OT or Not OT: Twilight 2030

[Raellus]

Or thereabouts. No, as far as I'm aware, a new reincarnation of our beloved military-themed, post-apocalyptic RPG isn't in the works. The recent drama in Ukraine has, however, created fertile ground for entertaining the worrying possibility of another major war. Although I love the classic, alternate history flavor of the original Twilight 2000, sometimes I get a hankering to bring current and near future gear and geopolitical issues into the post-apocalyptic, neo-dark ages of the T2K milieu. So I thought we could discuss possible future scenarios that might get us there. Let's start with potential global flashpoints and/or recent worrying developments.


Russia vs. NATO (over Ukraine)
No-Ko acting out vs. South Korea and its allies (again)
India vs. Pakistan (again)
The Middle East (always)
China flexing its military muscle in Asia and the Pacific (no one's forgotten about Taiwan)
Japan's recent lean to the right (again) and remilitarization
An economic/political break-down of the EU
Ethnic/religious violence in Africa (constantly)


Let's also add to that...

the increasing odds of a global pandemic- something echoing the rampage of the Spanish Flu in 1918-'19
Global Warming (whatever the cause) and related competition over resources
Chances of another global economic meltdown
Spectacular acts of terrorism
Massive natural disaster with global impact (think Krakatoa)

These have all been likely suspects for a while now. Am I missing anything that needs to be factored in?

Anyone care to take a stab at a Universal Theory of the Causes of WWIII incorporating all of the above? I'd prefer not to explore conspiracy theories (e.g. the Illuminati and One World Government), or sci-fi, or supernatural factors at this point; we can delve into that later, if any of you care to go there.

What else would you like to see in a future iteration of Twilight 2000?

Discuss.

[mikeo80]

IMHO, any one of the scenarios Raellus mentioned could be the spark that lights the fuse that sets off the powder keg. Look at WWI, One crazed assassin ended up being responsible for 10 - 20 million deaths. Yes there were a multitude of issues and problems that the world was facing. But one spark lit the fuse.

Again, IMHO, I see Korea, Syria or maybe Iran as being the most likely area to provide the spark. It very easily could by China and Taiwan, China and Japan, Russia.

It also could be a geological phenomena that starts the ball rolling. Yellowstone Caldera, Major earthquake along the Pacific "Ring of Fire", Asteroid impact, solar flare.

It could be something as insidious as Ebola going air born. Or SARS, H1N1 or other type of flu.

I have tried to stay as far away as I can from the conspiracy theories, sci-fi, or other "things that go bump in the night." (read zombies)

So, yes, we could have Twilight 2014, 15, 16 or what ever.

Time to get off of the soap box.

My $0.02

Mike

[pmulcahy11b]

Hey, anything that makes my stuff more worthwhile...:rolleyes:

[mikeo80]

Hey, anything that makes my stuff more worthwhile...:rolleyes:

I agree with what you say, Paul. I just do not want to test drive that theory.

My $0.02

Mike

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Crazed assassins don't worry me overly much, they usually foul up something and get caught before they can fulfil their design e.g. John Hinckley, Jr. trying to kill then president Ronald Reagan.
It's the well motivated, strongly committed, social activist type assassins who are prepared to die for their cause and are smart enough to seize opportunities to fulfil their aims that bother me e.g. Gavrilo Princip when he saw Archduke Ferdinand sitting in a stalled car.

[Rainbow Six]

Interesting post…not sure how achievable it is to include all of the factors mentioned. Some of them are way beyond my area of expertise, but a few random thoughts on some of them (BTW, I really think Twilight 2025 has a ring to it)

An economic / political break down of the EU…economics is for the most part outside my area of expertise…I rely on what I read in certain newspapers and see on certain TV news channels and the ones that I’m reading / watching are saying that the economy is on the mend in Europe…how permanent that recovery is who knows, but as I said, economics is outwith my area of expertise so I wouldn’t be comfortable on that subject without doing a considerable amount of research which I can’t do at the minute (this post is a quick one during lunch hour at work)

A political break up of sorts is probably possible , although would likely be limited in scope (disclaimer – this post isn’t intended to get into any of the real life politics of the EU). I can only really speak for the situation in the United Kingdom here, where – according to the opinion polls - there is a sizeable percentage of the population who, when asked, state that they favour leaving the EU and Prime Minister David Cameron is on record as stating that if the Conservatives win the next General Election in 2015 he wants to hold a Referendum on continued UK membership in 2017. If the Referendum took place and if the public voted to leave I don’t see how the Government could do anything except leave the EU, but those are both big If’s, particularly the second one.

So, a partial break up of the EU, at least to the extent that the UK leaves, is not impossible at all. Even if that was to occur though, my own view is that the remaining 27 Member States would remain intact, leaving the UK potentially marginalised on the fringes of Europe, in which case it might look westward towards the United States, whilst the EU becomes more Euro Centric at the start of the 2020’s, which may or may not cause some friction with the US (bear with me, this is all going somewhere). We have members from other EU members who may be able to offer more insight into the likelihood of their countries splitting away from the EU.

The Middle East…yep, for sure an ongoing area of tension. Let’s posit a few things…firstly, that Assad eventually emerges victorious in Syria and the Damascus Government becomes even more closely aligned with the Iranians. At some point in the next twelve – eighteen months the Israelis decide to launch an air strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Strikes are partially successful, causing significant but not fatal damage to the Iranians’ nuclear ambitions – let’s say enough to set them back five to ten years (Twilight 2025 again)…Tensions are escalated but a full scale War is averted. Israel is roundly condemned in the court of World opinion as the aggressor and the Iranians – and their Syrian vassals – plot their revenge – which will later lead us into spectacular acts of terrorism. I don’t feel overly comfortable “suggesting” possible terrorist attacks, but there are several that spring to mind that could cause loss of life in the hundreds. There are several others that could cause loss of life in the thousands or even tens of thousands if you want to go that far…

Whilst the Iranians are plotting we see China flexing its military muscle in Asia and the Pacific, which leads to several countries in the region increasing their military spending, most noticeably Japan. Other Asian nations, observing what appears to be an arms race between the PRC and Japan become increasingly nervous. In Europe, the Russians, meanwhile, have been relatively quiet since their unopposed annexations of eastern Ukraine in 2014 and Belarus in 2016. For its part NATO has roughly a Division’s worth of troops. Mostly British and American (the Germans offered but the Poles declined) stationed in Poland as “guarantor” or the Alliance’s commitment to its Eastern members. The US also quietly deploys enough equipment to new POMCUS sites in western Poland to equip a full heavy Division.

So, what happens next? Off the top of my head (and as I said I haven’t done any serious research on this, just throwing ideas about to discuss) are there two major potential flashpoints?

Europe…or Asia…Who kicks off World War 3? The classic T2K timelines always started in Asia, so why not stick with that – there’s a flashpoint in Asia (I don’t know what – Taiwan seems the most obvious) which brings the US and China into direct confrontation. The US rapidly reinforces the Pacific, which inevitably leads to a reduction in forces committed to NATO (other NATO members offer the US vocal support but there is little tangible assistance – the Royal Navy sends a couple of warships and that’s about it). The Russians see their opportunity to annex the Baltic States by force whilst the US is committed elsewhere (effectively it’s a reboot of sorts of V1 – in V1 the West Germans took advantage of the fact that the Soviets were engaged against the Chinese to attempt reunification with East Germany – in this timeline it’s the Russians taking advantage of the fact that the Americans are engaged against the Chinese to force “reunification” with the Baltic States).

The Russians don’t go against Poland initially because they are certain that will prompt a NATO response but they think they will be able to retake the Baltics without encountering serious opposition using the by now familiar refrain that they are acting to protect Russian minority groups. This leads to much debate in NATO HQ and elsewhere as to how to respond – the Eastern European states, led by Poland, all fear that they will be next and advocate direct action. The Western European states are less eager to face up to the Russians, particularly as the US can only supply limited support as it’s already involved in hostilities against the Chinese. Meanwhile the Baltic states are being steamrollered. Potentially the schisms within NATO eventually cause the alliance to fracture, with a number of western European states (led by France) withdrawing from the alliance (again, mirroring the classic T2K timeline). Critically the Germans, who have the largest Army in Western Europe, opt to honour their treaty commitments and the Panzer Divisions move east.

With the US now fully committed in Europe and Asia, the Chinese have a quiet word with their ally the Supreme Leader of North Korea, who decides that now might be a good time to reunite the Korean peninsula. Elsewhere different parts of Africa descend into ethnic / religious violence, whilst tensions are threatening to boil over in the Middle East and between India and Pakistan in the disputed Kashmir region…

Thoughts?

[Raellus]

I like what you've come up with so far, Rainbow. I'll comment at length when I get home. Until then, these two articles from today's Yahoo News homepage address the evolving China and Russia-Ukraine situations.

http://news.yahoo.com/china-splurging-military-us-pulls-back-092026097.html#

http://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-launches-operation-against-insurgents-161958758.html

[Raellus]

I haven't had a chance to respond at length but I'm in the midst of my 30 -minute lunch break so I thought pop in for a bit.

I arbitrarily chose 2030 because it's 16 years from now and, IIRC, the original Twilight 2000 came out in 1984.

More worrisome developments in eastern Europe.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-troops-land-latvia-amid-ukraine-crisis-135554490.html

And the leader of Georgia has warned the West not to make Russia angry because, basically, bad things happen when you do. He should know, I suppose.

[Rainbow Six]

Thanks Raellus, would be interested in your thoughts - there's obviously still a long way to go to get from where my post ended to a T2K setting. Also, one of the areas that I would say my knowledge is quite limited is the Pacific, particularly any potential conflict between the US (and allies) and China. I'm also not up to speed on current orders of battle.

However, to expand a little further...let's call the start of the Asian and European Wars Year 1...so to recap / summarise/ expand slightly....

Year 1

Asia

The US, with perhaps limited support from the UK*, is involved in a hot War with the Chinese in the Pacific

• Causes? A Chinese attack on Taiwan? Or an flashpoint in the Spratly Islands?
• Who else would be allied with the US? Anyone? The Australians? Someone unexpected like the Vietnamese (my enemy's enemy is my friend etc)
• Who's on the Chinese side? The North Koreans are a given. The Russians (covertly perhaps)?

North Korea has invaded South Korea. This is essentially a fight between the two Koreas and their respective - and, when reserves are fully mobilised huge, - Armies. US Forces in Korea are fighting alongside their Korean counterparts but commitments elsewhere mean there are relatively few reinforcements coming to Korea from the (or elsewhere for that matter). The fighting in Korea becomes very, very bloody, very, very quickly. No quarter is asked or given by either side and the situation becomes bogged down in a very nasty stalemate somewhere just north of Seoul. Would the Chinese send troops to help the North?

• Potential for first use of nukes being in this theatre is probably relatively high - e.g. if the South breaks the stalemate and drives north. NK leadership use nukes against military and civilian targets in the South, killing large numbers of US troops. The US responds in kind. If the Chinese have sent troops into Korea they suffer large numbers of casualties. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle and tit for tat escalation begins (this doesn't necessarily happen in Year 1).

* UK support would be limited inasmuch as by this stage the UK would most likely lack the capability to project significant power in multiple theatres

Europe

Following a Russian attack on the Baltic States, some (not all) NATO members are involved in a hot war with Russia (let's say the UK, the USA, Germany, and the former Warsaw Pact states - Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania). Ukraine, although not a NATO member, volunteers to commit troops as well. The US sends reinforcements from the Continental US by both air and sea (the former marrying up with the POMCUS gear) in what becomes known as REFORPOL (although the number of reinforcements is affected by what is happening in the Pacific). Canada also commits a Brigade Group.

I don't know about Bulgaria - from what I've read I was under the impression that the Bulgarians were on relatively good terms with the Russians and in the original T2K scenario some countries changed sides, so I'm positing that the Bulgarians are sitting on their hands for now. Conveniently located next to Bulgaria is Serbia, which I would say is also a potential Russian ally. Eastern Ukraine and Belarus have been annexed so count as Russian territory.

France has opted out of NATO, as have most of the southern European members (Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy). Turkey, the Netherlands, Norway, and Denmark remain in NATO. The Norwegians are concerned about their own border with Russia, so are unwilling to commit troops to the Baltics. The Danes send troops to Norway to reinforce their Nordic neighbour. Belgium is split down the middle - the French speaking Walloons favour opting out, the Dutch speaking Flemish favour staying in.

So, we have the potential for two fronts in Europe - fighting starts in the North and is focused on the Polish border with Lithuania, and Russia (Belarus and the Russian Federation exclave of Kaliningrad). The Norwegians are right to be wary - the Russians attack northern Norway only days after the first NATO units enter combat in the Baltic States. The Swedes and the Finns keep a wary eye on developments but remain neutral. By the start of Winter NATO forces have liberated southern Lithuania, including the capital Vilnius, and have made limited inroads into Belarus. Fierce fighting continues in and and around the Kaliningrad oblast. After making initial inroads into Norwegian territory, the combined Norwegian / Danish forces, reinforced by British and American Marines and mountain troops have held their ground some 50 km east of Tromso.

The Southern front remains quiet until early summer when Russian forces launch a surprise attack out of East Ukraine aimed at driving through the Ukraine. Simultaneously Bulgaria and Serbia declare War on NATO and attempt to link up with the advancing Russians. With much of the Czech and Polish Armies occupied in the Baltics, it falls to the Romanians, the Croatians, and the now overstretched Germans to oppose the Russian / Bulgarian / Serbian forces. Sadly the Balkan States once again descends into the same anarchy they experienced in the 1990's. Turkey, still a part of NATO, conducts limited offensives against the Bulgarians, but the bulk of the Turkish Army remains far away from the front line, securing the country's long and porous borders with Syria, Iraq, and Iran, as well as dealing with the internal threat posed by Kurdish Separatists. Then, taking the whole World by surprise, the Greek Government joins the Russian / Bulgarian / Serbian alliance and immediately launches an offensive against the Turks. By the end of the Year Bulgarian and Russian armoured columns are driving towards Istanbul (does that line sound familiar?).

But as we approach Year 2 the nuclear genie has not, however, come out of the bottle in Europe. Yet

I would repeat that I haven't done a huge amount of research on this yet...much of the above is random thoughts which may not pass a plausibility test...in particular the Bulgarians and the Greeks changing sides, however the intent is to try and recreate the feel of the original T2K World but brought up to date, so in that respect the intent is to try and mirror the situation of the original timeline where Italy, Greece, Yugoslavia, and Romania all changed sides. There's also the split in NATO that will eventually see the formation of the Franco Belgian Union (albeit Belgium will suffer its own schisms between its Walloon and Flemish populations). I also know I haven't mentioned every NATO member....Comments about where the front lines are at any given time are also highly speculative....I didn't really set out to write an alternate history timeline as much as bounce some thoughts around, so please, if anyone else wants to join in or has any thoughts or comments, feel free!

I'm not overlooking other parts of the World, but I'm out of time for tonight...

Cheers

[Raellus]

I don't think a division in formerly "united" Europe is that much of a stretch. There's already underlying tension there between the relatively affluent nations of northwestern Europe and the cash-strapped debtor nations of southern Europe. If countries like Italy, Greece, Spain, and Portugal were kicked out of the EU, or, more likely, countries like Germany, England, and the Netherlands opted out, there'd be rifts there that could be made to grow if the right stressors were put into play. At the moment, though, I'm not sure what those stressors might be. Perhaps a resurgent Russia makes a play to bring the poorer nations of Europe into its own sphere of influence. That could be made to work, I think.

What are some other factors that could lead to the disunion and polarization of Europe?

[Rainbow Six]

I don't know about divisions within the EU. Whilst the most likely stressor may well be another economic meltdown, I don't know what effect that might have. I think the likliehood of any individual country being kicked out is negligible - a quick check online would suggest that there is no mechanism in the Treaty on European Union for any Member State to be expelled from the EU so once you're in you're in unless you choose to leave - when the Eurozone Crisis kicked off a few years ago the members who were worst affected (predominantly in Southern Europe) were bailed out, so there is no incentive for such States to voluntarily leave (the worst sanction a Member State can face is to be suspended temporarily).

As for any of the major States choosing to leave, in the UK it's a common belief that France and Germany are at the heart of the EU and as such would be highly, highly unlikely to ever want to leave it, quite the opposite in fact, they would wish to see the EU States become more closely integrated until the EU eventually becomes a United States of Europe, with common laws, currency, a European Army, etc, etc...I said in an earlier post I didn't want to get into politics, but it goes with this territory...I'm not advocating for or against any particular position in the Real World here, however I do think it unlikely that any of the Northwestern European States would voluntarily withdraw from something that has taken decades to create. It's a belief in the UK that withdrawal from the EU (also known here as Euro Scepticism) is unique to the UK but I would be interested to hear what other European members think in relation to a possible EU breakup in a Twilight 2020's scenario

With regard to other factors promoting division in Europe, we have religious tensions / terrorism, social unrest (it's only a couple of years since the London riots), and reports of extremist / hate parties gaining ground in different parts of Europe, so there's probably a fair bit to work with, much of it quite distasteful.

Also, I did think that in this scenario the Russians would need to set up some sort of counter to the EU and then of course I remembered that such a thing already existed, the Eurasian Economic Community, or EurAsEC, which in our time line currently consists of Russia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Economic_Community_customs_union

[Raellus]

Do you really think that Germany and France and the other more affluent EU member nations are going to keep bailing out Greece and Italy and Spain indefinitely? News reports here in the States during the last round of Eurozone bailouts suggested that Germany, at least, was pretty fed up and that the majority of the German public was against pouring more money into nations that they felt were only dragging their own economy down.

Also, the austerity measures that were required as a condition of the bailouts were/are extremely unpopular in those countries. There were riots in Greece and fairly recent riots in Spain. I know that many Greeks wanted to leave the Eurozone rather than suffer more social welfare cuts (not that it would have helped). To me, countries leaving the EU, either the creditors or the debtors, doesn't seem far fetched at all. If the Russians then stepped in and promised the poorer outcasts some sort of financial aid, maybe gas subsidies or something like that, it could create an even deeper division.

[Rainbow Six]

Do you really think that Germany and France and the other more affluent EU member nations are going to keep bailing out Greece and Italy and Spain indefinitely?

Honestly? Haven't a clue. That's why I would welcome opinions from other members.

I do think that if a second bailout was to become a major issue in the future there is much more chance of France and Germany forcing the expulsion of the debtor States from the EU (which would involve rewriting the Treaty of Europe if the debtors did not leave out of choice) rather than France or Germany (or any other creditor State) choosing to leave. As I said in a previous post, France and Germany (and others) have too much invested in the EU to walk away from it. So it would be the debtors that would be forced out, effectively creating a two tier Europe, consisting of the have's on one side and the have not's on the other.

From the point of view of a Twilight 2030 scenario that's probably not a bad outcome, as the have nots would, presumably, not be well disposed to the have's who not refused to bail them out again but threw them out of the club. Sounds like fertile ground for the Russians to reach out to and offer aid in the way that you mentioned. (I find it analagous to a relative who has run out of money and can't pay their rent - how often do you bail them out before you eventually say "no more" and at that point who do they turn to)

So, as part of the T2030 scenario are we proposing a renewed economic crisis at some point in the future that causes serious and permanent splits within the EU that lead to a number of States (Spain, Portugal, Greece?) being forced to leave the EU? If so I think I could go along with that.

And, as a separate matter, there also remains the possibility of the United Kingdom opting to leave the EU of its own accord dependent on the result of the 2015 General Election and any subsequent Referendum.

[Raellus]

So, as part of the T2030 scenario are we proposing a renewed economic crisis at some point in the future that causes serious and permanent splits within the EU that lead to a number of States (Spain, Portugal, Greece?) being forced to leave the EU? If so I think I could go along with that.

That's exactly what I was getting at. Now, what could prompt a global international crisis? I'm thinking a war involving China. That would do the trick, most likely.

What's the most likely way for that to start? I'm thinking a territorial dispute between China and Vietnam. If it starts off small, that would reduce the likelihood of the U.S. jumping right in militarily (we don't have any kind of military alliance with Vietnam, whereas we do with both Japan and the Philippines). Still, relations between the world's two largest economies would be strained to the point that the U.S. economy would quickly go into a major recession (the first steps of a significant depression), further depressing global markets and leading to an immediate economic crisis in Europe. This could set up the Euro split I've proposed and set the stage for a new round of Russian aggression and territorial aggrandizement in Eastern Europe. WWIII would then be only a few short steps away.

I wouldn't be surprised if, at the same time that China was unsheathing its sword in East Asia, North Korea took the opportunity to make a move against its southern sister.

Would a border war between China and Vietnam be enough of a trigger? Would a nautical border dispute between China and the Philippines be a better option?

[Panther Al]

One problem I am seeing - unless I missed it - is that the Baltic States are in NATO.. hence should Russia look to snapping them up, it must be willing to kick off WW3 right then and there.

[Rainbow Six]

In going against the Baltics, the Russians are taking a calculated risk, namely that with the US already involved in a hot War with China (and therefore significant American assets involved in the Pacific Theatre) NATO will not be willing to go to War over the Baltic States. So the Pacific War has to start first.

As it happens, they get it wrong and NATO (or at least part of it) does go to War...

[Rainbow Six]

That's exactly what I was getting at. Now, what could prompt a global international crisis? I'm thinking a war involving China. That would do the trick, most likely.

Off the top of my head I don't know. Taiwan would obviously be a major flashpoint. Only other one I'm familiar with are the Spratly Islands. A naval conflict between China and Vietnam there could theoretically escalate into a full scale War. The Spratlys are also claimed by, amongst others, the Philippines, so there is potential for further escalation, if for example, a Phillipine Navy ship gets "accidentally" sunk by the Chinese.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spratly_Islands

I think the US has to get involved in a shooting war in Asia before the Russians make their move in Europe though. The Russians have to think that the Americans are too involved in Asia to also get involved in Europe.

So how about the following over a two / three year period

• Relations between the US and China become strained; there's no War (yet) but the strain on relations causes the US and European economies to go into recession (again)
• The recession causes a new crisis within the Eurozone and several countries require a bailout. Other EU States (led by Germany) refuse to finance a fresh bailout package, leading to a crisis that ultimately leads to several of the member States that were seeking a bailout leaving the EU
• The Russians reach out to those former EU members offering an attractive package of assistance
• A fresh wave of fighting in the Pacific escalates (over Taiwan maybe?), drawing the United States into the conflict. The US is forced to commit forces allocated to NATO roles to the Pacific Theatre
• At the behest of the Chinese, North Korea invades South Korea, leading to further pressure on US commitments
• The Kremlin leadership calculate that with the US committed elsewhere, NATO will not offer any military opposition to a Russian occupation of the Baltic States
• Russian forces invade Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania
• NATO splits; some countries withdraw from the alliance but others honour their treaty obligations and declare War on Russia

[Raellus]

I think that works really well. I thinking the shelling of a Filipino warship is enough to precipitate a period of economic strain between China and the U.S. A fragmented NATO and an overstretched U.S. military make the Russians much more of a match, militarily speaking, especially if the recent trend in comparative defense spending between Russia and the West continues in the interval between now and 2030 or whatever.

[Targan]

A US-China war would put Australia in a really tough position. I'd say Australia would almost certainly back the US, but that would crash Australia's economy because it would lose it's biggest trading partner. Interesting scenarios there Raellus and Rainbow Six.

[Schone23666]

A US-China war would put Australia in a really tough position. I'd say Australia would almost certainly back the US, but that would crash Australia's economy because it would lose it's biggest trading partner. Interesting scenarios there Raellus and Rainbow Six.

Plus one other neighbor that Australia's concerned with: Indonesia. Let's say a more hardline military coup or fundamentalist Islamist sect is now in control of the country, and have been spending cash to build up their military, in particular their amphibious capabilities. With the chaos of a full-blown U.S. vs. China conflict, would the Indonesians take advantage of the chaos and make a try for some real estate on Australia, perhaps with some quiet backing from the Chinese?

[Targan]

With the chaos of a full-blown U.S. vs. China conflict, would the Indonesians take advantage of the chaos and make a try for some real estate on Australia, perhaps with some quiet backing from the Chinese?

I doubt they would start with an invasion of Australia, but I could definitely see Indonesia having a crack at Papua New Guinea, and that would be a fast track to a shooting war with Australia.

[Raellus]

I'd love to get Australia involved early. There are at least two ways to do so and you've already mentioned one of them. I'll get back to this in a minute, but first I'd like to see which of the following scenarios regarding the order the U.S. ends up making war on China and North Korea.

Do you think the Chinese might goad the North Koreans into invading South Korea to draw U.S. attention away from Taiwan before striking to reclaim their island? Or do you think it makes more sense for North Korea to opportunistically invade the South once the U.S. is drawn into an attempted defense of Taiwan? Either way, once the U.S. is overstretched and committed in Asia (maybe doubly so), Russia makes its play for the Baltics. We can discuss that later.

Now, if we go with the NK invasion prior to China making its big move, Australia would send troops to SK, no? That might be a lower stakes way to get them into the war, rather than entering into a more daunting struggle vs. China first. Either way, once Australia is committed, it's committed when other regional powers enter the fray.

I do like the idea of getting Indonesia involved and essentially allying with the Chinese. What other allies do you see China having in 2030? Myanmar, maybe? I'm assuming that the little fish in the region would be peeing their pants as the Chinese military continues its meteoric rise and would therefore look to more closely ally themselves to the West, but maybe they would pursue a policy of rapprochement with China and eventually become satellites.

Now one thing that's always troubled me about the thought of a war against China: How does the U.S. get ground forces into action on the mainland? In 30 years, following current trends, China will have a larger navy than the U.S., and any war in east Asia gives them the interior lines of supply. To me, the U.S. would be fighting at a huge disadvantage. It's going to need the RAN for sure, and other regional allies as well. Japan is one potential springboard. It's got a capable navy, and one that could also grow, albeit not as quickly, by 2030.

