IST Academy

[Mark Skarr]

IST is a military institution. Therefore, it stands that it will be a military-style academy.
ETA:  This isn't U.N. Academy, it's IST Academy, to groom future IST members.  So, that, pretty much, means it will be a military-style school.

[robkelk]

IST is a military institution.

Really?
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Bob Schroeck]

Yes and no. The IST has always been -- for me -- something like Starfleet: part military, part civilian, and which part is in ascendance depends on the needs of the moment.

It is as military as it has to be in order to fulfill its mission as a peace-keeping and enforcement force. It is as civilian as it has to be in order to fulfill its other mission of being ambassadors -- of the world, to the world. The balance is a hard one to strike, and is different in different embassies, depending on the nation and culture around them. In most of North America and Europe, it tilts considerably to the civilian side. Other places, not so much. This is one reason each team has effectively two leaders -- the field commander for military operations, and the team admin for all other functions. A well-run embassy/team can turn on a dime and go from grim special-ops anti-terrorist action to sparkles-n-flowers P.R. with kids in minutes, without whiplash.

As for the nature of the Academ(y/ies), my concept is closer to Rob's than Mark's, but partakes of both. The Academy is a service offered by the IST, and its coursework for supers is not structured so much to produce metahuman soldiers as to produce well-balanced metahumans comfortable and skilled with their powers, who may be inclined to join the IST afterward, but are in no way required to. It's a bit more military-style than Xavier's school, but not by much. It's more like, um, a boarding school with combat training to the level you're comfortable with. Hogwarts with decent Defense classes.

I do like the idea of AA teaching ethics in her retirement; I'm definitely going to throw that in.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[Mark Skarr]

Man, is Yuku having a total spaz.  I've been trying for a while to get this posted, but I keep getting 500 Internal Server Errors.

I can see the Starfleet analogy quite well, however, it's still a military organization, at the end of the day.  As much as Starfleet wants to say they're not, they are a military organization.  I was considering a comment of "Best Case Scenario:  IST Academy is Starfleet Academy."  However, it's still a military academy.  Maybe a bit lower-impact, but I can't help but see that discipline and order would be a main tenant of the academy.  Any metahuman student could probably use a disciplined, structured life to give them meaning and direction, even if it's not going into the IST.

I can see it being broken down, by the group of three, in that the "up to 13" school would be mostly educational, and less structured, and they start getting into the military-like structure in the 13-18 branch.  The actual 18-and-older branch would probably be rigorously military.  It doesn't make much sense for a military organization to have a non-military academy to prepare new team members.  At that point, there should be two "schools" one run by the U.N., providing education and training to the students who show little desire to be in the IST, and the IST Academy for those that do*.

And, I'm sorry, but the idea of it being like Hogwarts is anethma to me.  That would ensure the school lasts about a month before over-active students brought it down in a flaming disaster.

I was thinking of putting AA in the same role as Ezekiel.  Zeke's got a couple thousand years experience on her, but, at the end of the day, they both "get it."

*-For students with catastrophic powers (Ember, Pink, Rad Vixen, Suzi) enrollment into the IST Academy's military-school branch would be, practically, mandtory.  Though, in some cases (Pink) that would go . . . poorly.

[Mark Skarr]

Thanks to the Yuku spaz, I forgot to make a point:

It's easier for a military unit to be civil, than it is for a civil unit to be martial.

[Mark Skarr]

Creation is all about tension and compromise.

In the shower, where I do the vast majority of my thinking, I came to the conclusion that, really, there should be a parent structure over the IST Academy. Let’s call it the United Nations Academy for Metahuman Studies (UNAMS). That could run a series of schools across the world (to keep those who want a lot of schools out there happy). They also oversee the actual IST Academy which is a single-campus, military-style academy where all students are welcomed, but expected to undergo a military-lite training regimen in addition to a wide range of academic courses.

