Futuristic Scenario: Review and Rate on Realism

[Emperor2]

In 2008 an Isolationist president is elected that pulls the troops out of the middle east, and creates a Roosevelt-style isolationist economy*. Globalization, as amazinga as it seems, is now dying out. China, however, does its best to keep it going.
But China is having its own problems- civil war rages in a country with a billion people, and the deaths out-pace that of Mao's time. Political instibility caused by increasing civilian discontent with lack of effectiveness and other problems, such as judicial weakness and mayoral corruptness, have brung this about.
Britian is falling in under its feet. It is forced to sell most of its nuclear weapons to Russia.
Russia is dying faster then the Soviet Union. The state now resembles a place much more like the Congo, or some African country. Order is falling, and the idea of totalitariansim is gaining some ground.

In 2010, a man in Russia leads a bloody coup and establishes himself dictator. Brutal methods beating out Hitler leads to order, and the distinction between military and police has become indistinguishable.

In 2013, the new dictator invades the middle east. The USA and Britian do nothing. Within 7 months, Russia now contols Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Afganistan, Pakitan, and Syria, and is threatening Egypt.
That same year the Democratic Party of China wins the civil war. Inner Mongolia secceds and joins Mongolia. Tibet establishes an independent country. A socialist president is elected and the country is about as isolationist as the USA, as the new president trys to get the country back on its feet.

1n 2015, the Russian dictator invades Asia. Mongolia and India fall like dominoes. China, still not recovered from the civil war, puts up an amazing fight, but does fall. Japan's army has been limited since 1945, and they cannot defend their islands. The UN is too late to repeal that act. India puts up an amazing fight and manages to hold onto the southern half of the island.
The US and Great Britian begin to speak out and make threats, and Neuclear war almost breaks out. The US, however, backs down and does nothing beyond under the table support of invaded countries.

In 2018, the Russian dictator invades Europe. It is a fast, crusing blow that no one could have predicted. Within weeks, he is pushing through Paris.
In spite of almost no Nukes, and continued unabashed threats from Russia, UK declares war. Bombs, mostly neutron but some neuclear and hydrogen, are dropped from Moscow to Beijing. However, Russia still holds strong. Britian is wiped clean like a chalkboard.
The US follows and declares neuclear war. The exchange is more heated, but our isolationist policies and humanitarian ethics mean our supply is limited, and we only dare do so much.
The Russian dictator has piles of weapons stocked up that were, in fact, not disarmed after the fall of the USSR. The US is bombed mercilessly and we are forced to surrrender.

By 2020, Russia is now the greatest superpower the world has ever seen, having All of Asia (except south India), the Middle East, Europe, and the original Russian state.


So, how about the realism of it? NOTE: * Politics are not on debate here. I am asking about how realistic this scenario is, and weather you have any ideas for sharpening it. I'm working on a backdrop for a book, and I want to be as realistic as possible.
Thank you.

 

[Mirc]

Everything before 2010 is very unrealistic IMHO.... Then it becomes realistic for a bit of time, but after that, when you get to the part with: "Within 7 months, Russia now contols Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Afganistan, Pakitan, and Syria, and is threatening Egypt" it gets unrealistic again. While the fall of Mongolia is not very unrealistic IMO , after that everything becomes unrealistic again. The invasion of Europe is again unrealistic - there's more to Europe than just Britain. What happened to the nukes of France, and in general to the power of all the other European states? Don't forget who Russia is and who it is fighting - a 150 million people country fights China, a 1320 million people country, the whole Europe, with its 700 million, and India, with its 1200 million...

My main piece of advice - make it more in the future. I don't know how fast you write, of course, but If I were you, I would be concerned if I finish the book by 2010...

 

[cubsfan6506]

Why if russia is collapsing would they be buying nukes. Britain could pretty much only sell them to 3rd world nations. (I.E the only buyers.)

