Request For Political/Diplomatic Knowledge

I hope I have made this request in the correct forum. I noticed that there are many CFC members residing here who seem to be much more knowledgeable than I on a lot of matters, so I was hoping that I could get some thoughtful and educated input into my (perhaps somewhat unorthodox) question.

To cut a long story short, I recently had the idea of creating a World War III scenario for a Civilization game. However, I didn't want it to be just any old mish-mash of events and conflicts and what-have-you; I wanted it to be as accurate and believable as possible, with a plot/story line that sounded almost as though it "could be" a future (or "could have been" a past). In other words, I wanted it to express a "historically accurate" alternate future / recent past. (Except that's not really the right way of expressing it... I suppose "historically educated guesswork" would be better. But I hope you know what I mean, anyway!)

In any event, with the release of Civilization IV I believe it may now be possible to do some of the things I had been originally hoping to do with the scenario - but was unable to, due to the limitations and lack of modification functions in the previous versions of Civilization. So, I thought that with the possibility of this project at last coming to life, now might be a good time to begin some initial research into the plot structure for the scenario. And that’s where I’m hoping you guys can perhaps help out.

Basically, I’m looking for ideas, postulations, theories, insights, guesswork... any comments with a bit of political education and logical reasoning behind them, really... to try to outline a believable plot for an alternate-reality ‘World War III’ which would ideally begin sometime during the period AD/CE 1990-2010, and move to its conclusion in the (near) future. Of course, I understand that there’ll need to be an element of fantasy involved in all cases – such a war could not possibly be a reality otherwise. But as much as possible, it’d be good if the plot could be kept as close to the realm of ‘possibility’ as it is able to be... with cities/states/countries having reasonably logical responses, actions, reactions, alliances, hostilities, and such. The rest I leave up to you.

To give you all an idea of the things I’m after, here’s an extremely (and overly) long list of a heap of questions I could think of, and some of my own random thoughts on possible tangents for justifying the beginning of the war and such. By no means do I expect anyone to feel they have to tackle all (or any) of the list at once, of course. That’d be way too much of a task!!! No, I’m simply trying to give you a rough idea of the kind of things I could be enlightened on. So if anybody feels like they want to add a comment about a particular thing, or sees a question they have a bit of a strong feeling about, or finds something that’s blatantly wrong, just feel free to post below and let me know.

So, the ‘massive list’ of questions:

Who might be the aggressor? (Would there be a single aggressor, or many for that matter?) How would the war be fought tactically? (Land, sea, air, espionage, sabotage, guerrilla warfare…?) Where might the major battles be? Who would be the primary targets? Would nuclear weapons, realistically, be involved? (Although I’d prefer to steer clear of the “complete nuclear holocaust” scenario – it’s already been done many times, and I’d rather focus on the naval, land, and air strategy involved.)

What would be the role of China? Korea? Afghanistan? The Middle East? Japan? Russia? Libya? The US? Europe? (…And so on and so forth…)

What would be a justifiable case for the beginning of the scenario? A crazy dictator rising to power in the Middle East or China? Economic deterioration between China and the US, eventually leading to a breakdown in communications altogether, and war resulting? Religious war escalating to a fanatical level? The Cold War, under an alternate reality, not coming to an end – and perhaps instead, sparking off an entirely new war? Some other major diplomatic or political breakdown?

Any ideas at all, or even reality-checks or lectures on politics or diplomacy in the real world, would be much appreciated.

The Cuban Missile Crisis?

Thanks for the input.

Um, I'm afraid that I'm woefully ignorant about the Cuban Missile Crisis. All I have is a very vague and broad general interpretation of what happened. (And I don't even know the dates! Shocking! )

So could you possibly point me in the direction of some further information? Thanks.

EDIT: Never mind, looked around for a bit, and found an article on Wikipedia. (Is it any good?) From the article, it seems like this could be a good starting point - although perhaps a little bit too early for what I had in mind. Don't know though, it could still work I guess. It's a possibility, anyway.

