twilight2000-digest Wednesday, November 1 2000 Volume 1999 : Number 180 The following topics are covered in this digest: china and others vs US Re: china and others vs US Re: china and others vs US Re: china and others vs US Re: china and others vs US Re: china and others vs US RE: china and others vs US RE: china and others vs US RE: china and others vs US RE: china and others vs US Re: china and others vs US Re: china and others vs US Re: china and others vs US ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 15:06:32 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: china and others vs US Oh yah, we were expecting this setting to be 2010 perhaps. I'm not sure what China's military or the US military will be like then. I think I remember that China was trying to get carriers and nuclear submarines? - -- Peter Vieth | fitek@ix.netcom.com | http://sanitarium.scizzors.net *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 19:48:08 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: china and others vs US At 02:52 PM 10/28/00 -0700, Peter Vieth wrote: >A friend and I have been thinking about a new setting for T2k but I've >run into some problems. The overall idea is cooperation between several >countries in order to bring the US (and its allies I suppose) to its >knees by starving it of oil so that they can act without US >intervention. Here is what I've got: Okay, please don't respond with the "Scott, I don't want to hear criticism" thing. Note that with each of these comments, I ask questions that you have to answer to make this all work--those give you a point to start with in trying to make this more plausible. > >Russia gets very uppity over NATO expansion >OPEC severely limits exports Why? They want to limit exports to increase prices, but they don't want them TOO high, or substitutes for oil start looking really attractive, and people start cutting oil usage dramatically (yes, it's happened before). The profits from selling oil at this point would be so great that OPEC would never be able to maintain discipline (remember, OPEC isn't just the Arabs--it also includes Latin American and African producers). Remember that OPEC has trouble maintaining discipline as it is, and that the main thing that keeps it in business is that Saudi Arabia produces so much by itself that it can cut back to make up for the cheating of other members--but if you cut back production enough, that doesn't work anymore. So what's OPEC's motive here, and why does it apply to all diverse OPEC producers? >More trouble for Russia with Cechnya and such >Iraq flares up again (requiring US forces to head over to the gulf) Why would the U.S. volunteer to bail out Kuwait and Saudi Arabia if those two countries were (as part of OPEC) trying to cripple the world economy by restrictin oil output? I think that increasing output would be a quid pro quo for the rescue mission here. >Perhaps Israel gets harassed by its neighbors >China captures Vladivostok (for its port, or maybe not, the point is for >China to get some transport ships to prepare for an invasion of Taiwan) The port China doesn't need--they have perfectly good ports all along their coast. I don't think China is short of transport ships--what it lacks (making an invasion of Taiwan impossible at the moment) is _amphibious_ ships (and the ability organize a large-scale amphibious operation--it's NOT a simple thing). What does China get from Vladivostok, and what makes it worth the cost of risking a nuclear war with Russia? Anyway, what does Russia do when China tries this? >More overseas commitments for the US >Sabotage of oil production in the US This step wouldn't have any real effect on the U.S. specifically: oil is an internationally traded (and highly liquid--pardon the pun) market, which means that an increase or decrease in production increases or decreases the supply (and affects the price inversely) for EVERYONE. The only exceptions are partially closed domestic oil markets, like, say, Russia today, or better yet the Communist countries a before the collapse of Communism (e.g., Russia traded oil to Cuba at below-market prices for sugar, which subsidized the Cuban economy). Thus, sabotaging U.S. oil production would most hurt the specific U.S. producers of oil whose facilities were damaged, but not really so much the U.S. as a whole, since the U.S. isn't one of the biggest oil producers. To the extent the U.S. was hurt by rising oil prices, all net oil consumers (including all of Europe except Russia and I think the UK, and China) would all be hurt, while net producers (mostly OPEC, but also Russia and the UK) would be helped. Even assuming a shortage of oil coming from OPEC, this would still affect ALL non-OPEC countries, not just the U.S. Also, the oil production in the U.S. is so widely distributed (lots and LOTS of well, and a lot of different refineires) that you'd need to sabotaging dozens of separate facilities to really put a dent in the market. How does this affect the U.S more than it does other countries? >This goes on for a year or two, long enough to weaken the US but not >long