World War III anyone?

[Reynard]

Have you browsed Scoundrel?

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Too bad our President doesn't like Kurds, he doesn't want to help them, he wants to help the Shiite government in Iraq instead. I myself think, if Iraqis weren't willing to fight for their country when we gave them so much training and equipment, then Iraq doesn't deserve to exist, they had their chance, thanks to the sacrifice of our soldiers, and the Iraqis blew it.

He's not allowed to like Kurds - Turkey would quit NATO if he did. He's not allowed to like Syria or Iran either, or he'll lose Israel.

Turkey is already effectively gone, so long as its run by that Islamist government, it is not really an ally, much as France wasn't during the original Twilight 2000 timeline. What the Islamists need in order to conclude the war is a sense that they've been defeated, much as Japan was, it is not necessary to kill them all, just give them a sense that they can't win if they continue, they need to lose hope over their eventual victory over the West, just as Japan lost hope at the end of World War II, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were instrumental towards that end, the feeling was that if they kept fighting the United States, we would have killed them all, one city at a time, that brought about Japan's surrender, in a similar fashion World War III would end, it doesn't have to be with atomic bombs necessarily, all it has to do is remove that false light at the end of the tunnel about their inevitable eventual triumph over the west, take the wind out of their sails, they may think the United States might collapse if they destroy one of our cities, but if it does not, if we can defeat their other nuclear strikes and keep on coming, they may get a sense of doom, and try to make the best outcome for themselves by surrendering, much as the Germans and Japanese have during World War I.

 

[sideranautae]

So.... do we start WWIII with nukes or religious pamphlets?

:lol:

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

So.... do we start WWIII with nukes or religious pamphlets?

:lol:

Nukes are the last thing.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

I don't know about timelines, the Nostradamus timeline just one idea. I'd think I'd rather have a World War III who's main theater is set in Europe, rather than the Middle East, I'd like to have a bit of high tech "World War II action" with maybe a limited nuclear exchange at some point. Russia is the obvious adversary in this, its not the superpower it used to be however. I think the frontline would be further to the east that it was for Twilight 2000, probably in the Ukraine region. I think the most likely scenario is a Russian Civil War, NATO gets involved in one side of it, say a bunch of Democratic Reformers, the hardliners that want to keep their power are on the other side, and they get a hold of some nukes, so unlike the breakup of the Soviet Union, this doesn't end peacefully.

Scenario 2: Russia tries to take the Baltic Republics making up some claim that ethnic Russians are being persecuted and need rescuing, so in go some Russian tanks, and they expect other NATO members to acquiesce and they don't. A war ensues, one which may go nuclear or may not. It could take place in Poland like the original Twilight 2000, only this time instead of NATO invading a Warsaw Pact country, we have Russia invading a few NATO countries.

 

[Rick]

You're right, Russia isn't the superpower it used to be; it's a lot more high-tech than it used to be. In the original Twilight War scenario, western tanks were at least 1 generation ahead of the Russians, these days, they have at the very least, parity - with the Anti-Missile systems fitted to all of their tanks, they may well be far superior.

The most likely scenario would be NATO forces pushing into the Ukraine to help them liberate Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea, probably from Poland and Turkey. That would result in a shooting war with Russia, but it would be about the only way it would happen.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

You're right, Russia isn't the superpower it used to be; it's a lot more high-tech than it used to be. In the original Twilight War scenario, western tanks were at least 1 generation ahead of the Russians, these days, they have at the very least, parity - with the Anti-Missile systems fitted to all of their tanks, they may well be far superior.

The most likely scenario would be NATO forces pushing into the Ukraine to help them liberate Donetsk, Luhansk and Crimea, probably from Poland and Turkey. That would result in a shooting war with Russia, but it would be about the only way it would happen.

Yeah, I know, Putin is a peaceful dictator, wouldn't hurt a fly. As for the Eastern Ukrainians, they just love being ruled by a dictator like him, just like the Austrians of 1936 voted to become German citizens, cause they just had too much democracy in Austria at the time and couldn't stand it! They wanted an iron-fisted dictator instead, one that could suspend anyone's rights on a whim line them up against a wall and shoot them.

