Wanted: New Ideas on the end of the world.

[PapaGolfWhiskey]

Originally posted by Sgt Biggles:
[QB]

I got a kick from the French response. Never did think boycotting French fries and French toast was overly bright. So I didn’t. Some people…….Anyway…..

I happened to be at work and thus, against my will, listening to broadcast TV when that rant was broadcast. My jaw hit the floor and my respect for CNN dropped further. It was a very ugly rant and hardly one likely to convince the proud french to change their stance. But I digress...

<snip>

Another thought crossed my mind. From news clips and the very limited association I have had with UN Peacekeepers, it seems there is a rather large contingent of Canadians, especially considering the size of your military. I have never heard a negative comment about Canadian servicemen and women who serve overseas. I cant say the same about US troops.

This is just me but I think Canadians have an awful lot to proud of in their, your, military.

Well... Since we like to think we invented the idea, It behooves us to put our money where our mouth is. Many of us ARE proud. Some of us are Ignorant and some are knee jerk peaceniks who have no use for what little military we have.

To include the RCMP into that mix goes without question.

More than you know. They use the Social Insurance Number (SIN) as an ID number exactly like the army does and draw part of their pay from the Department of National Defence. They began life as the 'Northwest Mounted Rifles' and played a role similar to your US Army (especially the Cavalry and Engineers) in the settling of OUR west.

Oregon has based its law enforcement training standards on the RCMP model. We regularly send state LE trainers to learn more.

I didn't know that. That's COOL. The Mounties know that they are among the best in the world but our Canadian (FALSE) modesty prevents us from crowing about it. Though we do look smug when we think no one is looking.

So how does it feel giving a basic course in Canadian Political Science? I have learned a lot. I appreciate the time you’ve taken to answer my questions. Keep it coming.

No problem, I come from a family of teachers and the pedant within me tends to turn me into one of the 'Cliff Clavin's' of the world. I love to talk to an appreciative audience whose attitude doesn't make my fists itch.

I'll keep posting if you give me a clue about what you'd like to know. There's sea of knowledge out their I'd like to put SOME focus into the InfoDump.

I will be off the boards for a week. My daughter is coming home from college and is bringing her boyfriend who wants to talk to me about marrying her. After we dance the swords and I am confident my ‘point’

has been made I may be getting a son-in-law. So we shall see.

Thanks again.

Welcome again. It was a pleasure. Enjoy your parenting. Single and aging, I kind of envy you.

 

[TKalbfus]

Originally posted by Garf:


Tom If you really want to provoke me into responding to your political commentary make your anti-Canadian posts on Random Static.

Just to set the record straight, I made no anti-Canadian statements. You simply interpreted my statements as such by reading between the lines too much. I merely suggested an alternate course of history that may have changed your perspective. In an alternate Universe I might have had this same conversation with a citizen of the Confederate States of America. "You know if the United States won the Civil War, we'd both be US citizens and your views on US foreign policy may very well be different." "You sir are being anti-Confederate, I have no desire to be a US Citizen, I am a Confederate and would appreciate you sticking to the subject of the root causes of the Second Great War!" I was merely suggesting a possibility equivalent to a potential Confederate victory during the Civil War. The mere mentioning of this does not constitute anti-Canadianism. I've defended myself now and now I'll shut up.

 

[PapaGolfWhiskey]

It occured to me that even my non argumentative posts are going off topic. They aren't really about generating a scenario for a revamped Twilight war. Accordingly I'm starting a new topic.

 

[Antares Administration]

Originally posted by Sgt Biggles:
Sorry another thought. How does France fit into the Canadian equation? Does the French government hold sway over any areas? If so, could those elements affect Canadian and US relations?

Canada has three major cultural groups of French origin. The Acadians are the oldest, and based primarily in Atlantic Canada. The Acadian Expulsion was the basis of Cajun (from Acadian) culture in Louisiana. The Quebecois are the largest group, inhabiting most of Quebec. They are the most politically active and independant of the groups. The third is the Western Francophone group, inhabiting pockets across the Prairies. This is the smallest of the three groups.

French relations with Franco-Canadians, certainly on a political/state-to-state basis, is a non-issue. All Canadian French cultures derive from the traditions and culture of pre-revolutionary France. Modern France is fully post-revolutionary Republican. During the turmoil of the American Revolution, the Acadians and the Quebec French were among the strongest supporters of Imperial British rule.

