World War III anyone?

[Rick]

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?

It's erupted into limited wars twice and a conflict once; the difference being the 2 wars were more-or-less declared and acknowledged. There have been sporadic incidents of insurgents since both moved away from shooting directly at each other. India's increasing ties with China and Russia have given it an increased presence in the area, as has modernising its fleet - it is fast becoming a major player in the region. Pakistan has benefitted from strong alliances with China and it is possibly the mutual advantage to both India and Pakistan that has cooled things off a bit.
Fun fact - India's navy is possibly the only navy in the world to have undergone joint exercises with NATO countries, Russia, China, Japanese, South African and South American navies, though not all at the same time!

If you also look at what was said at the G20 summit, India and China achieved several key goals that they were after - both are set to increase coal-fired power, India to double its' power generation in the next few years - which will help to industrialise and develop India in a major way - don't forget that India has the 2nd largest population in the world.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

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.

You should print it on your pound notes "In Obama We Trust!" You see not having nuclear weapons is no insurance against the President of the United States being a "lying jerk". I mean seriously, if we can't trust him to tell use the truth about Obamacare, Benghazi and so forth, how can you trust this president to keep his word about nuclear weapons? Putin might decide to invade the UK, and figure that this US president isn't going to do anything about it!

This Ukraine thing gives nations plenty of reason to get their own nuclear weapons, Ukraine trusted NATO to guarantee their borders and we let them down! So what's left of Ukraine might decide to get nuclear weapons, they have a reactor in Chernobyl, I bet that has plutonium in it, ecological disaster such that it is, it may prove to be a "gold mine" for Ukraine.

More nuclear countries increases the chance that nukes will be used, its simply mathematics. Obama may come to regret not sending US troops into Ukraine, as Ukraine might decide to be self-reliant on nuclear defense and have its own nuclear umbrella instead of rely on NATO or the US. Just saying.

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.

 

[Rick]

The Ukraine has 15 other nuclear reactors, and 2 more due to be built. However, the fuel used in them cannot be turned into weapons-grade nuclear material. It is possible they could do what North Korea did, and buy the equipment necessary from Pakistani 'black-market' suppliers, although I suspect that that avenue has now been firmly closed!

 

[Reynard]

Tom, personal politics that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic should remain on Facebook or elsewhere.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

The Ukraine has 15 other nuclear reactors, and 2 more due to be built. However, the fuel used in them cannot be turned into weapons-grade nuclear material. It is possible they could do what North Korea did, and buy the equipment necessary from Pakistani 'black-market' suppliers, although I suspect that that avenue has now been firmly closed!

A more sympathetic US President could come later, and their are the Israelis as well, a bit of an irony their.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Tom, personal politics that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic should remain on Facebook or elsewhere.

just mentioned it in passing, and the Brits here could probably care less about American Presidents.

 

[Rick]

A more sympathetic US President could come later, and their are the Israelis as well, a bit of an irony their.

I doubt it very much. The Israeli's? No, just no. If there were 2 countries the Israeli's would never, ever give nuclear capability to, it'd be Germany and the Ukraine - they have long memories.

 

[Anonymous]

Does this thread really have anything to do with Mongoose Traveller?

Really?

 

[Rick]

Does this thread really have anything to do with Mongoose Traveller?

Really?

Yeah you are right. The premise that we could do a Traveller: Twilight War book has foundered due to not being able to agree on a believable scenario for it.
It might be better to close the thread rather than keep rehashing political or military theories? (I hold my hand up as one of the main perpetrators of going off topic).

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Does this thread really have anything to do with Mongoose Traveller?

Really?

Yeah you are right. The premise that we could do a Traveller: Twilight War book has foundered due to not being able to agree on a believable scenario for it.
It might be better to close the thread rather than keep rehashing political or military theories? (I hold my hand up as one of the main perpetrators of going off topic).

People keep trying to bend it to their political views, or to somehow make World War III in the scenario somehow America's fault. I guess in the 1980s, there was no one to stand up for Russia, and say "the Russians are the good guys".