But, if the tension in Asia originally heated up over a boarder dispute with Vietnam, maybe that's the doorway into the Chinese mainland. Wouldn't it be interesting to have U.S. and SRV troops- former enemies- teaming up to take on their mutual foe, the Chinese?

I've asked a lot of questions so I'll stop and give y'all a chance to address them before asking any more.

[Raellus]

The Spratlys are looking like the most likely flashpoint for what will eventually become WWIII in Asia.

It's from Wikipedia, but...

"In 1999, a Philippine navy ship (Number 57 - BRP Sierra Madre) was purposely run aground near Second Thomas Shoal to enable establishment of an outpost. As of 2014 it had not been removed, and Filipino troops have been stationed aboard since the grounding.[47][48]

On May 23, 2011, the President of the Philippines, Benigno Aquino III, warned visiting Chinese Defence Minister Liang Guanglie of a possible arms race in the region if tensions worsened over disputes in the South China Sea. Aquino said he told Liang in their meeting that this could happen if there were more encounters in the disputed and potentially oil-rich Spratly Islands.[49]

In May 2011, Chinese patrol boats attacked two Vietnamese oil exploration ships near the Spratly Islands.[50] Also in May 2011, Chinese naval vessels opened fire on Vietnamese fishing vessels operating off East London Reef (Da Dong). The three Chinese military vessels were numbered 989, 27 and 28, and they showed up with a small group of Chinese fishing vessels. Another Vietnamese fishing vessel was fired on near Fiery Cross Reef (Chu Thap). The Chief Commander of Border Guards in Phu Yen Province, Vietnam reported that a total of four Vietnamese vessels were fired upon by Chinese naval vessels.[verification needed] These incidents involving Chinese forces sparked mass protests in Vietnam, especially in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City,[51] and in various Vietnamese communities in the West (namely in the U.S. state of California and in Paris) over attacks on Vietnamese citizens and the intrusion into what Vietnam claimed was part of its territory.[52]

In June 2011, the Philippines began officially referring to the South China Sea as the "West Philippine Sea" and the Reed Bank as "Recto Bank".[53][54]

In July 2012, the National Assembly of Vietnam passed a law demarcating Vietnamese sea borders to include the Spratly and Paracel Islands."

-

It looks like Chinese naval muscle flexing in this rich oil and gas (and fishing) region is nothing new. A power grab there would likely lead to a period of major strain with the West that could send the American economy into another great recession and sabotage the EU.

[Rainbow Six]

As I said earlier, a potential Pacific War isn't something that I've ever given much thought to, but to throw a few thoughts out

• I like the idea of Australia (on the US side) and Indonesia (on the Chinese side) getting involved. It adds to the global scale of the War that I think is needed to achieve the classic T2K atmosphere. I think the idea of a potential Indonesian invasion of Australia itself has been identified as pretty unlikely a few times, but Targan's suggestion of Papua New Guinea being a flashpoint sounds good to me

• I had originally envisioned the North Korean invasion of the South as having been an opportunistic move that took place because the US was committed elsewhere. However, that is exactly the same rationale we're positing for the Russian invasion of the Baltics, so maybe it would be better to have the fighting in Korea start before the PRC makes its move against Taiwan rather than repeat the same rationale. With regard to other nations (e.g. Australia) sending troops to the ROK, I think that's possible. For any nation not wishing to be seen as allying itself directly with the US, they can use the argument that allied forces in Korea are operating under a UN mandate, so you might see contingents from other nations as well (Taiwan maybe, which would increase tensions between the PRC and the ROC?).

• I like the idea of a confrontation in the Spratlys being the precursor to the larger conflict. I think a naval skirmish between the PRC and Vietnam does have the potential to escalate into a full scale conflict between the two countries (still as a precursor to the main Asian War). I also like the idea of a US / Vietnamese alliance. Perhaps the Sino - Vietnamese War ends after several months, following which the US and Vietnam agree closer military cooperation (back to the enemy of my enemy is my friend principle). When the main PRC / US War starts that causes fighting to start again on the PRC / Vietnamese border and the US sends ground troops and aircraft to Vietnam? As I said, I like this idea and it gives you the access you're looking for to mainland China.

• Chinese allies - not sure how feasible this one is, but how about Pakistan? Eventually we need to bring a Pakistan - India conflict into this scenario anyway. That's probably easily enough done without either of them being linked to belligerents in the Asian War, but would give an added twist. Myanmar would also work I think.

[Schone23666]

Lots of good points here, keep 'em coming.

I admit I have not looked that closely at the current and future capabilities of Indonesia, but agree it would be much easier for them and make more sense to make a land grab for Papua New Guinea. PNG's economy has been taking off recently due to it's mineral resources, and the Chinese are obviously going to be gunning hard for whatever resources they can acquire quick once the shooting starts, much like the Japanese during WWII, and not too unlike now only with less bullets involved (interesting comparison when you think about it.)

The Chinese also have a number of workers and companies currently operating in Papua New Guinea, so perhaps the MSS (Ministry of State Security) has a number of agents and paramilitaries on the ground helping stir up trouble in coordination with the Indonesian invasion, in return for a "cut" of PNG's mineral resources. As I recall, there's already been a few riots and tensions simmering in Papau New Guineau recently between the natives and the number of Chinese now operating in the area. It could get very interesting, and pretty ugly.

That's another thing to consider, there are a lot of Chinese living abroad these days around the world, and unfortunately there's a fair number of agents working for the MSS among them as well. So once the shooting starts, what do a lot of these Chinese do? I imagine from what I've read about prevailing attitudes among them along with priorities, it would be a mixed bag. You would certainly have plenty of die-hards that would be loyal to the state and would do whatever their Chinese superiors ordered them to do, or just create potential chaos out of sympathy to their homeland. You'd have others that might be more reluctant to do anything and may just want to keep a low profile ("I came out here to Africa to make money, not get my ass shot off!") and others that have resettled in other parts of the world like here in the U.S., especially dissenters who don't like the direction China is going and might actually take up arms against their former homeland ("Screw this, I'm not going to sit here and watch China try to imitate Imperial Japan!"). It's worth noting that a lot of Chinese have supposedly complained that the primary reason Chinese youths get involved in the Chinese Communist party these days (is it still even called Communist??) is to make contacts among the party elite and get on a fast track to making cash quick. Ironic, no?

And of course, that also brings to mind a potential for a lot of nasty repercussions against ethnic Chinese in other parts of the world, especially in countries that are now locked in conflict with them. Ethnic riots, internment camps...I don't like bringing up the specter of the Japanese internment camps during WWII here in the U.S. as an example, but it happened unfortunately. I don't know if it would happen here in the U.S. again, at the very least there would be a LOT of protest and potential riots made before that happened, but I could see it happening in other countries with a number of Chinese who might find themselves locking horns with the "new" Chinese empire.

Also, there are a number of Russian immigrants now living in the U.S as well. Once things go hot and nasty in Europe with Russia? I'd expect to see at the very least some uncomfortable tensions brewing stateside amongst the ethnic Russians, torn between their native homeland and their new homeland, and also agents of the FSB and perhaps even a few Spetsnaz looking to create chaos whenever possible.

[Schone23666]

I doubt they would start with an invasion of Australia, but I could definitely see Indonesia having a crack at Papua New Guinea, and that would be a fast track to a shooting war with Australia.

From what I've read Papua New Guinea has a relatively small military force, but they do receive a lot of training and support from Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, among others. Does Australia and New Zealand have a Status of Forces Agreement with the PNG?



• Chinese allies - not sure how feasible this one is, but how about Pakistan? Eventually we need to bring a Pakistan - India conflict into this scenario anyway. That's probably easily enough done without either of them being linked to belligerents in the Asian War, but would give an added twist. Myanmar would also work I think.

I could see that happening if China gives them enough incentive, say perhaps some extra military hardware and advisors for starters. India not only has a well documented rivalry with Pakistan, but also China as well, though not quite as bloody YET (having a rather mountainous area between the two helps). If India were to be drawn into the war against China, the Chinese might call upon their old Pakistani buddies to start some nasty shit in Kashmir again, only it goes really downhill this time and turns full-tilt nuclear between the two.

[Targan]

From what I've read Papua New Guinea has a relatively small military force, but they do receive a lot of training and support from Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, among others. Does Australia and New Zealand have a Status of Forces Agreement with the PNG?

I'm not sure of the exact nature of Australia's defence agreements with PNG but we train their military extensively in Australia and PNG. But most importantly, PNG was Australian territory until their amicable independence in 1975. So in a similar way to how you would expect the US to always defend the Philippines, Australia would basically treat an attack on PNG as an attack on itself.

[Raellus]

OK. I like pretty much everything y'all have posted so far. I think it works really well. Now we just need to formulate some kind of a timeline. How about this for starters.

By 2020, Eastern Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova are, for all intents and purposes, part of the Greater Russian Federation. Putin is president for life or some such.

2020-2024:

The Chinese economy sees several consecutive years of rapidly slowing growth. Economic reforms show minimal positive impact. Social unrest looms.
Austerity measures fail in Southern Europe. General strikes and riots paralyze the affected nations. Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal request another round of bailouts from the EU, while political radicals in those countries call for separation from the Eurozone.
The U.S. economy enters into a mild recession.

2025:

China, hoping to rally the populace behind a nationalistic military enterprise, seizes islands in the Spratly chain long claimed by Vietnam. The Vietnamese navy is thrashed by the PLN as they gamely attempt to defend the islands. A short border war on land ensues.
The U.S. and its regional allies protest vociferously but make no move to support Vietnam by direct military intervention. Economic sanctions against China are quickly enacted. The UN brokers a ceasefire but the Chinese refuse to relinquish their territorial gains in the Spratys. The U.S. pledges military support to Malaysia and the Philippines, should the Chinese attempt to continue their conquest of the Spratly islands. The U.S. also enters into talks with Vietnam, precursor to a formal military alliance between the two former foes.
India is alarmed by Chinese militarism and is one of the PRC's most vocal critics.

2026:

The short war contributes to a global economic recession, as sanctions end up hurting the west more than they hurt China.
The economies of southern Europe are on the verge of collapse. The wealthier nations of Europe, after much debate, decide to cut the debtor nations loose. France is one of the most vocal opponents of this decision.
Russia makes diplomatic/economic overtures to the recent outcasts.
China strengthens economic and military ties with Pakistan, Myanmar, and Indonesia. Secretly, China tacitly agrees not to oppose a North Korean attempt to reunify the Korean peninsula.


2027:

An ailing Kim Jong Un orders a surprise invasion of South Korea. The U.S. and its regional allies, including Japan, rally to the ROK's defense.
With NATO compromised by the contraction of the EU, and the U.S. occupied with a full-blown war in Korea, Russia makes its play for the Baltic states.
The U.S., already overstretched, reinstitutes the draft.
China, also takes advantage of the situation by attacking Taiwan in preparation for a long-planned invasion.
Indonesia, prompted by China, launches an invasion of Papua New Guinea.
Pakistan and India resume fighting over Kashmir.

So, WWIII pretty much starts in earnest in 2027.

[Rainbow Six]

Looks good to me.

Need to give some thought about fleshing out events in the Middle East / Africa between now and then as well. An Arab - Israeli War seems to me like an absolute given, but I wonder if there might also be conflict between Sunni Muslim nations (potentially led by Saudi Arabia) and the Shiites (led by Iran). With regards to Africa, as Schone23666 referenced in an earlier post, there's also likely to be a lot of Chinese in Africa.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Just a few thoughts and points.

Papua New Guinea
PNG was not "quite" an Australian territory and more of a protectorate. It was a British colony transferred to Australia in 1905 so that Australia could administer the island.
We still have extensive diplomatic, economic and military ties with PNG including defence agreements but those agreements continue to be a compromise between what is best for Australia and what's best for PNG e.g. Australia sitting back and doing nothing when Indonesia invaded and annexed the West Papua region of the island which was a Dutch territory at the time.

There is no certainty that Australia would militarily intervene if Indonesia decided to invade and annex the rest of the island.
Indonesia would have to threaten mainland Australia before we'd take military action against them. The government reasons that our economy is intertwined with Indonesia (much of the shipping to Australia passes through Indonesian waters) so it wouldn't want to jeopardize that unless there was no other option. There's been enough criticism by Indonesia and Malaysia of Australia as a whiteman's imperialist country that we don't play hardball with them very often.

Korea
There is absolutely no particular reason that Australia would send military forces to any new conflict in Korea. Australian involvement in the 1950s Korean War was as part of a UN force and during a time when the dominant political thinking of the time was the Domino Theory of Communism.
Australia might support medical, economic and policing actions in any new Korean conflict but it would be unlikely to commit military forces unless it was as part of a UN mission.

China
Over the last decade or more, China has been actively courting nations in the Pacific Ocean to secure mining and agricultural access. While they have many such resources themselves they appear to be interested in acquiring more to protect themselves from potential shortages, price increases and so on (given their massive population). For example, there has been much interest from China in acquiring cattle stations in Australia to secure food resources for themselves. While these farms would be worked and managed by Australians, the cattle raised on these stations would all be delivered to China and not sold on the local market.

While China hasn't aggressively pursued these yet, they have been using what amounts to bribes and bullying. For small Pacific island nations, they have been making roads and buildings and supplying aircraft and vehicles and even shop goods not commonly found on the islands. Larger nations like Australia are given the typical business ultimatum, "Sell your product to us at this price, or we'll buy it from someone else".

[Raellus]

So we're looking at an isolationist Australia, c. 2020? I figured that since Australia's currently got forces in Afghanistan, of all places, they wouldn't be averse to helping their allies in a war or two in East Asia. Is there a more plausible way to get Australia into WWIII as we've formulated it so far?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Isolationist? To a certain degree yes, but not total isolation. Everything revolves around foreign trade and upsetting Indonesia could disrupt that trade.

If a conflict in Korea broke out and the UN called for a military force to intervene or protect South Korea, Australia would more than likely attend the party.
If Indonesia invaded PNG and the UN didn't take a stance against it, Australia probably would not either - sure the government would spout off volumes of dribble about how bad and nasty the Indons were for invading peaceful PNG but they'd tried to avoid war for as long as possible (something along the lines of Chamberlain appeasing Hitler is not too far fetched).

If the Indonesians went to war against Malaysia, then Australia would probably wait for a Commonwealth nations or UN mandate before committing itself to military action. We'd wait to get approval from the "big boys" first or we'd wait until the "big boys" committed and then we'd join them.

The Australian intervention in East Timor was a reasonably clear case of "We will win" with very little chance of full-blown war against Indonesia. In fact Aussie troops were militarily restricted by the political conduct of the intervention, in a number of cases they were expected to allow clearly identified gunmen to shoot at them but they were not allowed to fire back without government approval. There were even cases when clearly identified Indonesian para-military police where shooting at them and the Aussie soldiers were told not to prosecute the engagement and to let the Indons escape.

While we do have trade & good relations with South Korea, it's not seen as in our backyard anymore so any action would most likely be based on UN approval.
There is a lack of government will to play hard against Indonesia for the reasons stated previously, the government has got to the point were it is overly sensitive to criticism from Asian nations in the region and so it plays the "conciliation" game instead of flexing any military muscle.

[Targan]

I disagree. There is no way Australia would stand back and let Indonesia invade Papua New Guinea.

Australia failed to stop the Indonesians from annexing East Timor and West Irian during the 1970s largely because of the aftermath of the Vietnam War. Public sentiment was totally against going to war again so soon and the Australian military's morale had utterly collapsed. I wasn't even in Australia at the time and wasn't even in primary school yet but looking back at it I'm appalled and disgusted at Australia's lack of action against Indonesia during the early to mid 1970s.

Also, East Timor was a Portuguese holding and West Irian was formerly a Dutch holding. Paint it however you like, but PNG was a former Australian territory. In RL right now, if Indonesia made a land grab for PNG, there would be solid public support for the ADF to take action against the Indonesian military. Yes my view on these matters is coloured by my disdain towards the Indonesian government and military's past and most certainly present atrocities towards its ethnic minorities. I tell you what, if Indonesia invaded PNG and the Australian government didn't send in the ADF, I would donate my own money towards funding an anti-Indonesian insurgency.

Raellus, if you want a realistic trigger for Australia to go to war against Indonesia, in my opinion it would be the indigenous insurgency of West Papua ramping up their activities against the Indonesian police and military, perhaps due to an influx of funds and military equipment (from whatever source/s). It would really piss the Indonesians off if they thought the insurgents were launching raids from across the border with PNG, and if they demanded that the PNG government take action and they refused or dragged their feet, I think it would be realistic for the Indonesian military to commence cross-border operations.

I can also see the Indonesians being even bolder than usual if they thought that the ADF had its hands full elsewhere (say, supporting military operations in Korea).

[Cdnwolf]

Besides haven't you heard of the Australian Secret Weapons Research labs...

Crocs with explosives trained to attack enemy boats...
Sharks going after their marines...
Kangaroo combat troops...
Secret Koala cuddle attacks...

and worse of all...

Australian women... enuff said. :p

[mikeo80]

Besides haven't you heard of the Australian Secret Weapons Research labs...

Crocs with explosives trained to attack enemy boats...
Sharks going after their marines...
Kangaroo combat troops...
Secret Koala cuddle attacks...

and worse of all...

Australian women... enuff said. :p

ROTF,LMAO

You forgot a spew warning. I was drinking coffee when I read this! :mgwhore2:

You did forget the snakes and spiders conducting surprise attacks during the night.

My $0.02

Mike

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I disagree. There is no way Australia would stand back and let Indonesia invade Papua New Guinea.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this, the politicians of this country didn't have the balls to stop cross-border raids into PNG by Indonesia during the West Irian insurgency and they actually started to investigate Australians who sent aid to the West Irian groups. During that period, the Australian government went as far as to make it a crime for any Australian citizen to be employed as a soldier in a foreign, non-government military, irrespective of whether they got paid for their services or not they were classed as mercenaries and would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law if caught. This was in response to several Australian ex-military personnel going to Indon-controlled East Timor and also Burma to give military training to the oppressed minorities in those countries - the Australian government didn't want to upset the governments of those countries.

Australia failed to stop the Indonesians from annexing East Timor and West Irian during the 1970s largely because of the aftermath of the Vietnam War. Public sentiment was totally against going to war again so soon and the Australian military's morale had utterly collapsed. I wasn't even in Australia at the time and wasn't even in primary school yet but looking back at it I'm appalled and disgusted at Australia's lack of action against Indonesia during the early to mid 1970s.
Australia didn't even try to stop Indonesia from invading East Timor, despite pleas from East Timorese for Australia to aid them. Even with the substantial debt we owed them due to all the support the Timorese gave Australian forces battling the Japanese during WW2 and even after Indonesian troops murdered several Australian journalists, the government here took minimal action.
I disagree that at that time the ADF morale had utterly collapsed, I had family serving in the Army and Air Force at that time and from what they've said, although many personnel felt frustrated and disillusioned, they were still prepared to serve in the military. In fact, some of them believed our next war would be with Indonesia and were pissed off that the Australian government was so conciliatory towards the Indons.

Also, East Timor was a Portuguese holding and West Irian was formerly a Dutch holding. Paint it however you like, but PNG was a former Australian territory. In RL right now, if Indonesia made a land grab for PNG, there would be solid public support for the ADF to take action against the Indonesian military. Yes my view on these matters is coloured by my disdain towards the Indonesian government and military's past and most certainly present atrocities towards its ethnic minorities. I tell you what, if Indonesia invaded PNG and the Australian government didn't send in the ADF, I would donate my own money towards funding an anti-Indonesian insurgency.
I agree, there would be a lot of public support for the ADF, but that doesn't mean the government would authorise any action. I also agree with your views on the Indonesian government, so much so that despite my dislike of its leftist agenda, I was giving money to FRETILIN - something that I was warned would destroy my chances for any sort of career in the government or ADF should I get found out.
Australia was giving serious consideration to conflict with Indonesia should Indonesia attack PNG (this was in the 1980s) but it was believed that we could lose our entire army and a good portion of our air and naval forces in such a conflict and thus have no chance of stopping the Indons. It was considered that we would lose any such fight without outside assistance and this mindset still colours Australian government thinking.
Fact is, with such a disparity of forces (in Indonesia's favour) and with $15 billion dollars worth of trade between the two countries, the Australian government is going to take a lot of pushing before it pushes back and it would be asking for substantial support from it's "big" friends in North America and Europe.

Raellus, if you want a realistic trigger for Australia to go to war against Indonesia, in my opinion it would be the indigenous insurgency of West Papua ramping up their activities against the Indonesian police and military, perhaps due to an influx of funds and military equipment (from whatever source/s). It would really piss the Indonesians off if they thought the insurgents were launching raids from across the border with PNG, and if they demanded that the PNG government take action and they refused or dragged their feet, I think it would be realistic for the Indonesian military to commence cross-border operations.
I honestly do not think this would be enough. The West Irian freedom fighters have been operating from bases across the border in PNG for decades and, again for decades, the Indons have been violating PNG territorial sovereignty to attack these camps.
I believe Australia would have to be backed into a corner before our government would let us fight back. I believe it would take something more along the lines of Indonesia threatening mainland Australia before the government would authorise military action. Something like sinking a ship in an Australian port to prevent ship movement and therefore preventing export sales as a way to force the Aust Govt to concede to Indon demands.
However I don't think the Indons are likely to do such a thing unless they were in the throes of desperation (say from massive resource shortages be that food, water, fuel, minerals, whatever).

I can also see the Indonesians being even bolder than usual if they thought that the ADF had its hands full elsewhere (say, supporting military operations in Korea).
I don't disagree with this either and I think massive overpopulation causing severe shortages could push Indonesia into a "lebensraum" policy and hey, "Australia only has an Army of 40,000 and we Indonesians have one about 6 times that size and those devil-whiteman, capitalist-running dog imperialists have so much land with such a small population but they don't share it and Australia really should belong to an Asian country..." i.e. think something along the lines of Argentina's junta reasoning for invade the Falklands.

[Targan]

During that period, the Australian government went as far as to make it a crime for any Australian citizen to be employed as a soldier in a foreign, non-government military, irrespective of whether they got paid for their services or not they were classed as mercenaries and would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law if caught. This was in response to several Australian ex-military personnel going to Indon-controlled East Timor and also Burma to give military training to the oppressed minorities in those countries - the Australian government didn't want to upset the governments of those countries.

I've learned something new. I know it's a crime in Australia to fight as a mercenary or with a non-government overseas military force but I didn't know that was the origin of those laws. Did David Everett's antics have anything to do with that?

[Raellus]

I'm learning a bunch here too. But, I do still have one lingering question. If Australia's government is so reluctant to employ its military in, what amounts essentially to its own backyard (i.e. PNG or, slightly further afield, Korea or SE Asia), why does Australia contribute troops to the coalition effort in Afghanistan? That's a fair bit further from Australia than any of the afore-mentioned theaters and, surely, it isn't treaty-bound to do so. Help me understand the reasoning behind this seeming foreign policy/military intervention paradox.

[kato13]

If Australia's government is so reluctant to employ its military in, what amounts essentially to its own backyard (i.e. PNG or, slightly further afield, Korea or SE Asia), why does Australia contribute troops to the coalition effort in Afghanistan? That's a fair bit further from Australia than any of the afore-mentioned theaters and, surely, it isn't treaty-bound to do so.



Australia has provided military support to the coalition under the ANZUS treaty.
http://rslnsw.org.au/commemoration/heritage/the-war-on-terror


Australia first committed military personnel to Afghanistan in October 2001 after the 11 September attacks on the World Trade Centre. Prime Minister John Howard invoked Article VI of the ANZUS Treaty in support of Australia’s involvement—the only time the Treaty has been invoked. The Australian Parliament supported the commitment on 17 September 2001.
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook43p/adfafghanistan

[RN7]

In regards to a war in Korea I would say Australia would contribute military forces, but maybe not the same type of forces it contributed in the 1st Korean War or in Vietnam. I don't think they would send infantry as they would only be a small fraction of what the US would send, and they would be under US command. But they would probably send some fighters, warships and support forces and maybe the Australian SAS.

Over the past decade Australia has expanded all of its military capabilities and will continue to expand over the next decade, and there is a lot Australia could contribute without sending infantry and tanks.

The Aussie Army is small; equivalent to a US infantry division with the reserve adding another light infantry division. But they use good equipment and they have a sizeable airmobile capability, and their special forces is large for the size of the army. The RAAF is also a good force, new Super Hornets, AEW's, tankers and 28 C-17/C-130H/J transport mix, with the F-35A and the P-8 in the pipeline. The RAN has two helicopter carriers and three Aegis destroyers building, and 12 new submarines and other ships are planned. The carriers are big and can carry 18 helicopters and an infantry battalion, and are fitted with ski-jump ramps which means they can carry US Marine or British F-35B's.

If a commonwealth force was sent to Korea I could see Australia sending some land forces as part of a joint British, Anzac, Canadian and maybe Indian force.

[Jason Weiser]

OK. I like pretty much everything y'all have posted so far. I think it works really well. Now we just need to formulate some kind of a timeline. How about this for starters.

I think we can add a few other European ideas. One would be the Poles making a grab for Kaliningrad while the Russian Army is preoccupied in the Balkans, or are we assuming the Russians decide to take enough of Poland to open a land bridge?

Also, Greece? What shall we do with that economic basket case? Hmm, Turkey gets frisky and goes to war over Cyprus and some other Agean islands? And when Greece asks NATO and/or the EU for help, both turn their backs on them?

Spain I think would do it's best to stay neutral along with Italy. I think neither are well-disposed towards Russia, but the last thing they want to do is cozy up to the Americans (or American percieved NATO).

In short, might NATO implode to some extent? This might be an interesting caveat? And what about Germany? Does she rearm in the face of the Russian revaunchism? If so, Germany's neighbors are going to freak out. If not, the Russians are going to run roughshod over Eastern Europe as the US isn't sending a lot of troops (most are going to try and stop the North Koreans).

[Olefin]

I would think that Italy would support the US and NATO vs. it not doing so in the minds of the Twilight 2000 authors. Italy has been much more pro-US, helping with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and US efforts in Libya and Somalia as well. And Italy's pro-Russia days are long over - if it comes to war expect to see Italian troops there on the front lines.

