2300AD, thoughts and wishes

[Sturn]

Over 60 years after WWII ended, nobody's used a single nuke in anger, and that was from only two (small, by modern standards) nukes being dropped on two (small, by modern standards) towns in Japan.

If North Korea or Iran started slinging nukes, I completely believe nukes would be slung right back at them. Iran has even stated over and over again they wish to destroy Israel while at the same time advancing their own nuclear technology.

Would it really affect peoples' psychologies for 300 years? Sure, the consequences of wars we had 200-300 years ago are still there, but I don't think many people are genuinely concerned about...<snip>.....

But if it's a nuclear war on the scale described in T2000, it would be something that no war has ever come close to in world history. Nuclear arms stigmata might just hang on for several centuries. It's never happened on that scale. A near world civilization extinction scare would last for some time.

If I had to come up with a scenario where a state named Bavaria does exist, my only idea would be to split the German speaking territories in half, with one nation "Germany" in the north and another one named "Bavaria" and formed of Bavaria, Baden-Württemberg and Austria in the south.

I have to admit my reason for wanting Bavaria is biased. First, I wouldn't want 2300 AD to remove the Bavarian colonies. One more step towards something, "other then 2300 AD". Second, I'm American, but a large part of my ancestry is German, specifically Bavarian (a Bavarian shield hangs beside my desk). Add in my father and mother-in-law are Bavarian citizens and I love visting the place and it makes the idea of playing a future Bavarian colonist fun stuff.

Imagine a person from Texas hearing you were going to scrap the Texan Republic from 2300 AD.....

I think all this discussion is demonstrating that the Twilight War is too much hassle, and that it's better to skip over the thing by saying (as I think Sturn suggested) that "A big war happened, and things changed". The whys, wherefores and reasons are just not relevant to 2300AD.

I completely agree. Keep it generic. But, I still want the old war to be a nuclear one or it is another step towards Something Other then 2300 AD. Even though I want generalizations (for reasons stated above) you also may be forced to give enough detail to explains such things as Bavaria and Texas being independent nations. For example, I'm not sure if saying "there was a nuclear war for reason X and afterwards several new nations arose from the ashes" is enough. Players will ask why exactly nation X arose, why exactly is France now a power house, why exactly has technology not advanced much, etc. You are forced to explain some things in more detail.

 

[Mark A. Siefert]

I'm sorry for the grousing and moaning. The last 24 hours have been pretty lousy (i.e. I got suspended from work without pay over a trivial matter) and I wasn't in a very happy mood.

 

[Mark A. Siefert]

Imagine a person from Texas hearing you were going to scrap the Texan Republic from 2300 AD.....

The ironic thing is, given the U.S.'s current political climate, New America and the Texas Republic sound even less far-fetched now than the died in the mid-80s.

 

[rust]

Imagine a person from Texas hearing you were going to scrap the Texan Republic from 2300 AD.....

Being a Bavarian (although of the Swabian kind) I understand and appre-
ciate your feelings. :wink:

 

[Colin]

Speaking of the Texas Republic...



No, I won't get rid of it, though I do have trouble with the number of colonies they have, and the size of their navy.

 

[Sturn]

After some thought it could be somewhat generic, still have answers, and still remain true to the final results of 2300 AD:

Retarded Technology Development: A large-scale nuclear/biological "Twilight War" started by small radical nations that developed WMD weapons leads to near civilization extinction and winds the clock back technologically.

France as Superpower: France stepped forward out of the ashes to lead the world back to civilization.

US Loses Some Territory: A result of the US being one of the most devastated countries in the Twilight War combined with two distinct and divided cultures in America.

Britain not part of the EU: France leads the EU out of the ashes, but Britain....(need help here not Euro-smart).

Bavaria as a Nation: Another result of the Twilight War.

US and Aussie Alliance: As stated in 2300 AD, tantalum resources.

Etc.

Keep it simple in the 2000's. Only get more detailed with specific dates and events as you get to the 2100 and 2200's.

 

[EDG]

If North Korea or Iran started slinging nukes, I completely believe nukes would be slung right back at them. Iran has even stated over and over again they wish to destroy Israel while at the same time advancing their own nuclear technology.

Depends who they're slinging nukes at. I do not for one second believe that if Iran does develop nukes, then the first thing it will do is carpet bomb Israel with them (personally I think it's more likely that Israel would carpet bomb Iran with their own nukes first, but even then I doubt that would happen. They'd probably just start a conventional war over it). I think the reason that Israel is so nervous about it is that it would mean that they're not the only kids in the middle east with nukes anymore.

Nukes are good for threatening annihilation (and thus as a deterrent), but no government would actually want to be the first one to use them in anger. Govs like Iran and N Korea certainly spout a lot of hot air and rattle a lot of sabres about it, but it's all just politics. Though North Korea is arguably more dangerous on that front because they are totally unpredictable - they could actually lob a nuke at someone.

Even if a limited nuclear exchange occurred, I don't think anyone else with nukes would want to get involved in lobbing their own at one of the participants.

 

[rust]

Britain not part of the EU: France leads the EU out of the ashes, but Britain....(need help here not Euro-smart).

From a "continental" European point of view, Britain is still much closer
to the USA and its former Dominions than to "Europe", and any serious
conflict that would force Britain to choose between its trans-Atlantic and
its trans-Channel friends could well lead to its decision to leave the EU
- at least this is how it is often seen over here, and I suspect that it is
not seen that much differently by more than a few "Brits".

