OT or Not OT: Twilight 2030

[Targan]

Originally Posted by RN7

Why confine things to North America? Two world wars were fought which barely affected America.

I think perhaps I'm not explaining myself very well. The question came up in this thread on how you could realistically have a world war in 2030 and have everybody come out poorly, as in traditional T2K. It was (correctly) pointed out that the US is the world's dominant military force and even in a multi-fronted conflict would still almost certainly come out on top for the forseeable future. My biowar suggestions were a way of "evening the playing field" so to speak.

Originally Posted by RN7

7) Natural disaster: The only two scenarios that I could envisage that would seriously harm the American economy would be if the San Andreas Fault ruptured and California slipped into the Pacific, or if a mile wide sized asteroid impacted on the East coast and took out New York City, Washington DC and other big Eastern cities.

I'd add to those 2 an eruption of the Yellowstone Caldera that occurs every 650,000 years or so.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by RN7

1) Military Rivalry: Attack by a foreign rival? America doesn't have a military equal since the Soviet Union collapsed. Russia remains the second most powerful military nation in the world, but it's not up to taking on America anywhere outside of its own territory.

This...

Originally Posted by RN7

China is the number three military power and is the second largest defence spender. It clearly is on a path to establishing some sort of parity with America in the Pacific and it might partly do so by 2030, although that could depend on its future economic situation and if it can bridge the very wide technological and logistical gap that America has over it. However beyond the Pacific (really the Far East) China's military power will never match America's.

And this...emphasis mine...is pretty much what my original thoughts were…

The US is taking on Russia in its territory (or at least in the Baltic States, so right on the Russian border). It is taking China on in the Far East. So the number one military power is taking on the number two and number three military powers simultaneously. In their own respective spheres of influence. I think that could be a fairly major challenge to the US.

And no one is disparaging the US military or any other military -we're dealing with this in the context of a game, and maybe eventually creating scenarios that allow us to mix the "old" T2K with new technologies, equipment, vehicles, etc...so we can maybe create a situation where instead of replaying Escape From Kalisz the PC's can be stuck behind Russian lines in the Baltic States, or on the front line against the Chinese in Vietnam. There were things in the original T2K that some people didn’t like…I’ve seen some of the debates where people have said that such and such just couldn’t happen or wouldn’t be possible…personally I don’t think anything that has been put forward in this thread is utterly impossible…whether some parts are implausible or not is another matter, and perhaps one where opinions may vary, but Kato said the above upthread and I think it’s part of what makes T2K what it is…

Originally Posted by kato13

One thing I think we have to remember if we are following the spirit of the original game. You sometimes include things that don't make complete sense to give a greater variety of potential for combat.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by RN7

Military Rivalry: Attack by a foreign rival? America doesn't have a military equal since the Soviet Union collapsed. Russia remains the second most powerful military nation in the world, but it's not up to taking on America anywhere outside of its own territory. China is the number three military power and is the second largest defence spender. It clearly is on a path to establishing some sort of parity with America in the Pacific and it might partly do so by 2030, although that could depend on its future economic situation and if it can bridge the very wide technological and logistical gap that America has over it. However beyond the Pacific (really the Far East) China's military power will never match America's. The only other serious rivals are India, Japan and Europe; India is to poor and Japan and Europe (most of it) are American allies.

I'm not suggesting a military invasion of the continental U.S.A. by either China or Russia, nor am I predicting the total collapse of American government and society. I am trying to reimagine the original T2KU but update the run-up using today's global security issues.

That said, I respectfully disagree with your military assessments. I think that you overrate American military power and underestimate the Chinese and the Russians. Defense spending is not the only metric for military power. America's defense spending is so high relative to free-spending China because we're currently funding a war, and we have been for over a decade (two wars for a good chunk of that time). Our budget has been focused on replacing beat-up Humvees with MRAPs, while China's has been spending their defense Yuan on brand new multirole fighters, scores of fresh frigates, and hundreds of modern MBTs.

I will grant you that the U.S. still possesses the most capable force on the planet, but its capabilities- especially those of its land forces- have been degraded by two long counterinsurgency campaigns and increasingly deep budget cuts. Even at the height of its power, just prior to the so-called surge in Iraq, manpower-wise we were scraping the bottom of the barrel and analysts were predicting that we would be unable to fight another campaign should trouble arise elsewhere in the world (like North Korea). That was during two "low-intensity" conflicts against insurgent forces.

We're positing here two high-intensity conventional wars on opposite sides of the globe across two oceans- against China in Korea and Vietnam and Russia in northeast Europe. Our military has been shifting away from preparing to fight large-scale conventional for the past three decades. Our heavy armor force has been shrinking steadily during that time and looks set for further contraction. Strykers are not Bradley IFVs. Some of our NATO allies have gotten rid of their MBTs completely! I really don't like how we match up on land against China, and even against Russia, on their turf, we'd be hard pressed. There's no question that we'd need the draft, and a major effort to rapidly increase production of neglected military hardware like MBTs and IFVs. National Guard units would be shipped to Asia and Europe, not waiting for a surprise Mexican incursion.

Our navy is still the world's most powerful blue water force and will likely remain so for some time, but China's navy is growing at an alarming rate. Chinese military technology has taken great leaps forward during the last 30 years. They've developed anti-satellite weapons, hypersonic ballistic anti-ship missiles, and their own indigenous stealth fighter. Its land forces no longer rely on 1950's era Soviet MBT knock-offs. We're not talking the screaming hordes of the Korean War anymore (and we couldn't decisively beat them then, when Communist China was only a year or two old).

