OT or Not OT: Twilight 2030

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Any other ideas of how we could plausible mess with the U.S. looking forward about 15 years?

Biological warfare. One option (the less likely IMO) would be a genetically-engineered pathogen developed by the Chinese that targets people with certain non-Asian haplomarkers, or perhaps specific caucasoid haplomarkers. Another option would be a pathogen spread by some organism only (or mostly) found in North America (the red squirrel for instance).

Either of those options would reduce the risks to the Chinese if they released the pathogen. By my understanding of genetic engineering, option one would be considerably more difficult than option two due to the tiny genetic differences between human ethnicities.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Agreed. I haven't thought of a plausible way to do this, though. I can see how the designers could have thought it possible in the early 1980s but now, or in 10-15 years, I don't think anyone believes that the Russians could pull something like that off.

Could the Chinese, though? Probably not. Not with their current or even projected amphibious/sealift capabilities. And not with Japan in the way, either.

So, I'm thinking a gradual collapse of the U.S. federal system after the war goes nuclear, and I'm thinking about an opportunistic land grab by Mexico as well. That should create the degree of chaos in the CONUS that will facilitate gameplay in the States as well.

Any other ideas of how we could plausible mess with the U.S. looking forward about 15 years?

I never saw the new Red Dawn (given how much I loved the first one that shocks me), but maybe there are some ideas there.

In regards to getting foreign troops into the US, every option I can think of involves Mexico

Perhaps Mexico devolves into drug cartel fueled chaos and either the Russians or Chinese somehow convince the Govt that they can provide peacekeepers.

Or maybe the Chinese invest heavily in Mexico and send "guards" to protect their facilities and staff. That at least gives them a foothold in North America.

You could have the drug cartels buy weapons from the Russians (or DPRK) as well.

[Rainbow Six]

I think a Mexican strike into the southern US as per the original timeline is probably plausable enough. And as Kato said, would be good to try and involve the drugs cartels, perhaps in an alliance of convenience with the Mexican Armed Forces.

In the run up to hostilities both Russia and China could certainly infilitrate small groups of Special Forces or Intelligence Officers, but I'm struggling to think of a single realistic senario that would put large bodies of Russian or Chinese troops on the ground in the United States.

A quick search of the net this morning has thrown up a couple of articles about the possibility of the Russians being interested in establishing military bases in Nicaragua and / or Venezeula. I don't know how credible these reports are IRL but could you use one of those options in T2030? Perhaps the Russians have a presence in Venezeula which takes the role of the original Division Cuba...i.e. after the nukes start flying the Venzeuelans want the Russians out before the Americans decide to nuke them so tey end up in Mexico as Division Caracas...from there it's into Texas?

Looking at a map they would have to go through Panama so not sure how practical that suggestion is, but at the very least you could end up with an additional front as Venzuelan based Russians fight US forces who have been sent to secure the Panana Canal? If you use Nicaragua they're already north of the Panama Canal. Or you could use both...

I think a large scale Chinese military presence is a no though, unless, as Kato suggested, you can come up with a realistic reason for Chinese troops to be in Mexico before the start of hostilities (I rather doubt the United States Navy would allow a Chinese troop convoy to sail from China to Mexico unchallenged once the shooting starts), but to be honest that sounds a bit too "Hollywood" to me...even before the War starts how is the United States going to react to a Chinese military build up on its southern border? I can't see them sitting doing nothing as Chinese troops flood into Mexico.

I just can't see a large scale, multi front invasion of the USA by foreign powers(plural) as being realistic beyond a limited incursion by Russian forces from long established bases in Central / South America in conjunction with the Mexicans.

[Olefin]

remember too in Red Dawn the invasion was helped by Mexican infiltrators who came in as illegal aliens and caused all kinds of problems at SAC bases during the initial invasion - you could see that for sure happening in 2030 but now its all over the Southwest and even further afield with how Mexican illegal alien workers are used in the US

so a Mexican invasion once the US was massively committed overseas is actually more plausible now than it was in the 1980's when the game was written

[Raellus]

Thanks for all of the input, guys. You've helped me come up with something that I think approaches plausibility.

How about this? Starting in 2015, in response to Russian annexation of Eastern Ukraine (I think it's safe to say now that the writing is on the wall), the U.S. negotiates permanent military base deals with Poland and the Baltic republics. As a tit-for-tat response, the Soviets negotiate base deals in Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua, starting later that year. That place as least some Russian military elements in the western hemisphere not too too far from the United States.

Later, as war breaks out in Asia between China and the U.S., prior to a planned Russian invasion of the Baltics, the Russians convince Mexico to take advantage of America's overextension overseas by attempting to regain the American southwest by force. The Russians provide direct military support- a new "Division Cuba", if you will- to the Mexicans. I bet that the Russians could cobble together at least a division from their personnel presited on their Latin American bases.

[Rainbow Six]

Rae, that sounds credible...just two thoughts

1. A US base in Poland fits well with the scenario and I like the idea of Russian bases in the Western hemisphere as a tit for tat measure, but I wonder if the US basing forces in the Baltic States might be enough to potentially prevent the Russians from invading? (I was thinking along the lines that the Russians go for the Baltics because they think NATO will let ultimately them get away with it - the presence of US troops permanently based - and thus demonstrating NATO's commitment to the Baltic States - there might be enough of a deterrent to make the Russians think twice about invading, which removes the whole flashpoint for the European War).

2. I can understand the Russians wanting to destabilise the US even more before they make their move but if the Mexicans attack the US with direct and overt Russian support before the War starts in Europe that's a direct attack on the most powerful NATO member. Again I think that goes against the Russians calculating that a fractured NATO will stand by whilst they try to make a land grab for the Baltics...going only for the Baltics they can downplay their hand and play all their propaganda cards...the Russian Ambassador to the UN is on every news channel telling anyone that will listen that Russia does not seek conflict with the West, their intentions are peaceful, designed only to protect Russian speakers from oppression, etc, etc.

