Random Thread

OK, off to Europe we go chaps. I doubt I'll be posting much for the next 7 weeks or so so enjoy the break from Monash.
 
Sorry if this is the wrong thread for this sort of thing but I've been working on a World War III article for Future wiki since 2013-ish and one thing I want to get right is the belligerents list (yes I know Korea reuniting is unrealistic but it's not meant to be 100% realistic, just believable)
future.fandom.com

World War III (Frozen War)

World War III (WWIII, or WW3) also referred to as the Third World War or Frozen War I was an international conflict taking place in the Americas, Eurasia (specifically Eastern Europe and the Sino–Japanese orbit) and the Muslim world (isolated skirmishes also took place in Central Europe and...
future.fandom.com future.fandom.com
 
I tried to wrap my head around your article and all I got was a migraine. Since you wrote alternative history, everything you write is as believable or unbelievable as the reader dims.

What you wrote does not represent my experience so it's not believable to me.
 
Officer of Engineers said:
I tried to wrap my head around your article and all I got was a migraine. Since you wrote alternative history, everything you write is as believable or unbelievable as the reader dims.
Click to expand...
Well, the main difference between this article and the OTL is that Russia opens up simultaneous (smaller) fronts against Finland, Norway and Estonia in addition to its war in Ukraine (although I may edit that to make it more in line with OTL but in a few years it'll be alternate history again).

Korea reunion takes place over time between 2 August 2026 and 2 August 2027, and the only reason I added that wasn't realism but to make the Anti-US faction more intimidating, because North Korea alone doesn't sound like a very threatening partner country for China and Russia.

But yes it is alternate history because Ukraine's drone retaliation doesn't come until September 2027.
 
The problem I see is the (now glaring) difference between the anticipated organizational effectiveness, combat performance and leadership of Russian forces and the reality as demonstated in Ukraine. Until 2022? NATO feared a 'Red Storm Rising' scenario. What they actually ended up seeing was something more like 'Tropic Thunder'. It actually took the Russian's about 12 months before they managed to untangle the mess they'd made of the army and even now their still not quite not performing at the levels NATO expected prior to this war.

Basically? Any 'what if' scenario set post the late 80s/ early 90s is going to have to take that deteriorarion in general performance into account.
 
Last edited:
Monash said:
The problem I see is the (now glaring) difference between the anticipated organizational effectiveness, combat performance and leadership of Russian forces and the reality as demonstated in Ukraine. Until 2022? NATO feared a 'Red Storm Rising' scenario. What they actually ended up seeing was something more like 'Tropic Thunder'. It actually took the Russian's about 12 months before they managed to untangle the mess they'd made of the army and even now their stillnot quite not performing at the levels NATO expected prior to this war.

Basically? Any 'what if' scenario set post the late 80s/ early 90s is going to have to take that deteriorarion in general performance into account.
Click to expand...
Yeah Russia is a pissant compared to the military juggernaut a United Korea would represent, or the titan that is China. Japan would also probably roflstomp Russia in a fight. Basically: Russia would be the Italy of World War 3, if even that.
 
If WWIII is going to be fought with nukes, then I cannot see how Russia would be the rump considering they have the largest nuclear arsenal on earth 5500+ nukes vs the US 5000+ nukes and that's not counting the component form nukes. Everybody else is in the low hundreds with China maxing out at ~450-500 nukes.
 
Officer of Engineers said:
If WWIII is going to be fought with nukes, then I cannot see how Russia would be the rump considering they have the largest nuclear arsenal on earth 5500+ nukes vs the US 5000+ nukes and that's not counting the component form nukes. Everybody else is in the low hundreds with China maxing out at ~450-500 nukes.
Click to expand...
Nuclear exchange would largely be limited in scope and only be one or two nukes going off at a time i.e. Fat Boy and Little Man
 
Gun Grape said:
If one goes they all go.

The only limited nuclear engagement was the US bombing Japan. And thats only because we were the only ones with nuclear weapons
Click to expand...
I strongly disagree, most nation-states are run by humans, and humans have self-preservation instincts. A mass nuclear exchange is impossible unless some superintelligent AI goes rogue and hijacks all the nuke systems in the world, and even that is unlikely.
 
Use them before you lose them.

There would have to be major communication between the Nuclear Power that was planning a limited strike and the other Nuclear weapon holding countries prior to launch. And then it still would be iffy.

We knew in the 60s that limited use of tactical nuc weapons would be the start of the end of the world.

Thats why we got rid of them once we developed conventional weapons that achieved the same effects. Desert Storm killed ground based Nuclear weapons.

And we only kept a limited number of aerial ones. Those would have been used to punch holes in the enemy air defense so that B-1s,B-2s and
B-52s could deliver their weapons on target.
 
Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD): If you attack me, I’ll retaliate. To do so, I need to survive a first strike, and have the will to launch an attack that will likely reduce global population by half, or 90% or something like that.

I may be cautious, and trust that enough of my ability to retaliate will survive to erase you and all you love (“launch on impact”). Or, I may be rash, and “launch on warning,” which is an excellent way to (a) preserve the ability to retaliate; and (b) dramatically increase the prospects of an “oops, just a computer glitch. SORRY!”

Surviving your first attack is greatly enhanced by having part of my ICBMs under the ocean. Yes, yes, that makes communications a bit more difficult, but I can always leave word that if I don’t say stop, then the Sub Commander is to assume she is ordered to launch, on risk of court martial. Again, maybe a little inconvenient if communications are disrupted by satellites being knocked out or some other jamming.

All of which assumes that the Russians love their children as much as we do (1960s reference). But … what about the North Koreans?

Anti-Ballistic Missile shields! If I can build enough ABMs to prevent any – not even one! – of your missiles getting through, they I will feel so much safer. You, on the other hand, will not feel safe because now I can launch without fear of MAD. Of course, you’re probably going to do the same, and that gets expensive for both of us. And, we can both keep increasing the tonnage we toss at each other, until we think (not know, but think) we can beat your shield.

Unless, of course, you come up with suitcase bombs, truck nukes, or drone swarms that make it all moot.

Can we talk about this, instead of building bombs?
Please?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top