Story premise (critical eye needed)

[jent]

Wow quite a story......I need to think about it more to give a full reply. But right now one big question comes to mind.....how are these countries waging this huge war in an oil crisis? I think if oil was short the nations would not be able to launch massive battle fronts like this, it would be small precise targeting. And I imagine long range missiles would be used for sure. Not soldiers on beaches.

I like the story....but if you want to make it more realistic I would do the US/middle east vs china/africa. Because that is how in my opinion the oil lines are being drawn. I can not imagine the US going against the UK and the north even after a plague.

I think it is a good story, and you can write it how you want. But I think trying to bring the readers into this sort of intense political flip flop will be hard. I think molding current political setups into a more intense situation will be easier for people to understand, as well as bring them into the story more. The last thing you want is your reader to be thinking "there is no way this could happen" after every line.......

I will try to write more after I think about it a bit more.

[Rooster]

*sighs*

I'm removing the backstory now...it's too much bloody hassle.

I just wanted to do a story set in a dystopian future, about furries, aliens, conspiracies, and UFO abductions.

I didn't expect the pedant's allience to unite against me.

I mean, at the end of the day it's a story. Stories don't HAVE to be realistic. Reign of Fire had dragons, but it was good. The Day After Tomorrow was utter poop when it comes to explanations, but it was an engaging film. As was Armageddon.

The fact that the USA has been defeated, and that Canada is now a superpower is THE most important part of the pantsless plot, and I'm not changing it.

I know, here's how it goes now.

A US Army General becomes DICTATOR after his forces takes over the USA during the plague, seeing the presidency as inneffective at combatting the disease.

Dictators allow anything to happen, as they are insane.

Happy now? Or should I cancel this story, of which WW3 is mentioned just in passing, and just kill myself?

[jent]

Wow, roo.....no need to take it quite so harsh. You asked for a critical eye, and the stories that really bring me into the plot definitely have some structure where you think it is possible. So I tried to bring in from my perspective a more realistic foundation. That is my critical eye.

If you want to take this story into the extreme fantasy then that is your artistic vision and take it how you want. But I would suggest that if you want to pant this ultra bleak futuristic fantasy, then I would not name the nations. You may have nations in mind while writing, but pick new names. When you try to bring in those realistic elements I think your readers are going to try and put pieces together and are going to get pissed at the fallacies. If you leave the nations nameless you wont have to do as much work setting the scene too. Because it will be a lot easier to just drop the reader into a fantasy realm instead of having to explain how things got that way. Granted you will want some background to set the context and setting, but you wont have to explain everything from today to then.

That being said I think if you were to strip the story of the true-today elements then it would be a lot more interesting and your original story would be quite captivating. It will be good ether way, but from my critical eye that is what would make it best.

Getting back to your last post I like your idea of dictators & military control. I think that could actually fit quite well into the plot in dealing both with an oil crisis and a plague. When you think about it oil wise, and going back to my previous post, wars take lots of oil. Having the military seize control so they can control there life blood is not too unrealistic. I think it could quite easily complement your plot.

I hope I did not break your spirit on the story, I think it is a good story.....and I would hate to see you get discouraged and not do it. When you ask for a critical eye I give you the hard and cold vision I see. The reason I do is because I would hope for the same from someone else....I pantsless hate seeing things sugar coated. But in the end don't let anything that gets posted here get to you. It is your story, and express yourself in the manner you see fit.....

[Rooster]

Yeah, sorry...I got a bit "Eeeeeeemo" there. It's just not good seeing something you've been writing about for almost 6 months being torn to shreds by people.

Anyways, HERE is the final version. I can see NOTHING wrong with this as an idea...though I'm sure SOME people will pick it apart like a bunch of kittens on my trouser legs.

[quote]The year is 2118, and the human race now cohabits the planet with new species of sentient animal life. These “fursâ€

[PAK]

...

really great story there. i rly like the detail about the war before furs became integrated into society...

[Comrade K]

Anything in Loeln's post I didn't provide a rebuttle against I agree with enough not to argue.

so there are no "oil producing states"

Roo said the CORPORATIONS that owned the fields, not the states themselves. Oil Producing nation is a term I hear a lot, why not state?

When the US corporations owning the wells and fields in Texas and other oil producing states start charging unrealistic prices for the oil

there is also no mercenary force that could possibly stand up and successfully defend against the US Military. Any company that tried would first face the local police. Then the state national guard. Then the US armed forces. Considering that those mercenary forces would be trying to keep hold of specific oil fields, they would have to defend those oil fields against all of the above. At most, they could maybe lock themselves in, but then, the authorities can shut off the water, gas, and electricity for the oil field and more or less starve the mercenaries out.