If they have invaded the US all of that goes out of the window. They are in a full scale War which isn't what they gambled on.

Therefore I wonder if a better scenario might be to mirror what happened in the original timeline, i.e. have the Mexican invasion happen some considerable time after the fighting starts in Asia and Europe and be more something that happens as a reaction to unfolding events, perhaps after riots at one of the US / Mexican border crossings that are suppressed by authorities on the US side with significant loss of Mexican life rather than something that is planned well in advance?

[Olefin]

I agree with Rainbow as to the timing of any Mexican invasion of the US - sneaking in agents or provaceteurs is one thing - but for the Mexicans to think they have any chance of success they have to wait until the US is totally committed elsehwere and at most they are facing training troops, National Guard infantry units and police forces, and a very limited Air Force contingent - otherwise they would get butchered very quickly

i.e. in the original game it succeeded because the US had to scrape up forces to face them - and even then it came close to failure - if the Russians hadnt committed Division Cuba most likely the US 1999 counteroffensive into Texas would have succeeded and driven the Mexicans out - plus there were almost no Air Force units left to face them and those that were left had very little fuel to do more than a few missions due to the Russian nuke strikes

A USAF with its full fuel reserves available would crush any possible Mexican invasion force short of the one from Red Dawn (500,000 men if I remember right) in short order

[Raellus]

Yeah, I wasn't clear on the timing. A Mexican invasion would happen after the U.S. was committed to major military campaigns in Asia and in Europe. Only after the U.S. was engaged vs. Russia in the Baltics would the Mexicans opt to invade. But the Russians would be planting the seeds before an invasion, and would already have at least some combat troops in theater to support the Mexicans when they made their big move.

Barring a reverse in American budgetary policy and military strategy, in 15 years, a country committed to fighting the Chinese and North Koreans (at least) in Asia and Russia in Europe would be incredibly overstretched and vulnerable to a cunning and opportunitic Mexico.

And I don't think that you could count on the degree of public support for war here in the States that something like Pearl Harbor engendered because, like Rainbow, I don't think that either the Chinese or the Russians would be foolish enough to attack [first] U.S. assets directly. I can see a lot of the American public not getting behind full mobilization because of the "it's not our fight/we've got our own problems to deal with", quasi-isolationist mentality prevelant here prior to both previous World Wars. This would be especially so given a couple of preceding years of economic strife here. In fact, I could even see a backlash against our involvement in overseas conflicts against major powers. Any war against both China and Russia would require full mobilization (the draft, industrial conversion, rationing, etc.). We're talking total war again. In both World Wars, the federal government grew and new government agencies arose to mobilize the economy, galvanize public support, and repress all dissent.

Could full mobilization trigger a spate of anti-federalist militias and neo-States' Rights groups (i.e. "New America" in the original versions of the game) and such attempting to secede in response to what they see as an unnecessary war and an ensuing overreach of federal power? Given today's political climate here (exemplified by the recent showdown between a Nevada rancher and the federal gov.), I very well could see something like that.

I don't know. This is a bit pessimistic, I know. Is this too much or does it work, given what we've already established?

[Olefin]

keep in mind even during WWII by late 1944 there was a lot of oppostion to the war - especially as casualties mounted in Europe and the Pacific - one of the reasons they dropped the bomb on Japan was that Truman was worried that any invasion could possibly provoke widespread anti-war feeling and force him to scrap unconditional surrender for a negotiated peace

so heck yes - after a year or so or more of big time casualties, a draft and privation there could be a lot of opposition to the war

look at 9/11 - the attacks on Afghanistan within a few weeks were totally supported by the US population - by the time of the Iraq War you could already see how opposed much of the population was and by 2006 the President's party was thrown out of power only two years after an election when they had made gains in both the House and Senate - so could a war 18 months or so long start having American opposition groups - especially if things fall apart from nukes?

for sure

[Cdnwolf]

Originally Posted by Olefin

keep in mind even during WWII by late 1944 there was a lot of oppostion to the war - especially as casualties mounted in Europe and the Pacific - one of the reasons they dropped the bomb on Japan was that Truman was worried that any invasion could possibly provoke widespread anti-war feeling and force him to scrap unconditional surrender for a negotiated peace

so heck yes - after a year or so or more of big time casualties, a draft and privation there could be a lot of opposition to the war

look at 9/11 - the attacks on Afghanistan within a few weeks were totally supported by the US population - by the time of the Iraq War you could already see how opposed much of the population was and by 2006 the President's party was thrown out of power only two years after an election when they had made gains in both the House and Senate - so could a war 18 months or so long start having American opposition groups - especially if things fall apart from nukes?

for sure

Throw in some money flowing from anonymous sources to some of the local militia groups and maybe put pressure on China to tighten up its markets so USA spirals into financial anarchy... Some food riots and maybe a major city or two going bankrupt. (Detroit) Lay off the police and firefighters and other essential services... throw in some race riots... America will be too busy trying to keep its internal affairs until control to help out in Europe.

[Raellus]

Here's a slightly updated, revised version of the timeline.

2014:

• Eastern Ukrainian separatists, with covert support from Russian special forces, seize control of the region, repelling several attempts by Ukrainian military forces to restore order, and organizing a referendum on secession. The vote is overwhelmingly in favor of separation.

2015:

• Despite continued protests from Kiev, Eastern Ukraine votes to join the Russian federation. Russia continues to foment separatist dissent in Moldova and Georgia.

2015-2016:

• The United States brokers deals with Poland and Latvia to base American and NATO troops there on a semi-permanent basis. In response, Russia begins negotiating the placement of Russian military bases in Venezuela and Nicaragua.

