Yet another Alternative TW2K Timeline

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by sglancy12

...to the time the sneak attack during the peace negotiations in November.

There were negotiations?

Ah! non-canon!

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

There were negotiations?

Ah! non-canon!

Yeah but its a non-canon thread (Yet Another Alternative TW2K Timeline).

[Legbreaker]

I really should go read those docs before I start commenting on them....

[sglancy12]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

There were negotiations?

Ah! non-canon!

I don't know about you, but I love the idea that after rising threat of armegedon, with the use of tactical and theater weapons in Europe (and of course the total nuclear massacre in China), that the Soviets would try to convince the US that it was time to negotiate an end to the war while simultaneously preparing a strike to decapitate the US leadership. I mean, in the canon, the US gets caught flat footed and we end up with the Speaker of the House as president. Meanwhile the Politburo is chugging vodka and borscht in the Yamantau bunker complex under the Urals, safe from a counter-strike.

Of course, in my alternative, non-canon timeline, the Sovs don't nuke china, but do nuke the shit out of their own Islamic rebels, the Afghans, a couple of Al Queda sites in Pakistan (and when the Pakistanis fire back with their tiny arsenal they get plastered), and Iran. Having used nukes on their own soil, the Sovs are teetering on the brink by October of 1997. They have to find a way to sucker-punch the US, and they do by starting peace negotiations, and then sneak attacking. They don't warn their Red Chinese "allies" that they are preparing a strike, so the ChiComs are caught flat footed by the US counter-strike and fare far worse than the Soviets.

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

[Mohoender]

These are some interesting thought you have here. However, may I ask you why the soviet whould use nukes on the Afghan?

They have left Afghanistan in 1988 but Najibullah's regime still hold the ground (and he remains a close ally to Moscow). In fact, by 1991, the Mujahideen are loosing ground everywhere after a serie of defeat at the hand of the Afghani army (starting with Jalalabad). In addition, the Afghani airforce developped anti-stinger tactics that proved highly successful and they are, then, totally unchallenged.

In 1991 the Mujahideen are on the verge of defeat, Massoud has been negociating with Najibullah's regime and (IRL) they lose only because of the sudden stop of soviet aid in 1992. Whatever, your timeline, soviet support will remain and there is a good chance to see the communist winning in Afghanistan by 1993-1994. In fact, by 2000, Kabul should be the last stable communist-like government. Of course, you can expect, unrest in Pashtoun regions but, with Pakistan devastated, nothing that can overthrow Najibullah's regime.

I know that in v2.2 canon is putting things very differently but with what they state in their timeline, it is non-sense. The only explanation that I can find comes from widespread disinformation on the situation in Afghanistan by the West at the time. I was in my 20's and I don't recall any report stating that the Mujahideens were on the verge of loosing the war (what they actually do at the hand of the Talibans in 1996).

[sglancy12]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

These are some interesting thought you have here. However, may I ask you why the soviet whould use nukes on the Afghan?

You mention that the pro-soviet government in Afghanistan was holding its own against the Mujahedeen up until the total collapse of the USSR in 1991, so you don't see any reason for the use of tactical nukes in that theater.

In my alternative timeline, radical Islam (or Jihadism as I like to call it) gets its big boost following the assassination of Gorbachev in 1988, and the use of muslims as scape-goats by the Soviets. Then there is the Gulf War and the presence of US bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and finally the Balkan Wars with the muslim Bosnians getting the worst of it. By the time of the Twilight War Pakistan is falling under the sway of radical islam and is supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan which has the pro-soviet government on the ropes. They use Paksitan, Afghanistan and Iran as the springboards to spread a full-scale nationalistic/religious war throughout Soviet Central Asia. The result: The Sovs get desperate in 1997 when NATO crosses the Soviet border and decide to end the rebellion with nukes. They nuke Soviet cities they've lost control of, concentrations of mutinous soldiers, and even training camps in foreign countries. That's why they nuke Afghanistan and Pakistan.

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

[ChalkLine]

Originally Posted by sglancy12

. . . In my alternative timeline, radical Islam (or Jihadism as I like to call it) . . .