It would allow the IST Academy to still prepare new IST Team Members, and give the opportunity for students who want to learn their powers the discipline and structure necessary to face the world with the confidence that they are able to use their powers for the betterment of themselves and their society.

The final year of IST Academy would see a marked split in the student body. Those who are going into the IST would have a far more military-style training regimen (worse than the actual IST would actually enforce). The other students would see a reduction in all military behavior, as they’re being groomed for life outside the academy.

Everyone, outside the U.N., would probably call all of the schools “IST Academ(y/ies),” but, there would only be one, actual IST Academy.

[robkelk]

Yes and no. The IST has always been -- for me -- something like Starfleet: part military, part civilian, and which part is in ascendance depends on the needs of the moment.

It is as military as it has to be in order to fulfill its mission as a peace-keeping and enforcement force. It is as civilian as it has to be in order to fulfill its other mission of being ambassadors -- of the world, to the world. The balance is a hard one to strike, and is different in different embassies, depending on the nation and culture around them. In most of North America and Europe, it tilts considerably to the civilian side. Other places, not so much. This is one reason each team has effectively two leaders -- the field commander for military operations, and the team admin for all other functions. A well-run embassy/team can turn on a dime and go from grim special-ops anti-terrorist action to sparkles-n-flowers P.R. with kids in minutes, without whiplash.

As for the nature of the Academ(y/ies), my concept is closer to Rob's than Mark's, but partakes of both. The Academy is a service offered by the IST, and its coursework for supers is not structured so much to produce metahuman soldiers as to produce well-balanced metahumans comfortable and skilled with their powers, who may be inclined to join the IST afterward, but are in no way required to. It's a bit more military-style than Xavier's school, but not by much. It's more like, um, a boarding school with combat training to the level you're comfortable with. Hogwarts with decent Defense classes.

I do like the idea of AA teaching ethics in her retirement; I'm definitely going to throw that in.

So if I'm understanding this correctly, the IST is much more "Japanese Self Defense Force" or "United States Coast Guard" than it is "French Foreign Legion" or "United States Marine Corps"... and even the JSDF or the USCG are too focused on the armed-conflict side of the picture to be accurate points of comparison.

Which suits me fine. After all, it was one of my countrymen who got a Nobel Prize for the modern concept of peacekeeping - seeing that attitude present in the IST makes the group seem (to me, at least) to be more international than a straight-up combat force would be.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[robkelk]

The final year of IST Academy would see a marked split in the student body. Those who are going into the IST would have a far more military-style training regimen (worse than the actual IST would actually enforce). The other students would see a reduction in all military behavior, as they’re being groomed for life outside the academy.

That completely ignores the IST's diplomatic functions, though.

The IST is not an army. It should not be trained as if it was.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Dartz]

As described, it sounds a lot like the Defence Forces here....

An army, technically. But at the same time a specific duty of the DF is to assist the civil power. They've done everything from disaster relief, bomb disposal, prisoner escort, prison guarding and cash in transit escort, up to garbage pickup, and replacement for striking bus services. Or Defence Forces are often called upon as ambassadors, either through crosstraining, or the occasional trade-mission or naval visit. They also regularly handle peacekeeping missions under a UN flag. The UN-issued medals have the UN symbol on the face, with 'In the Service of Peace' inscribed on the back of them, and various ribbon colours indicating the individual UN mission involved.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?

[Mark Skarr]

Sorry, Rob.  They are a standing army.  Much like Star Fleet, they're an active, military force.  They wear a lot of hats, but, at the end of the day, their primary job is to kick butt and chew bubblegum.

Despite the IST's status as a deployed military force, though, it must abide by the non-intervention principle.

Poised between the COPPF and the individual IST is IST Command. Command (as it is called for short) is the level on which individual IST members are tracked and assigned. It is also the level at which organization becomes recognizably military in form.

To make matters worse (for new recruits, that is), IST Command has managed to obtain the services of the six most-hated drill sergeants in the United States Marines!

Besides performing their military and civic duties, the ISTs have become a new public face for world unity.

