OT or Not OT: Twilight 2030

[Raellus]

Or thereabouts. No, as far as I'm aware, a new reincarnation of our beloved military-themed, post-apocalyptic RPG isn't in the works. The recent drama in Ukraine has, however, created fertile ground for entertaining the worrying possibility of another major war. Although I love the classic, alternate history flavor of the original Twilight 2000, sometimes I get a hankering to bring current and near future gear and geopolitical issues into the post-apocalyptic, neo-dark ages of the T2K milieu. So I thought we could discuss possible future scenarios that might get us there. Let's start with potential global flashpoints and/or recent worrying developments.

• Russia vs. NATO (over Ukraine)
• No-Ko acting out vs. South Korea and its allies (again)
• India vs. Pakistan (again)
• The Middle East (always)
• China flexing its military muscle in Asia and the Pacific (no one's forgotten about Taiwan)
• Japan's recent lean to the right (again) and remilitarization
• An economic/political break-down of the EU
• Ethnic/religious violence in Africa (constantly)

Let's also add to that...

• the increasing odds of a global pandemic- something echoing the rampage of the Spanish Flu in 1918-'19
• Global Warming (whatever the cause) and related competition over resources
• Chances of another global economic meltdown
• Spectacular acts of terrorism
• Massive natural disaster with global impact (think Krakatoa)

These have all been likely suspects for a while now. Am I missing anything that needs to be factored in?

Anyone care to take a stab at a Universal Theory of the Causes of WWIII incorporating all of the above? I'd prefer not to explore conspiracy theories (e.g. the Illuminati and One World Government), or sci-fi, or supernatural factors at this point; we can delve into that later, if any of you care to go there.

What else would you like to see in a future iteration of Twilight 2000?

Discuss.

[mikeo80]

IMHO, any one of the scenarios Raellus mentioned could be the spark that lights the fuse that sets off the powder keg. Look at WWI, One crazed assassin ended up being responsible for 10 - 20 million deaths. Yes there were a multitude of issues and problems that the world was facing. But one spark lit the fuse.

Again, IMHO, I see Korea, Syria or maybe Iran as being the most likely area to provide the spark. It very easily could by China and Taiwan, China and Japan, Russia.

It also could be a geological phenomena that starts the ball rolling. Yellowstone Caldera, Major earthquake along the Pacific "Ring of Fire", Asteroid impact, solar flare.

It could be something as insidious as Ebola going air born. Or SARS, H1N1 or other type of flu.

I have tried to stay as far away as I can from the conspiracy theories, sci-fi, or other "things that go bump in the night." (read zombies)

So, yes, we could have Twilight 2014, 15, 16 or what ever.

Time to get off of the soap box.

My $0.02

Mike

[pmulcahy11b]

Hey, anything that makes my stuff more worthwhile...

[mikeo80]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

Hey, anything that makes my stuff more worthwhile...

I agree with what you say, Paul. I just do not want to test drive that theory.

My $0.02

Mike

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Crazed assassins don't worry me overly much, they usually foul up something and get caught before they can fulfil their design e.g. John Hinckley, Jr. trying to kill then president Ronald Reagan.
It's the well motivated, strongly committed, social activist type assassins who are prepared to die for their cause and are smart enough to seize opportunities to fulfil their aims that bother me e.g. Gavrilo Princip when he saw Archduke Ferdinand sitting in a stalled car.

[Rainbow Six]

Interesting post…not sure how achievable it is to include all of the factors mentioned. Some of them are way beyond my area of expertise, but a few random thoughts on some of them (BTW, I really think Twilight 2025 has a ring to it)

An economic / political break down of the EU…economics is for the most part outside my area of expertise…I rely on what I read in certain newspapers and see on certain TV news channels and the ones that I’m reading / watching are saying that the economy is on the mend in Europe…how permanent that recovery is who knows, but as I said, economics is outwith my area of expertise so I wouldn’t be comfortable on that subject without doing a considerable amount of research which I can’t do at the minute (this post is a quick one during lunch hour at work)

A political break up of sorts is probably possible , although would likely be limited in scope (disclaimer – this post isn’t intended to get into any of the real life politics of the EU). I can only really speak for the situation in the United Kingdom here, where – according to the opinion polls - there is a sizeable percentage of the population who, when asked, state that they favour leaving the EU and Prime Minister David Cameron is on record as stating that if the Conservatives win the next General Election in 2015 he wants to hold a Referendum on continued UK membership in 2017. If the Referendum took place and if the public voted to leave I don’t see how the Government could do anything except leave the EU, but those are both big If’s, particularly the second one.

So, a partial break up of the EU, at least to the extent that the UK leaves, is not impossible at all. Even if that was to occur though, my own view is that the remaining 27 Member States would remain intact, leaving the UK potentially marginalised on the fringes of Europe, in which case it might look westward towards the United States, whilst the EU becomes more Euro Centric at the start of the 2020’s, which may or may not cause some friction with the US (bear with me, this is all going somewhere). We have members from other EU members who may be able to offer more insight into the likelihood of their countries splitting away from the EU.

