World War III anyone?

[Tom Kalbfus]

I don't know why you think only Western Powers use resources, I think China uses quite a bit. Who uses more resources, China or Brazil. Brazil is a western power as it is in the Western Hemisphere, China is not, neither is Australia.

I don't - not sure why you might think I did. The point I was trying to make was that resources are not dwindling - in fact, with new advances in extraction methods, there is a glut of many different resources - hence the falling oil prices. Because of that, I see wars fought over 'dwindling resources' to be a ridiculously unlikely scenario.

I agree, the Universe is huge, as for energy, there is E=mc^2 which is a lot of energy per kilogram, if we could just figure out how to unlock it. I guess I'm just overly sensitive to pointing their fingers at my country and saying that we're the "bad guys", I hear too much of that. I think that people in other countries do that because it makes them feel better about themselves. To tell you the truth, I enjoyed playing the old Twilight 2000 game, my character was driving around in an M1 tank in Poland, mowed down some Russian troops with machine guns, never did finish that adventure. I started playing 2300, didn't finish that scenario either, the GM kept switching games on us! I read the timeline of 2300 a bit later, didn't like the fact that we lost the Southwest and Texas, nor the fact that France became a superpower by acting like cowards during World War III. So what's the lesson in this, cowards win so long as their are some other suckers to do the fighting? Yet if everybody on one side runs away they all lose, we wouldn't be playing Twilight 2000 at this point but "Amerika" or "Red Dawn", basically a scenario where the Russians win the cold war, because the West was too cowardly to stand up to it.

My principle is this, basically I say to the Russians or whoever else has nuclear weapons and wants to conquer the World, "either you can destroy the world or not, but we are not going to let you conquer it!." I suspect that most of the time, the enemy does not want to start a World War in order to die, they usually have some other objective in mind, either they think we are cowards and will not fight, or they have some secret weapons that they think will neutralize our counter strike capability. If I was President of the United States, I'd put troops and nukes in Ukraine right now! I know the Russians don't want to die over a small piece of land. Nukes make an excellent defensive weapon, so long as they are never used, they are a psychological weapon mostly, they send a message to the Enemy that if they attack, they die, so therefore most sane enemies don't attack wherever they think the response will be nuclear if they do. What worries me is the insane enemy, one that thinks God is on his side and it does not compute for him that if they start a war, those nukes mean they would die.

 

[sideranautae]

I agree, the Universe is huge, as for energy, there is E=mc^2 which is a lot of energy per kilogram, if we could just figure out how to unlock it.

As for energy there is Thorium reactors. Enough fuel for MILLIONS of years, for the entire planet.

 

[Reynard]

Makes me wonder where is the fiction in science fiction when so many put down ideas based on their interpretation of real world situations. We're not discussing real world documentaries. Some of the trains of thought here have me believing WWI and WWII were impossible because no one in reality would ever do the events leading to them. Very confusing.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Makes me wonder where is the fiction in science fiction when so many put down ideas based on their interpretation of real world situations. We're not discussing real world documentaries. Some of the trains of thought here have me believing WWI and WWII were impossible because no one in reality would ever do the events leading to them. Very confusing.

If its not based in reality, its not World War III. World War III is supposed to be realistic, otherwise we could play Traveller.

 

[Reynard]

Why must WWIII be based on reality especially our so called reality? In this case, it's speculation on a possible future events. Unless someone can time travel, thus proving time travel is not science fiction, and observe such a world war then any creation of such a scenario is fiction. Science fiction isn't always space ships and zap guns. The events I presented here were in no way about aliens or zombies or robots. I speculated things happening now and extrapolating if they were to continue progressively or reappear that precipitate a major world wide calamity. And just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't make it impossible. That is often categorized as science fiction. The aliens and spaceships in a Twilight alternative take an extra 300 years.

We're supposed to be creating an interesting alternate world where one or more things go wrong concluding in a world war not an exercise in how none of our speculations can ever happen. I see that enough on other threads trying to prove nothing in Traveller is real.

 

[sideranautae]

Why must WWIII be based on reality especially our so called reality?

It doesn't. But, if you say that you think that WW3 will start because giant, pink bunny rabbits start devouring mankind, you might get a few WTF's?...