The Francophones, particularly in Quebec, might opt for independance, particularly in the absence of a strong central government. Their geographic position astride the St. Lawrence and close to New England markets would give them a strong economic position. However, the idea of a pan-Francophone Union involving European French and North American French cultures has no significant precident.

Paul Nemeth
AA

 

[Jame]

Testing to get on next page...

 

[Jame]

Tom Kalbfus suggested I post this here. It's a good idea, so I will.

How about a "Skynet" scenario a la the Terminator movies? One of the First World nations develops and releases an artificial intelligence, which starts a nuclear war to eliminate its (possibly national) enemies? And then starts manufacturing and releasing many, many combat robots to put the remains down...

 

[PapaGolfWhiskey]

I LIKE this as an idea for an alternate T2k setting. That and Reign of Fire would both be cool to try. Though Reign of Fire gave me a much better T2K feel, especially when MacConahey showed up.

 

[Eamon]

Since this subject seems to be closing out perhaps a recap. Apologies if I miss anything.
T2K Original:
Already lived though the decades so the edge is taken off. Can still work as a baseline for campaigns whether you stick with original story line or tweak the scenarios.
A realistic more updated storyline:
Same problem every realistic story line has,the nukes. Too many, too powerful, THE END.
Oddly enough with the 2000 election, you could have a plausible US Civil war. With perhaps 3 people claiming to be president (Clinton,Gore,Bush). There would probably have to be other crisis to make this work,with bio-terrorism or plague being the best.
The Soviet Union could not be played realistically since their conventional military had collapsed.
A realistic limited war:
A European war were parts of Europe are fighting other parts. With the US and USSR having limited military roles. Some possibilities.
Germany vs France (worked 3 times before)
A Balkan brawl (who allied to who this week)
England vs mainland Europe
An isolated Germany vs Poland
Bio-Terrorism or Megaplague:
This could best be used as a prequel story line. A way to introduce char from different careers into a group. This would leave most structures intact and what ever level of government you wish.
Asteroid strikes:
This would be like having a nuclear war, but the effects of the strike could be scaled up or down.
Alternate history:
Changing history in a major way such as a different end to WW2, or in a minor way to alter the amount of nuclear weapons. I really enjoy doing this to my campaigns. It has the advantage of knowing what has already been invented so I know what to give the players and when. Plus I could play a multi-generation game. (such as the Forever War)
The other ideas such as Skynet sound like fun and I am going to give them some thought.

 

[savage]

Eamon,

Good points all. But as I've said before a multi-war environment is the way to stop nato and the US. We're already seeing strain from Afganastan and iraq. It there were simultaneous with another one it would certainly weaken the US position.
Foundation:
1. US plunges deaper into a depression
2. A new militant russian movement (president or czar)
3. mexico with a new militant presidente
4. Argentina with a new militant presidente and a 5. economic collapse in brazil
6. the US tries to give the afgans to pakistan as a protectorate.
The World at War:
1. china vs russia
2. pakistan vs india
3. north korea vs japan
4. Germany/England moves to helps to secure Poland and the Ukraine vs Russia
5. argentina/mexico (&the drug lords) vs the americas
6. extremests attempt to take iraq and saudi arabia...the israelis step in.

Limited Nuclear Exchange:
There is no reason to assume that because we have a moment of sanity on a global political scale that this will be the future direction.
According to what I've read the russian icbm's were hardwired which is realitively unreliable.
The could have had a major failure in their launches against targets (say 80% failure). That would certainly result in a limited response.

I figure I'll draw up my idea and drop it on my website next month but for now I'm working on my
first T20 campaign.

Cheers,
Savage

 

[Eamon]

Savage,
I like your idea of a depression or recession. It would reduce resources to the military without the need of a nuclear war. The US military with their war plans for a 2 and 1/2 wars gets involve in several military actions around the world. But after the commitant of US forces realise they only have resources for 1 and 1/2 wars.
A major war could be between China and N.Korea vs US,Taiwan,and S.Korea.Fought on mainland China and in Korea this war would be convential and use up most of the resouces.
An attempted coup against a pro US Mexican President by a drug lord backed opposition leads to a Mexican civil war. US support is critical and could consist of FBI,DEA,Border Patrol, National Guard units, Special Operations, NSA, Cuban troops , native guerllias. All fighting a very "dirty war".
A limited war in Afganistan where the US backed forces only have enough power to hold Kabul and the surrounding terrority. A US brigade plus Special Forces hold onto the city and the airport.
Conducting raids and limited operations in the mountains. A low amount of supplies with airlift being the only consistent RSP. An occasional road convoy brings in the heavy stuff. This is a situation like Khe Shan during the Vietnam war.
Mercanaries could be hired on all fronts by the US.