No not really! What does Putin want? Like all dictators he wants power, and the people he has power over, the more power he has, he gets their tax revenue and he can build more "toys" ahem weapons for conquering his neighbors with. So lets examine your scenario in a little more detail. You see the NATO countries which are democracies have citizens and they badger their politicians to get into a shooting war with Russia because they just love dying on the battlefield, and there was so much pressure born on the politicians they relented and said, "Okay we'll send some troops into Russian occupied Ukraine and start shooting at Russian citizens, oh and we require that all of our soldiers grow mustaches so they look properly villainous, cause were the bad guys don't you know."

No not really, its more likely that Putin wants bigger country, and he'll gladly sacrifice Russian citizens to get it, its not like he has to face a real reelection or anything, nah, he's a dictator after all! Hitler didn't mind spilling a bit of German blood, after all, they were his peons to do with what ever he wanted. Oh and one detail Putin is in his sixties, add another 16 years he'll be in his eighties, probably someone else will be "President" in his stead.

I think the rule stands that democracies are more reluctant to go to war than dictators are, with the caveat that if the majority population of a country is Muslim, it could be otherwise. So your scenario would depend on most of Europe having a majority Muslim population by 2030 and their all wanting to wage a Jihad against Russia cause its Christian. So how likely is that scenario. Europe would have to have a lot of immigration from the Middle East to make this happen.

 

[Rick]

A very silly post!
Look at where Russia is building up it's presence - hint, it isn't in Ukraine or near Ukraine. Look at where Putin's reopened military bases, transferred whole divisions, built new installations and revamped the naval and air patrols - hint, it isn't in Ukraine or near Ukraine.
It started in 2008 and has been slowly building since then; a little here, a little there - nothing too big all in one go, just building up one piece at a time and Russian Arctic Command will go active in December.
Now go and look at exactly what land military forces Russia has emplaced on the Kola peninsula and along the huge Arctic coastline; look at how much of the Northern fleet has been overhauled and reactivated - look at where exactly the Northern fleet is patrolling and look at where the greatest concentrations of air overflights have been. Russia has everything it wants in the Black sea region - it has never been about the territory, it has always been about resources. Russia intends to claim a big chunk of the Arctic, hold it and use it's resources - estimates show that there are huge untapped reserves in that region.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

A very silly post!
Look at where Russia is building up it's presence - hint, it isn't in Ukraine or near Ukraine. Look at where Putin's reopened military bases, transferred whole divisions, built new installations and revamped the naval and air patrols - hint, it isn't in Ukraine or near Ukraine.
It started in 2008 and has been slowly building since then; a little here, a little there - nothing too big all in one go, just building up one piece at a time and Russian Arctic Command will go active in December.
Now go and look at exactly what land military forces Russia has emplaced on the Kola peninsula and along the huge Arctic coastline; look at how much of the Northern fleet has been overhauled and reactivated - look at where exactly the Northern fleet is patrolling and look at where the greatest concentrations of air overflights have been. Russia has everything it wants in the Black sea region - it has never been about the territory, it has always been about resources. Russia intends to claim a big chunk of the Arctic, hold it and use it's resources - estimates show that there are huge untapped reserves in that region.

The UN Law of the Sea forbids claiming any oceans, and the Arctic Ocean is an Ocean, and the only way they can make it a Russian Lake is by conquering Canada, Alaska, Greenland, Iceland, and Scandinavia. Besides, I don't know what the Arctic Ocean has that the other three Oceans don't have more of, except ice. The Arctic Ocean is the smallest of the four oceans, I don't see how Russia could conquer all of it, and attempting to conquer Alaska or Canada would get it into a nuclear war with the United States. I don't think Putin or his successor is a fanatic who wants to die for Allah, I don't think he will undertake any action that he knows will lead to nuclear war, and invading North America is one way to start one.

 

[Rick]

Re-read the law. It allows the claiming of territorial waters by a country on its continental shelf - a law that has been enforced rigidly by the US since 1945. Now there is some confusion as to exactly how far under the ice Russia's continental shelf extends - it probably isn't ALL the way to the North Pole, for example, but it is a very large chunk of it.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Re-read the law. It allows the claiming of territorial waters by a country on its continental shelf - a law that has been enforced rigidly by the US since 1945. Now there is some confusion as to exactly how far under the ice Russia's continental shelf extends - it probably isn't ALL the way to the North Pole, for example, but it is a very large chunk of it.