Just sayin'

 

[Reynard]

Don't remember inferring that anywhere in my post.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Why must WWIII be based on reality especially our so called reality? In this case, it's speculation on a possible future events. Unless someone can time travel, thus proving time travel is not science fiction, and observe such a world war then any creation of such a scenario is fiction. Science fiction isn't always space ships and zap guns. The events I presented here were in no way about aliens or zombies or robots. I speculated things happening now and extrapolating if they were to continue progressively or reappear that precipitate a major world wide calamity. And just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't make it impossible. That is often categorized as science fiction. The aliens and spaceships in a Twilight alternative take an extra 300 years.

We're supposed to be creating an interesting alternate world where one or more things go wrong concluding in a world war not an exercise in how none of our speculations can ever happen. I see that enough on other threads trying to prove nothing in Traveller is real.

Do you want to play Gammaworld? That is fantasy, so what is the difference between Twilight 2000 and Gammaworld, they both dealt with World War III.

 

[Reynard]

Have you ever played or just read the two? Same genre but totally different takes on science. They are both science fiction with no magic and such. Gamma World has always purposely been anything but hard science fiction while Twilight 2000 wanted to conjecture a realistic, futuristic event. Neither are fantasy. You want a mix of science fiction and fantasy, you go with Shadowrun.

 

[Rick]

If there was a message that came out of the Twilight 2000 background it was; "In a Nuclear War, NOBODY wins".

If I was President of the United States, I'd put troops and nukes in Ukraine right now! I know the Russians don't want to die over a small piece of land. Nukes make an excellent defensive weapon, so long as they are never used, they are a psychological weapon mostly, they send a message to the Enemy that if they attack, they die, so therefore most sane enemies don't attack wherever they think the response will be nuclear if they do.

I believe that there may have been a precedent for that event - 1960's I believe. The 'Cuban missile crisis' - almost exactly the same situation, only in reverse, and look how close we came to nuclear war then.
Nobody is saying America are the bad guys, nobody. Nobody is saying the Russians are either. Your post is more about refighting the cold war than about the current situation. You cannot play brinkmanship, or a poker bluff with nuclear weapons, Tom - sooner or later someone will call you on it, then you either have to back down and lose face, or start a nuclear war that would see billions dead. It doesn't take a crazy guy to call your bluff, Tom - just someone who thinks you'd never go through with it, and has been backed into a corner - then we're down to finding out which side will blink first.

 

[Anonymous]

Time to "call time" on this thread please.

What little connection it had with traveller had long since evaporated.

Please take the discussion to PMs

 

[Rick]

Time to "call time" on this thread please.

What little connection it had with traveller had long since evaporated.

Please take the discussion to PMs

Perhaps we could move the thread across to off-topic, but keep it open? Might still come up with something.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

If there was a message that came out of the Twilight 2000 background it was; "In a Nuclear War, NOBODY wins".

If I was President of the United States, I'd put troops and nukes in Ukraine right now! I know the Russians don't want to die over a small piece of land. Nukes make an excellent defensive weapon, so long as they are never used, they are a psychological weapon mostly, they send a message to the Enemy that if they attack, they die, so therefore most sane enemies don't attack wherever they think the response will be nuclear if they do.

I believe that there may have been a precedent for that event - 1960's I believe. The 'Cuban missile crisis' - almost exactly the same situation, only in reverse, and look how close we came to nuclear war then.
Nobody is saying America are the bad guys, nobody. Nobody is saying the Russians are either. Your post is more about refighting the cold war than about the current situation. You cannot play brinkmanship, or a poker bluff with nuclear weapons, Tom - sooner or later someone will call you on it, then you either have to back down and lose face, or start a nuclear war that would see billions dead. It doesn't take a crazy guy to call your bluff, Tom - just someone who thinks you'd never go through with it, and has been backed into a corner - then we're down to finding out which side will blink first.

You were looking for a way to start World War III, were you not?

 

[Rick]

True, I was - but given that the Cuban Missile Crisis is still a (fairly) recent event, I would think people would recognise the parallels and back away from making the same mistakes twice.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

True, I was - but given that the Cuban Missile Crisis is still a (fairly) recent event, I would think people would recognise the parallels and back away from making the same mistakes twice.

