The trouble isn't so much the terrorists themselves, but the fact that so many people in the Middle East make heros out of them. Enough such people may influence what governments form, and those governments might declare war after the United States kills one of their "heroes" who were merely doing "heroic" things like killing Americans. Perhaps the Americans aren't as cowardly as their mullahs have led them to expect.
New Ideas
- Thread starter BOHICA6
- Start date
I think that's a wee bit too fantastic to be credible to anyone else but an American without fleshing things out.
The problem with this assumption is the underlying assumption that the rest of the world will give a damn if the US goes to war with a state or states the US deems terrorist/rogue.
The problem stems from the fact that, in my recent experience watching events unfold from the inside, as it were, most Americans don't understand why a big chunk of the rest of the world didn't go along with Iraq and just about every public discussion on the subject conbsisted of a panel of Americans on both sides of the issue stating what "the rest of the world" meant by supporting/not supporting the action. Might have been nice to have some folks from TROTW participating to say, in their own words, what the reasons were.
I'm not espousing a view for or against the Iraq war, I'm just trying to highlight the disconnect between how the world is perceived from inside the US as opposed to outside and that any new timeline should be a balance of those perceptions and not draw too-heavily on one or the other.
Having said that, depending on how it's fleshed out, I can possibly see a war starting that will have similar results as the 1.0/2.0 Twilight War.
You got that right. Saddam Hussein was an evil dispicable dictator who ran a police state that murdered millions of Arabs, until the US invaded and suddenly Saddam Hussein is rehabilitated in the world's eyes. I don't understand why the World would care so much about what happens to such an evil dictator, its not like their soldiers are in harms way. Most those countries opposed aren't involved in the military action. So its our business, our soldiers, and Saddam is getting his just deserts. The war is past now, its history. There is just some mopping up to do, bringing order and civilization to the streets, yet some people are still protesting the War. I want to look forward from here, yet some people continue to look backwards to point fingers and fix blame on any imperfections on the military campaign and the law of unanticipated consequences. If the consequences are unanticipated, how can anyone anticipate them? War is chaos, it cannot be anticipated 100%. Defending a brutal regime from what some consider an unnecessary war is perplexing, there are more just causes in the world for people to espouse. I might for instance seriously consider John Kerry for President because of the lack of health care for poor people, but the only thing that stops me is his stance on the Iraq War. I am a patriotic American and I don't like to lose or retreat from a war on terrorists, so I'm forced to go with George Bush, even though he does seem to favor the Rich. What can I do, if the US loses a war, more will attack us because they see us as weak and Vulnerable. Part of the attraction of George Bush is that our enemies take him seriously and are afraid of him. We've invaded Afghanistan, and Iraq and now we threaten Iran, a country that took Americans hostages in 1979, it seems we are on the verge of payback for all the outrages Iran has heaped on us. If Jimmy Carter wasn't such a weak leader, the Iranians would not have dared to do what they did. Now we have a strong leader that our enemies won't dare mess with without dire consequences for them.
Someone should have done something about Hitler before the World was ready to deal with him, that someone would have been a pariah for his imperialist action against Germany, but he would have saved millions of lives. When a person makes choices in history, one never finds out about the consequences of the choice not taken. I think the theme of World War II was an aggressive dictator taking advantage of allied indecision and weakness, such poor leadership and division could prove tempting for a future dictator trying to amass power and at some point someone says enough is enough, but the aggressor is flush with recent victories and is not deterred, that in my opinion is what could start wars. If the US is perceived weak at some point, someone will use that opportunity to take advantage of us. I suspect an Anti-war President could provide an opportunity for an enemy to become more of a threat to us, and thus make World War III more interesting from a gaming perspective. Imagine what World War II would have been like if we gave substantial support to Chechoslovakia and Poland and didn't give an inch to Hitler without a fight. Appeasement made Hitler much more powerful than he otherwise had to be.
Tom, I already said I wasn't going to discuss the war on Iraq. I even went to the time and trouble to say that in my post. I can give you pages and pages of resons why the war was, in the eyes of many, wrong, or at least questionable, but this is supposed to be a discussion of Twilight:2000, not current world politics.
