World War III anyone?

[Reynard]

All robotic armies would be too easy to warrant EMPing the battlefield. Robots would need a LOT more refinement both physically and especially in the level of programming making them horribly expensive. As long as people are so willing to fight and die, leaders will make the most use of them with machines and equipment as support. There may be more guided drones but there will be no rise of the robots.

The last two world wars were hampered by the low level of technology. Even then the level of world wide destruction was immense. That's the point of a world war, use every means to win. That's why a third world war has always been a nightmare scenario because we have weapons that will make mass slaughter and destruction too easy without even considering the use of atomics. Each world wars is meant to be the war that ends all wars at any cost. The next one will never be a cutesy, conventional, sanitized robot war.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

All robotic armies would be too easy to warrant EMPing the battlefield. Robots would need a LOT more refinement both physically and especially in the level of programming making them horribly expensive. As long as people are so willing to fight and die, leaders will make the most use of them with machines and equipment as support. There may be more guided drones but there will be no rise of the robots.

The last two world wars were hampered by the low level of technology. Even then the level of world wide destruction was immense. That's the point of a world war, use every means to win. That's why a third world war has always been a nightmare scenario because we have weapons that will make mass slaughter and destruction too easy without even considering the use of atomics. Each world wars is meant to be the war that ends all wars at any cost. The next one will never be a cutesy, conventional, sanitized robot war.

I can think of nothing as expensive as a human life, you see, humans don't come off the assembly line as fast as robots can. If I had a choice of sending my son or a robot into battle, I'd send the robot every time. Will the battlefield reach a level of full automation? Well if that was so, it wouldn't be so much to play, so I think 2030 will reach a level short of that. If I can go 16 years into the past to 1998, even back then I could imagine a battlefield full or robots, yet the battlefield still has humans in it. Also robot factories are much like any other factory, their are supply chains that can be disrupted by bombing. In general, the rule would be the losing side would have fewer robots to fight with, in the event of a nuclear war, the battlefield will become lower tech, with people having to pick up old fashioned assault rifles in lieu of their broken and destroyed robots. Robots will still be a new thing in 2030, much as airplanes were new in World War I. I think what will see is a battlefield full of humans fighting and the occasional robot left over from the earlier higher tech phase of the war.

EMP attacks reduce the value of whatever the opposing force is trying to conquer, it would be kind of like a pirate ship sinking a merchant ship to the bottom of the sea, instead of boarding and plundering its treasure. One must keep in mind, whoever starts the war thinks he has something to gain. Wars are rarely started just for simple destruction, though sometimes they end up that way. The enemy wants to conquer Country X, but Country X's electronic devices make them something worth conquering and an EMP attack would reduce their value and might make the whole effort pointless.

To give a modern example, Putin wants to conquer Ukraine, he'll take as much as he can, so long as he feels the risk of starting World War III is minimal. World War III would start because someone tries to do what Putin is doing now, only he misjudges the risk of general war, the enemy was willing to fight, when he judged that they wouldn't. World War III is generally a fight for survival, it may have started as an attempt at conquest, but once the nukes start flying its hard to stop them.

One possible outcome is a nonnuclear World War III, it starts much like this. Russia tries to conquer a part of Europe, because it feels the other side won't fight, but they are wrong, instead of NATO breaking up and it being every nation for itself, the Alliance sticks together and fights it out. The first phase is the conventional war, this is fought much like World War II but with higher tech weapons. Eventually someone will be winning and losing this conflict. The side that is losing will have to judge which outcome is preferable, their being defeated in a conventional war, or their using nuclear weapons and dying! If I was Russia, I would seriously consider surrendering to the Americans over dying. The United States has a history of being generous to its defeated enemies, take Germany after World War II as an example, the leaders who started the war will much like to save their scrawny hides, so they will want to negotiate an end to it.

The Americans on the other hand would be more likely to want to nuke the Russians rather than be conquered by them, given the brutal history of what Russia has done to its conquered nations in the past. if it looks like America is going to lose and the enemy is brutal and chopping heads, taking no prisoners, some people might reason they they might as well launch the nukes as surrender would be as unthinkable as nuclear war in that case.