The Middle East…yep, for sure an ongoing area of tension. Let’s posit a few things…firstly, that Assad eventually emerges victorious in Syria and the Damascus Government becomes even more closely aligned with the Iranians. At some point in the next twelve – eighteen months the Israelis decide to launch an air strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Strikes are partially successful, causing significant but not fatal damage to the Iranians’ nuclear ambitions – let’s say enough to set them back five to ten years (Twilight 2025 again)…Tensions are escalated but a full scale War is averted. Israel is roundly condemned in the court of World opinion as the aggressor and the Iranians – and their Syrian vassals – plot their revenge – which will later lead us into spectacular acts of terrorism. I don’t feel overly comfortable “suggesting” possible terrorist attacks, but there are several that spring to mind that could cause loss of life in the hundreds. There are several others that could cause loss of life in the thousands or even tens of thousands if you want to go that far…

Whilst the Iranians are plotting we see China flexing its military muscle in Asia and the Pacific, which leads to several countries in the region increasing their military spending, most noticeably Japan. Other Asian nations, observing what appears to be an arms race between the PRC and Japan become increasingly nervous. In Europe, the Russians, meanwhile, have been relatively quiet since their unopposed annexations of eastern Ukraine in 2014 and Belarus in 2016. For its part NATO has roughly a Division’s worth of troops. Mostly British and American (the Germans offered but the Poles declined) stationed in Poland as “guarantor” or the Alliance’s commitment to its Eastern members. The US also quietly deploys enough equipment to new POMCUS sites in western Poland to equip a full heavy Division.

So, what happens next? Off the top of my head (and as I said I haven’t done any serious research on this, just throwing ideas about to discuss) are there two major potential flashpoints?

Europe…or Asia…Who kicks off World War 3? The classic T2K timelines always started in Asia, so why not stick with that – there’s a flashpoint in Asia (I don’t know what – Taiwan seems the most obvious) which brings the US and China into direct confrontation. The US rapidly reinforces the Pacific, which inevitably leads to a reduction in forces committed to NATO (other NATO members offer the US vocal support but there is little tangible assistance – the Royal Navy sends a couple of warships and that’s about it). The Russians see their opportunity to annex the Baltic States by force whilst the US is committed elsewhere (effectively it’s a reboot of sorts of V1 – in V1 the West Germans took advantage of the fact that the Soviets were engaged against the Chinese to attempt reunification with East Germany – in this timeline it’s the Russians taking advantage of the fact that the Americans are engaged against the Chinese to force “reunification” with the Baltic States).

The Russians don’t go against Poland initially because they are certain that will prompt a NATO response but they think they will be able to retake the Baltics without encountering serious opposition using the by now familiar refrain that they are acting to protect Russian minority groups. This leads to much debate in NATO HQ and elsewhere as to how to respond – the Eastern European states, led by Poland, all fear that they will be next and advocate direct action. The Western European states are less eager to face up to the Russians, particularly as the US can only supply limited support as it’s already involved in hostilities against the Chinese. Meanwhile the Baltic states are being steamrollered. Potentially the schisms within NATO eventually cause the alliance to fracture, with a number of western European states (led by France) withdrawing from the alliance (again, mirroring the classic T2K timeline). Critically the Germans, who have the largest Army in Western Europe, opt to honour their treaty commitments and the Panzer Divisions move east.

With the US now fully committed in Europe and Asia, the Chinese have a quiet word with their ally the Supreme Leader of North Korea, who decides that now might be a good time to reunite the Korean peninsula. Elsewhere different parts of Africa descend into ethnic / religious violence, whilst tensions are threatening to boil over in the Middle East and between India and Pakistan in the disputed Kashmir region…

Thoughts?

[Raellus]

I like what you've come up with so far, Rainbow. I'll comment at length when I get home. Until then, these two articles from today's Yahoo News homepage address the evolving China and Russia-Ukraine situations.

http://news.yahoo.com/china-splurgin...92026097.html#

http://news.yahoo.com/ukraine-launch...161958758.html

[Raellus]

I haven't had a chance to respond at length but I'm in the midst of my 30 -minute lunch break so I thought pop in for a bit.

I arbitrarily chose 2030 because it's 16 years from now and, IIRC, the original Twilight 2000 came out in 1984.

More worrisome developments in eastern Europe.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-troops-land...135554490.html

And the leader of Georgia has warned the West not to make Russia angry because, basically, bad things happen when you do. He should know, I suppose.

[Rainbow Six]

Thanks Raellus, would be interested in your thoughts - there's obviously still a long way to go to get from where my post ended to a T2K setting. Also, one of the areas that I would say my knowledge is quite limited is the Pacific, particularly any potential conflict between the US (and allies) and China. I'm also not up to speed on current orders of battle.