In retrospect, I should have left out my comment on Americans not understanding, because it was obviously mis-interpreted. What I intended to communicate was that basing a future timeline on such a shaky current one, while it might satisfy desires to justify current events (from both sides), doesn't make for terribly good game design principles.
At least in the original T2K timeline, most people, while hoping and praying it would never happen, could see a very real possibility that it might. The problem with the terrorist catalyst is that unless the nuts and bolts are presented, a lot of people just can't see how a timeline could be generated from that that would result in the kind of devestation of the original.
In retrospect, I should have left out my comment on Americans not understanding, because it was obviously mis-interpreted. What I intended to communicate was that basing a future timeline on such a shaky current one, while it might satisfy desires to justify current events (from both sides), doesn't make for terribly good game design principles.
At least in the original T2K timeline, most people, while hoping and praying it would never happen, could see a very real possibility that it might. The problem with the terrorist catalyst is that unless the nuts and bolts are presented, a lot of people just can't see how a timeline could be generated from that that would result in the kind of devestation of the original.
White Plague by Frank Herbert
I think that sets up a realistic
way that the whole world could be changed.
Some twist on that kind of theme could be believable. And instead of trying to blame some known politician, blame a confused, angry scientist who decides to strike back at everyone assoicated with those who wronged them.
Heck they do it comics all the time.
Dave
I think that sets up a realistic
way that the whole world could be changed.Some twist on that kind of theme could be believable. And instead of trying to blame some known politician, blame a confused, angry scientist who decides to strike back at everyone assoicated with those who wronged them.
Heck they do it comics all the time.
Dave
Not familiar with White Plague. And I'd prefer to stay away from the mad scientist angle, or the 'The Stand' angle as well. The huge attraction T2K had was that the extrapolation was believable and the conspiracy theory gone amok is too much in the realm of sci-fi, I think.Originally posted by DaveChase:
White Plague by Frank Herbert
I think that sets up a realistic
Some twist on that kind of theme could be believable. And instead of trying to blame some known politician, blame a confused, angry scientist who decides to strike back at everyone assoicated with those who wronged them.
Heck they do it comics all the time.
Dave
Still, tossing some sort of biomishap in, depending on how it's done, might be believable. Again, show me the specifics, even if it's only a an outline
It was not my intention to discuss current world politics. I just tend to get defensive when the subject is raised. I've heard some references to the war on terrorism lasting as long as the cold war and the original Twilight 2000 timeline arose out of the Cold War. I think the main ideological compeditor of the West today is ideological islam. Communism is dead, just a few guerilla wackos take it seriously anymore. So what can replace it? I think the Russians need a very good reason to launch their missiles. Unfortunately somebody has to be the bad guy and whoever is picked won't like it, unless we're talking about an invasion from space. Aside from radical islamic countries, its hard to think of other countries that are surrently hostile enough to start a war with the United States.
First, it wasn't the US that the WP went to war with in the orginal timeline, so I see no reason why an attack on the US would have to be the central theme of the game.
Second, communism isn't dead, it's only dormant. Only a few of the right things would have to go wrong for communism to re-appear in Russia. Of course, an arguement can be made that the Soviets stopped being communists once Stalin arrived and that the USSR from Stalin onward was simply a version of Tsarist Russia that learned from the Tsar's mistakes. So, maybe not communism, but nationalism.
Third, it's a bit of a huge leap to equate the "war on terror", which was going on before the US got involved, though not at the current intensity globally, to the Cold War. Yes, the length of both is likely to be similar, but that's all.
The truly big threats are China and India. If either or both of those natons ever get their act together, the West is toast. China has over a billion people, India tops the 900 million mark. Even so, an arguement can be made that they'd never really be able to dominate the globe, so, with the proper timeline rationale, they could be considered serious regional threats.
I think it's much more plausible to have some form of resurgent Russia that no longer needs to make nice with the US starting to flex its muscle, which might then trigger something, something small at first but that builds and eventually draws the alliances in, formal and informal ones.
PBI said,
How about a United Korea, basically South Korea gives up its democracy to unite with the North for nationalistic reason. In exchange North Korea gives up its communism, but not its dictatorship. One man rules Korea and for him Korea is not enough so he looks toward Japan and launches an Invasion.
Communism has one glaring weakness, it reduces its host nation's economic potential in exchange for greater economic control of the society.
