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?)

[TrailerParkJawa]

Originally Posted by 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.

Fair enough! That makes me wonder how difficult it would be for any surviving powers to reinstate colonies or create new ones. France might still have things together compared to all other powers but they are still weak. I see you just Discusssed that in the previous post.

[Olefin]

Sorry but dont see the US falling apart as others have. For one the US is still a very cohesive country from the standpoint of what American culture is. While there are divisions in the country its nothing like what it was in the 1850's and 60's that led to the Civil War.

People have moved too much and there is no real difference in much of the country anymore. If this had happened with no American Civil War in the 1860's then I would say yes. But not now.

Plus the US still has powerful military forces left, both at home and abroad even in 2001. Having CENTCOM come home after securing oil for the US by defending Iran and the Saudis, most likely in 2002 or so, will bring a powerful force, with a lot of equipment, back home - one that has fuel and access to more.

And I dont see the US letting the Mexicans keep most of Texas for long - for one CENTCOM, all by itself, has more than enough firepower to take back Texas from the small Mexican and Soviet forces that are left and keep them out for good. And MilGov, with fuel, has more than enough forces to kick the small Mexican forces out of CA and AZ and NM.

Thats why I discount the 2300AD world totally - sorry but there is no way the US lets Mexico keep LA, San Diego and half the Southwest. The game is a fantasy but all fantasies have some grounding in reality and that happening is non-sensical.

Now does that mean the US starts putting bases all over the world again - in a word no.

But I see them in 2100 still rebuilding, but back to their old borders and perhaps even bigger by absorbing some of the Caribbean nations or parts of Canada as well. With a military that is basically built for continental defense, not for projecting power overseas.

But an America that is what they were until 1898 - one that has big interests in North and South America only and only overseas in very selected places like possibly Iran and Kenya - i.e. nations that owe the US big time from the Twilight War. I..e they may have a very limited presence in the two countries and possibly Korea and the UK as well - but beyond that the rest of the world is left to their own devices.

And I dont see the French as they were in 2300AD. Sorry not going to happen. They just dont have the resource base to do that - and Africa is not going to be of much use to them for a long long time as screwed up as it will be, most likely down to 10-15% of its prewar population and with its cities and transport networks gone.

[HorseSoldier]

But going by the Twilight 2000 timeline, circa 2000 the US is involved in a three way civil war, with two rival claimants to "legitimate" government and New America intent on revolutionary take over. National cohesion is pretty good with a full belly, but the 90's LA riots and Hurricane Katrina call into question how far it floats when things get really red in tooth and claw.

Even with that significant surplus of would be government, huge portions of the nation are in complete anarchy, or under the control of warlords not beholden to any of the three factions, or have some semblance of intact society but have opted to close their borders to outsiders (to include their fellow Americans), i.e. Rhode Island, upper peninsula Michigan, and (MilGov loyalist lip service aside) Utah.

In terms of the playing in the professional Nation-State league, the United States circa 2000 is very charitably "in a rebuilding year." No bowl games likely, and don't look for them to do to well in league play against Mexico any time soon.

CENTCOM is in a tough situation. When the US forces leave, US votes as to how the oil gets distributed go away with the troops. The maximum effective range of an owed favor is about zero meters in geopolitics, and probably less than that in Middle Eastern cultures.

Even if MilGov can pull the remnants of CENTCOM back to the US, they get the same problem they have with bringing back US forces from Europe -- with a domestic economy that can't even reliably cover subsistence agriculture and a domestic security situation that can't even reliably guarantee lines of communication . . . there's just no way MilGov, CivGov, or anyone else is in a position to go on the offensive against Mexico in 2000. Once the US puts its house in order and MilGov/CivGov reconcile or one smashes the other or whatever, maybe then they can turn their attentions to combat operations against Mexico but that's not the summer of 2000. Or 2001. Maybe 2010.

Thats why I discount the 2300AD world totally - sorry but there is no way the US lets Mexico keep LA, San Diego and half the Southwest.

Unless Mexico becomes a nuclear power before the US has the ability to force them back out (technically -- unless one of the rival governments in Mexico's own civil war becomes a nuclear power and threatens their use to maintain war gains). May seem far fetched to our usual stereotypical view of Mexico, but they have a reactor and if it survived the war relatively intact a weapons program is not unreasonable given ongoing/pending conflict with the US.

In a scenario where Mexico has nuclear weapons and the US has nuclear weapons in, say, 2010-2020 I doubt anyone has any enthusiasm for initiating another nuclear exchange to get Texas and SoCal back. In a scenario of potential nuclear exchange, I would venture to guess France might threaten its own nuclear arsenal against either nation if they're the aggressor as well.