1979/80 is a good idea. The Soviets invaded Afghanistan, where previously the Americans had tried to gain foothold. In Europe, the NATO was deploying new missiles in West Germany. The whole atmosphere was very tense, and both Brezhnev and Reagan were not really willing to negotiate with each other. In that same time, the people in the East Block were starting to become unhappy with the authoritarian regimes. A possible scenario would be the western countries supporting public unrests in Warsaw Pact countries, which would be regarded as an act of agression by Moscow. Some time ago I thought up a scenario that had the Baltic States and possibly the Ukraine declaring their independence from the USSR. Some Soviet Sattelite states (such as Poland, the CSSR or Hungary) joined these countries in the movement, and the whole thing got western support. The USSR reacts with a military invasion of the concerning countries and the whole thing becomes really messy and nasty.
The whole scenario was a lot more detailed than that, but these are the basics. Feel free to exploit

Sorry to not offer direct answers to your questions. I don't have any right now.

Reading through the OP recalled the following passage to my mind:

Plotinus in his 'How to Design a Scenario' tutorial said:

Ideally, you want to make a scenario that has something different to offer. At the time of writing this, the first page of the “Completed Scenarios” forum alone has eleven offerings about World War II! And there’s a Firaxis WWII Conquest to start with. Now that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t make a WWII scenario if you want to, of course. But if you want people to play it, it should offer something a bit new. Consider doing a scenario about just one WWII campaign, one that hasn’t been done before. Or add a different slant. WWII With a Twist by Finn McCool has UFOs. That sets it apart a bit. Either that, or make one so good it overshadows all the others. That might be hard!

Click to expand...

'How to Design a Scenario' & WWII with a twist.

Stefan: Thanks for the ideas.

Rambuchan: Very much appreciated, thanks. Even though it was made for Civ3, that link to "scenario making" was very helpful and informative, and certainly got me thinking on a few things. Of course, at this stage I'm still unsure whether I'll actually have the time to get this scenario up and running properly. But I figure I might as well go through the initial stages, research a bit, gain some knowledge and insight, look at the "grand plan" critically and realistically and change or rearrange my initial ideas as need be, and then see what (if anything) actually physically happens from there.

Sounds like a reasonable process Lord Parkin. You always learn more info from following such a course, even if you don't deliver a scenario at the end of the day.

I'm not that up on 20th century military history, so can't offer the kind of specifics you'd want on that front. Other stuff I may be able to help out with.

My feelings (as one of the many that don't enjoy scenarios and mods from this era) is that you'll have to pull out some seriously unusual gimmicks to make this stand out for me from all the other WW scenarios. Despite Finn McCool's excellent idea of using UFOs, I haven't been moved to DL that one. Just giving you an insight into how some of us receive such scenarios.

hey Lord Parkin/Emp! long time--no see!

maybe i can help shed some light on 20th century naval warfare (albiet a truncated version)...

naval combat in the latter part of the 20th century (ie-after ww2 really) has pretty much been non-existant. by this i mean that the huge technological advances in jet technology (and bombing technology) has made the large fleet nearly obsolete. think along the lines of seeing a large capital ship such as a battleship. instead of 'ruling the seas' as they did for a good part of the early 20th century, they're now floating targets. sure, you can bring along CVs and air protection. however, w/ the precision of the latter 20th cent. bombs, large gunned ships like these are simply 'floating targets' (and expensive ones in that!).

iirc, the last (and only) major sea battle between 2 industrialized nations since WW2 was during the falklands/malvinas war.

accordingly, the projection of naval power, especially in the latter part of the 20th century and into the 21st, is one of either fire platform support (eg-the USS NJ, an iowa class BB, was used exclusively for coastal bombardment during both korea and vietnam) or for fleet protection/scouting/ASW.

also - it should be noted that construction of large-scaled capital ships in today's day and age is also nearly obsolete. by this i mean that is is economically unfeasible to even try to build these behemoths again (the BBs really) considering how much steel is needed to build these hogs. even the modernization of existing vessels can be difficult. when Reagan ordered modifications to the existing iowa class BBs in the early 80s, the Defense Dept had to search high and low for the original ship yard workers from the 30s and 40s b/c they were, for the most part, the only ones who had intimate knowledge about these ships.