The trends are clear, RN7, and they're alarming. U.S. military power is waning while China's, at least, is on the rise. I don't see these trends reversing anytime soon and we're looking ahead about 20 years too. Look for Putin to pump more money into the Russian military as well. We're still badass, but not nearly as badass as 25 years ago. And China's military, although still high-volume, is increasing its quality each and every year.

Now, with all of that out of the way, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to imagine some kind of break-down of national security in the CONUS after the war goes nuclear. Even Mexican paramilitaries could cause problems in the American southwest.

We're simply trying to create a gameworld with lots of options for military-themed adventures, both in foreign fields and in the continental U.S.

[CDAT]

Originally Posted by kato13

I never saw the new Red Dawn (given how much I loved the first one that shocks me), but maybe there are some ideas there.

In regards to getting foreign troops into the US, every option I can think of involves Mexico

Perhaps Mexico devolves into drug cartel fueled chaos and either the Russians or Chinese somehow convince the Govt that they can provide peacekeepers.

Or maybe the Chinese invest heavily in Mexico and send "guards" to protect their facilities and staff. That at least gives them a foothold in North America.

You could have the drug cartels buy weapons from the Russians (or DPRK) as well.

One thought that I have is the Chinese working with whomever they hit the west cost of the US. How, three ways that I see.

First there is so much shipping comving from China to the US you take several container ships and modifie them so that they are now "assault ships" you have some heavy equipment loaded in the back/bottom then some light vehicles and last light troops. When the ship hits the port the light troops storm the port and take it over, no matter how good the port police are they are not staffed/trained or equiped to deal with a military assault. As this is going on you are offloading the light vehicles to go and attack the close by military bases, if you timed it for a four day weekend the number of troops on base are limited and most of them do not even have access to weapons and ammo. last for this part you are now off loading the heavy equipment to be you main attack force if/when the US military gets up and running.

Second you modifie some comercial airliners for airborn insertion of "commandos" you can have them fly from one airport to another then to there final destionation in the US so that they are slightly off corse not so much that it raises red flags but close enough that they can jump and land on different military bases. The commandos would be used to tie up any armed troops on the base waiting for the heavery troops to land in the ships (above).

And last not sure so much down south but up here in WA there is a large Asian population (more in Canada) you send in some special forces to prep and when attack happens to attack the police keep them from getting involved.
So if this happened at every major port up and down the west cost on a four day weekend how much mayham could they cause. Now if this was only part of the "Bad guy" plan may the opening shot quickly followed by other operations by other countries would it work? The possable ways that it could be found out about are if at one of the airports customs wanted to check even though no passengers were getting on or off the plane, if one of the ships got picked for a customs inspection, or if a spy got word of this before they left China.

Some possable couterparts I could see, Mexico hitting the south, Russia in EU, Middile east (just about any part).

[Raellus]

I'll have to give some more thought to the bio-warfare ideas that have been posted. I'm leery of going hard in that direction because, although I like my T2K grim, I'm not sure I want it global pandemic grim. I want to be able to differentiate between T2K and The Stand.

@CDAT: As to the container ship idea, it's devious and I like it, but it's pretty much a one-way ticket and I'm not sure the Chinese would go in for something hopeless like that. If we were talking WWII-era Japan, then hell yeah, but from my reading of the PLA and where it's been heading over the past 30 years, a large-scale suicide mission like the one you've described doesn't seem to fit.

I just got Osprey's The Chinese People's Liberation Army since 1949: Ground Forces (Elite) today and, so far, it's reinforced by assessment of the PLA's growing capabilities. It's scary to think about where they'll be, organizationally, doctrinally, and technologically in 20-30 years.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I'll have to give some more thought to the bio-warfare ideas that have been posted. I'm leery of going hard in that direction because, although I like my T2K grim, I'm not sure I want it global pandemic grim. I want to be able to differentiate between T2K and The Stand.

Once again (and I've obviously failed dismally despite trying to make my point abundantly clear) I'm NOT suggesting a global pandemic. I say again, a global pandemic would NOT give you the same vibe as original T2K and that's why a global pandemic is NOT what I'm suggesting. What I've described is a weaponised pathogen specifically designed and deployed so as to be confined mostly or completely to North America. I suggested it as a direct response to the question of how could you bring the US down a couple of notches just before or during a circa 2030 Twilight War.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I'm not suggesting a military invasion of the continental U.S.A. by either China or Russia, nor am I predicting the total collapse of American government and society.

It would be impossible.

Originally Posted by Raellus

I am trying to reimagine the original T2KU but update the run-up using today's global security issues.

It's really a bit hard to imagine.

Originally Posted by Raellus

That said, I respectfully disagree with your military assessments. I think that you overrate American military power and underestimate the Chinese and the Russians. Defense spending is not the only metric for military power. America's defense spending is so high relative to free-spending China because we're currently funding a war, and we have been for over a decade (two wars for a good chunk of that time). Our budget has been focused on replacing beat-up Humvees with MRAPs, while China's has been spending their defense Yuan on brand new multirole fighters, scores of fresh frigates, and hundreds of modern MBTs.

