OT or Not OT: Twilight 2030

[Rainbow Six]

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]

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...

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.

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

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-launch-war-games-obama-pledge-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]

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:

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]

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]

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:

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]

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.