Who's mistakes? You think John F. Kennedy made a mistake? What mistake was that? I think the mistake made in the Cuban Missile Crisis was Kruschev's. You see the Soviets had this expansionist foreign policy back then, they were pushing Communist Revolution across the globe, and John F. Kennedy's foreign policy was to contain the Soviet Union. To put it simply the Soviets had the battering ram and America and its allies were building a wall. The objective of the Kennedy Administration was to prevent any of the Communist Revolutions that the Soviets were starting from succeeding, he basically was trying to keep the world as it is, and the Soviets were trying to change the political map of it. So really what choice did the Kennedy Administration have? They could either stand up to Soviet aggression or give into it. The parallel your trying to establish also breaks down when you compare what Putin is trying to do to Ukraine with what John F. Kennedy tried to do with Cuba. The Cuban Revolution was in 1959, John F. Kennedy took office in 1961. The first thing Kennedy tried to do was the half-hearted Bay of Pigs invasion, he sent in some trained Cuban Exiles and then abandoned them, they got no support from the United States, so it failed. Then the Soviets tried to move missiles into Cuba, the United States blockade prevented them from doing that, so the Soviet Union backed down. I think the Cuban Missile Crisis was necessary to show the Soviets what they can and cannot do. The Cuban Revolution was one of the Revolutions the Soviets sponsored, it was part of their attempt to change the political borders of the World, John F. Kennedy was trying to resist those changes and keep those borders the same. America was playing Defense while the Soviets were playing Offense, and its usually the one's playing Offense that are considered to have started the War, as it was in World War I and II, so it would be with World War III.

Do you seriously think anyone would say, American started World War III because it wouldn't let the Russian Empire get bigger. For better or worse Boris Yeltsin made the decision to let the former Soviet Republics become independent nations, and if Putin tries to take them back, that is for better or worse an act of aggression. Has Putin ever tried using carrots instead of sticks? No. Has Putin ever tried to join the European Union? No. Russia is used to playing the Imperial game, it needs to get out of that habit, a habit which usually entails acts of aggression to change borders to Russia's advantage, it is these acts which risk starting World War III, not the West's actions to stop them. Don't believe me?

Okay, suppose we gave Russia Ukraine, suppose we said Okay Putin you can take the whole thing and we won't stop you! How long would that put off World War III? When Chaimberlain did the same thing with Czechoslovakia, it delayed World War II by one year. Do you think it would make much of a difference if World War III started in 2031 instead of 2030? You know what's going to happen, Russia would move troops into Ukraine and up against the new border it has with the West, and then it will want some more land, just as Hitler did. Probably the Baltic Republics with large Russian minorities, give him that and he'll want more. The more land he gets, the more land he'll want, because he'll think of himself as the new modern day Alexander the Great, and he'll want to keep on going to make a name for himself in the annual of Russian history. the most dangerous thing of all is giving the Russian leader the idea that he could conquer with impunity, that is what risks World War III. So my question is how big of a Russian Empire will be enough to stop the Russian leader from wanting more? At what point do we say stop? Everytime we give in, the more likely it is that the Russians won't believe us later on if we say Stop. The ultimate end state is either we end up with World War III or with an Imperial World government with its capital in Moscow.

I'm about done here, my natural desire is to avoid World War III, because it would kill me in real life, but for the purposes of such a setting, I think I've shown how one could start as well.

 

[Rick]

America was playing Defense while the Soviets were playing Offense, and its usually the one's playing Offense that are considered to have started the War, as it was in World War I and II, so it would be with World War III.

There you are - brilliant, you answered the question very well.

 

[sideranautae]

True, I was - but given that the Cuban Missile Crisis is still a (fairly) recent event, I would think people would recognise the parallels and back away from making the same mistakes twice.

Who's mistakes? You think John F. Kennedy made a mistake? What mistake was that? I think the mistake made in the Cuban Missile Crisis was Kruschev's. You see the Soviets had this expansionist foreign policy back then, they were pushing Communist Revolution across the globe, and John F. Kennedy's foreign policy was to contain the Soviet Union. To put it simply the Soviets had the battering ram and America and its allies were building a wall.

