OT Attack in Paris 60 dead

[Nowhere Man 1966]

Originally Posted by Cdnwolf

This is true...

It's like the snake chasing it's tail, but in the end, we might have to end up fighting anyhoo, we might be past the point of no return, maybe, and it will mean we have to defeat them or they defeat us. Hopefully if that happens, we will get to the point where they will have to "say uncle" at some point. Don't know much about the Twilight: 2013 timeline but it does not sound good. I'm not gung ho, I hate confrontation but I'm just saying that we might have little or no choice but to fight.

[.45cultist]

I've noticed 5 or so events which seemed to come from the T2013 timeline. And laugh inside at the memory of the critics of the timeline who said it was too fake. Now we can "bump the timeline back a couple of years and still play T2K2.2 or T2013. AS for RL, France will pound ISIS members to dust to my cheering. A Western military that isn't going to issue arrest cards or what ever I found in the duffle at my friend's surplus store.

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by .45cultist

I've noticed 5 or so events which seemed to come from the T2013 timeline. And laugh inside at the memory of the critics of the timeline who said it was too fake. Now we can "bump the timeline back a couple of years and still play T2K2.2 or T2013. AS for RL, France will pound ISIS members to dust to my cheering. A Western military that isn't going to issue arrest cards or what ever I found in the duffle at my friend's surplus store.

It was not only fake (of course) it was ridiculous - as I said somewhere else, to believe it you not only had to have no knowledge whatsoever of military tactics and strategy, logistics, economics and geopolitical realities you had to actively reject any semblance of such knowledge.

That didn't, and doesn't, mean that everything in it, especially if considered in isolation, is impossible, but a whole hell of a lot of it, and the whole thing overall, is ... ridiculous.

Is WW3 possible? Sure. Is it likely to go nuclear if it occurs? Yes. We can debate how possible and how likely it is to go nuclear, but wishful thinking won't change my answers.

But not a one of the TW:2000 or TW:2013 backgrounds were believable, certainly not based on what we knew at the time, or even based on what we know how ... especially based on what we know now, in fact. Of course, we also know how close we came on a couple of occasions - mostly in the form of an actual nuclear attack by accident or mistake, rather than a conventional war that escalates.

How could WW3 occur - best guess, at the moment, is a mis-step by Putin somewhere ... he seems dead set on reviving the Cold War singlehanded and is not as smart as he seems to think he is. It is possible that he could push things too far ...

Another possibility, but probably a lower order one, is conflict with the PRC over the South China Sea ... again, it would likely be accidental. And it could well remain limited and regional even if conflict did occur ... but the chance of escalation and opportunistic actions, and resulting accidents, in Europe or elsewhere is, of course, always a possibility.

ISIS/Islamic Terrorists, probably not gonna cause it themselves, as much as they'd like you to believe it ... and I suspect that the less idiotic amongst the leadership know that ... but they could trigger it by being a source of possible conflict between the West and Russia.

Even if they did a Franz Ferdinand, the worst that's likely to happen would be a quick military crushing of them in a limited regional (and entirely conventional) conflict ... though, of course, it wouldn't stop the terrorism.

But if Russia and the West didn't agree on how to carry out such crushing, that could lead to nasty things.

YMMV.

Phil

[Cdnwolf]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

It was not only fake (of course) it was ridiculous - as I said somewhere else, to believe it you not only had to have no knowledge whatsoever of military tactics and strategy, logistics, economics and geopolitical realities you had to actively reject any semblance of such knowledge.

That didn't, and doesn't, mean that everything in it, especially if considered in isolation, is impossible, but a whole hell of a lot of it, and the whole thing overall, is ... ridiculous.

Is WW3 possible? Sure. Is it likely to go nuclear if it occurs? Yes. We can debate how possible and how likely it is to go nuclear, but wishful thinking won't change my answers.

