What if…terrorists targeted the mega wealthy?

The assassination of The Richest Man In The World™ (TRM) was the biggest story in the world. The clip of a bullet passing through his skull, caught on a bystander’s phone as he exited a building in San Francisco, instantly became one of the defining images of the 21st century. He was dead before he hit the ground. Interestingly, it was not even to be the most startling event of the day.

That came exactly two hours later, when a handsome AI generated man in a video took credit for the murder. He informed the rapidly increasing number of viewers that an email containing information about the murder had been sent directly to the FBI and would confirm his claim to be the voice of the assassins.

He then introduced himself as George, after “another great revolutionary” and said that he spoke for The 99, an organization dedicated to addressing the wealth imbalance between the mega wealthy and everyone else. He stressed that he was neither on the far right or far left, and that this was not an ideological matter. This was a simple matter of wealth transfer. The murder of TRM, he said, was a statement of intent, a proof of concept as to their seriousness. But no one else need die.

He then published a list of the world’s 200 richest individuals, and offered a deal. If they transferred 10% of their wealth to a stated list of popular banks and micro finance charities across the world, and ordered that the money be distributed equally among every account holder with less than $1000 in their account, they would be safe for one year. As would their families.

George finished by saying that they would act again soon if the individuals did not respond within 72 hours.

Continue reading

Star Trek Picard: Aftermath.

President Chekov liked working on paper. Well, paper substitute, as they hardly ever manufactured paper by the old methods these days. The report on his desk had been replicated, and when he had finished reading it, his staff would scan any notes he had written on it with his father’s pen, and it would then be recycled. But it looked and felt like paper. His non-human advisors joked at the human love of paper, and the fact that humans still insisted that treaties be formally printed and signed, but even they get a frisson when they viewed the original Coalition of Planets declaration on view in the Pompidou Centre. Jonathan Archer himself once signed that.

The report was slim, the way he liked his reports. Straight facts, short sentences, clear conclusions. Another thing the staff knew to generate. This particular report was very stark. 6124 Starfleet officers had died on Frontier Day. Sol Station had permanently damaged or destroyed 37 ships, including the flagship.

The long-term psychological effects on Starfleet’s young officers continues to be felt, with just over 25% of them resigning or needing intense counselling, as all remember their actions vividly. Starfleet medical noted that whilst it would be possible to wipe the memories of those hours, it was a drastic move, and they couldn’t guarantee it would stay. The last thing you needed was Starfleet officers suddenly having flashbacks to themselves murdering their crewmates. The Troi report had been adamant about that: our young would have to be helped work through their pain.

The Troi report. He chuckled to himself. His dad would have been so proud that it had been the Enterprise that had turned the tide. What was it about that ship, the myth that hung about it? Names mean so much, and Enterprise keeps saving the Federation.

Even the aftermath had Enterprise’s crew taking such a role. Hardly surprising given how many senior officers died, but still. Picard as acting CinC until Janeway recovered from her injuries, Crusher at Medical, Tuvok (who had served under Sulu) at Starfleet Academy, LaForge and Data leading the rebuilding of Sol Station, although he had insisted at the rededication of the station that his assistant, Chief O’Brien, a retired engineer from Dublin (yet another ex-Enterprise crew), had done most of the work. Worf taking over at Section 31.

Section 31. He leaned back in his seat. Like so many in Starfleet and the Council, he was ambivalent about the organisation. Its mere existence was a stain on the ideals of the Federation, and yet in an age of the Tal Shiar and Obsidian Order every president faced the same choice, and concluded the same. To keep the Federation flag flying we needed the men in the shadows.

Not anymore, Chekov concluded. They had failed. They failed to detect Commodore Oh, an actual Romulan as head of Starfleet Intelligence. They failed to detect the first changeling invasion, nor this one. Well, correction, Ambassador Worf and Commander Mussiker had detected it, but their superiors had been compromised. Enough. He was going to bring Section 31 under the Council, and formally appoint Worf and Mussiker as director and deputy director and let them clean house. Picard had insisted that those Starfleet and Federation officials who had tortured the changelings be prosecuted, Chekov agreed. Their trial started in a month.