As for Russia going communist, been there done that, but what if the Russian President develops a "Caesar complex". Putin appears to be an intelligent man, I don't think he is mad enough to start a nuclear war with illusions that he could conquer the world by so doing. Most rational people know how dangerous nuclear weapons are. A mad man might launch them and think God is on his side, but Putin is neither mad nor very religious. Someone like Putin requires a rational plan to conquer the world that doesn't appear dangerous, but in fact when implemented actually causes a nuclear war. Perhaps in addition to that, we need a weak vacillating US President, someone who is very naive and foolish and is willing to trust people and countries that he shouldn't. Now the Russian dictator tries to take advantage of the foolish President, except that either the president isn't as foolish as he appears or he is quickly impeached and replaced by someone more competant before the Russian dictator completes his plan. The Russian dictator is caught out in the open trying to conquer the world and this means war.
Russia is in kind of bad shape economically, but their are some other possibilities for instance:
How about a United Korea, basically South Korea gives up its democracy to unite with the North for nationalistic reason. In exchange North Korea gives up its communism, but not its dictatorship. One man rules Korea and for him Korea is not enough so he looks toward Japan and launches an Invasion.
Communism has one glaring weakness, it reduces its host nation's economic potential in exchange for greater economic control of the society.
As for Russia going communist, been there done that, but what if the Russian President develops a "Caesar complex". Putin appears to be an intelligent man, I don't think he is mad enough to start a nuclear war with illusions that he could conquer the world by so doing. Most rational people know how dangerous nuclear weapons are. A mad man might launch them and think God is on his side, but Putin is neither mad nor very religious. Someone like Putin requires a rational plan to conquer the world that doesn't appear dangerous, but in fact when implemented actually causes a nuclear war. Perhaps in addition to that, we need a weak vacillating US President, someone who is very naive and foolish and is willing to trust people and countries that he shouldn't. Now the Russian dictator tries to take advantage of the foolish President, except that either the president isn't as foolish as he appears or he is quickly impeached and replaced by someone more competant before the Russian dictator completes his plan. The Russian dictator is caught out in the open trying to conquer the world and this means war.
Russia is in kind of bad shape economically, but their are some other possibilities for instance:</font>[/QUOTE]Hence the "resurgent" bit, meaning a Russia that gets it's act mostly together.
I can't see South Korea giving in to the North. Remember, we don't need dictators in order to have a Twilight War. All we need is the right set of circumstances and a flashpoint.
Where did I say that communism was a good thing or say it was a workers' paradise? The point is that there are a fair amount of folks behind the former Iron Curtain that would prefer order and stability as opposed to the current situation and it wouldn't take much altering of "history" to bring back the communists in Russia, although not in the same style as we've all known and loved.
Again, in the original timeline of T2K, nukes weren't used from the start, rather the line was inched across and by the time the strategic nukes started to fly, both sides, full or otherwise rational people, were ordering strikes, but they were doing so a handful at a time, in order to prevent the One Big Retaliation.
I can see, instead of a Russia that sets out to conquer the world, we have instead a Russia that mostly recovers economically, perhaps by getting the "right man" (or woman) in the job as President and after a rather ruthless campaign of crime and corruption eradication, starts to flex Russia's muscles again.
First would come the re-establishment of influence among the former republics, sort of a renewed Finlandization campaign. The reasons for this could be the new President having to ally him/herself with all kinds of not nice faction inside Russia to get the job done. Then, when NATO again pushes eastward, this time looking to abosrb Byelorus and the Ukraine, things begin to heat up rapidly. Russia objects very strongly but id forced to back down over Byelorus and, a year or two (or whenever) later, when the Ukraine comes due for membership, Russia threatens war, shootig starts, and much as in timeline 1.0/2.0, NATO is divided, some states saying that Ukraine is not part of the alliance and so they ain't playing, others deciding that the Ukraine is a member in all but name and that's good enough.