Such is the nature of life when you're not at the top, and the Twilight War definitely didn't leave the US at the top of the pile.

[Olefin]

Sorry but I disagree on the offensive part - you are talking about small units now that arent much bigger than present day regiments. They dont have a lot of vehicles so their fuel requirements are a lot less than a full strength division as are their food requirements. And Red Star, Lone Star makes it clear that Texas is doing ok for food production.

And the oil of Red Star, Lone Star would solve MilGov fuel problems, at least for what they would need for retaking most of Texas, quite nicely.

Especially considering the Mexican forces in all of Texas have a total of 12 AFV's and the Soviets have all of 15 tanks left, spread all over southern and eastern Texas. As for manpower 2700 Federales, 2100 Constitucionales, 450 Nationalists and 250 FRMPs and 500 or so marauders with two AFV. The Soviets have another 3000 and thats it.

So you are telling me that MilGov brings home 43000 troops and lets 5400 Mexicans who are fighting each other and a Soviet force of 3000 men who can barely hold onto San Antonio keep Texas and all its oil and other resources? Sorry but if you can bring home 43,000 men even if you have to do it initially with sail transport and coal powered ships you can land a big enough force to take and hold the area around the refinery and the offshore platform. And after that you dont need to worry about oil again at least not for quite a while.

You arent talking about a continent wide offensive here - its take the refinery and the offshore well, hold it and use the gas to expand your foothold. Use the aviation gas to bring back aircraft and now you have the advantage of air power to add to trained troops.

And sure as heck CENTCOM would do it otherwise - two paratroop divisions, two Marine divisions, and a Mech division against what I just described? And the payoff is that MilGov gets to uncap all those oil wells and put them to use with an operating refinery?

You dont bring home men to waste them. You bring them home for a purpose. Otherwise MilGov would have let them sit in Europe - why bring home men you arent going to use and add to your logistics issues.

its not like they were starving in Europe - they had cantonments and were doing ok. In fact thats why several didnt leave.

You bring them back for a reason - otherwise why not just sent them all to the Middle East? 49,000 men sent to CENTCOM would have given them a huge advantage there - they could have destroyed what was left of the Soviets there in a few weeks and told the French to go home as they werent needed.

They only sent 6000 there - thats because the rest they needed at home. And it sure as heck wasnt to just hold the area around Fort Dix and Norfolk - you dont need 43,000 men to do that.

[Olefin]

And the US still has nukes - there are multiple references in the modules to MilGov recovering nuclear warheads at various bases and securing them. Mexico doesnt have any.

[HorseSoldier]

To me it seems pretty obvious that whatever nuclear ordnance any of the various US governments still have access to (and you are correct, there are brief references to them in Howling Wilderness) by the time of the Mexican invasion was not available . . . because if it was, Mexico City and assorted points north of there and south of the Rio Grande would have been vaporized. What, exactly, the lack of a strategic campaign against Mexico indicates is open for conjecture, but it certainly points to some significant problem with the remaining US nuclear inventory (be it political will, communications failures, or possibly a fear of additional launches being detected by the Soviets and somehow triggering a general, city busting, exchange . . . or some other reason).

Now, as to CENTCOM or USAREUR or anyone else sweeping into Texas and sweeping the Mexicans out . . . again, see previous comments about MilGov, CivGov, and everyone else (Mexicans and Soviets in Texas included) being unable to reliably feed themselves or guarantee the safety of their own internal lines of communication. That (plus a whole slew of other problems) is going to combine to mean there's appreciably little industrial economy to support military efforts. After the smash up in Europe with NATO's summer offensive, circa 2000, everybody except the French seem to be so exhausted that bandit suppression is about the limits of what they can manage. Which makes sense trying to get by on a scavenger economy with dwindling resources of pre-war materiel and little to no new production taking place.

And sure as heck CENTCOM would do it otherwise - two paratroop divisions, two Marine divisions, and a Mech division against what I just described? And the payoff is that MilGov gets to uncap all those oil wells and put them to use with an operating refinery?

I think you're grossly underestimating the kind of manpower necessary to just establish and maintain some semblance of control over an area as blasted as the post-nuke US (and elsewhere). I just got back from Afghanistan where about that much manpower backed by every high tech toy we can dream up can't reliably keep the roads open to civilian and military traffic.

And unlike T2K combatants, we didn't have to worry about where our next meal was coming from, didn't have to worry about a breakdown of the medical system meaning that a big chunk of us would die from camp diseases, where out resupply of ammunition/food/fuel/etc would come from (and when it would get there), etc. Honestly, the war in Afghanistan is probably a cake walk compared to what you're talking about.

