Where next?

[Noltyboy]

Where do you think the conflicts for the next 15 to 25 years are going to be? Any ideas on its location, be it the Falklands, Balkans, East Asia or south pacific. What kind of forces do you think will be a used and who will be involved?

2000 word essay to be on my desk by friday!

[theFightingSeabee]

I'll go out on a limb and say... the middle east, Africa, eastern europe, and central and south america.

[-Eddie-]

Falklands could be a real possibility what with the discovery of oil underneath it. Forces involved? I can rule Britain out. I would put the FIDF, America, Venezuela, and Argentina in.

[BlackMoria]

I will go out on a limb and will predict that within the next 5 years that US forces will be involved in some fashion in Pakistan, unless the current Pakistani regime can successfully and decisively deal with the growing Taliban influence in the Swat Valley that is growing outwards. The US or a Coalition will need to go and clean up the mess the Pakistani military/government can't handle.

Iran is another source of potential US 'intervention'. Within 10 years my gut tells me. The current kook in power keeps talking like he is got some manifest destiny to unite Islam (and trying to get the bomb to boot) which may mean another 'imposed' regime change may be in order.

The horn of Africa area (Somalia, Sudan) is another areas. Once the piracy of the Arden pisses enough people off, there will be a call to deal with the Somali issue once and for all and eradicate the pirates and their supporters (namely the warlords). I say the tipping point on that decision will be within the next two years.

The president of Sudan is looking for a bitch slapping, so unless he walks a fine line, he is likely to get it as there is quite a bit of international sediment to deal with the genocide in Darfur.

The next major conflict may be between Nato and Russia within the next 15 years. The Georgian conflict I think lit the slow simmering fire of another Cold War, as least as long as Putin clings to power. And I see him clinging to power, even if it means taking a step back on reforms and the advances that Russia has seen since the end of the Cold War.

You heard it here first, if these come to pass.

[bodkin]

I can't see any major conventional wars between two superpower nations happening. The world is increasingly commited to a common monetary system and economic community which being on the outside of means being a financial basket case.

I also can't see any first world country trying to conquer another for it's riches or for idealogical reasons. I think future wars will be more like what we're seeing now, with large powerful states fighting smaller fanatical groups like in Afghanistan/Pakistan or troublesome neighbours like in Georgia. Their will still be the occasional clashes between some tin pot governments in Africa but generally I think we've seen the last of anyone trying to conquer Russia for the time being.

[Noltyboy]

Falklands could be a real possibility what with the discovery of oil underneath it. Forces involved? I can rule Britain out. I would put the FIDF, America, Venezuela, and Argentina in.

The FI are British territory and there are British forces always on the islands. So that would always involve the UK. The question would the americans would get involved more openly than last time is a good one. America doesn't want to lose most of South America as there allies and it will in Argentina if it openly backs the brits. As for the Argintinian Forces they have been badly run down for the last 25 years and probably couldnt do what it did in 82 now, let alone against the forces garrisoning the island now. It is political suicide for the Argentinian government to renounce the claim on Las Malvinas but military Suicide to try and invade again.

To be honest i shouldnt have mentioned the FI in my own question.

[Battlefront.com]

While there might not be a direct conflict between two large nations over each others' resources, there definitely could be a war between them over someone else's. We already saw what happened in Georgia. Iraq was another one (first thing the CPA did was nullify oil contracts with non-US/British companies). There will be much more of this and, eventually, it is possible that a direct conflict will come from it. If it does... it will be very bad.

I'd go with BigDuke6's comments. Pakistan is teetering on the fence right now, Iran is swaying back and forth between moderating it's positions and hardening them.

Unfortunately for us, from a game setting standpoint, these situations and others are all similar to the one in Shock Force. What we want to do for CM:SF 2 is have complete, full up warfare between top of the line militaries. Therefore, we are likely to just make up some unrealistic scenario like a conventional war in the "Stans" (former Soviet resource rich republics). Like I said, realistically implausible... but from a game standpoint a lot more interesting than simply taking the Syrian type forces and sticking them into a more-or-less temperate environment.

Steve

[-Eddie-]

Let me explain why I left Britain out. Politics plays as much a part as our limited naval capability, take the recent authorisation of the buying of the Tranche 3 Eurofighter for example. We didn't get that because we have lots of money did we, or because Gordon Brown's a fan of our military, that's a safe bet. We got them due to the fact it would guarantee jobs in Britain which Cyclops assumes will be safe votes, after all; who wants to be out of the job? I imagine the pull out costs also bothered him a bit too, paying to get out of the programme costs almost as much as buying them and getting through life support contracts signed.