 

[bob bobato]

I suppose it might be possible... but too much happens in 2008. Did you randomly pick that date and events, because you think that might happen soon, or do you just think it was a good idea? Do you think it's likely that China would suddenly get a civil war and Russia getting a coup? You're not talking about about some time in 50 years, but lesss than 5.
Maybe, if you're doing this for a book, make everything happen about 20-30 years later. All that you mention isn't really that beliavable so soon. in the 2030s, maybe, we don't know what the world will be like then. But not in the 2010s.

 

[Elta]

a lot like some of my team campigns in Superpower 2 where only the AI can play as USA.

My ussualy strategy is to ally with all of the former soviet states and argentina - mexico - brazil . within 15 years - build up my economy. then me and my allys take over everything all at once except U.S., Canada - Europe , India , Middle east, China all of their and neighbors . We slowly go on from there.

You would be supprised how strong a Catholic Theocratic Oligarchy in Russia can be

 

[mythmonster2]

Awww, what happened to Pakistan, India, and China's nukes??? (Well, mostly Pakistan and India, I understand China was in a civil war.)

 

[Barbo]

Ignoring the realism of Russia being able to defeat all of those countries in such a short time, I would question the ability of even the combined UN or NATO countries being able to occupy them. Occupation of a hostile country requires resources of a magnitude greater. My question would be, how could Russia possibly support such large scale occupations?

 

[Elrohir]

Sorry, on the whole not very realistic. My specific comments below.

In 2008 an Isolationist president is elected that pulls the troops out of the middle east, and creates a Roosevelt-style isolationist economy*. Globalization, as amazinga as it seems, is now dying out. China, however, does its best to keep it going.

Why does a non-interventionist foreign policy mean globalization (I assume you're talking about global trade and economic relations) dies out? American Isolationism, historically speaking, has never demanded that Americans not trade with foreign countries - just that the American government not get involved in their affairs.

But China is having its own problems- civil war rages in a country with a billion people, and the deaths out-pace that of Mao's time. Political instibility caused by increasing civilian discontent with lack of effectiveness and other problems, such as judicial weakness and mayoral corruptness, have brung this about.

By 2008? Very, very unlikely, short of the national government being stupid enough to start acting extremely draconian - like starting publicly beheading dissenters and Falun Gong, for instance. As it is, the Chinese people are starting to taste a high standard of living in the modern world for the first time, and most probably wouldn't be too interested in starting a civil war. Why start a war when you can buy a TV and get satellite? Maybe a civil war is possible in a couple of decades if the Chinese government refuses to liberalize, but I seriously doubt it will come to open warfare - certainly not within the end of the decade, barring extremely unlikely events.

Britian is falling in under its feet. It is forced to sell most of its nuclear weapons to Russia.

Again - by 2008? Britain is probably going to be in some serious trouble in the long term, but not by next year. This needs to be pushed back a couple of decades - and the selling off nukes to Russia needs to be eliminated; that would never be tolerated.

Russia is dying faster then the Soviet Union. The state now resembles a place much more like the Congo, or some African country. Order is falling, and the idea of totalitariansim is gaining some ground.

If Russia is falling to pieces, why are they buying more nuclear weapons? They've got thousands left, they hardly need Britain's paltry 200 SLBM's.

In 2010, a man in Russia leads a bloody coup and establishes himself dictator. Brutal methods beating out Hitler leads to order, and the distinction between military and police has become indistinguishable.

Except for the date, it's possible. You should bring in the oil companies in Russia, though - people think they're bad here, but they're practically a law into themselves over there. And yeah, push it back at least a decade or two to make it realistic - three or four would be even better.

In 2013, the new dictator invades the middle east. The USA and Britian do nothing. Within 7 months, Russia now contols Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Afganistan, Pakitan, and Syria, and is threatening Egypt.
That same year the Democratic Party of China wins the civil war. Inner Mongolia secceds and joins Mongolia. Tibet establishes an independent country. A socialist president is elected and the country is about as isolationist as the USA, as the new president trys to get the country back on its feet.