But not a one of the TW:2000 or TW:2013 backgrounds were believable, certainly not based on what we knew at the time, or even based on what we know how Russia Taking over the Ukraine, Mass backlash across a refugee crisis (Syria), France declaring war on terrorist (sending French Aircraft carrier to region ARMED WITH NUKES, Rise of a new threat from the arab world (ISIS)The Islamic world views the U.S. as defeated in Iraq, based on troop withdrawal and comments by the U.S. President. His apologetic and conciliatory tone perpetuates this view by most of the Arab world despite the apparent peaceful transition occurring
and vigorous prosecution of the remaining extremists in Iraq. Thus the remaining terrorists seek to exploit their recent “victory” elsewhere ...

Phil

Need I go on?

[aspqrz]

Originally Posted by Cdnwolf

Need I go on?

2007

* EU Military Battlegroups. Common EU military. Nope. No hope thereof.
* Centrist shift in US politics. Nope, not even close.
* Tainted food recalls in US linked to China. Nope.
* British and French elections ... what were they smoking?
* Iraq, well ... they had to get something right(ish)
* Afghan government pressures US to assist with law enforcement. Again, what were they smoking?
* Pakistan - well, again, something OK.
* Australia. Fantasy. Every. Single. Australian. PM (Labor and Liberal). Since 1941 has sucked up to the US in every way possible. The supposition here is ludicrous.
* Worldwide drought in 'rich farm countries' ... like China (ROTFL) comparing ot to the US. Hallucinogens? We've never. ever. had a worldwide drought. Anyone with a basic knowledge of history would know that, and anyone with a basic understanding of climate science would understand why.
* Solomon Islands quake puts pressure on worldwide food resources! Do these guys know what the population of the SI actually is?

Given that the book was published in 2008, they could at least have gotten more of the above at least vaguely resembling reality.

2009
* Iraqi politicians 'begin to find ways to make their government work for all Iraqis' ... again, whatever it is they were smoking would have made them more money than the book did.
* Worldwide heatwave destroys crops. Again, not the slightest understanding of science, or even where food crops are grown. As for the economics, very few of the countries likely to be affected are significant exporters and make little or no money from exporting food. Those that are and do don't rely so much on it that it would have an impact unless the ridiculously anti-scientific drought lasted for several years.
* Libya. Yeah. Right. ROTFL.
* Darfur conflict spreads. Again, not the slightest understanding of the local and geopolitical realities.
* EU Battlegroups (the nonexistent ones) in Central Africa roaming around. Logistically this is simply insane - they'd be worse off than Rommel. Their base in N'Djamena ... well, Chad had no paved roads outside of the capital, no railways anywhere, no river that is more than intermittent (and, in any case, goes nowhere relevant) and their airfields are overwhelmingly dirt strips.

Oh, and in 2010 the EU sends in more nonexistent and unsuppliable BGs into Sudan and Central Africa.

I could go on. And on. And on.

Now, granted, not a lot of Americans (Australians would probably have a clew about some of the US and EU stuff, but be no better informed on the rest and UK/EU types would probably have a better handle on the Russian/Ukranian stuff, but also be clewless of most of the rest ... we all have our national blindspots) would probably have a clew as to why many of these things are, frankly, insanely ludicrous ... but if the authors had bothered, oh, I don't know, to check Wikipedia or even the old CIA Country books on some of the places involved, they could, at least, have clewed themselves in.

It gets progressively worse and worse.

Like, oh, the Oakland Flu.
Or the Israelis giving their nuclear arsenal (they have a hell of a lot more bombs than one, probably more than their neighbours have major cities and military targets - and, frankly, even with Tel Aviv hit by Dirty Bombs, I'd back the Israelie military against their neighbours any day of the week) to Egypt for some desert in Libya.

Now, yes, the bits about Pakistan and the Middle East in general are, mostly, not ridiculously unlikely, but so much of the rest is that it makes the whole progression ... ROTFLMAO ridiculous.

YMMV.

Phil

[Targan]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

ISIS/Islamic Terrorists, probably not gonna cause it themselves, as much as they'd like you to believe it ... and I suspect that the less idiotic amongst the leadership know that ... but they could trigger it by being a source of possible conflict between the West and Russia.