Since the IST is a military body, members who violate its regulations or the laws of their host country are subject to court-martial.

Seriously, Rob, I can keep finding stuff that spells out the IST are a standing military unit, not unlike an army.  They are a permanently deployed military peacekeeping force.  The COPPF's diplomatic function is secondary to their role as peacekeepers.  The U.N.'s job is diplomacy.  Dartz POV is fairly accurate.  I'm pretty much sticking with Bob's Star Fleet example, because that's a really good example.

Keep in mind, the IST Agenda (from page 8):

As set by the Security Council, this agenda constitutes the seven basic standing orders, in order of priority, that all IST must operate under.1) Enforce the ban on nuclear weapons2) Enforce the ban on military superteams.3) Combat international drug trafficking.4) Protect civilians.5) Discourage armed conflict between nations.6) Support global human rights.7) Provide a visible presence of the U.N. in member nations and maintain a positive public image.

Diplomacy isn't specifically listed in there.  Best-case, it's part of #7--the lowest standing order.  The IST isn't the diplomatic arm of the COPPF, they're the stick arm.  If you don't want the carrot from the diplomats, you get the stick in the form of a metahuman army.  Sure, they're going to try to be diplomatic, but, since the original book didn't require diplomacy for starting characters, it wasn't the goal of the individual teams to be diplomatic, but the Embassy overall--they had a diplomatic staff.

You don't ask your Star Trek redshirts to negotiate peace treaties.  That's not to say that, in certain circumstances, they couldn't do it.  But, their first job is to hurt their people before they hurt our people.  That's the job of the IST. 
However, honestly, this is something Bob will have to really figure out.  The war in China is going to change everything about the ISTs and the U.N.  In order to fight the war, they'll have to restructure to a pure, military organization to facilitate their needs . . . and it'll be hard to step back from that.  

[Mark Skarr]

Okay, keep in mind that I’m not saying that every embassy has to be playing reveille at 0500 every morning.  I’m keeping an over-view.  The ISTs have a lot of jobs to fulfill.  Each Embassy will be different, but, at their heart, they have to be aware that they’re all military units deployed in, potentially hostile, foreign lands.

It’s not to say that Bob can’t change all of this as a matter of course, but the original book was much more “International military supers keeping the peace” than “super diplomats smoothing things over.”  It may not have been Bob’s intent, but that’s the way the book came out.  Sure, they’re about the most laid-back military on the planet (once you get out of Basic), but they’re still a military.  They still have to act professional.

Keep in mind that the vast majority of people who play supers don’t play it to sit around a table and negotiate a peace treaty and talk someone out of a fight.  They play to wield phenomenal powers, roll a lot of dice and yell out obscene amounts of damage.  (And then turn crestfallen when the GM says “they made their dodge.”)

 There’s nothing wrong with playing the diplomatic game, but, really, you wouldn’t send a SEAL team in to negotiate (unless you’re doing Bruce Willis/Fifth Element, or Anakin’s “aggressive” negotiations).  You’d send in a group of people who are trained to do that.  That could be quite a fun game, but, it would be set in the IST world with the ISTs as a backdrop.  The IST’s job would be to provide security and remove “obstacles” to negotiations—not to do the actual negotiations.

IST LA was set up more like a fire department: you have places to be at specific times, but, if you’re not on duty, you’re out, schmoozing it up, and being a celebrity (it’s freaking LA!).  But, the moment something hit the fan, they were all back to military precision and acting like a military unit.  Because that was their job.

IST Seoul will be, pretty much, a full-time military unit, standing ready and patrolling the DMZ for incursions.  They don’t have much time for niceties, they’ll defer people to the exaggerated diplomatic staff for that.

I wish I had made the Star Fleet reference before Bob did (he beat me to the punch).  But, that’s really how I see the IST.  They would dearly love to solve problems without resorting to violence or even harsh language.  They know not all problems can be resolved peacefully, but, by FSM, they’re going to try.  Yet, at the end of the day, when all other options have been exhausted, they look to the IST commander and see the nod.