What could Gordon Brown possibly hope to achieve if we did go to the aid of the FI? The oil? Votes of the people (which he knows he won't have even if he is Jesus Obama Christ)? I honestly think if America was involved in helping us 'reclaim'/'defend' the islands then they would want a sizeable fee for their services, say a fair chunk of the oil sat there. I'll give them they gave us intelligence support and the use of ports/airfields on the way there in '82 but now the playing field's not exactly the same.

Argentina are heading for (more) economical hardship, and we know how calm and level headed they are! When your government's in the **** and the country's even worse (familiar?) spark up national pride by re-igniting history.

Venezuela, meh, maybe just to stick one to America and give them a hard time. If Russia tells them to of course.

FIDF don't really have a decision do they?

If you ask me (which you aren't, but I'll say it anyway), the government should have kicked the treasury in the arse and told them not to sell 24 of our Tranche 2 Eurofighters to SA, then maybe we'd have enough for 6 Squadron to perform AD of the UK and 11 Squadron to deploy/train to/for Afghanistan, where our remaining F3s could increase in number on the Falklands.

[Noltyboy]

Argentina has been in economic hardship for the last god knows how many years. They havn't spent much money on there armed forces in a decade. To get there forces ready to try and invade would create a lot of inteligence. This would mean the Garrison at RAF Mount Plesant would have been majorly reinforced.

I think it would be political suicide for the government to lose the Islands and it could not happen in a time frame that would let Brown be in the hot seat (thank god).

[-Eddie-]

Yes good point, but I think if significant quantities of oil are found there nations will start sniffing around. And Gordon Brown will always be in the (near) hot seat, what with being an incontinent loon. But that's for another thread:)

[hcrof]

About the Falkland islands - We fought for them once, and not too long ago. I think the public would be pretty annoyed to lose them after that so I can see the RN steaming back over there in an emergency.

I can definately see more fighting in Pakistan for the near future but if anything, western support will be limited to SF only.

I don't see Iran as a military threat. Its army is in no position to invade anyone and if it gets nuclear capacity all it will do is gloat about it to Israel who wont be able to respond. None of the Arab states would like it but they couldn't do anything about it so the Middle East turns into a mini cold war. The Iranian leadership might have fairly extremist views but they are far from unified and probably worried about the large numbers of educated liberal young people in the country saying enough is enough and overthrowing the government.

Apart from that, you can always rely on Africa for a pointless war. My money is on the horn of Africa again

[MikeyD]

I'd say look where you've got a combination exploding population, poor government, and vital natural resources. There are African nations with deposits of mineral types the names of which we can't even pronounce that are vital to everything from cel phones to nuclear reactors. I imagine proxy wars involving China over increasingly scarce resources.

An alternative is if someone does something stupid over shared natural resources as times get tough, like daming the Danube or Nile or Mekong at its source.

[19Kyle72]

Personally, I feel that not enough attention is being given to oil and natural gas production in regards to being The Biggest motivators for war. No matter what your economical stripe is, be it crony capitalism, European socialism, Chinese "communism" (what a joke to call it that! Talk about a bad usage of pure doublespeak), or whatever, if one wants a modern economy one needs energy. CHEAP energy. And the more expensive it gets, the more desperate those in power will become in ensuring their control over it. Everybody else will pay for it in a multitude of inhumane ways of course, but when has history illustrated anything but?

In all of my time of studying history, never in my life have I been more worried about the consequences. We better desperately hope that an alternative, renewable, clean and cheap energy source is found. All of these descriptors are at severe odds to one another, but I'm going to keep my fingers tightly crossed that Cold Fusion is possible, otherwise... :eek:

But back on target. Well, there's so many of them in these truly despotic and desperate times, aren't there?

If I had to put my money down, I'll keep it primarily factored on oil and natural gas. Putin's grasp of how vital the control of energy is for his brand of empire is dead on. He's no fool. Well, he could be if he pushes too far, and Europe or America steps in to reestablish a base of power more tilted in their favor.

All of these other wars in Africa, South America, and whatnot will happen as well. But in the end it has to be about cheap energy, for without it, all of these other imperial endeavors are impossible, so I'm more inclined to keep my eyes on the "Big Boys" and all of their high tech killing toys. Sad to say, you can bet that they're eying each other even as we pound our keyboards.