CVs, for the most part, serve primarily as rapid response. the US is way, way ahead in this area as there are only a handful of nations who even operate carriers anymore (UK, France, Russia, India & Spain come to mind). the Nimitz class carriers (US) are in a class by themself.

if anything, naval warfare in the latter parts of the 20th century shifted from fleet projection to stealth - ie submarine warfare. this arms race began during the closing days of ww2 when the Allies captured some German Type XXI u-boats. these vessels were much more advanced than anything the Allies had and they were the building blocks for what is now known as 'G.u.p.p.y' - or - Greater Underwater Propulsion Power. this most definitely revolutionized submarine warfare and opened the door for the powerful and dilent nuclear powered subs of the mid-to-late 20th century. the Yanks and the Reds were embroiled in a race to build a quieter and faster sub. the Yanks, imo, won out. some may argue this point but that's a battle for another day

the advent of Aegis technology also had a big impact on naval warfare. this pretty much sealed the coffin for the old school large gunned ships b/c of the guided missile technology.

that's it for now. gotta get back to work!

Rambucan wrote: My feelings (as one of the many that don't enjoy scenarios and mods from this era) is that you'll have to pull out some seriously unusual gimmicks to make this stand out for me from all the other WW scenarios. Despite Finn McCool's excellent idea of using UFOs, I haven't been moved to DL that one. Just giving you an insight into how some of us receive such scenarios.

Click to expand...

i wouldn't say that...have you seen the number of views/responses in the Scenarios forum? 20th century scenarios hold many of the top spoTs w/ other eras lagging really far behind. not to knock those older genres...i think they are splendid scenarios myself...but they are well behind in interest when compared to the 20th century stuff.

Double Post --- Sorry

El Justo: What an unsurprising response from you Just offering my personal opinions, shared by a few others. I wasn't claiming that this is the general view. I was simply saying that there are many scenarios from this era that compete for attention and not everyone is a fan.

Rambuchan said:

El Justo: What an unsurprising response from you Just offering my personal opinions, shared by a few others. I wasn't claiming that this is the general view. I was simply saying that there are many scenarios from this era that compete for attention and not everyone is a fan.

Click to expand...

understood friend

there are indeed plenty of scenarios from this era. i actually believe that the older genres should have more attention paid to them. there seems to be an over-fascination w/ 20th century stuff imho. i'm not fretting mind you...it's just the way it is

Well, if you extended the begining of your scenario to 2026-2030 or something there about, you might have yourself a real good position for a WWIII scenario. By that time the Chinese economy should be fully developed, as should India's. India will also have surpasssed China in population by that point. The EU would have had enough time to evolve into an actualy nation state. The US will have been in economic decline due to foreign cometition and other stuff to no longer be the only superpower, although still a very important one if not the strongest one. The Persian Gulf states, Palestine, Jordan, and Lebanon (we are going by the conclusion that sense eventually won out and Turkey became part of the EU) will ahve had enough time to diversify and become economic powers not dependent on oil, on in those states there will likely be a cooling of Islamist Fanaticism, even if Saudi Arabia is likely to remain very conservatively Islamist. Iran could have either become even more Islamist or cooled down, and Pakistan could have likewise either become more Islamist or more liberal and becom part of the first world. Russia and Brazil will have had more than enough time to develop, although Russia could still be autocratic at this point. Canda will have surpased the US long ago in GDP per capita, although the drying up of the oil market could cause a significant blow to the Canadian economy. North Korea, if oppened up to the West even the smallest bit, could by this point in time be unified with South Korea or at least well on that direction.

The most important thing, however, in this scenario will be China. China will have developed into both an economic and military superpower. However, it is unlikely that the Communist regime will have gone away in only 20 or so years. This is key. The next world war could likely be started over Taiwan. Lets say that China, full of itself and quite confident in its miltary and other abilities, invades Taiwan to reclaim it. Up until this point they have been to scared of the economic procusions of breaking with the US, but they feel they are stable enough and strong enough to do so now. The US, obligated to respond, invades Taiwan and the eastern coast of China. This exchange sets off a whole chain of events where by the allies of these two nations enter into a world war.

Now, the factions. China will likely have South East Asia on its side. The trend currently in South East Asia is toward the new organization whose name I forget but is basically the traditional Pacific rim naitons minus the US. China will also gain Russian, Central Asian, and likely Iranian and Pakistani support. The last two really all depend on what direction Iran and Pakistan go. Iran, if it stays Islamist, will join China. If it reforms, it will join the US (more on that later). Pakistan, if it follows the growth of Islamist fanaticism in the north, will join China. If it continues on its path for the last decade or so, it will liberalise and join the US.