Actually, if you take the Texas scenario and completely delete the Mexican military and Soviets from the equation, it's quite possibly more than CENTCOM's surviving personnel and resources could handle just to restore and maintain stability in Texas in the middle of a humanitarian debacle and the developing ethnic war between Mexican refugees, Mexican-American communities, and Anglos that GDW talks about in Red Star, Lone Star. We're literally done that mission more than once in real life in the last couple decades, and I think if you asked most staff officers how they'd manage a peace enforcement mission in a country the size of Texas with multiple armed factions -- and do it without air support or any aviation to speak of, shaky communications, no RSTA besides what truck or horse mobile cav can do for you, extremely limited armor and fire support, extremely limited motor transport, and both very limited and very shaky logistics . . . there would not be a lot of optimism in the room.

its not like they were starving in Europe - they had cantonments and were doing ok. In fact thats why several didnt leave.

Units in cantonment (Europe and elsewhere) weren't starving to death circa 2000 for a couple reasons. First, a lot of them had already died from starvation or starvation/malnutrition related diseases and problems in previous winters. (Military personnel deaths were probably more about sustained malnutrition and its consequences than starvation itself, if only because they had guns and tanks and such to ensure that if anyone got food they did). Second, units were eking by circa 2000 by converting their manpower strength to agricultural laborers and were unable to undertake significant military action if it conflicted with planting season or the harvest. Even then, I don't think anybody in T2K's Y2K is doing ok -- at best they're one bad harvest or other disaster away from another winter where old folks and children don't make it and some people end up eating their shoe leather.

[Olefin]

No the US still has nukes - there are multiple references to nukes being removed by MilGov forces in various modules - including Ozarks and Howling Wildnerness (look at the reference to the Iowa Reserve Militia trying to remove nukes only to find that the warheads had already been removed by MilGov forces) - MilGov has moved them all to Colorado.

As for launching them at Mexico - most likely that didn happen which may explain why the Mexican forces that are left are so small - i.e. there wasnt a reinforcement. And MilGov may have thought they could deal with them conventionally - plus I doubt the US would use nukes on their own soil.

This is from Red Star Lone Star

San Antonio had to this point been relatively untouched by
the war itself, although famine, disease, and civil strife had
reduced the city's population to less than half its pre-war level.
The Soviet commander knew the Americans would hesitate to
incinerate 120,000 of their own people just to punish a few
thousand Soviet invaders.

So its pretty clear that MilGov still has nukes - they just dont want to use what they have left. And I am betting that a lot of Mexico did get nuked by them - but not until after their forces were on US soil anyway. They didnt get the follow on forces that might have allowed them to take all of Texas and California and even more - but the nukes stopped that and all they had left was enough to hold southern and central Texas southern CA - and then only because the Soviets stopped the 49th.

[Raellus]

AFAIK, canon largely ignores South America. I see Brazil becoming a global power. IRL, they're economy is going gangbusters (relative to most countries hit hard by the current is-it-or-isn't-it global recession). It's got all of the factors of production and has recently taken on a greater leadership role in the region. During the Twilight War/WWIII, it's possible that South American countries began fighting one another over regional hegemony, however, during the last 50-100 years, wars between South American countries have been few and not too deadly/destructive (internal conflicts are another issue). In the case of a regional war, Brazil's rise might be delayed by a decade or two. Argentina is their closest rival but I don't see them eclipsing Brazil. Whether peacefully or by force, I could see Brazil being at the head of a South American confederacy of some sort, along the lines of EU/NATO. It's a continent rich in resources (Venezuelan oil, Chilean minerals, Argentinian and Uruguayan meat and grain, Brazil has some of everything). If they can get their act together, I can see The Confederacion de Estados Sudamericanos (CES)* being the richest and strongest world power in 2100.

*I didn't go with Estados Unidos de [Sud]america because that's too close to what Latin American countries call the USA.

[schnickelfritz]

I have to say that it's been a while since I went through Red Star Lone Star, but I really feel most of the scattered Mexican units pack up and go home at one time or another. Hostile populace, few supplies other than locally sourced food/water, the Texian Legion, the US Government, a civil war at home, etc etc. If I was in some unit drawn from the Yucatan, the last thing I'd want to do is hang out in some nowheresville town in the US Southwest wating for the US Government to show and wipe my unit out. I can see many of the Mexican units withdrawing in late winter or early spring before it gets really hot.