“We’ve done all we can.  Raise shields.  Arm phasers and photons.”

[robkelk]

Seriously, Rob, I can keep finding stuff that spells out the IST are a standing military unit, not unlike an army.

So is the United States Coast Guard. How often do they fight?

They are a permanently deployed military peacekeeping force.

Peacekeeping, not peacemaking.

The COPPF's diplomatic function is secondary to their role as peacekeepers.

Not according to what Bob posted in this thread, it isn't.

The U.N.'s job is diplomacy. Dartz POV is fairly accurate.

I am now confused, because Dartz and I are saying the same thing.

Are you dismissing my suggestions out of hand because they come from me?

I'm pretty much sticking with Bob's Star Fleet example, because that's a really good example.

I'd be happy if you would, but you seem to be going with the mirror-universe starfleet instead.

Keep in mind, the IST Agenda (from page 8):

As set by the Security Council, this agenda constitutes the seven basic standing orders, in order of priority, that all IST must operate under.
1) Enforce the ban on nuclear weapons
2) Enforce the ban on military superteams.
3) Combat international drug trafficking.
4) Protect civilians.
5) Discourage armed conflict between nations.
6) Support global human rights.
7) Provide a visible presence of the U.N. in member nations and maintain a positive public image.

Diplomacy isn't specifically listed in there. Best-case, it's part of #7--the lowest standing order.

Best case, one dissuades a nation from obtaining nuclear weapons without invading that nation - thus, diplomacy is part of #1.

Best case, one dissuades a nation from creating a particular national force without invading that nation - thus, diplomacy is part of #2.

How does one discourage armed conflict by starting armed conflict? #5 is all about diplomacy.

Speak softly before picking up that big stick. Teddy Roosevelt knew that.

The IST isn't the diplomatic arm of the COPPF, they're the stick arm.

Again, that doesn't match what Bob posted in this thread.

If you don't want the carrot from the diplomats, you get the stick in the form of a metahuman army. Sure, they're going to try to be diplomatic, but, since the original book didn't require diplomacy for starting characters, it wasn't the goal of the individual teams to be diplomatic, but the Embassy overall--they had a diplomatic staff.

You don't ask your Star Trek redshirts to negotiate peace treaties.

The PCs aren't playing the redshirts - they're playing the Picards and Rikers.

That's not to say that, in certain circumstances, they couldn't do it. But, their first job is to hurt their people before they hurt our people. That's the job of the IST.

However, honestly, this is something Bob will have to really figure out. The war in China is going to change everything about the ISTs and the U.N. In order to fight the war, they'll have to restructure to a pure, military organization to facilitate their needs . . . and it'll be hard to step back from that.

I know you've invested a lot of energy in describing that Chinese war... but is it actually going to happen?
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Mark Skarr]

I am now confused, because Dartz and I are saying the same thing.

Are you dismissing my suggestions out of hand because they come from me?

If you and Dartz are saying the same thing, he's saying it better.  While I can't see the IST doing garbage pickup or bus driving, I could see them providing security for those groups as well.

And no.  I'm not dismissing anything because anyone says them.  If I was dismissing you, I wouldn't be responding to you.

And, you clearly say:

The IST is not an army. It should not be trained as if it was.

Which flies in the face of the book saying:

To make matters worse (for new recruits, that is), IST Command has managed to obtain the services of the six most-hated drill sergeants in the United States Marines!

Why would they have US drill sergeants training them (and hated ones at that) if they're not looking for a strong, military organization?

And, Dartz even identifies them as an Army (technically).  So, you two can't be saying the same thing.

I'd be happy if you would, but you seem to be going with the mirror-universe starfleet instead.

Actually, more TOS than TNG.  TNG was too utopic (dystopic) for my tastes.  And, in TOS, they were ready for violence to break out, but tried to be diplomatic as best they could. 

