OT or Not OT: Twilight 2030

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by 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.

Rae, I'm a +1 on all of the above. I like the idea of the US becoming involved in direct confrontation with China following a North Korean collapse and getting drawn into a Chinese / Vietnamese War by extension. With regard to Taiwan, perhaps there's no Chinese invasion, just air and naval warfare in the Taiwan Straits?

(Oh, and to answer the question you asked...[Scottish Independence trivia], I wont bore everyone with lots of detail, but experts on both sides of the debate are agreed that if Scotland votes for independence England, Wales, and Northern Ireland will still be called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but will obviously no longer include the new nation of Scotland. The legal basis lies in the Acts of Union 1707 and 1800. The 1707 Act formally made Scotland, England, and Wales a single Sovereign State called the United Kingdom of Great Britain. Should any constituent part of said State elect to leave there would be no change to the name of the remaining parts - it would take an Act of Parliament to formally change the name. And it could never be called just England, as it would still include Wales and Northern Ireland.

On a practical level, it's estimated that Scottish Independence would remove approximately one Brigade from the British Army's order of battle, and a relatively small number of aircraft and warships from RAF and RN inventories. Whether an independent Scotland would join NATO is, like many thing to do with the independence referendum, a subject of debate.[/Scottish Independence trivia - apologies for thread drift])

[RN7]

How I see T2K in 2030.

Europe: The Cold War is long dead and the only influence Russia has in Eastern Europe is in Serbia and what it still deludes itself it still has outside the old Soviet borders. Nationalism still exists but it's at a less lethal level in the big Western European countries than it was up until the Second World War. America still has a lot of influence in Europe despite the cutbacks to US forces in Europe and the best efforts of the French, and the US still has a lot of support in Germany and other Pro-NATO countries and has a very close military relationship with Britain. I'd find it hard to believe that a large war would break out in Europe. Even if Russia annexes the Ukraine and Baltic's NATO action would be defensive and it would avoid taking offensive action against Russia. But NATO could still spit as it did in T2K over this or other issues and France would like to go it alone or in leadership of other countries.

The Middle East: The Soviet influence has long gone and was not replaced by any significant Russian influence, except for toothless support for the bogie regimes in Iran, Iraq and Syria. However the Middle East still remains a fertile ground for conflict and there could be so much of it. The Arabs/Muslims still hate the Israelis/Jews and vice-versa. The Sunni-Shia Muslim fault line; Shia Iran, Syria (elite) and Iraqi minority and the Sunni majority in Saudi Arabia and the other Arab states. The still conscious nationalist rivalry between the Arabs, Iranian Persians and Ottoman Turks. The Arab and Muslim resentment and inferiority complex with the West and Christians. The problem of the Kurds and other ethnic groups without a homeland. Afghanistan is still a mess and could draw in America, Russia and China. Muslim extremists and terrorists (a favourite pantomime villain) still exist and will continue to cause trouble. Pakistan borders Iran and its rivalry with Hindu India could lead to one of the biggest conflagration of them all.

The Far East: Any conflict has to involve China as it's the biggest power in Asia and has so many disputes with other countries: Taiwan, Japan, Philippines, South Korea, Vietnam, Thailand, anti-Chinese Indonesia and Malaysia, even India and Russia. America would certainly be drawn in as it has alliances or assumed ones with so many Asian countries and military bases all across the Pacific. The Korean Peninsula is certainly an area that could lead to a big war, but more likely as part of a wider war.

The biggest problem I have is the issue of how to destabilise America although it's not really that big of a problem. Limited nuclear strikes could certainly happen if America gets into a war with China and Russia, although I think America could do a lot more harm to China and Russia than they could do to America. Chinese and Russian forces landing in America is too farfetched outside of maybe Alaska, even more so if the war goes nuclear. The Mexicans on the other hand would need to really beef up their military to have a snow ball's chance in crossing into the American southwest and holding it for long. The problem is Mexico which is not really as poor as often depicted and is the second most populous country in Latin America and the biggest Spanish speaking one, has never shown any interest in acquiring much in the way of offensive military hardware. Their very defensive and Para-military orientated, and remind me very much of Ireland's relative military capabilities in comparison to Britain. Involving Cuba as in T2K might seem an option, but in 2030 Fidel Castro will be 104 years old (God bless him) and will the Cubans want to remain an isolated economic basket case for ever with America dangling a vast amount of dollars and investment just 90 miles away?