The US and EU wouldn't stand still for having Israel destroyed by Russia, or allow Russia to take control of the Middle East's oil and gas reserves. Even under an isolationist president, that isn't going to happen. Furthermore, the last time they tried to invade just Afghanistan, they got their noses bloodied pretty badly. What makes you think they can handle Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Jordan, Syria, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Yemen, etc, all at the same time? Israel in particular - they've got nukes, even if they won't admit it. Russia would have to eliminate Israel entirely with a preemptive nuclear strike, or make an acceptable bargain to keep the Israeli's from fighting. There's no way Russia could take over Israel without nukes coming into play - Israel plays for keeps, and small or not, they've got enough that they'd bloody a conventional invasion pretty badly, even without US help.

1n 2015, the Russian dictator invades Asia. Mongolia and India fall like dominoes. China, still not recovered from the civil war, puts up an amazing fight, but does fall. Japan's army has been limited since 1945, and they cannot defend their islands. The UN is too late to repeal that act. India puts up an amazing fight and manages to hold onto the southern half of the island.
The US and Great Britian begin to speak out and make threats, and Neuclear war almost breaks out. The US, however, backs down and does nothing beyond under the table support of invaded countries.

A successful Russian invasion of China is pretty absurd. Coupled with a successful Russian invasion of the entire Middle East, India, and Japan, it's just not going to happen. That's nearly half the worlds population, and Russia has only got a little over 100 million people - useless they're all going to march off as soldiers, they're not going to be able to hold down that much territory.

In 2018, the Russian dictator invades Europe. It is a fast, crusing blow that no one could have predicted. Within weeks, he is pushing through Paris.
In spite of almost no Nukes, and continued unabashed threats from Russia, UK declares war. Bombs, mostly neutron but some neuclear and hydrogen, are dropped from Moscow to Beijing. However, Russia still holds strong. Britian is wiped clean like a chalkboard.

Again, nope. Germany, France, the UK, Poland, Spain and Italy have combined a pretty fair military that could probably stop the Russian army in its tracks. (Not at the heighth of the Cold War, but now it could, and short of the Russians getting Super Death Rays.... ) Add in nukes, and it just couldn't happen.

The US follows and declares neuclear war. The exchange is more heated, but our isolationist policies and humanitarian ethics mean our supply is limited, and we only dare do so much.
The Russian dictator has piles of weapons stocked up that were, in fact, not disarmed after the fall of the USSR. The US is bombed mercilessly and we are forced to surrrender.

A nuclear war between the US and Russia wouldn't end with America surrendering - likely as not, it would end with nobody on either side capable of surrendering. Both countries would be totally destroyed.

By 2020, Russia is now the greatest superpower the world has ever seen, having All of Asia (except south India), the Middle East, Europe, and the original Russian state.

Not enough soldiers to do all that. (See above) much less hold it all from the inevitable guerrilla war - the US has enough on its plate with just Iraq, there's no way even the US and Russia combined could conquer and hold Asia, the Middle East, and all of Europe.

So, how about the realism of it? NOTE: * Politics are not on debate here. I am asking about how realistic this scenario is, and weather you have any ideas for sharpening it. I'm working on a backdrop for a book, and I want to be as realistic as possible.
Thank you.

I'm sorry to say not very realistic. I think you need to make the actual conquests smaller, and give Russia more allies - China maybe, or India, to take care of Asia and some of the Middle East, and Iran (Or Pakistan if you choose China over India). And you need a better reason for the US to be incapacitated for so long.

I hope that helps.

 

[Plotinus]

I don't exactly see why China should be headed towards civil war or why Britain should be headed to imminent economic collapse (as Gordon Brown never tires of telling us, the country's currently enjoying the longest sustained period of economic growth since the Industrial Revolution). It's odd that you don't say a word about Europe, apart from Britain, except as a passive region for Russia to invade later on. But most implausible, as others have suggested, is that any American president (I assume that the "isolationist president" of the first sentence is American, although you don't say so) could end globalisation merely by ending trade with other countries. That's like saying America could stop English being spoken in other countries merely by refusing to speak to anyone else.

The comment about Russia becoming like "some African country" is pretty offensive: do you suppose that all African countries are the same, or that they all represent some kind of standard of awfulness for Russia to sink towards?

Oh, and India isn't an island...

 

[Provolution]

Why realism? Abstraction is so much simpler they say.

