HOME | DD

Published: 2015-08-15 03:20:09 +0000 UTC; Views: 12801; Favourites: 96; Downloads: 140
Redirect to original
Description
Another short, older idea. I kept this one short because Mathuen/Mattystereo gave me a better idea for what to do with it, but I wanted to do something with an alternate history of the early 21st century as well. I decided to have a bit of fun and make a little "reverse 21st century." Don't worry, my next "China vs. Islamic terrorism" one will be far more serious.---
- The PoD is better coordination between American intelligence agencies managing to catch the 9/11 plotters in time. This butterflies away the entire American War on Terror.
- The Taliban turns its attention to growing unrest in Xinjiang, and practically take over the separatist movement there. Their great attack is a major bombing in Beijing during a parade, which kills many hundreds of people, along with smaller attacks throughout the country, in 2005. Rather boldly, the Taliban claim credit for this, and the Chinese invade Afghanistan as a result. They also get involved in crushing Islamism everywhere in the world.
- Rather ironically, the Americans do not see radical Islam as great of a threat as a rising China, and covertly move against the Chinese. An official Pacific alliance is formed at the request of the Japanese, who are afraid of a more international China. Russia is also brought closer to the West, because Putin fears the Chinese dragon more.
- China's war in Afghanistan and its wars elsewhere become quagmires, limiting Chinese economic growth but encouraging the CCP to keep growing the military. On the other hand, the West is doing far better than OTL, with little worried about terrorism, and with an economy that didn't dip so much when the housing bubble collapsed in 2009. The Americans are focused on containing China, which has led to some uncomfortable partnerships with radical Islam, mostly via the Saudis and Pakistan.
- Iran collapsed after a 2009 revolt led to a civil war, which Saddam Hussein took full advantage of. Now loyalists of the regime have formed their own de facto Islamic republic in the south of Iran, and are fighting a winning battle against the secular government in Tehran and their Iraqi masters.
- The EU is far more integrated, and they are suffering from fewer refugee issues. The Greek economy hasn't completely tanked yet, but it's close.
- There is no BRICS equivalent, although India and Brazil are going their own way, and Russia is slowly moving away from the "friendship" it has with America.
Related content
Comments: 70
bruiser128 [2015-10-15 00:11:59 +0000 UTC]
I would be totally backing China in this scenario, since America has proven it cares more about their oil interest than geo political stability.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
RvBOMally In reply to bruiser128 [2015-10-15 03:57:23 +0000 UTC]
The Chinese aren't exactly waging the war in Afghanistan to stabilize the region or out of the goodness of their hearts.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
bruiser128 In reply to RvBOMally [2015-10-15 10:10:07 +0000 UTC]
That I understand, but I meant it for getting taking out an ideology that creates fanatic Wahhabi psychopaths.
Although why is Pakistan not allied with China on this, didn't they have an alliance against India?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
RvBOMally In reply to bruiser128 [2015-10-15 16:37:45 +0000 UTC]
The Pakistanis are closer to Washington.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
bruiser128 In reply to RvBOMally [2015-10-15 17:15:37 +0000 UTC]
Oh.
Wait you didn't mention India?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
wilji1070 In reply to bruiser128 [2016-06-26 22:55:50 +0000 UTC]
If I'm guessing right, and maybe rvbomally can correct me if I'm wrong, but India and Pakistan basically would both work to retain the relations that they have with the USA as it stands OTL. They may not necessarily like the USA or each other, but it's infinitely preferable to the Chinese battering down their doors.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
bruiser128 In reply to wilji1070 [2016-06-26 23:28:00 +0000 UTC]
Well I figured that one of them would like military aid much closer to home if push comes to shove.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
wilji1070 In reply to bruiser128 [2016-06-27 00:21:03 +0000 UTC]
Washington is likely sending both nations greater amounts of support than in OTL due to the Dragon though. Albeit, Washington might also start by suggesting than the Pakistani and Indian governments cease and desist with their rivalry otherwise the USA would simply cut off support and leave them at China's mercy. Not unrealistic given that we meddled in other nations' politics during the Cold War.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
bruiser128 In reply to wilji1070 [2016-06-27 01:29:52 +0000 UTC]
Yeah and look at how much instability the Middle East now has from all those 'interventions'.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
wilji1070 In reply to bruiser128 [2016-06-27 03:10:08 +0000 UTC]
I don't disagree with some nations, but honestly we should've pressured Raza Shah Pahlavi to step down in favor of his more reform minded son.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
bruiser128 In reply to wilji1070 [2016-06-27 03:24:49 +0000 UTC]
I was thinking farther to the Abadan Crisis where the CIA overthrew a democratic government
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
wilji1070 In reply to bruiser128 [2016-06-27 21:19:16 +0000 UTC]
Hell, Operation: Ajax is another one. EDIT: Didn't realize that was the operation during the Abadan Crisis.
