The Hypotheticals Thread
Only UN members may post. Go here to apply for membership.
| Announcements | Posted on | |
|---|---|---|
| Please change your TSR password | 23-05-2013 | |
| Enter our travel-writing competition for the chance to win a Nikon 1 J3 camera | 20-05-2013 | |
-
- Reputation:
- Community Assistant
- PS Helper
- Wiki Support Team
- TSR Legend
- Posts: 13,119
Re: The Hypotheticals ThreadI think that any future hyp needs to have some structure. The current hyp just appears to have become too long and this is due, I feel, to a lack of direction. This isn't criticising our SG, I just feel that a more solid storyline would have helped.
-
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: Edinburgh
- Posts: 2,712
Re: The Hypotheticals ThreadSome kind of terrorist attack affecting the competition?(Original post by Makubex)
ICC Cricket World 2011 -
- Reputation:
- Banned
- Location: Edinburgh
- Posts: 768
Re: The Hypotheticals ThreadOkay, I'm just going to post what I had in a thread entitled "World War Three: Fiction or Possible Reality?":
"If there was another world war, it'd probably be a lot worse than the previous two put together owing to the development of nuclear weaponery and inter-continental missiles. I am being very preumptious in all of this, but this is how I believe things would turn out including belligerents:
Main Sides: US (including various western allies) vs China & Russia (with allies)
Cause: Increase in national defficit and loss of US economy due to China's cheap and growing market; certain conflicts such as a probable Korean war with US backing South and China backing North; if republicans got into power then McCain would no doubt desire a war to crush anything which opposes nationalism; lack of resources; general tension rise (More reasons but those are main ones).
Course of Events: Most likely timeline would be a US invasion of mainland China from it's closest makeshift base, South Korea. Assistance from Australia is likely, and if US was to attack mainland China, China may respond with attacking Japan. Russia likely to make advancement into northern middle eastern territory and Eastern Europe, most of NATO EU members would step in to combat this. The Middle East may kick off with Islamist nations fighting in support of China/Russia - Israel faces main conflict with Iran and some African nations. South American nations such as Brazil likely to support US. I think Pakistan may take this opportunity to attempt to invade India, who would no doubt support the US side due to strong UK ties - India likely victor unless China intervened from east.
Result: I must this very clear when I say that there are no winners in war. By statstics, I believe the US and western alliance would probably be victorious, even without the use of nuclear weaponery. But the likelyhood is that China/Russia would not want to be defeated without ending in a stalemate, and probably launch their nukes. The US doesn't have as many nuclear missiles, but it has more tactically positioned weapons; it also has it's own national weapon defense system whilst China and Russia do not (to date). However, even with these defenses in place it's invetable for the death of civilians in any war, and no doubt at least one major city would be hit in the US. I suspect a few major European cities may also be targetted, with the top likelyhoods to be London and Paris.
The actual result of fall out would linger for hundreds of years and probably reduce world population by 4/5ths. And ofcourse the economy of every nation would be crippled, that is if anything could last after the war.
As I have said, this is only my interpretation of what could happen, but what do you think? Could there be another World War? Who would be the belligerents? What might the result be?
Discuss" -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: Houston, Texas
- Posts: 2,587
Re: The Hypotheticals ThreadYou might wanna rethink that part there.(Original post by Jarlsberg)
The US doesn't have as many nuclear missiles, but it has more tactically positioned weapons; it also has it's own national weapon defense system whilst China and Russia do not (to date).
-
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: Edinburgh
- Posts: 2,712
Re: The Hypotheticals ThreadTo be fair, Russia do have more nukes than everyone else combined.(Original post by Texan88)
The bolded part -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: Houston, Texas
- Posts: 2,587
Re: The Hypotheticals ThreadTrue but so does the US if you don't count Russia(Original post by sandys1000)
To be fair, Russia do have more nukes than everyone else combined. -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: Edinburgh
- Posts: 2,712
Re: The Hypotheticals ThreadYeah, by a country mile. I wouldn't trust the state of much of the Russian nuclear arsenal though.(Original post by Texan88)
True but so does the US if you don't count Russia
See my response in the thread. Only the SG can.(Original post by Me-A-Doctor?)