I don't disagree however, one must consider the opposing viewpoint. The USA had just deployed land based nuclear missiles next to the USSR (in Turkey). In the Soviet leader's view, putting theirs on Cuban soil was tit for tat with the USA being the aggressor in that game.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

True, I was - but given that the Cuban Missile Crisis is still a (fairly) recent event, I would think people would recognise the parallels and back away from making the same mistakes twice.

Who's mistakes? You think John F. Kennedy made a mistake? What mistake was that? I think the mistake made in the Cuban Missile Crisis was Kruschev's. You see the Soviets had this expansionist foreign policy back then, they were pushing Communist Revolution across the globe, and John F. Kennedy's foreign policy was to contain the Soviet Union. To put it simply the Soviets had the battering ram and America and its allies were building a wall.

I don't disagree however, one must consider the opposing viewpoint. The USA had just deployed land based nuclear missiles next to the USSR (in Turkey). In the Soviet leader's view, putting theirs on Cuban soil was tit for tat with the USA being the aggressor in that game.

Do you think they actually believed that, or did they only say it to achieve some affect on the american body politic? Soviets haven't always been honest about what they thought, neither has Putin, Putin was trained to lie strategically when he was in the KGB. KGB people weren't know as honest and forthright people. The main problem the Soviets had was they felt they were on a roll after World War II, before World War II they were all by themselves, the world's only Communist State, after World War II, Eastern Europe fell into their lap, well actually they acquired that by pushing the Germans back into Germany, and unlike the United States and Western Allies, the Soviets did not allow free elections as they promised at Yalta, they were show elections or sham elections to hide the installation of puppet governments. The Soviets also acquired China and Cuba, they were on a roll, and felt they could conquer the World, especially after China! The Soviets felt they could steamroll right over the United States and its Allies, and it took the Cuban Missile Crises to bring them back to their senses. You understand that Khrushchev was removed from office by the Communist Party afterwards, actually he was the first Soviet leader not to die in office! I guess the Soviet leader (Stalin and Khrushchev) up to that time felt they were "Alexander the Great". The Soviets expected Kennedy to back down and the Cuban missile Crises show them that he wouldn't, it was a necessary standoff to bring the Soviet steamroller to a halt! The danger was more perceived than real. The Soviets wanted to conquer, they didn't want to die!

The greatest expansion of the Soviet Sphere occurred before the Cuban Missile Crises, afterwards they were more careful about testing the limits, there was Vietnam, and Afghanistan, those places weren't as strategic as Cuba, and longer range missiles and missile subs made those places obsolete anyway. Ukraine joining NATO doesn't threaten Russia as much as the Russians placing missiles in Cuba did in the 1960s, even a nuclear armed Ukraine wouldn't threaten Russia as much, as most intercontinental missiles don't need to be placed right next to the territory they want to attack anyway. the United States has missiles that can reach any point on the Earth from any point on the Earth, it doesn't matter where the missiles are based, it just makes the trip a little longer that's all if the missiles are based further away. in 2030, it would matter to Russia as far as its concerned about a nuclear attack from the West if their are missiles in Ukraine "pointed" at them or not, a missile from Kansas can hit them just as easily, what upsets them is the fact that Ukraine used to be Soviet territory, and Putin believes that anything that once was on Soviet territory should naturally belong to them. (or him by extension) Putin just doesn't know how to ask nicely, he likes to deliver ultimatums, he doesn't say for instance, "wouldn't it be nice if we formed an Economic block like the EU only for former Soviet Republics?" Putin likes to wave a big stick and make threats "join up with us or else!" or "Don't join the EU or else!" Putin doesn't seem to understand that they are separate nations, not pretend separate nations as the Warsaw Pact East Bloc was during the Cold War. the main fault of the US and its allies is it didn't recognize Russia's informal "sphere of influence" We treated each nation including former Soviet Republics as fully independent and sovereign and that is what offended Putin. The Russians said at the time they were fully independent and let them go, and we took the Russians at their word. the problem is we can't tell when the Russians are lying for propaganda purposes and when they are giving their honest opinion, so its easy to misjudge their intent.

 

[Rick]

lying

propaganda purposes

misjudge their intent

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

lying

propaganda purposes

misjudge their intent

Okay, why are you echoing me? is there a point to this?