I wouldn't be too alarmed by that. All of China's new fighters (J-11B, J-15, J-16) are powered by the Shenyang WS-10 jet engine, a derivative of the Russian AL-31F used by the Chinese J-10 fighter. The Chinese have had huge development and reliability trouble with this engine that they now are only starting to iron out. The J-31 fighter under development uses the WS-13 engine which is the Russian RD-93. Production series J-20's "Stealth Fighters" are scheduled to be fitted with a more advanced WS-15 engine equivalent to the performance of the P&W F119 on the F-22 that China is supposed to be developing, but it is more likely will be fitted with the Russian AL-41 117S on the Su-35 if the Russians will sell it to them. When the Chinese Air Force is flying fifth generation J-20 fighters in 2030 the USAF will probably be flying the sixth generation F-X replacement for the F-22.

A load of new frigates might be intimidating to some Asian countries but against an advanced naval power like the US Navy they are not going to be much of a threat. Frigates are almost useless in modern naval warfare unless they are fitted with advanced radar and modern long ranged air defence missiles (they would be then called missile destroyers) or are highly capable ASW specialists like a British Type-23. If China had frigates with the abilities of a Type-23 it might cause US Navy submarines some anxiety, but they don't.

Originally Posted by Raellus

I will grant you that the U.S. still possesses the most capable force on the planet, but its capabilities- especially those of its land forces- have been degraded by two long counterinsurgency campaigns and increasingly deep budget cuts. Even at the height of its power, just prior to the so-called surge in Iraq, manpower-wise we were scraping the bottom of the barrel and analysts were predicting that we would be unable to fight another campaign should trouble arise elsewhere in the world (like North Korea). That was during two "low-intensity" conflicts against insurgent forces.

I would disagree. America's airpower and its airlift and sealift capabilities are unmatchable and its land forces are more experienced and use better equipment. US Land forces are smaller than they were 15 years ago, but not necessarily less capable. Reorganisation has made US forces more deployable for the types of wars they have been fighting, but the US Army and Marines still have a massive pool of armour, vehicles, artillery and helicopters to draw upon. The US Special Operations Command has a joint force of 30,000, that's twice as big as the Australian Army.

Originally Posted by Raellus

We're positing here two high-intensity conventional wars on opposite sides of the globe across two oceans- against China in Korea and Vietnam and Russia in northeast Europe. Our military has been shifting away from preparing to fight large-scale conventional for the past three decades. Our heavy armor force has been shrinking steadily during that time and looks set for further contraction. Strykers are not Bradley IFVs. Some of our NATO allies have gotten rid of their MBTs completely! I really don't like how we match up on land against China, and even against Russia, on their turf, we'd be hard pressed. There's no question that we'd need the draft, and a major effort to rapidly increase production of neglected military hardware like MBTs and IFVs. National Guard units would be shipped to Asia and Europe, not waiting for a surprise Mexican incursion.

American tank fleet 2012: 6,302 (all M1A1/A2)
Chinese tank fleet 2012: 7,400 (4,300 Type-59, 300 Type-79, 500 Type-88, 1,800 Type-96, 500 Type-98, some Type-99)

America mechanised forces 2012: 31,443 (902 Stryker light tank, 1,075 Recce/AT vehicles, 7,763 AIFV, 6,528 APC, 15,175 MRAP)
Chinese mechanised forces 2012: 6,498 (924 light tanks, 276 Recce/AT vehicles, 2,350 AIFV, 2,948 APC)

American artillery forces 2012: 6,015 (1,594 self-propelled, 3,238 towed, 1,183 MRL
Chinese artillery forces 2012: 11,597 (1,825 self-propelled, 8,056 towed, 1,143 MRL)

American Army and Marine helicopter fleet 2012: 4,597 (155 tilt-rotor, 844 attack, 338 multi-role, 552 heavy, 2,070 medium, 638 light)
Chinese Army and Marine helicopter fleet 2012: 658 (16 attack, 401 multi-role, 21 heavy, 145 medium, 68 light)

Originally Posted by Raellus

Our navy is still the world's most powerful blue water force and will likely remain so for some time, but China's navy is growing at an alarming rate. Chinese military technology has taken great leaps forward during the last 30 years. They've developed anti-satellite weapons, hypersonic ballistic anti-ship missiles, and their own indigenous stealth fighter. Its land forces no longer rely on 1950's era Soviet MBT knock-offs. We're not talking the screaming hordes of the Korean War anymore (and we couldn't decisively beat them then, when Communist China was only a year or two old.

Anything that China has or is developing has been or is being developed by the US. Any weapons system that China builds that could seriously threaten American forces or its security will be countered. China's anti-satellite weapons programme involved a fairly primitive system limited to high-inclination LEO satellites. This capability is also available to other countries with a store of IRBMs or satellite launch vehicles and a long-range radar system. It does not threaten US or Russian imagery and ELINT satellites in higher orbit, but was undoubtedly a provocative test. It could trigger an arms race with the US in space.

Originally Posted by Raellus

The trends are clear, RN7, and they're alarming. U.S. military power is waning while China's, at least, is on the rise. I don't see these trends reversing anytime soon and we're looking ahead about 20 years too. Look for Putin to pump more money into the Russian military as well. We're still badass, but not nearly as badass as 25 years ago. And China's military, although still high-volume, is increasing its quality each and every year.

I think it's just relative. China is trying to flex its muscles but if it threads on America's toes it might be biting off a bit more than it thinks it can chew. The Soviet Union with all its smart scientist's went bankrupt trying to match American technology and dollars, and unlike China the Soviet economy wasn't dependent on US investment and taxes from re-exports to the US.