Well Antarctica is on a continental shelf too, and its a continent, what if the United States claims that?

 

[Rick]

As defined by the UNCLOS, states have ten years from the date of ratification to make claims to an extended continental shelf. On this basis the five states fronting the Arctic Ocean - Canada, Denmark, Norway, the Russian Federation, and the U.S. - must make any desired claims by 2013, 2014, 2006, and 2007 respectively. Since the U.S. has yet to ratify the UNCLOS, the date for its submission is undetermined at this time.

From Wiki.
Of course the US can't - point 1 - it is nowhere near the US continental or extended continental shelf even if the US had ratified the agreement like it was supposed to. Point 2 - under the Antarctic Treaty, no military activity of any kind is allowed there, only research. There is a complicated system, supported by the 50 signatory countries to ensure that everyone abides by the treaty.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

As defined by the UNCLOS, states have ten years from the date of ratification to make claims to an extended continental shelf. On this basis the five states fronting the Arctic Ocean - Canada, Denmark, Norway, the Russian Federation, and the U.S. - must make any desired claims by 2013, 2014, 2006, and 2007 respectively. Since the U.S. has yet to ratify the UNCLOS, the date for its submission is undetermined at this time.

From Wiki.
Of course the US can't - point 1 - it is nowhere near the US continental or extended continental shelf even if the US had ratified the agreement like it was supposed to. Point 2 - under the Antarctic Treaty, no military activity of any kind is allowed there, only research. There is a complicated system, supported by the 50 signatory countries to ensure that everyone abides by the treaty.

Well if Russia won't respect Ukraine's territorial integrity as it signed a treaty to do precisely that in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons, well I say one bad turn deserves another. Russia is also helping the Iranians to get nukes. If Iran gets nukes, what say nukes suddenly "appear" in Ukraine too? If Russia adds one nuclear power on their side of the ledger, I say we add one on our side. Actually we should do two since North Korea has nukes as well, and they weren't supposed to have them, I say we give nukes to Poland, and then we see how far Russia wants to proliferate, if they don't stop, we should keep adding more and more countries to the nuclear club until Russia quits spreading its nukes to other countries, does that seem fair?

 

[Rick]

Well if Russia won't respect Ukraine's territorial integrity as it signed a treaty to do precisely that in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons, well I say one bad turn deserves another.

Well, the Crimea wasn't included in that agreement which, I'd agree, is a technicality, but still.

Russia is also helping the Iranians to get nukes. If Iran gets nukes, what say nukes suddenly "appear" in Ukraine too? If Russia adds one nuclear power on their side of the ledger, I say we add one on our side.

Russia has raised the possibility of supplying Iran with nuclear power plants, not ones that could be used to produce weapons-grade nuclear material. It has, however, brought the USA to the table with a counter-offer.

Actually we should do two since North Korea has nukes as well, and they weren't supposed to have them, I say we give nukes to Poland, and then we see how far Russia wants to proliferate, if they don't stop, we should keep adding more and more countries to the nuclear club until Russia quits spreading its nukes to other countries, does that seem fair?

Actually - as Russia only gave NK one nuclear power station, and the USA gave it two, I'm not sure how that balances out. But since the USA has already given 'dual use' systems to both India and Israel, the ledger is already tipped the wrong way. I do not suggest you encourage Russia to 'balance the ledger' in any way!

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Well if Russia won't respect Ukraine's territorial integrity as it signed a treaty to do precisely that in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nuclear weapons, well I say one bad turn deserves another.

Well, the Crimea wasn't included in that agreement which, I'd agree, is a technicality, but still.

Russia is also helping the Iranians to get nukes. If Iran gets nukes, what say nukes suddenly "appear" in Ukraine too? If Russia adds one nuclear power on their side of the ledger, I say we add one on our side.

Russia has raised the possibility of supplying Iran with nuclear power plants, not ones that could be used to produce weapons-grade nuclear material. It has, however, brought the USA to the table with a counter-offer.

Actually we should do two since North Korea has nukes as well, and they weren't supposed to have them, I say we give nukes to Poland, and then we see how far Russia wants to proliferate, if they don't stop, we should keep adding more and more countries to the nuclear club until Russia quits spreading its nukes to other countries, does that seem fair?