He found his own thoughts drifting back to the day. The horror as his many of his own bodyguards turned against him. The running battle to get to the bunker. The moment he suddenly remembered the very first thing they had told him when he had been elected by the Council, tapping his Federation lapel badge and the six Emergency Presidential Security Detail Holograms suddenly appearing and whisking him to safety in a hail of phaser fire. It was funny how little things stuck in his brain: how the EPSD all looked like Zimmermann but had the most beautiful thick lustrous hair. But boy had he programmed them well. As a cinema buff one of his favourite movies was the old 20th century classic “Heat”, with its spectacular gun battle scene as bank robbers with automatic weapons systematically fought their way up a street against superior forces. That had been what it had been like, his bodyguards, older ones and the holograms, had cut their way through the enemy (it pained him to think that) with those new phaser assault carbines. Outside he could see French police engaged in furious gun-battles with Borg Starfleet.

He remembered his transmission, when it looked like all was lost. And then the news that the Enterprise D was engaging the Borg over Jupiter. The D? Surely some mistake? Sol Station was holding out. And the Titan, whom Starfleet Command had informed him a day previously had been hijacked by possible changeling infiltrators, was engaging in a battle with the fleet. The Titan?

And then suddenly, it ended. The signal stopped, the assimilation ended as quickly as it started. He remembered his tense call to the Klingon Chancellor who was assembling a fleet to attack, and honestly wanted to know how could he tell if Chekov himself was not a changeling? Chekov agreed to a Klingon fleet coming immediately to Earth to see what was happening form themselves. Worf had helped with that too: the House of Martok was not without allies.

The raid by Starfleet special forces on the installation where the changelings had kept their prisoners. The fact that the Dominion very quietly (again through Worf!) assisted us was kept very quiet.

It had seemed churlish, the idea of a celebration. So many had died, a memorial had to be built to their memory. And yet as the days passed there was a growing demand on Earth for heroes too. The sight of the Enterprise D doing a barrel roll as it thundered down the Champs Elysee is not one Chekov would forget. And Captain Seven, of course. She was already famous as the ex-Borg drone but now, as the ex-Borg drone that had fought the invasion, those in Starfleet Command who had expressed misgivings (and were still alive) had the good sense to keep their mouths shut now, given that Starfleet was now made up of 40% ex-Borg.

The report also pointed out that it had been Starfleet’s Human Resources policy of keeping older families on Sol Station that had allowed the attempted takeover be repelled and the station hold out for so long. Indeed, the crew of Sol Station will be honoured separately, as no one had expected the station to hold out as long as it did. It later emerged that Sol’s defence upgrades had been installed by the former chief of Deep Space Nine (and the Enterprise), that same Irish engineer who helped Laforge rebuild the station. Apparently the Irish government are renaming Dublin Spaceport after him.

He closed the report, and opened the following file, and smiled at the heading. It was an unusual request, especially given the role the ship had played. But he’d consulted with the crew personally, and all saw it as an honour. Another glimpse at the picture of his father on his desk.

He signed it without hesitation: the Federation needed an Enterprise. Names mean everything.

Star Trek: Why is Starfleet overwhelmingly made up of humans?

One of the more contradictory aspects of  “Star Trek” is the fact that although the  United Federation of Planets is supposedly made-up of over 150 different and presumably equally represented races, when it comes to the presentation of those races in Starfleet it is quite normal for Starfleet crews to be often 80% human. Does this point to an inherent racism within the Federation, that it is in fact like the British Commonwealth, nominally an alliance of common nations but in reality dominated by a single member? The original series, probably due to sloppy writing more than anything else, tended to veer between the Federation basically being a human alliance, and occasionally accepting that humans only played a part in it. As with most things in a multilateral political union, the answer is probably multifaceted.

