OT or Not OT: Twilight 2030

[Targan]

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]

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]

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/watchv=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/2013/10/dragon_day_red_dawn_for_intellectuals.html

[Rainbow Six]

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...

• 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

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.

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