New Ideas
- Thread starter BOHICA6
- Start date
Actually, Tom, all we need is one president who fixates on a non-threat at the expense of stopping a real threat. That's what Dubya's War is really about ... Well, that and the hundreds of American soldiers who died for _nothing_. As a vet, I despise that.
Sgt. US Army. Infantry.
"Follow me!" away from the administration's evil...
William
Sgt. US Army. Infantry.
"Follow me!" away from the administration's evil...
William
Really, it's not that difficult to postulate a world where war with Russia (not the USSR) is a credible possibility. Just as the original timeline (1.0) didn't have even a whiff of the collapse of the USSR, it's also entirely possible that the real emerging threats are China and India and a Russia that gets it act together or even a Russia that mostly gets it act together and then a coup occurs where the coup leaders learn from history 
Russia right now does not look kindly on NATO or NATO expansion (lovely little flashpoint for the timeline there), and if China and India ever manage to do what we say we want them to, namely achieve working free markets that provide good standards of living for their citizens, I wonder how long they'll stay friends once we (the West) realizes that we're on the losing side of an economic and military tsunami?
Or, if that doesn't float your boat, with the right mix of politicians on both sides of the Atlantic, it wouldn't be that hard to see a North American-EU conflict.
Russia right now does not look kindly on NATO or NATO expansion (lovely little flashpoint for the timeline there), and if China and India ever manage to do what we say we want them to, namely achieve working free markets that provide good standards of living for their citizens, I wonder how long they'll stay friends once we (the West) realizes that we're on the losing side of an economic and military tsunami?
Or, if that doesn't float your boat, with the right mix of politicians on both sides of the Atlantic, it wouldn't be that hard to see a North American-EU conflict.
William really, you should put the Iraq war in historical perspective, it is not that bloody a conflict and we still haven't had enough casualities to equal the number of people killed in 9/11. During the World War II conflict we've had many times the number of casualities lost during the Pearl Harbor conflict. Taking down Saddam is part of a general strategy of remaking the Middle East. If you are a sergent, then you must know that their were many instances where the US Army failed to follow the optimal strategy, yet through persistance won the war anyway. The American Civil War was one such conflict. We've had bungling generals in the Union army and suffered many times the casualities in the Iraq conflict, yet if we listened to the Naysayers in the North after giving them only one year, the South would have won. What you are proposing is that we give up the field to the enemy, simple because our generals and President didn't follow the best strategy according to you? How do we know that you're the one to ask? Look we don't always have to option of having the best general ever in military history, someone so brilliant that he can lead our troops into battle time and time again anticipating everything the enemy throws at us and preparing effective countermeasures against every single attack. No our generals and presidents are fallible human beings and they will make mistakes, but the thing to do is to press on, not retreat. Or do you have some flawless superhuman genius who will not make mistakes that you would like to replace George bush and all the generals with? I don't think Kerry is that individual. Do you think he will make flawless military decisions and anticipate the enemy's every move.
The word should've is not going to cut it. everyone has 20/20 hindsight, and anyone you put in charge is going to make mistakes that seem obvious to many looking back including yourself. I could examine all the chess moves of all the chess grandmasters and even memorize them, but that won't make me a chess grandmaster my self, and it won't help me to beat any of those people in a game of chess. The same goes for war. You think those generals and the President is so stupid because you can see the mistakes they've made in retrospect. Do you think you can do a better job than them in real time? Do you think you coulkd beat General Robert E. Lee at his own game? Do you wonder why the Union soldiers were such morons who fell into such obvious traps laid by General Lee? Why was it that he was so difficult to defeat? Well Robert E. Lee was defeated, but it was not through the genius of our generals but through our national persistance, that same persistance that you are trying to undermine in this Iraq war. So you think those terrorists and Saddamists are too smart for us so we should just quit is that it?
The word should've is not going to cut it. everyone has 20/20 hindsight, and anyone you put in charge is going to make mistakes that seem obvious to many looking back including yourself. I could examine all the chess moves of all the chess grandmasters and even memorize them, but that won't make me a chess grandmaster my self, and it won't help me to beat any of those people in a game of chess. The same goes for war. You think those generals and the President is so stupid because you can see the mistakes they've made in retrospect. Do you think you can do a better job than them in real time? Do you think you coulkd beat General Robert E. Lee at his own game? Do you wonder why the Union soldiers were such morons who fell into such obvious traps laid by General Lee? Why was it that he was so difficult to defeat? Well Robert E. Lee was defeated, but it was not through the genius of our generals but through our national persistance, that same persistance that you are trying to undermine in this Iraq war. So you think those terrorists and Saddamists are too smart for us so we should just quit is that it?