enoough for people to get used to not having enough oil >If China needs it, and I don't know if they do, they try to capture >Alaska and cut off oil from there to the US. Alternatively more >sabotage. Again, the actual location of the source of the oil is almost entirely irrelevant to the effect on the international economy of a shut-off. BTW, how on earth is China gonna accomplish that? >Invasion of South Korea, Taiwan. I really think that, logistically, maintaing forces in all these different places would be overwhelmingly difficult for China. How will China manage these logistics? >Possibly something to do with Japan? Japan depends on imports, would it >be in anyones interest to somehow limit these? (definately the Japanese >navy could be a threat) EVERY country in the world depends on imports and exports. Anything that disrupts those screws up a country--also, disruptin Japane's imports would I assume also disrupt their exports (even if no one tried to interecept outgoing ships, other countries can't pay Japan for exports without selling their imports to Japan), so this would hurt everyone who depends on Japanese products, which is basically any country that uses electronics. Is whoever does this willing to target those other countries (even themselves) as well as Japan? >With acquired technology and capital and a weakened US, China assumes >the superpower status it wants. You can't just grab technology and make use of it: modern technology is very, very difficult to manufacture and even to maintain (and that's even IF you've got the spare parts--if not, you have to manufacture them yourself). This is the thing they leave out in all the stories about China stealing U.S. technology: in most cases, it's completely irrelevant, because China can't build the stuff at anything like a reasonable cost, and can't maintain it on a large scale. (This is also why the USSR never fielded really high-tech stuff in most areas, even though they were quite capable of developing it.) How does China manage to deal with the technology problem? Capital you REALLY can't grab: if you start grabbing stuff that belongs to other people (that is, physical capital), international bankers cut off your access to money, which is going to be a much greater amount of capital than any physical capital China could take. What is it that China is going to grab that's so valuable they're willing to lose access to loans and trade and so on? >Israel gets wiped off the map if the Arab states are so inclined. How? At the moment, Israel's army is a lot nastier than all of the Arab armies put together--and that's not just because of U.S. aid (it's largely because Israel fields high-tech stuff that the Arabs are simply incapble of operating, and because its better-educated soldiers are much more competent). >Other mayhem if desired. > >The Chinese invasion of Alaska I think would be fun to roleplay. But I >don't see how it could happen. Assuming they got several shiploads of >troops over, perhaps disguised as merchant ships, what resistance would >they find and how would the US react. Remember that oil has been >extremely scarce for a while now, and the US needs oil for its military. >So military intervention might be more limited, but then again the US >really needs Alaskan oil. Also US units are deployed elsewhere. Alaska >also has a small population. This scenario may not be realistic, but it >sounds like a lot of fun if the PCs are a group of national guardsmen or >something. Perhaps they could be in Anchorage when the invasion takes >place and harass the Chinese military. Some parts of this remain >unresolved: what would Russia be doing all this time, and what are the >other unnamed conflicts? Would these conflicts lead to nuclear war? What >other campaign ideas exist (perhaps the PCs could be involved in some >other US response) In a period of oil shortage, this invasion is going to require a lot of oil to pull off, and to supply.... If China's going to make an oil grab, fighting over the Spratly Islands in the South China Sea is much more probable (right now I think that's the biggest scenario for a war in SE Asia); this could conceivably get the U.S. or even (at a stretch) Japan involved. You might want to look up some info on those islands adn the stuff that's happened there over the last decade. Does that help any? Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 18:48:06 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: china and others vs US Scott David Orr wrote: A lot MM ok my setting seems to have been shot to pieces. Perhaps it would have been better to explain the spirit of the settingl;a setting that is familiar but eerily different. I wanted to set a campaign somewhere I know, meaning the US and more specifically the West coast. I contemplated setting it in the Sacramento area, and might still do that. But I wanted it to be different. The physical locations would be the same but by making China the dominant power in the world, I wanted to make the setting strange. I think it's hard to imagine a world, at least for me, where some other country is the greatest