Overthrowing Salvador Allende and giving covert aid to Augusto Pinochet is another. But we can pin point these things all day long.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
bruiser128 In reply to wilji1070 [2016-06-27 22:39:10 +0000 UTC]
That was part of Operation Condor, which screwed over a lot of Latin American countries.
Although if you want Communism to loose it's credibility, have that
sociopath Stalin survive the stroke that killed him in OTL.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
RvBOMally In reply to Yvestoons18 [2015-10-09 13:50:18 +0000 UTC]
Yes. Common enemies have brought the two together in the past.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
RvBOMally In reply to MTARIOS [2015-08-15 17:44:26 +0000 UTC]
No, Iraq invaded Iran in 2009 when Iran collapsed into civil war.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
OneHellofaBird [2015-08-15 16:54:23 +0000 UTC]
hate to be "that guy" but are we getting a full-blown Yellow Peril? like, "airport thrillers about the West Coast taken over and renamed Jinshan (金山) with SF as its capital" level? 'cause something like that happened in '06 OTL
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
paireon In reply to OneHellofaBird [2015-08-20 15:24:35 +0000 UTC]
Ah yes, THAT book. Pretty sure from the synopsis it's about as realistic as the "Left Behind" series, personally.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
OneHellofaBird In reply to paireon [2015-08-20 17:59:32 +0000 UTC]
it's definitely in the vein of "invasion literature," which always rises and falls in waves
even in 1955 we were worrying about how we'd react when the PRC took the West and the USSR the East and herded us into sovkhozes; it's a subgenre that only countries that have never had megawar on their soil can write
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
RvBOMally In reply to OneHellofaBird [2015-08-15 17:02:16 +0000 UTC]
In America? It's getting there. On the plus side, Islam isn't being put on the firing line and Rambo III isn't uncomfortable to watch.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
OneHellofaBird In reply to RvBOMally [2015-08-15 17:04:07 +0000 UTC]
guess Rambo IV comes early, then: Burma is not going to be good
👍: 1 ⏩: 0
RvBOMally In reply to Zomg420 [2015-08-15 16:35:14 +0000 UTC]
No, he never ran. And he's hardly the only political figure to propose building a wall.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
KuboCaskett [2015-08-15 15:19:54 +0000 UTC]
I think this world is kind of depressing considering that Saddam Hussein is still in power and gets away with conquering Iran (though I'm not shedding a tear for the Islamic regime).
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
RvBOMally In reply to KuboCaskett [2015-08-15 16:35:51 +0000 UTC]
I just reversed Iran and Iraq's fates, and I'm of the opinion that it's a shame they couldn't have both lost.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
KuboCaskett In reply to RvBOMally [2015-08-15 19:54:55 +0000 UTC]
You mean both collapsed and I have a view that if either Islamic Iran or Ba'athist Iraq were to be the dominant Middle Easter power, the Middle East would lose (though ISIS would count as a bad thing too). Come to think of it I actually kind of regret not caring about the Iranian nuke deal thing going on a while ago, but I can't do anything about it since I'm not a politician.
👍: 1 ⏩: 1
RvBOMally In reply to KuboCaskett [2015-08-15 21:35:41 +0000 UTC]
The Middle East is a collection of bad and worse, and to avoid sparking a political argument I'll leave it at that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
KuboCaskett In reply to RvBOMally [2015-08-15 22:41:22 +0000 UTC]
Me too, all I'll say is that the Middle East deserves neither the Ba'athists, the Islamic Iranian regime, the Islamic State of whatever, and similar ilk.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
jrh222 [2015-08-15 14:33:15 +0000 UTC]
What are relations like with the USA and Russia? And the EU and Russia?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
RvBOMally In reply to jrh222 [2015-08-15 16:36:31 +0000 UTC]
Much better than OTL, closer to the "friendship" the two had in the early 2000s.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
King-Van [2015-08-15 04:40:50 +0000 UTC]
Well is world is not too bad.