[stormlion1]

Looks like the Russians are trying to get Moldova in on the "rejoin the Russia" game now. And to do that they will need to take the southern half of Ukraine to link it.

[Raellus]

Thanks for the intel, Stormlion1. Moldova, or at least part of it, will definitely be a part of our Russian Federation by the time our T2K+30 WWIII starts.


I'm going to start on a narrative of the operational phases of the war in Europe and Asia soon, based on the foundation we've already established.

Strategically speaking, there are still a couple of things that need to be ironed out. In looking at the map of Asia, it occurs to me that assuming control of Vietnam and at least part of the Korean peninsula would give the Chinese more control of the South and East China seas respectively, and would further isolate Taiwan, perhaps in preparation for a forced reunification. So, perhaps, the Chinese invasions of Vietnam and Korea, although starting somewhat circumstantially, can be turned into a larger strategic play for regaining Taiwan. Anything that would force the Americans into bringing their carrier air groups closer to China's land-based ASM air, and green water naval coverage would give the Chinese a fighting chance at holding the U.S. Pacific fleet at bay long enough to effect an amphibious assault on Taiwan. I'm not sure that this will happen in our T2K+30 but it's something that I'm considering. China doesn't need to decisively defeat the U.S. Pacific fleet, they just need to control the sea approaches to Taiwan.

Something that's bothering me, though, that I could use a little advice on, is China's ties to Pakistan. China needs Pakistan as a counterbalance to India's emerging regional power but China also has problems with Muslim separatists in its western provinces. Pakistan can't seem to control its own extremist elements so I'm not sure how much they could do to help reign in and/or suppress China's increasingly militant Muslim minorities. That said, I see a China-Pakistan cooperative alliance as being more likely than a China-India one. Your thoughts?

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Something that's bothering me, though, that I could use a little advice on, is China's ties to Pakistan. China needs Pakistan as a counterbalance to India's emerging regional power but China also has problems with Muslim separatists in its western provinces. Pakistan can't seem to control its own extremist elements so I'm not sure how much they could do to help reign in and/or suppress China's increasingly militant Muslim minorities. That said, I see a China-Pakistan cooperative alliance as being more likely than a China-India one. Your thoughts?

In the same way that civil wars can be some of the most bitter conflicts, intra-religious conflict tends to get really, really nasty. I know most readers here will already know this, I'm just putting this forward as a reminder.

Within Islam there are the two broad categories of Sunni and Shia, and myriad other sects and denominations. Most of the Muslim peoples of western China are, broadly speaking, Sunnis and belong to the Turkic language group. The majority of Pakistanis are also Sunni, with a sizable minority of Shiites and a whole bunch of other sects including the Ahmadiyya and Quranists. Pakistanis are mostly Urdu speakers.

So I guess the Pakistanis could help open dialogue on a majority religion basis with the western Chinese Muslim communities (Sunni clerics meeting with Sunni clerics, cultural exchanges etc), but linguistically and culturally they don't have a huge amount in common other than their religious beliefs. Actually I don't know whether those shared religious beliefs would promote Pakistani assistance to the Chinese government to keep things calm on the western frontiers, or hinder them.

[Raellus]

I'm probably overthinking the China-Pakistan angle. Historically, they've enjoyed pretty good relations and there's no clear-cut reasons why that would change.

The following article's title is rather sensationalistic, and it probably overstates the case a bit, but I've been saying this here for years.

http://news.yahoo.com/stealth-subs-c...ml?cache_clear

SSKs pose a clear and present danger to U.S. carrier task forces. They play a significant part in China's area denial strategy.