This could all be combined with flashpoints around the globe heating up, perhaps drawing off some of NATOs strength before the war starts so that Russia isn't crushed straight away. Then again, one could argue that given the very reduced strengths of most of the NATO militaries, it could still be an open question. Russia does, after all, have some of the biggest manpower reserves to draw on and, unlike almost all of their Western counterparts, the Russians keep everything. They've even got kit left ver from WWII in mothballs "just in case"
While a T34 isn't that great by today's standards, how good does it have to be when it's the only tank on the block? I have been thinking about a nuclear war between Pakistan and India. These two countries have about 50 nuclear weapons between them. They are always either in a low intensity conflict or on the verge of going to war. This conflict seems insular not dependent on what the rest of the world is doing. A nuclear conflict between them would be local and not seriously affect the rest of the world. The attacks and resulting collapse of the Indian and Pakistan governments would mean large number of deaths,in the hundreds of millions. This choas could spread to nearby countries such as Bangeledesh.
This could lead to a world wide outcry against nuclear weapons forcing the US and Russia to reduce their arsenal to about a hundred each reaching parity with the PRC.
While the US has a large powerful military to backup it nuclear weapons. Russia's convential military has almost collapsed, the only thing preventing a war with the PRC was their large nuclear arsenal.
Now the PRC has nuclear parity and a conventional force that is for the time being more powerful than Russia. Having the need for more resources to fuel their economy the PRC decides to invade Siberia.
The Chinese first strike hits Moscow , nuclear weapons, and Russian military bases in the far east.
The surviving Russian nukes are fired against China's largest cities including Bejing.
The Russians do better against the Chinese military then expected. The Russian government have the full support of their people and are willing to enact the needed government and military reforms. The Russians send 80% of their air and ground forces plus whatever still floats in the navy to the Far East. The Russian Army gets better the more combat experience it receives but they realize they cannot defeat the PRC with convential weapons. They need nuclear weapons to destroy the remaining Chinese industial base.
The UN was supervising the destruction of nuclear weapons around the world funded primarly by the world wealthist countries, mainly US.
The last European warheads were collected at a base in Poland near the border. The last 100 or so warheads that needed to be dismantled were stored here held up by a lack of funds. ( A US Congressman,trying to derail a UN supported birth control program, has stalled the funding in Congress.)
The site was protected by a UN brigade,Polish security police and military observors from around the world.
The Russians decide that a limited raid by one their airborne divisions to seize the warheads is too take place. They quietly put their Western Forces on alert with the cover story that they are heading to China.
The raid goes badly with the Airborne division needing to be relivied by Russian air and ground invading Poland.
The US supports Poland first with air and then troops. Germany invades Kalingrad (and parts of Poland) then halts.
The rest of NATO remains neutral when they realize the Russians have no intention of invading the rest of Europe.
So the Russians occupy the western half of Poland in anticipation of peace talks. The Germans occupy what used to be pre WWI german land. The US with tenous supply lines are helping to defend central Poland with whats left of the Polish army.
This could lead to a world wide outcry against nuclear weapons forcing the US and Russia to reduce their arsenal to about a hundred each reaching parity with the PRC.
While the US has a large powerful military to backup it nuclear weapons. Russia's convential military has almost collapsed, the only thing preventing a war with the PRC was their large nuclear arsenal.
Now the PRC has nuclear parity and a conventional force that is for the time being more powerful than Russia. Having the need for more resources to fuel their economy the PRC decides to invade Siberia.
The Chinese first strike hits Moscow , nuclear weapons, and Russian military bases in the far east.
The surviving Russian nukes are fired against China's largest cities including Bejing.
The Russians do better against the Chinese military then expected. The Russian government have the full support of their people and are willing to enact the needed government and military reforms. The Russians send 80% of their air and ground forces plus whatever still floats in the navy to the Far East. The Russian Army gets better the more combat experience it receives but they realize they cannot defeat the PRC with convential weapons. They need nuclear weapons to destroy the remaining Chinese industial base.
The UN was supervising the destruction of nuclear weapons around the world funded primarly by the world wealthist countries, mainly US.
The last European warheads were collected at a base in Poland near the border. The last 100 or so warheads that needed to be dismantled were stored here held up by a lack of funds. ( A US Congressman,trying to derail a UN supported birth control program, has stalled the funding in Congress.)
The site was protected by a UN brigade,Polish security police and military observors from around the world.
The Russians decide that a limited raid by one their airborne divisions to seize the warheads is too take place. They quietly put their Western Forces on alert with the cover story that they are heading to China.
The raid goes badly with the Airborne division needing to be relivied by Russian air and ground invading Poland.
