OT or Not OT: Twilight 2030

[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-put-rig-off-vietnam-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]

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/2011/03/08/us-world-military-idUSTRE7273UB20110308

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

http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.247/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.

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]

@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

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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 Chinas 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.

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]

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

[Targan]

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

How would the US know who had used a bioweapon against them Certainly if there was an ongoing conflict with China, the US would consider China a likely culprit, but how could they be certain I guess it's possible that there might be genetic markers in the pathogen that suggested the involvement of Chinese geneticists, but there might not. It may even be possible to create the pathogen in such a way that the other side couldn't be sure it wasn't just a random mutation of an existing disease. Realistically though, the more specialised and specific the pathogen, the more obvious it would be that it was deliberately created.

As for "unleashing the genie of deadly pestilence", as I've indicated earlier it is theoretically possible to create weaponised pathogens that pose little to no risk to the side that created them. The main risk to China would be retaliation in kind or with other WMDs. But we're already assuming an escalation to the use of nukes at some point in the conflict anyway, so for story purposes escalation isn't really an issue.

[Raellus]

As for "unleashing the genie of deadly pestilence", as I've indicated earlier it is theoretically possible to create weaponised pathogens that pose little to no risk to the side that created them. The main risk to China would be retaliation in kind or with other WMDs. But we're already assuming an escalation to the use of nukes at some point in the conflict anyway, so for story purposes escalation isn't really an issue.

I wasn't implying that the Chinese would be foolish enough to release a potentially self-destructive, indiscriminate pathogen which could decimate the global population. I just meant that it would be a major escalation in the fighting and the Chinese would need a very good reason to risk a retaliatory attack by making that very big first move. Apart from some Japanese field experimentation with bioweapons in China during WWII, AFAIK, no nation has used such weapons in anger since. For some reason, I feel that using bioweapons is somehow worse and less justifiable than using nuclear or chemical weapons.

[Rainbow Six]

We've spent quite a bit of time discussing how to "neutralise" the United States...this is how I see events unfolding in relation to the proposed timeline...some of it from the timeline already posed by Raellus, some not, so in chronological order...

2025
a)Ongoing tensions in SE Asia, including armed clashes between the PRC and Vietnam. These develop into a full scale War which is over by sometime in 2026 (this serves to give the PRC leadership an opportunity to see how their forces perform in combat).

2027
b) North Korea launches an invasion of South Korea. Various nations, most notably the United States, send military forces to assist South Korea under the auspices of the United Nations

c) China takes advantage of the situation by attacking Taiwan as part of a long planned invasion. The US commits more forces

d) The Russians make their move into the Baltics, calculating that with the US committed in two different (but linked) theatres in the Pacific and the European members of NATO in disarray following the expulsion of some members from the European Union, NATO will not go to War to defend the Baltics. The Russians specifically do not attack Poland as they believe that will trigger a NATO response. The Russian leadership have miscalculated however, and NATO - or at least some members - does respond, leading to the War in Europe. US forces in Europe consist of one heavy Division based in Poland, with a second heavy Division quickly flown in and equipped from POMCUS sites in Poland.

e) The US Government calls up the National Guard and reserves, who begin to deploy to Europe and Asia to reinforce the Regular troops already deployed.

Whether c comes before d or d comes before c probably needs to be finalised.

Date To Be Confirmed
f) The War goes nuclear. Location of first use of nuclear weapons to be confirmed.

g)This leads to a gradual escalation in the same way as the original T2K timeline, i.e. with a phased period of time between first use and the launch of strategic weapons at the United States.

h)In the wake of the nuclear exchanges trouble flares on the US / Mexican border. Increasingly violent clashes occur at several border crossings, culminating in a massacre of Mexican civilians at one border station; elsewhere several US Border Patrol officers are found dead on the American side. Their deaths were neither quick nor painless. Some suspect the involvement of Mexican drug cartels. With little to no diplomatic channels available to defuse the situation, the Mexican Government orders units of the Mexican Army to the border to protect Mexican civilians. However tensions continue to escalate. Mexican troops engage US forces and in a matter of days open warfare has broken out along the border. The Mexicans are facing an assortment of Army Reserves, Air Force and Navy personnel, Border Patrol, and police, supplemented by volunteer militia groups. Several weeks after crossing the border, the Mexicans receive welcome reinforcements when two Cuban ships arrive carrying Russian troops formerly based on Cuba.

I think it's important to note a couple of things.

Firstly, in my mind this is absolutely not a planned invasion, It's not part of some Chinese / Russian /Mexican grand alliance, it's a War that starts almost by accident - albeit possibly following some manoeuvring and manipulation by the cartels - when some Mexican troops get itchy trigger fingers. Once it's started it escalates quickly, in no small part because neither side has any effective high level command or control over the forces involved, and by the time that command and control is properly established the fighting has spread too far for either side to be able to stop it.

Secondly it takes place after the nuclear exchanges have taken place. Therefore, personally I don't think it's necessary to go to lengths to further destabilise the US - by now its already been attacked by nuclear weapons and most of its regular armed forces - and National Guard and Reserve - are deployed overseas in Europe or the Far East. So as sated, the Mexicans are facing an ad hoc mix of forces, very few of whom would be trained combat troops.

In my opinion that's enough to make a Mexican "invasion" of the south western United States plausible. So Targan, whilst I think the germ warfare scenario you've put forward is a perfectly valid one, like Raellus I'm wary of introducing bioweapons into the scenario. I also don't think using it as a mechanism intended purely to destabilise the US to make a foreign invasion more achievable is actually required. Reason I say that is because I think that in the scenario outlined above the US has already been weakened to the point that the scenario is plausible and a large scale bio attack - especially against the "homeland" and, by definition, aimed primarily at the civilian population, would run the risk of a disproportionate US nuclear response, which goes beyond the original T2K "limited" (I use the word relatively) nuclear exchange - you said who would they retaliate against, but I would counter that by saying that rational heads might not be prevailing following such an event, so they may retaliate against everyone that they thought responsible. Or they may have specific intelligence that identifies the culprit to a level that they are comfortable with. Or, as you said, there may be something in the pathogen that means its source can be identified.

[kato13]

2027
b) North Korea launches an invasion of South Korea. Various nations, most notably the United States, send military forces to assist South Korea under the auspices of the United Nations

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.

2027
d) The Russians make their move into the Baltics, calculating that with the US committed in two different (but linked) theatres in the Pacific and the European members of NATO in disarray following the expulsion of some members from the European Union, NATO will not go to War to defend the Baltics.

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.

[Rainbow Six]

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.

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.

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.