Are we allowed to post hypothetical situations in threads?Last edited by sandys1000; 12-01-2011 at 19:09. -
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- TSR Legend
- Location: Durham
- Posts: 12,385
Re: The Hypotheticals ThreadAn interesting take(Original post by Jarlsberg)
Okay, I'm just going to post what I had in a thread entitled "World War Three: Fiction or Possible Reality?":
"If there was another world war, it'd probably be a lot worse than the previous two put together owing to the development of nuclear weaponery and inter-continental missiles. I am being very preumptious in all of this, but this is how I believe things would turn out including belligerents:
Main Sides: US (including various western allies) vs China & Russia (with allies)
Cause: Increase in national defficit and loss of US economy due to China's cheap and growing market; certain conflicts such as a probable Korean war with US backing South and China backing North; if republicans got into power then McCain would no doubt desire a war to crush anything which opposes nationalism; lack of resources; general tension rise (More reasons but those are main ones).
Course of Events: Most likely timeline would be a US invasion of mainland China from it's closest makeshift base, South Korea. Assistance from Australia is likely, and if US was to attack mainland China, China may respond with attacking Japan. Russia likely to make advancement into northern middle eastern territory and Eastern Europe, most of NATO EU members would step in to combat this. The Middle East may kick off with Islamist nations fighting in support of China/Russia - Israel faces main conflict with Iran and some African nations. South American nations such as Brazil likely to support US. I think Pakistan may take this opportunity to attempt to invade India, who would no doubt support the US side due to strong UK ties - India likely victor unless China intervened from east.
Result: I must this very clear when I say that there are no winners in war. By statstics, I believe the US and western alliance would probably be victorious, even without the use of nuclear weaponery. But the likelyhood is that China/Russia would not want to be defeated without ending in a stalemate, and probably launch their nukes. The US doesn't have as many nuclear missiles, but it has more tactically positioned weapons; it also has it's own national weapon defense system whilst China and Russia do not (to date). However, even with these defenses in place it's invetable for the death of civilians in any war, and no doubt at least one major city would be hit in the US. I suspect a few major European cities may also be targetted, with the top likelyhoods to be London and Paris.
The actual result of fall out would linger for hundreds of years and probably reduce world population by 4/5ths. And ofcourse the economy of every nation would be crippled, that is if anything could last after the war.
As I have said, this is only my interpretation of what could happen, but what do you think? Could there be another World War? Who would be the belligerents? What might the result be?
Discuss"
Albert Einstein once said: "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones." I respect the man a lot, but I don't agree with him on this.
Assuming world leaders are sane and lucid (and I don't there's an exception to this at the moment, even in North Korea), the threat of MAD should, theoretically, put anyone off using nuclear weapons in anger.
We'll undoubtedly see conflict in the future - on the current path probably over natural resources or climate change rather than territory - but I don't think we'll get to nuclear weapon use. Maybe I naive, but I simply don't believe that any sane person would do something that would inevitably destroy the human race. -
- Reputation:
- Overlord in Training
- Location: Edinburgh
- Posts: 2,712
Re: The Hypotheticals ThreadHow about a state-sponsored genocide being carried out (a bit like Rwanda)? Everyone condems it, via GA resolutions etc, and the there's a peacekeeping force set up by the SC, with nations asked to volunteer troops. You'd get all sorts of UNOs involved throughout and in the aftermath, and the AG could perhaps orchestrate an ICC trial?
-
- Reputation:
- TSR Demigod
Re: The Hypotheticals ThreadSounds like a good plan..would be easy to do an African/Asian/South American state..would be more interesting to do a European state..dunno lets say Jobbik became the majority government in Hungary and ordered the execution of all Roma people etc..(Original post by sandys1000)
How about a state-sponsored genocide being carried out (a bit like Rwanda)? Everyone condems it, via GA resolutions etc, and the there's a peacekeeping force set up by the SC, with nations asked to volunteer troops. You'd get all sorts of UNOs involved throughout and in the aftermath, and the AG could perhaps orchestrate an ICC trial?