 

[savage]

Eamon,

Thanks.. now the US becomes involved in several fronts throughout the world without the economy to support it (can we say Roman Empire).

The nuclear solution might be in front of us today.
If mexico's democracy goes facist backed by the cartels. Terrorists could buy direct access to the US border. Not from the gov't but anybody that needs a buck south of it... It becomes a nightmare. Next thing we have limited nukes throughout the world.

So, how many wars would start because the US couldn't play cop. Would pakistan and india mix it up?

Savage

 

[Eamon]

The US hasn't really intervened with US troops in South America since the 1930's. Other than trainers,Special Forces,CIA operatives. Unless there is a credible threat to the Panama Canel by Communist forces the US probably would not intevene in South American affairs.
The US has never cared about Southern Africa(the non-arab part)so troops would not be involved in any military action there.
The Middle East, as long as the oil flowed the US would only deploy enough troops there to protect their bases. The only potentialy hostile countries(after Gulf War 2) are Iran and Syria, neither of which seems to be causing trouble right now.
Asia
Aside from the convential war in China (in the last post). Pakistan and India have the greatest potential for a war,both convential and nuclear.
China might stir up trouble between the 2 hoping to siphon off some US forces. The US might send in Special Forces,Rangers, or air strikes to try to destroy both sides nuclear stockpile. Leading to another potential US theatre of operations.
Of course just because there no visible presence of US military doesn't mean there aren't any SF,CIA,DIA,NSA or US paid mercs operating any where in the world.

 

[Eamon]

The US hasn't really intervened with US troops in South America since the 1930's. Other than trainers,Special Forces,CIA operatives. Unless there is a credible threat to the Panama Canel by Communist forces the US probably would not intevene in South American affairs.
The US has never cared about Southern Africa(the non-arab part)so troops would not be involved in any military action there.
The Middle East, as long as the oil flowed the US would only deploy enough troops there to protect their bases. The only potentialy hostile countries(after Gulf War 2) are Iran and Syria, neither of which seems to be causing trouble right now.
Asia
Aside from the convential war in China (in the last post). Pakistan and India have the greatest potential for a war,both convential and nuclear.
China might stir up trouble between the 2 hoping to siphon off some US forces. The US might send in Special Forces,Rangers, or air strikes to try to destroy both sides nuclear stockpile. Leading to another potential US theatre of operations.
Of course just because there no visible presence of US military doesn't mean there aren't any SF,CIA,DIA,NSA or US paid mercs operating any where in the world.

 

[Eamon]

The US hasn't really intervened with US troops in South America since the 1930's. Other than trainers,Special Forces,CIA operatives. Unless there is a credible threat to the Panama Canel by Communist forces the US probably would not intevene in South American affairs.
The US has never cared about Southern Africa(the non-arab part)so troops would not be involved in any military action there.
The Middle East, as long as the oil flowed the US would only deploy enough troops there to protect their bases. The only potentialy hostile countries(after Gulf War 2) are Iran and Syria, neither of which seems to be causing trouble right now.
Asia
Aside from the convential war in China (in the last post). Pakistan and India have the greatest potential for a war,both convential and nuclear.
China might stir up trouble between the 2 hoping to siphon off some US forces. The US might send in Special Forces,Rangers, or air strikes to try to destroy both sides nuclear stockpile. Leading to another potential US theatre of operations.
Of course just because there no visible presence of US military doesn't mean there aren't any SF,CIA,DIA,NSA or US paid mercs operating any where in the world.

 

[Alathan]

I like some of Savage's ideas. Some ideas that I've played around with for a war in the 2015-2020 period include:

North Korea attacks South Korea, and the US & Japan jump in to support the South, while China jumps in to support the North. China also uses this opportunity to attack Taiwan to try to reclaim it, bringing it into battle with US troops over the island.

Scores of scenarios could bring about a war in the Middle East between Israel/US and many of the Arab nations. With US forces already in the Persian Gulf, it gives them a great launching point to almost any arab nation in the region.