The real-universe answer is simply that it’s cheaper to have a bunch of actors who don’t require prosthetics and alien makeup. The original series pretty much gave up on there being too many aliens in Starfleet. Having said that, JJ Abrahams made a much greater effort in his three movies to show diversity in the Starfleet crew.

The first possibility is simply that there are other ships where the human contingent maybe very small or even non-existent. Some episodes of Star Trek have indeed shown all-Vulcan ships, and like NATO it would not be surprising, for coherence, to have some ships where a single race or culture dominates. A ship with a single race can have a single temperature or climate that suits the whole crew. Indeed, there have been episodes where Federation members (again with the Vulcans) have maintained ships separate from Starfleet entirely.

There’s also one other reason: maybe humans just like space travel more? As in the European Union, maybe every Federation member has a quota of Starfleet officers it’s entitled to fill, but most don’t, and humans are then permitted to fill the surplus places. It’s also possible that the other races are quite happy for humans to go off getting themselves killed on their behalf: after all, most of the Federation’s casualties fighting the Borg and the Dominion were almost certainly overwhelmingly human too.

Interestingly, the issue also raises the question as why Kirk’s original monologue, “…where no man has gone before” is actually more accurate and actually less racist than the (at the time) more politically savvy “…where no one has gone before.”

Why? Because “no man” is suggesting that this may be the first time humans are encountering some new sector of space, whereas “no one” suggests that the new races encountered are inferior to Federation species. Think I’m splitting hairs?

Ask yourself this: did Christopher Columbus go where no one had gone before, or just where no Italian had? I know what the Cherokee, Choctaw and Apache thought.

Star Trek: Is the federation a democracy?

One of the more curious aspects of the Star Trek universe is the fact that elections are never mentioned. The United Federation of Planets is held up as the great defender of individual freedom and “human” rights, and throughout the series those rights are a constant source of debate for both Federation members but also the many worlds applying to join the alliance. There is no question that individual freedom is a keystone of Federation citizenship. But we have no idea how those citizens govern themselves, or indeed if they even do, or just exist in a form of benign communist state.

Viewers know that there is a president of the Federation, who is answerable to a Federation Council, which is a legislature made up of representatives of the various members planets of the Federation who have their own governments, but that is pretty much all the knowledge we actually have about government within the UFP.

Having said that, it is possible to speculate what form of government exists. In “Picard” Admiral Clancy points out that member governments of the Federation overruled the mass evacuation of Romulan refugees, and in Star Trek: Insurrection rogue Admiral Dougherty (Is every baddy Starfleet admiral of Irish extraction?) warned that if the Federation public heard of the conspiracy he was involved in there would be problems.

It’s very possible that the United Federation of Planets is a European Union style indirect democracy, where citizens elect (or at least consent to) their member planet government, which sends representatives to the Federation Council, and the Council elects a president. It would also explain why the Federation Presidents tend to be weak non-descript characters (as most European Commission Presidents are, at least initially).

Whilst one is given the impression watching the various Star Trek series that the Federation Council is the highest legislative authority within the alliance, and has power over Starfleet, Starfleet does seem to have considerable on the ground autonomy. Having said that, it’s worth recognising that we only really see the chain of command between admirals and ship captains, and any time the Federation President does appear on screen (especially in Star Trek: Discovery, but not only) Starfleet admirals are clearly subordinate to the civilian leadership. 

Finally, one other that is almost never mentioned in Star Trek is, of course, the fact that every member planet has its own government and its own system of government, and that those governments are not necessarily democracies, although having said that the Federation has rejected membership bids from planets with governments that discriminate against minorities or do not rule with the broad consent of their people. It’s also clear that every Federation citizen has access to a common set of rights not dissimilar to European Union citizenship.

