FROM: LM_102009

TO: AS_101186

SENT: 23 OCTOBER 2795, 02:13 EST

MAILED: LM_102009@UESSC.egn

SIGNED: LM_102009@UESSC.egn

SECURITY: Tier I encryption (SNS)

BCC: admin:spoof:uessc1@uessc1.security.usr

CONFIDENTIAL_PROJECT: GOLIATH

I’m worried that the entire project is backsliding. It may look like we are making progress, seeing as how we are now on draft H, but there are at least two more drafts being crafted in tandem— both by traditionally hardline conservative constituencies, I might add. I’ve caught wind of multiple conversations outside official channels that suggest that there is going to be a push to include ships that are scheduled to be mothballed post launch date, and they include the MDF Electris CSGN-28. There are reasons they are being mothballed. For one, we no longer allow orbital bombardment—and there is no time to demilitarize the Electris before the proposed launch date. The fact that at least two other groups keep looking to increase the number of ships is alarming. People connected to Mx Moreau are arguing that fourteen ships will not be enough to fulfill mission parameters. FOURTEEN. But only two of the ships they are calling for are actual commercial freighters. At this point, the least surprising aspect of their most current draft is that combat troops outnumber engineers and support personnel four-to-one

FROM: AS_101186

TO: LM_102009

SENT: 23 OCTOBER 2795, 06:04 EST

MAILED: AS_101186@UESSC.egn

SIGNED: AS_101186@UESSC.egn

SECURITY: Tier I encryption (SNS)

BCC: admin:spoof:uessc1@uessc1.security.usr

CONFIDENTIAL_PROJECT: GOLIATH

I understand your concern. I’ve been trying to wrap my head around what they hope to accomplish. I’m not sure how they could honestly believe that a proposal so nakedly militarized would stand a chance at getting sign-off. But since they haven’t pushed for a call to veto yet, perhaps they are proposing the obscene so that the merely outrageous seems reasonable. I’d suggest hitting the drawing board again and this time stripping it to the bare bones. ONE ship. MINIMUM personnel. It’ll need to be a military vessel for the speed and utility, and we won’t even get one without a pretty serious security complement, so we’ll just have to accept that. If we can get sign-off from the budget board, chances are we can push this through before the war hawks have a chance to react.

FROM: LM_102009

TO: AS_101186

SENT: 23 OCTOBER 2795, 06:08 EST

MAILED: LM_102009@UESSC.egn

SIGNED: LM_102009@UESSC.egn

SECURITY: Tier I encryption (SNS)

BCC: admin:spoof:uessc1@uessc1.security.usr

CONFIDENTIAL_PROJECT: GOLIATH

I could look into the original proposal for the UIL’s Rapid Reaction Group. Strip it down some, make it less enforcement and more assistance-centric. Weave that into the Goliath proposal. I could have something ready to present by tomorrow afternoon.

FROM: AS_101186

TO: LM_102009

SENT: 23 OCTOBER 2795, 06:22 EST

MAILED: AS_101186@UESSC.egn

SIGNED: AS_101186@UESSC.egn

SECURITY: Tier I encryption (SNS)

BCC: admin:spoof:uessc1@uessc1.security.usr

CONFIDENTIAL_PROJECT: GOLIATH

Great.

While you’re at it, you should look into replacing as many of the cyborgs with clones as feasible. Clones work. Just remind the committee that they’re lighter and more adaptable and require less maintenance at around half the cost. I wouldn’t even anticipate much pushback over it. And add a provision for supplementary missions.

We must take every possible precaution to make sure that this mission cannot be misconstrued as military in nature. Not by our constituents and, more importantly, the people we are trying to help. If anyone has an issue with this, remind them that when the Marathon left for Tau Ceti, cyborgs were WEAPONS OF WAR. Full stop. They can argue all they want that cyborgs have expanded roles now, but that point is irrelevant to the people who left this system three hundred years ago.

If you feel like it, reassure the hawks that a larger security force can be sent along later if the committee deems it necessary. Then we can tie up their proposals indefinitely in subcommittees with concerns over the shifting scope of mission parameters and budgetary shortfalls.