The US supports Poland first with air and then troops. Germany invades Kalingrad (and parts of Poland) then halts.
The rest of NATO remains neutral when they realize the Russians have no intention of invading the rest of Europe.
So the Russians occupy the western half of Poland in anticipation of peace talks. The Germans occupy what used to be pre WWI german land. The US with tenous supply lines are helping to defend central Poland with whats left of the Polish army.
I have been thinking about a nuclear war between Pakistan and India. These two countries have about 50 nuclear weapons between them. They are always either in a low intensity conflict or on the verge of going to war. This conflict seems insular not dependent on what the rest of the world is doing. A nuclear conflict between them would be local and not seriously affect the rest of the world. The attacks and resulting collapse of the Indian and Pakistan governments would mean large number of deaths,in the hundreds of millions. This choas could spread to nearby countries such as Bangeledesh.
This could lead to a world wide outcry against nuclear weapons forcing the US and Russia to reduce their arsenal to about a hundred each reaching parity with the PRC.
While the US has a large powerful military to backup it nuclear weapons. Russia's convential military has almost collapsed, the only thing preventing a war with the PRC was their large nuclear arsenal.
Now the PRC has nuclear parity and a conventional force that is for the time being more powerful than Russia. Having the need for more resources to fuel their economy the PRC decides to invade Siberia.
The Chinese first strike hits Moscow , nuclear weapons, and Russian military bases in the far east.
The surviving Russian nukes are fired against China's largest cities including Bejing.
The Russians do better against the Chinese military then expected. The Russian government have the full support of their people and are willing to enact the needed government and military reforms. The Russians send 80% of their air and ground forces plus whatever still floats in the navy to the Far East. The Russian Army gets better the more combat experience it receives but they realize they cannot defeat the PRC with convential weapons. They need nuclear weapons to destroy the remaining Chinese industial base.
The UN was supervising the destruction of nuclear weapons around the world funded primarly by the world wealthist countries, mainly US.
The last European warheads were collected at a base in Poland near the border. The last 100 or so warheads that needed to be dismantled were stored here held up by a lack of funds. ( A US Congressman,trying to derail a UN supported birth control program, has stalled the funding in Congress.)
The site was protected by a UN brigade,Polish security police and military observors from around the world.
The Russians decide that a limited raid by one their airborne divisions to seize the warheads is too take place. They quietly put their Western Forces on alert with the cover story that they are heading to China.
The raid goes badly with the Airborne division needing to be relivied by Russian air and ground invading Poland.
The US supports Poland first with air and then troops. Germany invades Kalingrad (and parts of Poland) then halts.
The rest of NATO remains neutral when they realize the Russians have no intention of invading the rest of Europe.
So the Russians occupy the western half of Poland in anticipation of peace talks. The Germans occupy what used to be pre WWI german land. The US with tenous supply lines are helping to defend central Poland with whats left of the Polish army.
This could lead to a world wide outcry against nuclear weapons forcing the US and Russia to reduce their arsenal to about a hundred each reaching parity with the PRC.
While the US has a large powerful military to backup it nuclear weapons. Russia's convential military has almost collapsed, the only thing preventing a war with the PRC was their large nuclear arsenal.
Now the PRC has nuclear parity and a conventional force that is for the time being more powerful than Russia. Having the need for more resources to fuel their economy the PRC decides to invade Siberia.
The Chinese first strike hits Moscow , nuclear weapons, and Russian military bases in the far east.
The surviving Russian nukes are fired against China's largest cities including Bejing.
The Russians do better against the Chinese military then expected. The Russian government have the full support of their people and are willing to enact the needed government and military reforms. The Russians send 80% of their air and ground forces plus whatever still floats in the navy to the Far East. The Russian Army gets better the more combat experience it receives but they realize they cannot defeat the PRC with convential weapons. They need nuclear weapons to destroy the remaining Chinese industial base.
The UN was supervising the destruction of nuclear weapons around the world funded primarly by the world wealthist countries, mainly US.
The last European warheads were collected at a base in Poland near the border. The last 100 or so warheads that needed to be dismantled were stored here held up by a lack of funds. ( A US Congressman,trying to derail a UN supported birth control program, has stalled the funding in Congress.)