The most logical conclusion is that the Federation is, in effect, an indirect democracy with very high levels of freedom. The governments of the planets that make up the Federation are, at a minimum, in office with broad consent, by whatever means their culture dictates, and those governments send representatives to the Federation Council and the Federation Council in turn elects a President of the Federation. And like the European Union, the Federation has freedom of movement (indeed, its possible the Federation has open borders) which allows citizens of both Federation and non-Federation worlds to live on a planet with a culture of their own choosing. Or indeed, even start their own colony. 

 

Can only a Stalin save the world?

StalinPreviously posted in 2014…

There’s a common theme in many science fiction stories of humanity making great sacrifices to ensure the survival of the species. One of the most prevalent features of such stories is the creation of a vessel or bunker to ensure that a group of highly skilled humans survive whatever the imminent catastrophe is. As stories go they’re wonderful tales of Man at his most noble, sacrificing himself so that the great idea of humanity itself can survive.

It’s all, of course, absolute bollocks. The reality is that humanity would be incapable of dealing with such a situation. Supposing, say, the US Government announced that it had detected a massive unstoppable asteroid heading towards Earth. The right would deny the science and announce that it was just a socialist plot to raise taxes to build a space ark. The left would say it was a conspiracy by the military-industrial complex to divert money from social spending. Iran would blame the Jews. Someone would blame the gays, and so on.

Even if both sides did finally agree that the destruction of Earth was imminent, picture the blazing rows of how we’d choose who was to go in the space ark. The fights over sex, religion, colour, gender, transgender and that’s before Russia and China’s best and brightest nominees just happen to be from the most powerful families in their respective lands. In the west we’d have endless debates. Why should those fancy scientists get all the seats, the vox pops will say? Why are we sending a load of nerds into space and not J-Lo? Why not a TV show where the public and minor celebrities can compete for seats? I’m A Celeb Get Me Off This Doomed Rock? Picture the reaction of Americans and Europeans when they see a crew that resembles humanity, made up mostly of Asians and Africans.

Space ark? We’d have annihilated ourselves in the war over places on board way before the asteroid ever reached us.

Today, in the US, large numbers of conservatives believe they’re entitled to a version of science which matches their political prejudices. In Europe large numbers of left-wing voters believe they can vote themselves early retirement and better pensions and a welfare state without confronting the ugly right-wing reality of how to pay for it. In Ireland, some voters are getting indignant at the idea of paying for water. This is the age where feeling strongly about something is, for many, as legitimate as the rational facts.

Consider climate change: even amongst those people who do accept the science, there’s a reluctance to actually support measures that could prevent further change but would involve anything but the most minor changes to our consumerist lifestyles. We’re not talking about separating paper from plastic here, and we’re doing ourselves no favours pretending it is that easy. If we are genuinely serious about the changes needed to prevent further environmental damage to the planet, we are talking about massive restriction on private car ownership and air travel along with huge reductions in food and consumer product to save the planet for PEOPLE WHO HAVE NOT BEEN BORN YET. This from a society that bitches when petrol prices increase? From a society that objects to mandatory pensions for people who will actually need those pensions in their own lifetime?

Forget it. It isn’t going to happen. Mankind has crossed over the tipping point where emotion and consumer desire triumphs rational analysis. You reading this will probably not see the end of life on this planet. But your grandchildren might.

But that’s not even the scary bit. The scary bit is what I call the Stalin factor. It’s that awkward bit of history we don’t talk about. The fact that in order to destroy Nazism we needed a monster like Stalin  willing to brutally command and sacrifice millions of Russians. If Stalin had been a nice liberal democrat Russia would have been defeated by Hitler. Awkward, I know, but probably true.

