The Hot Spots of the T2K World

[Antares Administration]

OK, no pun intended, anyone care to highlight the hot spots in the world before the WMDs were salvoed, maybe one spot at a time? Try to include who's on either side and what they're fighting over in that particular region.

Paul Nemeth
AA

 

[Ranger]

Part of the idea behind T2K originally was that the transition from conventional to nuclear warfare was incrimental. A few tactical nukes here, a few there leads to limited theater exchanges, and eventually hitting limited strategic targets (mostly oil refineries). As a result, the war drags on and on rather than a massive exchange that ends everything once and for all (except for China, which is nuked out of the war early and decicively).

Main participants are the old East/West confrontation, except that the East Germans throw in with the west, the Italians throw in with the Pact, and the French opt out all together (Mexico sides with the Pact, ala the WWI deal that Germany offered up, but they never took).

 

[Antares Administration]

I should have said, assuming an updated event list.

I agree that the old material has to remain useable, but do we have to stick to the ol' Commies in the closet story line?

Paul Nemeth
AA

 

[Ranger]

Sorry, I misunderstood your question. I was under the impression that there was not going to be a new time line though, that T2K was considered an alternate universe setting with the original time line holding. I have sketched out my own updated time line with a US/UK/Russian alliance going against a Franco/German (and minor allies) block. China gets taken out early and devolves into warlordism. The twilight war lasts 3 years rather than 5, but the conflict is global:

US troops in Mexico and Venezualia to secure oil supplies.

US troops in Eastern Europe supporting the Poles, Czechs, and Russians against the Germans.

US troops in Spain and Northern Italy operating against the French.

US troops in Iraq operating against French troops in Saudi Arabia.

The Balkans is a confusing situation (I stopped writing before I fleshed this section out).

Africa and Asia are also in contention with small western forces operating with local allies to secure or disrupt energy resources.

Domestically, the US is riven between the Federal Government, which wants to continue persuing the global war, and the conference of governors, who want the war ended and resources directed at rebuilding the US. The governors start refusing to federalize their National Gaurd units and eventually order NG units to return home (only really practical for troops in Mexico).

In this time line, there are two periods of nuclear weapons use. First at the very begining, in which an Indo-Pakistani confrontation (sparked by a nuclear terrorist attack agianst India) leads to India launching a nuclear strike against Pakistan and China (China is hit because India blames China for Pakistan having a nuclear armed balistic missile force). Chinese hardliners retaliate against India, but also strike the US and Russia because they believe the entire situation is a plot to prevent China from achiving global power and challenging the 'old superpowers.'

The second round of exchanges are between the Franco-German forces and the US/UK/Russian alliance. In Eastern Europe, these are tactical nuclear strikes to try and break the eastern front open. In the US, they are targeted at significant energy resource infrastructure to force the US out of the War.

Is that more the kind of thing you were thinking about?

 

[Sgt Biggles]

Ranger, Your time line is similar to one I had made, looks good. However, (there is always a however huh), when thinking of the T2K updated timeline there are a couple of constants.

You were right that the basic conflict stays the same. The source book will begin in Poland, as the original, with the Russians squaring of against a slightly changed NATO. The premise is, loosely, under hard core leadership Russia moves to regain her lost status by seizing the former soviet states. Sorry Paul, but the soviet in the closet still stands.

Meanwhile, the actions of the US in and around the Middle East and else where alienate the UN and sanctions are placed against the US and assets are seized. France and Germany with support from Russia lead this campaign. The US, supported by her strongest allies (which led us to the discussion about Canada btw), including Poland use the military to attempt to regain the seized assets.

The beginnings of the Twilight war may actually have had its roots in other areas. The tension that exists now could explode almost anywhere. The most popular thought is a scenario involving China or some of the neighboring countries. North Korea being a strong possibility as well.

The transition from conventional to nuclear warfare stays incremental, though there is nothing that I know of yet which places the MWD events in the European theater. It is quite possible the first exchanges happened in China, N. Korea or the Middle East. It may even have been an act of retaliation against the UK or US and occurred in one of those countries. Once the MWDs start flying, then pretty soon everyone who has one wants to play and we have the escalation to an almost full exchange by everyone.

The actual war itself is most likely going to be a series of peacekeeping mission which just get worse. NATO and UN forces get so spread the result is a global conflict.

So, with that in mind, I think what Paul asked is good. In the year, 2015 say………

“…..highlight the hot spots in the world before the WMDs were salvoed, maybe one spot at a time? Try to include who's on either side and what they're fighting over in that particular region.”

