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).

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.

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.

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

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

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...

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

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.

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?

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.
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 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).

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.

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).

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

I was sort of implying this.

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.


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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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).

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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?

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.

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?

-

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?

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/...llectuals.html

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

A few other thoughts...

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

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 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.

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?

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

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

Here is some of my ideas...

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?

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.

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?

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.