Just a technical note; the term 'Jihad' means 'struggle' or 'striving' and is a holy state. For acts of terrorism or religious fanatacism, acts that are patently un-Islamic in the view of most Muslims, the proper term would probably be 'Hirabah'. Another term would be 'Fasad', or 'war crime', and terrorists should probably be referred to as 'Fasadis'.

As you are a publisher, I thought I'd take the liberty of pointing it to you, because I can understand that points like that would probably appeal to a wider audience. In my inarticulate way I'm trying to be helpful

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by ChalkLine

Just a technical note; the term 'Jihad' means 'struggle' or 'striving' and is a holy state. For acts of terrorism or religious fanatacism, acts that are patently un-Islamic in the view of most Muslims, the proper term would probably be 'Hirabah'. Another term would be 'Fasad', or 'war crime', and terrorists should probably be referred to as 'Fasadis'.

As you are a publisher, I thought I'd take the liberty of pointing it to you, because I can understand that points like that would probably appeal to a wider audience. In my inarticulate way I'm trying to be helpful

A friend of mine is part of a Jordanian family who owns three Shell stations in the area where I live. He goes by the name "Mike;" quite frankly, my American mouth can't properly pronounce his real name. I asked him several years ago if anyone was giving him or his family trouble because they were from the Middle East.

We were talking about Al-Qaida, and he told me, "Those people are not Muslims. They are simply evil, because they use Islam to trick people." You'll find that's the outlook of 99.9% of Muslims in this world -- they abhor what terrorists are doing in the name of Allah.

[ChalkLine]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

A friend of mine is part of a Jordanian family who owns three Shell stations in the area where I live. He goes by the name "Mike;" quite frankly, my American mouth can't properly pronounce his real name. I asked him several years ago if anyone was giving him or his family trouble because they were from the Middle East.

We were talking about Al-Qaida, and he told me, "Those people are not Muslims. They are simply evil, because they use Islam to trick people." You'll find that's the outlook of 99.9% of Muslims in this world -- they abhor what terrorists are doing in the name of Allah.

The big problem with the term 'Jihadi' is that it means something like 'spiritual' or 'holy exemplar'. Naming a terrorist that, like calling a PIRA bomber a 'saint', is offensive to 99.9% of their co religionists and appealing to the other 0.1% and we don't want to appeal to those bastards.

[sglancy12]

Originally Posted by ChalkLine

Just a technical note; the term 'Jihad' means 'struggle' or 'striving' and is a holy state. For acts of terrorism or religious fanatacism, acts that are patently un-Islamic in the view of most Muslims, the proper term would probably be 'Hirabah'. Another term would be 'Fasad', or 'war crime', and terrorists should probably be referred to as 'Fasadis'.

As you are a publisher, I thought I'd take the liberty of pointing it to you, because I can understand that points like that would probably appeal to a wider audience. In my inarticulate way I'm trying to be helpful

Calling them "Jihadists" is not my attempt to assign an Arabic term to accurately describe how reprehensible I think they are. If that were the case I'd try and find the Arabic term for "death-worshiping fuck-tard."

I call them Jihadists because, as a group, those who advocate terrorism to achieve the goal of a reborn Caliphate, have hijacked the term Jihad. In their own propaganda, Jihad is conflated to mean violence against any and all infidels, as well as against any Muslims who disagree with the terrorists' (usually Wahabbist) vision of Islam. Nearly all these terrorist groups have elevated Jihad as the single most important activity a Muslim can perform, more important the other six pillars of Islam because to engage in Jihad means getting a pass on violating all the other rules of Islam and forgiveness for all your sins.

In this country, there have been a number of attempts by the media to label this enemy. They've been called "Islamo-fascists" and "Islamists," but I am not satisfied with those labels. Their philosophy has less to do with Islam that it does with violence. And Jihad, I'm sorry to say, is the single most violent aspect of Islam.

Sure, there is some debate over whether Jihad is supposed to mean some sort of "spiritual" struggle against un-Islamic thoughts and deeds, rather than a martial struggle against non-Muslims, but I believe this is historical revisionism. For centuries the Uma was perfectly comfortable with the term Jihad having the meaning of "holy war." As for what defines a "holy war," I'll leave that for another argument.

So, I remain comfortable calling these fanatics and murderers Jihadists because they push the idea that Muslims who engage in Jihad are better than Muslims who do not, and therefore should have a greater place in Islamic society. I agree, however, that their philosophy is a perversion of Islam.