The advantage America has is that its reputation gives enemies a reason to want to surrender rather than fight to the death.

 

[Rick]

Sorry, Tom - I always seem to be disagreeing with you, lol! In this case, I think I really have to say something (or several somethings).

In the aftermath of the Berlin Wall falling, Nato asked Russia to support a unified Germany (something Russia has been against as has been on the receiving end of Germanic aggression several times), in return for a binding agreement between Nato and Russia that Nato would not move 1 step closer to Russia. Nato broke that agreement several times over and, in doing so, proved beyond doubt to the Russian mindset that it could not be trusted and has become an aggressor. You have to remember that Russians and Westerners do not think or see things exactly the same way - they see granting Nato membership to former Warpac countries as a belligerent act, an act of political and territorial aggression. It would be the same as if Russia had taken over Mexico, Cuba and Canada, then Hawaii and Alaska voted to join Russia - in that situation, the USA would feel besieged.

Now, I'm not being an apologist for Russia or its actions - what I am doing is trying to illustrate that the West doesn't really understand Russia very well, and vice-versa. Putin doesn't want the Ukraine - he has the Crimea, but he doesn't want NATO in the Ukraine either. Russia has been buying the Ukraine government since about 1991, the US has been funding the opposition since at least 2003; it has been a tug-of-war between the 2 powers over that time, with the Ukrainian politicians on both sides pocketing huge sums of money. Sorting out the mess that both sides have made of the Ukraine is going to be a nightmare, but I doubt very much if it will be a trigger for WWIII.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Sorry, Tom - I always seem to be disagreeing with you, lol! In this case, I think I really have to say something (or several somethings).

In the aftermath of the Berlin Wall falling, Nato asked Russia to support a unified Germany (something Russia has been against as has been on the receiving end of Germanic aggression several times), in return for a binding agreement between Nato and Russia that Nato would not move 1 step closer to Russia. Nato broke that agreement several times over and, in doing so, proved beyond doubt to the Russian mindset that it could not be trusted and has become an aggressor. You have to remember that Russians and Westerners do not think or see things exactly the same way - they see granting Nato membership to former Warpac countries as a belligerent act, an act of political and territorial aggression. It would be the same as if Russia had taken over Mexico, Cuba and Canada, then Hawaii and Alaska voted to join Russia - in that situation, the USA would feel besieged.

Now, I'm not being an apologist for Russia or its actions - what I am doing is trying to illustrate that the West doesn't really understand Russia very well, and vice-versa. Putin doesn't want the Ukraine - he has the Crimea, but he doesn't want NATO in the Ukraine either. Russia has been buying the Ukraine government since about 1991, the US has been funding the opposition since at least 2003; it has been a tug-of-war between the 2 powers over that time, with the Ukrainian politicians on both sides pocketing huge sums of money. Sorting out the mess that both sides have made of the Ukraine is going to be a nightmare, but I doubt very much if it will be a trigger for WWIII.

Firstly, that agreement was with the Soviet Union, which legally no longer exists. Any agreement with a state that no longer exists is null and void, as the Soviet Union is no longer around to uphold its end of the agreement. Russia is just a successor state just like Ukraine. Also Russia has got to stop acting as if it owns half of Europe, it does not. Those Eastern European states have not done anything to Russia, there is no reason for Russia to feel threatened by their joining NATO. NATO has never attacked Russia. NATO does not have plans to invade Russia. NATO is a defensive organization so smaller nations can band together to defend themselves against larger states like Russia, which has a history of aggression. If Russia don't like NATO, it should stop giving it a reason to exist by such acts as invading Georgia, and Ukraine. Also remember, they invaded Poland too. Russia is not really threatened by NATO, you know it and they know it, their chief motivation is to gain territory, they may say otherwise, but that is just propaganda. Russia has a habit of making up fictions to suit its purpose. The truth is, Russia can nuke us, but then we would nuke them and they would not achieve their objective, so they are not going to do this. This threatening is all bluster. What really starts a war is when they perceive weakness where their isn't any. The first level of escalation is a conventional war, the second level is an emp attack, chemical weapons or germ warfare, after that comes nuclear weapons, and when that happens, no one wins.