Anything is possible of course including a war with a breakaway California as was showcased one time in Popular Science as a way to demonstrate high tech conflict, but the relevant conflict today is between the West and the Arab World, just like in the original edition of Twilight it was between NATO and the USSR. The USSR is history, and I think it would be a mistake to ressurect it for an conflict in 2033.
2033 is a long time from now, I could easily imagine our war on terrorism procedding for that long with high tech weapons versus suicide bombers. I think over time we will build automated robots to fight the terrorists. Reminds me of an episode of Doctor Who where these two countries were at war for a very long time and in order to deal with the mounting casualities one side built the Daleks who were programmed to "Exterminate! Exterminate! Exterminate!" and something went wrong and they did not stop with the enemy. I can imagine the West building a series of remorseless robots designed to deal with an equally remorseless enemy.
Tom, what William seemed to me to be getting at is how the Bush admin has blinders on where Iraq is concerned. They had folks rattlin' the sabre before 9/11, and created a connection between Hussein/Al Queda, and the WMD fiasco isn't helping either.
Telling a guy it's OK for soldiers to die in a conflict he, a soldier, see's as pointless is also just lame. Shame on you.
Telling a guy it's OK for soldiers to die in a conflict he, a soldier, see's as pointless is also just lame. Shame on you.
This is gettin' a bit political and harsh. I thought Tom's perspective was interesting. This is still a t2k discussion right?
My 2 cents, Bush didn't have blinders on (any worst that Clinton or BushSr) but he wasn't going to under estimate the problems. Do we need to get nuked by one of these crazies before we start taking out rogue nations. How would everyone have felt if we attacked the afgans before 9/11? If clinton had decided we must go in...? Facts are we have a lot of people out there telling the poor that america is the bad guy. Then our corps go out throw their weight around and trample on people.
We're really bad at marketing. The US cannot even free a nation and get some positive press.
So, back to WWIII. Ya, take unstable foreign nations, toss in a world power that can only handle about 3 major simultaneous conflicts, allies that can handle perhaps 1 additional
confict. Then theres a couple crazy terrorist
groups promising hope to the less than $1000yr crowd. We have the making of the next great war.
No reason to believe the Russian's will never come out hitting either.
Savage
My 2 cents, Bush didn't have blinders on (any worst that Clinton or BushSr) but he wasn't going to under estimate the problems. Do we need to get nuked by one of these crazies before we start taking out rogue nations. How would everyone have felt if we attacked the afgans before 9/11? If clinton had decided we must go in...? Facts are we have a lot of people out there telling the poor that america is the bad guy. Then our corps go out throw their weight around and trample on people.
We're really bad at marketing. The US cannot even free a nation and get some positive press.
So, back to WWIII. Ya, take unstable foreign nations, toss in a world power that can only handle about 3 major simultaneous conflicts, allies that can handle perhaps 1 additional
confict. Then theres a couple crazy terrorist
groups promising hope to the less than $1000yr crowd. We have the making of the next great war.
No reason to believe the Russian's will never come out hitting either.
Savage
Sgt Biggles
SOC-11
Throwing my two cents into this, we aren’t that far from a WWIII situation now. As has been stated, just a handful of political changes in official government standings, Russia deciding to fully support Iraq in getting the Americans out since we have bungled it so badly, would be an example. Then bullets are flying, troops are being deployed lines are crossed and recrossed and we have ourselves a full blown world war. Nukes and other MWD's can get thrown in the mix later.
On the political side. I've lost two friends in Iraq and my son-in-law of only 4 months is on his way over. I'm working on getting a civilian advisor slot in his unit as a trainer/administrator.
This whole war with Iraq is wrong. Bush didn't get us into this for any other reason than to attempt to put his name in the history books. OK, don’t jump all over me, I know there’s a little more to the story. He took a gamble on limited intelligence. Had it been right and we found nukes or a viable chemical program he would have been a hero. A wartime setting can really fire up the economy, new jobs, new markets. His re-election would have been in the bag. As it was, he was wrong and he lied. No more than any other president but this one cost American servicemen and women their lives, for no reason.