[Rainbow Six]

We posited that Greece allied with the Russians, Bulgarians, and Serbs earlier in the thread and launched an attack on the Turks. It follows as logical that any Greco - Turkish War would involve fighting in Cyprus.

Re: Kaliningrad, this timeline has Russia annexing Belarus sometime within the next couple of years, making Belarus and eastern Ukraine part of the Russian Federation, which takes them almost but not quite up to Kaliningrad, however when the Russians make their move for the Baltics they will establish a land bridge with Kaliningrad in short order as the Lithuanians wont have much to stop them and their is a period of time before NATO commits. The original line of thinking was that the Russians make a grab for the Baltics but not Poland, the thinking amongst the Kremlin's leadership being that a fractured NATO is not willing to go to war over Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, particularly since the US is committed elsewhere.

A NATO implosion along much the same lines as the original T2K timeline(s) is definitely part of the scenario - those identified as most likely to withdraw from the alliance are France and the southern European members.

Incidentally, on the subject of Spain, once the brown stuff has really hit the fan and UK forces are fully committed elsewhere there is the possibility of Spain making a grab for Gibraltar.

[Rainbow Six]

For info, here's an idea of approximately what sort of ground force levels some of the major European nations might be fielding based on current levels ...source is Armed Forces of the European Union 2012 - 2013 by Charles Heyman. I haven't listed every country but have tried to cover those likely to be combatants plus some of the nations that withdraw from NATO. Note as Norway is not an EU member and Croatia only joined last year neither are covered in the book so info for those two is from wikipedia. Also, these are total strengths, so not every nation might be in a position to commit everything listed below to the front line

Germany
2 x Armoured Divisions
1 x Mechanised Division
1 x Airmobile Division
1 x Special Operations Division
Plus German components of the Franco German Brigade (1 x Lt Inf Bn, 1 x Arty Bn, 1 x Eng Coy)

United Kingdom
2 x Divisions (1 full strength with 3 x Armoured Infantry Brigades, 1 reduced strength)

Poland
1 x Armoured Division
3 x Mechanised Division
1 x Air Assault Brigade
1 x Air Cavalry Brigade

Czech Republic
1 x Rapid Deployment Brigade
1 x Mechanised Brigade
1 x Artillery Brigade

Netherlands
1 x Airmobile Brigade
2 x Mechanised Brigades

Denmark
2 x Infantry Brigades (one full strength, one reduced strength)

Hungary
2 x Infantry Brigades

Slovakia
2 x Infantry Brigades

Romania
3 x Infantry Divisions

Croatia (source wikipedia)
1 x Mechanised Infantry Brigade
1 x Motorised Infantry Brigade

Norway (source wikipedia)
1 x Infantry Brigade

The Baltic States have the following:

Estonia
3 x Infantry Battalions

Latvia
1 x Infantry Brigade

Lithuania
1 x Motorised Infantry Brigade
3 x Independent Infantry Battalions


And the possible opt outs...

France
2 x Armoured Brigades
2 x Light Armoured Brigades
2 x Mechanised Brigades
1 x Parachute Brigade
1 x Mountain Infantry Brigade
1 x Recce Brigade
Plus the French component of the Franco German Brigade (1 x Armoured Recce Regt, 1 x Mech Inf Bn)

The French also have the National Gendarmerie, which is approx 100,000 strong

Belgium
2 x Mechanised Infantry Brigades
1 x Rapid Reaction Group (3 x Para Commando Bns)

Bulgaria
1 x Armoured Brigade
2 x Mechanised Infantry Brigade
1 x Light Infantry Brigade
1 x Special Forces Brigade

Italy
3 x Divisions

Spain
2 x Divisions

Greece
1 x Armoured Division
3 x Mechanised Infantry Division
1 x Infantry Division
1 x Army Division (1 x Airborne Bde, 1 x Airmobile Bde, 1 x Marine Bde)

Portugal
1 x Airborne Brigade
1 x Mechanised Infantry Brigade
1 x Light Infantry Brigade

[Olefin]

I would still think that Italy would go with the US in this time period as to any military operation - Spain and Portugal most likely not and Greece is in too much turmoil for any war right now even one against the Turks

by the way when you group southern members we have to look at old ones versus new ones

countries like Slovenia, Croatia, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Slovakia are staunch NATO members now - and have long memoires of the Soviets, let alone the Hungarians and Romanians - between them all they have a significant level of military power - so any Twilight 2030 war would be much different in the Balkans and Southern Europe than its Twilight 2000 version

Hungary may have only two infantry brigades - but they have 600 BTR-80's and 150+ T-72 (most of the tanks in reserve) tanks that are good to go - which makes them pretty heavily equipped brigades

And I dont see Italy, Bulgaria or Belguim opting out - the French very possibly, Spain and Portugal yes -but not the Belgians - I would put a higher possibility that the Dutch would sit out the war given their current military tendencies

[Rainbow Six]

Yeah, by Southern I was referring specifically to the "old" NATO members - Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy. I should have clarified that. Personally, I could be persuaded either way about what the Italians might do. With regard to Belgium I favour a schism between the French speaking Walloons and the Dutch speaking Flemish, with the Walloons siding with France and the Flemish siding with NATO. I didn't have Bulgaria opting out as much as changing sides completely.

The figures I gave are intended to give a top level overview of what each nation might be able to contribute...I can break it down into more detail for each country but that will take me time (days, not hours). Also, reserves are not included. My numbers for Hungary differ from yours in some areas....this is what I have (source as per previous post)

Army Strength: 10,900 (plus 30,000 reserves)
Tanks: 120 x T 72 (approx 30 in active units)
Armoured Infantry Fighting Vehicles: 150 x BTR80A; 487 x BMP1 in storage
APC's: 150 x BTR80
SP Arty: 150 x 122mm; 251 in store

It's unclear whether the 150 BTR's in the AIFV entry are the same 150 BTR's that are in the APC entry or not, so they may have 150 or they may have 300. However it is fair to say that with a full mobilisation of reserves the Hungarian Army could possibly quadruple its current size, so I will revisit that listing in more detail when I can...

[Olefin]

and I am using what they have in reserve for their mobilization for Hungary - just to use them as an example - for instance Hungary could be used as a source of equipment for other ex-Warsaw Pact nations that might have men but dont have APC's to be able to have them survive on the modern battlefield

it definitely would change the strategic situation for the war - instead of the Balkans being almost a side show (as the authors mainly treated it in Twilight 2000) here it would be a major front - obviously Romania would be anxious to go into Moldava and take back their old territory - and having Bulgaria be at the worst neutral really makes the Turks a much bigger threat to potential Soviet Allies like Armenia or Syria especially if the Greeks cant get new equipment due to money issues and by 2030 have a very small army with limited armor

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I'm learning a bunch here too. But, I do still have one lingering question. If Australia's government is so reluctant to employ its military in, what amounts essentially to its own backyard (i.e. PNG or, slightly further afield, Korea or SE Asia), why does Australia contribute troops to the coalition effort in Afghanistan? That's a fair bit further from Australia than any of the afore-mentioned theaters and, surely, it isn't treaty-bound to do so. Help me understand the reasoning behind this seeming foreign policy/military intervention paradox.

And to go further with the information Kato posted, the USA is Australia's primary ally, if they ask for contributions/assistance, the government views it in our best long-term interest to do so and the ANZUS treaty gives impetus to that plus it allows the government to do so without having to justify itself to the opposition or public.

NOTE: I have the "misfortune" of having several family members involved in state and federal politics and I've found that many Australian politicians simply see politics as a lucrative career with an excellent retirement package. I despise modern politicians because of this "in it for themselves and not for the public" mentality - they're snakeoil salesmen who happen to be holding the reins of power - and my thinking is directly coloured by this.

The government has been reluctant to engage in military actions in the last several decades for a number of reasons, some already mentioned here but also include public sentiment and financial cost - we don't have a large population so the revenue base is limited (and like many governments they prefer to spend it on things that will aggrandize them).
But very important to government thinking, we rely almost exclusively on shipping for foreign trade (both import and export). I can't stress this enough, the government believes we cannot afford to alienate neighbouring nations through which that shipping must pass (e.g. Indonesia and Malaysia).

In regards to public sentiment, vocal special interest groups get a disproportionate voice on many occasions despite their definite minority in numbers. Examples include the anti-gun lobby's pressure on the government to restrict private ownership of firearms in response to the Port Arthur killings - they didn't have a majority voice then and they still don't but it was seen as a potential vote winner by the government.
Also the opposition to the Franklin River dam - a dam that would have removed some of Tasmania's dependency on coal-fired power stations in favour of the much cleaner hydro-electric (the dams original purpose). Although the dam was already in the process of being built, environmentalist groups protested it would destroy a portion of the forest around the river and they succeeded in permanently halting the building. The greenies were right but it was a proportionally small area and would have less long-term environmental impact than the continuing use of coal-fired stations does. The federal government went as far as having the air force fly reconnaissance missions over the dam area and in the end, told the Tasmanian state government to halt the dam.


EDIT: Something I meant to mention and forgot at the time. Australia's military during Vietnam.
The Army had large numbers of conscript forces but despite popular portrayal they were not actually under any obligation to serve in Vietnam. At the time, conscripts had an option presented to them:-
1. serve one year full-time service with the possibility their unit could be deployed to Vietnam
2. serve three-years part time service with no deployments outside Australian territory
Many of the conscripts wanted to serve in Vietnam because of the expected mix of "adventurism", patriotism and anti-communist beliefs but also because the combat pay for a year would be enough to buy a house or expensive car.
There were so many conscripts putting pressure on the government to let them serve in Vietnam that some regular Army combat units were held back to allow those units with large conscript numbers to be deployed. My father was subject to this, his regiment was tasked as a training unit and was kept from deploying to Vietnam for a few years so that the regiment would instead train the large volumes of conscripts coming from New South Wales.

[Raellus]

So, if the USA asks for Australia's help in Korea, Australia would presumably help to some extant, correct?

@Olefin: Our idea is that economic difficulties result in a split within the EU and possibly NATO. As the economic/diplomatic outcasts, Spain, Portugal, Italy, and Greece, therefore, don't necessarily feel obligated to assist the Baltic states when the Russians invade, while the rest of NATO does. Perhaps, one or two of the afore mentioned countries could be brought back into the fold, though. Even in a decade or so, a full strength NATO could probably handle the Russians pretty well, but a short-handed NATO would likely have its hands full. Although it's an updated take on the Twilight war based on projections from where the world stand current (IRL), it also kind of keeps with the spirit of v1.0 which, sort of inexplicably for the time, did something similar with Greece and Italy.

Now, what about France. You know they're kind of headstrong and like to believe that they're calling the shots. Do they help NATO defend the Baltic states or do they sit on the sidelines and wait for a winner to emerge?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

In regards to a war in Korea I would say Australia would contribute military forces,
As far as I can find, Australia doesn't have any direct defence treaties with South Korea, we are not bound by any agreement to assist them except through UN committments - if the UN declared it, then Australia would oblige.
but maybe not the same type of forces it contributed in the 1st Korean War or in Vietnam. I don't think they would send infantry as they would only be a small fraction of what the US would send, and they would be under US command. But they would probably send some fighters, warships and support forces and maybe the Australian SAS.
In fact, that's probably the only type of force we'd be able to send as our ground forces are nowhere near the size they were in the 1950s-70s period
However, they would not be under US command. If memory serves me correctly, after the Gallipoli campaign and some other battles in WW1, the Australian government declared that no Australia force would be under foreign command again and instead would always be under Australian command. There are plenty of examples of Australian forces working with foreign forces and being under the command umbrella of those forces but the Australian forces still retain their own command structure and will refer back to Australian HQ/government if they have any issues with tasks given by the allied command.



The Aussie Army is small; equivalent to a US infantry division with the reserve adding another light infantry division. But they use good equipment and they have a sizeable airmobile capability, and their special forces is large for the size of the army. The RAAF is also a good force, new Super Hornets, AEW's, tankers and 28 C-17/C-130H/J transport mix, with the F-35A and the P-8 in the pipeline. The RAN has two helicopter carriers and three Aegis destroyers building, and 12 new submarines and other ships are planned. The carriers are big and can carry 18 helicopters and an infantry battalion, and are fitted with ski-jump ramps which means they can carry US Marine or British F-35B's.
The Australian military (particularly the Army) operates under a philosophy of retaining "core" forces in peacetime to maintain skills and equipment but committing to rapid expansion during wartime - e.g. WW2 and Vietnam.
Many of the current expansion projects support this purpose even though they were purchased under the banner of the Global War on Terrorism e.g the NH90 helicopters, the Canberra class LHDs, enlargement of the SASR. We haven't expanded actual regular force manpower by much particularly in regards to Infantry, Artillery or Armoured units.
In the last decade, the government has held numerous recruiting drives to increase regular forces but so far has not invoked the expansion to the extent seen during Vietnam (and there won't be any conscription unless it's life or death - conscription is a career killer for any political party these days).

At the present time, although the government would like to deploy 12 submarines, there aren't enough volunteers who want to serve in them. It's possible we might have seven or eight fully manned but so far there just aren't enough people willing to be submariners to man all 12.
Unfortunately with the per unit cost of new combat aircraft and the lack of long-term career potential in the RAAF, we don't have many options to increase the size of the air force. We have been progressively buying fewer and fewer fighter aircraft with each replacement e.g. we went from three full squadrons (of Mirage III) to two squadrons when we bought the F/A-18. Same thing has happened with 1st Amroured Regiment with the purchase of the Abrams to replace the Leopard AS1 - 59 Abrams (including variants) to replace 101 Leopards (including variants).

If a commonwealth force was sent to Korea I could see Australia sending some land forces as part of a joint British, Anzac, Canadian and maybe Indian force.
I don't think this is particularly likely. If the UN declared support of South Korea in a war against the North and Australia committed forces to the conflict they would certainly work alongside and with any friendly forces and a joint Commonwealth force under that situation is not outside the realms of possibility but again, Australian forces would retain their own command structure and not be beholden to any other.
Irrespective of whether Commonwealth/former Commonwealth nations decided to assist South Korea, there is no current obligation for Australia to commit military forces.
If the US asked for it and it could be justified under some treaty/defence pact, then Australia would likely send forces but the government would not necessarily join a South Korean operation because other Commonwealth nations had.

[Rainbow Six]

Now, what about France. You know they're kind of headstrong and like to believe that they're calling the shots. Do they help NATO defend the Baltic states or do they sit on the sidelines and wait for a winner to emerge?

I'd say they sit it out. I think it's plausible and it is in keeping with the original T2K timeline. It also deprives NATO of quite a large military contribution, so goes towards the alliance having its hands full dealing with the Russians (obviously the Russians couldn't have known in advance that would happen but dependent on how far in advance they start planning for the invasion of the Baltics they may have been sowing seeds of discontent throughout western Europe for some time).

[RN7]

As far as I can find, Australia doesn't have any direct defence treaties with South Korea, we are not bound by any agreement to assist them except through UN committments - if the UN declared it, then Australia would oblige.

None with NATO either but they still sent a large force to Afghanistan.

In fact, that's probably the only type of force we'd be able to send as our ground forces are nowhere near the size they were in the 1950s-70s period However, they would not be under US command. If memory serves me correctly, after the Gallipoli campaign and some other battles in WW1, the Australian government declared that no Australia force would be under foreign command again and instead would always be under Australian command. There are plenty of examples of Australian forces working with foreign forces and being under the command umbrella of those forces but the Australian forces still retain their own command structure and will refer back to Australian HQ/government if they have any issues with tasks given by the allied command.

I was sort of implying this.

The Australian military (particularly the Army) operates under a philosophy of retaining "core" forces in peacetime to maintain skills and equipment but committing to rapid expansion during wartime - e.g. WW2 and Vietnam. Many of the current expansion projects support this purpose even though they were purchased under the banner of the Global War on Terrorism e.g the NH90 helicopters, the Canberra class LHDs, enlargement of the SASR. We haven't expanded actual regular force manpower by much particularly in regards to Infantry, Artillery or Armoured units. In the last decade, the government has held numerous recruiting drives to increase regular forces but so far has not invoked the expansion to the extent seen during Vietnam (and there won't be any conscription unless it's life or death - conscription is a career killer for any political party these days).

At the present time, although the government would like to deploy 12 submarines, there aren't enough volunteers who want to serve in them. It's possible we might have seven or eight fully manned but so far there just aren't enough people willing to be submariners to man all 12.
Unfortunately with the per unit cost of new combat aircraft and the lack of long-term career potential in the RAAF, we don't have many options to increase the size of the air force. We have been progressively buying fewer and fewer fighter aircraft with each replacement e.g. we went from three full squadrons (of Mirage III) to two squadrons when we bought the F/A-18. Same thing has happened with 1st Amroured Regiment with the purchase of the Abrams to replace the Leopard AS1 - 59 Abrams (including variants) to replace 101 Leopards (including variants).

Still its a major jump over the capabilities they have had over the past 40 years and the willingness of what the Australian government was prepared to give them. There is even talk of Australia buying Virginia Class SSN's at the mo, couldn't see it happening but it is a major turn around in Australia's defence outlook.


I don't think this is particularly likely. If the UN declared support of South Korea in a war against the North and Australia committed forces to the conflict they would certainly work alongside and with any friendly forces and a joint Commonwealth force under that situation is not outside the realms of possibility but again, Australian forces would retain their own command structure and not be beholden to any other.
Irrespective of whether Commonwealth/former Commonwealth nations decided to assist South Korea, there is no current obligation for Australia to commit military forces.
If the US asked for it and it could be justified under some treaty/defence pact, then Australia would likely send forces but the government would not necessarily join a South Korean operation because other Commonwealth nations had.

Unless Australia was directly threatened or attacked by the North Koreans its the only way I could see the Aussies sending infantry to Korea. A brigade sized force would probably remain under Australian command.

[kato13]

One thing I think we have to remember if we are following the spirit of the original game. You sometimes include things that don't make complete sense to give a greater variety of potential for combat.

Logically I don't like the Soviets in Alaska, Washington and Southern Texas, but if they were not there someone solely running an North American campaign would have no use for the Soviet Vehicle Handbook.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

None with NATO either but they still sent a large force to Afghanistan.
For Australia, Afghanistan was Global War on Terrorism part 2. We committed forces because the US asked us to and under the actions against Al Quaeda previously established via ANZUS, we agreed.

There is even talk of Australia buying Virginia Class SSN's at the mo, couldn't see it happening but it is a major turn around in Australia's defence outlook.
There was serious discussion in government about nuclear power for the next generation of subs due to China's continuing upgrade of its military capacity. However a government decision in 2012 ruled out this option. Unless a radical change comes about, Australia's next class of submarine will have conventional power. To quote the report “All options are being considered other than nuclear propulsion which the government has ruled out.”

However, in a Twilight: 2030 timeline with a Chinese government in a more threatening posture (the initial reason the government considered nuclear powered subs) or with an antagonistic Indonesia, SSNs could be part of a mixed sub fleet. Part of the Australian desire to maintain conventional subs is because of the stealth factor - conventional subs can shutdown noisy systems but SSNs cannot, their powerplants must be kept on.

There's also the possibility of Australia acting against Indonesia through the Five Power Defence Arrangements. If Indonesia were to threaten Malaysia (again) or Singapore, the FPDA could be invoked to bring UK, NZ and Australia military action against Indonesia.

Unless Australia was directly threatened or attacked by the North Koreans its the only way I could see the Aussies sending infantry to Korea. A brigade sized force would probably remain under Australian command.
Aside from the UN calling for military action, there's also the likelihood that if North Korea attacked the US, the US government could invoke ANZUS to get Australian involvement (or we might invoke it ourselves).
As mentioned before though, although Australian forces might be placed under another nations command structure for joint operations, any Australian force deployed anywhere in the world for whatever reason will always retain Australian command authority. Any Australian unit operating under the command structure of an ally can refuse orders from that ally if the Australian unit commander believes it is against Australian interests.
Gallipoli left a very bad taste and the insult to Australian troops in WW2 by MacArthur with his directive that any victory by Australian forces under his command be written up as an "Allied victory" rather than Australian sure as hell didn't help.

[Olefin]

One thing I think we have to remember if we are following the spirit of the original game. You sometimes include things that don't make complete sense to give a greater variety of potential for combat.

Logically I don't like the Soviets in Alaska, Washington and Southern Texas, but if they were not there someone solely running an North American campaign would have no use for the Soviet Vehicle Handbook.

Well I think they were there for more than just that reason - and given that reasoning if you dont go up to Canada then you dont need the NATO book either - i.e. you wont see any NATO vehicles

was there ever a book that detailed the vehicles of the Italian Army by the way?

[kato13]

Well I think they were there for more than just that reason - and given that reasoning if you dont go up to Canada then you dont need the NATO book either - i.e. you wont see any NATO vehicles

was there ever a book that detailed the vehicles of the Italian Army by the way?

I agree it was not the only reason, but it makes sense from a business standpoint. Adding the Soviets as an enemy within the US was a lot of fun.

I don't remember if canon Mexican forces have any French vehicles, but I'm pretty sure they did IRL, so that gets you some NATO vehicles on the southern border as well.

[Rainbow Six]

Aside from the UN calling for military action, there's also the likelihood that if North Korea attacked the US, the US government could invoke ANZUS to get Australian involvement (or we might invoke it ourselves).

So if I'm reading this correctly is the most likely route for Australian involvement in an Asian War as a result of a North Korean attack on US forces in South Korea leading to an invocation of the ANZUS treaty?

There's also the possibility of Australia acting against Indonesia through the Five Power Defence Arrangements. If Indonesia were to threaten Malaysia (again) or Singapore, the FPDA could be invoked to bring UK, NZ and Australia military action against Indonesia.

The UK Parliament is on record as saying the FPDA has no "specific commitment to intervene militarily" and merely requires the signatories to "consult immediately" in the event of an attack (or threat of attack) on Peninsular Malaysia or Singapore so UK interpretation at least would seem to be that such an attack would not automatically lead to a military intervention.

[Rainbow Six]

was there ever a book that detailed the vehicles of the Italian Army by the way?

Not specifically. The only guides were the US, Soviet, and NATO ones. I'm fairly sure the only publication that went into any sort of detail was Going Home, which listed the strengths and locations of several Italian Divisions (three if I recall correctly, but I'm going from meory so could be wrong). There was a Challenge magazine that had an article about Italy written for T:2300 which added some detail (for example that the Pope had gone to Perugia).

[Olefin]

Actually surprised they never put out details on their vehicles as you would have figured that either NATO units or US units that fought against them would have captured some of them - or that the Folgore Division, having declared for NATO would thus give them a reason to add them. And Italy has some very interesting vehicles that are unique to them.

Kato - you are right about the Mexican forces having some French vehicles - they had some armored cars and APC's that were part of the Texas module - and an official Mexican Army vehicle guide would have been very interesting indeed - especially for a North American campaign - face it they are in the whole Southwest and probably had some of their advanced patrols get as far as Oklahoma and Arkansas before they got stopped.

And even if you dont use the Texas module, the Satellite Down module is definitely one that getting home may require a long walk thru both Mexico and occupied America to get home.

Anyone ever ask Frank Frey if they were planning more vehicle supplements for Mexico or Italy or China and never got around to them?

[Raellus]

One thing I think we have to remember if we are following the spirit of the original game. You sometimes include things that don't make complete sense to give a greater variety of potential for combat.

That's exactly what I'm going for. I want to keep elements of the original game but produce an updated setting so that I can incorporate more modern gear. I think that we can keep a lot similar in Europe but in Asia, with China on the other side this time, the changes will be significant.

Logically I don't like the Soviets in Alaska, Washington and Southern Texas, but if they were not there someone solely running an North American campaign would have no use for the Soviet Vehicle Handbook.

Agreed. I haven't thought of a plausible way to do this, though. I can see how the designers could have thought it possible in the early 1980s but now, or in 10-15 years, I don't think anyone believes that the Russians could pull something like that off.

Could the Chinese, though? Probably not. Not with their current or even projected amphibious/sealift capabilities. And not with Japan in the way, either.

So, I'm thinking a gradual collapse of the U.S. federal system after the war goes nuclear, and I'm thinking about an opportunistic land grab by Mexico as well. That should create the degree of chaos in the CONUS that will facilitate gameplay in the States as well.

Any other ideas of how we could plausible mess with the U.S. looking forward about 15 years?

[Targan]

Any other ideas of how we could plausible mess with the U.S. looking forward about 15 years?

Biological warfare. One option (the less likely IMO) would be a genetically-engineered pathogen developed by the Chinese that targets people with certain non-Asian haplomarkers, or perhaps specific caucasoid haplomarkers. Another option would be a pathogen spread by some organism only (or mostly) found in North America (the red squirrel for instance).

Either of those options would reduce the risks to the Chinese if they released the pathogen. By my understanding of genetic engineering, option one would be considerably more difficult than option two due to the tiny genetic differences between human ethnicities.

[kato13]

Agreed. I haven't thought of a plausible way to do this, though. I can see how the designers could have thought it possible in the early 1980s but now, or in 10-15 years, I don't think anyone believes that the Russians could pull something like that off.

Could the Chinese, though? Probably not. Not with their current or even projected amphibious/sealift capabilities. And not with Japan in the way, either.

So, I'm thinking a gradual collapse of the U.S. federal system after the war goes nuclear, and I'm thinking about an opportunistic land grab by Mexico as well. That should create the degree of chaos in the CONUS that will facilitate gameplay in the States as well.

Any other ideas of how we could plausible mess with the U.S. looking forward about 15 years?

I never saw the new Red Dawn (given how much I loved the first one that shocks me), but maybe there are some ideas there.

In regards to getting foreign troops into the US, every option I can think of involves Mexico

Perhaps Mexico devolves into drug cartel fueled chaos and either the Russians or Chinese somehow convince the Govt that they can provide peacekeepers.

Or maybe the Chinese invest heavily in Mexico and send "guards" to protect their facilities and staff. That at least gives them a foothold in North America.

