OT or Not OT: Twilight 2030

[Raellus]

OK. I like pretty much everything y'all have posted so far. I think it works really well. Now we just need to formulate some kind of a timeline. How about this for starters.

By 2020, Eastern Ukraine, Belarus, and Moldova are, for all intents and purposes, part of the Greater Russian Federation. Putin is president for life or some such.

2020-2024:

• The Chinese economy sees several consecutive years of rapidly slowing growth. Economic reforms show minimal positive impact. Social unrest looms.
• Austerity measures fail in Southern Europe. General strikes and riots paralyze the affected nations. Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal request another round of bailouts from the EU, while political radicals in those countries call for separation from the Eurozone.
• The U.S. economy enters into a mild recession.

2025:

• China, hoping to rally the populace behind a nationalistic military enterprise, seizes islands in the Spratly chain long claimed by Vietnam. The Vietnamese navy is thrashed by the PLN as they gamely attempt to defend the islands. A short border war on land ensues.
• The U.S. and its regional allies protest vociferously but make no move to support Vietnam by direct military intervention. Economic sanctions against China are quickly enacted. The UN brokers a ceasefire but the Chinese refuse to relinquish their territorial gains in the Spratys. The U.S. pledges military support to Malaysia and the Philippines, should the Chinese attempt to continue their conquest of the Spratly islands. The U.S. also enters into talks with Vietnam, precursor to a formal military alliance between the two former foes.
• India is alarmed by Chinese militarism and is one of the PRC's most vocal critics.

2026:

• The short war contributes to a global economic recession, as sanctions end up hurting the west more than they hurt China.
• The economies of southern Europe are on the verge of collapse. The wealthier nations of Europe, after much debate, decide to cut the debtor nations loose. France is one of the most vocal opponents of this decision.
• Russia makes diplomatic/economic overtures to the recent outcasts.
• China strengthens economic and military ties with Pakistan, Myanmar, and Indonesia. Secretly, China tacitly agrees not to oppose a North Korean attempt to reunify the Korean peninsula.

2027:

• An ailing Kim Jong Un orders a surprise invasion of South Korea. The U.S. and its regional allies, including Japan, rally to the ROK's defense.
• With NATO compromised by the contraction of the EU, and the U.S. occupied with a full-blown war in Korea, Russia makes its play for the Baltic states.
• The U.S., already overstretched, reinstitutes the draft.
• China, also takes advantage of the situation by attacking Taiwan in preparation for a long-planned invasion.
• Indonesia, prompted by China, launches an invasion of Papua New Guinea.
• Pakistan and India resume fighting over Kashmir.

So, WWIII pretty much starts in earnest in 2027.

[Rainbow Six]

Looks good to me.

Need to give some thought about fleshing out events in the Middle East / Africa between now and then as well. An Arab - Israeli War seems to me like an absolute given, but I wonder if there might also be conflict between Sunni Muslim nations (potentially led by Saudi Arabia) and the Shiites (led by Iran). With regards to Africa, as Schone23666 referenced in an earlier post, there's also likely to be a lot of Chinese in Africa.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Just a few thoughts and points.

Papua New Guinea
PNG was not "quite" an Australian territory and more of a protectorate. It was a British colony transferred to Australia in 1905 so that Australia could administer the island.
We still have extensive diplomatic, economic and military ties with PNG including defence agreements but those agreements continue to be a compromise between what is best for Australia and what's best for PNG e.g. Australia sitting back and doing nothing when Indonesia invaded and annexed the West Papua region of the island which was a Dutch territory at the time.

There is no certainty that Australia would militarily intervene if Indonesia decided to invade and annex the rest of the island.
Indonesia would have to threaten mainland Australia before we'd take military action against them. The government reasons that our economy is intertwined with Indonesia (much of the shipping to Australia passes through Indonesian waters) so it wouldn't want to jeopardize that unless there was no other option. There's been enough criticism by Indonesia and Malaysia of Australia as a whiteman's imperialist country that we don't play hardball with them very often.

Korea
There is absolutely no particular reason that Australia would send military forces to any new conflict in Korea. Australian involvement in the 1950s Korean War was as part of a UN force and during a time when the dominant political thinking of the time was the Domino Theory of Communism.
Australia might support medical, economic and policing actions in any new Korean conflict but it would be unlikely to commit military forces unless it was as part of a UN mission.

