Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sambojin]

America certainly had both corporations and banking in the 1920's and 30's, and the idea of globalization was around back then (although not nearly of the same scale as today). They were considered fairly protectionist, isolationist and inward looking at the time.

The Great Depression, advances in and the spread of technology, corruption in many places, cultural shifts, politics, and the end of a world war all had a part to play.

It's not entirely inconceivable that it could happen again.

America wasn't entirely inward looking at this time, just more-so than at other times in its history.

[Culise]

On second thought, the Sino-Vietnamese split has mostly blown over after the USSR's collapse, I doubt they'd go over to a resurgent USSR. They're more closely following Chinese communism now. If the USSR did reappear (a tall order, it'd be like Germany ever putting Reich back in their name), I think being even nominally communist would start to mean something again, and they wouldn't be as cozy with the rest of SE Asia.

I'd also note that a lot of these areas would probably be independent, not a part of any bloc. Iran would probably never join a Sunni dominated Islamic League, for example, and India prided itself on its neutrality during the cold war (RIP Yugo, o7).

I'd also like to make a joke about Israel still existing in a world without US international influence, but I've gone on about Israel enough in the past.

That said, Laos and Vietnam are still more likely to maintain their support for ASEAN over China, unless crushed militarily by Beijing.  When it comes to deciding between enemies, it's better to side with the enemy at a remove than the enemy right next door, as they have done with both the USSR and USA.  If Communism starts to "mean something", then if anything, they should side with the USSR, but remember that even in the historical Cold War, that sort of little turn of phrase still didn't stop Western money from pouring into Yugoslavia in the form of national and IMF loans, and they wouldn't actually unite politically with the USSR; if nothing else, power projection across a hostile state gets really difficult, really fast, unless you get rid of said hostile state.  Ideological purity didn't stop Hoxa from flipping to join China's side of the great split, either; power politics plus ideology will always trump ideology alone. 

Thoughts on the map:

• United States of Northern America and Israel (USNAI): This feels *really* weird.  Why would Israel ever join with a political body half a world away?  Why would a protectionist verging on isolationist America ever accept them? 
• People's Republics of China and Korea (PRCK): I can't tell from the resolution, but is Taiwan supposed to be in this or the "ASEAN+2"? 
• The Second Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR): Ummm, if this is the consequence of a military conquest, you should redraw the Ukrainian borders to illustrate a Russian diktat.  I still think it's silly to have the Great Second Coming, though; if you need a "bad-guy" state, it'd make more sense as a post-Putin Greater Russia based on Orthodoxy, national chauvinism, and anti-Western rhetoric. 
• The European Union (EU): Erdogan has been steadily moving closer to Russia, and away from the EU, while also utilizing just enough Islamist rhetoric for his own ends to appeal to the hardliners as well.  It feels a little odd to see Turkey aligned with the EU, when it's not even in the EU and when its association status with the precursors to that polity have been stalled for over half a century. 
• The Islamic League of Nations (ILN): This is really, really odd.  Iran should not be in here unless it's been conquered, in which case it should be a hotbed of unrest.  One of *the* major rivalries of the Middle East, just behind Israel-everyone, is the rivalry between Iran and the Gulf States.  This has expressed itself, just in the last 15 years alone, in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, eastern Saudi Arabia, Bahrain...the list continues.  A Wahhabi Sunni and a Shi'a state uniting peacefully should be about as likely as Israel peacefully uniting with Syria, or the whole of Ukraine with Russia.  Azerbaijan should be with Iran, whichever way they go.  Bangladesh should be with India or China; its populace is very warm towards India (who helped them in their war for independence), the US, and China, and very much not so towards Pakistan (who they fought the war against).  Indonesia should be its own nation or still aligned with ASEAN.  Much of Central Asia should probably be aligned with Russia or China, depending on how economic and political trends have proceeded.  South Sudan, unless conquered, should be in the sub-Saharan blob; they just fought a decades-long civil war not too long ago to reject Sudanese rule.  Sierra Leone should be the same; leaving aside that this nation has had rather low incidence rates of extremism or religious violence (most violence has been political), how is an Islamist state projecting power and political strength here through Guinea?  On the flip side, Eritrea should be a member, if it's just an Islamist generi-blob; it should probably not be in the same country as Ethiopia, given the two nations' strained relations.  If it is an Islamist generi-blob, why are Guinea and Guinea-Bissau (just at a bare minimum) separate?  If Turkey isn't an independent neutral playing the three sides against each other and if the USSR remains Communist, it should probably be here. 
• The Greater Indian Empire (GIE): See Bangladesh above. 
• The Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN): Vietnam and Laos should remain here.  Indonesia should either be here; Burma should either be here (if the present dictatorship has fallen) or aligned with China (if it survives); India is also an outside possibility, albeit more unlikely. 
• The South and Central African League (SCAL): Ummmm...I really apologize for this, but it's just a catch-all nation where you piled in all the junk that wouldn't fit elsewhere in the name of a megastate, disregarding political, diplomatic, cultural, religious, or economic motivations.  I've done it more than once myself, but I really can't say anything to justify it. 