When humanity faces a life ending event, it won’t be the consensus building Obamas or Merkels or Camerons that will seize power and do what needs to be done, but some monster who will sacrifice millions to save the rest of us. Who’ll bomb the countries that refuse to reduce their CO2 emissions. Who’ll use directed, possibly forced labour and penal taxation to build the vast sea walls to protect us from the rising waters. Who’ll jail the protestors who oppose new nuclear plants and gas pipes and wind farms and vast solar arrays blighting our landscape or try to defend their right to own a family car. Who’ll put on trial the people who secretly try to keep cattle or pigs or even private farmland. Who’ll occupy Saudi Arabia and Iraq and Iran and Kuwait to secure control of the deadly substance destroying humanity. Who’ll nationalise oil and energy companies and force them to develop new technologies and execute the board members and stockholders who try to protect their wealth.

The reality, the awful grim reality, is that when the chips are down it’ll be up to some absolute bastard to save humanity.

Great TV you may have missed: Occupied.

occuied“Occupied” is a thriller brought to us by Norway’s TV2. It tells the near future story of a new Norwegian prime minister, in response to an environmental disaster, ending Norway’s oil and gas industry. This causes an energy crisis in the rest of Europe, which leads to the EU conniving with Russia to seize the Norwegian oil platforms with Russian troops, and for Russia to deploy special forces into Norway itself. NATO having dissolved some years earlier, Norway finds itself friendless.

This isn’t Red Dawn in snow. It’s much more subtle, and much more political, as the prime minister tries to navigate between the Russians, who threaten more military power, and patriotic Norwegians who regard him as another Quisling.

One aspect the show does very well is its portrayal of the EU, which is selfishly pursuing its own interest yet embarrassed by its own actions, but unwilling to respond militarily to Russian provocation.

Funnily enough, although it was made in late 2015 it actually is more believable in the Trump era. It was made on a reasonable budget, and Norway looks great in it. It also has a very catchy theme song by Norwegian singer Sivert Hoyim.

The first season is available on Netflix, and a second season was broadcast recently. It’s in Norwegian with subtitles, but the characters all use English to speak with non-Norwegians in yet another example of how good some education systems are! Once again, I can’t understand why RTE can’t do political drama like this.

 

20 Years Later: Ireland 2037.

News Future logoPreviously published in The Times Ireland Edition.

For the citizens of the Federal Union of Ireland, looking back from their vantage point of the year 2037, 2017 would turn out to be one of those years when a nation’s destiny pivots, even if it isn’t realized at the time.

The road to Irish unification began that year, as unionism went from being the dominant ideology of Northern Ireland to merely one option on the table. The triggering of Britain’s exit from the European Union, and the realisation that the interests of Northern Ireland barely registered if at all in high places in England was another key moment.

But it wasn’t just unionists who were forced to confront new realities. If unionists were left open mouthed at England’s lack of interest in them, nationalists were forced to confront the intellectual emptiness of Irish unification, and the fact that almost no thought had been given to what a united Ireland would look like. The old pub closing time declarations of running a tricolour up over Stormont and job done were rapidly revealed to be absolutely worthless. Indeed, once nationalists in both the north and the south grasped that unity meant Irishness suddenly meaning one in five Irish being monarchists with totally different view of the old enemy, it triggered as big a crisis in nationalist political circles in both Dublin and Belfast.

The hard reality of Brexit, and the refusal of English voters to regard subsidising Northern Ireland as being their problem led to unionists looking south at a country that, unlike their English cousins, actually was interested in them.

The negotiations were started by proxies of proxies, people who had no public association with either side, but had access to major players in Dublin and Belfast. The draft papers that emerged on the desks of the taoiseach and the first minister by circuitous route, caused a bigger panic in Dublin than Belfast, in that they weren’t a German style reintegration of the country but a South African style blueprint for a new one, with a new name, flag, anthem, constitution, official language, and a constitutional guarantee as to what proportion of the national budget would be given to the northern assembly.

It was during the negotiations that Dublin realised the fundamental weakness in its argument. That it really wanted a united Ireland, whereas Belfast could only deliver unionism to an all bells and whistles deal, and both sides knew it. As Trumpism had proven, even economic hardship can be overwhelmed by a fear of “them”.