-Dave

[Rainbow Six]

With regard to South America, I don't have any books immediately to hand at the moment, but going from memory I'm fairly sure that in the v2 BYB it refers to a war between Brazil and Argentina in 1998 or thereabouts that ends up going nuclear. I think Peru is also mentioned.

[TrailerParkJawa]

If I recall correctly the world of 2300 Ended up the way it did in part because GDW created a game to model the course of history and various players represented the countries of the world. So at least some of that vision pews the results of players choices and not 100 percent written by one person.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

With regard to South America, I don't have any books immediately to hand at the moment, but going from memory I'm fairly sure that in the v2 BYB it refers to a war between Brazil and Argentina in 1998 or thereabouts that ends up going nuclear. I think Peru is also mentioned.

That would be interesting considering that neither of them had/has nuclear weapons IRL. IIRC, Brazil was working on developing them in the late '80s but never quite got there and eventually quit trying altogether. Assuming that they tried much harder in the Twilight timeline (I'm not a fan of the v2.2 history), and the Argies did too, neither side would realistically have more than a half-dozen warheads max by 2000, and they most likely would have had to have been delivered by aircraft making interception a strong possibility. Yeah, I just don't buy a nuclear war between Argentina and Brazil.

[TrailerParkJawa]

If I recall correctly the world of 2300 Ended up the way it did in part because GDW created a game to model the course of history and various players represented the countries of the world. So at least some of that vision pews the results of players choices and not 100 percent written by one person.

[HorseSoldier]

Originally Posted by Raellus

That would be interesting considering that neither of them had/has nuclear weapons IRL. IIRC, Brazil was working on developing them in the late '80s but never quite got there and eventually quit trying altogether. Assuming that they tried much harder in the Twilight timeline (I'm not a fan of the v2.2 history), and the Argies did too, neither side would realistically have more than a half-dozen warheads max by 2000, and they most likely would have had to have been delivered by aircraft making interception a strong possibility. Yeah, I just don't buy a nuclear war between Argentina and Brazil.

There was speculation that both had nuclear programs in the 80s -- GDW apparently decided those programs made it to limited fruition in the T2K timeline. Argentina-Brazil was one of those late Twilight War side clashes (1998? don't have chronology handy) that seemed to fall into the "everyone else is doing it, why shouldn't we?" (Pakistan-India being another, though that one seemed more probable to me.)

An exchange between Brazil and Argentina probably wouldn't amount to much more than maybe tactical use if one side was doing badly in their conventional war and/or hitting Buenos Aires on the one side and one of the southern most Brazilian cities (Rio and Sao Paulo are probably too far north to be hit, but there are lucrative targets closer to the border).

Both nations probably suffer more overall damage from the collapse of the global economy. I don't know the numbers for Argentina, but Brazil is a net importer of food because a big chunk of their agricultural sector is cash crops (citrus fruit, rope fiber, whatever) -- a country whose national dish is rice and beans imports both to meet its food needs. For Brazil to make it without massive unrest and chaos, there would have to be some well organized and orchestrated austerity and economic reconfiguring programs . . . which honestly probably were not favored by the initial outbreak of war, when demand would have gone up for Brazilian cash crops.

For Brazil, I see it fragmenting for a time along the longstanding north/south divide (opposite of the US -- industrialized south, agricultural north), with the Amazon basin just abandoned entirely. Eventually the south succeeds in reestablishing control over the rest of the nation, but settling the coastal north takes time and getting back into developing the Amazon is generations down the line from the Twilight War.

Argentina I think is better off in terms of cohesion and an easier territory to control, but a war and nuclear exchange with Brazil exposes a lot of high value areas to potential damage -- Buenos Aires and Rosario are both conceivably involved in fighting if it leads to Brazilian troops on Argentinean soil or nukes. I'd guess the capital has had to relocate from Buenos Aires and the war with Brazil has ground down to both sides trying to restore order and rebuild, with Argentina having a head start compared to Brazil owing to nothing as comparably complicating as the north breaking away.

[Chris]

I don't have a copy of 2300 in easy reach (buried in the shelves), but isn't Texas it's own nation with extra-solar colonies? I vaguely remember a module, Ranger, dealing with Texans and the Ember?

[HorseSoldier]

Yeah -- Texas is one of those 2300AD weird recursive history situations. Texas was formally annexed by Mexico in the 21st century but then it (and southern California) rebelled as a part of a renewed (the 3rd?) Mexican-American War. The war ends in a murky sort of way -- Texas is independent, there is a US-Mexico settlement, and then Mexico crushes the southern California rebellion.

The end result is a map of the southwestern USA that looks a lot like it did after Texan independence and before the actual Mexican American War in the 19th century.