You could have the drug cartels buy weapons from the Russians (or DPRK) as well.

[Rainbow Six]

I think a Mexican strike into the southern US as per the original timeline is probably plausable enough. And as Kato said, would be good to try and involve the drugs cartels, perhaps in an alliance of convenience with the Mexican Armed Forces.

In the run up to hostilities both Russia and China could certainly infilitrate small groups of Special Forces or Intelligence Officers, but I'm struggling to think of a single realistic senario that would put large bodies of Russian or Chinese troops on the ground in the United States.

A quick search of the net this morning has thrown up a couple of articles about the possibility of the Russians being interested in establishing military bases in Nicaragua and / or Venezeula. I don't know how credible these reports are IRL but could you use one of those options in T2030? Perhaps the Russians have a presence in Venezeula which takes the role of the original Division Cuba...i.e. after the nukes start flying the Venzeuelans want the Russians out before the Americans decide to nuke them so tey end up in Mexico as Division Caracas...from there it's into Texas?

Looking at a map they would have to go through Panama so not sure how practical that suggestion is, but at the very least you could end up with an additional front as Venzuelan based Russians fight US forces who have been sent to secure the Panana Canal? If you use Nicaragua they're already north of the Panama Canal. Or you could use both...

I think a large scale Chinese military presence is a no though, unless, as Kato suggested, you can come up with a realistic reason for Chinese troops to be in Mexico before the start of hostilities (I rather doubt the United States Navy would allow a Chinese troop convoy to sail from China to Mexico unchallenged once the shooting starts), but to be honest that sounds a bit too "Hollywood" to me...even before the War starts how is the United States going to react to a Chinese military build up on its southern border? I can't see them sitting doing nothing as Chinese troops flood into Mexico.

I just can't see a large scale, multi front invasion of the USA by foreign powers(plural) as being realistic beyond a limited incursion by Russian forces from long established bases in Central / South America in conjunction with the Mexicans.

[Olefin]

remember too in Red Dawn the invasion was helped by Mexican infiltrators who came in as illegal aliens and caused all kinds of problems at SAC bases during the initial invasion - you could see that for sure happening in 2030 but now its all over the Southwest and even further afield with how Mexican illegal alien workers are used in the US

so a Mexican invasion once the US was massively committed overseas is actually more plausible now than it was in the 1980's when the game was written

[Raellus]

Thanks for all of the input, guys. You've helped me come up with something that I think approaches plausibility.

How about this? Starting in 2015, in response to Russian annexation of Eastern Ukraine (I think it's safe to say now that the writing is on the wall), the U.S. negotiates permanent military base deals with Poland and the Baltic republics. As a tit-for-tat response, the Soviets negotiate base deals in Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, starting later that year. That place as least some Russian military elements in the western hemisphere not too too far from the United States.

Later, as war breaks out in Asia between China and the U.S., prior to a planned Russian invasion of the Baltics, the Russians convince Mexico to take advantage of America's overextension overseas by attempting to regain the American southwest by force. The Russians provide direct military support- a new "Division Cuba", if you will- to the Mexicans. I bet that the Russians could cobble together at least a division from their personnel presited on their Latin American bases.

[Rainbow Six]

Rae, that sounds credible...just two thoughts

1. A US base in Poland fits well with the scenario and I like the idea of Russian bases in the Western hemisphere as a tit for tat measure, but I wonder if the US basing forces in the Baltic States might be enough to potentially prevent the Russians from invading? (I was thinking along the lines that the Russians go for the Baltics because they think NATO will let ultimately them get away with it - the presence of US troops permanently based - and thus demonstrating NATO's commitment to the Baltic States - there might be enough of a deterrent to make the Russians think twice about invading, which removes the whole flashpoint for the European War).

2. I can understand the Russians wanting to destabilise the US even more before they make their move but if the Mexicans attack the US with direct and overt Russian support before the War starts in Europe that's a direct attack on the most powerful NATO member. Again I think that goes against the Russians calculating that a fractured NATO will stand by whilst they try to make a land grab for the Baltics...going only for the Baltics they can downplay their hand and play all their propaganda cards...the Russian Ambassador to the UN is on every news channel telling anyone that will listen that Russia does not seek conflict with the West, their intentions are peaceful, designed only to protect Russian speakers from oppression, etc, etc.

If they have invaded the US all of that goes out of the window. They are in a full scale War which isn't what they gambled on.

Therefore I wonder if a better scenario might be to mirror what happened in the original timeline, i.e. have the Mexican invasion happen some considerable time after the fighting starts in Asia and Europe and be more something that happens as a reaction to unfolding events, perhaps after riots at one of the US / Mexican border crossings that are suppressed by authorities on the US side with significant loss of Mexican life rather than something that is planned well in advance?

[Olefin]

I agree with Rainbow as to the timing of any Mexican invasion of the US - sneaking in agents or provaceteurs is one thing - but for the Mexicans to think they have any chance of success they have to wait until the US is totally committed elsehwere and at most they are facing training troops, National Guard infantry units and police forces, and a very limited Air Force contingent - otherwise they would get butchered very quickly

i.e. in the original game it succeeded because the US had to scrape up forces to face them - and even then it came close to failure - if the Russians hadnt committed Division Cuba most likely the US 1999 counteroffensive into Texas would have succeeded and driven the Mexicans out - plus there were almost no Air Force units left to face them and those that were left had very little fuel to do more than a few missions due to the Russian nuke strikes

A USAF with its full fuel reserves available would crush any possible Mexican invasion force short of the one from Red Dawn (500,000 men if I remember right) in short order

[Raellus]

Yeah, I wasn't clear on the timing. A Mexican invasion would happen after the U.S. was committed to major military campaigns in Asia and in Europe. Only after the U.S. was engaged vs. Russia in the Baltics would the Mexicans opt to invade. But the Russians would be planting the seeds before an invasion, and would already have at least some combat troops in theater to support the Mexicans when they made their big move.

Barring a reverse in American budgetary policy and military strategy, in 15 years, a country committed to fighting the Chinese and North Koreans (at least) in Asia and Russia in Europe would be incredibly overstretched and vulnerable to a cunning and opportunitic Mexico.

And I don't think that you could count on the degree of public support for war here in the States that something like Pearl Harbor engendered because, like Rainbow, I don't think that either the Chinese or the Russians would be foolish enough to attack [first] U.S. assets directly. I can see a lot of the American public not getting behind full mobilization because of the "it's not our fight/we've got our own problems to deal with", quasi-isolationist mentality prevelant here prior to both previous World Wars. This would be especially so given a couple of preceding years of economic strife here. In fact, I could even see a backlash against our involvement in overseas conflicts against major powers. Any war against both China and Russia would require full mobilization (the draft, industrial conversion, rationing, etc.). We're talking total war again. In both World Wars, the federal government grew and new government agencies arose to mobilize the economy, galvanize public support, and repress all dissent.

Could full mobilization trigger a spate of anti-federalist militias and neo-States' Rights groups (i.e. "New America" in the original versions of the game) and such attempting to secede in response to what they see as an unnecessary war and an ensuing overreach of federal power? Given today's political climate here (exemplified by the recent showdown between a Nevada rancher and the federal gov.), I very well could see something like that.

I don't know. This is a bit pessimistic, I know. Is this too much or does it work, given what we've already established?

[Olefin]

keep in mind even during WWII by late 1944 there was a lot of oppostion to the war - especially as casualties mounted in Europe and the Pacific - one of the reasons they dropped the bomb on Japan was that Truman was worried that any invasion could possibly provoke widespread anti-war feeling and force him to scrap unconditional surrender for a negotiated peace

so heck yes - after a year or so or more of big time casualties, a draft and privation there could be a lot of opposition to the war

look at 9/11 - the attacks on Afghanistan within a few weeks were totally supported by the US population - by the time of the Iraq War you could already see how opposed much of the population was and by 2006 the President's party was thrown out of power only two years after an election when they had made gains in both the House and Senate - so could a war 18 months or so long start having American opposition groups - especially if things fall apart from nukes?

for sure

[Cdnwolf]

keep in mind even during WWII by late 1944 there was a lot of oppostion to the war - especially as casualties mounted in Europe and the Pacific - one of the reasons they dropped the bomb on Japan was that Truman was worried that any invasion could possibly provoke widespread anti-war feeling and force him to scrap unconditional surrender for a negotiated peace

so heck yes - after a year or so or more of big time casualties, a draft and privation there could be a lot of opposition to the war

look at 9/11 - the attacks on Afghanistan within a few weeks were totally supported by the US population - by the time of the Iraq War you could already see how opposed much of the population was and by 2006 the President's party was thrown out of power only two years after an election when they had made gains in both the House and Senate - so could a war 18 months or so long start having American opposition groups - especially if things fall apart from nukes?

for sure

Throw in some money flowing from anonymous sources to some of the local militia groups and maybe put pressure on China to tighten up its markets so USA spirals into financial anarchy... Some food riots and maybe a major city or two going bankrupt. (Detroit) Lay off the police and firefighters and other essential services... throw in some race riots... America will be too busy trying to keep its internal affairs until control to help out in Europe.

[Raellus]

Here's a slightly updated, revised version of the timeline.

2014:

Eastern Ukrainian separatists, with covert support from Russian special forces, seize control of the region, repelling several attempts by Ukrainian military forces to restore order, and organizing a referendum on secession. The vote is overwhelmingly in favor of separation.
2015:

Despite continued protests from Kiev, Eastern Ukraine votes to join the Russian federation. Russia continues to foment separatist dissent in Moldova and Georgia.
2015-2016:

The United States brokers deals with Poland and Latvia to base American and NATO troops there on a semi-permanent basis. In response, Russia begins negotiating the placement of Russian military bases in Venezuela and Nicaragua.

2020-2024:

The Chinese economy sees several consecutive years of rapidly slowing growth. Domestic energy production is unable to match demand. Economic reforms show minimal positive impact. Social unrest looms.
Austerity measures fail in Southern Europe. General strikes and riots paralyze the affected nations. Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal request another round of bailouts from the EU, while political radicals in those countries call for withdrawal from the Eurozone.
The U.S. economy dips into a mild recession.

2025:

China, hoping to rally the populace behind a nationalistic military enterprise, seizes islands/offshore oil fields in the Spratly chain long claimed by Vietnam. The Vietnamese navy is thrashed by the PLN as they gamely attempt to defend the islands. A short border war on land ensues which China wins decisively.
The U.S. and its regional allies protest vociferously but make no move to support Vietnam by direct military intervention. Economic sanctions against China are quickly enacted. The UN brokers a ceasefire but the Chinese refuse to relinquish their territorial gains in the Spratys. The U.S. pledges military support to Malaysia and the Philippines, should the Chinese attempt to continue their conquest of the Spratly island chain. The U.S. also enters into talks with Vietnam, precursor to a formal military alliance between the two former foes.
India is alarmed by Chinese militarism and is one of the PRC's most vocal critics.

2026:

The short war contributes to a global economic recession, as sanctions end up hurting the west more than they hurt China.
The economies of southern Europe are on the verge of collapse. The wealthier nations of Europe, after much debate, decide to cut the debtor nations loose. France is one of the most vocal opponents of this decision.
Russia makes diplomatic/economic overtures to the recent outcasts, including offering Russian-subsidized gas.
China strengthens economic and military ties with Pakistan, Myanmar, and Indonesia. Secretly, China tacitly agrees not to oppose a North Korean attempt to reunify the Korean peninsula.


2027:

An ailing Kim Jong Un orders a surprise invasion of South Korea. The U.S. and its regional allies, including Japan, rally to the ROK's defense.
With NATO compromised by the contraction of the EU, and the U.S. occupied with a full-blown war in Korea, Russia makes its play for the Baltic states, starting with an invasion of Estonia.
NATO invokes article 5 and prepares to reinforce its forces already in place in Poland and Latvia.
The U.S., already overstretched, reinstitutes the draft.
China, having already done the groundwork in anticipation of just such an opportunity, takes advantage of the situation by attacking Taiwan in preparation for a long-planned invasion.
Indonesia, prompted by China, launches an invasion of Papua New Guinea.
Pakistan and India resume fighting over Kashmir.


WWIII begins in earnest in 2027.

2029:

After two years of intense fighting in Asia and northeastern Europe, the U.S. is already showing the strain.
Russia has been pushing Mexico to invade the southwestern U.S. since the commencement of hostilities with NATO. Recognizing American weakness, and with the backing of Russian forces based in Latin America (roughly a reinforced, combined arms division), and elements from the Venezuelan, Nicaraguan, and Cuban militaries, Mexican and allied troops cross the border into Southern California, Arizona, and Texas.


-

I'm not very happy with the progression of the war in Asia. I think I'm going to switch to a start-small, piecemeal Chinese expansion approach, similar to the long-game Russia is playing, starting with the Vietnam and expand it from there. Even in 15 years, the Chinese are probably not going to be able to successfully retake Taiwan without first destroying it. I think that the rest of the Spratlys are they key, but I'm not sure how aggressive the Chinese would play prior to a major diversion of U.S. force and focus (i.e. Korea). Then again, I think that North Korea would be more inclined to risk everything on a gamble to seize the south after the U.S. displayed some kind of weakness in the region. Would successful Chinese seizure of Vietnam's Spratly claims be enough?

-

[Targan]

Well, one good thing about a US-China war - the US doesn't have to worry about all that US debt held by China. It would basically make it null and void wouldn't it?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

China against the USA - another idea.

While the new version of Red Dawn is interesting enough I think a better possibility is a movie that was certainly little heard of in Australia (and maybe so in other countries).
It's a low budget movie (funded on IndieGoGo) called "Dragon Day" and uses the premise that the US is unable/unwilling to repay its debt to China and then... "if you borrow money to buy a house and you can't repay the loan, the bank takes possession of the house"... in this case, China is coming to take possession of the USA.

I'll put a spoiler at the bottom so I don't reveal anything more for those who want to watch it without knowing what happens but take note that the trailer also reveals part of the story plot.

Trailer on youtube - some plot spoilers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l70t-dLIrS4

IMDB entry
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1772262/


-- SPOILER - mouse over to highlight --
China has been supplying all the IC chips for electronics in common use, they have installed a programme on the chips to allow them to control or sabotage the device the chip is installed in. They activate the programme and cause governmental, defence and societal breakdown and then just sort of walk on in and take over by only offering relief supplies to those who join them.
-- END OF SPOILER --
Review with plot spoilers
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/10/dragon_day_red_dawn_for_intellectuals.html

[Rainbow Six]

And I don't think that you could count on the degree of public support for war here in the States that something like Pearl Harbor engendered because, like Rainbow, I don't think that either the Chinese or the Russians would be foolish enough to attack [first] U.S. assets directly. I can see a lot of the American public not getting behind full mobilization because of the "it's not our fight/we've got our own problems to deal with", quasi-isolationist mentality prevelant here prior to both previous World Wars. This would be especially so given a couple of preceding years of economic strife here. In fact, I could even see a backlash against our involvement in overseas conflicts against major powers. Any war against both China and Russia would require full mobilization (the draft, industrial conversion, rationing, etc.). We're talking total war again. In both World Wars, the federal government grew and new government agencies arose to mobilize the economy, galvanize public support, and repress all dissent.

Could full mobilization trigger a spate of anti-federalist militias and neo-States' Rights groups (i.e. "New America" in the original versions of the game) and such attempting to secede in response to what they see as an unnecessary war and an ensuing overreach of federal power? Given today's political climate here (exemplified by the recent showdown between a Nevada rancher and the federal gov.), I very well could see something like that.

I don't know. This is a bit pessimistic, I know. Is this too much or does it work, given what we've already established?

I think it's a good idea and would mix things up a bit in the US.

A few other thoughts...



The United States brokers deals with Poland and Latvia to base American and NATO troops there on a semi-permanent basis. In response, Russia begins negotiating the placement of Russian military bases in Venezuela and Nicaragua.


I'm still wary about a US base in the Baltics...I think part of the logic behind the Russians thinking they can get away with taking the Baltics is that they think NATO will not go to War to defend the Baltic States. A US base in Latvia at least partially negates that line of thinking


2029:

Russia has been pushing Mexico to invade the southwestern U.S. since the commencement of hostilities with NATO. Recognizing American weakness, and with the backing of Russian forces based in Latin America (roughly a reinforced, combined arms division), and elements from the Venezuelan, Nicaraguan, and Cuban militaries, Mexican and allied troops cross the border into Southern California, Arizona, and Texas.



Sorry, but I'm not sure about of parts of this. It's two years into the War...have things gone nuclear by then? Is it likely that the Russians and their Latam allies would have the logistical wherewithal to move a force that large north (it's about 3,000 kilometres from Mangua. Nicaragua to McAllen, Texas and closer to 5,000 from Caracas, Venezuela to McAllen)? If that level of logistics is still in place wouldn't the US notice such a large movement, come to the inescapable conclusion that there's only one place such a large force moving north could be headed for and drop a few nukes on them somewhere north of Managua? I just can't see a situation where the other side still have the means to move such a large force over relatively large distances at land or sea and things in the US are that bad that the US doesn't have the means to know they're coming and do something about it. If it's before nukes are first used then the US Air Force can bomb them all the way through Central America or attack their ships if they come by sea (if the Navy doesn't get them first).

If I remember correctly the original Division Cuba came into being because the Cubans were crapping themselves that the Americans would nuke them because of the Russian presence so they wanted the Russians out. That coincided with the Mexican invasion of the US. which happened not as part of an organised plan to attack the US but as a response to escalating violence in the southwestern States which (by implication at least) was causing casualties amongst Mexican civilians.

I very much favour the idea of the US - Mexican War being a war that happens almost by accident; as the rest of the World is going down the toilet tensions boil over along the border...food is in short supply, there are tensions between US citizens and Mexican immigrants (many of whom are illegal), the US has little to no regular armed forces in the area, just an ad hoc mix of reserves, police, and the border patrol, all supplemented by local militias. Things get out of hand, there's a massacre of Mexican civilians at the Gateway Bridge in Matamoros / Brownsville - nobody's really sure who started it, each side blames the other, the Mexican Army are sent to the border with orders to stay on their side but things just get out of hand and within days the Mexican Army have crossed the RIo Grande. At this point the Cubans act as they did in the original V1 timeline and suggest to their Russian guests that now might be a good time to leave and the Mexican Government are offering them passage home in exchange for a little detour so they ship out on a couple of Cuban flagged ships, praying that what's left of the US Navy in the Caribbean doesn't intercept them...the Nicaraguans jump on the same bandwagon and the Russians based there go overland...all militaries are smaller now than they were in the original T2K...700 men from Cuba and 300 from Nicaragua would put less strain on the logistics and still deliver a meaningful force on to US soil.

I also think there's an alternative option for Russian forces in Nicaragua and Venezuela, which is to make a grab for the Panama Canal (am I right in thinking that the US no longer has any forces permanently stationed in Panama)? A VDV assault on the canal zone early in the War staging out of Venezuela and / or Nicaragua might be an interesting scenario, and one that would open a Central American front much faster than any of the above scenarios.


I'm not very happy with the progression of the war in Asia. I think I'm going to switch to a start-small, piecemeal Chinese expansion approach, similar to the long-game Russia is playing, starting with the Vietnam and expand it from there. Even in 15 years, the Chinese are probably not going to be able to successfully retake Taiwan without first destroying it. I think that the rest of the Spratlys are they key, but I'm not sure how aggressive the Chinese would play prior to a major diversion of U.S. force and focus (i.e. Korea). Then again, I think that North Korea would be more inclined to risk everything on a gamble to seize the south after the U.S. displayed some kind of weakness in the region. Would successful Chinese seizure of Vietnam's Spratly claims be enough?

-

I think it partly depends on what sort of alliance - if any - the Americans and Vietnamese have. If there is some sort of alliance in place - even if just diplomatic rather than overtly military - and the Americans take no tangible action following a Chinese seizure of the Spratlys that might serve as the incentive that the North Koreans need to make their move. Perhaps coupled with the Chinese reassuring their North Korean clients that the US will take no action because it would screw up the US economy. If we accept that the North Koreans have their own functional nukes by then as well that trinity may give the North Koreans the confidence they need to think they can pull off a successful conquest of the South.

[Raellus]

Rainbow, I see your point about the U.S. detecting a large troop movement heading from central America towards the border. It's a valid concern. The Chinese are believed to have an anti-satellite capability already and so maybe that could explain the U.S.'s inability to detect the approaching threat. Although I forgot to put it into the timeline, I'd also been thinking that the war had started to go nuclear by then. All of that said, I like your explanation of how the war with Mexico gets started, and I also like your idea of the Russian's seizure of Panama. I think your scenarios are more plausible overall. I am torn, though- I do like the idea of a large Russian unit operating on American soil. I'll have to think more about how to accomplish this in a more realistic way.

I also see your point regarding Latvia. It just seems likely that the U.S. is headed in that direction now, even before the Russians annex Eastern Ukraine. I could be persuaded not to base U.S. troops there. I suppose basing U.S./NATO troops in the Baltics could be seen as an escalation in U.S.-Russian relations and I suppose a major base in Poland would be still be reassuring to our Baltic NATO allies. At any rate, when the Russians do invade the Baltics, the U.S. is already heavily committed to major combat operations in East Asia. But, your concern is definitely valid. Maybe NATO doesn't have a permanent military presence in Latvia, but only steps up the number of joint exercises that it conducts there. By the time Russia makes its move, there are no major NATO units in the Baltics. Does that work better?

I'm not sure where the major ground fighting involving the Chinese would occur. So far, we've got a green water naval war going, and perhaps renewed land combat against the Vietnamese. Should that be the focus? Should we also posit a collapse of the NK forces, necessitating yet another Chinese intervention there? That seems likely should the NK show major signs of weakness.

We also need to start thinking about how to drag the Middle East into WWIII. I'm not sure the U.S. would be able to sustain any significant presence there if it was also fighting both China and Russia. Syria seems a likely axis for a regional war. It would get Turkey involved which would open up opportunities for Russia and perhaps even Greece to seize disputed territories in the region.

And how and when does this WWIII go nuclear? I'm kind of thinking that the U.S. might be the first to use nuclear weapons, probably tac-nukes, likely starting in the fighting against the Chinese. Or, do we pin the very first strikes on North Korea?

[Rainbow Six]

I do like the idea of a large Russian unit operating on American soil. I'll have to think more about how to accomplish this in a more realistic way.

Rae, I am on my way out the door right now so this is just a quick post...I'll come back to you with some thoughts on some of the other stuff later...but re: having a large Russian presence on US soil have you thought about an invasion of Alaska as per the original time line? I know the idea has been slated on the boards before, but is it a plausible - if unlikely - option?

And I do think what you're proposing about joint exercises but no permanent NATO presence in the Baltics works better for the T2030 scenario...

Cheers

[Targan]

And how and when does this WWIII go nuclear? I'm kind of thinking that the U.S. might be the first to use nuclear weapons, probably tac-nukes, likely starting in the fighting against the Chinese. Or, do we pin the very first strikes on North Korea?

NK and/or Iran seem like realistic early nuke-users to me.

[Cdnwolf]

Here is some of my ideas...

Rainbow, I see your point about the U.S. detecting a large troop movement heading from central America towards the border.

What if they are already here? Illegal immigrants were really commando troops sent across to prep for invasion. Home Depot parking lots are their gathering place. Truck pulls up to recruit and instead is full of weapons. Mexican disguised as cleaners overnight sabotages major key facilities.

It's a valid concern. The Chinese are believed to have an anti-satellite capability already and so maybe that could explain the U.S.'s inability to detect the approaching threat.

The anti-satellite technology doesn't have to be all that fancy. Image a bunch of satellites position in front of the path of US satellites suddenly opening up and thousands of baseball size metal balls come out. The damage they can do is catastrophic.

Although I forgot to put it into the timeline, I'd also been thinking that the war had started to go nuclear by then. All of that said, I like your explanation of how the war with Mexico gets started, and I also like your idea of the Russian's seizure of Panama. I think your scenarios are more plausible overall. I am torn, though- I do like the idea of a large Russian unit operating on American soil. I'll have to think more about how to accomplish this in a more realistic way.

[Rainbow Six]

OK, a few more thoughts

Revisiting a Russian invasion of Alaska
As I said in an earlier post, this is an aspect of the original timeline that I seem to recall has come in for heavy criticism in some parts, based iirc on the theory that the US Navy would blow any approaching Russian fleet out of the water. But it was part of the original timeline, so if we're trying to reboot that I think it would a good idea to try and work it in.

However, this scenario posits that much of the US Pacific Fleet will be committed against the Chinese, so that might limit the US Navy's ability to intervene. And the Russians are buying nice new amphibious assault ships from the French - the deal is done for two and two more are on option, each of which can carry up to 900 troops. So let's assume that if two go to the Russian Pacific Fleet including VDV's the Russians have the capacity to get 2,000+ troops ashore in Alaska initially(and reasonably high quality troops at that), with more in a follow up capacity (assuming their transports aren't destroyed during the first wave).

Is it feasible? I think maybe it is. Why would they invade? Blow up some oil pipelines? National prestige, to show that they can put boots on US soil? (I like this one...it sounds like the sort of thing that Putin might do). If 2,000 Russian troops is too disproportionately large a force (i.e. it would steamroller any potential US / Canadian opposition) we can sink one of the ships en route. The other still gets through, lands its Naval Infantry, who link up with VDV's and Spetznaz who have already been airdropped. Maybe the second one gets sunk on the way back and ends up just outside Anchorage Harbour with several large holes in its hull and only the top of its island sticking out of the water. Some of the ship's company make it ashore with what they can salvage from the ship and link up with the troops. With both landing ships out of commission bang goes any reinforcement, resupply - good luck comrade, you're on your own...

If you want a bigger force let them land both ships and let the ships bring in a second wave before they go down. You've now got 4,000 Russians ashore, with vehicles and tanks. But they're strangers in a strange land. They've got US troops at Fort Wainwright coming after them, they've got a US / Canadian force coming from the south, and the locals are taking pot shots at them. If you'd rather have them in the contiguous United States let them drive all the way through to Washington State before they're halted and Seattle finds itself on the front line...