2020-2024:

• The Chinese economy sees several consecutive years of rapidly slowing growth. Domestic energy production is unable to match demand. 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 withdrawal from the Eurozone.
• The U.S. economy dips into a mild recession.

2025:

• China, hoping to rally the populace behind a nationalistic military enterprise, seizes islands/offshore oil fields 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 which China wins decisively.
• 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 island chain. 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, including offering Russian-subsidized gas.
• 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, starting with an invasion of Estonia.
• NATO invokes article 5 and prepares to reinforce its forces already in place in Poland and Latvia.
• The U.S., already overstretched, reinstitutes the draft.
• China, having already done the groundwork in anticipation of just such an opportunity, 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.

WWIII begins in earnest in 2027.

2029:

• After two years of intense fighting in Asia and northeastern Europe, the U.S. is already showing the strain.
• Russia has been pushing Mexico to invade the southwestern U.S. since the commencement of hostilities with NATO. Recognizing American weakness, and with the backing of Russian forces based in Latin America (roughly a reinforced, combined arms division), and elements from the Venezuelan, Nicaraguan, and Cuban militaries, Mexican and allied troops cross the border into Southern California, Arizona, and Texas.

-

I'm not very happy with the progression of the war in Asia. I think I'm going to switch to a start-small, piecemeal Chinese expansion approach, similar to the long-game Russia is playing, starting with the Vietnam and expand it from there. Even in 15 years, the Chinese are probably not going to be able to successfully retake Taiwan without first destroying it. I think that the rest of the Spratlys are they key, but I'm not sure how aggressive the Chinese would play prior to a major diversion of U.S. force and focus (i.e. Korea). Then again, I think that North Korea would be more inclined to risk everything on a gamble to seize the south after the U.S. displayed some kind of weakness in the region. Would successful Chinese seizure of Vietnam's Spratly claims be enough?

-

[Targan]

Well, one good thing about a US-China war - the US doesn't have to worry about all that US debt held by China. It would basically make it null and void wouldn't it?

[StainlessSteelCynic]

China against the USA - another idea.

While the new version of Red Dawn is interesting enough I think a better possibility is a movie that was certainly little heard of in Australia (and maybe so in other countries).
It's a low budget movie (funded on IndieGoGo) called "Dragon Day" and uses the premise that the US is unable/unwilling to repay its debt to China and then... "if you borrow money to buy a house and you can't repay the loan, the bank takes possession of the house"... in this case, China is coming to take possession of the USA.

I'll put a spoiler at the bottom so I don't reveal anything more for those who want to watch it without knowing what happens but take note that the trailer also reveals part of the story plot.

Trailer on youtube - some plot spoilers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l70t-dLIrS4

IMDB entry
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1772262/


-- SPOILER - mouse over to highlight --
China has been supplying all the IC chips for electronics in common use, they have installed a programme on the chips to allow them to control or sabotage the device the chip is installed in. They activate the programme and cause governmental, defence and societal breakdown and then just sort of walk on in and take over by only offering relief supplies to those who join them.
-- END OF SPOILER --
Review with plot spoilers
http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/...llectuals.html

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Raellus

And I don't think that you could count on the degree of public support for war here in the States that something like Pearl Harbor engendered because, like Rainbow, I don't think that either the Chinese or the Russians would be foolish enough to attack [first] U.S. assets directly. I can see a lot of the American public not getting behind full mobilization because of the "it's not our fight/we've got our own problems to deal with", quasi-isolationist mentality prevelant here prior to both previous World Wars. This would be especially so given a couple of preceding years of economic strife here. In fact, I could even see a backlash against our involvement in overseas conflicts against major powers. Any war against both China and Russia would require full mobilization (the draft, industrial conversion, rationing, etc.). We're talking total war again. In both World Wars, the federal government grew and new government agencies arose to mobilize the economy, galvanize public support, and repress all dissent.

Could full mobilization trigger a spate of anti-federalist militias and neo-States' Rights groups (i.e. "New America" in the original versions of the game) and such attempting to secede in response to what they see as an unnecessary war and an ensuing overreach of federal power? Given today's political climate here (exemplified by the recent showdown between a Nevada rancher and the federal gov.), I very well could see something like that.

I don't know. This is a bit pessimistic, I know. Is this too much or does it work, given what we've already established?

I think it's a good idea and would mix things up a bit in the US.

A few other thoughts...

Originally Posted by Raellus

• The United States brokers deals with Poland and Latvia to base American and NATO troops there on a semi-permanent basis. In response, Russia begins negotiating the placement of Russian military bases in Venezuela and Nicaragua.

I'm still wary about a US base in the Baltics...I think part of the logic behind the Russians thinking they can get away with taking the Baltics is that they think NATO will not go to War to defend the Baltic States. A US base in Latvia at least partially negates that line of thinking

Originally Posted by Raellus

2029:

• Russia has been pushing Mexico to invade the southwestern U.S. since the commencement of hostilities with NATO. Recognizing American weakness, and with the backing of Russian forces based in Latin America (roughly a reinforced, combined arms division), and elements from the Venezuelan, Nicaraguan, and Cuban militaries, Mexican and allied troops cross the border into Southern California, Arizona, and Texas.

Sorry, but I'm not sure about of parts of this. It's two years into the War...have things gone nuclear by then? Is it likely that the Russians and their Latam allies would have the logistical wherewithal to move a force that large north (it's about 3,000 kilometres from Mangua. Nicaragua to McAllen, Texas and closer to 5,000 from Caracas, Venezuela to McAllen)? If that level of logistics is still in place wouldn't the US notice such a large movement, come to the inescapable conclusion that there's only one place such a large force moving north could be headed for and drop a few nukes on them somewhere north of Managua? I just can't see a situation where the other side still have the means to move such a large force over relatively large distances at land or sea and things in the US are that bad that the US doesn't have the means to know they're coming and do something about it. If it's before nukes are first used then the US Air Force can bomb them all the way through Central America or attack their ships if they come by sea (if the Navy doesn't get them first).

