View Single Post
  #14  
Old 04-21-2015, 07:37 PM
swaghauler swaghauler is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: PA
Posts: 1,481
Default

The problem with assuming that the US would use force to prevent Russia from attempting to blockade China is a political one. In the Version 2.2 history of the conflict it clearly states that China is the aggressor by demanding "border adjustments" from Russia. Chinese Nationalist officers provoke increasingly violent border incidents (similar to what's happening in the South China sea right now?). Russia is an "old pro" at the international politics game. when hostilities commenced Russia probably would have asked for a UN Resolution against said "Chinese aggression." In addition to her allies, Russia would most likely have the support of Japan, Vietnam (who had their own violent border conflict with China), Taiwan (to weaken China), India (to weaken China and because they were buying arms from Russia), The Philipines, France (to weaken China's economic standing in Asia) Cuba, and several Eastern European Countries. This could easily result in the implementation of sanctions against China. It would be a small blessing to Russia though. At this point in time; Russia would be involved in Serbia, "at war with the Chechens," in addition to China's border incursions.
The US would never openly oppose a UN Resolution in the 90's. This is a good (political) reason for why the US couldn't just "stomp" the weakened Russian Navy to the bottom of the ocean (until open war occurs anyway).

Another issue I have with the old cannon that can be corrected would be with the US entering the war after Germany appeals for help. 1996 was an election year in the US. If at least some of the timeline in the US mirrors actual history; then you have a Democratic President in a fight for his political life after the Democrats lost Congress in the 1994 elections. No President would even consider going to war in an election year. The premise given in the original Cannon is also suspect. I doubt a conservative Germany would act that way.

There is a spark that does make more sense though. Poland breaks out in a sort of "civil war" between the Communist Government and the Solidarity Movement in 1996. The country devolves into open war (kind of like the Ukraine). Throughout 1996, the NATO countries clandestinely assist the Solidarity Movement in making gains. The Communist Government calls on Belarus and Russia for assistance. They commit full force. The Solidarity Movement calls on NATO and Germany answers the call. This pulls NATO into the fray. France, Belgium, Italy, and Greece withdrawl from NATO in protest, seeing this as German aggression in a Polish "internal matter." This withdrawl (and the loss of French and Belgium ports)creates a logistical "choke point" for supplies arriving from the US. This supply "choke point" explains why the qualitatively superior NATO forces don't just "steamroll" the PACT forces. You just continue the timeline from here. it is now December of 1997. This time line also explains why so many cities in Poland are often friendly to the characters. They may have been Solidarity strongholds during the war.
Reply With Quote