Originally Posted by Raellus

Now, with all of that out of the way, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to imagine some kind of break-down of national security in the CONUS after the war goes nuclear. Even Mexican paramilitaries could cause problems in the American southwest. We're simply trying to create a gameworld with lots of options for military-themed adventures, both in foreign fields and in the continental U.S.

But a reason and premise for a nuclear attack on America in 2030 would still have to be established.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by RN7

The US Special Operations Command has a joint force of 30,000, that's twice as big as the Australian Army.

Unless Australia lost a REALLY big battle in the last 24 hours that I didn't hear about, that's not accurate. The regular Australian Army has a bit over 30,000 personnel. There's another 17,000 or so active Army Reservists.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Targan

Unless Australia lost a REALLY big battle in the last 24 hours that I didn't hear about, that's not accurate. The regular Australian Army has a bit over 30,000 personnel. There's another 17,000 or so active Army Reservists.

Sorry Targan got a bit ahead of myself there. I quickly glanced at the Australian reserve of 15,800. The regular Army is 28,200 and the US Special Operations Command is 31,500. So just a little bit bigger than the Australian Army.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Targan

Once again (and I've obviously failed dismally despite trying to make my point abundantly clear) I'm NOT suggesting a global pandemic. I say again, a global pandemic would NOT give you the same vibe as original T2K and that's why a global pandemic is NOT what I'm suggesting. What I've described is a weaponised pathogen specifically designed and deployed so as to be confined mostly or completely to North America. I suggested it as a direct response to the question of how could you bring the US down a couple of notches just before or during a circa 2030 Twilight War.

Targan, I get your point totally that the intention is not to introduce a global pandemic to the scenario. However, I think the challenge with this is summed up by RN7's post below

Originally Posted by RN7

4) Disease: It would have to be one hell of a disease or should we say plague to shut down America. Unlike the Ebola virus for example which broke out in a remote part of Africa and was contained, America is hardly a remote part of the world and it could not be contained from spreading globally due to the massive amount of international travel from American airports. It would invariably spread beyond America in the early stages of the outbreak and become a global pandemic.

I think any proposed infection serious enough to affect the USA to the extent suggested would inevitably spread worldwide and, as RN7 said, become a global pandemic.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by RN7

It would be impossible.

I don't think either Raellus or myself have suggested anything different anywhere in the thread (unless you count my suggestion of a Soviet landing in Alaska, which was intended as a large scale incursion which ultimately ends up leaving the Russians stranded).

But a full scale invasion with Chinese tourists suddenly pulling assault rifles out of their camera cases and taking down the White House only to be foiled by Gerry Butler is pure Hollywood in my opinion (I'm exagerating a bit but hopefully you get the drift), and not something I could buy into as part of a T2030 timeline...

Originally Posted by RN7

It's really a bit hard to imagine.

Maybe, but we're giving it a go...although it can be a bit depressing trying to think of different ways to screw up the World...!

Originally Posted by RN7

But a reason and premise for a nuclear attack on America in 2030 would still have to be established.

That would be a gradual escalation over a period of time following an initial use of tactical nuclear weapons at an as yet to be determined flashpoint...so pretty much as happened in both the V1 and V2 timelines...which we're effectively trying to reboot...

[Targan]

Originally Posted by RN7

4) Disease: It would have to be one hell of a disease or should we say plague to shut down America. Unlike the Ebola virus for example which broke out in a remote part of Africa and was contained, America is hardly a remote part of the world and it could not be contained from spreading globally due to the massive amount of international travel from American airports. It would invariably spread beyond America in the early stages of the outbreak and become a global pandemic.

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

I think any proposed infection serious enough to affect the USA to the extent suggested would inevitably spread worldwide and, as RN7 said, become a global pandemic.

With the greatest respect, you guys are looking at this with a very narrow focus. The use of a bioweapon doesn't necessarily mean global pandemic. It doesn't necessarily mean wiping the US off the face of the map. Genetic technology right now can do some amazing things. Project the recent rate of genetic advances forward and I'm absolutely certain that by the late 2020s, biowar labs will be able to create pathogens tailored for very specific intended results.

Think of all the possibilities. A disease that is highly infectious but has a long lead time until deleterious effects kick in. You can infect large numbers of people before the authorities even realise there's a problem. It could be tailored to be highly lethal, or tailored to be severely debilitating for just a few days. The country of origin could secretly inoculate it's population well in advance of its deployment.

As I described in an earlier post, what about a pathogen with a high mortality rate but a very short active period due to an inbuilt fast rate of mutation that quickly renders it no more harmful than the common cold? Put it in the water supplies of the dozen largest cities in the US. Even if it spreads beyond North America, it mutates away from lethality within days. No global pandemic, but huge disruption in the targeted country.

Threads like this are an opportunity for us to tailor storylines that deliver us the results we want for campaign purposes. Well in a similar way, genetic engineering can tailor pathogens to have very specific characteristics. I regard it as a very viable, quite believable "deus ex machina" for the purposes of this discussion.

[RN7]

I hate to say it but the most effective way of destabilizing or temporally blinding America might be the scenario from Red Dawn 2.

