artillery, they could have just established a superior defense along the French border and chewed their troops to hamburger with only a quarter of the troops (and sent the other troops to roll back the Russians to the Urals). The Central Powers could have divided European Russia by the end of 1915 and swung around to crush Greece, Italy, Romania, etc in 1916. By the end of 1917, they would have controlled the eastern half of Europe, and could have probably forced the French and British to sue for peace.

That would've required not having a manchild, who was their leader, want to have a naval peeing match with the UK so he can show his British relatives the superiority of Teutonic naval engineering.