However, to expand a little further...let's call the start of the Asian and European Wars Year 1...so to recap / summarise/ expand slightly....

Year 1

Asia

The US, with perhaps limited support from the UK*, is involved in a hot War with the Chinese in the Pacific

• Causes? A Chinese attack on Taiwan? Or an flashpoint in the Spratly Islands?
• Who else would be allied with the US? Anyone? The Australians? Someone unexpected like the Vietnamese (my enemy's enemy is my friend etc)
• Who's on the Chinese side? The North Koreans are a given. The Russians (covertly perhaps)?

North Korea has invaded South Korea. This is essentially a fight between the two Koreas and their respective - and, when reserves are fully mobilised huge, - Armies. US Forces in Korea are fighting alongside their Korean counterparts but commitments elsewhere mean there are relatively few reinforcements coming to Korea from the (or elsewhere for that matter). The fighting in Korea becomes very, very bloody, very, very quickly. No quarter is asked or given by either side and the situation becomes bogged down in a very nasty stalemate somewhere just north of Seoul. Would the Chinese send troops to help the North?

• Potential for first use of nukes being in this theatre is probably relatively high - e.g. if the South breaks the stalemate and drives north. NK leadership use nukes against military and civilian targets in the South, killing large numbers of US troops. The US responds in kind. If the Chinese have sent troops into Korea they suffer large numbers of casualties. The nuclear genie is out of the bottle and tit for tat escalation begins (this doesn't necessarily happen in Year 1).

* UK support would be limited inasmuch as by this stage the UK would most likely lack the capability to project significant power in multiple theatres

Europe

Following a Russian attack on the Baltic States, some (not all) NATO members are involved in a hot war with Russia (let's say the UK, the USA, Germany, and the former Warsaw Pact states - Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania). Ukraine, although not a NATO member, volunteers to commit troops as well. The US sends reinforcements from the Continental US by both air and sea (the former marrying up with the POMCUS gear) in what becomes known as REFORPOL (although the number of reinforcements is affected by what is happening in the Pacific). Canada also commits a Brigade Group.

I don't know about Bulgaria - from what I've read I was under the impression that the Bulgarians were on relatively good terms with the Russians and in the original T2K scenario some countries changed sides, so I'm positing that the Bulgarians are sitting on their hands for now. Conveniently located next to Bulgaria is Serbia, which I would say is also a potential Russian ally. Eastern Ukraine and Belarus have been annexed so count as Russian territory.

France has opted out of NATO, as have most of the southern European members (Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy). Turkey, the Netherlands, Norway, and Denmark remain in NATO. The Norwegians are concerned about their own border with Russia, so are unwilling to commit troops to the Baltics. The Danes send troops to Norway to reinforce their Nordic neighbour. Belgium is split down the middle - the French speaking Walloons favour opting out, the Dutch speaking Flemish favour staying in.

So, we have the potential for two fronts in Europe - fighting starts in the North and is focused on the Polish border with Lithuania, and Russia (Belarus and the Russian Federation exclave of Kaliningrad). The Norwegians are right to be wary - the Russians attack northern Norway only days after the first NATO units enter combat in the Baltic States. The Swedes and the Finns keep a wary eye on developments but remain neutral. By the start of Winter NATO forces have liberated southern Lithuania, including the capital Vilnius, and have made limited inroads into Belarus. Fierce fighting continues in and and around the Kaliningrad oblast. After making initial inroads into Norwegian territory, the combined Norwegian / Danish forces, reinforced by British and American Marines and mountain troops have held their ground some 50 km east of Tromso.

The Southern front remains quiet until early summer when Russian forces launch a surprise attack out of East Ukraine aimed at driving through the Ukraine. Simultaneously Bulgaria and Serbia declare War on NATO and attempt to link up with the advancing Russians. With much of the Czech and Polish Armies occupied in the Baltics, it falls to the Romanians, the Croatians, and the now overstretched Germans to oppose the Russian / Bulgarian / Serbian forces. Sadly the Balkan States once again descends into the same anarchy they experienced in the 1990's. Turkey, still a part of NATO, conducts limited offensives against the Bulgarians, but the bulk of the Turkish Army remains far away from the front line, securing the country's long and porous borders with Syria, Iraq, and Iran, as well as dealing with the internal threat posed by Kurdish Separatists. Then, taking the whole World by surprise, the Greek Government joins the Russian / Bulgarian / Serbian alliance and immediately launches an offensive against the Turks. By the end of the Year Bulgarian and Russian armoured columns are driving towards Istanbul (does that line sound familiar?).