If I remember correctly the original Division Cuba came into being because the Cubans were crapping themselves that the Americans would nuke them because of the Russian presence so they wanted the Russians out. That coincided with the Mexican invasion of the US. which happened not as part of an organised plan to attack the US but as a response to escalating violence in the southwestern States which (by implication at least) was causing casualties amongst Mexican civilians.

I very much favour the idea of the US - Mexican War being a war that happens almost by accident; as the rest of the World is going down the toilet tensions boil over along the border...food is in short supply, there are tensions between US citizens and Mexican immigrants (many of whom are illegal), the US has little to no regular armed forces in the area, just an ad hoc mix of reserves, police, and the border patrol, all supplemented by local militias. Things get out of hand, there's a massacre of Mexican civilians at the Gateway Bridge in Matamoros / Brownsville - nobody's really sure who started it, each side blames the other, the Mexican Army are sent to the border with orders to stay on their side but things just get out of hand and within days the Mexican Army have crossed the RIo Grande. At this point the Cubans act as they did in the original V1 timeline and suggest to their Russian guests that now might be a good time to leave and the Mexican Government are offering them passage home in exchange for a little detour so they ship out on a couple of Cuban flagged ships, praying that what's left of the US Navy in the Caribbean doesn't intercept them...the Nicaraguans jump on the same bandwagon and the Russians based there go overland...all militaries are smaller now than they were in the original T2K...700 men from Cuba and 300 from Nicaragua would put less strain on the logistics and still deliver a meaningful force on to US soil.

I also think there's an alternative option for Russian forces in Nicaragua and Venezuela, which is to make a grab for the Panama Canal (am I right in thinking that the US no longer has any forces permanently stationed in Panama)? A VDV assault on the canal zone early in the War staging out of Venezuela and / or Nicaragua might be an interesting scenario, and one that would open a Central American front much faster than any of the above scenarios.

Originally Posted by Raellus

I'm not very happy with the progression of the war in Asia. I think I'm going to switch to a start-small, piecemeal Chinese expansion approach, similar to the long-game Russia is playing, starting with the Vietnam and expand it from there. Even in 15 years, the Chinese are probably not going to be able to successfully retake Taiwan without first destroying it. I think that the rest of the Spratlys are they key, but I'm not sure how aggressive the Chinese would play prior to a major diversion of U.S. force and focus (i.e. Korea). Then again, I think that North Korea would be more inclined to risk everything on a gamble to seize the south after the U.S. displayed some kind of weakness in the region. Would successful Chinese seizure of Vietnam's Spratly claims be enough?

-

I think it partly depends on what sort of alliance - if any - the Americans and Vietnamese have. If there is some sort of alliance in place - even if just diplomatic rather than overtly military - and the Americans take no tangible action following a Chinese seizure of the Spratlys that might serve as the incentive that the North Koreans need to make their move. Perhaps coupled with the Chinese reassuring their North Korean clients that the US will take no action because it would screw up the US economy. If we accept that the North Koreans have their own functional nukes by then as well that trinity may give the North Koreans the confidence they need to think they can pull off a successful conquest of the South.

[Raellus]

Rainbow, I see your point about the U.S. detecting a large troop movement heading from central America towards the border. It's a valid concern. The Chinese are believed to have an anti-satellite capability already and so maybe that could explain the U.S.'s inability to detect the approaching threat. Although I forgot to put it into the timeline, I'd also been thinking that the war had started to go nuclear by then. All of that said, I like your explanation of how the war with Mexico gets started, and I also like your idea of the Russian's seizure of Panama. I think your scenarios are more plausible overall. I am torn, though- I do like the idea of a large Russian unit operating on American soil. I'll have to think more about how to accomplish this in a more realistic way.

I also see your point regarding Latvia. It just seems likely that the U.S. is headed in that direction now, even before the Russians annex Eastern Ukraine. I could be persuaded not to base U.S. troops there. I suppose basing U.S./NATO troops in the Baltics could be seen as an escalation in U.S.-Russian relations and I suppose a major base in Poland would be still be reassuring to our Baltic NATO allies. At any rate, when the Russians do invade the Baltics, the U.S. is already heavily committed to major combat operations in East Asia. But, your concern is definitely valid. Maybe NATO doesn't have a permanent military presence in Latvia, but only steps up the number of joint exercises that it conducts there. By the time Russia makes its move, there are no major NATO units in the Baltics. Does that work better?

I'm not sure where the major ground fighting involving the Chinese would occur. So far, we've got a green water naval war going, and perhaps renewed land combat against the Vietnamese. Should that be the focus? Should we also posit a collapse of the NK forces, necessitating yet another Chinese intervention there? That seems likely should the NK show major signs of weakness.

We also need to start thinking about how to drag the Middle East into WWIII. I'm not sure the U.S. would be able to sustain any significant presence there if it was also fighting both China and Russia. Syria seems a likely axis for a regional war. It would get Turkey involved which would open up opportunities for Russia and perhaps even Greece to seize disputed territories in the region.

And how and when does this WWIII go nuclear? I'm kind of thinking that the U.S. might be the first to use nuclear weapons, probably tac-nukes, likely starting in the fighting against the Chinese. Or, do we pin the very first strikes on North Korea?

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Raellus

I do like the idea of a large Russian unit operating on American soil. I'll have to think more about how to accomplish this in a more realistic way.

Rae, I am on my way out the door right now so this is just a quick post...I'll come back to you with some thoughts on some of the other stuff later...but re: having a large Russian presence on US soil have you thought about an invasion of Alaska as per the original time line? I know the idea has been slated on the boards before, but is it a plausible - if unlikely - option?

And I do think what you're proposing about joint exercises but no permanent NATO presence in the Baltics works better for the T2030 scenario...