China
Over the last decade or more, China has been actively courting nations in the Pacific Ocean to secure mining and agricultural access. While they have many such resources themselves they appear to be interested in acquiring more to protect themselves from potential shortages, price increases and so on (given their massive population). For example, there has been much interest from China in acquiring cattle stations in Australia to secure food resources for themselves. While these farms would be worked and managed by Australians, the cattle raised on these stations would all be delivered to China and not sold on the local market.

While China hasn't aggressively pursued these yet, they have been using what amounts to bribes and bullying. For small Pacific island nations, they have been making roads and buildings and supplying aircraft and vehicles and even shop goods not commonly found on the islands. Larger nations like Australia are given the typical business ultimatum, "Sell your product to us at this price, or we'll buy it from someone else".

[Raellus]

So we're looking at an isolationist Australia, c. 2020? I figured that since Australia's currently got forces in Afghanistan, of all places, they wouldn't be averse to helping their allies in a war or two in East Asia. Is there a more plausible way to get Australia into WWIII as we've formulated it so far?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Isolationist? To a certain degree yes, but not total isolation. Everything revolves around foreign trade and upsetting Indonesia could disrupt that trade.

If a conflict in Korea broke out and the UN called for a military force to intervene or protect South Korea, Australia would more than likely attend the party.
If Indonesia invaded PNG and the UN didn't take a stance against it, Australia probably would not either - sure the government would spout off volumes of dribble about how bad and nasty the Indons were for invading peaceful PNG but they'd tried to avoid war for as long as possible (something along the lines of Chamberlain appeasing Hitler is not too far fetched).

If the Indonesians went to war against Malaysia, then Australia would probably wait for a Commonwealth nations or UN mandate before committing itself to military action. We'd wait to get approval from the "big boys" first or we'd wait until the "big boys" committed and then we'd join them.

The Australian intervention in East Timor was a reasonably clear case of "We will win" with very little chance of full-blown war against Indonesia. In fact Aussie troops were militarily restricted by the political conduct of the intervention, in a number of cases they were expected to allow clearly identified gunmen to shoot at them but they were not allowed to fire back without government approval. There were even cases when clearly identified Indonesian para-military police where shooting at them and the Aussie soldiers were told not to prosecute the engagement and to let the Indons escape.

While we do have trade & good relations with South Korea, it's not seen as in our backyard anymore so any action would most likely be based on UN approval.
There is a lack of government will to play hard against Indonesia for the reasons stated previously, the government has got to the point were it is overly sensitive to criticism from Asian nations in the region and so it plays the "conciliation" game instead of flexing any military muscle.

[Targan]

I disagree. There is no way Australia would stand back and let Indonesia invade Papua New Guinea.

Australia failed to stop the Indonesians from annexing East Timor and West Irian during the 1970s largely because of the aftermath of the Vietnam War. Public sentiment was totally against going to war again so soon and the Australian military's morale had utterly collapsed. I wasn't even in Australia at the time and wasn't even in primary school yet but looking back at it I'm appalled and disgusted at Australia's lack of action against Indonesia during the early to mid 1970s.

Also, East Timor was a Portuguese holding and West Irian was formerly a Dutch holding. Paint it however you like, but PNG was a former Australian territory. In RL right now, if Indonesia made a land grab for PNG, there would be solid public support for the ADF to take action against the Indonesian military. Yes my view on these matters is coloured by my disdain towards the Indonesian government and military's past and most certainly present atrocities towards its ethnic minorities. I tell you what, if Indonesia invaded PNG and the Australian government didn't send in the ADF, I would donate my own money towards funding an anti-Indonesian insurgency.

Raellus, if you want a realistic trigger for Australia to go to war against Indonesia, in my opinion it would be the indigenous insurgency of West Papua ramping up their activities against the Indonesian police and military, perhaps due to an influx of funds and military equipment (from whatever source/s). It would really piss the Indonesians off if they thought the insurgents were launching raids from across the border with PNG, and if they demanded that the PNG government take action and they refused or dragged their feet, I think it would be realistic for the Indonesian military to commence cross-border operations.

I can also see the Indonesians being even bolder than usual if they thought that the ADF had its hands full elsewhere (say, supporting military operations in Korea).

[Cdnwolf]

Besides haven't you heard of the Australian Secret Weapons Research labs...

Crocs with explosives trained to attack enemy boats...
Sharks going after their marines...
Kangaroo combat troops...
Secret Koala cuddle attacks...

and worse of all...