power. So I just came up with ways that China could accomplish that. Note: I was thinking that if China could grab South Korea or Taiwan without the US interfering, they could use the manufacturing capabilities of those countries to increase their own manufacturing capability. The typical t2k setting of a limited nuclear war with Russia was just getting old. I've never set a campaign in the US before. The presence of Soviet troops and Mexican soldiers would make it unusual. But I have no intention of buying the supplements for the US (or more importantly trying to find them for sale somewhere) and the original T2k setting that they work off of is exactly what I wanted to avoid. Since international relations isn't really a subject I know that much about, perhaps Scott you can come up with something better. Mainly it should be about creating a world that will be fun to roleplay in. - -- Peter Vieth | fitek@ix.netcom.com | http://sanitarium.scizzors.net *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 22:26:26 -0500 From: Rob Barnes Subject: Re: china and others vs US I personally think the China scenario is stretching things a little, but if your players don't mind, go for it. Realistic and plausible scenarios for a T2k style war are getting pretty scarce. Some other possibilities: 1.) Play it as a "what if" or alternate history scenario. It's current day, but throw a twist into the history, like Germany and Japan weren't defeated in WWII, or what would the world have been like if the Confederate States of America were successful in seceding from the United States during the American Civil War? You can retroactively create whatever sort of scenario you need this way, and have a pretty developed background as well. 2.) Instead of military force, utilize terrorism or some sort of high-technology catastrophe. What if some nihilistic terrorists detonated a small nuke close enough to NORAD to trigger a nuclear response? Or unleashed some sort of biological weapon in a major urban area? Disaster scenarios are much easier to envision when you make the perpetrators a small group and not a national government. What if some of the Y2K panic was well-founded after all? 3.) Make it a disaster beyond human control. Maybe a comet strikes the moon, or Australia, or Global Warming causes the oceans to rise, or whatever fits your scenario best. I read the other day that scientists had revived a bacteria that predated the dinosaurs. Suppose that bacteria is also some sort of virus that modern humans have no resistance to and it gets loose. Or maybe you can throw an X-Files type twist on it and the ETs are manipulating a nuclear war. Heck, supposedly the US got all sorts of technology from the UFO crash at Roswell. Just pretend a UFO crashes (or lands) in China instead. Maybe a few years later the Chinese start fielding very high tech weapons and vehicles which so outclass their opposition that they make a bid for conquest of Taiwan, Korea, etc. Granted, these sorts of scenarios aren't terribly plausible either, but they don't involve trying to rewrite current international relations to cause a Third World War scenario. 4.) Speaking of UFOs, you could also do a more modern version of the HG Welles War of the Worlds scenario. A group of PCs in whatever area you set your game trying to overcome a determined alien invader. Maybe the aliens are defeated but now someone has to restore order and most of the military and governments were taken out in the invasion. Or, if you can get the various members of this list interested, we could participate in a "Great Game" style session to create a new Twilight scenario for 2010. Peter Vieth wrote: > A friend and I have been thinking about a new setting for T2k but I've > run into some problems. The overall idea is cooperation between several > countries in order to bring the US (and its allies I suppose) to its > knees by starving it of oil so that they can act without US > intervention. Here is what I've got: > > Russia gets very uppity over NATO expansion > OPEC severely limits exports > More trouble for Russia with Cechnya and such > Iraq flares up again (requiring US forces to head over to the gulf) > Perhaps Israel gets harassed by its neighbors > China captures Vladivostok (for its port, or maybe not, the point is for > China to get some transport ships to prepare for an invasion of Taiwan) > More overseas commitments for the US > Sabotage of oil production in the US > This goes on for a year or two, long enough to weaken the US but not > long enoough for people to get used to not having enough oil > If China needs it, and I don't know if they do, they try to capture > Alaska and cut off oil from there to the US. Alternatively more > sabotage. > Invasion of South Korea, Taiwan. > Possibly something to do with Japan? Japan depends on imports, would it > be in anyones interest to somehow limit these? (definately the Japanese > navy could be a threat) > With acquired technology and capital and a weakened US, China assumes > the superpower status it wants. > Israel gets wiped off the map if the Arab states are so