A coordinated electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapon and cyber attack on US military bases, command centers and strategic infrastructure might have some of the desired effect of knocking America out for a while. Add anti-satellite weapons and you could have a working scenario. And in the meantime whoever did it could carry out their agenda as America is preoccupied with its own crisis.

However there is the issue of using nuclear or non-nuclear EMP weapons. A nuclear warhead detonated hundreds of kilometers above the Earth's surface would be more effective than a non-nuclear EMP weapon. Non-nuclear EMP weapons can be deployed in bombs, cruise missiles and drones, and as the EMP from E-bombs comes from within the weapon they allow for finer target discrimination. The effect of small E-bombs has proven to be sufficient for certain terrorist or military operations, such as the destruction of electronic control systems critical to the operation of many ground vehicles and aircraft. However the range or effect of a non-nuclear EMP is far less than a nuclear one, but a nuclear device deployed on a missile launched at the United States or an American intelligence satellites in high orbit is not recommended for obvious reasons unless its deploying Klingon cloaking device technology.

The United States and the Soviet Union are the only countries known to have tested the affects of nuclear EMP, although the British may have also studied it in the 1950's and 60's. In 2001 The United States EMP Commission was created to assess the threat from EMP attack. The conclusion was that Britain, China, Cuba, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Iran, Iraq, Israel, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia and Sweden had some knowledge about EMP attack at various levels. It also concluded that Iran, North Korea, China and Russia view the United States as a potential aggressor that would be willing to use nuclear weapons in a first strike, and perceive the United States as having contingency plans to make a nuclear EMP attack and as being willing to execute those plans under a broad range of circumstances. Russian and Chinese military scientists in open source writings also describe the basic principles of nuclear weapons designed specifically to generate an enhanced-EMP effect, that they term "Super-EMP" weapons. Super-EMP weapons according to these sources can destroy even the best protected US military and civilian electronic systems. The US EMP Commission determined that long-known protections are almost completely absent in the civilian infrastructure of the United States and that large parts of US military services were less-protected against EMP than during the Cold War.

[rcaf_777]

The US has a couple weapons designed to take out a country power grid

Graphite Bomb BLU-114/B aka the Soft Bomb which was used durring Operation Desert Strom(1st Gulf War) and Operation Allied Force (Serbia)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-114/B_%22Soft-Bomb%22
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphite_bomb
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/blu-114.htm

[Rainbow Six]

Re: possible Asian flashpoints, another one that just came to mind is the Diaoyu / Senkaku Islands:

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

They're uninhabited but disputed between China, Taiwan, and Japan.

If I'm reading the wiki article correctly, the US is treaty bound to intervene on Japan's behalf in the event of any military action against Japanese territory, which specifically includes the Senkaku Islands.

Also, just been rereading this thread and noticed that I have used the word "Soviet" a few times when I should have obviously said "Russian" - bit of a freudian slip there! (In my defence, when I was at school in the 80's my modern studies teacher used to berate any poor student that happened to say "Russian" when they should have said "Soviet"...I guess it's stuck at the back of my mind!)

[Raellus]

@RN7: I think we're at an intellectual and philosophical impasse. I wish that I was as optimistic and comfortable as you are regarding our future military capabilities vis-a-vis the Chinese, but I am not. You argue well, using numbers to support your thesis (sources?), but I am still not convinced. Despite my best efforts, I doubt that I can win you over either. Still, I'd like to point out a couple of things that I noticed in your response.

First, the balance of forces comparisons you cited are based on current/recent information. This project is projecting 20-30 years into the future based on current trends. I concede that it's an imprecise exercise in educated guesswork, but the current trends are quite clear. We're spending less on defense and they (China and Russia) are steadily increasing their defense spending. The American miltary is contracting while the Chinese and Russian militaries are expanding and modernizing. The quality gap is shrinking. They might not be there yet, and we may always retain somewhat of a qualitative technological edge, but the trends suggest otherwise. And quantity can be a quality all its own.

Besides glossing over current trends, your balance of forces comparisons only look at the U.S. and China. In our posited war, the U.S. would also be fighting the Russians. Add in Russian military strength, U.S. numerical superiority in nearly every non-naval category dissolves.

We'll probably have to end up agreeing to disagree and, I could well be wrong anyway. In fact, I hope I am. But history has given us too many examples of the consequences of hubris and I don't want the West to fall into that trap. Besides, if you think our scenario is "impossible", that's cool- we're not trying to push it on anyone.

[Raellus]

And so it begins? Uncanny the timing with which some of these things crop up.

http://news.yahoo.com/china-insists-...122818355.html

[kato13]

In looking at reality my thoughts are closer to RN7 than those who feel China will dominate in the next 20 years (remember how Japan was going to take over in the 80s).

However there is a problem with creating a completely realistic scenario in that it will still be wrong when we look back at it 20 years from now. So IMO as long as we are going to be wrong anyway, lets be wrong in the direction of what will be the most fun to play (while still being in the realm of possibility, however remote).

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by kato13

In looking at reality my thoughts are closer to RN7 than those who feel China will dominate in the next 20 years (remember how Japan was going to take over in the 80s).

