Global War: Trend, Accident, or Conspiracy?

The obvious plot twist, at this point, would be that there is no nuclear attack. The whole point may have been to distract from...other things.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
The obvious plot twist, at this point, would be that there is no nuclear attack. The whole point may have been to distract from...other things.

You haven't seen anything yet. And its no distraction, this stand-off was for real! Ain't no game, sir.

Before Part 2D arrives, I want to discuss some major themes I hoped got across some major themes. Instead of me telling everybody what those themes were, does anyone care to tell me what they think they were?

I read an article yesterday that not only affirmed some of my fears and predictions, but also acknowledged my inspiration for a lot of these events.

U.S. Outlook Is Worst Since '92, Poll Finds
Results Give Democrats Edge

Americans are gloomier about the direction of the country than they have been at any point in 15 years, and Democrats hold their biggest advantage since early 1993 as the party better able to deal with the nation's main problems, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

A large portion of my futurism for the next fives years or so is based largely off of what happened in the early '90s, as I basically see ourselves in a very similar position. Back in 1992, the U.S. was crawling out of one major recession from 1987 - 1989 and another one that lasted from 1990 to 1991 and eventually did in George H.W. Bush. We're currently more similarly positioned to how we were in 1987, but the principle remains the same: the economy was in poor shape.

In late 1992, as Bush was heading out of office, he committed troops to Somalia. In Late 2008, as Bush heads out of office, he commits troops to Sudan.

I was hoping for a little more discussion on the events thus far, but it seems people just want the story to continue. Therefore, I have determined it is time for me to move on. Here is the vaunted part 2D.

1700 EST, Saturday, September 19, 2009: The EAS allows President Obama to broadcast his speech on every TV channel and all radio stations, as well as the Internet. Those who have chosen to watch pause, watching with determination for their fate. He starts off by confirming that indeed, the U.S. and China have entered a nuclear stand-off and that according to their intelligence, China has both the capability and, if pushed, the inclination to reduce major American cities to rubble. He notes that some advisers have encouraged the crisis to continue that the U.S. cannot appear weak. At the same time, he acknowledges at the end of the day, it is not worth losing decades of economic and political progress with China, nor is it worth endangering the lives of U.S. servicemen and women, and the American people themselves. As a result, Obama announces that he will not go to war with China. The U.S. forces he has positioned west of Japan will be recalled. However, he also states that he is not walking away from the Middle East. He calls upon China to remove its forces from Kazakhstan, to end its support to hostile guerrilla forces in Sudan, and most importantly, for their entire military to stand down. Only then will nuclear war truly be averted. Obama ends his speech by quoting Premier Nikita Khrushchev at the end of the Cuban Missile Crisis: "Mankind won. Thank you and God bless America."

Immedietely, the Chinese contact the White House and negotiations ensue. For the next hour or so, terms and conditions are discussed, and to make a long story short, the Chinese also decided they were not going to be responsible for World War III. China accepted the conditions and immedietely rang up orders to withdraw its forces from Kazakhstan and agreed to stop supporting Sudanese guerrillas. Its military forces stood down, and an hour after that, the U.S. military went to DEFCON 2. Behind closed doors, the Chinese resigns itself to the fact Iran is probably toast and chooses not to challenge the U.S. any longer.

In the minutes and hours following the announcement, reserved celebration rings out across America. Relief over the fact that nuclear war has been avoided is tempered by the fact America lies in ruins. Many cities still burn and the damage done across the nation will later be estimated to be in the low trillions.

The next three days are marked with chaos and confusion. Although the military drops back to DEFCON 3 within the three days, a state of emergency still exists, as does martial law. Many opportunists continue to loot and wreak havoc, forcing the National Guard and Marine Corps to engage in a campaign of pacification. Thousands of arrests are made and the confrontations often become violent. By that third day, much of the country has had order restored.

September 27, 2009: To the dismay of many, the People's Republic of China celebrates its "victory." At Tiannamen Square, hundreds of troops and civilians gather for a parade to celebrate China's subjectively successful capitulation of the U.S. Many historians will later agree that China presenting itself as the first serious threat to the U.S. since the USSR indeed signified a "passing of the torch." While China has many detractors, she also has many admirers, especially the countries of Iran, Sudan, North Korea, and Venezuela, for forcing the U.S. to back down against China, although it continues to pursue its foreign agenda in the Middle East.

