Request For Political/Diplomatic Knowledge

[El Justo]

Emperor,

oh no! naval activity is very much still present in today's day and age. sub warfare and the accompanying anti-sub activities are still very prevelant. it's just the days of the 'capital ships' are pretty much over (ie BBs, CAs, etc).

larger navies like the US and the UK have gotten away from the large ship construction and have sort of shifted towards a multi-role navy. by this i mean that they use their cruisers and destroyers for many different tasks like fleet protection, anti-aircraft batteries, ASW, and as floating missile platforms (among other tasks).

also, the SSBNs (ballistic missle carrying subs) are a strategic aspect for the more powerful navies. they are, for all intensive purposes, hidden and mobile missile silos that can be used as first-strike weapons or as retaliatory-strike ones. this is more applicable in the Cold War era than it is now as the threat of nuclear war is lower now than it's been since the end of WW2. however, they remain an integral part of many of the larger navies. iirc, the US, UK, France, and Russia are the only nations to have manufactured their own SSBNs. however, other nations have or had their hands on the technology (ie China, India). also, we can't forget that we don't really know who has what after the Ruskies started selling off all of the stuff in the eraly 90s.

if i were to suggest a general line of naval units, it'd probably be like this:
CVNs (nuclear powered carriers -- although unbuildbale for the most part), DDGs (guided missile cruisers/destroyers), SSNs/SSBNs (SSN: nuclear sub), and FFs/FFGs (frigates), LHAs (amph assault vessels -- the US has the market cornered on these hogs).

as for troop movements...
most troop transport is done by air. however, the heavies are, for the most part, transported by sea. there are some armoured vehicles that can be transported by air but for the most part, tanks and other armoured vehicles are moved by sea.

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

I envision World War III as being one between the Western Powers (Mainly Europe, NATO and Warsaw Pact Nations) fighting a Chinese onslaught from the East. This war would have been tipped off by a Chinese invasion of Taiwan, the Western Powers would leap to their aid. The United States, suddenly thrusting itself into a new conflict pulled the majority of its troops out of Iraq to help fight the Chinese, paving the way for Islamic radicals to take the country back from a deplete US garrison. (This is where I believe it to get quite farfetched) Upon this happening, the radicals (funded by the Iranians) swear allegiance to the Ayatollah. Many other Middle Eastern nations, seeing a potential to gain more power and further their own goal(s), follow suit. Thus forming the Confederation of Islamic States of the Middle East (CISME, I guess you could call it). They remained neutral in this war, though there was a great itch to scratch (i.e. revenge against the Western world). They thought it would be better for them to sit this one out and reap the rewards of the increased demand for resources other nations would be that would most likely fall squarely on the shoulders of CISME.

And I would have to agree with El Justo. There is still massive amounts of naval activity. Most of which is submarine and supercarrier, but still quite a bit. Also along those lines, boomers and ships that can launch SLBM's(or conventional warheads if you don't like nukes) are still very prevalent. Many of these ships still do possess the ability to launch them however.

 

[Israelite9191]

Problems with Greek Stud's 2 Scenarios:

1. Iran-Israeli War (and Tank Guy #3's Scenario, I accidently mixed some of that one in)
Iran at the current time may be controlled by Ahmedinejad, a fierce Muslim radical and ant-Semite/anti-Israeli, but he is not stupid. At the curernt time, and probably the same for the next 5-10 years, he can not risk a war on Israel. He does not even have nuclear weapons yet, nor does he have the support of any Arab country, the only support he may be able to draw on would by Turkmeni, Uzbek, Khyrg, and Tajik. Afghanistan is still practicaly a US occupied zone, Iraw is majority Sunni, Iran is Shi'a. His economy is only begining to boom from oil, and with the whole world against Iran (although Russia might befriend him), that is unlikely to change. Ahmedinejad and the Islamists of Iranian politics (at least any who are likely to get elected) are fundamentalis anti-Israelis, but they are also not stupid. If you were say, to move the start up by 10-20 years, it would still be unlikely. Iran may have an Islamist president, and he will likely be in office for a while, but if anything Iran is growing gradually more modern, so within a couple decades this option would be pretty much null. Lastly, Iraq and the Muslim world (ignoring the small Central Asian states) would never pledge alliegance to the Ayatollah or sign an alliance with Iran. The Arabian peninsula is quickly (with some exceptions in Saudi Arabia) modernizing, leaving no room for radical Islamist military action. The whole of the Arab itself is Sunni, Iran and eastward are the Shi'ites. Sunnia Islam and Shi'a Islam would never get along in such an alliance, and most certainly not pledge alliegance to the Ayatollah. This alone destroys the whole scenario, present day or future.