Australian women... enuff said.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Originally Posted by Targan

I disagree. There is no way Australia would stand back and let Indonesia invade Papua New Guinea.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this, the politicians of this country didn't have the balls to stop cross-border raids into PNG by Indonesia during the West Irian insurgency and they actually started to investigate Australians who sent aid to the West Irian groups. During that period, the Australian government went as far as to make it a crime for any Australian citizen to be employed as a soldier in a foreign, non-government military, irrespective of whether they got paid for their services or not they were classed as mercenaries and would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law if caught. This was in response to several Australian ex-military personnel going to Indon-controlled East Timor and also Burma to give military training to the oppressed minorities in those countries - the Australian government didn't want to upset the governments of those countries.

Originally Posted by Targan

Australia failed to stop the Indonesians from annexing East Timor and West Irian during the 1970s largely because of the aftermath of the Vietnam War. Public sentiment was totally against going to war again so soon and the Australian military's morale had utterly collapsed. I wasn't even in Australia at the time and wasn't even in primary school yet but looking back at it I'm appalled and disgusted at Australia's lack of action against Indonesia during the early to mid 1970s.

Australia didn't even try to stop Indonesia from invading East Timor, despite pleas from East Timorese for Australia to aid them. Even with the substantial debt we owed them due to all the support the Timorese gave Australian forces battling the Japanese during WW2 and even after Indonesian troops murdered several Australian journalists, the government here took minimal action.
I disagree that at that time the ADF morale had utterly collapsed, I had family serving in the Army and Air Force at that time and from what they've said, although many personnel felt frustrated and disillusioned, they were still prepared to serve in the military. In fact, some of them believed our next war would be with Indonesia and were pissed off that the Australian government was so conciliatory towards the Indons.

Originally Posted by Targan

Also, East Timor was a Portuguese holding and West Irian was formerly a Dutch holding. Paint it however you like, but PNG was a former Australian territory. In RL right now, if Indonesia made a land grab for PNG, there would be solid public support for the ADF to take action against the Indonesian military. Yes my view on these matters is coloured by my disdain towards the Indonesian government and military's past and most certainly present atrocities towards its ethnic minorities. I tell you what, if Indonesia invaded PNG and the Australian government didn't send in the ADF, I would donate my own money towards funding an anti-Indonesian insurgency.

I agree, there would be a lot of public support for the ADF, but that doesn't mean the government would authorise any action. I also agree with your views on the Indonesian government, so much so that despite my dislike of its leftist agenda, I was giving money to FRETILIN - something that I was warned would destroy my chances for any sort of career in the government or ADF should I get found out.
Australia was giving serious consideration to conflict with Indonesia should Indonesia attack PNG (this was in the 1980s) but it was believed that we could lose our entire army and a good portion of our air and naval forces in such a conflict and thus have no chance of stopping the Indons. It was considered that we would lose any such fight without outside assistance and this mindset still colours Australian government thinking.
Fact is, with such a disparity of forces (in Indonesia's favour) and with $15 billion dollars worth of trade between the two countries, the Australian government is going to take a lot of pushing before it pushes back and it would be asking for substantial support from it's "big" friends in North America and Europe.

Originally Posted by Targan

Raellus, if you want a realistic trigger for Australia to go to war against Indonesia, in my opinion it would be the indigenous insurgency of West Papua ramping up their activities against the Indonesian police and military, perhaps due to an influx of funds and military equipment (from whatever source/s). It would really piss the Indonesians off if they thought the insurgents were launching raids from across the border with PNG, and if they demanded that the PNG government take action and they refused or dragged their feet, I think it would be realistic for the Indonesian military to commence cross-border operations.

I honestly do not think this would be enough. The West Irian freedom fighters have been operating from bases across the border in PNG for decades and, again for decades, the Indons have been violating PNG territorial sovereignty to attack these camps.
I believe Australia would have to be backed into a corner before our government would let us fight back. I believe it would take something more along the lines of Indonesia threatening mainland Australia before the government would authorise military action. Something like sinking a ship in an Australian port to prevent ship movement and therefore preventing export sales as a way to force the Aust Govt to concede to Indon demands.
However I don't think the Indons are likely to do such a thing unless they were in the throes of desperation (say from massive resource shortages be that food, water, fuel, minerals, whatever).