 

[El Justo]

i can't see the Tommies selling nuclear materials to Ivan. hell, the Russians won't even turn over that former KGB dude for extradition. not sure i buy the British economy going in the sheeter either.

i also can't see the US or the UK standing by idly while the Russians invade the middle east - especially Isreal.

i guess i just can't see Russia extending herself like that. i mean, we're talking about ten years from now. and i can guarantee that Russia is in absolutely no position to wield that type of military prowess - not in the next 10-15 years that is. i say this for a few reasons - one is that the russian military suffered abysmally during the 90s and the early part of the 21st century. funding was basically non-existent and we all know of the humorous (to me at least) stories of russian military hardware just lying around and collecting dust and rust. therefore, it's hard for me to imagine that in the span of only 15-20 years, Ivan could reinvigorate himself in such a way as to steam roll over half the planet. it's just unfeasible imo.

i also find it tough to imagine that the US and her NATO allies would simply stand by or just get rolled over.

of course, i'm not opposed to alernate histories. they're often creative and fun but one should use prudence when constructing the scenario.

 

[C~G]

Rating in scale of 0-10 is between 0 and 1.

The main problem with "realism" behind your idea is that there are no reactionary forces to any of these elements such as of US isolationist policy or Russian imperialism. Nobody does anything after the initial stages but just is somehow following the same route. You follow the first premise right to the end which is always like the opposite of realism.

There are so many unrealistic elements that I don't even want to start scratch the surface.

It's work of total fantasy.

 

[bob bobato]

Yeah, I just reread it, and I don't see it possible at all. Civil Wars and dictators don't just pop out of the ground, there's always a reason why they exist. If there's no sign that there coming now, they won't be here in 2008. Also, unlike in Civilization, theres a limit of how many armies you can support-If one is defeated, you can't just replace them in a second, like in civ. If there were an army that, in the space of 5 years, conquered half the world without loosing any wars, that could only mean that the army has 50million soldiers, can be healed in a second and magically make units appear out of nowhere-like in civ, agan-, or are a super people who can catch bullets and shoot them back. You have to add more resistance to the russians. Even the Nazis were defeated eventually, and they 'only' conquered Europe and had 10 years to build their army. Your 'Russian Dictator' seem s to have gotten his army in a second.

 

[Tee Kay]

I afraid have to agree with the others here Emperor.

- the dates are wayyyy off.
- Why would an uber, all powerful, all knowing, all feared superpower like the United States want to become isolationist again?
- China is booming, its people are optimistic, the government maintains stablity (though via pretty brutal means). A collapse of China before 2050 short of a nuclear war is extremely unrealistic, let alone in 2008.
- Russia turning authoritarian is quite possible, but the invasion of the Middle East is another matter. Russia's forces won't be able to conquer all of the Middle East in 7 months, especially not when it's just recovered from a revolution, not with massive nuclear strike. The US and EU wouldn't stand by and let the Middle East fall either.
- Same with the invasion of China, India and Japan. This is even more unrealistic. In fact, China would probably conquer Russia, not the other way around.
- Same with the invasion of Europe.
- The United States surrendering to Russia by 2020 is quite improbable. More likely, a nuclear war erupted and all of human civilisation is annihilated.

 

[Saim]

Everything falls basically.

Kinda unrealistic, IMO.

 

[Steph]

India puts up an amazing fight and manages to hold onto the southern half of the island.

I particularly like the Indian island part. Saddly, that's one of the most realistic part of the scenario.

 

[Kraznaya]

As utterly impossible as Emperor understanding political philosophy.

 

[scy12]

There is nothing realistic with that scenario . I always wonder why "Future scenario " writers miss the most obvious ideas . Example War between Iran and USA and it's ramifications ...

The way the middle East would evolve . (An active region region where you can actually make scenarios)


And of course how would Europe handle the energy crisis in relation to Russia , it's grant supplier barking against foreign influence on it's former satellites. (Prediction Sooner or later , likely later , alternative fuel will limit that influence) War is not only fought by armies...

 

[Pannonius]

Another "evil Russkies" thread..."