First off, lets remember what these mercenaries are camped in...a what now?...Oh yeah, an OIL FIELD. So the authorities are gonna stop the mercenaries from getting gas and power? Heh. Secondly, the grand old US Armed Forces may have thousands of the latest in ass-kicking M99 Abrams Mark 1000s and F-1 000 000s while the Mercenaries have 20 BMPs and 5 stukas, but all this amazing technology doesn't help the Military much when it's sitting fueless in a depot. Again, the Mercenaries control what the military needs to attack them. Sure, they won't be totally out of gas, but the mercenaries have a huge advantage in resources.

So let's mention why we wouldn't go to war with Canada or the UK...etc.

Remember, this is the future, things have changed, all those cultural ties go to hell. If we had the last remaining oil on Earth, do you honestly think NAFTA would continue on? If I were Prime Minister, I'd hoard our oil for us. Screw the rest of the world, my country first. And the economy? Well, if there isn't that much oil left, it's not like our economy would take that much of a hit losing an outside customer (i.e: US) when we can barely keep our own cars on the road. If there's only so much oil, the companies aren't gonna lose money not selling what they don't have to US.

As for US invading, it's desperate. If your best friend has all the food in town, and you're starving to death, what would you do?

Also, any reason for these nation in particular? Where's Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, etc. You know, the guys that actually think we are out to get them and would do something like this?

Looks to me as though the countries Roo chose are all relatively industrialized and powerful nations, and in this world, where, as I mentioned before, nobody any longer gives two shits about former relations, the US WILL be out to get these economic powerhouses, because they're the ones with the cash to pull off a major resistance. I'm sure North Korea wouldn't be keen on US taking over either, but what's their GDP again? $5?

Compare and contrast the armed forces of Canada and the US. After decades of modern warfare, how well do you think Canada would be faring? How well would any nation be faring? Furthermore, if nukes are indeed used, the fallout from these devices would soon drift over to Canada, much the same as US air pollution already is, increasing the devestation.

As you said: "how well would any nation be faring?"
well, assume most nations are blown to shit. Canada still at least has resources to be had, unlike US or Europe, hence the sudden boom. And as for fallout...last time I heard, Japan was still populated, and it got hit twice. 5 nuclear blasts from the biggest hydrogen bombs you can get aren't gonna destroy North America, not even close, and all the states that get hit in Roo's outline are to the south. By the time all this fallout got to Canada, it would've dissipated too much to make a difference, not that five bombs would've done much fallout damage anyway.

So anyway, that's my critique of that critique.

So, moving on then:

The new backstory is definitely cleaner and easier to follow, and answers a lot of questions that were left hanging, but as jent said, you have artistic license, you don't have to be Tom Clancy Junior.
One thing I would suggest, is to choose one family of animal, i.e: Canid, and stick with it. That would ruin the character idea though, but people could always make new characters that fit the story better anyway. Your call on that, as with everything.

[Loeln]

Anything in Loeln's post I didn't provide a rebuttle against I agree with enough not to argue.

so there are no "oil producing states"

Roo said the CORPORATIONS that owned the fields, not the states themselves. Oil Producing nation is a term I hear a lot, why not state?

I know, yet how he had stated it made it seem like it was the states themselves fighting for the oil, which wouldn't happen.

When the US corporations owning the wells and fields in Texas and other oil producing states start charging unrealistic prices for the oil

there is also no mercenary force that could possibly stand up and successfully defend against the US Military. Any company that tried would first face the local police. Then the state national guard. Then the US armed forces. Considering that those mercenary forces would be trying to keep hold of specific oil fields, they would have to defend those oil fields against all of the above. At most, they could maybe lock themselves in, but then, the authorities can shut off the water, gas, and electricity for the oil field and more or less starve the mercenaries out.

First off, lets remember what these mercenaries are camped in...a what now?...Oh yeah, an OIL FIELD. So the authorities are gonna stop the mercenaries from getting gas and power?

Yes. The oil you get from and oil field is raw. Oil must be refined to be made into gasoline. To refine oil, let alone pump it in the first place, you need to have power to run the machines. The authorities can cut that power.

Heh.

Heh.

Secondly, the grand old US Armed Forces may have thousands of the latest in ass-kicking M99 Abrams Mark 1000s and F-1 000 000s while the Mercenaries have 20 BMPs and 5 stukas, but all this amazing technology doesn't help the Military much when it's sitting fueless in a depot. Again, the Mercenaries control what the military needs to attack them. Sure, they won't be totally out of gas, but the mercenaries have a huge advantage in resources.