[Clavicula_Nox]

So long as the Western world tries to retain the unnatural borders in the Middle East, that region will always be a source of extreme conflict.

[Dakuman]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the Korean Peninsula. With North Korea's crazy leader, I could definitely see a conflict happening there in the near future.

[Yeknodathon]

Scunthorpe

[MikeyD]

Were there any conflicts over the past 25 years that nobody would've guessed would happen? I suppose the Yugoslavia breakup thing came as a shock. Nobody was expecting another European continent bloodbath. Clinton sending an aircraft carrier steaming towards Haiti was another big surprise. It was an even bigger surprise when the leaders split without a fight! But most others, if you could tell someone in the mid-1980s that there was going to be new wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and Lebanon and Somalia, and Pakistan etc. you would've got a sad nodding of the head in response.

[Michael Emrys]

Were there any conflicts over the past 25 years that nobody would've guessed would happen? I suppose the Yugoslavia breakup thing came as a shock.

Not really. As soon as it looked like time was running out for Tito, the more serious talking heads began prophesying that no one else would be able to hold the country together. The wonder is that it took as long for the final breakup as it did.

Michael

[Other Means]

The worlds going to go nuke. Either cleanly, for power, or dirty, for war.

[Meach]

Once the oil is starting to be siphoned off around the FI then that might get things going as all the money needed to do oceanic surveying, setting up rigs and production and supply lines will have been spent.

Why spend time and energy fighting a war to then further spend money to set up infrastructure when you can wait, let your opponent do it then either take it or render it unusable. Sensible usage of resources will be key.

Africa seems to me a dead cert for war. Somalia or Kenya possibly.

[Scipio]

... if one wants a modern economy one needs energy. CHEAP energy. ...

A small German company has developed a way to 'cook' coal & bitumen from all kinds of agricultural waste. They can even use sewage as base. The process is relativ simple and does the very same what nature does, but in only 12 hours instead of million years. If somebody is interested into this, they do have a homepage, unfortunatly only in German right now: http://www.grenol.de.

...

Unfortunately for us, from a game setting standpoint, these situations and others are all similar to the one in Shock Force. What we want to do for CM:SF 2 is have complete, full up warfare between top of the line militaries. Therefore, we are likely to just make up some unrealistic scenario like a conventional war in the "Stans" (former Soviet resource rich republics). Like I said, realistically implausible... but from a game standpoint a lot more interesting than simply taking the Syrian type forces and sticking them into a more-or-less temperate environment.

Steve

I doubt that there will be a realistic setting with two equal, top equipted forces in the near forces, but who knows? For me, I wouldn't have a problem with a full fictional conflict, but with modern real world equipment - in other words, the kind of theater that for example the Operation Flashpoint games and it's offsprings use. Why waste time with fudging possible what if's, when you can have all advantages of creative freedom with a war in a fictional nation? And if the enemy is talking Korean or Russian or such...who cares? .

The CMSF setting and it's unbalanced forces are realistic and interesting, but I would be more then happy if CMSF2 would be more fictional, but with equal opponents.

[Canada Guy]

I am surprised that no one has mentioned

A QUICK AND DIRTY GUIDE TO WAR, 4th Edition - Dunnigan and Bay

http://www.amazon.com/QUICK-DIRTY-GUIDE-WAR-Understanding/dp/1581606834

or to a lesser extent

The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century - George Friedman (Author)

Both of these books try to forcast the world's trouble spots. Of course like most, they will get a lot wrong but they do have some insight into the world's most likely flashpoints.

I would love to see the Korean Peninsula modeled. Either modern or 1950-53. Having read many books about this area of the world recently, all it would take it one command from the crazy leader to ignite the whole area. USA/Europe/Japan on one side with China (and possibly Russia) on the other. I think it could be an almost exact replay of the 1950-3 conflict.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

So long as the Western world tries to retain the unnatural borders in the Middle East, that region will always be a source of extreme conflict.

And what, pray tell, do you find unnatural?

[De Savage]

And what, pray tell, do you find unnatural?

Most of the borders were drawn by ruler to the map. This was done by British, French and other colonial empires of that time. There are several different groups and religions on those spots. So if thats not unnatural, what is? :-)

[Cpl Steiner]

Most of the borders were drawn by ruler to the map. This was done by British, French and other colonial empires of that time.

Those silly colonial empires. If only they'd put some wiggly bits in we wouldn't be in this mess!