 

[TWILIGHT]

Just a little sticking point on the proposed changes to the T2K timeline idea mentioned above.
The US in Iraq fighting against the French in Arabia wouldnt work as the new d20 version of 2300AD is keeping the timeline it had in it's earlier editions and as that game is a kind of sequel to T2K it would be in contradiction. In the history section of the 2300AD referee's manual it mentions a Franco/US alliance against a resurgent Iran in 2010 with the main bulk of the war taking place in Iraq. France's non-intervention in the twilight war also helps secure it's brighter future in 2300AD. I'm a player/referee of both games and have always enjoyed the fact they were linked. JMHO

 

[Ranger]

TWILIGHT, your point is well taken, but to be honest, I was not trying to keep my time line compatible with the 2300 future. I was just trying to develope a set of events that would fit events over the last 20 years and still produce a T2K type enviroment.

To be honest, I never liked the way the original time line delt with the French. I can't imagine that either the US or the Soviets would have let the French opt out the way they did. I lean towards a US strike to take the French out some time late in the war to prevent them from doing what the Italians did in the initial time line.

 

[William]

Originally posted by Ranger:
To be honest, I never liked the way the original time line delt with the French. I can't imagine that either the US or the Soviets would have let the French opt out the way they did. I lean towards a US strike to take the French out some time late in the war to prevent them from doing what the Italians did in the initial time line.

Just remember the roles played by both the Swedes and the Swiss in WWII. In this war the French would be quick to fill a similar role diplomatically and mercantilly. I'd be willing to be that it would not be difficult to make themselves valuable to both sides... until it's all gone too far down the slide to hell. France was nuked in the original time line too, just not quite as badly. Their oil and sea ports were hit but their government infrastructure was left intact and that makes all the post war difference.

 

[savage]

An isolationist France is pretty reasonable then and now.

Some alteration to the 2300 timeline is not unreasonable. Specifically if the twilight war occured in the next few years (per some suggestion I put in several months ago) and the remnants of the US required French assistance in Saudi Arabia...we're also assuming that the 2300 history books are correct.

Savage

 

[Antares Administration]

OK, let's start with a list of potential hotspots for the next decade. Note that nations listed together do not necessarily mean that those countries are fighting each other. Rather, it means that those countries represent the region in which the conflict is taking place.

Asia -
1. Israel/Syria/Lebanon/Jordan option
2. Iran/Iraq option
3. Central Asian Republic option
4. India/Pakistan option
5. India/China option
6. Vietnam/China option
7. Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos option
8. Spratley Islands option
9. Indonesian oil option
10. Siberian resource grab option
11. North Korea/South Korea option
12. Japan/Phillipines/Indonesia option
13. Afghanistan option
14. Caucasus region option
15. ???

I can do the same for other continents/regions, but perhaps we should concentrate on one at a time.

Let's pick some, decide whether or not they would be viable or not, and then pick the forces involved.

Paul Nemeth
AA

 

[savage]

Good idea.... all of them. I'll use today's conflicts as an example of something I was discussing many months ago. The present US military infrastructure (or any superpower) has a limited number of fields of operation. Per FAS 3 major conflicts (all out wars) would significant limit our abilities to respond to new conflicts. Let us say we have Europe, North Korea/China, and the Middle East to contend with... We started in Afganistan and Iraq but could never withdrawl. A tour of duty in these regions becomes 1+ years. The govt uses the draft as another region exlodes. A new hostile south american govt and north korea use a couple small nukes and all bets are off.

Savage

 

[Antares Administration]

Originally posted by Savage:
Good idea.... all of them. I'll use today's conflicts as an example of something I was discussing many months ago. The present US military infrastructure (or any superpower) has a limited number of fields of operation. Per FAS 3 major conflicts (all out wars) would significant limit our abilities to respond to new conflicts. Let us say we have Europe, North Korea/China, and the Middle East to contend with... We started in Afganistan and Iraq but could never withdrawl. A tour of duty in these regions becomes 1+ years. The govt uses the draft as another region exlodes. A new hostile south american govt and north korea use a couple small nukes and all bets are off.

Savage

I very much agree. In WWII, that's how the Canadians became involved in the Italian and North-Western Theatres at the same time, or why we (the Canadians) now have battalions in Bosnia, Afghanistan, and soon the Congo - all at the same time. On the Canada thread elsewhere on the CotI Tw:2000 board, I suggested that although the extended period before the release of the WMDs would have allowed some time for countries to consolidate and focus their resources, a nation like Canada would still be involved in several theatres, perhaps with different allies. The Central Asian Republics and Central Europe are two obvious examples, but South America is another possibility.

Paul Nemeth
AA