Also, I strongly recommend fewer megablobs and more independent nations.  If this is for a PNP game, ostensibly-neutral grounds where hostile powers with "correct" relations can manoeuvre politically for their own cause, situations in which the player can manipulate these to their own end or be tossed about by the same currents.  Think Casablanca or Tangiers.  In Shadowrun, think Seattle. 

[The13thRonin]

On second thought, the Sino-Vietnamese split has mostly blown over after the USSR's collapse, I doubt they'd go over to a resurgent USSR. They're more closely following Chinese communism now. If the USSR did reappear (a tall order, it'd be like Germany ever putting Reich back in their name), I think being even nominally communist would start to mean something again, and they wouldn't be as cozy with the rest of SE Asia.

I'd also note that a lot of these areas would probably be independent, not a part of any bloc. Iran would probably never join a Sunni dominated Islamic League, for example, and India prided itself on its neutrality during the cold war (RIP Yugo, o7).

I'd also like to make a joke about Israel still existing in a world without US international influence, but I've gone on about Israel enough in the past.

That said, Laos and Vietnam are still more likely to maintain their support for ASEAN over China, unless crushed militarily by Beijing.  When it comes to deciding between enemies, it's better to side with the enemy at a remove than the enemy right next door, as they have done with both the USSR and USA.  If Communism starts to "mean something", then if anything, they should side with the USSR, but remember that even in the historical Cold War, that sort of little turn of phrase still didn't stop Western money from pouring into Yugoslavia in the form of national and IMF loans, and they wouldn't actually unite politically with the USSR; if nothing else, power projection across a hostile state gets really difficult, really fast, unless you get rid of said hostile state.  Ideological purity didn't stop Hoxa from flipping to join China's side of the great split, either; power politics plus ideology will always trump ideology alone. 

Thoughts on the map:

• United States of Northern America and Israel (USNAI): This feels *really* weird.  Why would Israel ever join with a political body half a world away?  Why would a protectionist verging on isolationist America ever accept them? 
• People's Republics of China and Korea (PRCK): I can't tell from the resolution, but is Taiwan supposed to be in this or the "ASEAN+2"? 
• The Second Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR): Ummm, if this is the consequence of a military conquest, you should redraw the Ukrainian borders to illustrate a Russian diktat.  I still think it's silly to have the Great Second Coming, though; if you need a "bad-guy" state, it'd make more sense as a post-Putin Greater Russia based on Orthodoxy, national chauvinism, and anti-Western rhetoric. 
• The European Union (EU): Erdogan has been steadily moving closer to Russia, and away from the EU, while also utilizing just enough Islamist rhetoric for his own ends to appeal to the hardliners as well.  It feels a little odd to see Turkey aligned with the EU, when it's not even in the EU and when its association status with the precursors to that polity have been stalled for over half a century. 
• The Islamic League of Nations (ILN): This is really, really odd.  Iran should not be in here unless it's been conquered, in which case it should be a hotbed of unrest.  One of *the* major rivalries of the Middle East, just behind Israel-everyone, is the rivalry between Iran and the Gulf States.  This has expressed itself, just in the last 15 years alone, in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, eastern Saudi Arabia, Bahrain...the list continues.  A Wahhabi Sunni and a Shi'a state uniting peacefully should be about as likely as Israel peacefully uniting with Syria, or the whole of Ukraine with Russia.  Azerbaijan should be with Iran, whichever way they go.  Bangladesh should be with India or China; its populace is very warm towards India (who helped them in their war for independence), the US, and China, and very much not so towards Pakistan (who they fought the war against).  Indonesia should be its own nation or still aligned with ASEAN.  Much of Central Asia should probably be aligned with Russia or China, depending on how economic and political trends have proceeded.  South Sudan, unless conquered, should be in the sub-Saharan blob; they just fought a decades-long civil war not too long ago to reject Sudanese rule.  Sierra Leone should be the same; leaving aside that this nation has had rather low incidence rates of extremism or religious violence (most violence has been political), how is an Islamist state projecting power and political strength here through Guinea?  On the flip side, Eritrea should be a member, if it's just an Islamist generi-blob; it should probably not be in the same country as Ethiopia, given the two nations' strained relations.  If it is an Islamist generi-blob, why are Guinea and Guinea-Bissau (just at a bare minimum) separate?  If Turkey isn't an independent neutral playing the three sides against each other and if the USSR remains Communist, it should probably be here. 
• The Greater Indian Empire (GIE): See Bangladesh above. 
• The Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN): Vietnam and Laos should remain here.  Indonesia should either be here; Burma should either be here (if the present dictatorship has fallen) or aligned with China (if it survives); India is also an outside possibility, albeit more unlikely. 
• The South and Central African League (SCAL): Ummmm...I really apologize for this, but it's just a catch-all nation where you piled in all the junk that wouldn't fit elsewhere in the name of a megastate, disregarding political, diplomatic, cultural, religious, or economic motivations.  I've done it more than once myself, but I really can't say anything to justify it. 

Also, I strongly recommend fewer megablobs and more independent nations.  If this is for a PNP game, ostensibly-neutral grounds where hostile powers with "correct" relations can manoeuvre politically for their own cause, situations in which the player can manipulate these to their own end or be tossed about by the same currents.  Think Casablanca or Tangiers.

The SCAL is just the leftovers of the current African Union after most of North Africa joined the Islamic League of Nations. I would assert that the existence of the African Union more than justifies lumping South and Central Africa into the one power block.

I don't know what to do with the Shiite states because there's not enough of them to form a proper power block. I'd just have Iran, Iraq and like two other minor nations at best.

Bangladesh makes sense. I have to change that.

ASEAN includes Taiwan yes.

Israel again I don't know what to do with it... It could hardly remain neutral if an alliance of Islamic states presented itself so it has to be in something. You think it would be better off in the European Union?

In the setting due to the Russian aggression to the North and East Turkey joined the EU... I think Turkey would be more likely to do this than to join the Islamic league, no?

Sudan's not drawn properly on the map (old map). Good point on North/South Sudan... I'll see if I can mark a border line myself.

"I still think it's silly to have the Great Second Coming." On this I only have this to say...

Direct quote from Putin:

Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine tragedy. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and co-patriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself.

Now if that doesn't sound like Cold War V2.0 is brewing in his head then I don't know what is.

Thanks for the feedback!

[Culise]

The SCAL is just the leftovers of the current African Union after most of North Africa joined the Islamic League of Nations. I would assert that the existence of the African Union more than justifies lumping South and Central Africa into the one power block.

I don't know what to do with the Shiite states because there's not enough of them to form a proper power block. I'd just have Iran, Iraq and like two other minor nations at best.

Bangladesh makes sense. I have to change that.

ASEAN includes Taiwan yes.

Israel again I don't know what to do with it... It could hardly remain neutral if an alliance of Islamic states presented itself so it has to be in something. You think it would be better off in the European Union?

In the setting due to the Russian aggression to the North and East Turkey joined the EU... I think Turkey would be more likely to do this than to join the Islamic league, no?

Sudan's not drawn properly on the map (old map). Good point on North/South Sudan... I'll see if I can mark a border line myself.

"I still think it's silly to have the Great Second Coming." On this I only have this to say...