Best case, one dissuades a nation from obtaining nuclear weapons without invading that nation - thus, diplomacy is part of #1.

It doesn't say "dissuade" it says "enforce."  By the time the IST gets involved, diplomacy has already failed.  For both 1 and 2.

How does one discourage armed conflict by starting armed conflict? #5 is all about diplomacy.

The Russians and the US did it for 50+ years.  It's called Mutually Assured Destruction.  While it wasn't great, and only successful on a macro scale, it did work.  And the one time that the ISTs did prevent an armed conflict in the book no diplomacy was ever attempted.  Check page 77.  IST Panama City deployed their battlesuits to prevent a US landing while their supers were tasked with H&I on the US ships (non-violently).  A third group arrested and spirited Noriega away for trial.

So, again, the willingness to resort to violence before diplomacy.

And it's not:

Speak softly before picking up that big stick.

It's "speak softly and carry a big stick."  The stick is ready before you speak softly, so when it fails, the stick is ready.  It means you're ready for physical violence as soon as the talking fails.

The PCs aren't playing the redshirts - they're playing the Picards and Rikers.

Again TNG is not IST.  TNG is far too optimistic.  It may be what they aspire to, but, they're not there.  Not by a long shot.

However, that also flies in the face of the book.  The PC's aren't Picard or Riker, they would be their superiors and the Civilian Administrator.  The PCs would be the security team.  Diplomacy wasn't a required skill until I put it on the template.  So, how are characters untrained in diplomacy supposed to defuse a hostile situation?  Blind luck?

When the U.N. sends in peacekeepers, their job isn't to smooth things over and come to a diplomatic resolution for the parties involved--that time has passed.  Their job is to enforce the peace--violently, if necessary--but hopefully not.  The diplomacy may still be ongoing, but it's happening at a level above the Peacekeepers, usually in another country.

I know you've invested a lot of energy in describing that Chinese war... but is it actually going to happen?

With that statement, you seem to be the only person who doesn't think so.

[Mark Skarr]

Aaaaaand . . . the 500 error is back.
I’m going off of the printed material in the book.  The fact remains that, minus the few of us here, the entirety of IST fans aren’t going to know about these discussions.  They’re not going to see Bob’s statements to us to know that he wanted them to be more diplomats than stick-wielders.   The fan-base can only work off of the book, and that’s where we need to focus our thinking.

We have to use the book as a starting place, and come forward from there.  Any changes we want to make, have to take the original book as the starting place, and not try to retcon it into working.

By Bob’s indication of wanting the ISTs to be more diplomatic, we would need to have a section on discussing the steady change from them being a peacekeeping force to a peacemaking force in the nineties. 

The Panama action would cause a major debacle as the U.S. is on the Security Council and it's just not possible that one of their representitives couldn't have been reached.  That means that they couldn’t have been present in that meeting, or the action would have been vetoed (or the ambassador would be under charges for High Treason).  The US had not withdrawn from the U.N. at that time, and, not calling the US delegation for the meeting would be, rightly, considered an aggressive, hostile action.  So, there would be huge fallout.  It could even be considered an illegal act by the U.N. itself.  It will also cause the US to call for the Secretary General to step down, and the US would never withdraw from the U.N. as, keeping their seat on the Security Council, would allow them to veto any acts they don't like.  Much like Russia did in the fifties and sixties.

That could lead to a “demilitarization” of the ISTs.  Military duty is downplayed in favor of civil obedience and diplomatic functions.  With the U.N. and the ISTs faltering in their hard-line stance, it would give the rest of the world the image of weakness, and other nations would start testing these new limits.  This could easily lead to the increase in both Chinese and North Korean belligerence, culminating in the 2000 war.

This gives us the advantage of not needing an external foe, but still having room for one.

[Mark Skarr]

Something else I want to add, about the multiple schools.

I’ve been considering our current time as “IST 2000” as that’s where we have to start the book and move forward. Which, I’ve come to realize, in the shower (again, where I do a lot of my thinking), that we really need to strongly consider the 1990-2000 time as well, and maybe start with “IST 1990.”