Cheers

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Raellus

And how and when does this WWIII go nuclear? I'm kind of thinking that the U.S. might be the first to use nuclear weapons, probably tac-nukes, likely starting in the fighting against the Chinese. Or, do we pin the very first strikes on North Korea?

NK and/or Iran seem like realistic early nuke-users to me.

[Cdnwolf]

Here is some of my ideas...

Originally Posted by Raellus

Rainbow, I see your point about the U.S. detecting a large troop movement heading from central America towards the border.

What if they are already here? Illegal immigrants were really commando troops sent across to prep for invasion. Home Depot parking lots are their gathering place. Truck pulls up to recruit and instead is full of weapons. Mexican disguised as cleaners overnight sabotages major key facilities.

It's a valid concern. The Chinese are believed to have an anti-satellite capability already and so maybe that could explain the U.S.'s inability to detect the approaching threat.

The anti-satellite technology doesn't have to be all that fancy. Image a bunch of satellites position in front of the path of US satellites suddenly opening up and thousands of baseball size metal balls come out. The damage they can do is catastrophic.

Although I forgot to put it into the timeline, I'd also been thinking that the war had started to go nuclear by then. All of that said, I like your explanation of how the war with Mexico gets started, and I also like your idea of the Russian's seizure of Panama. I think your scenarios are more plausible overall. I am torn, though- I do like the idea of a large Russian unit operating on American soil. I'll have to think more about how to accomplish this in a more realistic way.

[Rainbow Six]

OK, a few more thoughts

Revisiting a Russian invasion of Alaska
As I said in an earlier post, this is an aspect of the original timeline that I seem to recall has come in for heavy criticism in some parts, based iirc on the theory that the US Navy would blow any approaching Russian fleet out of the water. But it was part of the original timeline, so if we're trying to reboot that I think it would a good idea to try and work it in.

However, this scenario posits that much of the US Pacific Fleet will be committed against the Chinese, so that might limit the US Navy's ability to intervene. And the Russians are buying nice new amphibious assault ships from the French - the deal is done for two and two more are on option, each of which can carry up to 900 troops. So let's assume that if two go to the Russian Pacific Fleet including VDV's the Russians have the capacity to get 2,000+ troops ashore in Alaska initially(and reasonably high quality troops at that), with more in a follow up capacity (assuming their transports aren't destroyed during the first wave).

Is it feasible? I think maybe it is. Why would they invade? Blow up some oil pipelines? National prestige, to show that they can put boots on US soil? (I like this one...it sounds like the sort of thing that Putin might do). If 2,000 Russian troops is too disproportionately large a force (i.e. it would steamroller any potential US / Canadian opposition) we can sink one of the ships en route. The other still gets through, lands its Naval Infantry, who link up with VDV's and Spetznaz who have already been airdropped. Maybe the second one gets sunk on the way back and ends up just outside Anchorage Harbour with several large holes in its hull and only the top of its island sticking out of the water. Some of the ship's company make it ashore with what they can salvage from the ship and link up with the troops. With both landing ships out of commission bang goes any reinforcement, resupply - good luck comrade, you're on your own...

If you want a bigger force let them land both ships and let the ships bring in a second wave before they go down. You've now got 4,000 Russians ashore, with vehicles and tanks. But they're strangers in a strange land. They've got US troops at Fort Wainwright coming after them, they've got a US / Canadian force coming from the south, and the locals are taking pot shots at them. If you'd rather have them in the contiguous United States let them drive all the way through to Washington State before they're halted and Seattle finds itself on the front line...

(If you're taking them as far as Washington State the same points I raised earlier about the US spotting them and trying to do something about it come into play, but the US may be less eager to nuke Canadian soil than it would be Nicaraguan, especially if the Russians have taken hostages and are using Canadian and American civilians as human shields)

The only other thing that crossed my mind was the Russians in Cuba making the short crossing to Florida, but I can;t think of a single plausible reason why they would want to do that.

The Middle East
My initial thought was of an alliance forming between Iran, Syria, and Iraq during the first half of the 2020's, not necessarily anything formal, more an understanding amongst like minded Governments (presume we are agreed that Bashir eventually comes out on top in the Syrian civil War?). I posited earlier in the thread that Iran's nuclear sites might be the target of an Israel air strike within the next few years, which I think is plausible, the outcome of which sets Iran's nuclear ambitions back approx ten years (i.e. coinciding with the start of WW3).

I would suggest that after WW3 has started (so after NATO commits in the Balkans) Iran, Iraq, and Syria launch an opportunistic joint attack against Israel. But I don't know how it would be likely to play out because I think there a strong possibility that if one side was gaining the upper hand the other side might use nukes (assuming the Iranians have the capability). In other words, if the Israelis hold their line and then push the invaders back the Iranians will nuke Tel Aviv. If, on the other hand, the Iranian led forces break through the Israelis will use the Samson option and nuke Tehran, Baghdad, and Damascus (and possibly a few other places as well).

Putting the nuclear option to one side for the moment, I also don't know what the Gulf States (Saudi Arabia, UAE, etc) would do when the Iranians first launched their attack on Israel. There is no love lost between the Saudis and the Iranians, so I can't see the Saudis being happy about a potential Iranian victory, which would raise Iranian prestige and probably make Iran the dominant regional power. So I think the Saudis would prefer an Israel victory but could not be seen to , and I absolutely, categorically cannot see any scenario where any Arab state would offer any assistance to Israel (or vice versa). I think the Saudis (and the other Gulf States) would also be very concerned about what Iran's intentions were if Israel was no longer part of the equation and the Iran / Iraq alliance was poised on the Kuwait / Saudi borders. You could be looking at a rerun of Desert Storm but without the western forces; it would be a straight fight between the Iran / Iraq alliance on one hand the Gulf States on the other.