But as we approach Year 2 the nuclear genie has not, however, come out of the bottle in Europe. Yet

I would repeat that I haven't done a huge amount of research on this yet...much of the above is random thoughts which may not pass a plausibility test...in particular the Bulgarians and the Greeks changing sides, however the intent is to try and recreate the feel of the original T2K World but brought up to date, so in that respect the intent is to try and mirror the situation of the original timeline where Italy, Greece, Yugoslavia, and Romania all changed sides. There's also the split in NATO that will eventually see the formation of the Franco Belgian Union (albeit Belgium will suffer its own schisms between its Walloon and Flemish populations). I also know I haven't mentioned every NATO member....Comments about where the front lines are at any given time are also highly speculative....I didn't really set out to write an alternate history timeline as much as bounce some thoughts around, so please, if anyone else wants to join in or has any thoughts or comments, feel free!

I'm not overlooking other parts of the World, but I'm out of time for tonight...

Cheers

[Raellus]

I don't think a division in formerly "united" Europe is that much of a stretch. There's already underlying tension there between the relatively affluent nations of northwestern Europe and the cash-strapped debtor nations of southern Europe. If countries like Italy, Greece, Spain, and Portugal were kicked out of the EU, or, more likely, countries like Germany, England, and the Netherlands opted out, there'd be rifts there that could be made to grow if the right stressors were put into play. At the moment, though, I'm not sure what those stressors might be. Perhaps a resurgent Russia makes a play to bring the poorer nations of Europe into its own sphere of influence. That could be made to work, I think.

What are some other factors that could lead to the disunion and polarization of Europe?

[Rainbow Six]

I don't know about divisions within the EU. Whilst the most likely stressor may well be another economic meltdown, I don't know what effect that might have. I think the likliehood of any individual country being kicked out is negligible - a quick check online would suggest that there is no mechanism in the Treaty on European Union for any Member State to be expelled from the EU so once you're in you're in unless you choose to leave - when the Eurozone Crisis kicked off a few years ago the members who were worst affected (predominantly in Southern Europe) were bailed out, so there is no incentive for such States to voluntarily leave (the worst sanction a Member State can face is to be suspended temporarily).

As for any of the major States choosing to leave, in the UK it's a common belief that France and Germany are at the heart of the EU and as such would be highly, highly unlikely to ever want to leave it, quite the opposite in fact, they would wish to see the EU States become more closely integrated until the EU eventually becomes a United States of Europe, with common laws, currency, a European Army, etc, etc...I said in an earlier post I didn't want to get into politics, but it goes with this territory...I'm not advocating for or against any particular position in the Real World here, however I do think it unlikely that any of the Northwestern European States would voluntarily withdraw from something that has taken decades to create. It's a belief in the UK that withdrawal from the EU (also known here as Euro Scepticism) is unique to the UK but I would be interested to hear what other European members think in relation to a possible EU breakup in a Twilight 2020's scenario

With regard to other factors promoting division in Europe, we have religious tensions / terrorism, social unrest (it's only a couple of years since the London riots), and reports of extremist / hate parties gaining ground in different parts of Europe, so there's probably a fair bit to work with, much of it quite distasteful.

Also, I did think that in this scenario the Russians would need to set up some sort of counter to the EU and then of course I remembered that such a thing already existed, the Eurasian Economic Community, or EurAsEC, which in our time line currently consists of Russia, Kazakhstan, and Belarus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasia..._customs_union

[Raellus]

Do you really think that Germany and France and the other more affluent EU member nations are going to keep bailing out Greece and Italy and Spain indefinitely? News reports here in the States during the last round of Eurozone bailouts suggested that Germany, at least, was pretty fed up and that the majority of the German public was against pouring more money into nations that they felt were only dragging their own economy down.

Also, the austerity measures that were required as a condition of the bailouts were/are extremely unpopular in those countries. There were riots in Greece and fairly recent riots in Spain. I know that many Greeks wanted to leave the Eurozone rather than suffer more social welfare cuts (not that it would have helped). To me, countries leaving the EU, either the creditors or the debtors, doesn't seem far fetched at all. If the Russians then stepped in and promised the poorer outcasts some sort of financial aid, maybe gas subsidies or something like that, it could create an even deeper division.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Do you really think that Germany and France and the other more affluent EU member nations are going to keep bailing out Greece and Italy and Spain indefinitely?

Honestly? Haven't a clue. That's why I would welcome opinions from other members.

I do think that if a second bailout was to become a major issue in the future there is much more chance of France and Germany forcing the expulsion of the debtor States from the EU (which would involve rewriting the Treaty of Europe if the debtors did not leave out of choice) rather than France or Germany (or any other creditor State) choosing to leave. As I said in a previous post, France and Germany (and others) have too much invested in the EU to walk away from it. So it would be the debtors that would be forced out, effectively creating a two tier Europe, consisting of the have's on one side and the have not's on the other.