Sure, Bob has the timeline, but, it may need to be looked at, in general. Some tweaking may need to be done as we go through it and we find plot holes that need to be filled.

But, if we start at 2000, there would only be one, homogenous, IST Academy. Sure, by 2015, there may be need for multiple campuses, but, in 2000, there would only be one. A case could be made, only three years after it opens, a second one might be being built (or have been built), but it would probably be dedicated to a specific age group, and probably the youngest, under 13, at that.

By 2015, I could see five campuses, two for each younger age group, and one (large campus) for adults. Perhaps six (two for each, one for adults, and one universal—literally) if we also have Unity Station in 2015.

[Acyl]

This is a somewhat belated comment, but I've not been able to catch up on the boards for some time.
Real-world UN Peacekeeping missions aren't entirely military operations. They're mostly military, but you have police forces and entirely civilian specialists deployed under the aegis of UN Peacekeeping as well. This is one reason we refer to country contributions as "personnel", a general term, rather than talking about soldiers in particular.

It's also a very different sort of military training. The average soldier from any given army is going to do an absolutely terrible job if thrown into a Peacekeeping operation without sufficient training. That should be obvious, and I assume most people realise this. Basic training teaches us how to shoot some other guy in the jungle, it doesn't teach us about dealing with civilian populations, it doesn't teach us how to take care of refugee camps, and all that sort of stuff.

This is changing. Increasingly, this sort of thing is being incorporated into exercises that even regular grunts get, in recognition of the fact that military forces do need to deal with these sorts of situations, as well as things like disaster relief and so on. But a friend of mine likes to joke about how he got killed and had to respawn three or four times...when his unit was first introduced to Peacekeeping stuff in a week-long simulation exercise.

Because the first instinct of a conventionally-trained soldier is to shoot first...

So the "military-but-not-military" tag does make sense. I've never considered it to be a problem. IST's military in the sense it has a rank structure, it has standards of discipline, and a certain institutional culture. But other attitudes and ways of doing things can indeed be totally different from what we'd consider a military, in conventional terms.

It's also possible to have military stuff in a school setting without it being too weird. Uniformed groups like the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts are worldwide, as are things like the St. John's Ambulance Brigade. But in many countries, there are student uniformed groups directly associated with the Army, Air Force, Navy and so on - so you could be marching around in a junior-sized version of an infantryman's No. 4 camo uniform at age 12. It doesn't change the high school experience that much, in my opinion. Granted, I've never attended an American high school.
-- Acyl

[robkelk]

... it has a rank structure, it has standards of discipline, and a certain institutional culture.

Reading that sentence while hearing a mention on the radio about the Pope's visit to Brazil made me remember that the Catholic Church also has a rank structure, standards of discipline, and a certain institutional culture... but nobody calls it "military."
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Mark Skarr]

Acyl, that's a huge difference between the IST world and OTL. They've got their own, standing, army of which the IST is only a part of. I'm sure their soldiers are far better trained in handling civil situations than most national militaries. However, you are correct. I wouldn’t be surprised that they have their own police force and other civil servants that they can deploy with their soldiers (including trash collectors, if necessary).

Most military schools in the US are stricter than the actual military branches they prepare children for. The schools are about discipline, which is very important. Academies (like the Air Force Academy) are also rather strict as, the belief is, highly disciplined students are better students. Many officers I know, that went to the AFA comment that once they got to their duty station, life was much easier, but their Academy time made them think about everything they were about to do, to consider the consequences.

I have no problem seeing IST Academy like Star Fleet Academy, but, everything we’ve seen about SFA shows us that it’s still a military academy to prepare students for the structured, disciplined life of a Star Fleet Officer.

And, I'd argue the "standards of discipline" about the Catholic Church. 8-P

[robkelk]

I didn't say "high standards"...

