Twilight 1990 timeline

[Mahatatain]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

One thing was considering (as a possible what if) is the idea that nuclear exchanges never happened and the war became a meat grinding stalemate across the middle of Poland. NATO and WP forces where fairly balanced in the mid-80's and if the fear of MAD drove respective militaries to pursue conventional solutions, they war could of dragged on for a decade.

Personally I think that to have the right Twilight 2000 atmosphere you need to have (as well as extensive warfare) massive civilian casualties, a shattering of government organisation and a breakdown of how society works. That will result in a new fragmented society where many people are just out to look after themselves and their immediate family/friends/associates while a few are trying to rebuild something larger than their own community.

To achieve that situation limited nuclear warfare seems the only option to me - a pandemic of some kind could potentially create the same situation but that probably wouldn't involve the same level of military conflict.

That's just my opinion though. Have you ever read Red Storm Rising by Tom Clancy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Storm_Rising. That is a potential version of WWIII without nuclear weapons.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

I'm a bit blown away by the support and positive comments regarding this project. It means allot to me to have such positive peer review and critique.

That's just the way this forum is supposed to work in my opinion. As I wrote once, "you write it, we break it!".

Originally Posted by Mahatatain

To achieve that situation limited nuclear warfare seems the only option to me - a pandemic of some kind could potentially create the same situation but that probably wouldn't involve the same level of military conflict.

I'm in agreement. Civilisation as we know it needs to be almost totally destroyed with rebuilding a long and laborious task of a generation or three. Without nukes, or something equally as devastating, you're not going to have much worse than WWII, which while nasty and destructive, was nothing more than a hiccup compared to what we're present in the books.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

That's just the way this forum is supposed to work in my opinion. As I wrote once, "you write it, we break it!".


I'm in agreement. Civilisation as we know it needs to be almost totally destroyed with rebuilding a long and laborious task of a generation or three. Without nukes, or something equally as devastating, you're not going to have much worse than WWII, which while nasty and destructive, was nothing more than a hiccup compared to what we're present in the books.

Aye, that's the reason my gaming group kept the timeline canon (sort of) after '86. However as a purely academic exercise, the idea of a non-nuclear WW3 is intriguing.