Maybe I'm alone on this, but I don't find many things more interesting then theorizing what would happen if a major war started. So, this is a topic dedicated to it. While it's not actually completely realistic, I want the scenarios to be a tiny bit plausible. And it belongs in Serious Discussion because it will be that tiny plausible and because I don't want any spam in here.

So, I'll give you my scenario - Al-Qaeda successfully carries out a major operation against the U.S. They explode a nuclear bomb, secretly supplied by Iran, over New York City, resulting in millions of deaths. The nation is in a state of shock - and then a plethora of smaller bombings occur, where a few couple more million die. The President is assassinated, the Pentagon destroyed. Palin's now President (just for lols and chuckles). Al-Qaeda announces that it will cease action against any state not directly controlled by Washington. Alaska declares independence (Ouch to the President), as does Texas. Additionally, coastal states start publicly declaring that independence is an option. The president decides to hold the U.S. together and sends troops to all states where independence seems to be an option, or has happened - ~7 in total. The President is assassinated, and with outside pressure the federal government collapses. Russia invades Alaska and starts expanding eastwards and southwards. Mexico openly supports Texas and other states with a large Latin-American population, and quietly starts to infiltrate politically and militarily. China establishes a small military presence on the West Coast. Canada, while fighting with Russia, starts expanding southwards on the East Coast. NATO starts an aggressive campaign in the Middle East while creating a strong military presence in Eastern states. India and Brazil stay neutral. Cuba runs in to get a slice of the Mexico-supported pie.

I know it's not realistic (since Palin won't be a vice president.. ever, probably) and for many other reasons, but this is an example. What do you guys think will happen? Then give your own scenario.

I was with you on this being in serious until I read this.
if it's just for lulz then this is a forum game and belongs in null. I'd expect this from twitch or viet, but not you cent.

You might have noticed that the identity of the President had nothing whatsoever to do with anything else. It's a joke I added in that had nothing to do with anything.

That you consider a joke that doesn't remove anything from the post as something that removes seriousness from the post is something that I didn't expect from you.

Now, Doodan, if you were to state the reason why it belongs in Null rather the SD, I'd gladly convince you otherwise.

Because this isn't about anything real, it's making up stories. Should I make a topic in SD about what the next plague will be or what new religion I'm starting? (Doodology, in case you're interested)

It's possible scenarios. Yes, it's unlikely, but it's possible. People before WWII thought such a thing could never happen again. Should stop talking about the future in Serious Discussion? After all, nothing's certain.

I agree that nothing is certain. The future could take a very unpredicted path. However...

Speculating that alien life may or may not exist = SD worthy discussion.

Trying to guess when the aliens will come to Earth = Null.

Sadly for your analogy, I do not discuss time. Apparently, the thing that separates this thread from others is that I give far more options then yes/no. Is that it?

The tiny whiff of plausibility does not justify the topic being in SD. Why does that matter so much to you anyway? Can't this topic carry on as intended in Null? I suppose you wanted it there to prevent stupid, spammy replies from being made. But the premise of the topic itself must have the integrity to stand up to the forum's rules. I did not feel that this topic did that.

The chances of such a hypothetical solution progressing without a nuclear holocaust are practically nil. Most likely the US would launch a nuclear strike against the Muslim Middle East immediately following a nuclear attack on New York.

I would quietly join the Chinese alliance, though. China is more or less the second most powerful country after America, so if America is screwed China would take over.

The reason I want this in Serious Discussion is because I intend there to be discussion on various scenarios, and because such things are by nature rather serious. Here's one:

1991. Soviet Union breaks apart. Seven years later, 1998, Russian economic crisis results in widespread discord and revolution with many republics, such as Tatarstan, Chechnya, etc successfully declaring independence. Moscow loses 80% of its land, mostly to the east, but also to the south (well, actually, I think only Chechnya there). Now, options range from a breakdown in nuclear non-proliferation to Chinese expansion northwards.

It was a possibility at the time. I consider this a serious topic for the discussion of various conflicts and what-if scenarios. It's worthy of Serious Discussion, not a forum containing the castoffs from others.
Yeah, it really didn't seem great. The problem with Al-Qaeda is, you don't know where they are. They're mobile, so you can't really nuke a country. I find it perfectly possible that the federal government would be unable to act, simply because it really would be far too close to murder. Nuke an innocent country, world turns against you. Hell, I read there were some elements of Al-Qaeda in France. It wasn't the most plausible situation I could think of, but it was probably the most interesting. A new war for land in the 'New World'.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Nov 29 2008, 11:38 pm by Centreri.

http://qntm.org/?destroy

The states breaking off? Why? They don't want another civil war

And.. the two posts above is what you get for this being in Null.

War is serious, yes. But any major topic can still have discussions take place about them that do not merit them being in a setting that is reserved for more credible discussions. Rape is a serious topic, for instance, but making a topic showing a hundred 10 year old girls and trying to have the members guess which of them will be raped in their lifetime is not the type of credible discussion that belongs in SD.

