[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?