Pre-ChaNES: Into the Void

[Thlayli]

Oh NK, you traitor.

The PRC surviving is almost enough to make me join. Consider me lurking with extreme interest now.

 

[alex994]

Oh thlayli

I have faith in the PRC. Consider me ready to counteract any of Thlayli's actions

 

[North King]

I'm mostly just helping out with the start-up of the NES. In other words, if I can, I'm handing the PRC back to alex as soon as the real NES starts up so I can go gallivanting off into the interstellar void.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

Checking in as Europe. I'll do some research and start on a near future.

So guys, what are we agreeing happens in Iraq- specifically, with Kurdistan. That strongly affects Turkey, which affects the EU.

 

[North King]

I'm thinking at most we'll see a federal state with limited autonomy for the Kurds. The Turks are keeping their area, no matter what.

 

[Lord_Iggy]

I agree with that, save international action the Turks aren't going to give the Kurds in their land independence. There are lots of Turks living there anyway, if it became part of Kurdistan then we would have the same problem in reverse.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Oh, I just realized something rather important that I forgot to mention - The only navies that will matter in this NES are the spacefaring ones. So, your navy at this point should probably range from retrofitted space shuttles to scramjets to possible interplanetary craft. Your watercraft don't need to be listed.

 

[North King]

Oh, I just realized something rather important that I forgot to mention - The only navies that will matter in this NES are the spacefaring ones. So, your navy at this point should probably range from retrofitted space shuttles to scramjets to possible interplanetary craft. Your watercraft don't need to be listed.

Haha. That does make a difference. Though I think waterborne craft are still at least minimally important... I'll go back and edit my post.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Haha. That does make a difference. Though I think waterborne craft are still at least minimally important... I'll go back and edit my post.

They might be somewhat important for battles on earth's surface (not that I foresee any of those, of course... ), but I don't see them being very useful in the majority of otherworldly conflicts. It's not like planets with an abundance of strategically placed liquid water are particularly common.

 

[North King]

They might be somewhat important for battles on earth's surface (not that I foresee any of those, of course... ), but I don't see them being very useful in the majority of otherworldly conflicts. It's not like planets with an abundance of strategically placed liquid water are particularly common.

Truth, but power projection capabilities on Earth will be highly important for the first few centuries, I reckon, as the majority of the human population will be concentrated on the planet for a long while.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Truth, but power projection capabilities on Earth will be highly important for the first few centuries, I reckon, as the majority of the human population will be concentrated on the planet for a long while.

I suppose I could include some conventional navy stats somewhere during the BT turns... It might be simpler to just assume that conventional naval capabilities are directly related to army ones, though, and let each division come with a few waterfaring ships included and implied. I'll decide on this one way or the other by the time of the update.

 

[North King]

I just included mine along with the army stats in the edited post.

 

[Erik Mesoy]

Well, Lord_Iggy, LightFang, Erik Mesoy, das, erez87, Haseri, and Frozen In Ice have expressed interest before you, in that order. I'll totally put you in as leader of Europe if they all decline, though.

Longcatlist is looooong.

The way this is going, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if enough kicking/leaving/dropping happens for me to end up with an early spot.

 

[e350tb]

Hi, would it be possible to play as either the British (or Scotalnd/Wales, if they've got independence), the Canadians or Japan?

(Iggy, if it's your choice, could you make Britain independent? Please?)

 

[Lord_Iggy]

I don't think that Chandra's letting people play more minor nations for this BT. At any rate, changing conditions and national unifications may lead to the UK fully joining the EU. We'll see soon enough though.

 

[Fuschia]

Well, reading through posts that appeared recently, the AU or Russia both seem like other possibilities. However, I would personally prefer an Islamic conglomerate, and I'm going to see if there isn't any plausible way to make one happen within the time frame I have...

A few questions: What has happened to the oil situation? i.e, Have we run out? Is America still actively involved in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, etc., and how do we decide, since America is run by someone else? Did Russia complete Iran's nuclear reactor? What becomes of the regimes in Egypt, Afghanistan, and Iraq? Specifically, do they fall, continue to be propped up by America, or do they continue on their own power? What happens with Israel and Palestine? And, finally, what happens with the Kurds?