There are some faults, but for the most part things look nice...
Kind of.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
RvBOMally In reply to King-Van [2015-08-15 04:47:07 +0000 UTC]
It's nicer for the West, worse for China.
👍: 0 ⏩: 4
ShadowFFD In reply to RvBOMally [2015-12-12 02:46:32 +0000 UTC]
I see see the West is slightly smarter and better off here as opposed to OTL, and China's still chugging on for better or worse But on the RL side of things, do you think the US and the West can fully recover from their mistakes in the first decade of the 21st century?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
RvBOMally In reply to ShadowFFD [2015-12-12 02:56:04 +0000 UTC]
It can recover, it will just take a while.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
KuboCaskett In reply to RvBOMally [2015-08-15 15:09:42 +0000 UTC]
What about Japan? it's technically linked to the West but not culturally part of it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
RvBOMally In reply to KuboCaskett [2015-08-15 16:37:33 +0000 UTC]
I'm counting them as part of team West, but they are far more paranoid than OTL.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
KuboCaskett In reply to RvBOMally [2015-08-15 19:52:10 +0000 UTC]
Maybe they must have remilitarized by then though I can imagine China (and South Korea to an extent) would so not be happy about that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
RvBOMally In reply to KuboCaskett [2015-08-15 21:36:37 +0000 UTC]
Yeah, they have remilitarized, and China is feeling very bad about that.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
KuboCaskett In reply to RvBOMally [2015-08-15 22:39:47 +0000 UTC]
I'll bet, makes gooood propaganda for the Beijing regime, although I would consider a remilitarized Japan to be plus provided it uses the military power for good not evil as it did in the 30's to the 40's.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
paireon In reply to KuboCaskett [2015-08-20 15:18:23 +0000 UTC]
Yyyyeeaaahhhh... Funny thing about military power: it's far easier to be a dick than a nice guy when using it. Case in point: 5 millenia of history.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
KuboCaskett In reply to paireon [2015-08-20 19:37:36 +0000 UTC]
Well there's a difference between using military power for good and using it for evil like how the Nazis, Imperial Japan, and the Fascists did.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
paireon In reply to KuboCaskett [2015-08-30 13:02:50 +0000 UTC]
The only really "good" uses of military power are emergency/humanitarian relief, dissuasion and purely defensive measures (e.g. against an invasion by a hostile force, but not counter-invasion) IMO; everything else will be at best morally ambiguous, even if good-intentioned.
Even in the case of WWII, which is usually the go-to "Good VS Evil" war, people to this day debate how ethical and justified it was to drop the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and it's been mostly agreed upon that the Dresden bombing was a Very Bad Thing (although its actual casualties were likely an order of magnitude smaller than the Reich's initial claims, and quite frankly Nazi apologists' attempts to try and milk that tragedy to lessen/deny the Holocaust is insulting to the very concept of intelligence); and let's not get into our ally at the time Stalinist Soviet Union's war crimes, we'd be there all week. And those are just some of the more egregious examples.
In any case, good intentions do not necessarily make for good actions (the road to hell IS kinda paved with them...), and even cases which could be considered clear-cut actually aren't due to someone doing/ordering something stupid/nasty. Pretty sure I could make a case for just about every conflict out there with just a bit of basic research, but I'd rather not try RVB's patience any more than I may have.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
KuboCaskett In reply to paireon [2015-08-31 00:01:57 +0000 UTC]
Agreed, it's quite difficult to research some morally questionable stuff the Allies did without running into some Neo-Nazi crap as well as being accused of a Nazi or Imperial Japan apologist.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
King-Van In reply to RvBOMally [2015-08-15 05:01:23 +0000 UTC]
True, but China has it bad, now.
However, having to fighting both the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, sounds like a very bad.
Then there is that whole 2nd Cold War thing...
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
RvBOMally In reply to King-Van [2015-08-15 05:28:28 +0000 UTC]
The Chinese also have more commitments overseas apart from the Taliban, which isn't good for them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
PersephoneEosopoulou In reply to RvBOMally [2015-08-15 04:51:22 +0000 UTC]
Yeah but China's not a particularly nice place and it's communist sorta so fuck China!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
RvBOMally In reply to PersephoneEosopoulou [2015-08-15 04:54:13 +0000 UTC]
China is doing considerably worse ITTL, particularly economically.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>