[Cdnwolf]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I'm probably overthinking the China-Pakistan angle. Historically, they've enjoyed pretty good relations and there's no clear-cut reasons why that would change.

The following article's title is rather sensationalistic, and it probably overstates the case a bit, but I've been saying this here for years.

http://news.yahoo.com/stealth-subs-c...ml?cache_clear

SSKs pose a clear and present danger to U.S. carrier task forces. They play a significant part in China's area denial strategy.

If you get a chance read Eric Margolis "War at the Top of the World" a fascinating examination of the Kashmir region and why China, India, Pakistan and other countries want it.

War at the Top of the World: The Struggle for Afghanistan, Kashmir, and Tibet (ISBN 0-415-93062-6) Routledge 1999


Maybe the Mods should set up another thread and everyone can write their idea of future history. Then people can pick and choose what they want from it?

[pmulcahy11b]

I think that global climate change and it's consequences should be a part of any Twilight 2030 scenario. Another thing should increased use of robotic platforms and possibly singularity.

[Raellus]

@Cdnwolf: Sounds like an interesting book. I looked it up on Amazon and a paperback is $34 or so- a little rich for my blood. I'll see if I can find it in the local library system.

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

I think that global climate change and it's consequences should be a part of any Twilight 2030 scenario. Another thing should increased use of robotic platforms and possibly singularity.

I agree about climate change. So far, we have enough geopolitical stuff to write a scenario where GW isn't required to cause much trouble, but I'd like to find some ways to work it in.

Part of the fun of revamping the T2K scenario is being able to include current or near future military equipment and tech that wasn't included in the original materials. I just read an article today about the future of robotics in warfare- automated supply convoys and semi-autonomous UAVs were two example of robotic technologies that we might see in 20 years or so. I doubt that we'll see the singularity by them- I just hope the nanobots don't make me eat those words.

That said, part of the fun of T2K is tearing down that tech to just the basics- at least, that's how I envision it. Just like in the original versions of the game, hi-tech gear would be used up or worn out by the time a campaign would start. There probably wouldn't be a whole lot of military robots around by 2030.

[Badbru]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Kim Il Sun is facing serious domestic issues (we have yet to finalize what those are)

A couple of years back some smuggled out footage/or pictures showed the populace was generally starving. I think the cause was general economic mismanagement coupled with a drought. Since we're talking about including climate change another drought with the starving populace discontent > rebellious could influence his decission, especially if the south is still a thriving economic powerhouse it is becoming now.

Originally Posted by Raellus

@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 agree with all of this except the nonsensical bolded sentence. Why would refugees "Flood" from a not nuked country into a nuked country?
Perhaps a nuke meant for say Corpus Christie, drops a few hundred kilometers south of Brownsville/Matamoros.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Badbru

A couple of years back some smuggled out footage/or pictures showed the populace was generally starving. I think the cause was general economic mismanagement coupled with a drought. Since we're talking about including climate change another drought with the starving populace discontent > rebellious could influence his decission, especially if the south is still a thriving economic powerhouse it is becoming now.

That could definitely work. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Badbru

I agree with all of this except the nonsensical bolded sentence. Why would refugees "Flood" from a not nuked country into a nuked country?
Perhaps a nuke meant for say Corpus Christie, drops a few hundred kilometers south of Brownsville/Matamoros.

Yeah, I guess you're right. I'll have to revise that bit.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I've given the Middle East a little thought and these are my first impressions.

Looking at a thematic map of the region displaying the dominant sect in each country, the two major players are Shiite power Iran and Sunni power Saudi Arabia. Largely Shiite Iraq- under oppressive Sunni rule during the Saddam era- stands between them. From what I've heard and read in recent weeks, Iraq, already, barely stable politically and security wise, is looking shakier every day. Perhaps a failed state in Iraq becomes the battleground in a military struggle for regional dominance between the Iranians and the Saudis.