But that all changes if Israel or Iran start lobbing nukes at each other. I can't see a scenario with an Iranian victory over Israel. The Israelis would go nuclear. If we posit that a 2016(ish) Israeli strike does enough damage to the Iranian nuclear programme to set it back by decades I could see an the Israelis winning without having to use nukes and the Iranians unable to retaliate. An Israeli conventional victory probably sets back the Iranian military sufficiently that they are then no longer in a position to threaten the Gulf States. So to repeat what I said in the last paragraph, the Gulf States would be aware of this and would favour an Israeli victory. They may not like the Israelis, but they know the Israeli tanks aren't going to make a drive on Riyadh...they wouldn't be so confident about the Iranians...so, despite what I said earlier about no Arab state helping the Israelis, does pragmatism trump religion (the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Again). I don't know, this is a tough one to call. I do think it's highly unlikely that you could have any sort of war in the Middle East that doesn't have someone attacking Israel in some way, shape or form.

I could be persuaded towards an Iranian (with no nuclear capability) / Iraqi / Syrian attack on Israel which is repulsed by Israel with (extremely) covert help from the Saudis and the UAE.

I could equally be persuaded that if we posit that the Iranians have nukes then the Middle East is where the genie first gets out of the bottle.

And I haven't even mentioned Egypt or Turkey...I did posit earlier that Turkey could be involved in fighting in Europe, primarily against Russian allied forces in Thrace. If we go with an Iran / Syria alliance being allied to the Soviets (in principle at least) then the Soviets could "request" their allies to launch an attack against Turkey's southern front. Perhaps Egypt suffers another Muslim Brotherhood led revolution and the Military leadership are too preoccupied dealing with that to intervene anywhere?

Ground War in China
I think a collapse of NK ground forces is a definite maybe...you then have US / ROK / allied forces driving north...this is linked to first use of nukes though...I don't think we can butterfly away North Korean nukes...so do they use them? Or does Kim try and use them only to find that some of his Generals turn against him and try to negotiate a peace? "No Comrade Eternal Leader, we are not destroying Korea just because you have led us into a War that is lost. I think perhaps you are a little tired. These men will take you somewhere that you can rest whilst I try to save our country." Just a thought...so when the Chinese see that it's all gone wrong they have to intervene...

As I said before, I do like the idea of the ground War in Vietnam involving US forces deployed on the Vietnamese side...at some point in time we need to work out which forces are likely to be where...maybe the 18th Airborne Corps could go to Vietnam?

Nuclear Flashpoints
I think any of the following are likely...

1. Korea. Could potentially be used by either side if the other looks like they have a decisive advantage that could end the War. Probably more likely to be used by the North Koreans though.

2. The Middle East. Could potentially be used by Iran or Israel. See above.

3. Europe. Was thinking that if NATO forces managed to push the Russians out of the Baltic States and set foot on Russian Federation territory proper (not Kaliningrad, Belarus or Eastern Ukraine) the Russians might use tactical nukes (essentially the same as V1 when the Sovs used tac nukes after the German Army crossed onto Soviet soil)

4. China (or areas where US forces are fighting Chinese, e.g. Vietnam, Taiwan, etc). Again, could be used by either side if either looks like gaining a decisive advantage.

As to when...I think at some point we need to try and establish how the fighting is likely to go (which could involve a bit of guesswork!)... does nine - twelve months after the Russian invasion of the Baltics seem like too long a period? Do you think it should be sooner? Or later? And then do we follow what happened in the classic timeline with a gradual escalation?

[Raellus]

I need to chew on your Middle East proposals a bit. It's such a volatile and complex region- it's almost impossible to predict what will happen there next week, let alone ten years from now- and I haven't given it as much thought as I have Europe and East Asia.

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

Ground War in China
Or does Kim try and use them only to find that some of his Generals turn against him and try to negotiate a peace? "No Comrade Eternal Leader, we are not destroying Korea just because you have led us into a War that is lost. I think perhaps you are a little tired. These men will take you somewhere that you can rest whilst I try to save our country." Just a thought...so when the Chinese see that it's all gone wrong they have to intervene...

I really like this idea. It seems almost too pat and obvious to have young Kim whip out the nukes first- I'd like to believe that at least a few of the top brass in NK are somewhat rational. And with a collapse of the NK military, China would certainly step in to prevent a unified Korea allied with a rival superpower.

Korea would be one major China vs. U.S. & Allied forces region. The other would likely be Vietnam and SE Asia. I think in both cases that China is strong enough to keep the fighting off of its own soil. Is this good or bad for our updated T2KU?

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

As to when...I think at some point we need to try and establish how the fighting is likely to go (which could involve a bit of guesswork!)... does nine - twelve months after the Russian invasion of the Baltics seem like too long a period? Do you think it should be sooner? Or later? And then do we follow what happened in the classic timeline with a gradual escalation?

This, to me, is the trickiest part of the whole exercise so I'm waiting until we have the basic macro-level theatre escalations settled before embarking on the operational level stuff. Recent conventional military campaigns involving at least one first world protagonist have been relatively quick (Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom). Russia's trouble in Chechnya is kind of the exception that proves the rule. As a defender of the Cold War Red Army, I don't want to make our Russians too soft or easy. But, as you suggested, NATO success in the Baltics could be the trigger for the initial use of tac-nukes, and it also keeps with the original T2K timeline.

[Raellus]

@CdnWolf:

Thanks for your input.

I agree that Mexican commandos, having infiltrated the porous border using some of the same routes as human smugglers and cartel mules, would be sowing confusion as the conventional Mexican spearhead blasted its way across the border.

As for the anti-satellite low-tech kill option that you proposed, although simple and effective, I imagine that such a system wouldn't discriminate between U.S. and Chinese satellites and might therefore do the Chinese just about as much harm as it would good.