Africa will be really interesting. North Africa minus Morocco will likely join China. All of the autocratic nations (although this could likely change within 20 years) will joine China. South Africa, the West African countries (minus an independent N. Cote d'Ivoire), the East African countries (depending on wither Somalia get split into 3, then Somaliland and Puntland are liekly to join the US, Somalia China), and any other liberal regimes are likely to join the US.

The Gulf States, Palestine, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, and Iraq are likely to join the US, mainly because of economic ties and the liberalisation that is likely to occur over the next 20 years. Syria, Saudi Arabia (this depends on wether the Republicans or Democrats control US government, Republicans means Saudi Arabia joins the US, Democrats the other way), and an Islamist Iran would join China. Afghanistan would be most likely to join the US, but if warlords etc. continue to have a strong voice in parliament, then they will join China.

The EU, by this time a nation state including the current members plus the Balkans and Turkey as well as East Europe and the Caucusus in the position of what current members are, would join the US. Besides Canada, Mexico, Argentina, and Brazil, the Americas could go either way. The Caribean, Central America, and most of S. America will likely join the US, but if the Socialization trend in S. America grows and spreads, then the Caribean, C. America, and S. America could join China. Venezuala and Bolivia, unless something drastic (could happen with Bolivia) occurs, will join China.

Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Singapore, the Pacific states, Japan, and a united Korea (if it is not united but N. Korea has experienced at least a decade of infaltration with Western/Japanese culture, then the same, if it is still just as autocratic, then it will side with China) would join the US. I believe that covers the world. Oh, I almost forgot, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Balngladesh would go with the US. Myanmar could go either way, depending on wether it grows closer to S. East Asia or India. Bhutan will side with China. Egypt will side with the US if democratic reforms continue on the same track, if they don't then the Muslim Brotherhood will likely gain in popularity and eventually take over the government, siding Egypt with China.

Now, the first stages. First Syria, and an Islamist Pakistan will be quickly nocked out. The former by the EU and the latter by India. Africa will be in a state of total war. Somalia (in the situation where Somalia is split up with Puntland and Somaliland siding with the US while Somalia sides with China, if they aren't split up Somalia will side with the US) and an independent N. Cote d'Ivoire will likely be nocked out early on, but Central and Southern Africa will be filled with war, South Africa fighting biterly to bring Southern Africa under its control probably with madagascar as a key ally in the region while Zimbabwe and its neighbors would be facing considerable San unrest, although their militaries will be strong enough to face South Africa head on.

North Africa (Algeria, Tunisia [Tunisia could possibly end up on the US side], Algeria, and possibly Egypt) will cut off oil supplys to Europe, which will allow the N. Africans to keep fighting despite being caught between West Africa and Europe. Morocco will be kept out of the war with a West Saharan civil war to handle.

An American allied Afghanistan will be quickly gobbled up by the Central Asians and possibly Iran. If Iran is allied to America it will become a major focus of battles with American allies in the Mid East pushing in on one side while the Central Asians, Russians, and Islamist Afghanis (remember, it could go either way) in from the other. If it is allied with China, Israel will likely drop a nuke on Iran pre-emptively allowing Iran to be overrun by the Arab states. Chinese forces will be kept distracted by the Indians, Nepalese, American allied Pakistanis (or if it is China allied it will fall quickly to India anyway, although the mountainous north could provide for very tough battles) etc.

Myanmar, if Indian allied, will be center of fighting with the SE Asians pushing from the east and Indians from the west. If it is China allied, then Banlgadesh and Indian Bengal will be key areas in the war. Sri Lanka will be likely nocked out early by the Indonesians, but the Tamil Tigers in the north could provide significant opposition, possibly even retaking Sri Lanka while Indonesia is distracted by ANZAC and Papuan forces. Singapore will likely hold out as a center for the Americans, although it could just as likly be overrun. Hong Kong and Macau could provide China some trouble by going with the US and EU.

Any American nations that go with China will be likely nocked out early on by the Americans, Canadians, Mexicans, and Brazilians. Venezuala and Columbia could hold out for a long time though due to the jungle terrain.

In Europe E. Europe, Finland, the Caucusus, and the Black Sea will become important battlefields. The Caucusus could likely be lost early on to the Russians, but EU forces will still contend for the area, possibly keep the Black Sea coast and Turkish border area under their control. Crimea could rise in open revolt against Ukraine and the EU to join Russia. Finland would be a bloody battlefield, but the fact that all Finns (not sure about women) serve in the army as well as the technology they have will probably hold out, although East Finland will be very blood stained.