inclined. > Other mayhem if desired. > > The Chinese invasion of Alaska I think would be fun to roleplay. But I > don't see how it could happen. Assuming they got several shiploads of > troops over, perhaps disguised as merchant ships, what resistance would > they find and how would the US react. Remember that oil has been > extremely scarce for a while now, and the US needs oil for its military. > So military intervention might be more limited, but then again the US > really needs Alaskan oil. Also US units are deployed elsewhere. Alaska > also has a small population. This scenario may not be realistic, but it > sounds like a lot of fun if the PCs are a group of national guardsmen or > something. Perhaps they could be in Anchorage when the invasion takes > place and harass the Chinese military. Some parts of this remain > unresolved: what would Russia be doing all this time, and what are the > other unnamed conflicts? Would these conflicts lead to nuclear war? What > other campaign ideas exist (perhaps the PCs could be involved in some > other US response) > > Any ideas? > > -- > Peter Vieth | fitek@ix.netcom.com | > http://sanitarium.scizzors.net > > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com > with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 23:42:17 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: china and others vs US At 06:48 PM 10/28/00 -0700, Peter Vieth wrote: >Scott David Orr wrote: >A lot > >MM ok my setting seems to have been shot to pieces. Perhaps it would have been >better to explain the spirit of the settingl;a setting that is familiar but >eerily different. I wanted to set a campaign somewhere I know, meaning the US and >more specifically the West coast. I contemplated setting it in the Sacramento >area, and might still do that. But I wanted it to be different. The physical >locations would be the same but by making China the dominant power in the world, >I wanted to make the setting strange. I think it's hard to imagine a world, at >least for me, where some other country is the greatest power. So I just came up >with ways that China could accomplish that. Okay, if you're going to do that I'd set it a little further in the future--maybe 2020 or 2030. I think that China would pose more of a threat then (though obviously you have to do more with speculating about new technology). I for one find the premise used in Dark Angel to be very convincing: terrorists detonate a nuke in outer space and destroy a lot of the U.S.'s electronic equipment with the EMP. Of course, the U.S. can replace all of it eventually, but it wrecks the U.S. economy temporarily, and the U.S. loses its place as the preeminent world power. >Note: I was thinking that if China could grab South Korea or Taiwan without the >US interfering, they could use the manufacturing capabilities of those countries >to increase their own manufacturing capability. I think China might _try_ that; in reality, trying to use captive populations in modern production (let alone high-tech production) has never worked very well. Nonetheless, I could see a country like China trying it anyway (the way they've acted toward Hong Kong and Taiwan demonstrates that they really don't grasp this principle. > >The typical t2k setting of a limited nuclear war with Russia was just getting >old. I've never set a campaign in the US before. The presence of Soviet troops >and Mexican soldiers would make it unusual. But I have no intention of buying the >supplements for the US (or more importantly trying to find them for sale >somewhere) and the original T2k setting that they work off of is exactly what I >wanted to avoid. I agree with you here--not only is it old, but it really is kind of boring to me to play in an altnerate history rather than a future history--what _could_ happen is a lot more scary than what _didn't_ happen. > >Since international relations isn't really a subject I know that much about, >perhaps Scott you can come up with something better. Mainly it should be about >creating a world that will be fun to roleplay in. > No, I think your ideas are basically good--but I'm trying to improve them a bit. :) Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 09:09:09 AKST From: "Daniel G" Subject: Re: china and others vs US I think the invasion of Alaska would be hard to pull off. 1)Long supply lines-none of the villages in the SW have access to our (small) road net. Probably the closest port on the road net is Homer, but the harbor there isn't the greatest. Unmodified ships can't go into Anchorage due to the glacial silt, so heavy ships would have to dock in Whittier and all the cargo go through a tunnel, other on truck or ship. If the US blew the tunnel (it's only one lane), Whittier would be unusable, and the next closest port is quite a ways further away. 2)Transportation-roads are few and far between. The ones that are around are not designed for extensive traffic. The highway between Anchorage and Fairbank is one lane each way, as is the Alcan. Air mobility would probably be easy to do, as there are tons of small strips dotting Alaska. 