2. Taiwan Scenario
As of now, this would be impossible. The Taiwanese are growing in nationalism, but they are still integrated into the Chinese economy to a huge extent. It would take approximately 15-20 years for Taiwan to have signifacantly moved their foreign investment from China to India and elsewhere in order to make this scenario an option. Taiwan, no matter how nationalist, depends on the wealth of its businesses for success. Most major politicians in Taiwan have large connection to business, primarily Chinese business. They are also not stupid. Taiwan knows that for seccesion to work they would need not only the US, but also India, the EU, or both. Taiwan also knows that the US would not have to be confined to operations in the Middle East. Further more, you ignore the Japan factor. Japan is closely allied to the US, despises China, and would be easily drawn into an alliance in support of Taiwan against China. While Japan has not had a realy military for decades, they are currnetly working on legislation that would make it possible. They also have a "peace force" that is capable of carrying out missions in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Furthermore, Japan has the industrial capacity to quickly shift into wartime manufacturing. Facing Japan during war time would nto be pretty. They currently contribute more to world GDP than China, second only to the US (if the EU is counted as one body then it is third, this information is according to The Economist). Ignoring Japan, many of the other assumptions would not work. Bhutan is currently in a 3-way civil war with its military incapable of protecting the people from Communist militias, much less destroying an Indian invasion. Pakistan is closely allied with the Americans, and the people (outside Baluchistan) is favorable towards America. Pakistan (as well as Mongolia, who despises China, Russia, and anything Communist) would not ally with the Chinese. If we were to fast forward a couple decades, then the situation might be possible, although there are innacuracies in the assumptions that make the one I posted more likely. For instance, S.E. Asia by that time would be quite within the realm of Chinese alliance (although possibly not Singapore and Myanmar, with Myanmar it depends on wether the military Junta dies out). Bhutan would likely still be in a civil war, or the Democrats would probably have won out. India would be a much too important power to stayout of things and would be much closer to America. The list goes on, but not today.

 

[Lord Parkin]

Okay, good arguments, everyone. Great to get so many ideas and opinions on this subject – the more creative input and debate I can get, the better!

By the way, while doing a little bit of introductory research on Wikipedia yesterday, I came across this interesting section on the “Characteristics of World Wars”, which might be a good idea to keep in mind for this scenario. The short article states:

The two World Wars of the 20th century took place on every continent on Earth save Antarctica, with the bulk of the fighting taking place in Europe and Asia. They involved more combatant nations and more individual combatants than any other conflicts.

The World Wars were also the first wars to be fought in all three terrestrial elements – ground, sea and air – and depended, more than in any previous conflict, on the mobilisation of industrial and scientific resources. They were the first instance in which the doctrine of total war was fully applied, with drastic effects on the participants.

Many of the nations who fought in the First World War also fought in the Second, although not always on the same sides. The proximate cause of the European aspect of the two wars was very similar – Germany invading its neighbours – which has led some historians to characterise the World Wars as a single "European civil war" spanning the period 1914–1945. This is arguably an oversimplification, as the European aspect of the Second World War might never have happened had Adolf Hitler not come to power. It also overlooks the war in the Far East caused by Japan's programme of territorial expansion, which started independently of events in Europe.

The World Wars were made possible, above all else, by a combination of fast communications (such as the telegraph and radio) and fast transportation (the steam ship and railroad). This enabled military action to be coordinated rapidly over a very wide area and permitted troops to be transported quickly in large numbers on a global scale.

There are also two very handy reference maps in that same section which show the extent of the involvement in both of the previous World Wars.

It’s something to keep in mind, anyway.

Anyway – getting back to the obscure comment that I finished my last post with. The main thing with this scenario is that we're talking about a future that hasn't happened yet, so we're free to (within reason) make assumptions about what could happen and when, as long as those assumptions have at least some logic and reason behind them. If I were to go along with the idea of a war beginning ~10-20 years in the future, a major advantage would be that the scenario wouldn't be constrained to as many limits with the need to "recreate past conflicts accurately"... as most WWII mods have to do, for instance. In effect, I can justifiably "create my own history" as I go along.