Direct quote from Putin:

Above all, we should acknowledge that the collapse of the Soviet Union was a major geopolitical disaster of the 20th century. As for the Russian nation, it became a genuine tragedy. Tens of millions of our co-citizens and co-patriots found themselves outside Russian territory. Moreover, the epidemic of disintegration infected Russia itself.

Now if that doesn't sound like Cold War V2.0 is brewing in his head then I don't know what is.

Thanks for the feedback!

The present African Union is still a very weak political entity, however; it couldn't even tell off Morocco for its ongoing occupation of Western Sahara, or Rwandan troops in the Congo.  The loss of its north would likely result in its disintegration. 

And that isn't enough for Iran?  It's certainly already enough to stand off the Gulf states today, and you can always give them nuclear weapons and a political rapprochement with the Western world and Russia (especially in the wake of the rise of political Islamism).  Not everyone needs to be a megastate; there has never been a time in history when everyone was a megastate. 

Israel should probably remain independent but far from neutral, playing on the political sympathies of those opposed to the Islamic state.  Europe is a potential ally, but may be a bit wishy-washy.  Russia and India both have their own Muslim bugbears to deal with that will give them quite a bit of sympathy for Israel, as well as direct borders with a hostile Islamist state.  The same could apply to the SCAL, if it's actually a coherent body and not just the African Union remnant.  Private aid from American sponsors is not out of the question, even if government aid from an isolationist nation is out of the question. 

That would make a little bit of sense, but why would Russia engage in aggression against Turkey, though?  It's such a complete and utter reversal of the entirety of Russia's political strategy in the region, which I might add has thus far been rather successful, that it seems more than a little odd.  Russia doesn't have any territorial ambitions on Turkey; its aspirations are better served by a friendly one than lopping off bits and pieces. 

That's the thing, though; Putin is not simply recreating the USSR; that quote isn't about rebuilding the USSR, but only recovering the power Russia once had as the greatest of equals within that state.  If he's after anything that would result in what's on the map, it's a Greater Russia under the aegis of the Eurasian Union (since you include Kazakhstan) - think of a marriage between Russian nationalism, corporatism around the state and a strongly-vested oligarchy, social conservatism with a religious flavour (but only where convenient), and maybe leaven with a bit of pan-Slavism to taste if you want some ethnic-based foreign conflict.  It's not Communism, either of the Brezhnev, Stalin, or Lenin varieties; it's a strong corporatist state around a single powerful personality, utilizing religion and culture as well as the state as uniting factors, with its strongest trait not being ideological rigour, but rather a thorough sense of realpolitik, pragmatism, and self-aggrandisement.  It's one that has the power of oil and natural gas as a lever, but one that's diminishing in spite of Islamist rule over the Middle East (and consequent loss of fossil fuels from the region) due to European drift away from Russian suppliers to North Sea gas and renewable resources, one encouraged by Russian abuse of that lever.  It has a military, but its use has alienated the West and forced it to adopt a secondary role to China.  That's just me musing wildly, though; you might have an entirely different vision of the nu-USSR. 

For a map, here is one using the same style of base you used to create yours that includes the Sudanese border changes.  You can just copy-paste the relevant bits in. 

[Jack A T]

A few quick comments:

USNAI: For Canada to unite with the US, a major decline in Canadian nationalism would be necessary.  Possible, but it would need a very good explanation (especially for such a quick one), and I'd still expect a few separatist efforts.  Considering the average Canadian's unlikelihood of voting Republican, a reason for Republican support for taking Canada to be either existent or unnecessary would also be needed.  To add Israel to that mess would be an administrative nightmare, especially for a weakened North America.

The three are easy allies, but quite unlikely to unite into a single mega-state.

EU: An EU containing both Greece and Macedonia is going to need a bit of an explanation.  Turkey in as well requires a major change in Turkish foreign policy.  Also, what happened to Montenegro and Kosovo, which aren't on the map?

ILN: Way, way too Samuel Huntington.  United pretty much only by Islam, and divided by a lot of other stuff.  I see civil wars in its future.  Also, it is a scattered administrative nightmare (if meant as a single state).