From the point of view of a Twilight 2030 scenario that's probably not a bad outcome, as the have nots would, presumably, not be well disposed to the have's who not refused to bail them out again but threw them out of the club. Sounds like fertile ground for the Russians to reach out to and offer aid in the way that you mentioned. (I find it analagous to a relative who has run out of money and can't pay their rent - how often do you bail them out before you eventually say "no more" and at that point who do they turn to)

So, as part of the T2030 scenario are we proposing a renewed economic crisis at some point in the future that causes serious and permanent splits within the EU that lead to a number of States (Spain, Portugal, Greece?) being forced to leave the EU? If so I think I could go along with that.

And, as a separate matter, there also remains the possibility of the United Kingdom opting to leave the EU of its own accord dependent on the result of the 2015 General Election and any subsequent Referendum.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

So, as part of the T2030 scenario are we proposing a renewed economic crisis at some point in the future that causes serious and permanent splits within the EU that lead to a number of States (Spain, Portugal, Greece?) being forced to leave the EU? If so I think I could go along with that.

That's exactly what I was getting at. Now, what could prompt a global international crisis? I'm thinking a war involving China. That would do the trick, most likely.

What's the most likely way for that to start? I'm thinking a territorial dispute between China and Vietnam. If it starts off small, that would reduce the likelihood of the U.S. jumping right in militarily (we don't have any kind of military alliance with Vietnam, whereas we do with both Japan and the Philippines). Still, relations between the world's two largest economies would be strained to the point that the U.S. economy would quickly go into a major recession (the first steps of a significant depression), further depressing global markets and leading to an immediate economic crisis in Europe. This could set up the Euro split I've proposed and set the stage for a new round of Russian aggression and territorial aggrandizement in Eastern Europe. WWIII would then be only a few short steps away.

I wouldn't be surprised if, at the same time that China was unsheathing its sword in East Asia, North Korea took the opportunity to make a move against its southern sister.

Would a border war between China and Vietnam be enough of a trigger? Would a nautical border dispute between China and the Philippines be a better option?

[Panther Al]

One problem I am seeing - unless I missed it - is that the Baltic States are in NATO.. hence should Russia look to snapping them up, it must be willing to kick off WW3 right then and there.

[Rainbow Six]

In going against the Baltics, the Russians are taking a calculated risk, namely that with the US already involved in a hot War with China (and therefore significant American assets involved in the Pacific Theatre) NATO will not be willing to go to War over the Baltic States. So the Pacific War has to start first.

As it happens, they get it wrong and NATO (or at least part of it) does go to War...

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Raellus

That's exactly what I was getting at. Now, what could prompt a global international crisis? I'm thinking a war involving China. That would do the trick, most likely.

Off the top of my head I don't know. Taiwan would obviously be a major flashpoint. Only other one I'm familiar with are the Spratly Islands. A naval conflict between China and Vietnam there could theoretically escalate into a full scale War. The Spratlys are also claimed by, amongst others, the Philippines, so there is potential for further escalation, if for example, a Phillipine Navy ship gets "accidentally" sunk by the Chinese.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spratly_Islands

I think the US has to get involved in a shooting war in Asia before the Russians make their move in Europe though. The Russians have to think that the Americans are too involved in Asia to also get involved in Europe.

So how about the following over a two / three year period

• Relations between the US and China become strained; there's no War (yet) but the strain on relations causes the US and European economies to go into recession (again)
• The recession causes a new crisis within the Eurozone and several countries require a bailout. Other EU States (led by Germany) refuse to finance a fresh bailout package, leading to a crisis that ultimately leads to several of the member States that were seeking a bailout leaving the EU
• The Russians reach out to those former EU members offering an attractive package of assistance
• A fresh wave of fighting in the Pacific escalates (over Taiwan maybe?), drawing the United States into the conflict. The US is forced to commit forces allocated to NATO roles to the Pacific Theatre
• At the behest of the Chinese, North Korea invades South Korea, leading to further pressure on US commitments
• The Kremlin leadership calculate that with the US committed elsewhere, NATO will not offer any military opposition to a Russian occupation of the Baltic States
• Russian forces invade Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania
• NATO splits; some countries withdraw from the alliance but others honour their treaty obligations and declare War on Russia

[Raellus]

I think that works really well. I thinking the shelling of a Filipino warship is enough to precipitate a period of economic strain between China and the U.S. A fragmented NATO and an overstretched U.S. military make the Russians much more of a match, militarily speaking, especially if the recent trend in comparative defense spending between Russia and the West continues in the interval between now and 2030 or whatever.

[Targan]

A US-China war would put Australia in a really tough position. I'd say Australia would almost certainly back the US, but that would crash Australia's economy because it would lose it's biggest trading partner. Interesting scenarios there Raellus and Rainbow Six.

[Schone23666]

Originally Posted by Targan

A US-China war would put Australia in a really tough position. I'd say Australia would almost certainly back the US, but that would crash Australia's economy because it would lose it's biggest trading partner. Interesting scenarios there Raellus and Rainbow Six.

