I meant to say World War III, but I typed so fast that the third 'I' didn't register and I only noticed this after I sent it. The chance of World War II was probably around 5% per year as there were 20 years between the end of World War I and the beginning of World War II. I estimate the chance of World War III to be less than 2% because 50 years have elapsed without World War III occuring. I know it is less than 2%, but I don't know how much less. This reduced probability must be an effect of the deterence value of nuclear weapons as people only want to start a war that they think they can win. For someone to start World War III, they must think that somehow it will resolve itself without a generalized two way exchange of nuclear weapons. A confrontation between two nuclear powers can end 4 ways:
One side can back down in the face of the others aggression, figuring that it is better to let the aggressor get what he wants than go to nuclear war. (Better red than Dead)
One side can put up such determined opposition to the aggressor that the aggressor realizes that he can't intimidate with the treat of force and so loses his nerve and backs down. (The Cuban Missile Crisis)
One side puts up determined opposition, but the aggressor believes it is only for show and that if he only press a little harder he'll get what he wants from the otherside. Neither side loses his nerve and nuclear weapons are used. (World War III).
or
A conventional World War gets under way, but neither side uses nuclear weapons in a similar way that neither side used chemical weapons during World War II. (The was a book written by General Sir John Hackett called "World War III" which detailed that scenario. Based on that work a fiction writter, Harold Coyle wrote the Novel "Team Yankee" about a tank crew fighting the Soviets. The Soviet People turned against the Soviet goverment and overthrew it before World War III was able to go nuclear, this seemed unbelievable at the time, but in light of the actual events which ended the Soviet Union, this now sounds more likely that it could have happened)
It seems to me that we could have two versions of Twilight 2000:
In one version World War III goes nuclear,
And in the other it does not, in this version one side collapses due to internal revolution brought on by the strain of fighting the conventional World War III. In this version perhaps the US is triumphant, the Soviet Union collapses and it breaks of relations with France for its betrayal of the NATO alliance. France finds itself facing steep tariffs of its goods. The post World War III world resembles our actual history except that the United States is even more puffed up, its investment in modernizing its military has paid off. The Canadian Prime Minister is very irritated with the US as it launches an invasion of Cuba.
One side can back down in the face of the others aggression, figuring that it is better to let the aggressor get what he wants than go to nuclear war. (Better red than Dead)
One side can put up such determined opposition to the aggressor that the aggressor realizes that he can't intimidate with the treat of force and so loses his nerve and backs down. (The Cuban Missile Crisis)
One side puts up determined opposition, but the aggressor believes it is only for show and that if he only press a little harder he'll get what he wants from the otherside. Neither side loses his nerve and nuclear weapons are used. (World War III).
or
A conventional World War gets under way, but neither side uses nuclear weapons in a similar way that neither side used chemical weapons during World War II. (The was a book written by General Sir John Hackett called "World War III" which detailed that scenario. Based on that work a fiction writter, Harold Coyle wrote the Novel "Team Yankee" about a tank crew fighting the Soviets. The Soviet People turned against the Soviet goverment and overthrew it before World War III was able to go nuclear, this seemed unbelievable at the time, but in light of the actual events which ended the Soviet Union, this now sounds more likely that it could have happened)
It seems to me that we could have two versions of Twilight 2000:
In one version World War III goes nuclear,
And in the other it does not, in this version one side collapses due to internal revolution brought on by the strain of fighting the conventional World War III. In this version perhaps the US is triumphant, the Soviet Union collapses and it breaks of relations with France for its betrayal of the NATO alliance. France finds itself facing steep tariffs of its goods. The post World War III world resembles our actual history except that the United States is even more puffed up, its investment in modernizing its military has paid off. The Canadian Prime Minister is very irritated with the US as it launches an invasion of Cuba.