So, moving on to the whole 'variables' thing I was talking about: a few days ago, I was thinking about maybe programming and using 'scripted events' for the scenario (which, IIRC, Civ4 offers to modders). But there would be a twist, in that things wouldn't be precisely scripted to occur on exact turns. For just one tiny example of the massive amount of possibilities - one civ might be scripted to declare war on another sometime during the period of (say) March 2023 to June 2024. The actual date for this event would be completely random. And of course, its timing would affect the timing of all future events to occur as well. (Of course, there would be a LOT more random decisions than just the for one civ – ideally, all civs would have at least partially random scripts for all major actions, which would allow variations between games.)

Then I had the great (in my humble opinion ) idea of expanding the idea even further than that: making the scenario so that the entire war plays out differently with every single new game! Now, of course some may say "every game is different"... but that's not what I mean. What I'm talking about here is the whole script (or at least, a large portion of it) for the war being totally random!

For instance, a country supporting the US in one game may switch allegiances in the next… a relatively peaceful nation in one game may become power-hungry in another and might join up with ‘the bad guys’ and declare war in a bid to expand. Of course, there would have to be limits and exceptions – the EU could never go declaring war on the US, for instance. But particularly for small countries, neutral ones, and ones that ‘could go either way, depending on the circumstances’… well, the possibility of completely/partially random events and actions is quite exciting indeed!

If this was to go ahead, there would be two basic possibilities for the ‘beginning of the war’ as I see it. Either there would be an initial scenario which is set up – for instance, China invading Taiwan – and then all future events can flow from there. Or alternatively, the entire war could be completely random right from the outset, beginning randomly with one of a number of possible scenarios. (The latter scenario may be taking things a bit too far, though – even without getting into anything else, the amount of effort required to come up with a mass of tangled plot lines all branching out from alternate initial situations, and then implement them in the game, would be nightmarish. And that’s not to mention the colossal amount of testing that would be required to properly balance such a scenario...!!! However, I feel that there may be some possibilities in the former scenario, even though it would still require a large amount of effort.)

What I reckon is the brilliant thing is that an idea like random scripts (if able to be implemented) would actually make sense for this kind of scenario. After all, as the saying goes, ‘the future has not yet been written’. Scenarios built around historically remodelling a past war or conflict don’t have the option of varying the events in each game – they must stay pretty much rigidly within the bounds of the battles and alliances and diplomatic actions that actually occurred. But for a scenario like this, as I said before, we’re literally creating our own history as we go along – so there really are very few restrictions on what we can do!

Well, I’ve got more to say, but this post is long enough as it is, and I need to go to class. What do people think? (And by the way, any more ideas on WWIII plots and such are still more than welcome. )

- LP

 

[UltimateModer]

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.

Here's one: China has gone to war against the US, after autonomizeing there economy so it won't crash. (like it would if they did that now.) Iran, being China's princible oil supplier and not exactly friendly to the US has taken thier side. Southeast asia has also joined the Chineese, because if ytthey did not they would be crushed. Europe and Russia, however, have taken the United States' side, in addition to Saudi Arabi, Iraq, and Isreal. IT should make for a realitively balanced war, with the sheer population and land space on China's side balanceing the population of the US and its allies.

 

[a4phantom]

Read Tom Clancy's "Red Storm Rising" (the late Soviet Empire's hypothetical invasion of Western Europe) or Bobby Kennedy's "Thirteen Days" (Cuban Missile Crisis) for ideas. For the record, despite the fact (in my view) that the goverments of America, China and Russia are all in the hands of warmongering thugs, many of whom are also insane, I think WW3 in the near future is very unlikely. Economic warfare is much more likely than military.

UltimateModder: "Europe and Russia, however, have taken the United States' side, in addition to Saudi Arabi, Iraq, and Isreal."

I'm not so sure about any of those except Israel. Europe would try to stay uninvolved (except for England, which would side with the US). Russia would also be reluctant to directly confront the massive army across their enormous Sino border. Now that Iraq is under Shiite control, they are likely to side with Iran and hence China, although if your scenario takes place in the next 20 years this would be complicated by the garrisoned American troops! Saudi Arabia's natural sympathies would be pro-American, anti-Iran and Iraq, and so they would probably pretend Israel didn't exist and support the West, but probably not become openly involved since a largely unpopulated nation of oil fields is about the ultimate soft target.

PS yes I realize that was a ridiculous response to an imaginary scenario thought up to provide a map. It's simply my nature.