Now, we have a mess that we made, virtually no support from foreign nations and we are stretched so thin our military is close to breaking. We have to stay and fix it. Eventually there will be a better Iraq, for awhile at least. There is no perspective to this war. There is no lets look at the big picture, there isn't one. Had we waited until we had full support from the world community Iraq would have been falling into the history books by now.
Sorry, I get a bit soapboxxy on this subject.
And now....back to Twilight......
The Source Book should be in QLI's hands by the 9th minus some fluff to be added later. MJD will handle the line editing and get the rewrite going. There is always a rewrite, {sigh}. So....maybe by christmas time (fingers crossed) the SB will be on the shelves.
On the political side. I've lost two friends in Iraq and my son-in-law of only 4 months is on his way over. I'm working on getting a civilian advisor slot in his unit as a trainer/administrator.
This whole war with Iraq is wrong. Bush didn't get us into this for any other reason than to attempt to put his name in the history books. OK, don’t jump all over me, I know there’s a little more to the story. He took a gamble on limited intelligence. Had it been right and we found nukes or a viable chemical program he would have been a hero. A wartime setting can really fire up the economy, new jobs, new markets. His re-election would have been in the bag. As it was, he was wrong and he lied. No more than any other president but this one cost American servicemen and women their lives, for no reason.
Now, we have a mess that we made, virtually no support from foreign nations and we are stretched so thin our military is close to breaking. We have to stay and fix it. Eventually there will be a better Iraq, for awhile at least. There is no perspective to this war. There is no lets look at the big picture, there isn't one. Had we waited until we had full support from the world community Iraq would have been falling into the history books by now.
Sorry, I get a bit soapboxxy on this subject.
And now....back to Twilight......
The Source Book should be in QLI's hands by the 9th minus some fluff to be added later. MJD will handle the line editing and get the rewrite going. There is always a rewrite, {sigh}. So....maybe by christmas time (fingers crossed) the SB will be on the shelves.
Rather than have one big war in Europe, one could set the stage for a minor nuclear war involving India & Pakistan, which pulls in China & the USA into the conflict.
Russia is called in to mediate, until some US general with ties to a little known looney fringe group called New America decides to call a little too far and bomb, a North Korean city. This means that Russia is no longer neutral but bound to stay non-aligned.
Polish nationalists seeing Russia's hestitation and decide to push for Ukraine's entry into NATO, as a way of shoring up their frontier. This prompts a hardline response in Russia and a shift that the Army decides that the intelligence services have done a lousy job running the country. Result: military coup in Russia with the plotters trying to resurrect a pro-monarchist party into the Kremlin. (most pro-monarchist parties have links to paymat which has links to New America. Both agree the only way forward is through a cleanizing of the nation.
Linking up with other extremists, they figure out a way to trigger a First Strike against Russia who in turn would respond in kind.
Sure this scenario, could not be played out in Twilight 2000, but it would make for an alternate to Merc 2000, in which players could play as an international cooperation force trying to stop Armageddon .... in 2010.
Russia is called in to mediate, until some US general with ties to a little known looney fringe group called New America decides to call a little too far and bomb, a North Korean city. This means that Russia is no longer neutral but bound to stay non-aligned.
Polish nationalists seeing Russia's hestitation and decide to push for Ukraine's entry into NATO, as a way of shoring up their frontier. This prompts a hardline response in Russia and a shift that the Army decides that the intelligence services have done a lousy job running the country. Result: military coup in Russia with the plotters trying to resurrect a pro-monarchist party into the Kremlin. (most pro-monarchist parties have links to paymat which has links to New America. Both agree the only way forward is through a cleanizing of the nation.
Linking up with other extremists, they figure out a way to trigger a First Strike against Russia who in turn would respond in kind.
Sure this scenario, could not be played out in Twilight 2000, but it would make for an alternate to Merc 2000, in which players could play as an international cooperation force trying to stop Armageddon .... in 2010.