Then there's Syria. A lot depends on how the civil war there pans out. Does Assad come out on top or will his regime be toppled? If the former, in what shape will the Syrian military be in 10 years? Russia clearly wants to maintain influence there. I can see generous military aid packages headed Syria's way as soon as he emerges as the winner. Perhaps, a decade from now, Syria will have regained the military power it had prior to the civil war. Or, does Assad eventually fall? If so, who takes control? From what I've read, there's no clear front-runner among the various insurgent groups, some of which seem quite radical. Does Turkey step in militarily to restore order, or at least secure its frontier?

If Turkey steps in in the south (of Syria), would Israel step in in the south? What kind of response would Israeli intervention receive from Turkey and the other Muslim nations of the region?

I think that it would be kind of surprising in a rather gratifying way, if a major war started in the Middle East without Israel being involved- at least, at the beginning. Israel sits on the sidelines, watching its assorted long-time tormentors and antagonists kicking the crap out of each other, wondering at its own incredible luck, until something happens that drags it into the larger conflict.

I've got a feeling that all of the above could somehow work as a whole, but it needs some adjusting and polishing and I need to get to bed. I'll reread your Middle East thoughts, Rainbow, give it all some more thought, and get back to this tomorrow.

Back to the Middle East...

I agree that a likely source of the future conflict is the schism between Sunni Islam and Shia Islam, with the major players being Saudi Arabia and Iran respectively. However, as has been said, trying to predict events in the Middle East is tricky at best. And Israel adds a complete wild card into the mix.

I like the idea of majority Shia Iraq becoming a sort of failed state, and I think it’s a reasonable step to have the Iranians attempt to fill any vacuum, possibly leading to some sort of split inside Iraq – as far as I know the Kurdish provinces in the north are already autonomous to all extents and purposes so it wouldn’t take a huge leap to have them declare independence, which Turkey may well take a dim view of, leading to sporadic clashes between Turkish forces and the Kurds in the years leading up to the War.

With regard to Syria, much of what I've read suggests that Assad is gaining the upper hand but so the rebels may continue to hold some pockets of territory, mainly in the north and east. Assad is also a natural Iranian ally (although the Syrian population is majority Sunni), so on the Shia side we have a potential trinity of Iran, Iraq, and Syria (plus Hezbollah).

On the Sunni side the Saudis would be supported by the Gulf States of Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman. The major regional player unaccounted for so far is majority Sunni Egypt. I can’t see the military there voluntarily giving up power any time soon. They’re either there for the long haul or until they are overthrown by the mobs. And I personally doubt the mobs have the wherewithal to overthrow the Egyptian Army.

To go back to Israel for a moment... an attack on Israel is going to be popular on the Arab street. If Israel did become embroiled in any conflict in the region it's going to have consequences - look at Desert Storm where Saddam tried to bring Israel in to break up the coalition. I've read in various places that the US had to put major pressure on Israel to keep the Israeli F15's on the ground when the scuds were flying.

So...my suggestion...and it is only that...I would really, really like to hear what other members think, so would welcome constructive comments and criticisms...

The near future
Israeli airstrikes set back Iranian nuclear ambitions by a considerable amount of time

2027
Some time (probably several months) after the fighting starts in Europe, we have Sunni forces led by Saudi Arabia and Egypt clashing with Shia forces led by Iran, with the main battleground being Iraq. The Saudis and the Omanis decide to take advantage of the situation to deal with terrorist groups operating Yemen. The Turks carry out some “policing” operations in the northern parts of Iraq (aka Kurdistan) and Syria, but don’t want to get too involved as they have to be mindful of what’s happening in Europe. The Israelis close their borders to all parties, threaten to shoot anyone that gets too close to those borders (and probably have to deal with trouble in the occupied territories), and hope that both sides grind themselves down into a bloody stalemate, whilst the Jordanians serve as the back channel negotiators who talk to everyone and try (unsuccessfully) to broker a peace. Meanwhile just to the north, the Russians, with Azeri and Armenian allies have occupied Georgia. Russian “advisors” are spotted on the front line “advising” the Iranian led forces. US “advisors” have already been embedded with the Saudi led forces for some time. Pro Sunni rebels once again rise up against the Assad regime in Syria. Assad takes extreme measures to put down the revolution - whole towns are gassed, but by now the rest of the World is too busy to pay attention.