However, I do not want this thread to disintegrate into a back and forth about the pros and cons of Islam. Can we just stick to ripping the shit out of the historical and political improbabilities of my timeline and gazetteer?


A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by sglancy12

However, I do not want this thread to disintegrate into a back and forth about the pros and cons of Islam. Can we just stick to ripping the shit out of the historical and political improbabilities of my timeline and gazetteer?


A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

I agree with you on that one and, as I said, I like several of you ideas also I came up with something entirely different while making the same critics. I also have to say that you come down hard on reformers in the communist world.

However, how is it possible that Georgia is on the way to independence as early as 1989? Shevarnadze is dead, Gorbi is dead and the red army is still fully in control. In addition, what about Zviad Gamsakhurdia? Merab Kostava was killed in a car accident on october 13th that year.

[natehale1971]

My campaign has acutally used a series of highly public negoations occuring throughout the war right up to and after the major strat nuke exchanges that at least stopped the total MAD solution. In fact the earlier talks in Europe is why there wasn't much sooner tactical nuke exchanges until NATO forces crossed onto Soviet soil... i think that i have read somewhere that the Soviets had plans that if a 'forced' unification of Germany by forces other than the Warsaw pact occured, they where going to nuke the German states until they glowed so bright they could be seen from out of the solar system. And the outright 'aggression' of how the start of the war in Europe was original described would have definately put it into that category. it's one of the reasons why i have explained the fact that the East and West Germans both pressed for the fact that they both wanted to remain seperate nations right up until the French invaded the Rhineland. it would have given the NATO allies the ability to spin the war as a war of liberation, pointing at the fact they couldn't do anything during 'Black Winter', 'Prague Spring' ect... But they could liberate the Eastern Bloc form being bled dry in an 'Imperialist' Soviet war in the Far East. Turning the Central Asian states into a joint locale could even work for that... The same problems with islamic extremism that you've described the Soviets as having, would be the same as the PRC would have in their Central Asian territories (as we are seeing happening today, and why those guys that had been held in GITMO are now in the Caribbean instead of turned back over to the PRC who was actually 'begging' for them back)...

A USSR/PRC alliance to deal with the uprise of islamic extremism in their Muslim territories could easily be created, especially if the intial fighting was against EACH OTHER started by islamic extremists causing the border disputes in the first place (kind of like Coyle was able to get a war started between the USA and Mexico in 'Trail by Fire')...

sorry if this comes across as disjointed or rambling. my brain isn't working to well at the moment. i'm really sorry

[sglancy12]

Originally Posted by natehale1971

[SNIP] it's one of the reasons why i have explained the fact that the East and West Germans both pressed for the fact that they both wanted to remain seperate nations right up until the French invaded the Rhineland.

Oh, that is a good idea... maintaining that the GDR is not going to be annexed or reunified into the FRG is a brilliant propaganda strategy... not that the USSR, Poland and Czechoslovakia would buy that for a second. WWII is still living memory in 1996. I also like your idea that the pretense is dropped after the French invasion of the Rhineland Security Zone. It's what 1999? There's no point in pretending any more... besides, there's not much in the way of either German government by that time besides the military, which are under a joint command. That idea goes in my swipe file.

Originally Posted by natehale1971

The same problems with islamic extremism that you've described the Soviets as having, would be the same as the PRC would have in their Central Asian territories [SNIP]

A USSR/PRC alliance to deal with the uprise of islamic extremism in their Muslim territories could easily be created, especially if the intial fighting was against EACH OTHER started by islamic extremists causing the border disputes in the first place

That's not a terrible idea... not a full scale war, more like a couple of border incidents provoked by the Jihadists which result in a lot of bad blood. Perhaps the USSR/PRC alliance breaks down after the Soviets launch their sneak attack on the US and China's command and control (with no for-warning from the USSR) gets badly damaged. Then the fight in East turns into a three-way brawl between renegade PRC units on one side, the USSR, loyal PRC and North Korean units on the other, and US, ROK and even Japanese units on the other. Might explain why there still would be Soviet units in Manchuria and Mongolia.