Mongolia will be seized early on by the Russians while Norther Korea, if unified and allied to America or not unified but still allied to America, will be a big area of battles. South Korea will likely hold out with Japanese and American help, although Hokkaido could fall to the Russians, or the reverse with Sakhalin and the Kurils falling to Japan. The only countries that would be crazy enough to use nukes would be a still autocratic and communist N. Korea and an Islamist Iran. As stated Israel may strike pre-emptively against an Islamist Iran, but Iran could just as likely be democratic and thus not be crazy enough to use a nuke. Its all very confusing, but if you can follow it, I think it would provide for a really good scenario. Also, for further information try to find an edition of The Economist's The World in 2006. This edition has a lot of sections in it about the world 20 years from now. A lot of what I used here came directly from the predictions of The World in 2006. I think it would be very helpful for designing a WWIII scenario.

Thanks everyone for the great response!

El Justo: Good to see you're still around as well! Thanks for your knowledgeable input regarding modern war tactics.

Israelite: Wow, thanks for your effort - so many brilliant ideas! The sort of scenario you've outlined seems like it's got some serious potential, for sure. The only minor flaw I can see is that it begins some 15-20 years further into the future than I'd originally envisioned. But that's still okay, it might be possible to work around that. It'd just require a lot more imagination regarding what units, structures, technologies, etc would exist at that area in time.

(By the way, I'm no military expert, so I've got no idea of the way things are headed in the military. [Anyone care to take an educated guess? You're more than welcome to speak up. ] With any luck, I'm hoping that there wouldn't be too many drastic changes in design of units and battle tactics etc brought about in the next ~20 years. As in, you'd still have your tanks and infantry (or equivalents), your aircraft and helicopters and (?) subs. It's just that I don't really want to get too spacey with this scenario, if you know what I mean - laser cannons, robot soldiers, ion beams, UFO's, genetic altering, hyperdrives, teleports, etc... I think you get the drift... that sort of stuff doesn't thrill me, at least for the kind of scenario I've got envisioned here. I'd much prefer to keep it based around "modern/post-modern" warfare [at least, definitely in the early-mid stages of the game - and probably for the rest of it as well], rather than being right from the start a completely spacey "future-age" conflict.

Did that make some sort of sense? Well, I hope so anyway. )

Oh, and I'll make sure to check out that Economist thing as you suggested. By the way, what type of thing is it that I should be looking for? (A magazine, journal, book, article, report?)

emp,

that's the thing...for the most part...much of today's military hardware will still be in use many years from now (anywhere from 10 to 50 yrs in my estimation).

for example, the american B-52, which was introduced in the late 50s/early 60s, will still be in use by the USAF well into the 21st century. i've read some reports that it'll still be used in the yr 2050.

the same could probably be said for american tanks such as the abrams. iirc, the Stryker IFV is is the newest of the american armoured fighting vehicles and this vehicle should be around for quite some time.

i agree that you should stay away from lazer beams, robots, and the like. it's too bad this is for civ4 b/c there's lots of good gfx out there for civ3 that would fit the bill for you

Its a special edition of The Economist magazine. The Economist is a British weekly news publication. I personally find them the most un-biased and in depth news publication available, at least in the States.

Just a suggestion. If you want your scenario to begin in the 1990s it could start with the collapse of the Soviet Union... A war between the succesor states? A succesful Communist coup and rebuild of their empire?

The other choice could be the invassion of Kuwait, guessing there could have been two opposed alliances led by US and Iraq/New Soviets respectively...

machia: Thanks for the ideas! The only thing is, I'm not sure if those scenarios would actually lead to a World War - I'm not great on history, but I seem to recall that the Russian 'empire' was majorly deteriorating, with failure after failure militarily, and was in no state to stage a major offensive at that time. And the invasion of Kuwait... again, it's sort of small-scale, whereas what I'm looking for is BIG. But still, good to get some extra input - the more ideas and creativity floating around here, the better!