The site was protected by a UN brigade,Polish security police and military observors from around the world.
The Russians decide that a limited raid by one their airborne divisions to seize the warheads is too take place. They quietly put their Western Forces on alert with the cover story that they are heading to China.
The raid goes badly with the Airborne division needing to be relivied by Russian air and ground invading Poland.
The US supports Poland first with air and then troops. Germany invades Kalingrad (and parts of Poland) then halts.
The rest of NATO remains neutral when they realize the Russians have no intention of invading the rest of Europe.
So the Russians occupy the western half of Poland in anticipation of peace talks. The Germans occupy what used to be pre WWI german land. The US with tenous supply lines are helping to defend central Poland with whats left of the Polish army.
Sorry about the double post. I got a message saying my page expired and neede to be refreshed.
The usefulness of a North Korea attack or a India-Pakistan war is that they can take place anytime in your campaign without a lot of backstory.
North Korea is a rogue nation without allies even from other communist nations. There is no way to predict what their leaders will do.
India and Pakistan fight their wars without a consideration of what else seems to going on in the world and in spite of the views of the major powers.
The usefulness of a North Korea attack or a India-Pakistan war is that they can take place anytime in your campaign without a lot of backstory.
North Korea is a rogue nation without allies even from other communist nations. There is no way to predict what their leaders will do.
India and Pakistan fight their wars without a consideration of what else seems to going on in the world and in spite of the views of the major powers.
panzerfaust150
SOC-3
Hi all,
I worked up some stuff along these lines on the WebRPG board...Here's the links to the articles. Lemme know what you guys think?
Link to my "Divided America" timeline
HMD World
I worked up some stuff along these lines on the WebRPG board...Here's the links to the articles. Lemme know what you guys think?
Link to my "Divided America" timeline
HMD World
ReHerakhte
SOC-1
Hi all, I'm an FNG here with no previous posts to the boards but I have followed this thread with interest.
In regards to starting the next world war, I have always had a weakness for simply rewriting the start of World War 1, the actions of two nations causing their allies to be dragged into a conflict that gets progressively larger. And if it needs to be taken further, the ecomoic sanctions enforced upon the losing side causes them to plan a 'revenge' conflict to reclaim what ever it is they think they have lost.
On the issue of causing the world to revert to a lower technology, you don't have to have a lot of nukes destroying everything in sight or a massive plague wiping out millions, you only have to take out the majority of the electricity generation. Without electricity, most people in a modern city are screwed... banking, shopping, entertainment, traffic lights, getting the automatic doors to open, even just getting fuel to pump out of a bowser, it's pretty much all controlled electrically these days and most people simply don't have the will to 'go back' to living like their parents did let alone the skills or knowledge to cope with the minimum-electric society of their great-grandparents.
Many people are paid via electronic funds transfer, what do they do when the money cannot be transfered, their employers certainly won't have the cash on hand. And cash becomes meaningless when the girl at the cash register can't figure out how much money you owe because all her maths learning was via a calculator.
Major facilities like police/fire service buildings, hospitals etc. have their own generators and that's great while the fuel lasts, then they have to get more... but the phones don't work because all the computerized switchboards are not functioning. Meanwhile the disgruntled mob are looting and pillaging to ensure they have enough to weather the coming events. The fuel suppliers can revert to manual pumping to resupply authorized users but someone has to be there to protect them from looters and the police headquarters can't put out any radio calls because their communications centre requires mains power and mobile/cellular phone transmission towers all run on mains power.
Okay, it needs more work than the simplistic outline above but when you consider that some of the larger components required (such as the transformers) can take from 6 to 12 months to build and deliver, many cities will be without power for more than just a few days or weeks. How do you get rid of the electricity generation of an entire country? You don't need to, only half of it and sometimes less. Any city left without power for a few weeks becomes a problem, twenty cities is a national crisis, one hundred and twenty is almost meltdown time.
There have been plenty of examples of electricity loss in recent decades to get a feel for what could happen. Imagine the Canadian/US power grid centred around Niagra Falls going out for months...
Anyway, these are my pet theories and I have been on the soapbox long enough...
