Wanted: New Ideas on the end of the world.

[PapaGolfWhiskey]

I suppose you're right.
I've lived in one region (NW Ont) most of my life but I was born in Montreal, formed my earliest memories in a small town outside of Quebec city and taken courses (cadets, militia) travelled, or studied from coast to coast. There are differences and resentments and ... difficulties.

I guess it was my knee jerk "Maple Leaf Forever" patriotism speaking.

However, I think we are more alike than we different and we have a good country we'd be fools to break up.

Of course, No nation has a monopoly on fools much as we might wish otherwise.

 

[Ganidirsii O'Flynn]

Garf, my man, I can completely understand. My buddy's ex-wife was from Victoria BC and would constantly complain about "Quebecois this" and "Quebecois that"... until one day I asked her if she'd swap us for Texas.

Canada is a great country, and Cretien (or Cretin, as the Alberta papers call him) would be a damned fool to push this Quebec-separatist agenda too far. Even Ontario is getting fed up with their dung.

And for the record, God help me, I'm a Canucks fan...

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Ganidiirsi O'Flynn:
Garf, my man, I can completely understand. My buddy's ex-wife was from Victoria BC and would constantly complain about "Quebecois this" and "Quebecois that"... until one day I asked her if she'd swap us for Texas.

Hmmm..... tough call.... (I live in Ottawa, I may be a bit biased...

Canada is a great country, and Cretien (or Cretin, as the Alberta papers call him)

That name is common inside the Ottawa Valley too. In fact, it is usually preceded by "^%$#@@@&*!!!!!".

would be a damned fool to push this Quebec-separatist agenda too far. Even Ontario is getting fed up with their dung.

Separatist movements have three drivers:
1) Economics
2) A feeling of powerlessness and not being listened to by distant overlords
3) A few ideologs with an axe to grind

Alberta has a fairly substantial silent separatist movement. But keep in mind that this is mostly as a result of #1 and #2. If Ottawa didn't seem to present a threat to local prosperity with its laws and policies and if it gave the West a feeling of being listened to, #3 wouldn't matter for beans. Same in La Belle Provence.

And for the record, God help me, I'm a Canucks fan...

In nomine Patriae! Mon Dieu!

I thought they'd all been stomped out....

I'm a Sens fan though and I have to constantly deal with fans of the team from TO (may their name never be spoken....).

I too wish to have the country stay together (Gee, someone who joined the CF, a Federalist? Imagine that!). OTOH, the only way we'll achieve that is by having central gov't that appears to listen to the concerns of the provinces, not flip them the finger (not thinking of any P.E.T. trips... or was I?) whenever they express discontent.

And yes, there are idiots in every country. Unfortunately, they are attracted to the Idiot Nucleus that is Ottawa.....

 

[savage]

Eamon,
Multiple wars require US interaction. Allies require US materials...throughout the world. That means not so cheap effort. The US has always had concerns about south america and central america. Its called the Monroe Doctrine. And its the basis
for a free Americas with big brother keeping that way. But what if 2-3 govts changed and saw the opportunity for something facist. Perhaps even re-enforced by drug money.


On another note:
Breaking up Canada: why? I suppose I'd throw alaska in with the north western states but this (from memory) leaves the 2300AD future. I suppose destruction of the central govt might result in complete breakdown into smaller states...without a major govt

Savage

 

[Eamon]

Savage
Lack of resources would be a key element in all T2K games only the reason why would differ.
Examples:
Plague or Bio-terror lack of people or skills needed to gather or manufacture resources.
Nuclear War destruction of people,capital,or resources.
Failure of Alliances or Trade agreements
NATO dissolves or Trade barriers are erected that prevent resources being traded (This is what the US did at the start of the Great Depression).
Collapse of the World and/or national economies.
The Monore Doctrine was never really tested by any European power. But France did send troops into Mexico to recover money owed to European investors and to prop up Maximillan. This was never militarily contested by the US and the French troops left on their own.
When the US intervened in South and Central America during the early 20th century it was to prevent the nationalization of food crops,the so called Banana wars. In the case of Hatia it was to recover bank loans made by US banks. It was then governed by the US military for almost 3 decades.
The rest of the time as long as it had a pro-US government it could be a dictatorship run by murders such as Bastista,Sormoza,Papa Doc.
The Monore Doctrine may have a US policy but did not help any of the people south of the border.

 

[savage]

Eamon,

I see your point. But if Brazil were in danger of falling the US would most likely back her in one form or another. We would not want a facist country our own size on the southern continent. Especially if we don't control the canal.

The goal here, I believe, is to define the possible start of a 3rd World War that ends in attrition.
About any point, can be argued against. Then again who'd have ever thought that anyone would be sick enough to perform 9/11.