(If you're taking them as far as Washington State the same points I raised earlier about the US spotting them and trying to do something about it come into play, but the US may be less eager to nuke Canadian soil than it would be Nicaraguan, especially if the Russians have taken hostages and are using Canadian and American civilians as human shields)

The only other thing that crossed my mind was the Russians in Cuba making the short crossing to Florida, but I can;t think of a single plausible reason why they would want to do that.

The Middle East
My initial thought was of an alliance forming between Iran, Syria, and Iraq during the first half of the 2020's, not necessarily anything formal, more an understanding amongst like minded Governments (presume we are agreed that Bashir eventually comes out on top in the Syrian civil War?). I posited earlier in the thread that Iran's nuclear sites might be the target of an Israel air strike within the next few years, which I think is plausible, the outcome of which sets Iran's nuclear ambitions back approx ten years (i.e. coinciding with the start of WW3).

I would suggest that after WW3 has started (so after NATO commits in the Balkans) Iran, Iraq, and Syria launch an opportunistic joint attack against Israel. But I don't know how it would be likely to play out because I think there a strong possibility that if one side was gaining the upper hand the other side might use nukes (assuming the Iranians have the capability). In other words, if the Israelis hold their line and then push the invaders back the Iranians will nuke Tel Aviv. If, on the other hand, the Iranian led forces break through the Israelis will use the Samson option and nuke Tehran, Baghdad, and Damascus (and possibly a few other places as well).

Putting the nuclear option to one side for the moment, I also don't know what the Gulf States (Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc) would do when the Iranians first launched their attack on Israel. There is no love lost between the Saudis and the Iranians, so I can't see the Saudis being happy about a potential Iranian victory, which would raise Iranian prestige and probably make Iran the dominant regional power. So I think the Saudis would prefer an Israel victory but could not be seen to , and I absolutely, categorically cannot see any scenario where any Arab state would offer any assistance to Israel (or vice versa). I think the Saudis (and the other Gulf States) would also be very concerned about what Iran's intentions were if Israel was no longer part of the equation and the Iran / Iraq alliance was poised on the Kuwait / Saudi borders. You could be looking at a rerun of Desert Storm but without the western forces; it would be a straight fight between the Iran / Iraq alliance on one hand the Gulf States on the other.

But that all changes if Israel or Iran start lobbing nukes at each other. I can't see a scenario with an Iranian victory over Israel. The Israelis would go nuclear. If we posit that a 2016(ish) Israeli strike does enough damage to the Iranian nuclear programme to set it back by decades I could see an the Israelis winning without having to use nukes and the Iranians unable to retaliate. An Israeli conventional victory probably sets back the Iranian military sufficiently that they are then no longer in a position to threaten the Gulf States. So to repeat what I said in the last paragraph, the Gulf States would be aware of this and would favour an Israeli victory. They may not like the Israelis, but they know the Israeli tanks aren't going to make a drive on Riyadh...they wouldn't be so confident about the Iranians...so, despite what I said earlier about no Arab state helping the Israelis, does pragmatism trump religion (the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Again). I don't know, this is a tough one to call. I do think it's highly unlikely that you could have any sort of war in the Middle East that doesn't have someone attacking Israel in some way, shape or form.

I could be persuaded towards an Iranian (with no nuclear capability) / Iraqi / Syrian attack on Israel which is repulsed by Israel with (extremely) covert help from the Saudis and the UAE.

I could equally be persuaded that if we posit that the Iranians have nukes then the Middle East is where the genie first gets out of the bottle.

And I haven't even mentioned Egypt or Turkey...I did posit earlier that Turkey could be involved in fighting in Europe, primarily against Russian allied forces in Thrace. If we go with an Iran / Syria alliance being allied to the Soviets (in principle at least) then the Soviets could "request" their allies to launch an attack against Turkey's southern front. Perhaps Egypt suffers another Muslim Brotherhood led revolution and the Military leadership are too preoccupied dealing with that to intervene anywhere?

Ground War in China
I think a collapse of NK ground forces is a definite maybe...you then have US / ROK / allied forces driving north...this is linked to first use of nukes though...I don't think we can butterfly away North Korean nukes...so do they use them? Or does Kim try and use them only to find that some of his Generals turn against him and try to negotiate a peace? "No Comrade Eternal Leader, we are not destroying Korea just because you have led us into a War that is lost. I think perhaps you are a little tired. These men will take you somewhere that you can rest whilst I try to save our country." Just a thought...so when the Chinese see that it's all gone wrong they have to intervene...

As I said before, I do like the idea of the ground War in Vietnam involving US forces deployed on the Vietnamese side...at some point in time we need to work out which forces are likely to be where...maybe the 18th Airborne Corps could go to Vietnam?

Nuclear Flashpoints
I think any of the following are likely...

1. Korea. Could potentially be used by either side if the other looks like they have a decisive advantage that could end the War. Probably more likely to be used by the North Koreans though.

2. The Middle East. Could potentially be used by Iran or Israel. See above.

3. Europe. Was thinking that if NATO forces managed to push the Russians out of the Baltic States and set foot on Russian Federation territory proper (not Kaliningrad, Belarus or Eastern Ukraine) the Russians might use tactical nukes (essentially the same as V1 when the Sovs used tac nukes after the German Army crossed onto Soviet soil)

4. China (or areas where US forces are fighting Chinese, e.g. Vietnam, Taiwan, etc). Again, could be used by either side if either looks like gaining a decisive advantage.

As to when...I think at some point we need to try and establish how the fighting is likely to go (which could involve a bit of guesswork!)... does nine - twelve months after the Russian invasion of the Baltics seem like too long a period? Do you think it should be sooner? Or later? And then do we follow what happened in the classic timeline with a gradual escalation?

[Raellus]

I need to chew on your Middle East proposals a bit. It's such a volatile and complex region- it's almost impossible to predict what will happen there next week, let alone ten years from now- and I haven't given it as much thought as I have Europe and East Asia.


Ground War in China
Or does Kim try and use them only to find that some of his Generals turn against him and try to negotiate a peace? "No Comrade Eternal Leader, we are not destroying Korea just because you have led us into a War that is lost. I think perhaps you are a little tired. These men will take you somewhere that you can rest whilst I try to save our country." Just a thought...so when the Chinese see that it's all gone wrong they have to intervene...

I really like this idea. It seems almost too pat and obvious to have young Kim whip out the nukes first- I'd like to believe that at least a few of the top brass in NK are somewhat rational. And with a collapse of the NK military, China would certainly step in to prevent a unified Korea allied with a rival superpower.

Korea would be one major China vs. U.S. & Allied forces region. The other would likely be Vietnam and SE Asia. I think in both cases that China is strong enough to keep the fighting off of its own soil. Is this good or bad for our updated T2KU?

As to when...I think at some point we need to try and establish how the fighting is likely to go (which could involve a bit of guesswork!)... does nine - twelve months after the Russian invasion of the Baltics seem like too long a period? Do you think it should be sooner? Or later? And then do we follow what happened in the classic timeline with a gradual escalation?

This, to me, is the trickiest part of the whole exercise so I'm waiting until we have the basic macro-level theatre escalations settled before embarking on the operational level stuff. Recent conventional military campaigns involving at least one first world protagonist have been relatively quick (Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom). Russia's trouble in Chechnya is kind of the exception that proves the rule. As a defender of the Cold War Red Army, I don't want to make our Russians too soft or easy. But, as you suggested, NATO success in the Baltics could be the trigger for the initial use of tac-nukes, and it also keeps with the original T2K timeline.

[Raellus]

@CdnWolf:

Thanks for your input.

I agree that Mexican commandos, having infiltrated the porous border using some of the same routes as human smugglers and cartel mules, would be sowing confusion as the conventional Mexican spearhead blasted its way across the border.

As for the anti-satellite low-tech kill option that you proposed, although simple and effective, I imagine that such a system wouldn't discriminate between U.S. and Chinese satellites and might therefore do the Chinese just about as much harm as it would good.

[Raellus]

I've given the Middle East a little thought and these are my first impressions.

Looking at a thematic map of the region displaying the dominant sect in each country, the two major players are Shiite power Iran and Sunni power Saudi Arabia. Largely Shiite Iraq- under oppressive Sunni rule during the Saddam era- stands between them. From what I've heard and read in recent weeks, Iraq, already, barely stable politically and security wise, is looking shakier every day. Perhaps a failed state in Iraq becomes the battleground in a military struggle for regional dominance between the Iranians and the Saudis.

Then there's Syria. A lot depends on how the civil war there pans out. Does Assad come out on top or will his regime be toppled? If the former, in what shape will the Syrian military be in 10 years? Russia clearly wants to maintain influence there. I can see generous military aid packages headed Syria's way as soon as he emerges as the winner. Perhaps, a decade from now, Syria will have regained the military power it had prior to the civil war. Or, does Assad eventually fall? If so, who takes control? From what I've read, there's no clear front-runner among the various insurgent groups, some of which seem quite radical. Does Turkey step in militarily to restore order, or at least secure its frontier?

If Turkey steps in in the south (of Syria), would Israel step in in the south? What kind of response would Israeli intervention receive from Turkey and the other Muslim nations of the region?

I think that it would be kind of surprising in a rather gratifying way, if a major war started in the Middle East without Israel being involved- at least, at the beginning. Israel sits on the sidelines, watching its assorted long-time tormentors and antagonists kicking the crap out of each other, wondering at its own incredible luck, until something happens that drags it into the larger conflict.

I've got a feeling that all of the above could somehow work as a whole, but it needs some adjusting and polishing and I need to get to bed. I'll reread your Middle East thoughts, Rainbow, give it all some more thought, and get back to this tomorrow.

[Raellus]

I feel like I might be spamming this thread but I keep finding relevant articles that I want to share. Here's the latest pertaining to rising tensions in the South China Sea and the U.S. response to such:

http://news.yahoo.com/us-philippines-launch-war-games-obama-pledge-211858873.html

One could argue that this development is posturing on the part of the U.S., and/or that it's provocative. I tend to agree with both points. Either way, I think that this article/development reinforces the projection that makes its first regional power play against Vietnam. It's a gamble but it likely wouldn't provoke armed intervention from the U.S. since the U.S., AFAIK, doesn't have any kind of formal defense alliance with Vietnam. It's also a show of Chineses strength.

[RN7]

Since the demise of the Soviet Union I can't see any scenario that would lead to a global nuclear war on the scale of Twilight 2000.

From a purely military point of view America is just too powerful at the moment for any rival to take on outside of their own territory. By 2030 the global situation could change, but unless America and China get into a really nasty trade war I don't see China even thinking about attacking American forces in the Pacific yet alone invading America. Mexico is not a militarily strong country and can barely control its own territory if we are reading the news correctly about insurgents and drug cartels challenging government authority. Mexican forces are more para-military than military; their navy is mainly coast guard standard and they have one squadron of F-5 II fighters. They would be woefully outclassed if they got into combat with American regular or even national guard forces.

On the other hand regional conflicts could lead to regional nuclear exchanges. Iran and Israel, India and Pakistan, the Korean Peninsula and the current situation in the Ukraine is not healthy. Plenty of material for nasty wars involving the Western powers, maybe tactical nukes being used as well.

[Targan]

Since the demise of the Soviet Union I can't see any scenario that would lead to a global nuclear war on the scale of Twilight 2000.

From a purely military point of view America is just too powerful at the moment for any rival to take on outside of their own territory.

Which is exactly why I suggested this:

Biological warfare. One option (the less likely IMO) would be a genetically-engineered pathogen developed by the Chinese that targets people with certain non-Asian haplomarkers, or perhaps specific caucasoid haplomarkers. Another option would be a pathogen spread by some organism only (or mostly) found in North America (the red squirrel for instance).

I admit that would give a campaign a slightly different flavour to standard T2K. You have to admit though, it would be an effective way to bring the US down several notches before the nukes fly. It could also be the "last straw" needed for the US to launch the ICBMs.

[RN7]

Which is exactly why I suggested this:



I admit that would give a campaign a slightly different flavour to standard T2K. You have to admit though, it would be an effective way to bring the US down several notches before the nukes fly. It could also be the "last straw" needed for the US to launch the ICBMs.

I don't know if that's possible, but how would that work. Asians are the fastest growing segment of the US population, and what about American with Native-American (Asian) DNA. An awful lot of White and Hispanic Americans have this DNA. Also from what I've read (and I've a degree in archaeology) a lot of Central Europeans and Russians also carry Asian DNA due to the historic invasions of Europe from Asia by numerous groups such as Huns, tartars and Mongols etc. Even Scandinavians may have Asian DNA as the original inhabitants of Scandinavia may have been Lapps who are of Asian origin. Also many Chinese may also carry European DNA, as it is suspected that Europeans once inhabited large parts of western and northern China until relatively recent times and interbred with Asians.

[Targan]

I don't know if that's possible, but how would that work. Asians are the fastest growing segment of the US population, and what about American with Native-American (Asian) DNA. An awful lot of White and Hispanic Americans have this DNA. Also from what I've read (and I've a degree in archaeology) a lot of Central Europeans and Russians also carry Asian DNA due to the historic invasions of Europe from Asia by numerous groups such as Huns, tartars and Mongols etc. Even Scandinavians may have Asian DNA as the original inhabitants of Scandinavia may have been Lapps who are of Asian origin. Also many Chinese may also carry European DNA, as it is suspected that Europeans once inhabited large parts of western and northern China until relatively recent times and interbred with Asians.

Agreed, which is why I said:

Another option would be a pathogen spread by some organism only (or mostly) found in North America (the red squirrel for instance).

Yet another option would be a pathogen with a high mortality rate but a very short active period due to, for instance, an inbuilt fast rate of mutation that quickly renders it no more harmful than the common cold. All that is needed is to simultaneously release it most of North America's larger cities.

Genetic engineering has come a long, LONG way since the Cold War. Weaponised anthrax is long outdated. The time is a-coming (in fact probably already here) when a well-resourced bio-lab could create some highly specific, well-tweaked, nasty pathogens the likes of which the world has never seen before.

Putting it another way, is it realistic that a world war in 2030 wouldn't involve the use of such weaponised diseases? Maybe not deployed by the Chinese or the US or the Russians, but by one of the more extremist bit players. North Korea for instance. I reckon they might be crazy enough to try it.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

You could always take Targan's idea further, I'm just bouncing around some random ideas here and admittedly it requires some serious governmental collapse and it's based more in "thrilling" game play than reality but...

The initial attacks are done with pathogen weapons by one of the side players as Targan suggested but have the plague more dangerous than projected due to two things: -
1. the accessibility & speed of world travel particularly when linked in with people smuggling and illegal immigration.
2. an unpredicted mutation sees it lasting much longer than it was supposed to (e.g. lab testing wasn't as thorough as it should have been due to the work being done in North Korea where appeasing the ego of the Great Leader was as important as getting good results)

It's the Black Death and the Spanish Flu rolled into one, the disease spreads too far and too fast and completely swamps local disease control. Riots, food shortages, fuel shortages, etc. etc. are the result. Governments allow military units to assist police & emergency services to contain the spread by totally restricting civilian movement.
In an attempt to halt the pathogen some nations have to institute harsh measures such as declaring various towns under quarantine & curfew - nobody in or out for the duration and violators are shot and their bodies incinerated. Public service starts to break down under the strain of too few workers for too high a demand for services. As the situation worsens and governments lose control of their countries, some leaders chose to incinerate entire towns regardless of the numbers of still living citizens quarantined inside them.

For Pakistan, with the dead piling up in the streets and the disease still in full swing, it proves much too difficult and and the government starts to fracture from the strain. A sector of the military declares martial law and uses a nuclear weapon to burn the contagious dead out of Lahore. For India, already under immense strain from the dead piling up in their own streets, this is too close to their border and a war of words breaks out that leads to border clashes and then, of course, war.
It isn't nuclear war, not yet, but the precedent of "cleansing by atomic fire" has been set and when the pathogen escapes its confines in Kaesong, the North Korean leader panics and sees nuclear incineration as the only viable option as the NK death toll reaches a third of the total population.

Kaesong is close enough to the internal Korean border to have the South Koreans panicked, then the North Korean refugees start streaming towards the land border and a number of NK boats & ships start heading for SK waters. Fearing the disease more than any invasion, SK goverment orders its troops to shoot any North Koreans on sight.
The NK Great Leader, already losing his grasp on reality, sees this as the next phase of the Korean War and orders the launch of his other nuclear weapons which has the affect of dragging the US into the confrontation (as much to stop the NK military as it is to stop the infected refugees from flooding into the south).

The disease spreads from North Korea to Vladivostok. Then it begins to spread from Pakistan, India and North Korea, into China. Chinese leaders are quite prepared to incinerate huge tracts of foreign soil to halt the disease and use a nuclear weapon to halt the advance of the disease at Barabash near Vladivostok. Russia and China engage in a series of very heated political discussions and even more heated border clashes until they are both drawn into open conflict with each other and both feel free to use their ICBMs to win the argument.

Nations are breaking apart and for some, there isn't enough control left to stop various government or military personnel from claiming leadership of the country and declaring war on whoever annoys them the most. Atomic fire is seen by some as the only certain way to halt the progress of the disease and they are quite happy to do so.
For nations like the US with many government, non-government and military forces deployed around the globe, it's a soul-destroying decision to abandon those personnel for fear that they'll bring the disease back home. Those countries with some vestige of government left see their leaders retreat to various enclaves from where they try to send aid to their people around the nation and the globe but with no-one left to pump the oil, let alone transport it, the only thing they can really offer is condolences and best wishes... good luck, you're on your own...

[Targan]

I think disease is a very viable campaign hook for world collapse, but the reason I'm suggesting it in this thread is as a direct response to the question of how to reduce the USA's current (and near future) dominance to make a Twilight: 2000 scenario more viable for a 2030 campaign.

By confining most of its effects to North America, you get that effect straight away in a believable form. It would really hurt the US economically and logistically, but the military would probably come out of it quite well compared to the civilian population.

[RN7]

I think disease is a very viable campaign hook for world collapse, but the reason I'm suggesting it in this thread is as a direct response to the question of how to reduce the USA's current (and near future) dominance to make a Twilight: 2000 scenario more viable for a 2030 campaign.

By confining most of its effects to North America, you get that effect straight away in a believable form. It would really hurt the US economically and logistically, but the military would probably come out of it quite well compared to the civilian population.

Why confine things to North America? Two world wars were fought which barely affected America.

The major reasons for an American collapse would seem to be the following. I may have missed a few if someone wants to add.

1) Military Rivalry: Attack by a foreign rival? America doesn't have a military equal since the Soviet Union collapsed. Russia remains the second most powerful military nation in the world, but it's not up to taking on America anywhere outside of its own territory. China is the number three military power and is the second largest defence spender. It clearly is on a path to establishing some sort of parity with America in the Pacific and it might partly do so by 2030, although that could depend on its future economic situation and if it can bridge the very wide technological and logistical gap that America has over it. However beyond the Pacific (really the Far East) China's military power will never match America's. The only other serious rivals are India, Japan and Europe; India is to poor and Japan and Europe (most of it) are American allies.

2) Internal Revolution: Who? Mexicans, Native Americans, Blacks, Jews, White supremists, Christian or Muslim extremists or closet Southern Confederates? Racists and militants of all types exists but they are a small minority on the fringes of American society or in prison and most people get along with each other in this day and age.

3) Terrorism? Who? See above and maybe add Communists and Abortionists. Terrorists could maybe cause some internal trouble but they are not going to hold the country down for long before their wiped out. Nuclear or cyber terrorism would cause larger problems, but the culprits or country that started it are basically toast once the Americans find out who they are.

4) Disease: It would have to be one hell of a disease or should we say plague to shut down America. Unlike the Ebola virus for example which broke out in a remote part of Africa and was contained, America is hardly a remote part of the world and it could not be contained from spreading globally due to the massive amount of international travel from American airports. It would invariably spread beyond America in the early stages of the outbreak and become a global pandemic.

5) Trade War: If America got into a trade war with another country only the European Union and China are big enough to harm the American economy. Japan had its day in the 1980's and first half of the 1990's, but it is not really big enough anymore to hurt America and is far more dependent on America than vice versa. Europe doesn't really have any major trade issues with America and still remains politically divided. China is the most likely culprit, but any harm that it could do to America is far outweighed by the harm that America could do to China.

6) Energy Embargo: Until maybe five years ago this would have been a serious contender for being most able to bring America to its knees due to America's dependence on oil and gas for energy. But with the shale revolution now radiating out of America, the Americans are now just sitting back with a big cigar and laughing their lungs out at OPEC, the Arabs and the Russians and the laugh will only get louder over the next two decades.

7) Natural disaster: The only two scenarios that I could envisage that would seriously harm the American economy would be if the San Andreas Fault ruptured and California slipped into the Pacific, or if a mile wide sized asteroid impacted on the East coast and took out New York City, Washington DC and other big Eastern cities.

[Targan]

Why confine things to North America? Two world wars were fought which barely affected America.

I think perhaps I'm not explaining myself very well. The question came up in this thread on how you could realistically have a world war in 2030 and have everybody come out poorly, as in traditional T2K. It was (correctly) pointed out that the US is the world's dominant military force and even in a multi-fronted conflict would still almost certainly come out on top for the forseeable future. My biowar suggestions were a way of "evening the playing field" so to speak.

7) Natural disaster: The only two scenarios that I could envisage that would seriously harm the American economy would be if the San Andreas Fault ruptured and California slipped into the Pacific, or if a mile wide sized asteroid impacted on the East coast and took out New York City, Washington DC and other big Eastern cities.

I'd add to those 2 an eruption of the Yellowstone Caldera that occurs every 650,000 years or so.

[Rainbow Six]

1) Military Rivalry: Attack by a foreign rival? America doesn't have a military equal since the Soviet Union collapsed. Russia remains the second most powerful military nation in the world, but it's not up to taking on America anywhere outside of its own territory.

This...

China is the number three military power and is the second largest defence spender. It clearly is on a path to establishing some sort of parity with America in the Pacific and it might partly do so by 2030, although that could depend on its future economic situation and if it can bridge the very wide technological and logistical gap that America has over it. However beyond the Pacific (really the Far East) China's military power will never match America's.

And this...emphasis mine...is pretty much what my original thoughts were…

The US is taking on Russia in its territory (or at least in the Baltic States, so right on the Russian border). It is taking China on in the Far East. So the number one military power is taking on the number two and number three military powers simultaneously. In their own respective spheres of influence. I think that could be a fairly major challenge to the US.

And no one is disparaging the US military or any other military -we're dealing with this in the context of a game, and maybe eventually creating scenarios that allow us to mix the "old" T2K with new technologies, equipment, vehicles, etc...so we can maybe create a situation where instead of replaying Escape From Kalisz the PC's can be stuck behind Russian lines in the Baltic States, or on the front line against the Chinese in Vietnam. There were things in the original T2K that some people didn’t like…I’ve seen some of the debates where people have said that such and such just couldn’t happen or wouldn’t be possible…personally I don’t think anything that has been put forward in this thread is utterly impossible…whether some parts are implausible or not is another matter, and perhaps one where opinions may vary, but Kato said the above upthread and I think it’s part of what makes T2K what it is…

One thing I think we have to remember if we are following the spirit of the original game. You sometimes include things that don't make complete sense to give a greater variety of potential for combat.

[Raellus]

Military Rivalry: Attack by a foreign rival? America doesn't have a military equal since the Soviet Union collapsed. Russia remains the second most powerful military nation in the world, but it's not up to taking on America anywhere outside of its own territory. China is the number three military power and is the second largest defence spender. It clearly is on a path to establishing some sort of parity with America in the Pacific and it might partly do so by 2030, although that could depend on its future economic situation and if it can bridge the very wide technological and logistical gap that America has over it. However beyond the Pacific (really the Far East) China's military power will never match America's. The only other serious rivals are India, Japan and Europe; India is to poor and Japan and Europe (most of it) are American allies.


I'm not suggesting a military invasion of the continental U.S.A. by either China or Russia, nor am I predicting the total collapse of American government and society. I am trying to reimagine the original T2KU but update the run-up using today's global security issues.

That said, I respectfully disagree with your military assessments. I think that you overrate American military power and underestimate the Chinese and the Russians. Defense spending is not the only metric for military power. America's defense spending is so high relative to free-spending China because we're currently funding a war, and we have been for over a decade (two wars for a good chunk of that time). Our budget has been focused on replacing beat-up Humvees with MRAPs, while China's has been spending their defense Yuan on brand new multirole fighters, scores of fresh frigates, and hundreds of modern MBTs.

I will grant you that the U.S. still possesses the most capable force on the planet, but its capabilities- especially those of its land forces- have been degraded by two long counterinsurgency campaigns and increasingly deep budget cuts. Even at the height of its power, just prior to the so-called surge in Iraq, manpower-wise we were scraping the bottom of the barrel and analysts were predicting that we would be unable to fight another campaign should trouble arise elsewhere in the world (like North Korea). That was during two "low-intensity" conflicts against insurgent forces.

We're positing here two high-intensity conventional wars on opposite sides of the globe across two oceans- against China in Korea and Vietnam and Russia in northeast Europe. Our military has been shifting away from preparing to fight large-scale conventional for the past three decades. Our heavy armor force has been shrinking steadily during that time and looks set for further contraction. Strykers are not Bradley IFVs. Some of our NATO allies have gotten rid of their MBTs completely! I really don't like how we match up on land against China, and even against Russia, on their turf, we'd be hard pressed. There's no question that we'd need the draft, and a major effort to rapidly increase production of neglected military hardware like MBTs and IFVs. National Guard units would be shipped to Asia and Europe, not waiting for a surprise Mexican incursion.

Our navy is still the world's most powerful blue water force and will likely remain so for some time, but China's navy is growing at an alarming rate. Chinese military technology has taken great leaps forward during the last 30 years. They've developed anti-satellite weapons, hypersonic ballistic anti-ship missiles, and their own indigenous stealth fighter. Its land forces no longer rely on 1950's era Soviet MBT knock-offs. We're not talking the screaming hordes of the Korean War anymore (and we couldn't decisively beat them then, when Communist China was only a year or two old).