Even if they did a Franz Ferdinand, the worst that's likely to happen would be a quick military crushing of them in a limited regional (and entirely conventional) conflict ... though, of course, it wouldn't stop the terrorism.

But if Russia and the West didn't agree on how to carry out such crushing, that could lead to nasty things.

If Pakistan either finally collapses into the failed state that it's been teetering on the brink of for some time, or it finally goes full-Islamist like Iran, I will become very, very nervous. Their control over their nukes has to be pretty suspect even now. Imagine the risks if things went either of those two directions I described.

[.45cultist]

Originally Posted by aspqrz

It was not only fake (of course) it was ridiculous - as I said somewhere else, to believe it you not only had to have no knowledge whatsoever of military tactics and strategy, logistics, economics and geopolitical realities you had to actively reject any semblance of such knowledge.

That didn't, and doesn't, mean that everything in it, especially if considered in isolation, is impossible, but a whole hell of a lot of it, and the whole thing overall, is ... ridiculous.

Is WW3 possible? Sure. Is it likely to go nuclear if it occurs? Yes. We can debate how possible and how likely it is to go nuclear, but wishful thinking won't change my answers.

But not a one of the TW:2000 or TW:2013 backgrounds were believable, certainly not based on what we knew at the time, or even based on what we know how ... especially based on what we know now, in fact. Of course, we also know how close we came on a couple of occasions - mostly in the form of an actual nuclear attack by accident or mistake, rather than a conventional war that escalates.

How could WW3 occur - best guess, at the moment, is a mis-step by Putin somewhere ... he seems dead set on reviving the Cold War singlehanded and is not as smart as he seems to think he is. It is possible that he could push things too far ...

Another possibility, but probably a lower order one, is conflict with the PRC over the South China Sea ... again, it would likely be accidental. And it could well remain limited and regional even if conflict did occur ... but the chance of escalation and opportunistic actions, and resulting accidents, in Europe or elsewhere is, of course, always a possibility.

ISIS/Islamic Terrorists, probably not gonna cause it themselves, as much as they'd like you to believe it ... and I suspect that the less idiotic amongst the leadership know that ... but they could trigger it by being a source of possible conflict between the West and Russia.

Even if they did a Franz Ferdinand, the worst that's likely to happen would be a quick military crushing of them in a limited regional (and entirely conventional) conflict ... though, of course, it wouldn't stop the terrorism.

But if Russia and the West didn't agree on how to carry out such crushing, that could lead to nasty things.

YMMV.

Phil

Even the beloved first edition had moments of that. But I'd take your list and try to redo those if/ when the campaign ever went to those regions to a more plausible end(as much as a TEOTWAWKI premise allows). As was mentioned in the "Timelines" thread, one doesn't need a complete timeline. As infrastructure collapses,PC's wouldn't have the complete picture anyway.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by .45cultist

As infrastructure collapses, PC's wouldn't have the complete picture anyway.

Absolutely agree with that and I've mentioned something like it in other threads before.
No need to detail every last thing when PCs will never, EVER even hear so much as a rumour about it. A bit of uncertainty is a great tool a GM should never give up.

Anyway, getting back on topic, it would seem there's more to come with Isis issuing a list of cities they intend to attack shortly. I can't see any way that they don't have the resources in place to do it either.

[.45cultist]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Absolutely agree with that and I've mentioned something like it in other threads before.
No need to detail every last thing when PCs will never, EVER even hear so much as a rumour about it. A bit of uncertainty is a great tool a GM should never give up.

Anyway, getting back on topic, it would seem there's more to come with Isis issuing a list of cities they intend to attack shortly. I can't see any way that they don't have the resources in place to do it either.

It must have been your post that stuck in my mind.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

And as I've mentioned a few times, most people playing RPGs aren't that interested in reading through a highly detailed history/timeline. If it's going to be ignored by, for example, four out of five players, it's probably not worth going to all the extra effort to develop the timeline much past the most significant events.
And that way you also avoid some of the less-believable moments quoted here.