Originally Posted by Targan

I can also see the Indonesians being even bolder than usual if they thought that the ADF had its hands full elsewhere (say, supporting military operations in Korea).

I don't disagree with this either and I think massive overpopulation causing severe shortages could push Indonesia into a "lebensraum" policy and hey, "Australia only has an Army of 40,000 and we Indonesians have one about 6 times that size and those devil-whiteman, capitalist-running dog imperialists have so much land with such a small population but they don't share it and Australia really should belong to an Asian country..." i.e. think something along the lines of Argentina's junta reasoning for invade the Falklands.

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[Jason Weiser]

Originally Posted by Raellus

OK. I like pretty much everything y'all have posted so far. I think it works really well. Now we just need to formulate some kind of a timeline. How about this for starters.

I think we can add a few other European ideas. One would be the Poles making a grab for Kaliningrad while the Russian Army is preoccupied in the Balkans, or are we assuming the Russians decide to take enough of Poland to open a land bridge?

Also, Greece? What shall we do with that economic basket case? Hmm, Turkey gets frisky and goes to war over Cyprus and some other Agean islands? And when Greece asks NATO and/or the EU for help, both turn their backs on them?

Spain I think would do it's best to stay neutral along with Italy. I think neither are well-disposed towards Russia, but the last thing they want to do is cozy up to the Americans (or American percieved NATO).

In short, might NATO implode to some extent? This might be an interesting caveat? And what about Germany? Does she rearm in the face of the Russian revaunchism? If so, Germany's neighbors are going to freak out. If not, the Russians are going to run roughshod over Eastern Europe as the US isn't sending a lot of troops (most are going to try and stop the North Koreans).

[Olefin]

I would think that Italy would support the US and NATO vs. it not doing so in the minds of the Twilight 2000 authors. Italy has been much more pro-US, helping with the war in Iraq and Afghanistan and US efforts in Libya and Somalia as well. And Italy's pro-Russia days are long over - if it comes to war expect to see Italian troops there on the front lines.

[Rainbow Six]

We posited that Greece allied with the Russians, Bulgarians, and Serbs earlier in the thread and launched an attack on the Turks. It follows as logical that any Greco - Turkish War would involve fighting in Cyprus.

Re: Kaliningrad, this timeline has Russia annexing Belarus sometime within the next couple of years, making Belarus and eastern Ukraine part of the Russian Federation, which takes them almost but not quite up to Kaliningrad, however when the Russians make their move for the Baltics they will establish a land bridge with Kaliningrad in short order as the Lithuanians wont have much to stop them and their is a period of time before NATO commits. The original line of thinking was that the Russians make a grab for the Baltics but not Poland, the thinking amongst the Kremlin's leadership being that a fractured NATO is not willing to go to war over Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia, particularly since the US is committed elsewhere.

A NATO implosion along much the same lines as the original T2K timeline(s) is definitely part of the scenario - those identified as most likely to withdraw from the alliance are France and the southern European members.

Incidentally, on the subject of Spain, once the brown stuff has really hit the fan and UK forces are fully committed elsewhere there is the possibility of Spain making a grab for Gibraltar.

[Rainbow Six]

For info, here's an idea of approximately what sort of ground force levels some of the major European nations might be fielding based on current levels ...source is Armed Forces of the European Union 2012 - 2013 by Charles Heyman. I haven't listed every country but have tried to cover those likely to be combatants plus some of the nations that withdraw from NATO. Note as Norway is not an EU member and Croatia only joined last year neither are covered in the book so info for those two is from wikipedia. Also, these are total strengths, so not every nation might be in a position to commit everything listed below to the front line

Germany
2 x Armoured Divisions
1 x Mechanised Division
1 x Airmobile Division
1 x Special Operations Division
Plus German components of the Franco German Brigade (1 x Lt Inf Bn, 1 x Arty Bn, 1 x Eng Coy)

United Kingdom
2 x Divisions (1 full strength with 3 x Armoured Infantry Brigades, 1 reduced strength)

Poland
1 x Armoured Division
3 x Mechanised Division
1 x Air Assault Brigade
1 x Air Cavalry Brigade

Czech Republic
1 x Rapid Deployment Brigade
1 x Mechanised Brigade
1 x Artillery Brigade

Netherlands
1 x Airmobile Brigade
2 x Mechanised Brigades

Denmark
2 x Infantry Brigades (one full strength, one reduced strength)

Hungary
2 x Infantry Brigades

Slovakia
2 x Infantry Brigades

Romania
3 x Infantry Divisions

Croatia (source wikipedia)
1 x Mechanised Infantry Brigade
1 x Motorised Infantry Brigade

Norway (source wikipedia)
1 x Infantry Brigade

The Baltic States have the following:

Estonia
3 x Infantry Battalions

Latvia
1 x Infantry Brigade

Lithuania
1 x Motorised Infantry Brigade
3 x Independent Infantry Battalions


And the possible opt outs...