The trends are clear, RN7, and they're alarming. U.S. military power is waning while China's, at least, is on the rise. I don't see these trends reversing anytime soon and we're looking ahead about 20 years too. Look for Putin to pump more money into the Russian military as well. We're still badass, but not nearly as badass as 25 years ago. And China's military, although still high-volume, is increasing its quality each and every year.

Now, with all of that out of the way, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to imagine some kind of break-down of national security in the CONUS after the war goes nuclear. Even Mexican paramilitaries could cause problems in the American southwest.

We're simply trying to create a gameworld with lots of options for military-themed adventures, both in foreign fields and in the continental U.S.

[CDAT]

I never saw the new Red Dawn (given how much I loved the first one that shocks me), but maybe there are some ideas there.

In regards to getting foreign troops into the US, every option I can think of involves Mexico

Perhaps Mexico devolves into drug cartel fueled chaos and either the Russians or Chinese somehow convince the Govt that they can provide peacekeepers.

Or maybe the Chinese invest heavily in Mexico and send "guards" to protect their facilities and staff. That at least gives them a foothold in North America.

You could have the drug cartels buy weapons from the Russians (or DPRK) as well.

One thought that I have is the Chinese working with whomever they hit the west cost of the US. How, three ways that I see.

First there is so much shipping comving from China to the US you take several container ships and modifie them so that they are now "assault ships" you have some heavy equipment loaded in the back/bottom then some light vehicles and last light troops. When the ship hits the port the light troops storm the port and take it over, no matter how good the port police are they are not staffed/trained or equiped to deal with a military assault. As this is going on you are offloading the light vehicles to go and attack the close by military bases, if you timed it for a four day weekend the number of troops on base are limited and most of them do not even have access to weapons and ammo. last for this part you are now off loading the heavy equipment to be you main attack force if/when the US military gets up and running.

Second you modifie some comercial airliners for airborn insertion of "commandos" you can have them fly from one airport to another then to there final destionation in the US so that they are slightly off corse not so much that it raises red flags but close enough that they can jump and land on different military bases. The commandos would be used to tie up any armed troops on the base waiting for the heavery troops to land in the ships (above).

And last not sure so much down south but up here in WA there is a large Asian population (more in Canada) you send in some special forces to prep and when attack happens to attack the police keep them from getting involved.
So if this happened at every major port up and down the west cost on a four day weekend how much mayham could they cause. Now if this was only part of the "Bad guy" plan may the opening shot quickly followed by other operations by other countries would it work? The possable ways that it could be found out about are if at one of the airports customs wanted to check even though no passengers were getting on or off the plane, if one of the ships got picked for a customs inspection, or if a spy got word of this before they left China.

Some possable couterparts I could see, Mexico hitting the south, Russia in EU, Middile east (just about any part).

[Raellus]

I'll have to give some more thought to the bio-warfare ideas that have been posted. I'm leery of going hard in that direction because, although I like my T2K grim, I'm not sure I want it global pandemic grim. I want to be able to differentiate between T2K and The Stand.

@CDAT: As to the container ship idea, it's devious and I like it, but it's pretty much a one-way ticket and I'm not sure the Chinese would go in for something hopeless like that. If we were talking WWII-era Japan, then hell yeah, but from my reading of the PLA and where it's been heading over the past 30 years, a large-scale suicide mission like the one you've described doesn't seem to fit.

I just got Osprey's The Chinese People's Liberation Army since 1949: Ground Forces (Elite) today and, so far, it's reinforced by assessment of the PLA's growing capabilities. It's scary to think about where they'll be, organizationally, doctrinally, and technologically in 20-30 years.

[Targan]

I'll have to give some more thought to the bio-warfare ideas that have been posted. I'm leery of going hard in that direction because, although I like my T2K grim, I'm not sure I want it global pandemic grim. I want to be able to differentiate between T2K and The Stand.

Once again (and I've obviously failed dismally despite trying to make my point abundantly clear) I'm NOT suggesting a global pandemic. I say again, a global pandemic would NOT give you the same vibe as original T2K and that's why a global pandemic is NOT what I'm suggesting. What I've described is a weaponised pathogen specifically designed and deployed so as to be confined mostly or completely to North America. I suggested it as a direct response to the question of how could you bring the US down a couple of notches just before or during a circa 2030 Twilight War.

[RN7]

I'm not suggesting a military invasion of the continental U.S.A. by either China or Russia, nor am I predicting the total collapse of American government and society.

It would be impossible.


I am trying to reimagine the original T2KU but update the run-up using today's global security issues.

It's really a bit hard to imagine.


That said, I respectfully disagree with your military assessments. I think that you overrate American military power and underestimate the Chinese and the Russians. Defense spending is not the only metric for military power. America's defense spending is so high relative to free-spending China because we're currently funding a war, and we have been for over a decade (two wars for a good chunk of that time). Our budget has been focused on replacing beat-up Humvees with MRAPs, while China's has been spending their defense Yuan on brand new multirole fighters, scores of fresh frigates, and hundreds of modern MBTs.

I wouldn't be too alarmed by that. All of China's new fighters (J-11B, J-15, J-16) are powered by the Shenyang WS-10 jet engine, a derivative of the Russian AL-31F used by the Chinese J-10 fighter. The Chinese have had huge development and reliability trouble with this engine that they now are only starting to iron out. The J-31 fighter under development uses the WS-13 engine which is the Russian RD-93. Production series J-20's "Stealth Fighters" are scheduled to be fitted with a more advanced WS-15 engine equivalent to the performance of the P&W F119 on the F-22 that China is supposed to be developing, but it is more likely will be fitted with the Russian AL-41 117S on the Su-35 if the Russians will sell it to them. When the Chinese Air Force is flying fifth generation J-20 fighters in 2030 the USAF will probably be flying the sixth generation F-X replacement for the F-22.

A load of new frigates might be intimidating to some Asian countries but against an advanced naval power like the US Navy they are not going to be much of a threat. Frigates are almost useless in modern naval warfare unless they are fitted with advanced radar and modern long ranged air defence missiles (they would be then called missile destroyers) or are highly capable ASW specialists like a British Type-23. If China had frigates with the abilities of a Type-23 it might cause US Navy submarines some anxiety, but they don't.


I will grant you that the U.S. still possesses the most capable force on the planet, but its capabilities- especially those of its land forces- have been degraded by two long counterinsurgency campaigns and increasingly deep budget cuts. Even at the height of its power, just prior to the so-called surge in Iraq, manpower-wise we were scraping the bottom of the barrel and analysts were predicting that we would be unable to fight another campaign should trouble arise elsewhere in the world (like North Korea). That was during two "low-intensity" conflicts against insurgent forces.

I would disagree. America's airpower and its airlift and sealift capabilities are unmatchable and its land forces are more experienced and use better equipment. US Land forces are smaller than they were 15 years ago, but not necessarily less capable. Reorganisation has made US forces more deployable for the types of wars they have been fighting, but the US Army and Marines still have a massive pool of armour, vehicles, artillery and helicopters to draw upon. The US Special Operations Command has a joint force of 30,000, that's twice as big as the Australian Army.


We're positing here two high-intensity conventional wars on opposite sides of the globe across two oceans- against China in Korea and Vietnam and Russia in northeast Europe. Our military has been shifting away from preparing to fight large-scale conventional for the past three decades. Our heavy armor force has been shrinking steadily during that time and looks set for further contraction. Strykers are not Bradley IFVs. Some of our NATO allies have gotten rid of their MBTs completely! I really don't like how we match up on land against China, and even against Russia, on their turf, we'd be hard pressed. There's no question that we'd need the draft, and a major effort to rapidly increase production of neglected military hardware like MBTs and IFVs. National Guard units would be shipped to Asia and Europe, not waiting for a surprise Mexican incursion.

American tank fleet 2012: 6,302 (all M1A1/A2)
Chinese tank fleet 2012: 7,400 (4,300 Type-59, 300 Type-79, 500 Type-88, 1,800 Type-96, 500 Type-98, some Type-99)

America mechanised forces 2012: 31,443 (902 Stryker light tank, 1,075 Recce/AT vehicles, 7,763 AIFV, 6,528 APC, 15,175 MRAP)
Chinese mechanised forces 2012: 6,498 (924 light tanks, 276 Recce/AT vehicles, 2,350 AIFV, 2,948 APC)

American artillery forces 2012: 6,015 (1,594 self-propelled, 3,238 towed, 1,183 MRL
Chinese artillery forces 2012: 11,597 (1,825 self-propelled, 8,056 towed, 1,143 MRL)

American Army and Marine helicopter fleet 2012: 4,597 (155 tilt-rotor, 844 attack, 338 multi-role, 552 heavy, 2,070 medium, 638 light)
Chinese Army and Marine helicopter fleet 2012: 658 (16 attack, 401 multi-role, 21 heavy, 145 medium, 68 light)


Our navy is still the world's most powerful blue water force and will likely remain so for some time, but China's navy is growing at an alarming rate. Chinese military technology has taken great leaps forward during the last 30 years. They've developed anti-satellite weapons, hypersonic ballistic anti-ship missiles, and their own indigenous stealth fighter. Its land forces no longer rely on 1950's era Soviet MBT knock-offs. We're not talking the screaming hordes of the Korean War anymore (and we couldn't decisively beat them then, when Communist China was only a year or two old.

Anything that China has or is developing has been or is being developed by the US. Any weapons system that China builds that could seriously threaten American forces or its security will be countered. China's anti-satellite weapons programme involved a fairly primitive system limited to high-inclination LEO satellites. This capability is also available to other countries with a store of IRBMs or satellite launch vehicles and a long-range radar system. It does not threaten US or Russian imagery and ELINT satellites in higher orbit, but was undoubtedly a provocative test. It could trigger an arms race with the US in space.

The trends are clear, RN7, and they're alarming. U.S. military power is waning while China's, at least, is on the rise. I don't see these trends reversing anytime soon and we're looking ahead about 20 years too. Look for Putin to pump more money into the Russian military as well. We're still badass, but not nearly as badass as 25 years ago. And China's military, although still high-volume, is increasing its quality each and every year.

I think it's just relative. China is trying to flex its muscles but if it threads on America's toes it might be biting off a bit more than it thinks it can chew. The Soviet Union with all its smart scientist's went bankrupt trying to match American technology and dollars, and unlike China the Soviet economy wasn't dependent on US investment and taxes from re-exports to the US.


Now, with all of that out of the way, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to imagine some kind of break-down of national security in the CONUS after the war goes nuclear. Even Mexican paramilitaries could cause problems in the American southwest. We're simply trying to create a gameworld with lots of options for military-themed adventures, both in foreign fields and in the continental U.S.

But a reason and premise for a nuclear attack on America in 2030 would still have to be established.

[Targan]

The US Special Operations Command has a joint force of 30,000, that's twice as big as the Australian Army.

Unless Australia lost a REALLY big battle in the last 24 hours that I didn't hear about, that's not accurate. The regular Australian Army has a bit over 30,000 personnel. There's another 17,000 or so active Army Reservists.

[RN7]

Unless Australia lost a REALLY big battle in the last 24 hours that I didn't hear about, that's not accurate. The regular Australian Army has a bit over 30,000 personnel. There's another 17,000 or so active Army Reservists.

Sorry Targan got a bit ahead of myself there. I quickly glanced at the Australian reserve of 15,800. The regular Army is 28,200 and the US Special Operations Command is 31,500. So just a little bit bigger than the Australian Army.

[Rainbow Six]

Once again (and I've obviously failed dismally despite trying to make my point abundantly clear) I'm NOT suggesting a global pandemic. I say again, a global pandemic would NOT give you the same vibe as original T2K and that's why a global pandemic is NOT what I'm suggesting. What I've described is a weaponised pathogen specifically designed and deployed so as to be confined mostly or completely to North America. I suggested it as a direct response to the question of how could you bring the US down a couple of notches just before or during a circa 2030 Twilight War.

Targan, I get your point totally that the intention is not to introduce a global pandemic to the scenario. However, I think the challenge with this is summed up by RN7's post below


4) Disease: It would have to be one hell of a disease or should we say plague to shut down America. Unlike the Ebola virus for example which broke out in a remote part of Africa and was contained, America is hardly a remote part of the world and it could not be contained from spreading globally due to the massive amount of international travel from American airports. It would invariably spread beyond America in the early stages of the outbreak and become a global pandemic.

I think any proposed infection serious enough to affect the USA to the extent suggested would inevitably spread worldwide and, as RN7 said, become a global pandemic.

[Rainbow Six]

It would be impossible.

I don't think either Raellus or myself have suggested anything different anywhere in the thread (unless you count my suggestion of a Soviet landing in Alaska, which was intended as a large scale incursion which ultimately ends up leaving the Russians stranded).

But a full scale invasion with Chinese tourists suddenly pulling assault rifles out of their camera cases and taking down the White House only to be foiled by Gerry Butler is pure Hollywood in my opinion (I'm exagerating a bit but hopefully you get the drift), and not something I could buy into as part of a T2030 timeline...

It's really a bit hard to imagine.

Maybe, but we're giving it a go...although it can be a bit depressing trying to think of different ways to screw up the World...!

But a reason and premise for a nuclear attack on America in 2030 would still have to be established.

That would be a gradual escalation over a period of time following an initial use of tactical nuclear weapons at an as yet to be determined flashpoint...so pretty much as happened in both the V1 and V2 timelines...which we're effectively trying to reboot...

[Targan]

4) Disease: It would have to be one hell of a disease or should we say plague to shut down America. Unlike the Ebola virus for example which broke out in a remote part of Africa and was contained, America is hardly a remote part of the world and it could not be contained from spreading globally due to the massive amount of international travel from American airports. It would invariably spread beyond America in the early stages of the outbreak and become a global pandemic.

I think any proposed infection serious enough to affect the USA to the extent suggested would inevitably spread worldwide and, as RN7 said, become a global pandemic.

With the greatest respect, you guys are looking at this with a very narrow focus. The use of a bioweapon doesn't necessarily mean global pandemic. It doesn't necessarily mean wiping the US off the face of the map. Genetic technology right now can do some amazing things. Project the recent rate of genetic advances forward and I'm absolutely certain that by the late 2020s, biowar labs will be able to create pathogens tailored for very specific intended results.

Think of all the possibilities. A disease that is highly infectious but has a long lead time until deleterious effects kick in. You can infect large numbers of people before the authorities even realise there's a problem. It could be tailored to be highly lethal, or tailored to be severely debilitating for just a few days. The country of origin could secretly inoculate it's population well in advance of its deployment.

As I described in an earlier post, what about a pathogen with a high mortality rate but a very short active period due to an inbuilt fast rate of mutation that quickly renders it no more harmful than the common cold? Put it in the water supplies of the dozen largest cities in the US. Even if it spreads beyond North America, it mutates away from lethality within days. No global pandemic, but huge disruption in the targeted country.

Threads like this are an opportunity for us to tailor storylines that deliver us the results we want for campaign purposes. Well in a similar way, genetic engineering can tailor pathogens to have very specific characteristics. I regard it as a very viable, quite believable "deus ex machina" for the purposes of this discussion.

[RN7]

I hate to say it but the most effective way of destabilizing or temporally blinding America might be the scenario from Red Dawn 2.

A coordinated electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapon and cyber attack on US military bases, command centers and strategic infrastructure might have some of the desired effect of knocking America out for a while. Add anti-satellite weapons and you could have a working scenario. And in the meantime whoever did it could carry out their agenda as America is preoccupied with its own crisis.

However there is the issue of using nuclear or non-nuclear EMP weapons. A nuclear warhead detonated hundreds of kilometers above the Earth's surface would be more effective than a non-nuclear EMP weapon. Non-nuclear EMP weapons can be deployed in bombs, cruise missiles and drones, and as the EMP from E-bombs comes from within the weapon they allow for finer target discrimination. The effect of small E-bombs has proven to be sufficient for certain terrorist or military operations, such as the destruction of electronic control systems critical to the operation of many ground vehicles and aircraft. However the range or effect of a non-nuclear EMP is far less than a nuclear one, but a nuclear device deployed on a missile launched at the United States or an American intelligence satellites in high orbit is not recommended for obvious reasons unless its deploying Klingon cloaking device technology.

The United States and the Soviet Union are the only countries known to have tested the affects of nuclear EMP, although the British may have also studied it in the 1950's and 60's. In 2001 The United States EMP Commission was created to assess the threat from EMP attack. The conclusion was that Britain, China, Cuba, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia and Sweden had some knowledge about EMP attack at various levels. It also concluded that Iran, North Korea, China and Russia view the United States as a potential aggressor that would be willing to use nuclear weapons in a first strike, and perceive the United States as having contingency plans to make a nuclear EMP attack and as being willing to execute those plans under a broad range of circumstances. Russian and Chinese military scientists in open source writings also describe the basic principles of nuclear weapons designed specifically to generate an enhanced-EMP effect, that they term "Super-EMP" weapons. Super-EMP weapons according to these sources can destroy even the best protected US military and civilian electronic systems. The US EMP Commission determined that long-known protections are almost completely absent in the civilian infrastructure of the United States and that large parts of US military services were less-protected against EMP than during the Cold War.

[rcaf_777]

The US has a couple weapons designed to take out a country power grid

Graphite Bomb BLU-114/B aka the Soft Bomb which was used durring Operation Desert Strom(1st Gulf War) and Operation Allied Force (Serbia)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-114/B_%22Soft-Bomb%22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphite_bomb
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/blu-114.htm

[Rainbow Six]

Re: possible Asian flashpoints, another one that just came to mind is the Diaoyu / Senkaku Islands:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senkaku_Islands_dispute

They're uninhabited but disputed between China, Taiwan, and Japan.

If I'm reading the wiki article correctly, the US is treaty bound to intervene on Japan's behalf in the event of any military action against Japanese territory, which specifically includes the Senkaku Islands.

Also, just been rereading this thread and noticed that I have used the word "Soviet" a few times when I should have obviously said "Russian" - bit of a freudian slip there! (In my defence, when I was at school in the 80's my modern studies teacher used to berate any poor student that happened to say "Russian" when they should have said "Soviet"...I guess it's stuck at the back of my mind!)

[Raellus]

@RN7: I think we're at an intellectual and philosophical impasse. I wish that I was as optimistic and comfortable as you are regarding our future military capabilities vis-a-vis the Chinese, but I am not. You argue well, using numbers to support your thesis (sources?), but I am still not convinced. Despite my best efforts, I doubt that I can win you over either. Still, I'd like to point out a couple of things that I noticed in your response.

First, the balance of forces comparisons you cited are based on current/recent information. This project is projecting 20-30 years into the future based on current trends. I concede that it's an imprecise exercise in educated guesswork, but the current trends are quite clear. We're spending less on defense and they (China and Russia) are steadily increasing their defense spending. The American miltary is contracting while the Chinese and Russian militaries are expanding and modernizing. The quality gap is shrinking. They might not be there yet, and we may always retain somewhat of a qualitative technological edge, but the trends suggest otherwise. And quantity can be a quality all its own.

Besides glossing over current trends, your balance of forces comparisons only look at the U.S. and China. In our posited war, the U.S. would also be fighting the Russians. Add in Russian military strength, U.S. numerical superiority in nearly every non-naval category dissolves.

We'll probably have to end up agreeing to disagree and, I could well be wrong anyway. In fact, I hope I am. But history has given us too many examples of the consequences of hubris and I don't want the West to fall into that trap. Besides, if you think our scenario is "impossible", that's cool- we're not trying to push it on anyone.

[Raellus]

And so it begins? Uncanny the timing with which some of these things crop up.

http://news.yahoo.com/china-insists-put-rig-off-vietnam-122818355.html

[kato13]

In looking at reality my thoughts are closer to RN7 than those who feel China will dominate in the next 20 years (remember how Japan was going to take over in the 80s).

However there is a problem with creating a completely realistic scenario in that it will still be wrong when we look back at it 20 years from now. So IMO as long as we are going to be wrong anyway, lets be wrong in the direction of what will be the most fun to play (while still being in the realm of possibility, however remote).

[Raellus]

In looking at reality my thoughts are closer to RN7 than those who feel China will dominate in the next 20 years (remember how Japan was going to take over in the 80s).

I'm not claiming that "China will dominate". Not at all. I'm simply saying that, given current trends in military spending and force modernization- China will at least approach military parity with the U.S. in 15-20 or so years. This isn't Chicken Little stuff. I've put a lot of time and effort into researching this topic. Maybe it would have more weight if it wasn't coming from me?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/08/us-world-military-idUSTRE7273UB20110308

http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2013_China_Report_FINAL.pdf

http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.247/pub_detail.asp

I concede that these are rather big "ifs" and that other reputable sources' assessments aren't quite as optimistic considering China's future military capabilities. I'm trying to being fair and sober minded. Still, I've found enough credible evidence to strongly suggest that China will be able to hold its own in a ground war in Asia with the United States in 20-30 years' time. Considering that a then-barely two-years-old communist China was able to battle the U.S./U.N. to a draw in the early 1950s (once again, in Korea), I really don't see this assessment as straining the bounds of possibility.

I'm just defending my methodology and conclusions here, not trying to push them on anyone else. If nothing I write here sways you, I'm fine with that. I'm just bothered by the implications that what I've come up with is somehow cloud-cuckoo-land thinking.

However there is a problem with creating a completely realistic scenario in that it will still be wrong when we look back at it 20 years from now. So IMO as long as we are going to be wrong anyway, lets be wrong in the direction of what will be the most fun to play (while still being in the realm of possibility, however remote).

I'm glad that you appreciate the spirit of what we're trying to do.

[RN7]

@RN7: I think we're at an intellectual and philosophical impasse. I wish that I was as optimistic and comfortable as you are regarding our future military capabilities vis-a-vis the Chinese, but I am not. You argue well, using numbers to support your thesis (sources?), but I am still not convinced. Despite my best efforts, I doubt that I can win you over either. Still, I'd like to point out a couple of things that I noticed in your response.

Sources: The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS): The Military Balance 2012


First, the balance of forces comparisons you cited are based on current/recent information. This project is projecting 20-30 years into the future based on current trends. I concede that it's an imprecise exercise in educated guesswork, but the current trends are quite clear. We're spending less on defense and they (China and Russia) are steadily increasing their defense spending. The American miltary is contracting while the Chinese and Russian militaries are expanding and modernizing. The quality gap is shrinking. They might not be there yet, and we may always retain somewhat of a qualitative technological edge, but the trends suggest otherwise. And quantity can be a quality all its own.


I cant give to you future military balance figures as they don't exist yet. Even with Obama's cutbacks America is spends at least twice as much as China and Russia combined.


Besides glossing over current trends, your balance of forces comparisons only look at the U.S. and China. In our posited war, the U.S. would also be fighting the Russians. Add in Russian military strength, U.S. numerical superiority in nearly every non-naval category dissolves..

China and Russia outnumber the US in all categories of land forces excluding helicopters, but they always have. But they certainly don't in air and naval forces, or in any other category related to the military. Add NATO allied land forces and there is no real superiority and the US and NATO uses better equipment and has better trained forces.


Well probably have to end up agreeing to disagree and, I could well be wrong anyway. In fact, I hope I am. But history has given us too many examples of the consequences of hubris and I don't want the West to fall into that trap. Besides, if you think our scenario is "impossible", that's cool- we're not trying to push it on anyone.

A T2030 scenario cant really believably happen until America is immobilised in some way. Invading America today is impossible, if its embroiled in a major crisis then its defences will be down and it wont be able to intervene internationally, at least not at the same level it can now.

[Raellus]

Sources: The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS): The Military Balance 2012

That same think-tank also predicts military equality in 15-20 years' time given the trends in current Chinese defense spending (i.e. average 10% annual growth in defense expenditures). Interesting.

A T2030 scenario cant really believably happen until America is immobilised in some way. Invading America today is impossible, if its embroiled in a major crisis then its defences will be down and it wont be able to intervene internationally, at least not at the same level it can now.

Who's proposing a Chinese and/or Russian invasion of the U.S.A. scenario?

[RN7]

That same think-tank also predicts military equality in 15-20 years' time given the trends in current Chinese defense spending (i.e. average 10% annual growth in defense expenditures). Interesting. ?

According to IISS China strategic priorities are gradually shifting from defence of China’s borders to force projection within East Asia and further afield, in order to secure sea lines of communication. According to the latest defence white paper, Beijing plans by 2020 to deploy forces that will be capable of winning ‘local wars under the conditions of informationization’ (in other words, successful joint operations enabled by modern technology, in a contested regional environment). By 2050, Beijing aims to become a ‘peer competitor’ to the US. While domestic upheaval or significant economic problems, or both, could deflect the PLA from achieving these goals, current trends suggest they remain within reach.



Who's proposing a Chinese and/or Russian invasion of the U.S.A. scenario

Not me but who else is likely to invade?

[Raellus]

I'm pretty happy with the flashpoints (time, place, and circumstances) for the beginnings of the Twilight 2030 war in Asia and Europe. Now we have to decide when and how the war goes nuclear. IIRC, in the v1.0 timeline, it takes a year or so before the Soviets use nukes in China.

Targan suggested a Chinese biowar attack on the CONUS as a way of creating the instability needed to give a Mexican invasion hope of any degree of success, however temporary. For our purposes, it's certainly an option. If China attacked the U.S. with a strategic weapon of that magnitude, the U.S. would certainly be compelled to retaliate, if not in kind (I don't see the U.S. using bioweapons), then with an alternative strategic weapon, no? But why would China unleash that genie of deadly pestilence?

Here's another option- a cyber attack. What if, once the Chinese intervene for prevent a complete NK collapse in Korea, and commence combat with American troops there, the Chinese unleash a devastating cyber attack, paralyzing large chunks of the American power grid and possible lowering the readiness of our strategic nuclear force. It's a damaging strategic attack and, if the U.S. was unable to respond in kind, perhaps while also losing ground to the PLA in Korea, then I could see the pentagon pushing for authorization to use tactical nukes. It would, of course, escalate from there.