I'm not claiming that "China will dominate". Not at all. I'm simply saying that, given current trends in military spending and force modernization- China will at least approach military parity with the U.S. in 15-20 or so years. This isn't Chicken Little stuff. I've put a lot of time and effort into researching this topic. Maybe it would have more weight if it wasn't coming from me?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...7273UB20110308

http://www.defense.gov/pubs/2013_China_Report_FINAL.pdf

http://www.strategycenter.net/resear...pub_detail.asp

I concede that these are rather big "ifs" and that other reputable sources' assessments aren't quite as optimistic considering China's future military capabilities. I'm trying to being fair and sober minded. Still, I've found enough credible evidence to strongly suggest that China will be able to hold its own in a ground war in Asia with the United States in 20-30 years' time. Considering that a then-barely two-years-old communist China was able to battle the U.S./U.N. to a draw in the early 1950s (once again, in Korea), I really don't see this assessment as straining the bounds of possibility.

I'm just defending my methodology and conclusions here, not trying to push them on anyone else. If nothing I write here sways you, I'm fine with that. I'm just bothered by the implications that what I've come up with is somehow cloud-cuckoo-land thinking.

Originally Posted by kato13

However there is a problem with creating a completely realistic scenario in that it will still be wrong when we look back at it 20 years from now. So IMO as long as we are going to be wrong anyway, lets be wrong in the direction of what will be the most fun to play (while still being in the realm of possibility, however remote).

I'm glad that you appreciate the spirit of what we're trying to do.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

@RN7: I think we're at an intellectual and philosophical impasse. I wish that I was as optimistic and comfortable as you are regarding our future military capabilities vis-a-vis the Chinese, but I am not. You argue well, using numbers to support your thesis (sources?), but I am still not convinced. Despite my best efforts, I doubt that I can win you over either. Still, I'd like to point out a couple of things that I noticed in your response.

Sources: The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS): The Military Balance 2012

Originally Posted by Raellus

First, the balance of forces comparisons you cited are based on current/recent information. This project is projecting 20-30 years into the future based on current trends. I concede that it's an imprecise exercise in educated guesswork, but the current trends are quite clear. We're spending less on defense and they (China and Russia) are steadily increasing their defense spending. The American miltary is contracting while the Chinese and Russian militaries are expanding and modernizing. The quality gap is shrinking. They might not be there yet, and we may always retain somewhat of a qualitative technological edge, but the trends suggest otherwise. And quantity can be a quality all its own.

I cant give to you future military balance figures as they don't exist yet. Even with Obama's cutbacks America is spends at least twice as much as China and Russia combined.

Originally Posted by Raellus

Besides glossing over current trends, your balance of forces comparisons only look at the U.S. and China. In our posited war, the U.S. would also be fighting the Russians. Add in Russian military strength, U.S. numerical superiority in nearly every non-naval category dissolves..

China and Russia outnumber the US in all categories of land forces excluding helicopters, but they always have. But they certainly don't in air and naval forces, or in any other category related to the military. Add NATO allied land forces and there is no real superiority and the US and NATO uses better equipment and has better trained forces.

Originally Posted by Raellus

Well probably have to end up agreeing to disagree and, I could well be wrong anyway. In fact, I hope I am. But history has given us too many examples of the consequences of hubris and I don't want the West to fall into that trap. Besides, if you think our scenario is "impossible", that's cool- we're not trying to push it on anyone.

A T2030 scenario cant really believably happen until America is immobilised in some way. Invading America today is impossible, if its embroiled in a major crisis then its defences will be down and it wont be able to intervene internationally, at least not at the same level it can now.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by RN7

Sources: The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS): The Military Balance 2012

That same think-tank also predicts military equality in 15-20 years' time given the trends in current Chinese defense spending (i.e. average 10% annual growth in defense expenditures). Interesting.

Originally Posted by RN7

A T2030 scenario cant really believably happen until America is immobilised in some way. Invading America today is impossible, if its embroiled in a major crisis then its defences will be down and it wont be able to intervene internationally, at least not at the same level it can now.

Who's proposing a Chinese and/or Russian invasion of the U.S.A. scenario?

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

That same think-tank also predicts military equality in 15-20 years' time given the trends in current Chinese defense spending (i.e. average 10% annual growth in defense expenditures). Interesting. ?

According to IISS China strategic priorities are gradually shifting from defence of China’s borders to force projection within East Asia and further afield, in order to secure sea lines of communication. According to the latest defence white paper, Beijing plans by 2020 to deploy forces that will be capable of winning ‘local wars under the conditions of informationization’ (in other words, successful joint operations enabled by modern technology, in a contested regional environment). By 2050, Beijing aims to become a ‘peer competitor’ to the US. While domestic upheaval or significant economic problems, or both, could deflect the PLA from achieving these goals, current trends suggest they remain within reach.

Originally Posted by Raellus

Who's proposing a Chinese and/or Russian invasion of the U.S.A. scenario

Not me but who else is likely to invade?

[Raellus]

I'm pretty happy with the flashpoints (time, place, and circumstances) for the beginnings of the Twilight 2030 war in Asia and Europe. Now we have to decide when and how the war goes nuclear. IIRC, in the v1.0 timeline, it takes a year or so before the Soviets use nukes in China.

Targan suggested a Chinese biowar attack on the CONUS as a way of creating the instability needed to give a Mexican invasion hope of any degree of success, however temporary. For our purposes, it's certainly an option. If China attacked the U.S. with a strategic weapon of that magnitude, the U.S. would certainly be compelled to retaliate, if not in kind (I don't see the U.S. using bioweapons), then with an alternative strategic weapon, no? But why would China unleash that genie of deadly pestilence?