On Putin: Read the quote you posted carefully.  Putin said nothing about communism and a lot about losing land and people.  They're not the words of someone missing the Soviet Union specifically so much as the words of someone missing a Russian superpower.

[The13thRonin]

Thanks for the feedback and new map Culise (that all makes sense) and feedback Jack A T.

The Islamic League is meant as more of a loose collection of nations that operate in each others interests Jack A T. (think UN).

[The13thRonin]

I wrote the first few snippets of the in-game lore:

Broken Shield:

January 2016: The increasing economic instability of European markets and the soaring amount of US foreign debt has severely dented investor confidence in US markets. The stock market takes a hit and the DOW Jones falls sharply. Fearing another GFC the US government begins contemplating a second round of corporate bailouts.

February 2016: Global concern regarding the possibility that the US government will borrow more money on top of their existing 18 trillion dollar debt rises. The two biggest foreign investors China and Japan look on with worry. China slows their acquisition of new US securities while Japan outright halts its purchases of them. The DOW Jones continues to fall and the US government announces that it will be pushing through a second round of corporate bailouts.

March 2016: Many countries begin to sell off their US securities. The Federal Reserve increases its quantitative easing measures [the purchase of US securities to artificially drive up confidence] however soon enough there is a mad scramble among many foreign investors to sell off US securities.

April 2016: The plummeting confidence in US securities sees a rise in the interest rate for the US's foreign debt. At the same time the US is hit with a credit downgrade. American citizens begin attempting to pull their money out of banks and sell off stocks en masse. Several minor American banks and Lehman Brothers collapse. At this point looting and rioting begin in several different states. The National Guard is called in to help contain the riots and aid stations are hastily thrown up in the worst areas. The financial crisis echoes around the globe damaging many international markets.

May 2016: The looting and rioting worsen and after the torching of a police station the US declares Martial Law bringing in the army to supplement the National Guard. Unemployment and inflation soar. The world continues to watch on in horror.

June 2016: The US defaults on their foreign debts. The US is forced to drastically cut spending and pulls the National Guard and the Army back to major states such as Washington DC, New York and California. Most of the southern half of the US is left in complete anarchy.

I still need to flesh them out... No judgement .

[Sergarr]

Who would in their sane mind hit US with a credit downgrade without getting an immediate visit from FBI asking to "reconsider the decision"?

[The13thRonin]

Who would in their sane mind hit US with a credit downgrade without getting an immediate visit from FBI asking to "reconsider the decision"?

Apparently the S&P do.

You do realize we live in a free world right? The US can't just call the FBI in to shock and awe financial institutions (especially international financial institutions?) from downgrading their credit.

I mean it's not like you can walk into a bank and decide your own interest rate... If the American government could do it that simply why do you even think they would bother attempting to secure their own securities through the federal treasury and federal reserve to artificially create demand? If they could just send the FBI in to strong-arm the financial institutions then why not just straight up decide what the securities are worth in the first place?

I mean that's not even getting into the fact that the FBI is a regulated body with watchdogs and not some kind of developing country paramilitary group.

[Culise]

The FBI is also a domestic security body.  If you want spooky conspiracy theories aimed at people abroad (like multinational credit rating agencies), the CIA or NSA are better options; probably the latter, since its areas of influence tend to be a bit ill-defined, which is always convenient for a good narrative.  It's like....hmmm, I'm not completely well-versed in how much they step on each others toes, but for a Russian example, I think it'd be like saying the FSB is launching active intelligence operations in London instead of the GRU or SVR. 

[Sergarr]

Who would in their sane mind hit US with a credit downgrade without getting an immediate visit from FBI asking to "reconsider the decision"?

Apparently the S&P do.

You do realize we live in a free world right? The US can't just call the FBI in to shock and awe financial institutions (especially international financial institutions?) from downgrading their credit.

But the thing is that US pretty much can do it, because it controls all the international financial institutions that matter. Like Federal Reserve System.

Like seriously, US has it's own debt denomimated in its own currency. Which it can freely print more of. Not to mention setting the refinancing rate to as low as they need to "create" more money as they need. US also has the by far the strongest #1 military force on the planet, which means that nobody can actually force US to return their money on investment.