The talks collapsed a number of times, but history now shows that this had been a deliberate tactic of the new young  Taoiseach who recognised that the longer it took, the more time the Irish people would have to get used to the idea that what was on offer was a new and different country.

Even after the new agreement was passed on both sides of the border the new country faced challenges. Within ten years, the rapidly escalating automation of the global economy delivered to Ireland the challenge of shrinking labour demand just as the country crashed through the six million population barrier.

As it happened, Ireland turned out to be the perfect size for the dynamic innovation needed for a country to compete in the age of the robot. The social welfare system was replaced with a basic income, and Europe, having defeated the far right challenge that had overwhelmed both the US and the UK, recognised that tax harmonisation and access to its single market were the two weapons vital to funding that new system.

The Ireland of 2037, presided over by President The Lord Paisley, remains one of the richest most free nations in the world, its population swelling with liberal refugees from the US and England. There are tensions with England, as EU countries refuse to extradite suspects who may be executed, and England is one of the more casual nations with the noose these days, as Tony Blair nearly discovered before Irish diplomats smuggled him out of the UK and to asylum in Ireland.

In the Phoenix Park the finishing touches are being put on the memorial to the 237 Irish volunteers who served and died in the joint Scottish-Irish regiment of the European Defence Force liberating Poland and the Baltics from the Russians. Scotland’s entry into the EU coincided with the signing of the Edinburgh treaty between Scotland and Ireland, much to the delight of the Ulster Party in the Dail/National Assembly, both countries agreeing to fund a joint air and sea force to patrol their waters and airspace. The first shared ship, the William Wallace, is based in Cork. The Tom Crean will be based in Aberdeen.

Robots are everywhere, from the permanent police drones that replaced small police stations, solar powered and hovering silently, their infrared cameras seeing all, to the automated vehicles that make up 90% of the vehicles on the road.

What few predicted was the new creative age the robots would unleash. Ireland is now awash with poets, artists, musicians, performers, writers, people who thought they had been left on the economic scrapheap but instead found themselves liberated. Ireland’s most recent Oscar winner, for best supporting actor, had been a Dublin Bus driver five years previously.

The politics of “Captain America: Civil War”

captain-america-civil-warSpoiler alert: I’m assuming if you are reading this you have seen the movie. If not, don’t read any further as I’m talking about key plot points.

********

The two most recent “Captain America” movies have been the most political of the Marvel Universe movies, with both “The Winter Soldier” and “Civil War” having, at their heart, a question about the political accountability of self-appointed groups of do-gooders with extraordinary power.

In “Civil War”, a division emerges between the superheroes over a proposed UN treaty which puts them under the control of an international oversight body.

Unlike many superhero movies, the question isn’t black and white. The treaty comes about as a result of rising casualty rates amongst civilians caused by The Avengers group fighting various bad guys. As a plot, it’s very close to the key plot of “Superman Vs. Batman: Dawn of justice” but exercised much more interestingly. Both Tony Stark (in favour of oversight) and Steve Rogers (against) make valid points in the debate.

But what’s interesting is the politics at the core of the disagreement. Stark believes (rightly, I think) that a group with such immense power must operate with public consent, and so must be accountable and even open to restraint. Rogers, guided by his own sense of morality, believes that a group of individuals with such talents as theirs should not let themselves be restrained by politics.

Interestingly, he spits out the word, and that tells us something about the at-times curiously elitist views held by Rogers, that if he believes something is right, that’s good enough, and that no government, even one elected by the people, has a right to overrule his right to intervene. It’s a fascinating insight into our modern society that such a view is portrayed in a movie as a reasonable side to a case, and not what it really is: the argument of a fascist superman. In short, if someone believes themselves to be emotionally right, as Rogers does, then that’s OK.