 

[Anonymous]

Of course as we know there is a new cold'ish war going on in Europe.
America has said it plans on making a missile defense system in Europe and Russia has stated that it will now re-target European cities.

This is the news and so not that different to change.

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

A limited nuclear exchange could escalate if one of the nukes lands in the wrong place. Imagine a Nuke headed to Israel that lands in Greece instead...

North Korea could be sending a Nuke towards the US, say Seattle, and hit Victoria Canada instead...

OR, suppose a terrorist group sets off nukes at approximately the same time in New York, Beijing, Moscow and Mumbai. I could see each of those countries responding differently and who knows how it might escalate before the (radioactive) dust settles... It only takes one trigger happy flyboy to launch a nuke at a supposed enemy and a full-scale exchange could begin, even today.

Such a scenario might also explain why those four nations in particular splintered when so many others didn't.

 

[Colin]

Victoria Canada instead...

:shock:

As I sit in my office looking towards Victoria's Inner Harbour...

 

[Colin]

The period of time from the turn of the century until 2050 was very turbulent, and few records survive. Virtually no electronic files survived the period of time now know as Twilight, due to a combination of warhacking and a variety of external damage to hardware and infrastructure. Though the records are fragmentary, there is considerable evidence of a limited nuclear exchange that engulfed much of western Europe, the North American east and west coasts, European Russia, northern China and parts of India and Pakistan. No nation survived this period unscathed.

Many nations fragmented into regions, more easily governed by decentralized agencies. In most cases, it would take decades, even centuries, for these shards of nations to reunite. On January 6th, 2048, the Twilight Era drew to a close with the impact of the Twilight Asteroid, a C-type asteroid approximately 200m across, into central China.

Alternatively:

In an attempt to unite (and distract) it's population, France launched the first of many space missions in the late 2040s.

By 2060, France, a surviving regional power, had jump-started its space program in Guyana, and was sending asteroid-watching satellites above the dust-laden murk of Earth's atmosphere. The manned asteroid diversion mission of 2071-2083 was the hallmark of this period, with France rushing into production ideas that had lain dormant since long before Twilight, scouring forgotten libraries and abandoned labs for the keys to ion drives, nuclear-thermal rockets, and a wide range of almost-forgotten space technology.

 

[EDG]

As I sit in my office looking towards Victoria's Inner Harbour...

You weren't the only one worried by that statement

 

[EDG]

Though the records are fragmentary, there is considerable evidence of a limited nuclear exchange that engulfed much of western Europe, the North American east and west coasts, European Russia, northern China and parts of India and Pakistan. No nation survived this period unscathed.

That doesn't sound very "limited"

 

[Colin]

As opposed to emptying the silos...

 

[captainjack23]

As opposed to emptying the silos...

Colin,

Does it have to be in our future? The kind of scenario you posit in the first situation could easily have happened anytime post 1962ish and before MIRV's were introduced. Arsenals were much much smaller and less reliable as that period gets closer to the cuban crisis. A pretty much full scale would not neccessarily be the extinction level event that one would get with, say an exchange in the eighties (Able archer anyone ?). Nonetheless it would clearly be a global disaster of unprecedented magnitude.


One advantage of an early start would be that 1. the silos emptied, 2. the subsequent arsenals would never have been developed (and arguably couldn't be with the destruction).

Granted, its an alternate timeline, but it also means that one isn't going to be rolled over by real world history.

whatya think ?

 

[rust]

Colin would probably have to delete India and Pakistan from his list
of countries devastated by nukes (no nukes there at this time), and
northern China could perhaps become somewhat less likely, but other-
wise I think it should work.

 

[EDG]

As opposed to emptying the silos...

I'm skeptical that there'd even be a particularly "limited" exchange of nukes at all. If it's a misunderstanding (misfired nuke) then if anything there'd be a period of "world holds its breath" while data is gathered and responses are formulated (see the immediate response to 9/11, which was basically "SOMEONE is going to get their asses kicked, as soon as we find out who to target" a.k.a "America at war with whoever the hell we're at war with" as The Onion put it).

But nobody's going to launch nukes en masse at anyone. The Cold War showed that, and nobody's going to muck around with "tit for tat" nonsense. There's still enough nukes around to destroy civilisation, and MAD is still "assured" as far as I know.

I just can't see any reasonable scenario in which things could get that out of hand. Conventional wars and airstrikes are much more likely (see the initial Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns for example), and a conventional Twilight War may be a possibility (most likely taking place in a theatre like the Middle East, or maybe east asia) but multiple nuclear exchanges aren't.

 

[EDG]

Colin would probably have to delete India and Pakistan from his list of countries devastated by nukes (no nukes there at this time)

I was under the distinct impression that both of these nations have nukes, or at least have tested them. They may not have a lot of warheads, but they did have some last time I heard (which is why people got somewhat nervous at the last bout of sabre-rattling they did across their borders).

 

[Anonymous]

Colin would probably have to delete India and Pakistan from his list of countries devastated by nukes (no nukes there at this time)

I was under the distinct impression that both of these nations have nukes, or at least have tested them. They may not have a lot of warheads, but they did have some last time I heard (which is why people got somewhat nervous at the last bout of sabre-rattling they did across their borders).

I think Rust was talking about at 1960's time peroid.