Sqt Biggles said,
That is conjecture, you don't know what George Bush knew or didn't know. You also don't know whether there was WMD in Iraq or not. I'm not really interested in your anti-Bush campaign speech, it serves the purpose of the Kerry Campaign to say that the Iraq war is wrong. Otherwise you wouldn't expend the effort. Objectively you want us to do what? Retreat in the face of terror? How will that help the Kerry campaign? Perceived weakness makes the enemy bolder. As for 2033, what does George Bush have to do with that? This clash of civilizations was decided on 9/11, I'm positing that this low level conflict could go on for 30 years and then get hot once the terrorists have taken over a state and built nuclear weapons. I don't see why the Russians should suddenly pop up and fight on the side of the Muslims, Russians are smarter than that. I think a clash with a bunch of fanatics who aren't afraid of nuclear weapons even though they should be is quite more plausible than the Russians attacking the US to see who has a better military. The US is the predominant world power, so the best enemy is one who is not afraid of his own destruction, he may have a few nuclear weapons, but those few are enough to cause terrific damage. The US has many more nukes and can probably destoy the enemy in retaliation but the damage will be done. The fanatical enemy will be gone and out of the picture, meanwhile the destruction of US cities creates chaos that must be delt with.
Sgt Biggles
SOC-11
Tom, you presume too much. I am not a Kerry supporter, in fact far from it. And I wasn't even Bush bashing. I actually have some knowledge of what has been going on in Iraq over the last 10 years.
You talk of retreating from terror? Hardly, we have to stay the course, not for us or our country, but for the innocent people of Iraq. But I also dont believe in fostering it, which is what has happened in the current situation in Iraq. Prior to launching an offensive we had the worlds eye focused on Iraq. They couldn't take a dump in the woods without everyone knowing it.
So...enough of this line.
As to 2033, it is not 9/11 that started this current path. It was the current administrations aggressive posture and actions. The Iraq conflict has opened new channels for terrorists and a whole new forum for anti-American nations. Over the next few years more international feelings get hurt, more greed rises to the top of state nations leadership, power struggles and territory disputes flare up, American and British assets are seized, maybe even through action in the U.N. Push comes to push harder and there ya go. Bullets and bombs flying everywhere.
I would think 15 years would be enough. I dont think events could be contained for 29. I like Kafka's thoughts on this type of timeline being more in tune with Merc. It isn't too far from the original timeline released. Forget big armies and mass mobilizations. Send in highly trained Spec-Ops teams, (do I hear Rainbow Six fans nodding?) and take off the diplomatic gloves. Kidnappings, assassinations, subterfuge, surgical strikes. Good stuff.
You talk of retreating from terror? Hardly, we have to stay the course, not for us or our country, but for the innocent people of Iraq. But I also dont believe in fostering it, which is what has happened in the current situation in Iraq. Prior to launching an offensive we had the worlds eye focused on Iraq. They couldn't take a dump in the woods without everyone knowing it.
So...enough of this line.
As to 2033, it is not 9/11 that started this current path. It was the current administrations aggressive posture and actions. The Iraq conflict has opened new channels for terrorists and a whole new forum for anti-American nations. Over the next few years more international feelings get hurt, more greed rises to the top of state nations leadership, power struggles and territory disputes flare up, American and British assets are seized, maybe even through action in the U.N. Push comes to push harder and there ya go. Bullets and bombs flying everywhere.
I would think 15 years would be enough. I dont think events could be contained for 29. I like Kafka's thoughts on this type of timeline being more in tune with Merc. It isn't too far from the original timeline released. Forget big armies and mass mobilizations. Send in highly trained Spec-Ops teams, (do I hear Rainbow Six fans nodding?) and take off the diplomatic gloves. Kidnappings, assassinations, subterfuge, surgical strikes. Good stuff.
Actually, Sgt Biggles, incorrect action by the last two administrations, and too little too late by the present administration caused this situation. An aggressive posture was the only post 9/11 action that's acceptable.
If pakistan and india started tossing wpns around it probably wouldn't be under their present administrations. Assume govt change in pakistan followed by hardliners in India. Also, North Korea isn't on anyones good terms....no reason to assume they wouldn't pressure everyone.
Savage
If pakistan and india started tossing wpns around it probably wouldn't be under their present administrations. Assume govt change in pakistan followed by hardliners in India. Also, North Korea isn't on anyones good terms....no reason to assume they wouldn't pressure everyone.
Savage
I see a lot of talk about timelines for a revised Merc:2000 but nothing for Twilight. I include all the terrorists-as-catalyst lines of thought presented thus far as well.
The essence of Twilight is that a major war occurs "a few years from now" and that society totally breaks down, resulting in a curious blend of 19th and 20th century technology and societal norms.
