OT or Not OT: Twilight 2030

[Raellus]

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

[StainlessSteelCynic]

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

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

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

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

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

[Targan]

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

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

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

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

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

[Cdnwolf]

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

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

and worse of all...

Australian women... enuff said.

[mikeo80]

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

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

and worse of all...

Australian women... enuff said.

ROTF,LMAO

You forgot a spew warning. I was drinking coffee when I read this!

You did forget the snakes and spiders conducting surprise attacks during the night.

My $0.02

Mike

[StainlessSteelCynic]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Targan]

During that period, the Australian government went as far as to make it a crime for any Australian citizen to be employed as a soldier in a foreign, non-government military, irrespective of whether they got paid for their services or not they were classed as mercenaries and would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law if caught. This was in response to several Australian ex-military personnel going to Indon-controlled East Timor and also Burma to give military training to the oppressed minorities in those countries - the Australian government didn't want to upset the governments of those countries.

I've learned something new. I know it's a crime in Australia to fight as a mercenary or with a non-government overseas military force but I didn't know that was the origin of those laws. Did David Everett's antics have anything to do with that

[Raellus]

I'm learning a bunch here too. But, I do still have one lingering question. If Australia's government is so reluctant to employ its military in, what amounts essentially to its own backyard (i.e. PNG or, slightly further afield, Korea or SE Asia), why does Australia contribute troops to the coalition effort in Afghanistan That's a fair bit further from Australia than any of the afore-mentioned theaters and, surely, it isn't treaty-bound to do so. Help me understand the reasoning behind this seeming foreign policy/military intervention paradox.

[kato13]

If Australia's government is so reluctant to employ its military in, what amounts essentially to its own backyard (i.e. PNG or, slightly further afield, Korea or SE Asia), why does Australia contribute troops to the coalition effort in Afghanistan That's a fair bit further from Australia than any of the afore-mentioned theaters and, surely, it isn't treaty-bound to do so.

Australia has provided military support to the coalition under the ANZUS treaty.

http://rslnsw.org.au/commemoration/heritage/the-war-on-terror

Australia first committed military personnel to Afghanistan in October 2001 after the 11 September attacks on the World Trade Centre. Prime Minister John Howard invoked Article VI of the ANZUS Treaty in support of Australias involvement"the only time the Treaty has been invoked. The Australian Parliament supported the commitment on 17 September 2001.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook43p/adfafghanistan

[RN7]

In regards to a war in Korea I would say Australia would contribute military forces, but maybe not the same type of forces it contributed in the 1st Korean War or in Vietnam. I don't think they would send infantry as they would only be a small fraction of what the US would send, and they would be under US command. But they would probably send some fighters, warships and support forces and maybe the Australian SAS.

Over the past decade Australia has expanded all of its military capabilities and will continue to expand over the next decade, and there is a lot Australia could contribute without sending infantry and tanks.

The Aussie Army is small; equivalent to a US infantry division with the reserve adding another light infantry division. But they use good equipment and they have a sizeable airmobile capability, and their special forces is large for the size of the army. The RAAF is also a good force, new Super Hornets, AEW's, tankers and 28 C-17/C-130H/J transport mix, with the F-35A and the P-8 in the pipeline. The RAN has two helicopter carriers and three Aegis destroyers building, and 12 new submarines and other ships are planned. The carriers are big and can carry 18 helicopters and an infantry battalion, and are fitted with ski-jump ramps which means they can carry US Marine or British F-35B's.

If a commonwealth force was sent to Korea I could see Australia sending some land forces as part of a joint British, Anzac, Canadian and maybe Indian force.

[Jason Weiser]

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

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

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

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

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

[Olefin]

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

[Rainbow Six]

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

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

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

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

[Rainbow Six]

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

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

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

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

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

Netherlands
1 x Airmobile Brigade
2 x Mechanised Brigades

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

Hungary
2 x Infantry Brigades

Slovakia
2 x Infantry Brigades

Romania
3 x Infantry Divisions

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

Norway (source wikipedia)
1 x Infantry Brigade

The Baltic States have the following:

Estonia
3 x Infantry Battalions

Latvia
1 x Infantry Brigade

Lithuania
1 x Motorised Infantry Brigade
3 x Independent Infantry Battalions


And the possible opt outs...

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

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

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

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

Italy
3 x Divisions

Spain
2 x Divisions

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

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

[Olefin]

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

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

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

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

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