US is pretty much the definition of "too big to fail". Even if it would have its foreign debt thousands of times bigger than it is, nobody would try to enforce because it's not in anyone's interest - and primarily, not in USA's interest.

[Culise]

"Too big to fail" is entirely different from "getting an immediate visit from FBI asking to 'reconsider the decision,'" however (or other relevant sneaky-agency).  Heck, as pointed out, the US has been hit by a credit downgrade already by S&P.  Yes, the US can repay its debt tomorrow by turning on the presses or changing the refinancing rate, but that will only further diminish faith in American credit and trigger a downgrade, because the value of the USD will plunge.  As for the world's largest military, it's irrelevant, as the days of, say, German warships sailing into Caracas are long gone.  Far smaller nations have gone into sovereign default in the last few decades without provoking a military response, some of which (Costa Rica) don't even have formal armed forces at all.  If there's a reduction in America's credit rating, or worse, a full-on run on the dollar, the US is not going to be able to shoot or intimidate its way into a solution, and it's not even likely to make the attempt; it's more likely to use its economic power as a buttress. 

[sambojin]

@Sergarr. 'Murica. F yeah!

Nah, seriously, world economics, credit ratings, investor confidence and all that are a tiny bit more complicated than you mentioned. Having a big army helps though. Then again, there still are a few big armies around, but no one really wants to use them against each other. They'd only damage their investments with them. And the NSA only has so much time on their hands.

It's like saying Australia could solve any of its credit rating problems if our government just told BHP and Rio Tinto to keep all the gold, uranium, iron ore and copper they mine in Aussie vaults for a few years. Because we need to be too big to fail and bigger than Fort Knox. Then we'll become the best backed currency in the world! Don't worry, we'll have America helping us protect all that wealth. Probably China too. Because we all get along fabulously these days.

Doesn't quite work that way unfortunately.


@13thRonin
Story sounds plausible enough, but I'd spread it out a bit. Rather than a month-by-month, maybe every two or three months. Even the GFC took a while to really start crashing on through the china-shop. Markets jumped pretty early, but fixups took a while.

Gives a bit more time for other events if you want it. Or not. But give 'em a year or two to fully come a'cropper. It's your story though. I'll be watching it because it's already been an interesting discussion based on just the map and people's thoughts on things political.

[sambojin]

Might want to throw a natural disaster or two in there as well. Big earthquake on the west coast, large hurricane on the east?

It gives 1001 more reasons for people to be pissed off and having economic problems being difficult to adjust to. "The government wasn't doing anything. Not for the economy, not for the people. Nothing, no-one..... It's riot time!"

Police shootings against looters in disaster affected areas is an easy one to flare up the people. Especially if the looters weren't looting, but were just salvaging their own stuff.

Stuff that makes the news. Bad stuff. So that it's not only an economic problem, but a "confidence in America" problem, in the imaginary now and in the imaginary future. For the world to see.

Like I said, it's your story, do as you want. But tacking a couple of natural disasters on right while they're financially down would make for a more plausible shake in confidence, both at home and abroad.

"Can they fix it? 3 major cities? They've got no damn money anyway, and I'll be damned if we'll foot the bill again."

And thus America begins to look inward, because help from outside isn't as forthcoming as hoped. Not as much as they'd have liked, anyway. But then again, every country's stock markets are plummeting. Could they help even if they wanted to? I mean, Canada and Israel were great. Everyone else? We'll remember....

"Fuck everyone else. 'Murica! Fuck yeah! We'll do it on our own!"

[sambojin]

Just kind of bumping this.

If you've seen the movie "San Andreas", you'll get an idea of a west coast problem that would possibly turn the US into introspective-mode. It's not a bad family friendly flick. When disaster strikes, steal whatever you want. The Rock has told you that this is the correct and proper procedure to save your family and/or bone hot chicks.

A decent sized (cat 4-5) cyclone on the east coast would split resources horribly. Errrm, hurricane. Those swirly weather things. A big one.

With a GFC part 2: The Reckoning as the world the US is living in for the game world for starters (AND the movie San Andreas, but with more rain and flooding and less explodey buildings on the east coast), it's explainable.

How did you go on the gameworld re-write? I'd love an update.