Nukes are entirely a defensive weapon, you can't win wars through their use if both sides are so armed. Europe is back to where it was before World War II, except with nuclear weapons. There's are no longer blocks of nations, each individual nation decides it's own foreign policy, NATO is voluntary, the old Warsaw Pact is not. The Warsaw Pact no longer exists, now it is just Russia vs NATO, and by extension Russia vs the rest of the World. China for example is not interested in a larger more powerful Russia, why should it be? China is right where it wants to be, it is Russia that is in decline, not them. Threatening and invading other countries won't reverse that decline and using nuclear weapons will hasten its end. Russia really needs to do something positive to reverse its decline, not threaten its neighbors. The Cold War map of Europe is gone, all we haw now is Russia and the rest of Europe, Russia thinks it is something special and it is not.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

To me Russia is just another Fascist state, it plays a role in the future World War III scenario that is similar to Germany's. Russia has abandoned Communism, today it is just an Empire run by a dictator that wants more land, it is basically "The Fourth Reich", a Russian Reich rather than a German one. I hope it doesn't come to World War III, playing soldiers fighting it out in World War III is one way to exorcise demons and fears about it, that is how I felt about Twilight 2000' as the year 2000 drew closer, we got a better idea of how it would be fought, and we also found out that it wouldn't be fought, so let's reset the board for World War III in 2030.

 

[Rick]

How quickly we forget our history - the Soviet Union didn't invade Poland - it was given to them by Britain and the US at the Yalta conference; after pushing the German's out of Eastern Europe, they just didn't leave!
President Bush Snr. Administration in 1989 was quite clear that the cold war was only going to end with the complete subjugation of Russia by NATO; hardly the words of a 'defensive organisation', an agenda that subsequent administrations seem to have been advancing steadily.

No - you have to realise that there have been fictions created on both sides; Russia has pushed anti-West propaganda and the West has pushed anti-Russian propaganda. Both sides have totalitarian democracies (despite propaganda to try and prove otherwise), both sides use an external entity to divert attention from internal problems and both have polarised MSM.

Frankly, looking at it from the middle, in Europe, there isn't much to choose from between the US and Russia; both are as equally bad as the other.

 

[Reynard]

"I can think of nothing as expensive as a human life, you see, humans don't come off the assembly line as fast as robots can. If I had a choice of sending my son or a robot into battle, I'd send the robot every time"

You have no choice. Recruiters wedge between you and your offspring quite effectively. Humans breed constantly so there's a constant supply at the right age all the time. The people in government, and yes business too, are more than eager to have others fight their battles and, as we see in the last few decades, it's very easy to convince they should fight (and die) for The Cause no matter how they're treated before, during and after their service. That is a very cheap investment compared to robots which are, and probably will be, quirky and vulnerable for decades to come. Sucks when we introduce 'reality' to a sci fi game. That's why it's more fun to develop plausible alternatives that are not as boring as the real world. If Twilight 2000 follows our time line, gamers would be saying "And when is SOMETHING going to happen?!"

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

How quickly we forget our history - the Soviet Union didn't invade Poland - it was given to them by Britain and the US at the Yalta conference; after pushing the German's out of Eastern Europe, they just didn't leave!

I'm talking about September 17, 1939, When Russia invaded Poland after the Germans took the first bite at the start of World War II. Also if you recall, the United States wasn't the one that was changing borders after World War II, all the borders on our side of Europe remained the same as the 1930s, we didn't redraw the borders of France or Italy, Russians sure did a number on Poland and East Germany though! I have no time, have to go to work!

President Bush Snr. Administration in 1989 was quite clear that the cold war was only going to end with the complete subjugation of Russia by NATO; hardly the words of a 'defensive organisation', an agenda that subsequent administrations seem to have been advancing steadily.

No - you have to realise that there have been fictions created on both sides; Russia has pushed anti-West propaganda and the West has pushed anti-Russian propaganda. Both sides have totalitarian democracies (despite propaganda to try and prove otherwise), both sides use an external entity to divert attention from internal problems and both have polarised MSM.

Frankly, looking at it from the middle, in Europe, there isn't much to choose from between the US and Russia; both are as equally bad as the other.

