OT or Not OT: Twilight 2030

[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".

[Raellus]

So we're looking at an isolationist Australia, c. 2020? I figured that since Australia's currently got forces in Afghanistan, of all places, they wouldn't be averse to helping their allies in a war or two in East Asia. Is there a more plausible way to get Australia into WWIII as we've formulated it so far?

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by kato13

I have difficulty seeing how the North could be successful in penetrating more than 40km from the border. Their equipment is 70s era and the South keeps modernizing. Unless there is obvious Chinese support from the beginning (and perhaps in equipment upgrades during the decade before) I see an "invasion" as being a non starter.

I am interested in seeing if anyone has ideas on how and why China would do this when generally they consider the DPRK leadership to be about as useful as a rabid dog.

Kato, I need to head out soon so I can only give brief replies at the moment - I'll try and come back with more substantial comments later - but the initial thinking was that the PRC "persuade" the DPRK to invade the ROK essentially as a huge scale diversion for their planned attack on Taiwan.

However, it could also be posited that the DPRK acts of its own accord and for its own reasons and the PRC simply takes advantage of the situation to make its grab for Taiwan.

Also, my original thinking agrees with the view that the DPRK don;t get very far...I originally suggested the fighting bogged down near Seoul, which I believe is approx 35 miles from the border, so whilst that is slightly further than 40kms we seem to be in general agreement as to that aspect.

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

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.

Originally Posted by kato13

The Baltics are full NATO members (for over 20 years in this history) who are victims of Russian aggression. Nato falling apart when Germany attacks makes sense in the original timeline, but this scenario seems very off from what I would expect given this is exactly why NATO was created.

I think you have to have a major NATO reorganization (such as France's actions in 1966) or even dissolution for the Russians to expect zero response to such an invasion.

Maybe there is a requirement that members put a certain percentage of their GDP to defense in order to stay in NATO and this leads to many countries (including the baltics) deciding to leave.

Ultimately this comes down to how plausible one considers the idea of some NATO members not taking action when another member is directly threatened. We have attempted to give this some background by coupling it with several countries being forced from the EU but I think it's fair to say that the Russian grab for the Baltics is perhaps the biggest deus ex machina in the proposed timeline.

[Jason Weiser]

Originally Posted by 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.

I think we can add a few other European ideas. One would be the Poles making a grab for Kaliningrad while the Russian Army is preoccupied in the Balkans, or are we assuming the Russians decide to take enough of Poland to open a land bridge?

Also, Greece? What shall we do with that economic basket case? Hmm, Turkey gets frisky and goes to war over Cyprus and some other Agean islands? And when Greece asks NATO and/or the EU for help, both turn their backs on them?

Spain I think would do it's best to stay neutral along with Italy. I think neither are well-disposed towards Russia, but the last thing they want to do is cozy up to the Americans (or American percieved NATO).

In short, might NATO implode to some extent? This might be an interesting caveat? And what about Germany? Does she rearm in the face of the Russian revaunchism? If so, Germany's neighbors are going to freak out. If not, the Russians are going to run roughshod over Eastern Europe as the US isn't sending a lot of troops (most are going to try and stop the North Koreans).

[Olefin]

I would think that Italy would support the US and NATO vs. it not doing so in the minds of the Twilight 2000 authors. Italy has been much more pro-US, helping with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and US efforts in Libya and Somalia as well. And Italy's pro-Russia days are long over - if it comes to war expect to see Italian troops there on the front lines.

[Rainbow Six]

We posited that Greece allied with the Russians, Bulgarians, and Serbs earlier in the thread and launched an attack on the Turks. It follows as logical that any Greco - Turkish War would involve fighting in Cyprus.

Re: Kaliningrad, this timeline has Russia annexing Belarus sometime within the next couple of years, making Belarus and eastern Ukraine part of the Russian Federation, which takes them almost but not quite up to Kaliningrad, however when the Russians make their move for the Baltics they will establish a land bridge with Kaliningrad in short order as the Lithuanians wont have much to stop them and their is a period of time before NATO commits. The original line of thinking was that the Russians make a grab for the Baltics but not Poland, the thinking amongst the Kremlin's leadership being that a fractured NATO is not willing to go to war over Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, particularly since the US is committed elsewhere.

A NATO implosion along much the same lines as the original T2K timeline(s) is definitely part of the scenario - those identified as most likely to withdraw from the alliance are France and the southern European members.

Incidentally, on the subject of Spain, once the brown stuff has really hit the fan and UK forces are fully committed elsewhere there is the possibility of Spain making a grab for Gibraltar.