Cheers,
Kevin
In regards to starting the next world war, I have always had a weakness for simply rewriting the start of World War 1, the actions of two nations causing their allies to be dragged into a conflict that gets progressively larger. And if it needs to be taken further, the ecomoic sanctions enforced upon the losing side causes them to plan a 'revenge' conflict to reclaim what ever it is they think they have lost.
On the issue of causing the world to revert to a lower technology, you don't have to have a lot of nukes destroying everything in sight or a massive plague wiping out millions, you only have to take out the majority of the electricity generation. Without electricity, most people in a modern city are screwed... banking, shopping, entertainment, traffic lights, getting the automatic doors to open, even just getting fuel to pump out of a bowser, it's pretty much all controlled electrically these days and most people simply don't have the will to 'go back' to living like their parents did let alone the skills or knowledge to cope with the minimum-electric society of their great-grandparents.
Many people are paid via electronic funds transfer, what do they do when the money cannot be transfered, their employers certainly won't have the cash on hand. And cash becomes meaningless when the girl at the cash register can't figure out how much money you owe because all her maths learning was via a calculator.
Major facilities like police/fire service buildings, hospitals etc. have their own generators and that's great while the fuel lasts, then they have to get more... but the phones don't work because all the computerized switchboards are not functioning. Meanwhile the disgruntled mob are looting and pillaging to ensure they have enough to weather the coming events. The fuel suppliers can revert to manual pumping to resupply authorized users but someone has to be there to protect them from looters and the police headquarters can't put out any radio calls because their communications centre requires mains power and mobile/cellular phone transmission towers all run on mains power.
Okay, it needs more work than the simplistic outline above but when you consider that some of the larger components required (such as the transformers) can take from 6 to 12 months to build and deliver, many cities will be without power for more than just a few days or weeks. How do you get rid of the electricity generation of an entire country? You don't need to, only half of it and sometimes less. Any city left without power for a few weeks becomes a problem, twenty cities is a national crisis, one hundred and twenty is almost meltdown time.
There have been plenty of examples of electricity loss in recent decades to get a feel for what could happen. Imagine the Canadian/US power grid centred around Niagra Falls going out for months...
Anyway, these are my pet theories and I have been on the soapbox long enough...
Cheers,
Kevin
Why World War I, why not World War II?
Lets see,
World War I was where a bunch of world powers step to the bring of world war and none of them wanted to back down so they stepped over it.
World War II was where every nation wanted to avoid a world war at any cost except for one country led by a dictator.
Why do you prefer the first scenario over the second? Is there something about the second that makes it unlikeler to happen than the first?
Lets see,
those whove learned the lesson of the first World War are likely to contribute to the second by avoiding war at all costs with the exception of one country that didn't learn the lesson of the prior war and takes advantage of the situation.
those who've learned the lesson of the second World War are likely to stand up firm against the intentions of a dictator or foreign power bent on ruling the war, they're not about to let themselves be walked over so all sides step up to the brink...
Now in the first situation the opposing countries realize their mistake almost too late and take corrective action against the attacking country which has taken military advantage of the other countries prior pacifism. This leads to a global World War or...
it is too late for the opposing countries to stop the dictator's designs. The nuclear deterrent is not used and the dictator takes over the world and occupies a number of countries. Now the only way to overthrow the dictator is through internal revolution. World War III is avoided in this case, but now you have secret police and Rebel resistance bands, traitors and collaborators. That is another exciting avenue that desreves exploration.
World War I has only one outcome, everyone is brave and fearless. They know what war would bring but they refuse to back down fully expecting the other side to do so as the "know" that their resolve is firmer than the other side. World War III happens and civilization is destroyed.
Now what are the lessons of these two scenarios?
Actually, I'd have to agree that having a Great War type of cause for the Twilight War makes alot of sense. If you look at the Cold War years, the situation then was more like it was pre-Great War than pre-WWII. There were two great alliances facing off and the big worry throughout almost the enitre Cold War was that some small incident somewhere would drag a member of one of the alliances into a conflict and that it would call for help and the machinery of alliance would then begin moving forward on its own until we ended up having Soviet tank divisions striking into West Germany.
That's also pretty much how the original (and the updated) Twilight War was written.
That's also pretty much how the original (and the updated) Twilight War was written.
OK, how's this for a possibility?
Russia feels threatened by US influence in the smaller states to its south (Georgia, etc.). Both sides fall into a pattern of proxy warfare, which escalates.