As to your example, I suppose it's possible that a discussion that took place somewhere that accurately predicted what eventually happened to the Soviet Union. But would that discussion have held any credibility at the time? No. At the time of this hypothetical discussion, no one could have known for certain if that would indeed happen. It's like guessing a number between 1 - 100. If a hundred people each guess a different number, then the future will reveal that one of them was, indeed, correct in their guess. But at the time the lots were cast, there was no credible way of determining who that would be. Serious Discussion is more about evidence, history, etc. A credible argument needs concrete facts in order to have strength, and a topic that is purely about speculation denigrates the possibility of credible arguments by default.

A good serious discussion topic would be "I think we will go to war with Russia again in the near future, and here's why I think that" and then proceed to list evidence. A topic that does not belong is a giant poll of every country in the world and the question being "Who will we go to war with next?" One of those is most certainly a correct answer, but in the present, there is no credible way of knowing who, what, or why.

EDIT: Clarifying and cleaning up grammar.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Nov 30 2008, 12:00 am by Doodan.

I don't see how war games take away from the 'evidence' thing. I can quote military power of the various competitors in the new America or the damage caused by the Asian Economic Crisis in 1998 to China and use that to build an argument on whether it would've expanded or not. As for history - are you kidding me? It's all in the history. Siberia used to be partially under Chinese control. They'd want it back, and it's a partial incentive to expand. Mexico used to be a major competitor in the Americas, and it would seek to regain its status.

The only difference between my topic and others is how specific it is, and that I allow people to add in their own scenarios.

And, really, how can you argue against this topic being in SD when the two I posted above above are?

True, but if we were actually attacked by nuclear weapons, I think Washington would use nuclear force in response. We know Osama is "somewhere in the hills of Pakistan or Afghanistan" so we could just nuke the Pakistani-Afghan border until we were pretty sure we got a lot of al-Qaeda.

Realistically, a terrorist attack is more likely with chemical weapons; there isn't a par response, per se, to such an attack.

While there is a plethora of scientific evidence that Armageddon will not take place because of any supernatural means, the fact remains that a large percentage of the population has been brought up to believe that the divine will intervene in human affairs and bring about the end of days. They believe it is a fact, and they have what they believe is evidence to back up their claims. The same is true of the arguments against them.

The same goes for the 9/11 conspiracy. The promoters of that believe, in all sincerity, that they have evidence to back up their claim. And the same goes for the opponents of the conspiracy theory. What both cases have that yours does not are tangible sources of information (ancient text, videos, etc.) that are open to interpretation.

Of course all of this calls attention to the realization that even facts can be disputed. What we believe to be fact may not at all be true, and time will eventually reveal that (i.e., the world is not flat, but for thousands of years humans believed it was). But we humans try our best. We use our experience and our powers of deductive logic to explain things as best we can. We can use our powers to try and determine what the future will be. Some will be more accurate than others, but there is no way to know for sure.

(Note: I am attaching quotes to my posts so that there's no confusion about what I'm responding to.)

That's very, very nice. So, someone believing some balderdash is enough for it to become Serious? I believe, in all sincerity, that my 1st scenario will happen. And because this is the internet, you cannot muster anything against me to show that I'm lying. I have faith that god will make my will reality and the U.S. will be embroiled in a civil war. I have faith that the 1998's will be replayed with a different outcome in a year, when the current economic crisis reaches its peak in Russia.

What, now it's enough to be serious?

True. However, a attack on the Middle East doesn't really affect the rest of the scenario . And chemical weapons... Mmm... sure. It'll achieve the same result as a nuclear weapon in the scenario, though. Killing of millions. It might even be a catalyst. International condemnation will come from everywhere - China, India, Russia, EU, Brazil, and effectively every other country. The US can't stay afloat long with internal and external problems like that.

Ah, Doodan. See that little 'discussion' between me and DTBK? What, is it funny to you? Unserious?

You haven't said anything to convince me that my topic is unworthy to be in Serious Discussion. But if it's going to stay in Null and you won't back it up with not-hypocritical arguments, then it's a worthless topic. Lock it. I don't want to waste any more time on this.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Nov 30 2008, 12:32 am by Centreri.

By your own admission in the first post, you said that all of this is pure speculation. You did not present your hypothesis as an argument with evidence to back it up.

I think the primary misunderstanding between us has to do with the nature of hypothetical discussions. You've argued, quite convincingly, that it is important for such discussions to take place. Someone's bound to be right about what will happen in the future, and what happens in the discussion may have a practical application in the present. I completely agree. However, this topic is not about promoting the existence of think tanks and providing cases in which they proved useful. This topic is about being in one and just coming up with whatever sounds good to you. Your opening post set the tone, and it was not a tone that belonged in serious discussion.

EDIT: Damned spelling

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Nov 30 2008, 12:41 am by Doodan.

Ah. So if I present the evidence of the Chinese desire for more international clout, Mexican resurgence, Texan and Alaskan independence, Russian expansionism and all that, then it becomes worthy of the title of a Serious Discussion topic?