 

[Rick]

Ok. You can continue that thought when you get back! I think we should try to keep the focus on post-WWII history though, or we'll be debating the relative merits of WWII German occupation vs later Russian occupation (a particularly depressing topic).

 

[Reynard]

Yeah, that's the other game Mongoose is promoting.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Ok. You can continue that thought when you get back! I think we should try to keep the focus on post-WWII history though, or we'll be debating the relative merits of WWII German occupation vs later Russian occupation (a particularly depressing topic).

I'm just suggesting that Russia is the traditional "bad guy" it is just a bad habit they have, they don't get democracy, and when they do get to choose their leaders, they tend to choose despotic ones that are grasping for power and always looking for wars to grab even more, and it is not really safe to be around such a country, just ask Georgia and Ukraine about that. In response to Reynard, I don't think the United States in anyway wants to go to war, especially World War III, as you may recall we were reluctant to get involved with the last two.

Okay, enough of the politics, suffice to say someone starts World War III, that someone probably miscalculated, didn't think it would go that far, and saw the West as weak and assumed that it would back down in the face of their aggression and they did not, the result is World War III. The traditional theater of World War III is in Europe, the frontlines start out further to the East than in Twilight 2000, a weakened Russia lashes out on a desperate gamble for military conquest, the strategy is a single battle much like the battle of the bulge, the objective it to knock out NATO, prove it ineffective and thus break it apart, then Russia can gather its sphere of influence and reassemble the old Soviet Union or Russian Empire.

 

[Rick]

Hmm - Georgia/South Ossetia and Ukraine are far murkier subjects than a mere 'land grab' but still. The US doesn't want to go to war - however, Henry Kissinger put it well when he said that "USA plays poker, Russia plays chess" - the USA will run a bluff, knowing that other opponents in the past have never called them. Russia just might, then we might have a bit of a problem.

I still think the least unlikely scenario for triggering WWIII would be a terrorist (of some stripe) using a briefcase nuke somewhere - Israel probably for a worst-case scenario; Israel then uses its nukes on, say, Iran and things get very nasty. Iran has strong links with Russia, China and India - Russia need not get involved for things to escalate; don't forget, India was given nuclear capability by the USA, whilst Pakistan got theirs from China. Israel has never officially confirmed having them, but leaked documents after South Africa disposed of their nukes (bought from Israel) proved that they, also, got the capability from the USA. It may well be the smaller nuclear club members that trigger a nuclear war, not the big 2.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Hmm - Georgia/South Ossetia and Ukraine are far murkier subjects than a mere 'land grab' but still. The US doesn't want to go to war - however, Henry Kissinger put it well when he said that "USA plays poker, Russia plays chess" - the USA will run a bluff, knowing that other opponents in the past have never called them. Russia just might, then we might have a bit of a problem.

I still think the least unlikely scenario for triggering WWIII would be a terrorist (of some stripe) using a briefcase nuke somewhere - Israel probably for a worst-case scenario; Israel then uses its nukes on, say, Iran and things get very nasty. Iran has strong links with Russia, China and India - Russia need not get involved for things to escalate; don't forget, India was given nuclear capability by the USA, whilst Pakistan got theirs from China. Israel has never officially confirmed having them, but leaked documents after South Africa disposed of their nukes (bought from Israel) proved that they, also, got the capability from the USA. It may well be the smaller nuclear club members that trigger a nuclear war, not the big 2.

You know what this sounds like? Back in the 1970s there was a television show called the Prophesies of Nostradamus: The Mabn who Saw tomorrow it was hosted by Orsen Wells, here is the revelevant part from the Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_Who_Saw_Tomorrow

A "King of Terror", wearing a blue turban, described as "the terror of mankind", would rise to power from Greater Arabia during the late 1990s, wage war around the world and spread the influence of Islamic fundamentalism, along with the decreasing influence of Christianity. Nostradamus claims that the "King of Terror" would form an alliance with Russia. According to Nostradamus, the "King of Terror" and Russia would wage World War III against the Western world (United States, United Kingdom and France), starting with a nuclear strike on New York City ("the sky will burn at 45 degrees, fire approaches the great new city"). Nostradamus claims that World War III would last about 27 years, and the war would destroy cities and kill millions. The "King of Terror" would be defeated.