El Justo: Great, thanks. That's what I was hoping for. By the way, do you think that there would realistically be any real naval warfare at all in a scenario such as this? (I was thinking that perhaps even today, there might still be use for some things... like submarines, for instance? And what about intercontinental troop movement - surely that wouldn't be done entirely by aircraft? )

Israelite: Okay, thanks - I'll look it up and see if I can find it somewhere around. There's a massive library at the university I'm attending, so if it's anywhere, I should be able to find it there.

By the way, someone pointed out to me that the majority of Europe would probably be unlikely, or at least extremely reluctant, to get itself involved in major world conflicts (especially by siding with the US). What do you reckon about that? By the way, I think it'd be interesting to have a few 'neutral' countries scattered around (though not too many of course)... just to add some diversity into the scenario. It might be a bit more realistic, too, I think - after all, there were neutral countries and areas in previous World Wars, and places which never saw any fighting whatsoever. That's not to say that I want to 'tone down' the scenario of course, just that it might be more interesting to add in some 'variables' so that it's not just a standard (and somewhat monotonous) "Alliance Block A vs Alliance Block B". Actually, I might come back with more on the 'variables' later... I've got some very interesting and original/creative ideas that I want to sort out there!

While at the current point in time (2006) a united Europe allying with the US to go to war on a China led alliance would be just about impossible, in 20 years or so (2026) it may well be possible. By 2026 Europe will have changed dramatically. It is likely that by that time Europe will be a united nation state, rather than an economic collaboration between 25(?) nation states holding on desperately for every last shred of independence. Within 20 years most nations in Europe will have likely given up indpendence in the pursuit of challenging America and becoming a superpower. However, this future EU will be dominated not only by the French and Germans, but also by the British, Central Europeans, and Turks, who are much more favorable to the Americans. This Europe will also be much more apprehensive of a Russia-China alliance. Brussels will be quite anxious, and probably rightly, about a more powerful Moscow. Russia will be much more militant, it is already moving ever so cautiously in that direction. Even if Europe would not be ready jump in with America for any old war, to protect Europe from Russia, it would be likely. Estonia and Latvia, two rising economic powers in Europe, are still extremely wary of Russia, as is Poland, currently the most populous state in Europe. Most important to remember though, we are looking 20 years into the future, the best we can do is judge where the world will be based on the overall trends of the last 20 years and more recently. Of course, who knows, within that time Brazil could have an economic boom like China, or the European Union could collapse, or Canada could be thrown into civil war with revolts in Alberta and Quebec, or even the United States governmental system could collapse. The Soviet Union only collapsed 15 or so years ago, anything could happen in 15 more years.

As for neutral countries, the Carribean, Central America, Chile and Argentina could be neutral. As I said, putting them on sides is very tricky because the socialist surgance in South America could either turn South America into a new Europe, with some more government countrols, or into a bastion of Marxism and Communism. In the first case the mentioned areas would likely stay neutral, with big threats in Brazil as well as from the other side in Venezuala, they would have little reason to move. However, Venezuala and Cuba could likely go on state swallowing rampages early on, bringing the US, Mexico (although it could also become a neutral state depending on if the Socialist surgance spreads there), Canada, and Brazil into a massive war in South America. The Carribean states would likely be divided with commonwealth countries, in particular Jamaica, as well as French allied Haiti likely siding with Europe and the US.

My prediction of a World War 3 scenario would panel across the Middle East to China. On one side, you would have NATO, Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, Canada, and the African Union. On the other you would have China, Russia, Vietnam, Burma, and Iran.

Introductory Wars
The Iranian-Israeli War could be a strong precursor to a WW3 scenario. For this you would find a Syrian-Iranian-Shia Iraq-Palestinian Alliance against a Turkish-American-British-Israeli force.

If an Iranian offensive enters Mesopotamia, the NATO alliance in Afghanistan will invade and cut off any links between Turkmenistan and Iran thus severing any additional troops those Islamists may add to the Iranian invasion. The most important tactic would be to link Iran and Syria. The best move would be to join forces with the Shia Iraqi militants and throw out the British forces, and place a Southern defense to close off the Persian Gulf. Isolating the US forces into Central (Babylonian) Iraq would be crucial. The key to winning any war is cutting of the line of supply. The democracies will be at odds of a Turkish counter invasion through Kurdistan (North and South). The basis agreement will allow for Turkish invaders to go through North Kurdistan, while American forces could travel Southern Kurdistan. Syria can act in many measures. Invade Lebanon to disable its use as a base of attack. Invade Israel and consequently lose to an Israeli force. Or pillage the bases at Incirkik, taking out American supply lines in Adana and North Kurdistan. Syria can be strongly countered by British forces in Cyprus allied with Turkish and Israeli forces to knock down the Syrian regime. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait would not become involved militarily as they would be bracing for their worst scenario of civil uprisings.