Nukes are not required to attain this, not on the scale of the original timeline, but perhaps a few dozen EMP pulses and a handful of strikes on critical targets like selected transport hubs, etc, combined with the West being involved in a major war, should be enough to do the job and can easily be imagined without too-slavishly following current events, if for no other reason than a) the original twilight went out on a bit of a limb and dared to change what the pundits said would happen (if only slightly) and b) the current real world timeline is far too complex to interpret correctly and lays the game too wide open for extreme criticism, which will hurt sales and, ultimately, the game.
If folks want a revised Merc:2000, no problem. But can we also have a revised Twilight:2000 as well?
The essence of Twilight is that a major war occurs "a few years from now" and that society totally breaks down, resulting in a curious blend of 19th and 20th century technology and societal norms.
Nukes are not required to attain this, not on the scale of the original timeline, but perhaps a few dozen EMP pulses and a handful of strikes on critical targets like selected transport hubs, etc, combined with the West being involved in a major war, should be enough to do the job and can easily be imagined without too-slavishly following current events, if for no other reason than a) the original twilight went out on a bit of a limb and dared to change what the pundits said would happen (if only slightly) and b) the current real world timeline is far too complex to interpret correctly and lays the game too wide open for extreme criticism, which will hurt sales and, ultimately, the game.
If folks want a revised Merc:2000, no problem. But can we also have a revised Twilight:2000 as well?
There is essentially no connection between George W. Bush and 2033 and I resist trying to establish such. It makes no point to try and blame George W. Bush for a fictional war of the future, that is why I reacted to Sgt, Biggles suggestion to try to establish such a connection. After all Twilight 2000 is supposed to be a game, not an anti-bush political tract. My suggestion is that we place a fictional president of the future in office and either don't name the party he belongs to or make up a fictional one. If its any US President's fault it lies at the feet of this fictional President, not some president who was in office 30 years ago, this later notion is absurd. Would you blame theodore Roosevelt for World War II?
PBI,
I only know of 1 comment that looks like merc...the rest of us have been discussion the pre-activities before the next war.
Tom,
I see no reason to blame the US or any president for the 3rd ww. This great collapse should be evidence that a single world power cannot police the planet.
Savage
I only know of 1 comment that looks like merc...the rest of us have been discussion the pre-activities before the next war.
Tom,
I see no reason to blame the US or any president for the 3rd ww. This great collapse should be evidence that a single world power cannot police the planet.
Savage
Sgt Biggles
SOC-11
I agree.
When everything breaks down it will not be the fault of just one person or administration. But history will still pick someone as the fall guy.
The climate worldwide is such that you could just about pick anywhere you wanted to mark the flashpoint that sends us into the Twilight scenario.
At one point before they closed their doors, GDW was considering other ways of creating the Twilight World. The two most popular ideas, and they have been discussed in various threads here, were a meteor strike or near miss and a worldwide epidemic.
My longest running T2k game started as a Merc 2000 game. The characters bungled a mission to recover a biological agent. I was reading The Stand at the time and we rp’ed right into the Twilight World.
I repeat, you can draw no historical conclusion from a fictional example. The Twilight War of 2033 is fiction, you can't cite that as an example and cite it as proof that George W. Bush was doing the wrong thing. I suggest that we simple take the historical trend of the War on Terrorism and use the Twilight War as the final climax of that war. This reminds me of Nostrodamus, he predicted a long World War III lasting multiple decades into the 21st century, it seems to me that this could happen. I think a World War III centered in the Middle East has some biblical connotations as well such as the battle of Armageddon. I'm not suggesting that supernatural elements should be included, but perhaps some religious groups may interpret his as the end of times and react accordingly, they can point out that 2033 is about 2000 years after the crucifixion of Christ. No doubt the Arabs will be identified by them as being in league with the AntiChrist. Not that there should actually be an antichrist, but their would be lots of Christians looking for the antichrist. The reality would be that this is just an unfortunate coincidence and that WWIII is not a fulfilment of Biblical prophesy, but try to convince the religious leaders of that, especially after millions die.
Well. I think everyone has pretty much staked out their general positions. How about we start getting down to specifics? I know I'm very skeptical about a terrorism-as-catalyst reason for the breakdown of society, however, that view could change depending on the specifications. As the saying goes, the devil's in the details.
Of course, this could all be moot, anyway, since the decision seems to have been made a while ago
Of course, this could all be moot, anyway, since the decision seems to have been made a while ago
Similar threads