After World War III, there will be a "peace of a thousand years".

End of the world would be the year 3797 A.D.

Here is the link to the movie if you want to watch it.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081109/
Just to make clear, I'm not a big fan of prophesy, but the scenario described above seems fairly similar to the one you described.

 

[Rick]

Nostradamus' so-called 'prophecies' can be made to read however the reader wishes, if they twist them; and those things have been twisted and garbled out of all recognition. Frankly, you'd have better luck predicting the future by 'interpreting' your last shopping list than either Nostradamus or the Book of Revelations, another popular topic amongst the 'End of Days' Doomsday cultists.

And, to make it clear, the scenario described above is not the scenario described above; it's about 5 or 6 separate and scattered verses in Nostradamus' prophecies that don't seem to belong together. For each of those verses there appears to be about 4 or 5 wildly different translations with more 'interpretations' than you could imagine - none of which appear to even remotely agree with each other.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Nostradamus' so-called 'prophecies' can be made to read however the reader wishes, if they twist them; and those things have been twisted and garbled out of all recognition. Frankly, you'd have better luck predicting the future by 'interpreting' your last shopping list than either Nostradamus or the Book of Revelations, another popular topic amongst the 'End of Days' Doomsday cultists.

And, to make it clear, the scenario described above is not the scenario described above; it's about 5 or 6 separate and scattered verses in Nostradamus' prophecies that don't seem to belong together. For each of those verses there appears to be about 4 or 5 wildly different translations with more 'interpretations' than you could imagine - none of which appear to even remotely agree with each other.

I know, but the scenario put together by that show after interpreting Nostradamus' prophesies seems eerily reminiscent of the situation we're facing today with ISIS, and the 27 year long World War III was unbelievable when I first heard of it, till we got to the War on Terror, which began on 9/11/2001 and seems to have been going on since, if we interpret that to be "World War III", after all the War on terror spans the globe, then World War III could be said to be going on now. I know its probably a coincidence, but still the scenario, however the show obtainied it, seems realistic, they just got the dates wrong.

 

[Rick]

Tom, the date in Nostradamus' verse was 1999 and 7 months - no match.

The 'War on Terror' is purely American - the UK have been fighting terrorists operating in Britain for far longer (late '60's-'70's), same with Germany and other countries, so much, much longer than 27 years - no match.

You can rip the verses apart and stick 'em back together in any order you like, but unfortunately there is still no match.

Let's just put the prophecies aside now, eh? Before you tell me that you know who the man in the blue turban is? :twisted:

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Tom, the date in Nostradamus' verse was 1999 and 7 months - no match.

The 'War on Terror' is purely American - the UK have been fighting terrorists operating in Britain for far longer (late '60's-'70's), same with Germany and other countries, so much, much longer than 27 years - no match.

You can rip the verses apart and stick 'em back together in any order you like, but unfortunately there is still no match.

Let's just put the prophecies aside now, eh? Before you tell me that you know who the man in the blue turban is? :twisted:

The prophesies don't have to be true in order to be credible. You see the timeline for Twilight 2000 wasn't correct either, as World War III didn't occur. I don't really care whether Nostrodamus predicts real future events accurately or not, all that matters is whether it could happen, and I don't care about going right to the source either, I'm talking about the interpretation of the prophesies arrived at by that show and the scenario presented at the end, I really don't care about what quatrains Nostradamus actually wrote, I'm talking about the predictions in the show, how ever they were arrived at! If the dates don't match or aren't precise so what. I use the shows future timeline the same way I use George Friedman's Book, The Next 100 Years. It makes no difference to me whether the predictions are the result of forecasting or prophesy, so long as the scenarios presented could happen.