3)US reinforcements-Already in Alaska is the 7th LID, a seperate parachute brigade (I forget the name), and a large number of fighters. As far as reinforcements go, Elmendorf AFB/Fort Richardson (Anchorage) is well equipped to handle large numbers of people. They recently built a clearing house type building to allow the rapid redeployment of troops. Also, ships can come up the Inside Passage from the Pacific Northwest, staying under friendly air cover pretty much the whole way. If the sea routes are cut by the Chinese, the Alcan is still there. 4)partisans-even if the Chinese destroyed most of the US troops, another WWII-Yugoslavia would be entirely possible. The terrain would work just fine. All of this is just personal knowledge. Some from books and some from travelling around Alaska. As far as the premise behind your scenario goes, I don't know all that much about international relations, but I don't see any reason why oil production couldn't be sabotaged. Has anyone seen Hellfighters? It's an old John Wayne movie about fighting oil fires and has some good sabotage/guerilla warfare ideas in it. The Trans-Alaska pipeline probably wouldn't be that hard to blow, but you might lose your saboteurs. - -Daniel >From: Peter Vieth >Reply-To: twilight2000@lists.ient.com >To: twilight2000@lists.ient.com >Subject: china and others vs US >Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2000 14:52:47 -0700 > >A friend and I have been thinking about a new setting for T2k but I've >run into some problems. The overall idea is cooperation between several >countries in order to bring the US (and its allies I suppose) to its >knees by starving it of oil so that they can act without US >intervention. Here is what I've got: > >Russia gets very uppity over NATO expansion >OPEC severely limits exports >More trouble for Russia with Cechnya and such >Iraq flares up again (requiring US forces to head over to the gulf) >Perhaps Israel gets harassed by its neighbors >China captures Vladivostok (for its port, or maybe not, the point is for >China to get some transport ships to prepare for an invasion of Taiwan) >More overseas commitments for the US >Sabotage of oil production in the US >This goes on for a year or two, long enough to weaken the US but not >long enoough for people to get used to not having enough oil >If China needs it, and I don't know if they do, they try to capture >Alaska and cut off oil from there to the US. Alternatively more >sabotage. >Invasion of South Korea, Taiwan. >Possibly something to do with Japan? Japan depends on imports, would it >be in anyones interest to somehow limit these? (definately the Japanese >navy could be a threat) >With acquired technology and capital and a weakened US, China assumes >the superpower status it wants. >Israel gets wiped off the map if the Arab states are so inclined. >Other mayhem if desired. > >The Chinese invasion of Alaska I think would be fun to roleplay. But I >don't see how it could happen. Assuming they got several shiploads of >troops over, perhaps disguised as merchant ships, what resistance would >they find and how would the US react. Remember that oil has been >extremely scarce for a while now, and the US needs oil for its military. >So military intervention might be more limited, but then again the US >really needs Alaskan oil. Also US units are deployed elsewhere. Alaska >also has a small population. This scenario may not be realistic, but it >sounds like a lot of fun if the PCs are a group of national guardsmen or >something. Perhaps they could be in Anchorage when the invasion takes >place and harass the Chinese military. Some parts of this remain >unresolved: what would Russia be doing all this time, and what are the >other unnamed conflicts? Would these conflicts lead to nuclear war? What >other campaign ideas exist (perhaps the PCs could be involved in some >other US response) > >Any ideas? > >-- >Peter Vieth | fitek@ix.netcom.com | >http://sanitarium.scizzors.net > > >*************************************************************************** >To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com >with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. > _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 15:48:51 -0600 From: "Walter Rebsch" Subject: RE: china and others vs US It seems to me that the most plausable scenario for a war with China comes through the India/Pakistan dispute. In that region, India and China are pretty big rivals that don't really care for each other. India has recently been getting cozy with Russia's military industrial complex (the recent sale of about 80 Su-30's, the production technology for those planes and licence to build another 80 locally in India, and the purchance and refitting of an aircraft carrier comes to mind). China and North Korea have been exporting missle technology (among other things) to Pakistan to help offset the growing Indian dominance in the region. If Pakistan and India start a real war (not just the border skirmishes they seem to love so much), it seems possible that China could step up military aid to Pakistan. This would irritate India severely