Late September - December 2009: The next two months or so is a national healing period. By the beginning of October, the state of emergency and martial law are both lifted and most families have return to their homes. Those who have lost their homes, however, are given housing by FEMA or placed in special housing camps while a massive clean-up and reconstruction effort is underway. Thousands of detainees are housed in other special camps out in the Mid-West, as the government tries to determine how to go about prosecuting them. Safety is not a guarantee any longer, however, due to the diminished law enforcement and the multitude of criminals and opportunists still on the run. The entertainment and sports industry has largely come to a screeching halt, with Major League Baseball canceling the entire 2009 post-season for the first time since 1994. With many without cars, homes, and the high cost of fuel, social networks begin to form in neighborhoods and streets in order to cope with this new reality.

In the midst of this extraordinary crisis, however, the situation in Saudi Arabia is quickly taking a turn for the worse. A prominent Saudi Arabian insurgency leader, Khalid al-Aziz, has unified large groups of insurgents together. Intelligence reports coming out of Saudi Arabia are not encouraging: the attacks are going up and the insurgency seems to be capable of carrying out large-scale attacks. In spite of the growing instability, with the U.S. in societal shambles, the recession in high gear, the continuing crisis with Iran, and gas prices now reaching five dollars a gallon, the U.S. asks Saudi Arabia to increase production. After much discussion, the kingdom reluctantly agrees to increase production, knowing this could embolden the insurgency.

Saturday, October 17, 2009: Indeed it does. Local terrorists stage an attack on the upscale Riyadh Sahara Mall in Riyadh which (after intervention by Saudi special forces) kills some 300 Americans employed multi-national oil companies in the country. American public opinion and morale sinks to another low, close to the hopelessness seen during the nuclear alert. With the power of the insurgency now readily apparent and big business directly threatened, and the security of America's energy supplies in doubt, Obama agrees to stretch the military a bit more: the U.S. sends troops into Saudi Arabia to protect the oil infrastructure, adding to the already considerable U.S. military presence in the Middle East. This action is very polarizing in terms of public opinion: those who believe the U.S. most obtain oil at all costs supports the deployment, while others believe Obama is continuing the very policies that have doomed America in the first place.

As October turns into November, winter sets in and gas lines take a back seat to critical shortages of heating oil during a bitterly cold winter, with thousands dying in the cold over the next several months. The government grapples with possible solutions to the economic crisis, while also contemplating the commencement of war with Iran. During the process of the British MI6 uncovers evidence that Khalid al-Aziz is planning to intervene should U.S. forces press on into Iran. It is not clear what exactly he is planning to do, but intelligence makes it clear that al-Aziz has in his possession a considerable amount of resources. The U.S. and U.K. agree to follow up on this lead and keep watchful eye on al-Aziz and the Saudi insurgency.

Meanwhile, U.S. troops in Sudan face a quickly-deteriorating situation in Sudan. Emboldened by the revelation of America’s weakness, guerrillas wage open asymmetrical war against AFRICOM’s forces and commit even more atrocities against starving refugees. The strain caused by the persistent presence in the Persian Gulf and the new deployments to Saudi Arabia has the Pentagon and White House considering abandoning this peacekeeping humanitarian mission, considering it an “unnecessary burden” at this point. However, they also agree such a course of action would be political suicide and political suicide is completely unnecessary at this point.

November - December 2009: The nation mourns the death of the 300 Americans and attempts to adjust to the new social order. By now, many have lost their jobs, life savings, and young adults have come home from college, due to an inability to afford an education or signfiicant disruptions to these educational institutions. Although order has been restored, crime is still at an all-time high. Hundreds of U.S. companies are facing financial turmoil, and people are dying from violence, diminished health care, and police brutality. There is a growing gulf between the state and the populace, with the only certainty of employment being in the federal government, law enforcement, emergency services, and the military. Thanksgiving comes and goes, and it is a quiet, solemn holiday, with no parade in New York City, and no after-Thanksgiving sale. The President surprises the sailors aboard the USS George Washington in the Persian Gulf by joining them for Thanksgiving dinner. For the first time in a long while, Americans collectively have one thing to be absolutely, no-questions-asked thankful for: they avoided nuclear war.