By the way 1999 and 7 months is pretty close to September 11, 2001, for a man who lived in Nostradamus' day. As for New York getting nuked, that could still happen, only to me, its more likely to happen towards the end of a 27 year long Third World War than towards the beginning. You see the destruction of New York City and the deaths of 8 million people would inspire the United States into actions that it had not considered up to that point. For instance, I wouldn't want to be a Muslim in America after the destruction of New York City by a Muslim made nuclear bomb, I would suspect their would be a lot of mobs out and about looking for revenge against any Muslim they could find. As Nostrodamus presents it, the war is fought for 27 years, and I cannot believe that ICBMs could be flying for that long. A more credible scenario is a terrorist threat that grows and grows, forming an Islamic State that then develops nuclear weapons and starts to use them, after that happens, the Islamic State quickly loses, because then it becomes total war instead of asymmetrical warfare. A state that has just been nuked by the enemy is likely to no longer care about enemy civilian causalities, human shields, or hostages, they could chop as many heads as they like, and it won't stop the United States from trying to kill them. they could hide in the most densely populated cities in enemy territory and the United States is just going to nuke those cities to get rid of them, in the end there will be a "desert called peace". the reason why the way lasts 27 years is our prior concern about avoiding civilian causalities, if a nuke is used, then that consideration falls to the wayside.

As for Britain's war against the IRA, that was a local conflict, not a World War. The IRA did not fight all over the world. The IRA was specific to Ireland only, it wasn't an international organization like Al Qaeda or ISIS. Arabs identify by religion, Europeans identify by nation, that is the rule I believe. There is very little difference between an Arab living in Egypt, an Arab living in Syria, or an Arab living in Jordan, they speak the same language, and they move across borders hardly caring what their nation is called, that is why Al Qaeda was able to recruit so many people. the IRA by contrast has only been able to recruit Irish, there are very few French or Germans who are IRA members if any at all. The French don't really care about Irish independence, it doesn't concern them.

 

[Rick]

Ok - then get rid of the whole 'Nostradamus' thing, and let's see.

Your scenario is that WW3 starts in 2001, goes on until 2028, and some time before the end, a terrorist bomb nukes New York city. Following that, the USA nukes every Muslim city on the planet in order to wipe out potential threats once and for all. Oh, and hunts down and kills Muslim's at will, in essence wiping out entire races and an entire religion, about 1.7 billion people.

That anywhere close?

 

[Rick]

As for Britain's war against the IRA, that was a local conflict, not a World War. The IRA did not fight all over the world. The IRA was specific to Ireland only, it wasn't an international organization like Al Qaeda or ISIS. Arabs identify by religion, Europeans identify by nation, that is the rule I believe. There is very little difference between an Arab living in Egypt, an Arab living in Syria, or an Arab living in Jordan, they speak the same language, and they move across borders hardly caring what their nation is called, that is why Al Qaeda was able to recruit so many people. the IRA by contrast has only been able to recruit Irish, there are very few French or Germans who are IRA members if any at all. The French don't really care about Irish independence, it doesn't concern them.

Northern Ireland was a religious sectarian conflict; the IRA identified with the Catholic minority, the loyalists with the Protestant majority. The IRA recruited mainly Irish, had links to world-wide terrorist groups, was funded, in part, by American-Irish and had training camps in Libya.

The Middle East is a religious sectarian conflict, Al-Qaeda and IS identify with the Sunni fundamental orthodox majority (albeit a radical group), whilst the current govt. in Iraq are fundamental orthodox Shia minority, as is Iran.
The Baathist party in Iraq was an inclusive progressive moderate government, as is the government of Assad's Syria (the uprising against Assad was started by an Al-Qaeda splinter group).
The governments of all of the other Middle Eastern states are fundamental orthodox Sunni (although Saudi Arabia and Jordan are a bit more progressive). To put it in perspective, the Taliban were also fundamental orthodox Sunni.
The USA has got itself firmly mired in the middle of a sectarian feud that has gone on since the death of Mohammad, between the Sunni majority and the Shia minority.
The reason that IS has been so successful at recruiting fighters from other parts of the world is that they are also Sunni's and can plainly see that their enemies, the Shia, have allied themselves with the USA.
The Kurds, like the Sufi's, see themselves as a separate group than either the Sunni or Shia. Saladin, who successfully fought against the crusading armies in the 12th century, was himself Kurdish.

 

[Reynard]

I just viewed, and responded to, the WWII threads. We already have a wild west source and soon to have the pirate era. I realized another project would be continuing military timelines with a new and revised Twilight 2000 bridging the historical with the What If future of WWIII and filling the gap to 2300AD series.