Plus one other neighbor that Australia's concerned with: Indonesia. Let's say a more hardline military coup or fundamentalist Islamist sect is now in control of the country, and have been spending cash to build up their military, in particular their amphibious capabilities. With the chaos of a full-blown U.S. vs. China conflict, would the Indonesians take advantage of the chaos and make a try for some real estate on Australia, perhaps with some quiet backing from the Chinese?

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Schone23666

With the chaos of a full-blown U.S. vs. China conflict, would the Indonesians take advantage of the chaos and make a try for some real estate on Australia, perhaps with some quiet backing from the Chinese?

I doubt they would start with an invasion of Australia, but I could definitely see Indonesia having a crack at Papua New Guinea, and that would be a fast track to a shooting war with Australia.

[Raellus]

I'd love to get Australia involved early. There are at least two ways to do so and you've already mentioned one of them. I'll get back to this in a minute, but first I'd like to see which of the following scenarios regarding the order the U.S. ends up making war on China and North Korea.

Do you think the Chinese might goad the North Koreans into invading South Korea to draw U.S. attention away from Taiwan before striking to reclaim their island? Or do you think it makes more sense for North Korea to opportunistically invade the South once the U.S. is drawn into an attempted defense of Taiwan? Either way, once the U.S. is overstretched and committed in Asia (maybe doubly so), Russia makes its play for the Baltics. We can discuss that later.

Now, if we go with the NK invasion prior to China making its big move, Australia would send troops to SK, no? That might be a lower stakes way to get them into the war, rather than entering into a more daunting struggle vs. China first. Either way, once Australia is committed, it's committed when other regional powers enter the fray.

I do like the idea of getting Indonesia involved and essentially allying with the Chinese. What other allies do you see China having in 2030? Myanmar, maybe? I'm assuming that the little fish in the region would be peeing their pants as the Chinese military continues its meteoric rise and would therefore look to more closely ally themselves to the West, but maybe they would pursue a policy of rapprochement with China and eventually become satellites.

Now one thing that's always troubled me about the thought of a war against China: How does the U.S. get ground forces into action on the mainland? In 30 years, following current trends, China will have a larger navy than the U.S., and any war in east Asia gives them the interior lines of supply. To me, the U.S. would be fighting at a huge disadvantage. It's going to need the RAN for sure, and other regional allies as well. Japan is one potential springboard. It's got a capable navy, and one that could also grow, albeit not as quickly, by 2030.

But, if the tension in Asia originally heated up over a boarder dispute with Vietnam, maybe that's the doorway into the Chinese mainland. Wouldn't it be interesting to have U.S. and SRV troops- former enemies- teaming up to take on their mutual foe, the Chinese?

I've asked a lot of questions so I'll stop and give y'all a chance to address them before asking any more.

[Raellus]

The Spratlys are looking like the most likely flashpoint for what will eventually become WWIII in Asia.

It's from Wikipedia, but...

"In 1999, a Philippine navy ship (Number 57 - BRP Sierra Madre) was purposely run aground near Second Thomas Shoal to enable establishment of an outpost. As of 2014 it had not been removed, and Filipino troops have been stationed aboard since the grounding.[47][48]

On May 23, 2011, the President of the Philippines, Benigno Aquino III, warned visiting Chinese Defence Minister Liang Guanglie of a possible arms race in the region if tensions worsened over disputes in the South China Sea. Aquino said he told Liang in their meeting that this could happen if there were more encounters in the disputed and potentially oil-rich Spratly Islands.[49]

In May 2011, Chinese patrol boats attacked two Vietnamese oil exploration ships near the Spratly Islands.[50] Also in May 2011, Chinese naval vessels opened fire on Vietnamese fishing vessels operating off East London Reef (Da Dong). The three Chinese military vessels were numbered 989, 27 and 28, and they showed up with a small group of Chinese fishing vessels. Another Vietnamese fishing vessel was fired on near Fiery Cross Reef (Chu Thap). The Chief Commander of Border Guards in Phu Yen Province, Vietnam reported that a total of four Vietnamese vessels were fired upon by Chinese naval vessels.[verification needed] These incidents involving Chinese forces sparked mass protests in Vietnam, especially in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City,[51] and in various Vietnamese communities in the West (namely in the U.S. state of California and in Paris) over attacks on Vietnamese citizens and the intrusion into what Vietnam claimed was part of its territory.[52]

In June 2011, the Philippines began officially referring to the South China Sea as the "West Philippine Sea" and the Reed Bank as "Recto Bank".[53][54]

In July 2012, the National Assembly of Vietnam passed a law demarcating Vietnamese sea borders to include the Spratly and Paracel Islands."