November 30, 2009: Upon returning from the Persian Gulf, Obama commences a two-week tour of the nation's areas most devastated by civil disorder. At his first stop, Boston, Obama announces the "Nuclear Crisis Recovery Program," which will not only provide funding, but employment as well in an attempt to rebuild these devasted areas and provide housing and basic needs to all who were displaced or adversely affected by the crisis. For the first time in many months, Americans have something to feel good about.

Thus, that ends the protracted Part 2. Part 3 coming up soon.

I can't help but notice that there's a lack of brinksmanship in your scenario. Move and counter move. Where is world opinion in this crisis? Inquiring minds want to know.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
I can't help but notice that there's a lack of brinksmanship in your scenario. Move and counter move. Where is world opinion in this crisis? Inquiring minds want to know.

I don't know, I feel like this is how the U.S. and China, specifically would go at it. Remember, the circumstances of this situation are a bit bizarre. A nuclear confrontation was never meant to be a primary response, but because of a news leak and Fox News jumping on it, it led to all this. Its basically Fox News' fault.

If I put in world opinion, I would need Parts 2E to 2G.

I'm not exactly sure what world opinion would be. Part of me believes some countries would support China's standing up against the imperialist world superpower of the U.S. On the other hand, I'd think everyone would be pretty incredulous at these two giants going at it. I am hoping you can provide some insight on what world opinion would be on this crisis.

I just realized something I neglected. For all my detailed talk about the emergency management situation in the U.S., I barely talked about Operation GARDEN PLOT, its implications, and NORTHCOM's control of the situation. Or would they be responsible for the civil defense situation at all?

[edit on 17-5-2008 by sweatmonicaIdo]

"Garden Plot" is a different matter. The OPLAN has been upated considerabley, althought I can't tell you what it's called now. the document itself is an interesting read. When you're done with your scenario, I'll take a stab at one of my own...if anybody wants to see it.

Originally posted by Justin Oldham
I'll take a stab at one of my own...if anybody wants to see it.

Go for it when the time is right I will read with interest .
sweatmonicaIdo I look forward reading the reminder of your scenario or just your thoughts in general .

Cheers xpert11.

reply to post by xpert11


Just know that I've still got a long way to go. This is far from over.

Let me also say that I know the real interest is in the "wetworks" of such a scenario, such as the economic, political, and military affairs associated with it, but I hope people are also catching the cultural and social implications of these events (which I find most significant of all).

On another significant note, I just realized that I am setting up 2009 to be possibly the absolute worst year in United States history! We have the deep economic recession as postulated by Mr. Oldham, an attempted nuclear terrorist attack (which seems so long ago now), high rates of crime and domestic turmoil, unemployment, the closest we've ever come to nuclear war, a period of nationwide civil disorder, 300 Americans murdered in Saudi Arabia, a whole host of internal problems, and I say we are nowhere near done!!!

All I can say is, enjoy 2008 while it lasts. In other words, if there is a big concert you want to go to, if you want to attend a professional sporting event, or drive a nice car, if you have some time to travel abroad, do it this year (if, and only if you can afford it). I don't know about you all, but by New Year's Eve next year, I may actually end up missing the days of George W. Bush.

[edit on 18-5-2008 by sweatmonicaIdo]

S.M. is probably not wrong about the near future. A lot of things are getting out of hand. when it comes to the threat of global war, I think that we can face the real posibility of a conflict that gets out of hand...just like everything else. Would we be the victims of conspiracy? It's not impossible. We can accidentally stumble in to this thing, too.

As long as we remember that we can't get too deep in to the "how to" part of this, we can still have a useful discussion.

Once upon a time, I ran a political simulator on another web site. It wasn't very hard, and it was actually very educational. I may do it again, here on ATS.

It goes like this. One person take the role of story teller, and everyone else plays the role of advisor. A segment of the "story" is posted, and everyone has a week to post their advise. Then, the story moves one...with the people in the story taking YOUR advice. Some times things turn out good, sometimes...not so go.