Actually - as Russia only gave NK one nuclear power station, and the USA gave it two, I'm not sure how that balances out. But since the USA has already given 'dual use' systems to both India and Israel, the ledger is already tipped the wrong way. I do not suggest you encourage Russia to 'balance the ledger' in any way!

The Difference is, Iran has been saying they are our enemy for the past 35 years No one in Poland, or Ukraine has said "Death to Russia!"
Also NATO has not done a thing to Russia since its inception, all it has done is contain Russia's expansion, you see other nations don't want to be part of Russia, and Russia isn't asking them nicely to join, the EU by contrast and also NATO is a voluntary association, the Warsaw Pact was not, neither was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Also I get tired of Russian leaders lying all the time. Seems to me most Russia leaders are dishonest, they are crooks and they lie. Ukraine wasn't in trouble until Putin decided he didn't like it joining the EU and suddenly their was a "Civil War" and the rebels suddenly had all the latest Russian military equipment and even got uniforms with the national insignia removed, I wonder why the French resistance didn't have that?

 

[Reynard]

Have we destroyed the world with nukes yet or do we plan to argue it to death?

 

[Nathan Brazil]

For the big fireworks, American nuke involvement not likely going to happen unless we (I am American), our direct assets are nuked or we must nuke due escalation involving our committed allies. We might end the world, but the beginning of the end will start elsewhere.

A Twilight might still occur if as the keystones are infrastructure and resources are impacted.
A.Destroy infrastructure and then we cannot support civilization. In this regard, the environment itself could be considered part of the infrastructure for the nuke or global warming minded.
B.Destroy resources or the pipeline of resources and infrastructure is not supportable. Leads to A in any case.

The whole world does not need to be nuked to get to Twilight. Example: Say a large portion of the Middle East oil fields get turned radioactive sand (develop the scenario). The oil is still there, but largely unretreivable due to radiation. Supply lines. Weeks later, riots due to gas prices. cats and dogs living together, total anarchy. Then a low scale war begins as nations without attack nations with.

 

[Nathan Brazil]

To Nuke the World
In order to nuke the world, someone has to have a nuke to detonate.

According to Wikipedia (if it can be believed)...
The following countries have nukes. Launch vehicles, ranges, etc. are a different issue
United States, Russia/Russian Federation, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea

These countries have access to US nukes, but effectively cannot fire them with unless they receive launch codes from the United States. In your Twilight scenario if you want this country to have fired a nuke, you are also saying that United States got involved also.
Belgium, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Turkey

Israel is "coy" neither claiming or denying that they have nukes. You could put them to the test...

If this accurate and you are going for "realism", then only the above countries have nukes to detonate. So how do you get them to use them? Realistically that is.

The following had nukes but "officially" got rid of all of them them (Maybe they kept one or two?)
Belarus, Canada (US "launch codes" like the above group), Kazakhstan, South Africa, Ukraine

With regards to those who "might" be ready to make them quickly. They have most or all of the pieces in place to make a nuke: Iran, Japan
Japan is not likely to make one (develop a scenario)

In a proliferation map I found in wikipedia as well, the following are still "working" on making nukes, the level of success is debatable.
Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates

 

[Rick]

The UK no longer has its own nukes - some bright spark in number 10 decided we didn't need them, as we could just 'borrow' some from the USA if we ever needed them.

Also, technically, any country in NATO has access to US nuclear weapons if the US agrees to it.

I still think that one the most likely flashpoint scenario would be as a result of the conflict in the Middle East spreading to include Israel or countries adjoining Israel. Following the 'Apollo' affair, Israel definitely has nuclear weapons - Mossad went and got the material from the USA; they have few or no missile delivery system in place (this may have changed recently), and were reliant on an air-ground delivery system (probably a freefall bomb).

The other possible flashpoint scenario might be in the Arctic Circle, possibly triggered by a mistaken identification of Eco-terrorist/activist vessels as foreign military and a tit-for-tat conflict arising from it.

I simply do not see the same happening in Ukraine - even after the announcement a few weeks ago by the Ukrainian General in charge of the anti-rebel forces, that Russia was firing tactical nuclear weapons at his troops.

 

[Nathan Brazil]

How about India and Pakistan? I know just a little about India/Pakistan post WWII. Are they just glaring at each other menacingly with nukes available, or are there active non-nuke "incidents" going on over there?