[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.

[Raellus]

I feel like I might be spamming this thread but I keep finding relevant articles that I want to share. Here's the latest pertaining to rising tensions in the South China Sea and the U.S. response to such:

http://news.yahoo.com/us-philippines...211858873.html

One could argue that this development is posturing on the part of the U.S., and/or that it's provocative. I tend to agree with both points. Either way, I think that this article/development reinforces the projection that makes its first regional power play against Vietnam. It's a gamble but it likely wouldn't provoke armed intervention from the U.S. since the U.S., AFAIK, doesn't have any kind of formal defense alliance with Vietnam. It's also a show of Chineses strength.

[RN7]

Since the demise of the Soviet Union I can't see any scenario that would lead to a global nuclear war on the scale of Twilight 2000.

From a purely military point of view America is just too powerful at the moment for any rival to take on outside of their own territory. By 2030 the global situation could change, but unless America and China get into a really nasty trade war I don't see China even thinking about attacking American forces in the Pacific yet alone invading America. Mexico is not a militarily strong country and can barely control its own territory if we are reading the news correctly about insurgents and drug cartels challenging government authority. Mexican forces are more para-military than military; their navy is mainly coast guard standard and they have one squadron of F-5 II fighters. They would be woefully outclassed if they got into combat with American regular or even national guard forces.

On the other hand regional conflicts could lead to regional nuclear exchanges. Iran and Israel, India and Pakistan, the Korean Peninsula and the current situation in the Ukraine is not healthy. Plenty of material for nasty wars involving the Western powers, maybe tactical nukes being used as well.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by RN7

Since the demise of the Soviet Union I can't see any scenario that would lead to a global nuclear war on the scale of Twilight 2000.

From a purely military point of view America is just too powerful at the moment for any rival to take on outside of their own territory.

Which is exactly why I suggested this:

Originally Posted by Targan

Biological warfare. One option (the less likely IMO) would be a genetically-engineered pathogen developed by the Chinese that targets people with certain non-Asian haplomarkers, or perhaps specific caucasoid haplomarkers. Another option would be a pathogen spread by some organism only (or mostly) found in North America (the red squirrel for instance).

I admit that would give a campaign a slightly different flavour to standard T2K. You have to admit though, it would be an effective way to bring the US down several notches before the nukes fly. It could also be the "last straw" needed for the US to launch the ICBMs.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Targan

Which is exactly why I suggested this:



I admit that would give a campaign a slightly different flavour to standard T2K. You have to admit though, it would be an effective way to bring the US down several notches before the nukes fly. It could also be the "last straw" needed for the US to launch the ICBMs.

I don't know if that's possible, but how would that work. Asians are the fastest growing segment of the US population, and what about American with Native-American (Asian) DNA. An awful lot of White and Hispanic Americans have this DNA. Also from what I've read (and I've a degree in archaeology) a lot of Central Europeans and Russians also carry Asian DNA due to the historic invasions of Europe from Asia by numerous groups such as Huns, tartars and Mongols etc. Even Scandinavians may have Asian DNA as the original inhabitants of Scandinavia may have been Lapps who are of Asian origin. Also many Chinese may also carry European DNA, as it is suspected that Europeans once inhabited large parts of western and northern China until relatively recent times and interbred with Asians.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by RN7

I don't know if that's possible, but how would that work. Asians are the fastest growing segment of the US population, and what about American with Native-American (Asian) DNA. An awful lot of White and Hispanic Americans have this DNA. Also from what I've read (and I've a degree in archaeology) a lot of Central Europeans and Russians also carry Asian DNA due to the historic invasions of Europe from Asia by numerous groups such as Huns, tartars and Mongols etc. Even Scandinavians may have Asian DNA as the original inhabitants of Scandinavia may have been Lapps who are of Asian origin. Also many Chinese may also carry European DNA, as it is suspected that Europeans once inhabited large parts of western and northern China until relatively recent times and interbred with Asians.

Agreed, which is why I said:

Originally Posted by Targan

Another option would be a pathogen spread by some organism only (or mostly) found in North America (the red squirrel for instance).

Yet another option would be a pathogen with a high mortality rate but a very short active period due to, for instance, an inbuilt fast rate of mutation that quickly renders it no more harmful than the common cold. All that is needed is to simultaneously release it most of North America's larger cities.

Genetic engineering has come a long, LONG way since the Cold War. Weaponised anthrax is long outdated. The time is a-coming (in fact probably already here) when a well-resourced bio-lab could create some highly specific, well-tweaked, nasty pathogens the likes of which the world has never seen before.

Putting it another way, is it realistic that a world war in 2030 wouldn't involve the use of such weaponised diseases? Maybe not deployed by the Chinese or the US or the Russians, but by one of the more extremist bit players. North Korea for instance. I reckon they might be crazy enough to try it.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

You could always take Targan's idea further, I'm just bouncing around some random ideas here and admittedly it requires some serious governmental collapse and it's based more in "thrilling" game play than reality but...

The initial attacks are done with pathogen weapons by one of the side players as Targan suggested but have the plague more dangerous than projected due to two things: -
1. the accessibility & speed of world travel particularly when linked in with people smuggling and illegal immigration.
2. an unpredicted mutation sees it lasting much longer than it was supposed to (e.g. lab testing wasn't as thorough as it should have been due to the work being done in North Korea where appeasing the ego of the Great Leader was as important as getting good results)

It's the Black Death and the Spanish Flu rolled into one, the disease spreads too far and too fast and completely swamps local disease control. Riots, food shortages, fuel shortages, etc. etc. are the result. Governments allow military units to assist police & emergency services to contain the spread by totally restricting civilian movement.
In an attempt to halt the pathogen some nations have to institute harsh measures such as declaring various towns under quarantine & curfew - nobody in or out for the duration and violators are shot and their bodies incinerated. Public service starts to break down under the strain of too few workers for too high a demand for services. As the situation worsens and governments lose control of their countries, some leaders chose to incinerate entire towns regardless of the numbers of still living citizens quarantined inside them.