So Israel sits out the opening phases of the Sunni / Shia War, but several months after the outbreak of hostilities the Iranians attempt to cause schisms in their Sunni enemies by bringing Israel into the conflict. The assault on Israel is spearheaded by Syrian troops supported by Hezbollah militias. The Iranians hope that if their Sunni enemies suddenly find themselves fighting on the same side as the Israelis (albeit by default) it may fracture the Sunni coalition. The plan partially succeeds, with anti Government riots breaking out in a number of countries, most importantly Egypt, where the military Government have to use the Army to keep order. A three way War is now in place, with the Israelis and the Saudi led forces both fighting the Iranian led Shia forces. Importantly however, whilst Shia Clerics are portraying the Sunnis as being allied with the Israelis in an attempt to sow discord the Israelis and the Sunnis are operating completely independently of each other (and when Israeli and Sunni Arab forces encounter each other firefights are common).

From here we have the possibility of things grinding down into some bitter fighting or the theatre can potentially serve as a location for first use of nukes as dependent on a) how many years the Israeli raids have set Iran back or b) how the Israelis fare either Iran or Israel could initiate nuclear warfare in the Middle East.

So...that's my line of thinking...a three way War between Israel, Sunni Arabs, and Shia Arabs / Persians, but feedback / suggestions on this area would be most welcome...

[Raellus]

I like it so far, Rainbow. If Iran appears to be winning what is nominally a sectarian war in Iraq (it's really more of a war for regional dominance), Israel might be prompted to act. That would cause further rifts in the various Sunni and Shiite alliances, leading to a reshuffling of sorts, and a wider, more destructive conflict. I'm going to try to tie this into events in Korea.

This is an alternative to what I've already posted as an option for the U.S.' active military involvement in [what will become WWIII] Asia:

Climate change exacerbates famine conditions in North Korea. Millions are reported starving, tens or maybe hundreds of thousands have already died. South Koreans demand that something be done. At around the same time, evidence surfaces that North Korea has shared nuclear weapons technology with Iran, enabling the Iranians to produce their own operational weapons. North Korea, its senior leadership gripped by paranoia, refuse all offers of aid, and counter with their typical belligerent proclamations.

The U.S. and South Korea, therefore, launch an invasion of the North with the fait accompli of humanitarian concerns- in reality, the main objective is regime change and destruction of the NK nuclear arsenal. As the North Korean forces are pushed back, the Dear Leader prepares to launch a last ditch nuclear attack with his few remaining weapons. Knowing that this will mean the annihilation of NK, a cabal of his own generals depose Kim in a coup and the NK military begins to collapse. Troubled by the approach of U.S./ROK forces, the Chinese cross the Yalu river in force, leading to clashes with U.S. and ROK troops. WWIII in Asia has officially begun.

Having taken a closer look at the NK military, it's pretty clear that they wouldn't have much of a chance against the ROK, much less the U.S., in an attack on the South. This scenario takes this into consideration by reversing the roles a bit, as well as tying into the war in the Middle East.

Thoughts?

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Raellus

At around the same time, evidence surfaces that North Korea has shared nuclear weapons technology with Iran, enabling the Iranians to produce their own operational weapons.

This has already happened. The DPRK exchanged nuclear technology with Iran for currency printing press technology that the US provided to the Shah back in the 70s. This is what allows them to make nearly perfect forgeries of US currency.

Of course they could provide additional information for hard currency from Iran, but you could add the DPRK expanding their current currency war against the US. The DPRK could also expand their production of synthetic narcotics further annoying countries in the region.