Again, no the mercs don't. They'll have whatever the oil workers left in the company fridge on Friday. Unless they packed a sack lunch or two, they are not going to last longer than a couple days. Even if they did take supplies, they are not going to last long.

Furthermore, while vehicles require gasoline to move, men don't. Neither do guns. Any national guard force could easily be deployed to the area, just sit there, and wait for these "mercenaries" to surrender due to lack of supplies. Besides, according to Roo, the world oil supply is not in such a state where all of it is completely gone; people are still able to use cars, and the military is still able to use its equipment. How else would we have deployed so and so force of infantry to idioticly invade Canada?

Now, supposing the oil supply was in that state, then there's always the large oil reserves the Federal government has for use for citizens and military. If that's already used, then there's coal power, or all those other sources of energy.

So let's mention why we wouldn't go to war with Canada or the UK...etc.

Remember, this is the future, things have changed, all those cultural ties go to hell. If we had the last remaining oil on Earth, do you honestly think NAFTA would continue on? If I were Prime Minister, I'd hoard our oil for us. Screw the rest of the world, my country first. And the economy? Well, if there isn't that much oil left, it's not like our economy would take that much of a hit losing an outside customer (i.e: US) when we can barely keep our own cars on the road. If there's only so much oil, the companies aren't gonna lose money not selling what they don't have to US.

NAFTA involves more than just the oil trade, kid.

As for US invading, it's desperate. If your best friend has all the food in town, and you're starving to death, what would you do?

I, for one, would not attack my friend.

Also, any reason for these nation in particular? Where's Venezuela, North Korea, Iran, etc. You know, the guys that actually think we are out to get them and would do something like this?

Looks to me as though the countries Roo chose are all relatively industrialized and powerful nations, and in this world, where, as I mentioned before, nobody any longer gives two shits about former relations, the US WILL be out to get these economic powerhouses, because they're the ones with the cash to pull off a major resistance. I'm sure North Korea wouldn't be keen on US taking over either, but what's their GDP again? $5?

So, given the intense distrust and dislike the governments of North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela have for us, you think they'd just sit out their chance to finally beat on the US?

Compare and contrast the armed forces of Canada and the US. After decades of modern warfare, how well do you think Canada would be faring? How well would any nation be faring? Furthermore, if nukes are indeed used, the fallout from these devices would soon drift over to Canada, much the same as US air pollution already is, increasing the devestation.

As you said: "how well would any nation be faring?"
well, assume most nations are blown to shit. Canada still at least has resources to be had, unlike US or Europe, hence the sudden boom. And as for fallout...last time I heard, Japan was still populated, and it got hit twice.

Oh dear.

You think the nuclear weapons we have now are still like the ones that were used then. Comrade, nuclear weapons from the cold war -decades ago- were measured according to how many hundreds of hydrogen bombs used in Japan they would be equivalent to. If this is set in the future, and they were already that strong in the past, you're looking at extreme devestation. Also, why would Canada still have resources if it just had to spend years dedicating them to saving the nation from the US?

5 nuclear blasts from the biggest hydrogen bombs you can get aren't gonna destroy North America, not even close, and all the states that get hit in Roo's outline are to the south. By the time all this fallout got to Canada, it would've dissipated too much to make a difference, not that five bombs would've done much fallout damage anyway.

Right. Fallout dissipates in a matter of moments. Just like it did over Chernobyl.

Wait a minute...

And yeah, five nuclear detonations from the biggest nuclear weapons we have (Hydrogen bombs have been outdated for awhile.) will be huge. Just read the article I linked.

So anyway, that's my critique of that critique.

Righto.

[Comrade K]

NAFTA involves more than just the oil trade, kid.

I don't recall saying that it didn't anywhere, but in a situation such as this, the oil trade would be the main concern. I don't think in the kind of world Roo is describing that US and Canada would be squabbling over textiles or softwood lumber (like we are now, funny how NAFTA keeps ruling in favour of Canada, but nothing ever happens). What we are concerned with here is oil, and NAFTA isn't limited to, but does in fact include oil, and in a world where oil is scarce, I'd personally want to abolish anything that allows someone else to get mine just as easily as I can. So yeah, NAFTA is a general Free trade agreement, but oil is the focus in this story.

I, for one, would not attack my friend.

Noble, but in the political world, things don't work the same. When people are desperate, they think of themselves first, and look to their government to solve their problems. It's easy to say you wouldn't attack your friend, when sitting at your computer well fed and everything, but imagine you're starving, and your friend is being unreasonable. People are different in that kind of position.