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

[natehale1971]

one of the biggest reasons i felt that keeping the DDR and BRD seperate is that they had developed two distinct national IDs. and even today, there are those in Germany who felt that the way unification happned in the 90s was just to lopsided and the West is still sending alot of money into the East to bring it up to western standards. And since the 2300ad future of the T2k universe stated that post war Germany was divided into five states just didn't make that much sense (especially since all that heavy weapons and equipment of USEUROCOM was left to the Germans giving them the paridy to have stood up to the French occupying the Rhineland). But hell, alot of what they didn't really didn't make since unless you where a wargamer. it's why we used the fact we RPed T2k until the 2050s with our PCs having become major shapers of the post-Twilight world, and incorporated that into the 2300ad universe. but that's a totally seperate story.

The Sino-Soviet Border War that started all the fighting in the Far East would have been the prelude to the fighting in Central Asia... basicly the Jihadist start a war between the USSR and PRC, to give them the 'cover' they would need to preform a coup that would allow them to create a massive Central Asian Islamic republic. Hell, it could have been bankrolled by Osama with the help of Iran and other really wealthy Jihadists. And it could have even gotten the support of Indonesia if done right.

[sglancy12]

Originally Posted by natehale1971

The Sino-Soviet Border War that started all the fighting in the Far East would have been the prelude to the fighting in Central Asia... basicly the Jihadist start a war between the USSR and PRC, to give them the 'cover' they would need to preform a coup that would allow them to create a massive Central Asian Islamic republic. Hell, it could have been bankrolled by Osama with the help of Iran and other really wealthy Jihadists. And it could have even gotten the support of Indonesia if done right.

You mentioned Coyle's Trial by Fire, where drug lords provoke an American intervention in a Mexican military coup in order to destabilize the new regime. That's based on Pacho Villa provoking the American Expeditionary Force's deployment into Mexico to destabilize the Carranza government back in 1916.

It's not a bad idea, but, the point I'm trying to drive home with this alternative Twilight War is that the USSR and the PRC do not engage in a full-contact war. I just don't see the USSR being able to hold out during a 5 year slide into anarchy if they are fighting the remnants of NATO, the USA, the PRC, Japan, and an Islamic uprising all at the same time. For a long ugly (mostly conventional) war of attrition that grinds every combatant back to the 19th century, then I think you need the PRC and the USSR both fighting against the West.

Maybe the Jihadists can provoke a war, or at least a border incident or two, but when the USSR and the PRC figure out they've been played for fools they bring it to a close. I just can't imagine that a Sino-Soviet war could drag on for as long as the canon imagines, especially with a war in Europe and the Middle East at the same time. The USSR would have had to sue for peace or use their nuclear weapons sooner and in greater numbers. So, in my timeline the Jihadists replace the PRC as the grinding war in the USSR's backfield that prevents them from having overwhelming force to bear on Western Europe.


A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

[natehale1971]

Originally Posted by sglancy12

You mentioned Coyle's Trial by Fire, where drug lords provoke an American intervention in a Mexican military coup in order to destabilize the new regime. That's based on Pacho Villa provoking the American Expeditionary Force's deployment into Mexico to destabilize the Carranza government back in 1916.

It's not a bad idea, but, the point I'm trying to drive home with this alternative Twilight War is that the USSR and the PRC do not engage in a full-contact war. I just don't see the USSR being able to hold out during a 5 year slide into anarchy if they are fighting the remnants of NATO, the USA, the PRC, Japan, and an Islamic uprising all at the same time. For a long ugly (mostly conventional) war of attrition that grinds every combatant back to the 19th century, then I think you need the PRC and the USSR both fighting against the West.

Maybe the Jihadists can provoke a war, or at least a border incident or two, but when the USSR and the PRC figure out they've been played for fools they bring it to a close. I just can't imagine that a Sino-Soviet war could drag on for as long as the canon imagines, especially with a war in Europe and the Middle East at the same time. The USSR would have had to sue for peace or use their nuclear weapons sooner and in greater numbers. So, in my timeline the Jihadists replace the PRC as the grinding war in the USSR's backfield that prevents them from having overwhelming force to bear on Western Europe.

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

Very true... but a short war (less than a year) between the USSR/PRC could acutally strengthen the bond between the two states fighting against the attempt to create an Islamic CAR. especially if you have the Western support for the PRC providing modern military hardware that could easily be 'shared' with the USSR after they both join forces to deal with the formation of the Islamic CAR.