As for strictness, how strict is the Coast Guard Academy? I know you love comparing the IST to the USMC, but I prefer comparing them to the USCG; that's a much better fit for the internationalist UN.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Mark Skarr]

You should really look into the USCG before you make statements about it. They've been in every major military action since their formation. They're the US military force that has been in the longest, sustained, combat situation (the US War on Drugs). They're just as strict as the other armed forces. Technically, knowing a number of sailor and the like, as they rank it: USN, USCG, UNMC, USA, USAF. USN and USCG have to be careful and alert all the time they're on duty. That is taught to them in basic and maintained throughout their career. USMC training is just tough because they're destroying who you were and making you someone new. For the Navy and Coast Guard, if you screw off, just a little, on a boat, a lot of people can die. So, very high discipline. The USCG is lucky that, every night, they get to go home to their families and they can relax easier and more fully than the other armed forces. At the end of the day, the USCG is still a member of the United States Armed Forces and held to the same standard of conduct and professionalism as the other branches.

Also, keep in mind that I'm not the one comparing them to anything except a, generic, military; that's always been you. Until Bob used the SFA, I hadn't compared them to anything. I would have compared them to the Air Force as that's a branch of the military I have extensive, personal experience with. The book says that IST has hired hated USMC drill instructors, not me. If they weren't looking for the instructor’s sparkling personality . . . why did they hire them?

I mean, seriously, Rob, the section is called "IST Basic Training." And, granted, it looks like the editor didn't notice a slight error between two paragraphs (one says 12 weeks for basic training, one says eight), but that's as maybe.

COPPF and IST Command run several training camps around the globe for new and old IST members alike. They are often placed in locations that suffer from weather extremes or particularly unpleasant terrain, in order to further harden new members. To make matters worse (for new recruits, that is), IST Command has managed to obtain the services of the six most-hated drill sergeants in the United States Marines! For eight weeks recruits are pressed to their limits — and beyond — before being assigned to stations around the world.

Do you think there out there making macaroni pictures? (MCP optional) It's pretty obvious that it's supposed to represent the world's most brutal, military/USMC-style, basic training. After all, they're super heroes they can take it.

OTL is much different that IST. The IST UN is willing to resort to violence, economic blackmail and underhanded (and likely illegal) politics to achieve its goals. The IST UN has a standing army (Permanent Peacekeeping Forces). It's going to have less of an "international" mindest and more of a "UN" mindset--and the two don't have to be very similar. They're not the shining beacon of goodness,j honesty and hope you want them to be. They're likely better than they are in OTL, but that's neither a given nor is it spelled out.

[Bob Schroeck]

Okay, guys, calm down. Take five steps back and two deep breaths, and then go watch My Little Pony for an hour or two.

Believe me, the argument is pointless. The IST will be what I write it to be.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[robkelk]

"Internationalist", not "international" - the word has a specific meaning...
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Mark Skarr]

Bob, I would recommend locking this thread before it goes any further. Possibly deleting it, if you feel the need.

Rob and I both have strikingly different interpretations of the existing, printed material that are not going to mesh without direct mediation—by you. Not something that you have time for. When you’re ready for a better, clearer discussion of the IST Academy, you can start a new thread with a clearly-defined goal and general overview.

I will consider this matter “settled” until that time, and encourage everyone else to do the same.

[robkelk]

I thought we received that mediation, back in post #27 of this thread.

(And re-reading that post, I'm thinking the example we should be following in the local police department, not any sort of army... so I'm also at fault for over-militarizing the IST.)
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Mark Skarr]

I am not going to get into another debate on this subject.

We are both wrong, Rob--Bob pointed that much out to us. We both need to stop discussing this until Bob decides the direction he wants to take it and gives us more specific guidelines. We were given instructions to back off (I don't like My Little Pony so I watched Speed Racer instead) and I, for one, am going to do so.

So, again, I ask that this thread get closed and we let the subject drop until Bob determines the time is right for another discussion.

We should both consider this subject "Closed" for the time being.