The world of 2100

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Setting aside GDW's vague 2300 AD timeline retcon that puts the Twilight War as the beginning of "history" for 2300 AD, what do you guys imagine the world of 2100 is like after T2k?

Back to 1990s levels of post-scarcity? More-or-less the same as the year 2000 except people have learned to cope more?

Just curious.

[TrailerParkJawa]

The United States never regains its status as a global superpower. It fragments in smaller regional powers and most citizens have no interest in restoring American hegemony. Most people are involved in agricuture, there is no consumption based society with throwaway products, no fruit shipped in from Chile, and things are very, very different than before the nuclear exchange. In essence most of us live very local lives at a much more sustainable level.

[HorseSoldier]

The Twilight War die off and residual effects from radiation would continue to be casting a demographic shadow on population levels worldwide, but most especially on the main combatant nations. North America would be significantly effected, but not as bad as central/eastern Europe and (most especially, going by the narrative) China.

The collapse of most of the systems associated with industrialized modern civilization and global trade networks would not be an easy bounce back for anyone involved. I agree that most people circa 2100 would be back to working in agriculture or otherwise directly involved in food production. (Re) industrialization to a 1900 level, much less a 2000 (or 1996 or 7 level, if you prefer) would be difficult for a lot of reasons. Energy scarcity being one -- the first industrial revolution and the 20th century in general burned through a lot of the most easily exploited energy resources before pushing on to more remote ones, like Middle Eastern oil.

Even without considering the GDW 2300AD timeline, I think there might be a significant shift towards the southern hemisphere, where the war was less intrusive. Australia and some of the better off South American nations (Chile, Argentina, and Brazil or maybe just a fragment thereof based in the better developed southern part of the country) could all come out of the Twilight War as much more significant players on the world scene.

South Africa might fall in that boat as well, though honestly I assume in a Twilight War scenario South Africa goes apocalypse-level bad pretty fast with the Soviets and Cubans encouraging their clients to do a full court press and the country facing massive internal upheavals when they do. What comes out the other end of that meat grinder . . . who knows?

French hegemony coming out of the war . . . maybe sustainable. A lot of that would, I think, depend on France getting dominant access to Gulf oil and being able to keep it coming back to France. Even there, though, the standard of living compared to the 1990s is going to be way, way down and there's going to be a backflow of urban populations back to agriculture as fuel, parts, etc. rationing and scarcity mean agriculture has to become less mechanized.

How big and how far that umbrella extends is an interesting question -- I can see helping get neighboring nations back on their feet within a French sphere of influence. I'm not sure I see the 2300AD idea of France getting seriously re-engaged with its former African colonies -- I'd think attention would focus hard on establishing relations with energy producing nations or establishing colonies in anarchic areas with pre-war, proven energy resources.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

I'm not sure I see the 2300AD idea of France getting seriously re-engaged with its former African colonies -- I'd think attention would focus hard on establishing relations with energy producing nations or establishing colonies in anarchic areas with pre-war, proven energy resources.

But Africa is chock full of energy resources (and mineral resources, and cheap labour). Why wouldn't France focus it's diplomatic and military energies there? IRL China is going hard securing African resources.

[TrailerParkJawa]

Originally Posted by Targan

But Africa is chock full of energy resources (and mineral resources, and cheap labour). Why wouldn't France focus it's diplomatic and military energies there? IRL China is going hard securing African resources.

Yeah, I don't think France can ignore the African countries, especially along the Med.

[HorseSoldier]

That's not the same as reabsorbing it's historical African colonies, however, which was my point. Not that they'd ignore the continent.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Targan

But Africa is chock full of energy resources (and mineral resources, and cheap labour). Why wouldn't France focus it's diplomatic and military energies there? IRL China is going hard securing African resources.

Totally agree.

I don't think it would be neccessary for France to attempt to recolonise anywhere - main concern would most likely be to make sure that each country maintained a pro French Government, even if that meant using force to install one / keep it in place. There could be shades of the Wild Geese and Frederick Forsyth's Dogs of War.

[HorseSoldier]

It depends on whether there is any sort of functional government for them to do business with, which Africa hasn't been especially great for since de-colonization after WW2.

The French are very much going to be trying to do an empire-on-the-cheap approach to things in the beginning of the 21st century, with just too many problems and too much to do just to keep France afloat at something approximating a 1990s level of prosperity. If an oil producing country has a functional government who wants to do business, doing business with them is logical.

21st century colonies, on the other hand, would tend to develop in areas where things have collapsed so far and so hard that there's no one left to do business with beyond very petty warlords. In some cases, it might be preferable to pick a warlord and help him attain power. Probably in the sole case of oil producing areas would it possibly be better to park a couple brigades of troops and a French civil administration.

In Africa this might be preferable in a case like Nigeria, depending on how hard the collapse in that country is. It might make a lot more sense to expropriate the Niger Delta oil producing region. Maybe the French pretty it up by creating a government of locals who'll play ball, or maybe they just theirs and get on with it. (This situation could also play out elsewhere -- Mexico, Venezuela, etc, beyond the obvious one of Middle East nations, depending on how well France can satisfy their energy needs and how destabilized energy producing regions are.)

One possible reason to re-engage with Francophone Africa would be manpower to help accomplish their assorted geopolitical goals. However, in the first decade or two of the 21st century, I think they could do a very brisk business in raiding Europe for whatever manpower they need. Besides being able to grow the French Foreign Legion as large as they want, I'd think they could also headhunt most any surviving skilled labor they wanted. Conditions are bad enough in most European nations that there wouldn't be any shortage of engineers, doctors, trained machinists, whatever who'd defect to France in exchange stability, freedom from famine, and reasonable medical care. (France might be able to do the same in North America via engagement with Quebec -- doesn't the Challenge write up on Canada show them as the guarantor of Quebec's independence?)