As the recession increases the US will have a serious inability to finance support for other nations. Thats the way to bring down the only
superpower. It requires 1/2 a dozen trouble causing third world countries (north korea, syria, iran, agrentina, chile) and rogue Great Powers seeking their own interests; India, China, Russia, and Mexico (included because of its large army).
-India vs China
-China (US & Japan) vs North Korea
-Mexico vs central america and eventually US
-Argentina/ Chile vs Brazil and north

German, UK, Turkey, Pakistan, Australia, and Canada might side with US policy but each would be involved in no more than one or two war.
-Germany, UK (w/ US) vs Russia
-Turkey (w/US) vs middle east
-Pakistan vs India

Where I'm really going with this is that no one problem of non-biblical scale would stop the only superpower. According to what I've read from military sites we could fight 3 different wars in the world without being stretched too thin.

So, if you concur I'd summarize the real outcome of our long thread...

1. biblical disaster - disease, famine, nuclear winter, meteors, wrath of god...results in resource wars.
2. Tech gone crazy - Terminator AIs kickin' butt
3. Magic Awoke -- Shadowrun, Reign of Fire
4. Alien Invasion - ID4, War of the Worlds, Battlefield Earth.
5. Multiple unrelated wars caused by religion, drugs and economic collapse(aka resources problems). The west is overwelmed and collapses.

Cheers,

Savage

 

[Eamon]

Savage
You are correct about the start of the war.
What we are trying to do is to describe the macro economy(world) and the effect it will have on the micro economy(local).
So pick the local area you want your players to fight in and then determine the resources you want them to have.
I like the choice of Brazil,a large country with the possibility of jungle fighting.
I had a US civil war campaign based on the 2000 election. The election was in dispute as it historically happened but then a series of terrorist attacks killed President Clinton,most members of the Supreme Court,some members of Congress. Al Gore becomes President as he legally allowed to do to serve out the rest of President Clinton's term.
When President Gore tries to appoint a new Supreme Court the Congress divides and delays the appointments. When Jan 1 rolls around Bush declares himself the new President and attempts to seize control but he is blocked by the Secret Service because the Electoral College has not certified the election results.
Meanwhile North Korea decides to take advantage and launches some SLBM destroying Pearl Harbor and most west coast cities.
Bush retreats to Texas and attempts to recurit other state Governors to his cause. Since most National Guard officers are political appointments they start to support different political factions. The US military stays neutral to the extant they will obey orders from President Gore as long as it involves the defense of the US or protecting US military property from being seized by a political faction.
Bush rejects all peaceful resolutions such as a new election. Thus a second Civil War starts.
It was interesting you mention drugs so in most of my campaign drugs become a really big issue. The pain of seeing so many loved ones killed drives many people into becoming addicts. Thereby reducing the chances of a national recovery.

 

[Gunner]

Originally posted by Savage:
According to what I've read from military sites we could fight 3 different wars in the world without being stretched too thin.

Actually, no.

The US Army is streched too thin now, with Iraq and Afghanistan. A recent report from the JCS (Joint Chiefs of Staff) to the White House stated pretty bluntly that the US military lacked the resources for a conventional military response to threats from either Iran or North Korea (which is possibly why we're now leaning toward a non-agression pact with NK). Of course, it didn't get much press coverage. I suspect the report was released late on a Friday for that very reason...

Although I agree with you that it is unlikely that, as you put it, "no one problem of non-biblical scale would stop" the US. Your #5, "multiple, unrelated military conflicts" is a good scenario and requires the least "hand waving". (Although a meteor is a good one too.) I know of one really good electronic story based on that premise.

 

[Ranger]

A large part of the logic behind the protracted war of the original T2K back story was to militarize US society. If you look at the sourcebooks you find a lot of National Guard and Reserve units. I have a feeling that was done to appeal to the non-military market for the game. You have to explain how everyone starts out in the military (at least in 1st eddition). If you have a Twilight War that forces total national mobilization, it explains why everyone is in the military.

Remember, the current US force structure is still based on an all volunteer force, and we have not even tapped 25% of the Reserve and National Guard forces available for call up. I think the Twilight War should build in a total mobilization of the US if you really want to re-create the original flavor of the game.

 

[savage]

I agree Gunner and Ranger...the draft would be back. Hence, I spread the pain in my scenarios. But think of the amount of effort in a Europe campaign by allied forces. Think of how the US military has changed its focus and all the work that would be entailed in getting back to the old campaign military force. If it even could?
Doesn't look like we're going to sign anything with NK. So the scenario stands. And hey which country in the modern world has broken more treaties that any other .... US.

The original game started in Poland where all of the players were part of the US military stranded behind enemy lines. I don't believe this indicates a significant militarization of the US. During the 1970s-1980s the Join Chiefs had extensive powers that were eventually changed. It allowed the civil war to occur. If we had a civil war today it would probably be based on class in our classless society.

So you have a rebelious, drug backed, mexican retired general as president... He rallies his troops and pushes towards the canal. The US begins to speak tough so he gets hispanics thinking about taking back what once was theirs...their could be other elements to this situation.

Savage