Here's another option- a cyber attack. What if, once the Chinese intervene for prevent a complete NK collapse in Korea, and commence combat with American troops there, the Chinese unleash a devastating cyber attack, paralyzing large chunks of the American power grid and possible lowering the readiness of our strategic nuclear force. It's a damaging strategic attack and, if the U.S. was unable to respond in kind, perhaps while also losing ground to the PLA in Korea, then I could see the pentagon pushing for authorization to use tactical nukes. It would, of course, escalate from there.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by RN7

A T2030 scenario cant really believably happen until America is immobilised in some way.

I seem to recall someone proposing a scenario to accomplish that earlier in this thread

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Targan suggested a Chinese biowar attack on the CONUS as a way of creating the instability needed to give a Mexican invasion hope of any degree of success, however temporary. For our purposes, it's certainly an option. If China attacked the U.S. with a strategic weapon of that magnitude, the U.S. would certainly be compelled to retaliate, if not in kind (I don't see the U.S. using bioweapons), then with an alternative strategic weapon, no? But why would China unleash that genie of deadly pestilence?

How would the US know who had used a bioweapon against them? Certainly if there was an ongoing conflict with China, the US would consider China a likely culprit, but how could they be certain? I guess it's possible that there might be genetic markers in the pathogen that suggested the involvement of Chinese geneticists, but there might not. It may even be possible to create the pathogen in such a way that the other side couldn't be sure it wasn't just a random mutation of an existing disease. Realistically though, the more specialised and specific the pathogen, the more obvious it would be that it was deliberately created.

As for "unleashing the genie of deadly pestilence", as I've indicated earlier it is theoretically possible to create weaponised pathogens that pose little to no risk to the side that created them. The main risk to China would be retaliation in kind or with other WMDs. But we're already assuming an escalation to the use of nukes at some point in the conflict anyway, so for story purposes escalation isn't really an issue.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Targan

As for "unleashing the genie of deadly pestilence", as I've indicated earlier it is theoretically possible to create weaponised pathogens that pose little to no risk to the side that created them. The main risk to China would be retaliation in kind or with other WMDs. But we're already assuming an escalation to the use of nukes at some point in the conflict anyway, so for story purposes escalation isn't really an issue.

I wasn't implying that the Chinese would be foolish enough to release a potentially self-destructive, indiscriminate pathogen which could decimate the global population. I just meant that it would be a major escalation in the fighting and the Chinese would need a very good reason to risk a retaliatory attack by making that very big first move. Apart from some Japanese field experimentation with bioweapons in China during WWII, AFAIK, no nation has used such weapons in anger since. For some reason, I feel that using bioweapons is somehow worse and less justifiable than using nuclear or chemical weapons.

[Rainbow Six]

We've spent quite a bit of time discussing how to "neutralise" the United States...this is how I see events unfolding in relation to the proposed timeline...some of it from the timeline already posed by Raellus, some not, so in chronological order...

2025
a)Ongoing tensions in SE Asia, including armed clashes between the PRC and Vietnam. These develop into a full scale War which is over by sometime in 2026 (this serves to give the PRC leadership an opportunity to see how their forces perform in combat).

2027
b) North Korea launches an invasion of South Korea. Various nations, most notably the United States, send military forces to assist South Korea under the auspices of the United Nations

c) China takes advantage of the situation by attacking Taiwan as part of a long planned invasion. The US commits more forces

d) The Russians make their move into the Baltics, calculating that with the US committed in two different (but linked) theatres in the Pacific and the European members of NATO in disarray following the expulsion of some members from the European Union, NATO will not go to War to defend the Baltics. The Russians specifically do not attack Poland as they believe that will trigger a NATO response. The Russian leadership have miscalculated however, and NATO - or at least some members - does respond, leading to the War in Europe. US forces in Europe consist of one heavy Division based in Poland, with a second heavy Division quickly flown in and equipped from POMCUS sites in Poland.

e) The US Government calls up the National Guard and reserves, who begin to deploy to Europe and Asia to reinforce the Regular troops already deployed.

Whether c comes before d or d comes before c probably needs to be finalised.

Date To Be Confirmed
f) The War goes nuclear. Location of first use of nuclear weapons to be confirmed.

g)This leads to a gradual escalation in the same way as the original T2K timeline, i.e. with a phased period of time between first use and the launch of strategic weapons at the United States.

h)In the wake of the nuclear exchanges trouble flares on the US / Mexican border. Increasingly violent clashes occur at several border crossings, culminating in a massacre of Mexican civilians at one border station; elsewhere several US Border Patrol officers are found dead on the American side. Their deaths were neither quick nor painless. Some suspect the involvement of Mexican drug cartels. With little to no diplomatic channels available to defuse the situation, the Mexican Government orders units of the Mexican Army to the border to protect Mexican civilians. However tensions continue to escalate. Mexican troops engage US forces and in a matter of days open warfare has broken out along the border. The Mexicans are facing an assortment of Army Reserves, Air Force and Navy personnel, Border Patrol, and police, supplemented by volunteer militia groups. Several weeks after crossing the border, the Mexicans receive welcome reinforcements when two Cuban ships arrive carrying Russian troops formerly based on Cuba.

I think it's important to note a couple of things.

Firstly, in my mind this is absolutely not a planned invasion, It's not part of some Chinese / Russian /Mexican grand alliance, it's a War that starts almost by accident - albeit possibly following some manoeuvring and manipulation by the cartels - when some Mexican troops get itchy trigger fingers. Once it's started it escalates quickly, in no small part because neither side has any effective high level command or control over the forces involved, and by the time that command and control is properly established the fighting has spread too far for either side to be able to stop it.