There's advanced version of this, which is actually much harder. The fictional people in the "story" WILL act on any piece of advice you give them...but...you give your adivce in secret (by u2u). All you, as the poster, ever see...is the story. Here's the kicker. You, as an advisor, can only give one piece of advice each week. Just one.

When mutliple plays advise a character in the story to take an action, majority rule applies. Like a voting system.

Discussion between episodes is encouraged. It can make for some interesting posts. Some times, the best advise can have the most unforseen consequences.

I like this "theoretical" scenario thats being played out here, very entertaining, and more so if you can also visualise the occurances whilst reading them. This would make for a great documentary/commentary to be watched on tv with visuals of everything that "might" potentially occur. Id love to see that.

Justin, this idea of a political simulator sounds interesting, I think it may be worth a shot, just a small excercise at first to see how it goes, but it may make some of us think differently, the plus of course would be to stimulate an educated debate on decision and why things happened the way they did.

in regards to the China/US standoff and Justin's mention regarding more info on brinkmanship, I would like to jump in here and say that I think Australia would play a more important role here than the US and China's foreign ministers/advisors would, and heres why -

Our Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, as some may know is fluent in Chinese language of Mandarin, he has close ties with China, having studied there for some years and has also been personally invited to be a guest of the Chinese President at the upcoming Olympics. Mr Rudd hasnt accepted the offer yet, saying if he has free time he may attend but will see closer to the date.

What Im getting at here is that Australia could be a major influencing mediator between the brinkmanship of the US and China, in that Mr Rudd understands US foreign policy, its history and likewise the same of the Chinese.

Just thought Id mention that.

Looking forward to the rest. dont be put off by not that many responses, the storyline is prettygood, I dont have alot of time for reading it so try and catchup with it at a later stage.

keep it up

reply to post by Melbourne_Militia



I get it now. You guys are right when you say that in postmodern diplomacy and in the globalized world, any type of negotiations would be multilateral rather than bilateral, as I have postulated.

Now that you mention it, I do see that maybe Australia would indeed play the biggest role in getting China to back off of the U.S.. At the same time, I need to emphasize that this entire nuclear crisis, unlike the Cuban Missile Crisis, takes only a few days to unfold and then be defused. Even with the advent of global communications, the sheer magnititude of the situation as well as the domestic consequences of it, along with its very sudden onset, means that there would be very little time to integrate any other countries into the matter.

However, if either you or Justin can come up with a way to integrate an Australian role in the negotiations between the U.S. and China, I would love to hear it. Australian intervention would definitely make the defusing process a whole lot easier.

I also agree it would be awesome if these events were put into visual form, be it a mockumentary, or a made-for-TV movie like 1983's "The Day After," or even a mini-series or full-length television series like "The Wire." It would certainly be very depressing to watch.

[edit on 18-5-2008 by sweatmonicaIdo]

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
I also agree it would be awesome if these events were put into visual form, be it a mockumentary, or a made-for-TV movie like 1983's "The Day After," or even a mini-series or full-length television series like "The Wire." It would certainly be very depressing to watch.

Ha. That all depends on who you get to write it.

Bilateralism in the post industrial world isn't that hard. Pick up the phone. It can happen that fast. Diplomacy is a ceremony that is generally agreed on by the participants. It's deliberately built with a "pause" at regualr intervals to allow the heads of State and their advisors to work things out.

During the Cold War, as communications lag times melted away, everyone struggled with the old model of diplomacy. The old fashioned "launch on warning" orders had to go. Why? Because the nature of monitoring and detection changed so fast that it became real-time, which made standing policy dangerous.

Today's leaders still rely on the voluntary pause, but they get advice and they take action in real time. Leaders and advisors cna get punchy when they've been at it for 36 hours...without sleep. If anything, mistakes are more likely now than they were back in the day.

reply to post by sweatmonicaIdo


Here is a possible route to Australia involvement .

December 2008 . Terrorists launch a chemical or nerve gas attack against Sydney transport network .

December/January 2009 . Intel points to terrorists obtaining arms and training with the made in China sticker in the horn of Africa , Fiji and Indonesia.