and maybe there could be a naval incident (during the shipping of military stuff via ship) to spark things between India and China. Suppose then that the combined China/Pakistan bloc starts to stomp on India badly. Meanwhile, China gets caught in the US stealing nuke technology and a bunch of Chinese 'atrocities' against Indians get blared on the news to stir up the US against China real bad. So the US starts assisting India a little at first, then it finally gets pulled in completely when China decides to finally annex Tiawan. Add in a civil war in Russia and a world wide super-flu that kills 20% of the world population for good measure, and you got a pretty grim scenario where just about anything could happen. Or make it go a different way and have China and India become allies against us. Probably not very realistic, but it would create a huge threat. India is soon to get it's second aircraft carrier and is considering starting to build Russian Kilo-Class subs under liscense. They are also planning to buy strategic bombers and early warning aircraft from Russia. Gotta wonder what they are so worried about ... *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 13:24:41 AKST From: "Daniel G" Subject: RE: china and others vs US An interesting variation: Terrorists pop a tactical nuke in Kashmir, so both sides blame each other. India invades Pakistan, prompting China to join on the Pakistani side. Russia doesn't want another Chinese satellite, so they help India. We have similar goals as Russia, so we help India. Eventually, the Russia-China border blows up. It would be the US and Russia against China, with a Pakistan-India war on the side. Maybe Afghanistan and a few of the other - -stans get in on the act, both to help their muslim brethren, and to get back at Russia. You could have some interesting campaigns. An A team training Russian conscripts on the border would be neat. - -Daniel >From: "Walter Rebsch" >Reply-To: twilight2000@lists.ient.com >To: >Subject: RE: china and others vs US >Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 15:48:51 -0600 > >It seems to me that the most plausable scenario for a war with China comes >through the India/Pakistan dispute. (snipped) _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 18:45:35 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: RE: china and others vs US At 03:48 PM 10/29/00 -0600, Walter Rebsch wrote: >It seems to me that the most plausable scenario for a war with China comes >through the India/Pakistan dispute. In that region, India and China are >pretty big rivals that don't really care for each other. India has recently >been getting cozy with Russia's military industrial complex (the recent sale >of about 80 Su-30's, the production technology for those planes and licence >to build another 80 locally in India, and the purchance and refitting of an >aircraft carrier comes to mind). China and North Korea have been exporting >missle technology (among other things) to Pakistan to help offset the >growing Indian dominance in the region. > >If Pakistan and India start a real war (not just the border skirmishes they >seem to love so much), it seems possible that China could step up military >aid to Pakistan. This would irritate India severely and maybe there could >be a naval incident (during the shipping of military stuff via ship) to >spark things between India and China. Suppose then that the combined >China/Pakistan bloc starts to stomp on India badly. > >Meanwhile, China gets caught in the US stealing nuke technology and a bunch >of Chinese 'atrocities' against Indians get blared on the news to stir up >the US against China real bad. So the US starts assisting India a little at >first, then it finally gets pulled in completely when China decides to >finally annex Tiawan. Add in a civil war in Russia and a world wide >super-flu that kills 20% of the world population for good measure, and you >got a pretty grim scenario where just about anything could happen. > I can see that--not likely, but as likely as any other world war scenario. I do wonder though about India allying with the U.S.--the two countries have traditionally not been very close, and India would be to be _very_ desperate (and likely wouldn't allow U.S. forces on or over its soil), and the U.S. as well would be reluctant unless it looked like China and Pakistan had a real chance of destroying India (it is, after all, a democracy, and no one wants China to be more powerful). >Or make it go a different way and have China and India become allies against >us. Probably not very realistic, but it would create a huge threat. India >is soon to get it's second aircraft carrier and is considering starting to >build Russian Kilo-Class subs under liscense. They are also planning to buy >strategic bombers and early warning aircraft from Russia. Gotta wonder what >they are so worried about ... > India wants to be a regional power, and so they're trying to build a true blue-water navy that can project power. One primary worry is the U.S.