-

It looks like Chinese naval muscle flexing in this rich oil and gas (and fishing) region is nothing new. A power grab there would likely lead to a period of major strain with the West that could send the American economy into another great recession and sabotage the EU.

[Rainbow Six]

As I said earlier, a potential Pacific War isn't something that I've ever given much thought to, but to throw a few thoughts out

• I like the idea of Australia (on the US side) and Indonesia (on the Chinese side) getting involved. It adds to the global scale of the War that I think is needed to achieve the classic T2K atmosphere. I think the idea of a potential Indonesian invasion of Australia itself has been identified as pretty unlikely a few times, but Targan's suggestion of Papua New Guinea being a flashpoint sounds good to me

• I had originally envisioned the North Korean invasion of the South as having been an opportunistic move that took place because the US was committed elsewhere. However, that is exactly the same rationale we're positing for the Russian invasion of the Baltics, so maybe it would be better to have the fighting in Korea start before the PRC makes its move against Taiwan rather than repeat the same rationale. With regard to other nations (e.g. Australia) sending troops to the ROK, I think that's possible. For any nation not wishing to be seen as allying itself directly with the US, they can use the argument that allied forces in Korea are operating under a UN mandate, so you might see contingents from other nations as well (Taiwan maybe, which would increase tensions between the PRC and the ROC?).

• I like the idea of a confrontation in the Spratlys being the precursor to the larger conflict. I think a naval skirmish between the PRC and Vietnam does have the potential to escalate into a full scale conflict between the two countries (still as a precursor to the main Asian War). I also like the idea of a US / Vietnamese alliance. Perhaps the Sino - Vietnamese War ends after several months, following which the US and Vietnam agree closer military cooperation (back to the enemy of my enemy is my friend principle). When the main PRC / US War starts that causes fighting to start again on the PRC / Vietnamese border and the US sends ground troops and aircraft to Vietnam? As I said, I like this idea and it gives you the access you're looking for to mainland China.

• Chinese allies - not sure how feasible this one is, but how about Pakistan? Eventually we need to bring a Pakistan - India conflict into this scenario anyway. That's probably easily enough done without either of them being linked to belligerents in the Asian War, but would give an added twist. Myanmar would also work I think.

[Schone23666]

Lots of good points here, keep 'em coming.

I admit I have not looked that closely at the current and future capabilities of Indonesia, but agree it would be much easier for them and make more sense to make a land grab for Papua New Guinea. PNG's economy has been taking off recently due to it's mineral resources, and the Chinese are obviously going to be gunning hard for whatever resources they can acquire quick once the shooting starts, much like the Japanese during WWII, and not too unlike now only with less bullets involved (interesting comparison when you think about it.)

The Chinese also have a number of workers and companies currently operating in Papua New Guinea, so perhaps the MSS (Ministry of State Security) has a number of agents and paramilitaries on the ground helping stir up trouble in coordination with the Indonesian invasion, in return for a "cut" of PNG's mineral resources. As I recall, there's already been a few riots and tensions simmering in Papau New Guineau recently between the natives and the number of Chinese now operating in the area. It could get very interesting, and pretty ugly.

That's another thing to consider, there are a lot of Chinese living abroad these days around the world, and unfortunately there's a fair number of agents working for the MSS among them as well. So once the shooting starts, what do a lot of these Chinese do? I imagine from what I've read about prevailing attitudes among them along with priorities, it would be a mixed bag. You would certainly have plenty of die-hards that would be loyal to the state and would do whatever their Chinese superiors ordered them to do, or just create potential chaos out of sympathy to their homeland. You'd have others that might be more reluctant to do anything and may just want to keep a low profile ("I came out here to Africa to make money, not get my ass shot off!") and others that have resettled in other parts of the world like here in the U.S., especially dissenters who don't like the direction China is going and might actually take up arms against their former homeland ("Screw this, I'm not going to sit here and watch China try to imitate Imperial Japan!"). It's worth noting that a lot of Chinese have supposedly complained that the primary reason Chinese youths get involved in the Chinese Communist party these days (is it still even called Communist??) is to make contacts among the party elite and get on a fast track to making cash quick. Ironic, no?

And of course, that also brings to mind a potential for a lot of nasty repercussions against ethnic Chinese in other parts of the world, especially in countries that are now locked in conflict with them. Ethnic riots, internment camps...I don't like bringing up the specter of the Japanese internment camps during WWII here in the U.S. as an example, but it happened unfortunately. I don't know if it would happen here in the U.S. again, at the very least there would be a LOT of protest and potential riots made before that happened, but I could see it happening in other countries with a number of Chinese who might find themselves locking horns with the "new" Chinese empire.

Also, there are a number of Russian immigrants now living in the U.S as well. Once things go hot and nasty in Europe with Russia? I'd expect to see at the very least some uncomfortable tensions brewing stateside amongst the ethnic Russians, torn between their native homeland and their new homeland, and also agents of the FSB and perhaps even a few Spetsnaz looking to create chaos whenever possible.