If the Middle East faced an Israeli-Iranian War, each step would become dependant on the major powers reactions to each move. The Russians would sells arms to opposing powers while trying to support NATO troops in Afghanistan. China would also sell arms to the opposing powers, and warn the west against any land invasion into Iran. Russia and China would also volunteer their position as mediator into ending such a conflict. And also, Russia will have a stronger presence in the Balkans region and Turkey, as will China have its access to Europe by means of Crete and Cyprus. These are economic-trade reaches that can quickly become depots in arms trade or political support.

For example, if Turkey over involves itself in the Azeri-Armenian Conflict, Russia may cut gas or gather the newly established Belorussian-Georgian-Armenian Alliance to operate through Russia. As Chechens are funded by Turkish fundamentalists, they may provide support in any counter attack, where Russian will consequently crush Chechnya into submissiveness.

Or China may extend its ability to flood Eastern African states with supplies to act in China's favor. The Khartoum (Sudanese) government could support any Islamic uprising in Egypt to over-throw their government and invade Israel via Gaza-Strip. Although these moves would end in Israel's favor, they are options for the Islamic fundamentalists.

Other global conflicts will not enter a WW3 scenario unless a major power were attacked on its homeland. This would include the EU, Russia, China and America. Canada, Australia and India are not likely to set off wars that will divert enemies attention or to serve as retrobution.

Taiwan declares Independence
The One-China policy is a system set to defend the One-China vision. It incorporates strategies that defend Tibet, allow for safe passage through Sinkiang (into Central Asia and Kashmir), an over whelming force that defends Beijing and could take Korea within weeks, and overwhelm Taiwan with mere fire power. China's disadvantage against the United States is the US Naval dominance of the region (the Phillipines, Okinawa, Northern Mariana Islands, Guam and Thailand) and its allies the Australian-New Zealand-Papua New Guinea alliance. Indonesia being the only other capable power would not risk entering such a war as its ability to remain a single country is already uneasy.

China would send a clear message to the international community that a government on the island of Taiwan declaring independence from China not only breaks Chinese Parlamentary Law that calls for military action but threatens the territorial integrity and national security of the People's Republic of China. Any foreign defiance of Chinese domestic law would violate international standards of sovereign rights, and China would attack anyone that serves assistance to an illegal entity government that declares itself independent from the One-China policy.

If America brings itself into confrontation over Taiwan, it would be fought out of the influence of the Oriental Asian continent.

A South Korean alliance with America would be stomped by a dual Chinese-North Korean invasion. Japanese interference would be countered by a Russian-Chinese attack that would strike the island nation in patterns that paralyze it from being armed by the US and paralyze it from aiding South Korea. Russian diplomats would gather the supporters in Kazakhstan, Mongolia, Uzbekistan, Kyrgystan and Tajikistan to offer them assurances in choosing sides to remain nuetral. Chinese diplomats would immediately gather the Asian countries Myanmar (Burma), Vietnam, Nepal and Pakistan to inform them that their national security could be harmed if the United States supports Taiwan. India, upon its own accord, would proclaim nuetrality and demand that great powers lessen their stances so that the war does not escalate beyond control.

If Thailand is used as a base to bomb China, immediatly Burma and Vietnam will be recruited while the Kingdom of Loas will be informed that if its airspace was used to attack China, it will be at the mercy of an international war. Burma could overwhelm Siamese forces from the north, while Vietnamese and Chinese forces ally such an invasion. In another front, China and Vietnam will jointly monitor developments in the cities: Singapore, Hong Kong, and Macao. The South China Sea would be flooded with Chinese airplanes countering any naval movements. Bhutan would be recruited to monitor any Indian actions in Sikkim. India would be constantly brought into dialogue by both sides to try to persuade overwhelming the opposition (America or China). Pakistan would deny the West access to Afghanistan and be supported by Iran to block any NATO invasion of China through Central Asia.

I will add my opinion about any Reciprical Wars that would follow these 2 scenarios another day, Im dead tired.