So, given the intense distrust and dislike the governments of North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela have for us, you think they'd just sit out their chance to finally beat on the US?

I never said they wouldn't. What you asked though, was why Roo chose the countries he did, and I gave you an answer. Again, we aren't talking about today's world, US has bigger problems than North Korea or Iran. Sure, I'm sure they'd take up the chance if they were given it, but bigger countries with more money and resources would present a far greater threat.

Upon rereading my statement, I think this may have been a bit unclear: "I'm sure North Korea wouldn't be keen on US taking over either, but what's their GDP again? $5?"

What I was saying there is that North Korea definitely doesn't want the US to dominate, but when compared to a large, developed country like Brazil, North Korea is a trivial target, as they lack the resources that much larger nations (that are also at war with US) have.
And when I say resources, I'm not talking just oil, I mean money, people, weapons, the capabilities of the country.

And As for Nuclear Explosions, I do know enough about them, but perhaps you know more. I wasn't about to write a book about the effects for the sake of a story. Many countries have tested thousands of nuclear devices of varying yields, one of which I believe was 50 megatons. Granted, it was detonated high, to reduce fallout greatly, as many others were done underground, but all the same, the world is still functioning the same way, is it not? Also, you say nuclear weapons' power was measured by how many hundreds of Hiroshimas or Nagasakis they constitute, i.e: they now have Megaton, not Kiloton yields.
Well, they became more and more destructive for a while, but during the Cold War, the focus in US and Allies shifted from the yield, to the precision of the delivery system. The Warsaw Pact went big, because they hadn't the technology to be so precise, so they simply chose the shotgun method: If it's yield is higher, it's bound to hit the target. So, assuming these future nations took the intelligent course of action and developed more precise, rather than larger yield weapons, the fallout would be less than if they had detonated Soviet cold war era bombs. Now I'm not saying that the fallout would have no effect, but I don't think it would devastate all of North America, and though you showed the map of the fallout from Chernobyl, you may also note that Europe continues to be populated anyway.
Even with much more radiation floating around, as a result of several large nuclear explosions, I think that moving to an area that still has the remainder of the world's energy resources would be worthwile.

why would Canada still have resources if it just had to spend years dedicating them to saving the nation from the US?

It's not my story, so I can only guess, but I'll assume that Canada still has more left than Europe or the US, since it always had more than either, and only began to really heavily use it's resources for the war, whereas Europe and US had next to none to begin with, yet they both had to invest what little they had. So Canada may not have a lot, but barely any is more than zero.


I do agree with you to some degree on the comments about the mercenaries and oil fields. What comes out of these fields is crude oil, and like you said, that doesn't run so well in your engine, unless of course the company, knowing this, would provide it's Mercenaries with some method of refining the oil on the spot. Now, if we assume the oil companies who pump and process the oil are smart enough to know how their own system works, their Mercs should have enough to make use of at least some vehicles, giving them a major advantage over foot soldiers and towed arty. I don't really know how it would go down, but I'm also trying to help Roo's story work.

[Rooster]

Thanks for defending me Comrade, but you're still using the older version as a basis for argument. The new stuff covers most of what Loe is saying.

[Loeln]

I do agree with you to some degree on the comments about the mercenaries and oil fields. What comes out of these fields is crude oil, and like you said, that doesn't run so well in your engine, unless of course the company, knowing this, would provide it's Mercenaries with some method of refining the oil on the spot. Now, if we assume the oil companies who pump and process the oil are smart enough to know how their own system works, their Mercs should have enough to make use of at least some vehicles, giving them a major advantage over foot soldiers and towed arty. I don't really know how it would go down, but I'm also trying to help Roo's story work.

If mercs have vehicles then that means that civilians most likely still have vehicles which means that the military definately has them; given a choice between supplying the military with resources it needs in a time of need vs. giving civilians a resoucre they could use to get to work quicker, I'm pretty sure the government would keep the military supplied. And, if we have planes to invade Canada, we have the planes to strategicly bomb a conflicted area. The mercs would need both a portable refining station (which are not portable) and vast number of portable generators if they ever wanted to get the oil field both operational at all, and producing anything in any amount of value. Provided they some how actually have these things, it's about as hard to destroy them as it was to destroy that bunker Saddams sons were in. Again, mercs vs. the US military, US wins. Though they could try guerilla tactics to survive, since an oil field is a small area devoid of civilians, they would have no where to hide and would be taken out.