--hence the subs. During one of the Indo-Pakistani wars (1972?), the U.S. prevented the victorious Indians from advancing far into Pakistan by stationing a fleet off the coast, and the Indians have never forgotten about that. However, the carriers I think are something different: India wants to be a regional power, and to project power to more than just its immediate neighbors, it has to have aircraft carriers (carriers are really the only way to do that sort of thing). Note also that India has had carriers for some time--but its old ex-British ones wore out a few years go. This, BTW, is the same reason China has toyed with getting them. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2000 18:48:46 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: RE: china and others vs US At 01:24 PM 10/29/00 AKST, Daniel G wrote: >An interesting variation: > Terrorists pop a tactical nuke in Kashmir, so both sides blame each other. >India invades Pakistan, prompting China to join on the Pakistani side. >Russia doesn't want another Chinese satellite, so they help India. We have >similar goals as Russia, so we help India. Eventually, the Russia-China >border blows up. It would be the US and Russia against China, with a >Pakistan-India war on the side. Maybe Afghanistan and a few of the other >-stans get in on the act, both to help their muslim brethren, and to get >back at Russia. Afghanistan and the other "stans" aren't going to be on the same side--the others in fact violently oppress "Muslim extremists" (which in practice means anyone who calls for involving Islam in politics), and see Afghanistan as the primary source of instability in the region. They all tend to have good relations with China, Pakistan, and Iran, but they tend to submit to Russian dictates in most cases (because they're tiny compared to Russia, and Tajikistan even still has Russian border troops deployed on its territory). Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 12:20:53 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: china and others vs US Scott I wonder would it be possible for unfriendly countries to sabotage oil production in other countries to bring oil prices up? Or would the scale of the sabotage be too large? - -- Peter Vieth | fitek@ix.netcom.com | http://sanitarium.scizzors.net *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 19:33:54 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: china and others vs US At 12:20 PM 11/1/00 -0800, Peter Vieth wrote: >Scott I wonder would it be possible for unfriendly countries to sabotage oil >production in other countries to bring oil prices up? Or would the scale of the >sabotage be too large? > If I were going to do it, I'd look for the biggest producers, and I'd go for bottlenecks--probably refineries and pipelines rather than oil wells. Remember that anything you do is more or less temporary, because it can be fixed; on the other hand, even one major problem can make the markets panicky, and send prices up hire than the incident merits. In any case, I'd tend to agree with your implication there that sabotaging a LOT of producers would be tricky; I'm not sure it'd be that hard, though--it's just not something that most terrorists would want to accomplish, without a very specific reason. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 16:09:47 AKST From: "Daniel G" Subject: Re: china and others vs US Don't forget that not all oil is transported by pipeline. You could block the Suez, but the security is probably pretty good. Same with the Panama Canal. Also, if you knock out some wells in various areas, you force the oil companies to raise security on all of them, further raising oil prices. Sinking supertankers would also help, as you can't exactly go out and buy. An interesting Merc mission could be on a supertanker. Several tankers have been knocked out by terrorists, and you are assigned to protect the one you are on. Have some crewmen be bad guys and you could make a great role-playing scenario. - -Daniel >From: Scott David Orr >Reply-To: twilight2000@lists.ient.com >To: twilight2000@lists.ient.com >Subject: Re: china and others vs US >Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2000 19:33:54 -0500 >If I were going to do it, I'd look for the biggest producers, and I'd go >for bottlenecks--probably refineries and pipelines rather than oil wells. >Remember that anything you do is more or less temporary, because it can be >fixed; on the other hand, even one major problem can make the markets >panicky, and send prices up hire than the incident merits. In any case, >I'd tend to agree with your implication there that sabotaging a LOT of >producers would be tricky; I'm not sure it'd be that hard, though--it's >just not something that most terrorists would want to accomplish, without a >very specific reason. > >Scott Orr >*************************************************************************** >To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com >with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. > _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.ient.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1999 #180 *************************************