[Schone23666]

Originally Posted by Targan

I doubt they would start with an invasion of Australia, but I could definitely see Indonesia having a crack at Papua New Guinea, and that would be a fast track to a shooting war with Australia.

From what I've read Papua New Guinea has a relatively small military force, but they do receive a lot of training and support from Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, among others. Does Australia and New Zealand have a Status of Forces Agreement with the PNG?

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

• Chinese allies - not sure how feasible this one is, but how about Pakistan? Eventually we need to bring a Pakistan - India conflict into this scenario anyway. That's probably easily enough done without either of them being linked to belligerents in the Asian War, but would give an added twist. Myanmar would also work I think.

I could see that happening if China gives them enough incentive, say perhaps some extra military hardware and advisors for starters. India not only has a well documented rivalry with Pakistan, but also China as well, though not quite as bloody YET (having a rather mountainous area between the two helps). If India were to be drawn into the war against China, the Chinese might call upon their old Pakistani buddies to start some nasty shit in Kashmir again, only it goes really downhill this time and turns full-tilt nuclear between the two.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Schone23666

From what I've read Papua New Guinea has a relatively small military force, but they do receive a lot of training and support from Australia, New Zealand, and the United States, among others. Does Australia and New Zealand have a Status of Forces Agreement with the PNG?

I'm not sure of the exact nature of Australia's defence agreements with PNG but we train their military extensively in Australia and PNG. But most importantly, PNG was Australian territory until their amicable independence in 1975. So in a similar way to how you would expect the US to always defend the Philippines, Australia would basically treat an attack on PNG as an attack on itself.

[Raellus]

OK. I like pretty much everything y'all have posted so far. I think it works really well. Now we just need to formulate some kind of a timeline. How about this for starters.

By 2020, Eastern Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova are, for all intents and purposes, part of the Greater Russian Federation. Putin is president for life or some such.

2020-2024:

• The Chinese economy sees several consecutive years of rapidly slowing growth. 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 separation from the Eurozone.
• The U.S. economy enters into a mild recession.

2025:

• China, hoping to rally the populace behind a nationalistic military enterprise, seizes islands 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.
• 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 islands. 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.
• 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.
• The U.S., already overstretched, reinstitutes the draft.
• China, also 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.

So, WWIII pretty much starts in earnest in 2027.

[Rainbow Six]

Looks good to me.

Need to give some thought about fleshing out events in the Middle East / Africa between now and then as well. An Arab - Israeli War seems to me like an absolute given, but I wonder if there might also be conflict between Sunni Muslim nations (potentially led by Saudi Arabia) and the Shiites (led by Iran). With regards to Africa, as Schone23666 referenced in an earlier post, there's also likely to be a lot of Chinese in Africa.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Just a few thoughts and points.

Papua New Guinea
PNG was not "quite" an Australian territory and more of a protectorate. It was a British colony transferred to Australia in 1905 so that Australia could administer the island.
We still have extensive diplomatic, economic and military ties with PNG including defence agreements but those agreements continue to be a compromise between what is best for Australia and what's best for PNG e.g. Australia sitting back and doing nothing when Indonesia invaded and annexed the West Papua region of the island which was a Dutch territory at the time.

There is no certainty that Australia would militarily intervene if Indonesia decided to invade and annex the rest of the island.
Indonesia would have to threaten mainland Australia before we'd take military action against them. The government reasons that our economy is intertwined with Indonesia (much of the shipping to Australia passes through Indonesian waters) so it wouldn't want to jeopardize that unless there was no other option. There's been enough criticism by Indonesia and Malaysia of Australia as a whiteman's imperialist country that we don't play hardball with them very often.

Korea
There is absolutely no particular reason that Australia would send military forces to any new conflict in Korea. Australian involvement in the 1950s Korean War was as part of a UN force and during a time when the dominant political thinking of the time was the Domino Theory of Communism.
Australia might support medical, economic and policing actions in any new Korean conflict but it would be unlikely to commit military forces unless it was as part of a UN mission.

China
Over the last decade or more, China has been actively courting nations in the Pacific Ocean to secure mining and agricultural access. While they have many such resources themselves they appear to be interested in acquiring more to protect themselves from potential shortages, price increases and so on (given their massive population). For example, there has been much interest from China in acquiring cattle stations in Australia to secure food resources for themselves. While these farms would be worked and managed by Australians, the cattle raised on these stations would all be delivered to China and not sold on the local market.

While China hasn't aggressively pursued these yet, they have been using what amounts to bribes and bullying. For small Pacific island nations, they have been making roads and buildings and supplying aircraft and vehicles and even shop goods not commonly found on the islands. Larger nations like Australia are given the typical business ultimatum, "Sell your product to us at this price, or we'll buy it from someone else".