[Targan]

A T2030 scenario cant really believably happen until America is immobilised in some way.

I seem to recall someone proposing a scenario to accomplish that earlier in this thread :D

[Targan]

Targan suggested a Chinese biowar attack on the CONUS as a way of creating the instability needed to give a Mexican invasion hope of any degree of success, however temporary. For our purposes, it's certainly an option. If China attacked the U.S. with a strategic weapon of that magnitude, the U.S. would certainly be compelled to retaliate, if not in kind (I don't see the U.S. using bioweapons), then with an alternative strategic weapon, no? But why would China unleash that genie of deadly pestilence?

How would the US know who had used a bioweapon against them? Certainly if there was an ongoing conflict with China, the US would consider China a likely culprit, but how could they be certain? I guess it's possible that there might be genetic markers in the pathogen that suggested the involvement of Chinese geneticists, but there might not. It may even be possible to create the pathogen in such a way that the other side couldn't be sure it wasn't just a random mutation of an existing disease. Realistically though, the more specialised and specific the pathogen, the more obvious it would be that it was deliberately created.

As for "unleashing the genie of deadly pestilence", as I've indicated earlier it is theoretically possible to create weaponised pathogens that pose little to no risk to the side that created them. The main risk to China would be retaliation in kind or with other WMDs. But we're already assuming an escalation to the use of nukes at some point in the conflict anyway, so for story purposes escalation isn't really an issue.

[Raellus]

As for "unleashing the genie of deadly pestilence", as I've indicated earlier it is theoretically possible to create weaponised pathogens that pose little to no risk to the side that created them. The main risk to China would be retaliation in kind or with other WMDs. But we're already assuming an escalation to the use of nukes at some point in the conflict anyway, so for story purposes escalation isn't really an issue.

I wasn't implying that the Chinese would be foolish enough to release a potentially self-destructive, indiscriminate pathogen which could decimate the global population. I just meant that it would be a major escalation in the fighting and the Chinese would need a very good reason to risk a retaliatory attack by making that very big first move. Apart from some Japanese field experimentation with bioweapons in China during WWII, AFAIK, no nation has used such weapons in anger since. For some reason, I feel that using bioweapons is somehow worse and less justifiable than using nuclear or chemical weapons.

[Rainbow Six]

We've spent quite a bit of time discussing how to "neutralise" the United States...this is how I see events unfolding in relation to the proposed timeline...some of it from the timeline already posed by Raellus, some not, so in chronological order...

2025
a)Ongoing tensions in SE Asia, including armed clashes between the PRC and Vietnam. These develop into a full scale War which is over by sometime in 2026 (this serves to give the PRC leadership an opportunity to see how their forces perform in combat).

2027
b) North Korea launches an invasion of South Korea. Various nations, most notably the United States, send military forces to assist South Korea under the auspices of the United Nations

c) China takes advantage of the situation by attacking Taiwan as part of a long planned invasion. The US commits more forces

d) The Russians make their move into the Baltics, calculating that with the US committed in two different (but linked) theatres in the Pacific and the European members of NATO in disarray following the expulsion of some members from the European Union, NATO will not go to War to defend the Baltics. The Russians specifically do not attack Poland as they believe that will trigger a NATO response. The Russian leadership have miscalculated however, and NATO - or at least some members - does respond, leading to the War in Europe. US forces in Europe consist of one heavy Division based in Poland, with a second heavy Division quickly flown in and equipped from POMCUS sites in Poland.

e) The US Government calls up the National Guard and reserves, who begin to deploy to Europe and Asia to reinforce the Regular troops already deployed.

Whether c comes before d or d comes before c probably needs to be finalised.

Date To Be Confirmed
f) The War goes nuclear. Location of first use of nuclear weapons to be confirmed.

g)This leads to a gradual escalation in the same way as the original T2K timeline, i.e. with a phased period of time between first use and the launch of strategic weapons at the United States.

h)In the wake of the nuclear exchanges trouble flares on the US / Mexican border. Increasingly violent clashes occur at several border crossings, culminating in a massacre of Mexican civilians at one border station; elsewhere several US Border Patrol officers are found dead on the American side. Their deaths were neither quick nor painless. Some suspect the involvement of Mexican drug cartels. With little to no diplomatic channels available to defuse the situation, the Mexican Government orders units of the Mexican Army to the border to protect Mexican civilians. However tensions continue to escalate. Mexican troops engage US forces and in a matter of days open warfare has broken out along the border. The Mexicans are facing an assortment of Army Reserves, Air Force and Navy personnel, Border Patrol, and police, supplemented by volunteer militia groups. Several weeks after crossing the border, the Mexicans receive welcome reinforcements when two Cuban ships arrive carrying Russian troops formerly based on Cuba.

I think it's important to note a couple of things.

Firstly, in my mind this is absolutely not a planned invasion, It's not part of some Chinese / Russian /Mexican grand alliance, it's a War that starts almost by accident - albeit possibly following some manoeuvring and manipulation by the cartels - when some Mexican troops get itchy trigger fingers. Once it's started it escalates quickly, in no small part because neither side has any effective high level command or control over the forces involved, and by the time that command and control is properly established the fighting has spread too far for either side to be able to stop it.

Secondly it takes place after the nuclear exchanges have taken place. Therefore, personally I don't think it's necessary to go to lengths to further destabilise the US - by now its already been attacked by nuclear weapons and most of its regular armed forces - and National Guard and Reserve - are deployed overseas in Europe or the Far East. So as sated, the Mexicans are facing an ad hoc mix of forces, very few of whom would be trained combat troops.

In my opinion that's enough to make a Mexican "invasion" of the south western United States plausible. So Targan, whilst I think the germ warfare scenario you've put forward is a perfectly valid one, like Raellus I'm wary of introducing bioweapons into the scenario. I also don't think using it as a mechanism intended purely to destabilise the US to make a foreign invasion more achievable is actually required. Reason I say that is because I think that in the scenario outlined above the US has already been weakened to the point that the scenario is plausible and a large scale bio attack - especially against the "homeland" and, by definition, aimed primarily at the civilian population, would run the risk of a disproportionate US nuclear response, which goes beyond the original T2K "limited" (I use the word relatively) nuclear exchange - you said who would they retaliate against, but I would counter that by saying that rational heads might not be prevailing following such an event, so they may retaliate against everyone that they thought responsible. Or they may have specific intelligence that identifies the culprit to a level that they are comfortable with. Or, as you said, there may be something in the pathogen that means its source can be identified.

[kato13]

2027
b) North Korea launches an invasion of South Korea. Various nations, most notably the United States, send military forces to assist South Korea under the auspices of the United Nations


I have difficulty seeing how the North could be successful in penetrating more than 40km from the border. Their equipment is 70s era and the South keeps modernizing. Unless there is obvious Chinese support from the beginning (and perhaps in equipment upgrades during the decade before) I see an "invasion" as being a non starter.

I am interested in seeing if anyone has ideas on how and why China would do this when generally they consider the DPRK leadership to be about as useful as a rabid dog.


2027
d) The Russians make their move into the Baltics, calculating that with the US committed in two different (but linked) theatres in the Pacific and the European members of NATO in disarray following the expulsion of some members from the European Union, NATO will not go to War to defend the Baltics.


The Baltics are full NATO members (for over 20 years in this history) who are victims of Russian aggression. Nato falling apart when Germany attacks makes sense in the original timeline, but this scenario seems very off from what I would expect given this is exactly why NATO was created.

I think you have to have a major NATO reorganization (such as France's actions in 1966) or even dissolution for the Russians to expect zero response to such an invasion.

Maybe there is a requirement that members put a certain percentage of their GDP to defense in order to stay in NATO and this leads to many countries (including the baltics) deciding to leave.

[Rainbow Six]

I have difficulty seeing how the North could be successful in penetrating more than 40km from the border. Their equipment is 70s era and the South keeps modernizing. Unless there is obvious Chinese support from the beginning (and perhaps in equipment upgrades during the decade before) I see an "invasion" as being a non starter.

I am interested in seeing if anyone has ideas on how and why China would do this when generally they consider the DPRK leadership to be about as useful as a rabid dog.

Kato, I need to head out soon so I can only give brief replies at the moment - I'll try and come back with more substantial comments later - but the initial thinking was that the PRC "persuade" the DPRK to invade the ROK essentially as a huge scale diversion for their planned attack on Taiwan.

However, it could also be posited that the DPRK acts of its own accord and for its own reasons and the PRC simply takes advantage of the situation to make its grab for Taiwan.

Also, my original thinking agrees with the view that the DPRK don;t get very far...I originally suggested the fighting bogged down near Seoul, which I believe is approx 35 miles from the border, so whilst that is slightly further than 40kms we seem to be in general agreement as to that aspect.

The fighting in Korea becomes very, very bloody, very, very quickly. No quarter is asked or given by either side and the situation becomes bogged down in a very nasty stalemate somewhere just north of Seoul.


The Baltics are full NATO members (for over 20 years in this history) who are victims of Russian aggression. Nato falling apart when Germany attacks makes sense in the original timeline, but this scenario seems very off from what I would expect given this is exactly why NATO was created.

I think you have to have a major NATO reorganization (such as France's actions in 1966) or even dissolution for the Russians to expect zero response to such an invasion.

Maybe there is a requirement that members put a certain percentage of their GDP to defense in order to stay in NATO and this leads to many countries (including the baltics) deciding to leave.

Ultimately this comes down to how plausible one considers the idea of some NATO members not taking action when another member is directly threatened. We have attempted to give this some background by coupling it with several countries being forced from the EU but I think it's fair to say that the Russian grab for the Baltics is perhaps the biggest deus ex machina in the proposed timeline.

[Raellus]

The background for the instability/disunity of NATO has been established. The debtor/defaulter nations of the EU either leave or are expelled from the confederation. In protest, a couple or all of those nations leaves or threatens to leave NATO. Italy, Spain, and Portugal, at least, have little to fear from Russia and might consider NATO to be an anachronism. Greece might do the same. France, who opposed the expulsion also threatens to leave NATO in solidarity with the other Mediterranean exiles.

This disunity in NATO, plus the U.S.'s heavy commitment in Korea, encourages Putin's gamble to seize former Soviet territories in the Baltic. By 2025, we're anticipating a Russia that is somewhat stronger and more capable militarily than it is today. Obviously, the gamble fails because the U.S., Germany, Great Britain (of would it just be England by then?) and other NATO nations do send troops and the war quickly spreads to Ukraine proper (the Russians have annexed E. Ukraine by then).

Back to Korea, a few years before the Russian invasion of the Baltics. Our war in Asia starts with a Chinese limited war versus Vietnam over control of the oil rich waters around the disputed Spratly island chain. In response, the U.S. talks tough and sends strong naval forces to assist the Philippines should China overreach, but does not directly intervene on behalf of Vietnam.

Kim Il Sun is facing serious domestic issues (we have yet to finalize what those are) and interprets the lack of a strong response from the U.S. to the Chinese aggression against Vietnam as a sign of weakness. With or without prompting from China, he orders the long-planned invasion of South Korea. It's a move made out of desperation and miscalculations and, after a slightly promising opening phase, it doesn't go particularly well. In a manner of months, the South Koreans and their allies start to push into North Korea. Kim and his loyal supporters, of which there are fewer now, decide to use nuclear weapons to save the regime, or at least go down swinging. Some of his top generals, realizing that this will likely result in the annihilation of the entire nation, move to seize power. This prompts a military collapse and the South Koreans move in swiftly to capture Pyongyang. The Chinese, puffed up by their recent success in Vietnam, and unwilling to accept a reunified, democratic Korea abutting it, decide to invade North Korea to reestablish a friendly/puppet government. Chinese and allied forces clash, and you've got the beginnings of a war between China and the U.S. (the Russian invasion of the Baltics would, of course, begin after this).

Having done some research, I don't think that the Chinese would be able to successfully invade Taiwan, even in 20-30 years' time. Would they try? This is part of our timeline that I'm still not sure about.

@Rainbow: I like your idea about Mexico. I agree that we should have the "invasion" kind of start out by accident almost and then grow organically. I'd like to add a couple of thoughts on the matter. Historically, when the U.S. has mobilized for a world war, Mexicans are welcomed into the country because the U.S. needs to replace labor lost to the draft. Perhaps, though, after nuclear strikes on the U.S., the orderly trickle of immigrants turns into a flood, including many opportunistic looters and the like, and militia groups begin using deadly force to stem the flow. As a result, the Mexican military moves in to protect its citizens, meets with some success, and decides, with encouragement from Moscow and/or Beijing, to press its brief advantage. The invasion is quickly framed as a war against American imperialism- a war to avenge the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo- and Russia even contributes some troops from its bases in Latin America.

This makes the SW of the U.S.A. a chaotic, active battleground of varying intensity- pretty ideal for T2K gameplay.

I don't want to be a braggart, and I know that at least a couple of you feel very differently, but I think that what we've come up so far is far more plausible than what the original v1.0 writers did. Of course, we have the benefit of hindsight now and I don't think we've taken as many bold chances in our predictions.

[Rainbow Six]

The background for the instability/disunity of NATO has been established. The debtor/defaulter nations of the EU either leave or are expelled from the confederation. In protest, a couple or all of those nations leaves or threatens to leave NATO. Italy, Spain, and Portugal, at least, have little to fear from Russia and might consider NATO to be an anachronism. Greece might do the same. France, who opposed the expulsion also threatens to leave NATO in solidarity with the other Mediterranean exiles.

This disunity in NATO, plus the U.S.'s heavy commitment in Korea, encourages Putin's gamble to seize former Soviet territories in the Baltic. By 2025, we're anticipating a Russia that is somewhat stronger and more capable militarily than it is today. Obviously, the gamble fails because the U.S., Germany, Great Britain (of would it just be England by then?) and other NATO nations do send troops and the war quickly spreads to Ukraine proper (the Russians have annexed E. Ukraine by then).

Back to Korea, a few years before the Russian invasion of the Baltics. Our war in Asia starts with a Chinese limited war versus Vietnam over control of the oil rich waters around the disputed Spratly island chain. In response, the U.S. talks tough and sends strong naval forces to assist the Philippines should China overreach, but does not directly intervene on behalf of Vietnam.

Kim Il Sun is facing serious domestic issues (we have yet to finalize what those are) and interprets the lack of a strong response from the U.S. to the Chinese aggression against Vietnam as a sign of weakness. With or without prompting from China, he orders the long-planned invasion of South Korea. It's a move made out of desperation and miscalculations and, after a slightly promising opening phase, it doesn't go particularly well. In a manner of months, the South Koreans and their allies start to push into North Korea. Kim and his loyal supporters, of which there are fewer now, decide to use nuclear weapons to save the regime, or at least go down swinging. Some of his top generals, realizing that this will likely result in the annihilation of the entire nation, move to seize power. This prompts a military collapse and the South Koreans move in swiftly to capture Pyongyang. The Chinese, puffed up by their recent success in Vietnam, and unwilling to accept a reunified, democratic Korea abutting it, decide to invade North Korea to reestablish a friendly/puppet government. Chinese and allied forces clash, and you've got the beginnings of a war between China and the U.S. (the Russian invasion of the Baltics would, of course, begin after this).

Having done some research, I don't think that the Chinese would be able to successfully invade Taiwan, even in 20-30 years' time. Would they try? This is part of our timeline that I'm still not sure about.

@Rainbow: I like your idea about Mexico. I agree that we should have the "invasion" kind of start out by accident almost and then grow organically. I'd like to add a couple of thoughts on the matter. Historically, when the U.S. has mobilized for a world war, Mexicans are welcomed into the country because the U.S. needs to replace labor lost to the draft. Perhaps, though, after nuclear strikes on the U.S., the orderly trickle of immigrants turns into a flood, including many opportunistic looters and the like, and militia groups begin using deadly force to stem the flow. As a result, the Mexican military moves in to protect its citizens, meets with some success, and decides, with encouragement from Moscow and/or Beijing, to press its brief advantage. The invasion is quickly framed as a war against American imperialism- a war to avenge the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo- and Russia even contributes some troops from its bases in Latin America.

This makes the SW of the U.S.A. a chaotic, active battleground of varying intensity- pretty ideal for T2K gameplay.

Rae, I'm a +1 on all of the above. I like the idea of the US becoming involved in direct confrontation with China following a North Korean collapse and getting drawn into a Chinese / Vietnamese War by extension. With regard to Taiwan, perhaps there's no Chinese invasion, just air and naval warfare in the Taiwan Straits?

(Oh, and to answer the question you asked...[Scottish Independence trivia], I wont bore everyone with lots of detail, but experts on both sides of the debate are agreed that if Scotland votes for independence England, Wales, and Northern Ireland will still be called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but will obviously no longer include the new nation of Scotland. The legal basis lies in the Acts of Union 1707 and 1800. The 1707 Act formally made Scotland, England, and Wales a single Sovereign State called the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Should any constituent part of said State elect to leave there would be no change to the name of the remaining parts - it would take an Act of Parliament to formally change the name. And it could never be called just England, as it would still include Wales and Northern Ireland.

On a practical level, it's estimated that Scottish Independence would remove approximately one Brigade from the British Army's order of battle, and a relatively small number of aircraft and warships from RAF and RN inventories. Whether an independent Scotland would join NATO is, like many thing to do with the independence referendum, a subject of debate.[/Scottish Independence trivia - apologies for thread drift])

[RN7]

How I see T2K in 2030.

Europe: The Cold War is long dead and the only influence Russia has in Eastern Europe is in Serbia and what it still deludes itself it still has outside the old Soviet borders. Nationalism still exists but it's at a less lethal level in the big Western European countries than it was up until the Second World War. America still has a lot of influence in Europe despite the cutbacks to US forces in Europe and the best efforts of the French, and the US still has a lot of support in Germany and other Pro-NATO countries and has a very close military relationship with Britain. I'd find it hard to believe that a large war would break out in Europe. Even if Russia annexes the Ukraine and Baltic's NATO action would be defensive and it would avoid taking offensive action against Russia. But NATO could still spit as it did in T2K over this or other issues and France would like to go it alone or in leadership of other countries.

The Middle East: The Soviet influence has long gone and was not replaced by any significant Russian influence, except for toothless support for the bogie regimes in Iran, Iraq and Syria. However the Middle East still remains a fertile ground for conflict and there could be so much of it. The Arabs/Muslims still hate the Israelis/Jews and vice-versa. The Sunni-Shia Muslim fault line; Shia Iran, Syria (elite) and Iraqi minority and the Sunni majority in Saudi Arabia and the other Arab states. The still conscious nationalist rivalry between the Arabs, Iranian Persians and Ottoman Turks. The Arab and Muslim resentment and inferiority complex with the West and Christians. The problem of the Kurds and other ethnic groups without a homeland. Afghanistan is still a mess and could draw in America, Russia and China. Muslim extremists and terrorists (a favourite pantomime villain) still exist and will continue to cause trouble. Pakistan borders Iran and its rivalry with Hindu India could lead to one of the biggest conflagration of them all.

The Far East: Any conflict has to involve China as it's the biggest power in Asia and has so many disputes with other countries: Taiwan, Japan, Philippines, South Korea, Vietnam, Thailand, anti-Chinese Indonesia and Malaysia, even India and Russia. America would certainly be drawn in as it has alliances or assumed ones with so many Asian countries and military bases all across the Pacific. The Korean Peninsula is certainly an area that could lead to a big war, but more likely as part of a wider war.

The biggest problem I have is the issue of how to destabilise America although it's not really that big of a problem. Limited nuclear strikes could certainly happen if America gets into a war with China and Russia, although I think America could do a lot more harm to China and Russia than they could do to America. Chinese and Russian forces landing in America is too farfetched outside of maybe Alaska, even more so if the war goes nuclear. The Mexicans on the other hand would need to really beef up their military to have a snow ball's chance in crossing into the American southwest and holding it for long. The problem is Mexico which is not really as poor as often depicted and is the second most populous country in Latin America and the biggest Spanish speaking one, has never shown any interest in acquiring much in the way of offensive military hardware. Their very defensive and Para-military orientated, and remind me very much of Ireland's relative military capabilities in comparison to Britain. Involving Cuba as in T2K might seem an option, but in 2030 Fidel Castro will be 104 years old (God bless him) and will the Cubans want to remain an isolated economic basket case for ever with America dangling a vast amount of dollars and investment just 90 miles away?

[stormlion1]

Looks like the Russians are trying to get Moldova in on the "rejoin the Russia" game now. And to do that they will need to take the southern half of Ukraine to link it.

[Raellus]

Thanks for the intel, Stormlion1. Moldova, or at least part of it, will definitely be a part of our Russian Federation by the time our T2K+30 WWIII starts.


I'm going to start on a narrative of the operational phases of the war in Europe and Asia soon, based on the foundation we've already established.

Strategically speaking, there are still a couple of things that need to be ironed out. In looking at the map of Asia, it occurs to me that assuming control of Vietnam and at least part of the Korean peninsula would give the Chinese more control of the South and East China seas respectively, and would further isolate Taiwan, perhaps in preparation for a forced reunification. So, perhaps, the Chinese invasions of Vietnam and Korea, although starting somewhat circumstantially, can be turned into a larger strategic play for regaining Taiwan. Anything that would force the Americans into bringing their carrier air groups closer to China's land-based ASM air, and green water naval coverage would give the Chinese a fighting chance at holding the U.S. Pacific fleet at bay long enough to effect an amphibious assault on Taiwan. I'm not sure that this will happen in our T2K+30 but it's something that I'm considering. China doesn't need to decisively defeat the U.S. Pacific fleet, they just need to control the sea approaches to Taiwan.

Something that's bothering me, though, that I could use a little advice on, is China's ties to Pakistan. China needs Pakistan as a counterbalance to India's emerging regional power but China also has problems with Muslim separatists in its western provinces. Pakistan can't seem to control its own extremist elements so I'm not sure how much they could do to help reign in and/or suppress China's increasingly militant Muslim minorities. That said, I see a China-Pakistan cooperative alliance as being more likely than a China-India one. Your thoughts?

[Targan]

Something that's bothering me, though, that I could use a little advice on, is China's ties to Pakistan. China needs Pakistan as a counterbalance to India's emerging regional power but China also has problems with Muslim separatists in its western provinces. Pakistan can't seem to control its own extremist elements so I'm not sure how much they could do to help reign in and/or suppress China's increasingly militant Muslim minorities. That said, I see a China-Pakistan cooperative alliance as being more likely than a China-India one. Your thoughts?

In the same way that civil wars can be some of the most bitter conflicts, intra-religious conflict tends to get really, really nasty. I know most readers here will already know this, I'm just putting this forward as a reminder.

Within Islam there are the two broad categories of Sunni and Shia, and myriad other sects and denominations. Most of the Muslim peoples of western China are, broadly speaking, Sunnis and belong to the Turkic language group. The majority of Pakistanis are also Sunni, with a sizable minority of Shiites and a whole bunch of other sects including the Ahmadiyya and Quranists. Pakistanis are mostly Urdu speakers.

So I guess the Pakistanis could help open dialogue on a majority religion basis with the western Chinese Muslim communities (Sunni clerics meeting with Sunni clerics, cultural exchanges etc), but linguistically and culturally they don't have a huge amount in common other than their religious beliefs. Actually I don't know whether those shared religious beliefs would promote Pakistani assistance to the Chinese government to keep things calm on the western frontiers, or hinder them.

[Raellus]

I'm probably overthinking the China-Pakistan angle. Historically, they've enjoyed pretty good relations and there's no clear-cut reasons why that would change.

The following article's title is rather sensationalistic, and it probably overstates the case a bit, but I've been saying this here for years.

http://news.yahoo.com/stealth-subs-could-sink-america-navy-094500872--politics.html?cache_clear

SSKs pose a clear and present danger to U.S. carrier task forces. They play a significant part in China's area denial strategy.

[Cdnwolf]

I'm probably overthinking the China-Pakistan angle. Historically, they've enjoyed pretty good relations and there's no clear-cut reasons why that would change.

The following article's title is rather sensationalistic, and it probably overstates the case a bit, but I've been saying this here for years.

http://news.yahoo.com/stealth-subs-could-sink-america-navy-094500872--politics.html?cache_clear

SSKs pose a clear and present danger to U.S. carrier task forces. They play a significant part in China's area denial strategy.

If you get a chance read Eric Margolis "War at the Top of the World" a fascinating examination of the Kashmir region and why China, India, Pakistan and other countries want it.

War at the Top of the World: The Struggle for Afghanistan, Kashmir, and Tibet (ISBN 0-415-93062-6) Routledge 1999


Maybe the Mods should set up another thread and everyone can write their idea of future history. Then people can pick and choose what they want from it?

[pmulcahy11b]

I think that global climate change and it's consequences should be a part of any Twilight 2030 scenario. Another thing should increased use of robotic platforms and possibly singularity.

[Raellus]

@Cdnwolf: Sounds like an interesting book. I looked it up on Amazon and a paperback is $34 or so- a little rich for my blood. I'll see if I can find it in the local library system.

I think that global climate change and it's consequences should be a part of any Twilight 2030 scenario. Another thing should increased use of robotic platforms and possibly singularity.

I agree about climate change. So far, we have enough geopolitical stuff to write a scenario where GW isn't required to cause much trouble, but I'd like to find some ways to work it in.

Part of the fun of revamping the T2K scenario is being able to include current or near future military equipment and tech that wasn't included in the original materials. I just read an article today about the future of robotics in warfare- automated supply convoys and semi-autonomous UAVs were two example of robotic technologies that we might see in 20 years or so. I doubt that we'll see the singularity by them- I just hope the nanobots don't make me eat those words.

That said, part of the fun of T2K is tearing down that tech to just the basics- at least, that's how I envision it. Just like in the original versions of the game, hi-tech gear would be used up or worn out by the time a campaign would start. There probably wouldn't be a whole lot of military robots around by 2030. ;)

[Badbru]

Kim Il Sun is facing serious domestic issues (we have yet to finalize what those are)
A couple of years back some smuggled out footage/or pictures showed the populace was generally starving. I think the cause was general economic mismanagement coupled with a drought. Since we're talking about including climate change another drought with the starving populace discontent > rebellious could influence his decission, especially if the south is still a thriving economic powerhouse it is becoming now.