France
2 x Armoured Brigades
2 x Light Armoured Brigades
2 x Mechanised Brigades
1 x Parachute Brigade
1 x Mountain Infantry Brigade
1 x Recce Brigade
Plus the French component of the Franco German Brigade (1 x Armoured Recce Regt, 1 x Mech Inf Bn)

The French also have the National Gendarmerie, which is approx 100,000 strong

Belgium
2 x Mechanised Infantry Brigades
1 x Rapid Reaction Group (3 x Para Commando Bns)

Bulgaria
1 x Armoured Brigade
2 x Mechanised Infantry Brigade
1 x Light Infantry Brigade
1 x Special Forces Brigade

Italy
3 x Divisions

Spain
2 x Divisions

Greece
1 x Armoured Division
3 x Mechanised Infantry Division
1 x Infantry Division
1 x Army Division (1 x Airborne Bde, 1 x Airmobile Bde, 1 x Marine Bde)

Portugal
1 x Airborne Brigade
1 x Mechanised Infantry Brigade
1 x Light Infantry Brigade

[Olefin]

I would still think that Italy would go with the US in this time period as to any military operation - Spain and Portugal most likely not and Greece is in too much turmoil for any war right now even one against the Turks

by the way when you group southern members we have to look at old ones versus new ones

countries like Slovenia, Croatia, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Slovakia are staunch NATO members now - and have long memoires of the Soviets, let alone the Hungarians and Romanians - between them all they have a significant level of military power - so any Twilight 2030 war would be much different in the Balkans and Southern Europe than its Twilight 2000 version

Hungary may have only two infantry brigades - but they have 600 BTR-80's and 150+ T-72 (most of the tanks in reserve) tanks that are good to go - which makes them pretty heavily equipped brigades

And I dont see Italy, Bulgaria or Belguim opting out - the French very possibly, Spain and Portugal yes -but not the Belgians - I would put a higher possibility that the Dutch would sit out the war given their current military tendencies

[Rainbow Six]

Yeah, by Southern I was referring specifically to the "old" NATO members - Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy. I should have clarified that. Personally, I could be persuaded either way about what the Italians might do. With regard to Belgium I favour a schism between the French speaking Walloons and the Dutch speaking Flemish, with the Walloons siding with France and the Flemish siding with NATO. I didn't have Bulgaria opting out as much as changing sides completely.

The figures I gave are intended to give a top level overview of what each nation might be able to contribute...I can break it down into more detail for each country but that will take me time (days, not hours). Also, reserves are not included. My numbers for Hungary differ from yours in some areas....this is what I have (source as per previous post)

Army Strength: 10,900 (plus 30,000 reserves)
Tanks: 120 x T 72 (approx 30 in active units)
Armoured Infantry Fighting Vehicles: 150 x BTR80A; 487 x BMP1 in storage
APC's: 150 x BTR80
SP Arty: 150 x 122mm; 251 in store

It's unclear whether the 150 BTR's in the AIFV entry are the same 150 BTR's that are in the APC entry or not, so they may have 150 or they may have 300. However it is fair to say that with a full mobilisation of reserves the Hungarian Army could possibly quadruple its current size, so I will revisit that listing in more detail when I can...

[Olefin]

and I am using what they have in reserve for their mobilization for Hungary - just to use them as an example - for instance Hungary could be used as a source of equipment for other ex-Warsaw Pact nations that might have men but dont have APC's to be able to have them survive on the modern battlefield

it definitely would change the strategic situation for the war - instead of the Balkans being almost a side show (as the authors mainly treated it in Twilight 2000) here it would be a major front - obviously Romania would be anxious to go into Moldava and take back their old territory - and having Bulgaria be at the worst neutral really makes the Turks a much bigger threat to potential Soviet Allies like Armenia or Syria especially if the Greeks cant get new equipment due to money issues and by 2030 have a very small army with limited armor