Well, they became more and more destructive for a while, but during the Cold War, the focus in US and Allies shifted from the yield, to the precision of the delivery system. The Warsaw Pact went big, because they hadn't the technology to be so precise, so they simply chose the shotgun method: If it's yield is higher, it's bound to hit the target. So, assuming these future nations took the intelligent course of action and developed more precise, rather than larger yield weapons, the fallout would be less than if they had detonated Soviet cold war era bombs. Now I'm not saying that the fallout would have no effect, but I don't think it would devastate all of North America, and though you showed the map of the fallout from Chernobyl, you may also note that Europe continues to be populated anyway.

I'm not saying that all of North America would be devestated like Hiroshima. I'm saying it will be devestated in such a way as to most likely cause Canada to not support any UN plan to wage nuclear war on the US. If not for the effect of those five attacks, then for the fact that I already mentioned that those five attacks would not stop anything; they would authorize the US government to then use our nuclear weapons, which going by the original story, we hadn't yet. In the Cold War there were enough weapons between the US and USSR to end life on Earth four times over. Though we've scaled back now, given that the story is set in the future and in a time of conflict, I'm pretty sure the US would retain enough weapons to fulfill the logic of MAD.

[Rooster]

Loeln, again, I'm not trying to be mean, or belittle your argument...but BOTH agumentative points you have have been made moot by the NEW version of the story.

[Loeln]

Loeln, again, I'm not trying to be mean, or belittle your argument...but BOTH agumentative points you have have been made moot by the NEW version of the story.

I know, I know.

[Comrade K]

I see where you're coming from with the nuclear weapons now, and it makes sense.

As for the Mercenaries, I still think it could be possible for them to win. Now, don't get me wrong, if this were happening in the real world, I'd place my bets on the US military, but I figure that if the Mercs were, under the direction of the corporation that hired them, to seize oil fields, they could hold out.

Now, the US would have superior vehicles and technology, but if the Mercs could resist the initial engagements, they would have a continuous supply of fuel, but the Military would not, rendering their superior vehicles useless. Now, if Big Oil really wanted to seize it's fields entirely, it would strategize, and make sure the Mercs also control the Refineries, thus depriving the military of the fuel it badly needs, while also providing the Mercs with fuel to combat the military.
The whole company would likely form a strategy well ahead of time. Now, the Mercs could also threaten to set fire to the wells, consuming the last precious drops of oil, and leaving the US without energy (at least for vehicles), then I think the tables would really turn.

[Loeln]

I see where you're coming from with the nuclear weapons now, and it makes sense.

As for the Mercenaries, I still think it could be possible for them to win. Now, don't get me wrong, if this were happening in the real world, I'd place my bets on the US military, but I figure that if the Mercs were, under the direction of the corporation that hired them, to seize oil fields, they could hold out.

Now, the US would have superior vehicles and technology, but if the Mercs could resist the initial engagements, they would have a continuous supply of fuel, but the Military would not, rendering their superior vehicles useless. Now, if Big Oil really wanted to seize it's fields entirely, it would strategize, and make sure the Mercs also control the Refineries, thus depriving the military of the fuel it badly needs, while also providing the Mercs with fuel to combat the military.
The whole company would likely form a strategy well ahead of time. Now, the Mercs could also threaten to set fire to the wells, consuming the last precious drops of oil, and leaving the US without energy (at least for vehicles), then I think the tables would really turn.

Yet that's the thing; such a small, non guerilla force could not stand against the armed forces. If they take the pumps, we disable them by cutting them off from the local power grid. If they have a generator large enough to power the pumps and refinery as long as necessary, then the government can target and take out that/those generators, along with any vehicles, munition stocks, supplies, men, etc. they have. That aside, let's say they do manage to keep the pumps going and have electricity. They'll still need to operate them, which is not easily done when you're continually pinned down by weapons fire, and still need water, which is not easily obtained when the authorities can turn off the water pressure. If they set fire to the oil wells, then the company looses any chance it had to gain oil from the field, pretty well shooting its self in the foot. If a company even authorized armed forces to take over resources, then the company will be investigated and halted by the government and those who authorized the use of force arrested.

I don't see this having any chance of happening with any chance of success.

Rather, an oil company could begin to buy up the stock of another, get over 50% of the shares, then use those shares to force the rival company to merge with theirs, giving their company all assets of the rivals, able to eventually gain a monopoly on oil the in the US ...to then be divided apart by court order due to the anti-monopoly laws of the US government.

'Course as Roo says, none of this applies D:

[Muninn]

Ok, I haven't read the last page but although a story like this would benefit with being at least a bit more believable in certain aspects it is still fiction, which in my book means anything can and might happen.