Pakistan and India are just itching to go to full-scale war, and they're both packing nukes now as well. Pakistan might get limited help from the US in such a conflict in exchange for Pakistan's assistance in bringing order to Afghanistan. However, the tables could turn and the US could help India if Pakistan underwent a coup backed by ultrafundamentalist muslims willing to back Al Qaeda (an even more realistic possibility).

War in Europe doesn't seem likely these days, but a lot can happen in the next 16 years... governments can change, economies can change, so who knows who might start a new European war. It's not impossible.

Lots of other smaller conflicts could occur as well; US forces could travel to the Phillipines or Indonesia to fight Al Qaeda forces, for example.

PS: I'm sorry if some of these ideas echoed any previously posted in this thread, but I haven't had the time to read through all twelve pages. :-( But the idea of a completely revamped Twilight War does fascinate me, and I'm currently working on a scenario for a new campaign I intend to run soon based on many of the above ideas.

 

[savage]

Thank you Alathan. And I agree with the other comments based on the present status of EU.

Eamon,
I never suggested that the US would have full deployment in all fronts. Perhaps the english and germans are involved in some fronts. But Activities in SA would definately peak US interests with a change in government leaders.

All I suggested is that there are that many wars occuring throughout the world. More than the US
can participate in. Oh sure military advisers would work (at least in Merc:2000) but not necessarily a full US commitment. Where you need a US commitment would be 4 War Fronts. That of course we cannot get out of. Asia (NK), EU, Iraq, and central america. For the US to fail you need to do a Roman Empire. Spread too thin without an economy to support it for several years.

And about that EU war. It took 9/11 to get the US to spring to action. So someone hits the EU with a nuke in a population zone and its tied back to Russian extremist, terrorists...

In summary, if the street cop is busy, crime will happen. I think the collapse of the US itself into civil war is the element that would be different than the original.

Savage

 

[Eamon]

Savage
I understood that you didn't mean US involvement around the world. From past and present policies I was trying to project what US interests might be.
In games terms as long as you chose the location of your major war (Europe,China,etc). You could then fight in other areas of the world on a shoestring budget. Examples WW2 the SouthWest Pacific Area, the CBI area only received resources after Europe and the Central Pacific area. Post Vietnam the secret(and cheap) war the CIA tried to fight in Angola.
These smaller conflicts could be anywhere your players are, with the major war the reason they don't get all the air support and supplies they want.
A revised history of T2K starting in 2020 seems like a good idea.
China should have convential parity with the US by then.
Sorry about the multiple post I had problems with my connection that day.

 

[Specter]

Garf and Antares:

Partly off-topic, partly not. In reference to the comments raised WAY BACK in the thread about a possible Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia secession : with the general breakdown (game world), do you believe that this could occur, particuliarly considering the current talk of those 3 provinces creating a new country along with Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana (real world)?

THIS IS NOT TROLL BAIT!!! It would definitely provide a shock to newly arrived troops coming back from Europe... Unfortunately, I'm not good enough at scenarios to figure out any good ones that this would cause.

 

[PapaGolfWhiskey]

I'm not sure how far west I got in my (intended to be quick) overview of Canada thread.

but... I don't know. We Canadians talk about what divides us like a squabling couple but always seem to stick it out when the going gets rough.

World War three might be enought to break up Canada but, honestly, I think it would take something that big.. at least for my generation. I can't speak for my grandchildren.

 

[kaladorn]

Garf,

Not sure I buy that. Having lived in Belleville, Ottawa, Kingston, Dryden (you ought to know where that is...), Medicine Hat, and spent enough time in Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, Victoria and BCs LMD, I think that the West *has* some very serious gripes. As does La Belle Provence.

With the right (read: wrong) gov't in power in Ottawa, and a lot of external threats to wellbeing, wealth, and local control, I can see a Western Secession finally being a reality, as well as one from Quebec.

In the Twilight War situation, the Corridor (Montreal to TO) will be where the big population losses will happen and I'd expect a wasteland of gangs and Mad Max scenarios. Rural Ontario, the Prairies, and the Maritimes might do okay (the latter if it has fish back to snuff).

But keep in mind this big burg we live in is held together with transportation links, communication links, and a self defensive "I'm not American" response that passes for Canadian patriotism... not by broader ideology or equivalent concerns. I'm fairly sure with the right stresses, we'd come apart and everyone would be left saying "Wow, didn't think that was gonna happen...."

But that's just my 0.02 having lived in most areas of the country at one point or another and having seen how different they really are.