For Pakistan, with the dead piling up in the streets and the disease still in full swing, it proves much too difficult and and the government starts to fracture from the strain. A sector of the military declares martial law and uses a nuclear weapon to burn the contagious dead out of Lahore. For India, already under immense strain from the dead piling up in their own streets, this is too close to their border and a war of words breaks out that leads to border clashes and then, of course, war.
It isn't nuclear war, not yet, but the precedent of "cleansing by atomic fire" has been set and when the pathogen escapes its confines in Kaesong, the North Korean leader panics and sees nuclear incineration as the only viable option as the NK death toll reaches a third of the total population.

Kaesong is close enough to the internal Korean border to have the South Koreans panicked, then the North Korean refugees start streaming towards the land border and a number of NK boats & ships start heading for SK waters. Fearing the disease more than any invasion, SK goverment orders its troops to shoot any North Koreans on sight.
The NK Great Leader, already losing his grasp on reality, sees this as the next phase of the Korean War and orders the launch of his other nuclear weapons which has the affect of dragging the US into the confrontation (as much to stop the NK military as it is to stop the infected refugees from flooding into the south).

The disease spreads from North Korea to Vladivostok. Then it begins to spread from Pakistan, India and North Korea, into China. Chinese leaders are quite prepared to incinerate huge tracts of foreign soil to halt the disease and use a nuclear weapon to halt the advance of the disease at Barabash near Vladivostok. Russia and China engage in a series of very heated political discussions and even more heated border clashes until they are both drawn into open conflict with each other and both feel free to use their ICBMs to win the argument.

Nations are breaking apart and for some, there isn't enough control left to stop various government or military personnel from claiming leadership of the country and declaring war on whoever annoys them the most. Atomic fire is seen by some as the only certain way to halt the progress of the disease and they are quite happy to do so.
For nations like the US with many government, non-government and military forces deployed around the globe, it's a soul-destroying decision to abandon those personnel for fear that they'll bring the disease back home. Those countries with some vestige of government left see their leaders retreat to various enclaves from where they try to send aid to their people around the nation and the globe but with no-one left to pump the oil, let alone transport it, the only thing they can really offer is condolences and best wishes... good luck, you're on your own...

[Targan]

I think disease is a very viable campaign hook for world collapse, but the reason I'm suggesting it in this thread is as a direct response to the question of how to reduce the USA's current (and near future) dominance to make a Twilight: 2000 scenario more viable for a 2030 campaign.

By confining most of its effects to North America, you get that effect straight away in a believable form. It would really hurt the US economically and logistically, but the military would probably come out of it quite well compared to the civilian population.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Targan

I think disease is a very viable campaign hook for world collapse, but the reason I'm suggesting it in this thread is as a direct response to the question of how to reduce the USA's current (and near future) dominance to make a Twilight: 2000 scenario more viable for a 2030 campaign.

By confining most of its effects to North America, you get that effect straight away in a believable form. It would really hurt the US economically and logistically, but the military would probably come out of it quite well compared to the civilian population.

Why confine things to North America? Two world wars were fought which barely affected America.

The major reasons for an American collapse would seem to be the following. I may have missed a few if someone wants to add.

1) Military Rivalry: Attack by a foreign rival? America doesn't have a military equal since the Soviet Union collapsed. Russia remains the second most powerful military nation in the world, but it's not up to taking on America anywhere outside of its own territory. China is the number three military power and is the second largest defence spender. It clearly is on a path to establishing some sort of parity with America in the Pacific and it might partly do so by 2030, although that could depend on its future economic situation and if it can bridge the very wide technological and logistical gap that America has over it. However beyond the Pacific (really the Far East) China's military power will never match America's. The only other serious rivals are India, Japan and Europe; India is to poor and Japan and Europe (most of it) are American allies.

2) Internal Revolution: Who? Mexicans, Native Americans, Blacks, Jews, White supremists, Christian or Muslim extremists or closet Southern Confederates? Racists and militants of all types exists but they are a small minority on the fringes of American society or in prison and most people get along with each other in this day and age.

3) Terrorism? Who? See above and maybe add Communists and Abortionists. Terrorists could maybe cause some internal trouble but they are not going to hold the country down for long before their wiped out. Nuclear or cyber terrorism would cause larger problems, but the culprits or country that started it are basically toast once the Americans find out who they are.

4) Disease: It would have to be one hell of a disease or should we say plague to shut down America. Unlike the Ebola virus for example which broke out in a remote part of Africa and was contained, America is hardly a remote part of the world and it could not be contained from spreading globally due to the massive amount of international travel from American airports. It would invariably spread beyond America in the early stages of the outbreak and become a global pandemic.

5) Trade War: If America got into a trade war with another country only the European Union and China are big enough to harm the American economy. Japan had its day in the 1980's and first half of the 1990's, but it is not really big enough anymore to hurt America and is far more dependent on America than vice versa. Europe doesn't really have any major trade issues with America and still remains politically divided. China is the most likely culprit, but any harm that it could do to America is far outweighed by the harm that America could do to China.

6) Energy Embargo: Until maybe five years ago this would have been a serious contender for being most able to bring America to its knees due to America's dependence on oil and gas for energy. But with the shale revolution now radiating out of America, the Americans are now just sitting back with a big cigar and laughing their lungs out at OPEC, the Arabs and the Russians and the laugh will only get louder over the next two decades.

7) Natural disaster: The only two scenarios that I could envisage that would seriously harm the American economy would be if the San Andreas Fault ruptured and California slipped into the Pacific, or if a mile wide sized asteroid impacted on the East coast and took out New York City, Washington DC and other big Eastern cities.