[Targan]

I wonder how long it will take the US and its allies to gear up for freeing themselves from China's rare earths market dominance? If that's still an issue in the 2020s, it's another angle that China can use to put pressure on America and it's key trading partners who provide it with specialised electronic components.

[Cdnwolf]

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment...of-African-oil

Anyone looking at Kenya and the massive oil finds there as a potential flashpoint?

[Rainbow Six]

Some anti China demonstrations in Vietnam in the news, with one reported fatality and many more injuries

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-27420008

[Raellus]

I've been working on projections for U.S. military equipment and force strength and the findings are a little bit on the alarming side. I'm probably beating a dead horse here, but I really think that any projection to a third world war needs to take the following into consideration. Although the U.S.A.'s gargantuan military budget is still much larger than other emerging [rival] powers, much of it goes either to paying for the costly, long-running counter-insurgency war in Afghanistan or for expensive, small batch weapon systems like the F-22 (for which orders have been significantly reduced). The litany of projects that have been cut or downgraded in recent years is rather long. The following is from an article on the downgrading of the U.S. Army's GCV program (to replace the M2 Bradley IFV):

“The Army can’t afford anything new,” said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, Arlington, Va. “It can afford mods, it can afford upgrades, but clean sheet designs have fallen out of the modernization plan. There’s no GCV, no Armed Aerial Scout — it’s all a continuation of the Army’s ‘Big 5’ during the Reagan years.”

In the 1980s, the Army invested heavily in Apache and Black Hawk helicopters, the Abrams tank, the Bradley fighting vehicle and the Patriot missile defense system. All of those systems are expected to remain in the Army inventory for years, or decades, to come.

http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...T02/301180024/

The USAF and USN are also finding that items on their wish lists aren't safe from the chopping block.

The active U.S. Army is set to shrink to around 400,000 by the end of this decade. Although the remaining force will still be quite capable, I don't think the U.S. military is going to be the world beater that it was (arguably) 10, 20, or 30 years ago.

IF the defense budget trends that I've been harping on in this thread continue, there's no doubt in my mind that the U.S. will be hard pressed if it finds itself in a major, conventional land war with another world power, let alone more than one. This will be a prominent feature of T2030.

[pmulcahy11b]

And what we'll also get is the "Hollow Army" of the 1970s and 80s again. The higher-ranking officers, senior NCOs, and a few die-hards stay; then you have a horde of new troops who will get thrust into leadership positions well before they are ready for the responsibility or have the proper training.

[Raellus]

No doubt, Paul. It looks like the U.S. Army, at least, is going to be fighting a significant degree of institutional and technological atrophy in the near future.

I'm starting on operational plans for the T2030 war in Europe and I stumbled across the following while researching the modern Polish armed forces. It's a NATO contingency plan, c. 2010, to defend its Baltic members in case of an attack (presumably by Russia and/or Belarus).

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

That link led to this article.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...russia-baltics

Wow. Just wow.

[pmulcahy11b]

Wikileaks...goddamned guy...

[Raellus]

Here's an interesting little piece. The bit about the Russian aircraft carry isn't particularly alarming, but the table on NATO military budgets is rather telling.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/russia...195206098.html

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Raellus

the table on NATO military budgets is rather telling.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/russia...195206098.html

That chart was exactly what I was looking at when I suggested that some of the Baltic states might leave if a "1.6% of GDP must go to defense" was a new NATO requirement. That number would keep Estonia in but lose the others.

Then you could have Russia take Latvia and Lithuania without pressing the Article 6 button. Estonia now surrounded and Nato has few options to support (logistics wise).

[Rainbow Six]

If I'm reading various articles correctly there already is a supposed minimum percentage of GDP that must go to defence spending and it's 2 %, e.g.

http://www.defenceiq.com/defence-tec...rtfall-intern/

The agreed rate set between NATO allies is a relatively meagre 2% of GDP

In 2013 the only members that met this target were Estonia, Greece, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. The only others that have come close since 2009 are Turkey and France.