Same time . There is a flurry of diplomatic activity between Indonesia and Australia. Allied warships in the Gulf come under attack from cruise missiles or miniature submarine e.t.c

Short time later . It is determined that a mixture of USN , RAN and RNZN ships were attacked by Iran . Iran announces that the ships were in Iranian territorial waters.

Suggest that one warship is sunk and two more badly damaged . Select the nationality of the sunken warship as needed .

Special forces uncover secret arms and chemical weapon caches in Sudan or Somalia.

Well that is the best I could do.

[edit on 18-5-2008 by xpert11]

[edit on 18-5-2008 by xpert11]

Now, let's hear from S.M. to see how this tracks in his scenario. No matter what, Australian leaders would have a vested interest in what goes on in their part of the world. Even if there was no threat, as Xpert11 describes, they'd still feel the need to be in the loop when somebody did something that might affect peace in their neughborhood.

What I would change now in regards to Australian development is to have Australia jump in the middle of the U.S. and China when China first accuses the U.S. of its war against Iran. Somebody in the Australian government would've sensed a major confrontation coming in this case.

Another thing I could have changed is that rather the U.S. ambassador, an Australian diplomat could've been the one to handle negotiations and broker a deal with the Chinese, while the U.S. ambassador simply relayed the information. So when the Chinese inform the U.S. of the submarine and later hammer out terms and conditions for a stand-down, it could've been the Australian who did all the talking with the Chinese. Essentially, the Australians save the world.

The general two, three-day timeframe remains intact. But as Justin said, these days, diplomacy can happen just by picking up the phone. All this could be done through videoconferencing.

I will join the cue after Justin in terms of cooking up a more regional scenario that incorporates some or all of the ideas I have put forward . Justin if you go ahead with the role playing idea make sure you drop me a U2U . Let the party role on .

Cheers xpert11.

i can't help but wonder about Bush Sr. As an ex china ambassador, ex president, and ex head of the CIA. I can't help but see him sticking his head into this.

I too am looking forward to how this may work out.

respectfully

reluctantpawn

Okay, then. I'll start working on soemthing today. You'll hear from me tomorrow. We'll keep it in this thread. Good to hear from you again, prawn. Hope all is well. Have a good day.

Simulation 1a

Time frame: Begins January 20th, 2009

THE RULES are as follows:

1. Read the story. Some installments will be longer than others.

2. You'll have 3-4 days between episodes to consider your options.

3. Post in this thread, following each episode, what your recommendation is for any of the NAMED characters.

4. You can argue with your fellow posters. Try to change their minds if you can, before the next episode.

5. In the episodes that follow, you'll see the named characters act on your recommendations. Results may not be what you expect.

6. This excersize will continue until it's no longer viable. If you give advice that has unforseen consequences...this could be a short lived effort. If you give good far-thinking advice, it might last a while.

7. Don't over think, or over analyze. Don't try to game the game. I'll be using a random number generator to decide the outcome of certain events, so that not even I will be in total control.

8. Post your comments or questions between episodes.

Here we go...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 20, 2009

Barack Obama is sworn in to office. During his inauguration speech, he declares:

"I pledge this administration to an even-handed approach to all things. I'll weight my options, and strive to do the right thing. I will always make my intentions clear, if I can. When I can't, I'll rely on the patience and wisdom of the American people to see me through what will no doubt be some trying times. I'm committed to every principle that I ran on. I am committed to every promise I made. I pledge to you that the next four years will be a true and genuine departure from the past."

After he is sworn in, Vice President John Edwards makes his own proclamation:

We come to Washington with a mandate for change. As both partisans and politicians, we are tasked with setting right what has been done wrong. Issues of economy, health care, and diplomacy need to be our first and fiest prorities. If we fail to do these things, history will judge us accordingly..."

After the official documents are signed, President Obama is taken to a meeting with his senior White House Staff. The Chief of Staff, Director of Communications, and Press Secretary are present at this gathering.

The first order of business will be to send important Cabinet post nominations to the Congress.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Assume that you're an advisor to the new administration. Who will you suggest for Cabinet officers? Secretaries of State, Defense, and other vital agencies can aid or impair a President. Whom will you suggest for appointment to these important posts?

You have three days to discuss this matter, and make your suggestions, before the next installment is posted.