This has the advantage that nobody has to be portrayed as cartoon Evil Empires.
Come to think of it, this might be a good setting for Merc: 2000 style games, with both sides fighting with proxy and special forces. At least until somebody sends in conventional forces...
Russia feels threatened by US influence in the smaller states to its south (Georgia, etc.). Both sides fall into a pattern of proxy warfare, which escalates.
This has the advantage that nobody has to be portrayed as cartoon Evil Empires.
Come to think of it, this might be a good setting for Merc: 2000 style games, with both sides fighting with proxy and special forces. At least until somebody sends in conventional forces...
On the otherhand PBI, a Pre World War II scenario is sort of like how the situation in the Movie "Red Dawn" happened. Soviet power went unchecked, they gobbled up Latin America and subverted Mexico, set up Soviet Bases and began massing Troops in Mexico to launch an invasion of the U.S., and all that is required is for good men to do nothing. Occording to your line of thinking World War II shouldn't have happened because almost everybody had learned the lessons of World War I and did not want another World War.
So why did we have World War II anyway?
More people died in World War II than in World War I. Its a little cruel to those people who fought in World War two to say that their experiences were atypical and nothing should be learned from their sacrifices. Should we worry more about avoiding another World War I or World War II?
I think the possibility of a "Red Dawn" campaign ought to be considered as a Twilight 2000 scenario, this adds a little balance to the Damned if you do argument for Starting World War III. "Red Dawn" is the damned if you don't scenario. The West wilts like a spring flower in a summer breeze in the face of outside aggression. the leaders of the West want peace and are willing to bend over backwards to get it. the Enemy take advantage of the situation and entertains these pacifists while expressing a desire for peace and making only "little" demands on the Western Leaders. To the Western leaders, these demands seem quite reasonable when compared to the costs of nuclear war and so readily asceed to them. Usually these demands amount the takeover of some insignificant third country that does not have nuclear weapons and so can't defend itself. The Western powers let the aggressor get away with this as the alternative the see is nuclear war. And they don't want that. The aggressor makes it easy for the Western powers to look the otherway by disguising their takeover to look like an internal revolution by the natives of the country they are invading. the aggressor does this over and over again until the amass a huge territorial empire. The Aggressor then presents this empire are a fait accompli to the Western power and forces them to accept this. The Westerners accept this as a sign of the times and don't do anything about it, and suddenly revolutionaries appear in their country. they've been building themselves up for a long time and insinuating themselves in government, now the act to prevent the government from crushing the rebellion and before you know it its all over. The Western government is now a tyrannical regime controlld by the aggressor and under one-party rule.
So why did we have World War II anyway?
More people died in World War II than in World War I. Its a little cruel to those people who fought in World War two to say that their experiences were atypical and nothing should be learned from their sacrifices. Should we worry more about avoiding another World War I or World War II?
I think the possibility of a "Red Dawn" campaign ought to be considered as a Twilight 2000 scenario, this adds a little balance to the Damned if you do argument for Starting World War III. "Red Dawn" is the damned if you don't scenario. The West wilts like a spring flower in a summer breeze in the face of outside aggression. the leaders of the West want peace and are willing to bend over backwards to get it. the Enemy take advantage of the situation and entertains these pacifists while expressing a desire for peace and making only "little" demands on the Western Leaders. To the Western leaders, these demands seem quite reasonable when compared to the costs of nuclear war and so readily asceed to them. Usually these demands amount the takeover of some insignificant third country that does not have nuclear weapons and so can't defend itself. The Western powers let the aggressor get away with this as the alternative the see is nuclear war. And they don't want that. The aggressor makes it easy for the Western powers to look the otherway by disguising their takeover to look like an internal revolution by the natives of the country they are invading. the aggressor does this over and over again until the amass a huge territorial empire. The Aggressor then presents this empire are a fait accompli to the Western power and forces them to accept this. The Westerners accept this as a sign of the times and don't do anything about it, and suddenly revolutionaries appear in their country. they've been building themselves up for a long time and insinuating themselves in government, now the act to prevent the government from crushing the rebellion and before you know it its all over. The Western government is now a tyrannical regime controlld by the aggressor and under one-party rule.
Similar threads