Secondly it takes place after the nuclear exchanges have taken place. Therefore, personally I don't think it's necessary to go to lengths to further destabilise the US - by now its already been attacked by nuclear weapons and most of its regular armed forces - and National Guard and Reserve - are deployed overseas in Europe or the Far East. So as sated, the Mexicans are facing an ad hoc mix of forces, very few of whom would be trained combat troops.

In my opinion that's enough to make a Mexican "invasion" of the south western United States plausible. So Targan, whilst I think the germ warfare scenario you've put forward is a perfectly valid one, like Raellus I'm wary of introducing bioweapons into the scenario. I also don't think using it as a mechanism intended purely to destabilise the US to make a foreign invasion more achievable is actually required. Reason I say that is because I think that in the scenario outlined above the US has already been weakened to the point that the scenario is plausible and a large scale bio attack - especially against the "homeland" and, by definition, aimed primarily at the civilian population, would run the risk of a disproportionate US nuclear response, which goes beyond the original T2K "limited" (I use the word relatively) nuclear exchange - you said who would they retaliate against, but I would counter that by saying that rational heads might not be prevailing following such an event, so they may retaliate against everyone that they thought responsible. Or they may have specific intelligence that identifies the culprit to a level that they are comfortable with. Or, as you said, there may be something in the pathogen that means its source can be identified.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

2027
b) North Korea launches an invasion of South Korea. Various nations, most notably the United States, send military forces to assist South Korea under the auspices of the United Nations

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.

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

2027
d) The Russians make their move into the Baltics, calculating that with the US committed in two different (but linked) theatres in the Pacific and the European members of NATO in disarray following the expulsion of some members from the European Union, NATO will not go to War to defend the Baltics.

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.

[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.

[Raellus]

The background for the instability/disunity of NATO has been established. The debtor/defaulter nations of the EU either leave or are expelled from the confederation. In protest, a couple or all of those nations leaves or threatens to leave NATO. Italy, Spain, and Portugal, at least, have little to fear from Russia and might consider NATO to be an anachronism. Greece might do the same. France, who opposed the expulsion also threatens to leave NATO in solidarity with the other Mediterranean exiles.

This disunity in NATO, plus the U.S.'s heavy commitment in Korea, encourages Putin's gamble to seize former Soviet territories in the Baltic. By 2025, we're anticipating a Russia that is somewhat stronger and more capable militarily than it is today. Obviously, the gamble fails because the U.S., Germany, Great Britain (of would it just be England by then?) and other NATO nations do send troops and the war quickly spreads to Ukraine proper (the Russians have annexed E. Ukraine by then).

Back to Korea, a few years before the Russian invasion of the Baltics. Our war in Asia starts with a Chinese limited war versus Vietnam over control of the oil rich waters around the disputed Spratly island chain. In response, the U.S. talks tough and sends strong naval forces to assist the Philippines should China overreach, but does not directly intervene on behalf of Vietnam.

Kim Il Sun is facing serious domestic issues (we have yet to finalize what those are) and interprets the lack of a strong response from the U.S. to the Chinese aggression against Vietnam as a sign of weakness. With or without prompting from China, he orders the long-planned invasion of South Korea. It's a move made out of desperation and miscalculations and, after a slightly promising opening phase, it doesn't go particularly well. In a manner of months, the South Koreans and their allies start to push into North Korea. Kim and his loyal supporters, of which there are fewer now, decide to use nuclear weapons to save the regime, or at least go down swinging. Some of his top generals, realizing that this will likely result in the annihilation of the entire nation, move to seize power. This prompts a military collapse and the South Koreans move in swiftly to capture Pyongyang. The Chinese, puffed up by their recent success in Vietnam, and unwilling to accept a reunified, democratic Korea abutting it, decide to invade North Korea to reestablish a friendly/puppet government. Chinese and allied forces clash, and you've got the beginnings of a war between China and the U.S. (the Russian invasion of the Baltics would, of course, begin after this).

Having done some research, I don't think that the Chinese would be able to successfully invade Taiwan, even in 20-30 years' time. Would they try? This is part of our timeline that I'm still not sure about.

@Rainbow: I like your idea about Mexico. I agree that we should have the "invasion" kind of start out by accident almost and then grow organically. I'd like to add a couple of thoughts on the matter. Historically, when the U.S. has mobilized for a world war, Mexicans are welcomed into the country because the U.S. needs to replace labor lost to the draft. Perhaps, though, after nuclear strikes on the U.S., the orderly trickle of immigrants turns into a flood, including many opportunistic looters and the like, and militia groups begin using deadly force to stem the flow. As a result, the Mexican military moves in to protect its citizens, meets with some success, and decides, with encouragement from Moscow and/or Beijing, to press its brief advantage. The invasion is quickly framed as a war against American imperialism- a war to avenge the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo- and Russia even contributes some troops from its bases in Latin America.

This makes the SW of the U.S.A. a chaotic, active battleground of varying intensity- pretty ideal for T2K gameplay.

I don't want to be a braggart, and I know that at least a couple of you feel very differently, but I think that what we've come up so far is far more plausible than what the original v1.0 writers did. Of course, we have the benefit of hindsight now and I don't think we've taken as many bold chances in our predictions.