Well, there's a pile of questions, but this is more for debate so I can see the plausibility of an Islamic conglomerate than anything else. I tend to overlook things if I just think on my own. Please, anyone, feel free to post ideas about that. And, one of those questions IS very important: how do we decide what happens if America thinks one thing happens and I think another happens? Plausibility, or something else?

 

[Symphony D.]

Well, reading through posts that appeared recently, the AU or Russia both seem like other possibilities. However, I would personally prefer an Islamic conglomerate, and I'm going to see if there isn't any plausible way to make one happen within the time frame I have...

Decloak: It won't be run by Iran, I can guarantee you that. Demetrias actually wasn't too far off there: everybody other than Iran is Sunni, and they all dislike the Shia very much at the moment (see: sectarian killing in Iraq), and for the foreseeable future. Given the Pan-Arab movement is mostly dead and the current friction between most Islamic states (eg: Baathist Syria, Wahabbist Saudi Arabia, and Nasserist/Nationalist Egypt all have very different agendas), uniting just the Sunni states alone would be difficult.

But they'd never willingly kowtow to Iran. I can promise that as a fact. That would be up there with the Indonesia, Taiwan, and Resurgent Communist Europe nonsense.

 

[Demetrias]

The developed world should no longer be dependent of oil. Hydrogen fuel cell cars are already on the market so in fifty years they should all but replace gasoline cars except for a few kept by collectors.

 

[Niklas]

Symph is definitely right. The appearance of unity among the Islamic states to our eyes is only because of "common enemies", e.g. Israel, USA etc. But it's not even skin deep, "we" only perceive it that way because of the focus on such things in media.

Actually, if you really want an Islamic state then looking to the far east might not be a bad idea. Indonesia will never be a China or India, but it's not too far off to think it could potentially make a similar upwards journey in terms of productivity over the next 50 years. After all it's the world's fourth largest nation in terms of population, only preceded by China, India and USA, and ~15th highest GDP with plenty of improvement potential. Especially if the developed world invests lots of money in the nation as a result of trading for emission rights vs rainforest conservation. It is pretty culturally divided though

[joke]Maybe it could even conquer Australia?[/joke]

 

[das]

Yes, I must say that an unified Islamic state is highly improbable. There are immense cultural, ethnic and simple geographic factors that made it very difficult for anything like that to hold together. I suppose a loose confederacy might be doable, but there are no real natural leaders there.

Indonesia might have some serious potential, if it actually survives. It's not as though it wasn't a local hegemon before, and given skilled political leadership plus some well-implemented innovations it might become a serious contender.

the Ukraine, which has continually elected pro-Ukrainian, pro-Democratic political parties, such as the Yulia Tymoshenko Bloc and the Party of Regions.

I sort of doubt that the former (and possibly the latter) party will survive that long. It is, after all, a temporary block. A presumably stable parliamentarian Ukraine will probably have entirely different parties by the 2020s.

A resurgent Russia would definitely provide your Europe/America counterweight though, Fusch. They're the clear cut forth major power in the world's realignment, and any wild card should be the fifth. Russia borders Central Asia, China and Europe, giving it direct connection and influence over the areas that will be undergoing some of the most change. Additionally, it has large interests in Africa.

I think you're mistaken on that last bit. China has large interests in Africa; Russia has large interests in Central Asia.

That said, if you want to take Russia, I have recently found several interesting (Russian-language) articles about potential Russian future strategies. Might help you with those and some other things if you want.

African Union, though... No. Just no. Even if an all-encompassing sub-Saharan confederacy is created, I don't think an integrated, self-sufficient African economy is within the realm of possibility; certainly the confederacy won't be strong enough to force through the assorted measures needed to eliminate the corruption and other such problems. I fear the African Union, if it comes to be, will be very inert; in any case I can't see it as an active major world power. That's not even in Africa's best interests in most cases.