 

[Rikki Tikki Traveller]

How about we concentrate on the TECHNOLOGY and EQUIPMENT that would be used in a WW3 scenario?

In 2030, we could postulate early TL-8 equipment but predominately TL-7 for all combatants.

IF we allow any TL-8 stuff (say using the Prototype rules from CSC) which countries would you think would have them?

 

[Reynard]

Instead of a future war based on past fears, what about today's concerns taken to their ultimate conclusion? I see a world war as a resource war with lands decimated by rising seas, dustbowls and intense weather. The little wars we see become bigger as everyone fights for control of lands and less accessible food and minerals. Bigger powers, not necessarily governments, find their 'acquisition' techniques are less effective and take too long so they begin influencing their puppet politic to take less subtle means. Leaders coming to power are more aggressive. Taunt to breaking and near the combustion point then something in the world creates the spark.

 

[Rick]

Instead of a future war based on past fears, what about today's concerns taken to their ultimate conclusion? I see a world war as a resource war with lands decimated by rising seas, dustbowls and intense weather. The little wars we see become bigger as everyone fights for control of lands and less accessible food and minerals. Bigger powers, not necessarily governments, find their 'acquisition' techniques are less effective and take too long so they begin influencing their puppet politic to take less subtle means. Leaders coming to power are more aggressive. Taunt to breaking and near the combustion point then something in the world creates the spark.

Hardly. If there is going to be conflict over a mythical man-made climate change, it will be between the western powers who have wrecked their economies and infrastructures converting to an energy source that is woefully inadequate and creates an energy debt that it cannot ever recoup, and the developing powers who have taken advantage of a glut in fossil fuels and are developing their own industries and infrastructure.

 

[Tom Kalbfus]

Instead of a future war based on past fears, what about today's concerns taken to their ultimate conclusion? I see a world war as a resource war with lands decimated by rising seas, dustbowls and intense weather. The little wars we see become bigger as everyone fights for control of lands and less accessible food and minerals. Bigger powers, not necessarily governments, find their 'acquisition' techniques are less effective and take too long so they begin influencing their puppet politic to take less subtle means. Leaders coming to power are more aggressive. Taunt to breaking and near the combustion point then something in the world creates the spark.

Hardly. If there is going to be conflict over a mythical man-made climate change, it will be between the western powers who have wrecked their economies and infrastructures converting to an energy source that is woefully inadequate and creates an energy debt that it cannot ever recoup, and the developing powers who have taken advantage of a glut in fossil fuels and are developing their own industries and infrastructure.

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.

 

[sideranautae]

Hardly. If there is going to be conflict over a mythical man-made climate change, it will be between the western powers who have wrecked their economies and infrastructures converting to an energy source that is woefully inadequate and creates an energy debt that it cannot ever recoup, and the developing powers who have taken advantage of a glut in fossil fuels and are developing their own industries and infrastructure.

Exactly. I just went to a beach where I did tidal zone course biology work 40 years ago. The Sea level had not risen an inch since then. Trying to predict war breaking out over fictitious events is almost impossible.

 

[Rick]

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.

 

[Reynard]

Then everyone is proposing that a Twilight world war is impossible because our world is so damn rosy? There goes a lot of sci fi and post apocalyptic stories. Imagine, everyone is prosperous, there's no pollution effecting the climate, no nation is in conflict except some whiney local groups. What was I thinking?!

 

[sideranautae]

Then everyone is proposing that a Twilight world war is impossible because our world is so damn rosy?

No. Just debunking junk science. You can make reality whatever you want for your game though.

 

[Reynard]

Not here it seems.

 

[Rick]

Not here it seems.

Nobody here is trying to insult you or your personal beliefs, Reynard. All we are doing is pointing out that the 'science' that you based your post on simply does not hold up under scrutiny - same as if I'd put up a post stating that in my TU, cold fusion powers everything: someone (probably several someone's) would call me out on basing my premise on faulty 'junk science'.