As it happens, Stark displays incredible hypocrisy when he discovers that Bucky Buchanan, under Hydra mind control, murdered his parents, and anoints himself the right to murder Buchanan (technically innocent)under a straight and simple desire for emotional revenge, but in doing so makes his own original point that their powers have to be held in check.

Politics aside, it’s a great entertaining movie. The fight scenes are excellent, it’s chock full of cameos and it has plenty of humour. DC take note.

The Empire vs. the Federation: a comparison.

death star 2Watching “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” and also seeing the new Star Trek trailer got me thinking recently about how society is ordered in both systems. Admittedly, the Empire existed when humans were still in dwelling in caves, and so a like-for-like comparison isn’t quite fair, but as models go they’re worth comparing.

Which works better? Depends on the question.

Economic Freedom: there’s no comparison. The Empire is a free trade Caveat Emptor kind of place, with huge discrepancies between rich and poor. Slavery is tolerated. On the negative side, private property rights don’t seem to be respected by the state as much as just tolerated. Imperial stormtroopers can burn down your farm without as much as a “by your leave.”Star Trek Enterprise Ship 1701 2

The Federation, on the other hand, is almost the opposite, in that it is in effect a Communist society where possibly all property is owned by the state. Having said that, civil rights seem to apply to a home and individual once it has been allocated. Slavery is banned in the Federation, as is discrimination based on many criteria. Many of them. The Federation seems to have more laws than the Empire has stormtroopers.

The Political System: both systems seem to devolve a lot of non-military power to local decision making, however it is chosen locally. There is a tendency in the Federation towards only permitting members to join that govern with the broad consent of their people and involves detailed negotiation and examination of a candidate. The Empire, on the other hand, just annexes planets. Think British Empire. vs EU.

The Empire is a dictatorship. The Federation Council is chosen by member states, with the Federation President being a low profile bureaucrat. Russia vs EU. Neither hold galactic elections. Only one has a leader who personally murders people.

Civil liberties: There are pretty much none in the Empire, whereas the Federation has probably the most civil liberties in any galaxy. The Empire executes people. The Federation does have the death penalty, but very rarely uses it. Instead, prisoners tend to be exiled to New Zealand. That’ll learn ’em. Finally, Imperial forces seem to be limited to humanoids and clones, whereas Starfleet is multicultural. It might explain why stormtroopers are such dreadful shots.

Military power: Although the Imperial fleet is much bigger than Starfleet, the Federation’s ships are technologically more advanced, with both cloaking (unofficially) and transport technology. Most Imperial weapons seem to be crude energy blasters, whereas Federation weapons are targeted and sustained beams. Both sides boast a superweapon. The Empire has a Death Star, the Federation the Genesis Device. The Death Star has superior range, whereas the Genesis Device would have to be delivered from orbit by a cloaked ship. Having said that the GD leaves the planet intact and devoid of life, ready to be reseeded with plant life. It is the neutron bomb of the galaxy.

The Empire has far superior ground forces, with the Federation having a very limited Military Assault Command capability. It also has better psychics who can actually do stuff aside from sense that people are stressful.

So, of the two systems, where would one choose to live? It’s a simple enough choice. If you are a swashbuckling scofflaw with a belief that you can make your own way and outrun any other ship (and do, maybe, the Kessel Run in under 12 parsecs, say) then the Empire is for you.

If, on the other hand, you want order, dignity, and enough money to live a nice middle-class life but no more, the Federation is the one. You can become very rich in the Empire, but also have it taken off you at a whim by the starving underclass or the shady Ayatollah who runs it. And they’ll either freeze your ass off or feed you to some sort of giant sand sphincter with teeth.

In the Federation you can work your way up through the fleet by meritocracy, or sit on your ass writing light operas. Whatever floats your boat. You won’t go hungry, and neither bounty hunters nor the military will bother you.

Unless the Empire decide they quite fancy owning the Federation, of course.