OT or Not OT: Twilight 2030

[rcaf_777]

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

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

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

[Rainbow Six]

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

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

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

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

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

[Raellus]

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

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

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

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

[Raellus]

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

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

[kato13]

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

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

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by kato13

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by kato13

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

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

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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

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

Originally Posted by Raellus

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

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

Originally Posted by Raellus

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

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

Originally Posted by Raellus

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

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

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by RN7

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

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

Originally Posted by RN7

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

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

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Raellus

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

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

Originally Posted by Raellus

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

Not me but who else is likely to invade?

[Raellus]

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

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

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

[Targan]

Originally Posted by RN7

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

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