@Rainbow: I like your idea about Mexico. I agree that we should have the "invasion" kind of start out by accident almost and then grow organically. I'd like to add a couple of thoughts on the matter. Historically, when the U.S. has mobilized for a world war, Mexicans are welcomed into the country because the U.S. needs to replace labor lost to the draft. Perhaps, though, after nuclear strikes on the U.S., the orderly trickle of immigrants turns into a flood, including many opportunistic looters and the like, and militia groups begin using deadly force to stem the flow. As a result, the Mexican military moves in to protect its citizens, meets with some success, and decides, with encouragement from Moscow and/or Beijing, to press its brief advantage. The invasion is quickly framed as a war against American imperialism- a war to avenge the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo- and Russia even contributes some troops from its bases in Latin America.

This makes the SW of the U.S.A. a chaotic, active battleground of varying intensity- pretty ideal for T2K gameplay.

I agree with all of this except the nonsensical bolded sentence. Why would refugees "Flood" from a not nuked country into a nuked country?
Perhaps a nuke meant for say Corpus Christie, drops a few hundred kilometers south of Brownsville/Matamoros.

[Raellus]

A couple of years back some smuggled out footage/or pictures showed the populace was generally starving. I think the cause was general economic mismanagement coupled with a drought. Since we're talking about including climate change another drought with the starving populace discontent > rebellious could influence his decission, especially if the south is still a thriving economic powerhouse it is becoming now.

That could definitely work. Thanks.


I agree with all of this except the nonsensical bolded sentence. Why would refugees "Flood" from a not nuked country into a nuked country?
Perhaps a nuke meant for say Corpus Christie, drops a few hundred kilometers south of Brownsville/Matamoros.

Yeah, I guess you're right. I'll have to revise that bit.

[Rainbow Six]

I've given the Middle East a little thought and these are my first impressions.

Looking at a thematic map of the region displaying the dominant sect in each country, the two major players are Shiite power Iran and Sunni power Saudi Arabia. Largely Shiite Iraq- under oppressive Sunni rule during the Saddam era- stands between them. From what I've heard and read in recent weeks, Iraq, already, barely stable politically and security wise, is looking shakier every day. Perhaps a failed state in Iraq becomes the battleground in a military struggle for regional dominance between the Iranians and the Saudis.

Then there's Syria. A lot depends on how the civil war there pans out. Does Assad come out on top or will his regime be toppled? If the former, in what shape will the Syrian military be in 10 years? Russia clearly wants to maintain influence there. I can see generous military aid packages headed Syria's way as soon as he emerges as the winner. Perhaps, a decade from now, Syria will have regained the military power it had prior to the civil war. Or, does Assad eventually fall? If so, who takes control? From what I've read, there's no clear front-runner among the various insurgent groups, some of which seem quite radical. Does Turkey step in militarily to restore order, or at least secure its frontier?

If Turkey steps in in the south (of Syria), would Israel step in in the south? What kind of response would Israeli intervention receive from Turkey and the other Muslim nations of the region?

I think that it would be kind of surprising in a rather gratifying way, if a major war started in the Middle East without Israel being involved- at least, at the beginning. Israel sits on the sidelines, watching its assorted long-time tormentors and antagonists kicking the crap out of each other, wondering at its own incredible luck, until something happens that drags it into the larger conflict.

I've got a feeling that all of the above could somehow work as a whole, but it needs some adjusting and polishing and I need to get to bed. I'll reread your Middle East thoughts, Rainbow, give it all some more thought, and get back to this tomorrow.


Back to the Middle East...

I agree that a likely source of the future conflict is the schism between Sunni Islam and Shia Islam, with the major players being Saudi Arabia and Iran respectively. However, as has been said, trying to predict events in the Middle East is tricky at best. And Israel adds a complete wild card into the mix.

I like the idea of majority Shia Iraq becoming a sort of failed state, and I think it’s a reasonable step to have the Iranians attempt to fill any vacuum, possibly leading to some sort of split inside Iraq – as far as I know the Kurdish provinces in the north are already autonomous to all extents and purposes so it wouldn’t take a huge leap to have them declare independence, which Turkey may well take a dim view of, leading to sporadic clashes between Turkish forces and the Kurds in the years leading up to the War.

With regard to Syria, much of what I've read suggests that Assad is gaining the upper hand but so the rebels may continue to hold some pockets of territory, mainly in the north and east. Assad is also a natural Iranian ally (although the Syrian population is majority Sunni), so on the Shia side we have a potential trinity of Iran, Iraq, and Syria (plus Hezbollah).

On the Sunni side the Saudis would be supported by the Gulf States of Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman. The major regional player unaccounted for so far is majority Sunni Egypt. I can’t see the military there voluntarily giving up power any time soon. They’re either there for the long haul or until they are overthrown by the mobs. And I personally doubt the mobs have the wherewithal to overthrow the Egyptian Army.

To go back to Israel for a moment... an attack on Israel is going to be popular on the Arab street. If Israel did become embroiled in any conflict in the region it's going to have consequences - look at Desert Storm where Saddam tried to bring Israel in to break up the coalition. I've read in various places that the US had to put major pressure on Israel to keep the Israeli F15's on the ground when the scuds were flying.

So...my suggestion...and it is only that...I would really, really like to hear what other members think, so would welcome constructive comments and criticisms...

The near future
Israeli airstrikes set back Iranian nuclear ambitions by a considerable amount of time

2027
Some time (probably several months) after the fighting starts in Europe, we have Sunni forces led by Saudi Arabia and Egypt clashing with Shia forces led by Iran, with the main battleground being Iraq. The Saudis and the Omanis decide to take advantage of the situation to deal with terrorist groups operating Yemen. The Turks carry out some “policing” operations in the northern parts of Iraq (aka Kurdistan) and Syria, but don’t want to get too involved as they have to be mindful of what’s happening in Europe. The Israelis close their borders to all parties, threaten to shoot anyone that gets too close to those borders (and probably have to deal with trouble in the occupied territories), and hope that both sides grind themselves down into a bloody stalemate, whilst the Jordanians serve as the back channel negotiators who talk to everyone and try (unsuccessfully) to broker a peace. Meanwhile just to the north, the Russians, with Azeri and Armenian allies have occupied Georgia. Russian “advisors” are spotted on the front line “advising” the Iranian led forces. US “advisors” have already been embedded with the Saudi led forces for some time. Pro Sunni rebels once again rise up against the Assad regime in Syria. Assad takes extreme measures to put down the revolution - whole towns are gassed, but by now the rest of the World is too busy to pay attention.

So Israel sits out the opening phases of the Sunni / Shia War, but several months after the outbreak of hostilities the Iranians attempt to cause schisms in their Sunni enemies by bringing Israel into the conflict. The assault on Israel is spearheaded by Syrian troops supported by Hezbollah militias. The Iranians hope that if their Sunni enemies suddenly find themselves fighting on the same side as the Israelis (albeit by default) it may fracture the Sunni coalition. The plan partially succeeds, with anti Government riots breaking out in a number of countries, most importantly Egypt, where the military Government have to use the Army to keep order. A three way War is now in place, with the Israelis and the Saudi led forces both fighting the Iranian led Shia forces. Importantly however, whilst Shia Clerics are portraying the Sunnis as being allied with the Israelis in an attempt to sow discord the Israelis and the Sunnis are operating completely independently of each other (and when Israeli and Sunni Arab forces encounter each other firefights are common).

From here we have the possibility of things grinding down into some bitter fighting or the theatre can potentially serve as a location for first use of nukes as dependent on a) how many years the Israeli raids have set Iran back or b) how the Israelis fare either Iran or Israel could initiate nuclear warfare in the Middle East.

So...that's my line of thinking...a three way War between Israel, Sunni Arabs, and Shia Arabs / Persians, but feedback / suggestions on this area would be most welcome...

[Raellus]

I like it so far, Rainbow. If Iran appears to be winning what is nominally a sectarian war in Iraq (it's really more of a war for regional dominance), Israel might be prompted to act. That would cause further rifts in the various Sunni and Shiite alliances, leading to a reshuffling of sorts, and a wider, more destructive conflict. I'm going to try to tie this into events in Korea.

This is an alternative to what I've already posted as an option for the U.S.' active military involvement in [what will become WWIII] Asia:

Climate change exacerbates famine conditions in North Korea. Millions are reported starving, tens or maybe hundreds of thousands have already died. South Koreans demand that something be done. At around the same time, evidence surfaces that North Korea has shared nuclear weapons technology with Iran, enabling the Iranians to produce their own operational weapons. North Korea, its senior leadership gripped by paranoia, refuse all offers of aid, and counter with their typical belligerent proclamations.

The U.S. and South Korea, therefore, launch an invasion of the North with the fait accompli of humanitarian concerns- in reality, the main objective is regime change and destruction of the NK nuclear arsenal. As the North Korean forces are pushed back, the Dear Leader prepares to launch a last ditch nuclear attack with his few remaining weapons. Knowing that this will mean the annihilation of NK, a cabal of his own generals depose Kim in a coup and the NK military begins to collapse. Troubled by the approach of U.S./ROK forces, the Chinese cross the Yalu river in force, leading to clashes with U.S. and ROK troops. WWIII in Asia has officially begun.

Having taken a closer look at the NK military, it's pretty clear that they wouldn't have much of a chance against the ROK, much less the U.S., in an attack on the South. This scenario takes this into consideration by reversing the roles a bit, as well as tying into the war in the Middle East.

Thoughts?

[kato13]

At around the same time, evidence surfaces that North Korea has shared nuclear weapons technology with Iran, enabling the Iranians to produce their own operational weapons.

This has already happened. The DPRK exchanged nuclear technology with Iran for currency printing press technology that the US provided to the Shah back in the 70s. This is what allows them to make nearly perfect forgeries of US currency.

Of course they could provide additional information for hard currency from Iran, but you could add the DPRK expanding their current currency war against the US. The DPRK could also expand their production of synthetic narcotics further annoying countries in the region.

[Targan]

I wonder how long it will take the US and its allies to gear up for freeing themselves from China's rare earths market dominance? If that's still an issue in the 2020s, it's another angle that China can use to put pressure on America and it's key trading partners who provide it with specialised electronic components.

[Cdnwolf]

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Energy-Voices/2013/1018/Kenya-the-future-of-African-oil

Anyone looking at Kenya and the massive oil finds there as a potential flashpoint?

[Rainbow Six]

Some anti China demonstrations in Vietnam in the news, with one reported fatality and many more injuries

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-27420008

[Raellus]

I've been working on projections for U.S. military equipment and force strength and the findings are a little bit on the alarming side. I'm probably beating a dead horse here, but I really think that any projection to a third world war needs to take the following into consideration. Although the U.S.A.'s gargantuan military budget is still much larger than other emerging [rival] powers, much of it goes either to paying for the costly, long-running counter-insurgency war in Afghanistan or for expensive, small batch weapon systems like the F-22 (for which orders have been significantly reduced). The litany of projects that have been cut or downgraded in recent years is rather long. The following is from an article on the downgrading of the U.S. Army's GCV program (to replace the M2 Bradley IFV):

“The Army can’t afford anything new,” said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, Arlington, Va. “It can afford mods, it can afford upgrades, but clean sheet designs have fallen out of the modernization plan. There’s no GCV, no Armed Aerial Scout — it’s all a continuation of the Army’s ‘Big 5’ during the Reagan years.”

In the 1980s, the Army invested heavily in Apache and Black Hawk helicopters, the Abrams tank, the Bradley fighting vehicle and the Patriot missile defense system. All of those systems are expected to remain in the Army inventory for years, or decades, to come.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140118/DEFSECT02/301180024/

The USAF and USN are also finding that items on their wish lists aren't safe from the chopping block.

The active U.S. Army is set to shrink to around 400,000 by the end of this decade. Although the remaining force will still be quite capable, I don't think the U.S. military is going to be the world beater that it was (arguably) 10, 20, or 30 years ago.

IF the defense budget trends that I've been harping on in this thread continue, there's no doubt in my mind that the U.S. will be hard pressed if it finds itself in a major, conventional land war with another world power, let alone more than one. This will be a prominent feature of T2030.

[pmulcahy11b]

And what we'll also get is the "Hollow Army" of the 1970s and 80s again. The higher-ranking officers, senior NCOs, and a few die-hards stay; then you have a horde of new troops who will get thrust into leadership positions well before they are ready for the responsibility or have the proper training.

[Raellus]

No doubt, Paul. It looks like the U.S. Army, at least, is going to be fighting a significant degree of institutional and technological atrophy in the near future.

I'm starting on operational plans for the T2030 war in Europe and I stumbled across the following while researching the modern Polish armed forces. It's a NATO contingency plan, c. 2010, to defend its Baltic members in case of an attack (presumably by Russia and/or Belarus).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_Guardian

That link led to this article.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/dec/06/wikileaks-cables-nato-russia-baltics

Wow. Just wow.

[pmulcahy11b]

Wikileaks...goddamned guy...

[Raellus]

Here's an interesting little piece. The bit about the Russian aircraft carry isn't particularly alarming, but the table on NATO military budgets is rather telling.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/russias-air-craft-carrier-crossed-195206098.html

[kato13]

the table on NATO military budgets is rather telling.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/russias-air-craft-carrier-crossed-195206098.html

That chart was exactly what I was looking at when I suggested that some of the Baltic states might leave if a "1.6% of GDP must go to defense" was a new NATO requirement. That number would keep Estonia in but lose the others.

Then you could have Russia take Latvia and Lithuania without pressing the Article 6 button. Estonia now surrounded and Nato has few options to support (logistics wise).

[Rainbow Six]

If I'm reading various articles correctly there already is a supposed minimum percentage of GDP that must go to defence spending and it's 2 %, e.g.

http://www.defenceiq.com/defence-technology/articles/as-nato-wakes-to-defence-spending-shortfall-intern/

The agreed rate set between NATO allies is a relatively meagre 2% of GDP

In 2013 the only members that met this target were Estonia, Greece, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. The only others that have come close since 2009 are Turkey and France.

As a side note, Greece and Turkey (two of the bigger spenders) still have conscription, as do Norway and Denmark (although period of service in Denmark is only four months), but the rest of NATO has abolished mandatory military service (although some countries, e.g. Germany and Sweden) have retained the legislation to reinstate it should the need arise. In most cases conscription was abolished over the last decade or so, so it's possible that as time goes by and new conscripts are not recruited some countries may see a reduction in the size of their reserve forces.

[Raellus]

That chart was exactly what I was looking at when I suggested that some of the Baltic states might leave if a "1.6% of GDP must go to defense" was a new NATO requirement. That number would keep Estonia in but lose the others.

Then you could have Russia take Latvia and Lithuania without pressing the Article 6 button. Estonia now surrounded and Nato has few options to support (logistics wise).

That's an interesting idea. It seems a bit harsh for NATO to do that, especially since so few of its members states meet the defense budget requirements. I'm not sure that I can see NATO jettisoning those countries and then giving much of toss if Russia invaded Estonia. Also, Latvia and Lithuania are pretty firmly oriented towards the West- if NATO threatened to kick them out if they didn't raise their defense spending to the 1.6-2.0% requirement, I can see them making every effort to do so. If anyone needs NATO-backed security, it's those two countries, and they know it.

In most cases conscription was abolished over the last decade or so, so it's possible that as time goes by and new conscripts are not recruited some countries may see a reduction in the size of their reserve forces.

That's a really good point. It's also worth noting that although the Russian army is making steps towards professionalizing at least part of its force (most notably, its NCOs), it still maintains conscription. It also continues to maintain massive stockpiles of infantry weapons and AFVs. In the future, therefore, it would be easier and probably faster for the Russians to mobilize and equip reserve formations that it will be for most NATO armies.

[kato13]

If anyone needs NATO-backed security, it's those two countries, and they know it.

Then why don't they follow the current rules. They don't because they are not enforced. Enforcing them seems logical militarily, but political pressures and the desire to be elected (or re-elected) by politicians willing to manipulate those pressures could lead to NATO unraveling.

[rcaf_777]

The biggest problem I have is the issue of how to destabilise America

Using part of the sub plot of the movie Dawn's early light

Russian Hardliners, steal and nuclear missile and lunch from North Turkey into Russian

Russia assumes this is a NATO/US attack and launches a limited US Strike

The President survives the attack as the targeting warhead miss ground zero the pentagon

The President is evacuation from the white however his helicopter crashes and he is presumed dead

A new President is sworn in and is urged by JCS to launch a full strike with remaining sub launched ICBM and bomber fleet

Old President Issues stand down order, to all US forces

New President is killed in a mid air collision with a E-8 Joint STARS Aircraft

JCS distrustful of weather the President is real, form MILGOV

Mexico takes advantage of chaos to invade parts of southern Texas, New Mexico and Arizona

Alaska becomes a Canadian Protectorate

Canadian Troops use deadly force to turn away us refugee from borders crossings.

US States torn between the two governments, with no clear leader and limited resources many state go it on their own preferring to fix what they can in there states, Guard units remaining loyal to the state governors.

US Federal Forces remain loyal to JCS but a handful who have meet and seen the President remain loyal to him.

Texas declares independence, forming the Republic of Texas

[Rainbow Six]

Some more stats on NATO that I just came across...much of it covers annual spending which has already been covered upthread, but the last page gives a useful summary of the manpower of each member's armed forces

http://www.nato.int/nato_static/assets/pdf/pdf_topics/20140224_140224-PR2014-028-Defence-exp.pdf

[Raellus]

This article posits some possible ways another "Great War" could start. Both regions that we are looking at as being the sparks for WWIII c.2030 are discussed.

http://news.yahoo.com/west-ponders-stop-fight-great-war-113159434.html

[Targan]

Well it's some consolation that the Russian Army is mostly a conscript force, but their equipment stockpiles and longstanding mobilisation doctrines would allow them to expand very quickly, albeit no doubt with somewhat patchy training and skill levels.

[Raellus]

Well it's some consolation that the Russian Army is mostly a conscript force, but their equipment stockpiles and longstanding mobilisation doctrines would allow them to expand very quickly, albeit no doubt with somewhat patchy training and skill levels.

True, but Russia is currently taking measures to professionalize its army, especially at the NCO level, and in highly technical fields. Moving forward, this should provide a fairly competent corps around which to build up a larger conscript force should the need arise. It would probably still be patchy in terms of training and skill level, but the backbone of any decent army is its NCOs so building capacity in that department is a start, at least.

The Russian army has had a reputation for being a massive hoard of unschooled peasants since, at the latest, WWI. To a fairly great extent, that's not an inaccurate statement. But, Russia has also shown what overwhelming numbers of even poorly trained conscripts armed with half-way decent armaments can do to a smaller, albeit more technologically sophisticated foe. In several important categories, Russia still maintains a better correlation of forces compared to NATO and, as you pointed out, will likely be able to mobilize greater numbers of men and machines in a national security emergency than its potential Western foes will. Unless NATO ups its military spending almost across the board, that Russian advantage will continue to grow.

[kato13]

Both Russia and to a greater extent China will need to move away from high causality forms of warfare for the years 2025-2030. China's forced one child policy and Russia having one of highest abortion rates in the world will lead to huge labor pinch during those years i they decide that causalities do not matter during the early stages of the conflict.

China also would see huge internal pressures if large numbers of families are losing their only child on missions where the gains would not justify the loses.

Yes these countries could crack down on internal dissent, but if they are seen as throwing away lives willy nilly, any popular internal support could evaporate very quickly.

[Raellus]

Both Russia and to a greater extent China will need to move away from high causality forms of warfare for the years 2025-2030. China's forced one child policy and Russia having one of highest abortion rates in the world will lead to huge labor pinch during those years i they decide that causalities do not matter during the early stages of the conflict.

China also would see huge internal pressures if large numbers of families are losing their only child on missions where the gains would not justify the loses.

Yes these countries could crack down on internal dissent, but if they are seen as throwing away lives willy nilly, any popular internal support could evaporate very quickly.

True, and that's probably why both the Russian army and the PLA are doing more than ever before to provide their troops with decent individual body armor and more and better communications equipment. They're both working hard to modernize their forces, structurally, technologically, and doctrinally. I agree that the days of human wave attacks are probably over. The point I'm making is that they still both enjoy somewhat a quantitative advantage over western militaries and that's got to count for something (in a speculative near future war scenario.

Also, I've heard tidbits about China loosening its one child policy and I've also come across mentions of a Russian government PR campaign touting the nationalism/heroism of motherhood. Not sure if the latter will pay off by increasing birth rates, but it indicates that Moscow's aware of the problem and taking steps to try and rectify it.

[kato13]

True, and that's probably why both the Russian army and the PLA are doing more than ever before to provide their troops with decent individual body armor and more and better communications equipment. They're both working hard to modernize their forces, structurally, technologically, and doctrinally. I agree that the days of human wave attacks are probably over. The point I'm making is that they still both enjoy somewhat a quantitative advantage over western militaries and that's got to count for something (in a speculative near future war scenario.

Also, I've heard tidbits about China loosening its one child policy and I've also come across mentions of a Russian government PR campaign touting the nationalism/heroism of motherhood. Not sure if the latter will pay off by increasing birth rates, but it indicates that Moscow's aware of the problem and taking steps to try and rectify it.

Both countries are trying to increase birth rates, but even if things turned around today any new children would only be 10 years old at the beginning of the conflict.

2030 is actually seen as the year that China will have the fewest people of working age since the 1970s iirc. A really large portion of the population will be around 60 at that point.

This chart shows how upsidedown their population will be in 2025
http://cac-ib-geography.wikispaces.com/file/view/populationPyramid-2.php.jpeg/164779795/427x296/populationPyramid-2.php.jpeg

Russia is better but look at the minimum line in the 25-29 bar. They actually have more men aged 60-69 than they do 20-29.

http://geog.uoregon.edu/bartlein/courses/geog361/labs/pop-Russia.png

Here is the US for compariason
http://www.mnforsustain.org/images/pop_pyramid_us_2025.png

[Raellus]

An interesting article on Russian vs. American military procurement policies.

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/what-america-can-learn-from-russias-cheap-but-deadly-t-1540829820

And another, from the same blog, on the possible near-future irrelevance of the modern supercarrier.

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/i-just-cant-have-enough-of-this-awesome-underwater-miss-1610395166/+TylerRogoway

I may be coming across as a hater, but I'm not. I greatly admire and root for the U.S. military and I hope that it overcomes the hurdles, some self-inflicted, others imposed from outside, that it faces moving into the next half of this decade. I just feel the need to counter the fanboy "we're invincible 'cuz we won the Cold War" thinking that some of my fellow Americans still cling to. What I like about these articles is they offer solutions, instead of just blithely defending current doctrine.

[Targan]

"Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall."

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I may be coming across as a hater, but I'm not. I greatly admire and root for the U.S. military and I hope that it overcomes the hurdles, some self-inflicted, others imposed from outside, that it faces moving into the next half of this decade. I just feel the need to counter the fanboy "we're invincible 'cuz we won the Cold War" thinking that some of my fellow Americans still cling to. What I like about these articles is they offer solutions, instead of just blithely defending current doctrine.
And I, for one, applaud your efforts for striving for a balanced, more rationale appraisal. It must be quite difficult when your own government is the main generator of this fanboy-ism. There's many of us who were amazed that the US government decided to issue a medal for "winning" the Cold War when it was well known that it was a "war" of economics and influence rather than pure military might (and thus we see the medal as inappropriate because it's a reward that encourages a wholly fabricated ideal of what happened).

In Australia we have a culture of "taking the piss" out of friends and colleagues and so we aren't so eager in our expressions of patriotism (although we do tend to take it too far sometimes and succumb to the "cutting down of tall poppies" syndrome and all the viciousness that that brings). Although we don't seem to fall for the same sort of hero worship that's been manufactured in the US at times, we are seeing some of the same sort of thoughtless/mindless pride in ourselves, the military and the country. It bothers me to see the public of any country manipulated via patriotism and the public too ignorant or apathetic (or both) to question it.

[Raellus]

A 4000-5000 man speed-bump.

http://news.yahoo.com/nato-fast-track-rapid-reaction-force-161436927.html

I applaud NATO for addressing Russian aggression and the threat to the Baltic States, but this seems like little more than a token gesture to me. I don't think that a unit such as the one briefly outlined in the article could realistically stymie a concerted Russian attack on any/all of the its former Baltic republics or Ukraine proper, especially if the U.S. contingent is based in Italy. But hey, it's a start, I guess.

[Raellus]

I hope this assessment is wrong.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/09/23/ukraine-is-more-of-an-existential-threat-than-isis-because-it-could-destroy-nato/

[RN7]

I hope this assessment is wrong.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2014/09/23/ukraine-is-more-of-an-existential-threat-than-isis-because-it-could-destroy-nato/

I don't think the West or Russia really want to go to war against each other despite Russia's virtual annexation of the Crimea and the eastern Ukraine. You can put any spin on how bad Putin is or could be and how Russian forces have no right to be in the Ukraine, but Putin is far from stupid and he will not be invading the Baltics anytime soon.

On the other hand almost everyone in the West and the rest of the world really does want to go to war with ISIL. ISIL is absolute vermin and needs to be annihilated. I would be happy if the US napalmed every one of their bases, and then sent every special forces team in NATO after them to flush them out of their rat holes with flamethrowers, and then let the survivors fight hand to hand against Gurkha's with Kukri knives and televised it.

[Targan]

ISIL is absolute vermin and needs to be annihilated. I would be happy if the US napalmed every one of their bases, and then sent every special forces team in NATO after them to flush them out of their rat holes with flamethrowers, and then let the survivors fight hand to hand against Gurkha's with Kukri knives and televised it.

Word. Snake and nape, whiskey to echo.

[Raellus]

Who'd have thunk it, even 20 years ago?

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-us-sends-ironhorse-tanks-to-natos-nervous-baltic-front-line-2014-10

All of this posturing makes me nervous. It'll be interesting to see how Moscow reacts.