As a side note, Greece and Turkey (two of the bigger spenders) still have conscription, as do Norway and Denmark (although period of service in Denmark is only four months), but the rest of NATO has abolished mandatory military service (although some countries, e.g. Germany and Sweden) have retained the legislation to reinstate it should the need arise. In most cases conscription was abolished over the last decade or so, so it's possible that as time goes by and new conscripts are not recruited some countries may see a reduction in the size of their reserve forces.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by kato13

That chart was exactly what I was looking at when I suggested that some of the Baltic states might leave if a "1.6% of GDP must go to defense" was a new NATO requirement. That number would keep Estonia in but lose the others.

Then you could have Russia take Latvia and Lithuania without pressing the Article 6 button. Estonia now surrounded and Nato has few options to support (logistics wise).

That's an interesting idea. It seems a bit harsh for NATO to do that, especially since so few of its members states meet the defense budget requirements. I'm not sure that I can see NATO jettisoning those countries and then giving much of toss if Russia invaded Estonia. Also, Latvia and Lithuania are pretty firmly oriented towards the West- if NATO threatened to kick them out if they didn't raise their defense spending to the 1.6-2.0% requirement, I can see them making every effort to do so. If anyone needs NATO-backed security, it's those two countries, and they know it.

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

In most cases conscription was abolished over the last decade or so, so it's possible that as time goes by and new conscripts are not recruited some countries may see a reduction in the size of their reserve forces.

That's a really good point. It's also worth noting that although the Russian army is making steps towards professionalizing at least part of its force (most notably, its NCOs), it still maintains conscription. It also continues to maintain massive stockpiles of infantry weapons and AFVs. In the future, therefore, it would be easier and probably faster for the Russians to mobilize and equip reserve formations that it will be for most NATO armies.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Raellus

If anyone needs NATO-backed security, it's those two countries, and they know it.

Then why don't they follow the current rules. They don't because they are not enforced. Enforcing them seems logical militarily, but political pressures and the desire to be elected (or re-elected) by politicians willing to manipulate those pressures could lead to NATO unraveling.

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by RN7

The biggest problem I have is the issue of how to destabilise America

Using part of the sub plot of the movie Dawn's early light

Russian Hardliners, steal and nuclear missile and lunch from North Turkey into Russian

Russia assumes this is a NATO/US attack and launches a limited US Strike

The President survives the attack as the targeting warhead miss ground zero the pentagon

The President is evacuation from the white however his helicopter crashes and he is presumed dead

A new President is sworn in and is urged by JCS to launch a full strike with remaining sub launched ICBM and bomber fleet

Old President Issues stand down order, to all US forces

New President is killed in a mid air collision with a E-8 Joint STARS Aircraft

JCS distrustful of weather the President is real, form MILGOV

Mexico takes advantage of chaos to invade parts of southern Texas, New Mexico and Arizona

Alaska becomes a Canadian Protectorate

Canadian Troops use deadly force to turn away us refugee from borders crossings.

US States torn between the two governments, with no clear leader and limited resources many state go it on their own preferring to fix what they can in there states, Guard units remaining loyal to the state governors.

US Federal Forces remain loyal to JCS but a handful who have meet and seen the President remain loyal to him.

Texas declares independence, forming the Republic of Texas

[Rainbow Six]

Some more stats on NATO that I just came across...much of it covers annual spending which has already been covered upthread, but the last page gives a useful summary of the manpower of each member's armed forces

http://www.nato.int/nato_static/asse...efence-exp.pdf

[Raellus]

This article posits some possible ways another "Great War" could start. Both regions that we are looking at as being the sparks for WWIII c.2030 are discussed.

http://news.yahoo.com/west-ponders-s...113159434.html

[Targan]

Well it's some consolation that the Russian Army is mostly a conscript force, but their equipment stockpiles and longstanding mobilisation doctrines would allow them to expand very quickly, albeit no doubt with somewhat patchy training and skill levels.