Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="green slime" data-source="post: 401797" data-attributes="member: 1325">There are those that would argue with some of your basic suppositions here. Not everyone agrees that the collapse of the Soviet union was a foregone conclusion. Many would even argue with the figures you are expounding. But I'll not get into that bucket. I would enjoy a debate on this matter, but I fear the flames would put an end to this interesting thread.Mr Draco:=======Like I said before, first choose when in history your history departs from the real. Decide what has occured since then and why. Basically the conflicts remain the same: Threat of a catastrophic World War of Epic proportions with the use of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. This causes the powers to exercise caution when dealing with each, and maintain a lock on vassal states to prevent them from escalating any conflicts to high.So most conflicts in the game will be low level, bush fire incidents, localized wars, with the major players seeking a pawn advantage in the local theatre.This of course, is only allowed to occur in the agreed playing fields. Certain countries are off grounds for subversife activity beyond a certain level, for fear of retaliation in kind.Thus industrial espionage, and the like is permissable in UK, but arming the communists isn't. (Lets not discus who armed the IRA...)Of course what would become interesting in 2010 in this scenario would be what rôle the chinese play in this stand off, as a major growing economy. Remember the Soviets would have the base in Cam Rahn Bay (Vietnam), so the USA won't have retreated from the Phillipines.The Chinese are awful pushy about Taiwan and the South China Sea. Regardless of the Soviets presence, and the Soviet-American stand-off, the growing confidence of the Chinese leadership would be made felt in world affairs. But would investors have invested so heavily in China prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union? Had the soviets not permitted such openess in their society, would China have fallen into that "trap".What would 20 years of drug-running to fund various non-budget illegal activities  caused the CIA to become? Would the same presidents candidates have won the election? How about military spending in the US? It would surely be higher than it is today. Remember the big cuts in the beginning of the 90s? How about organised crime? What effects would this have on drug running? The drugs grown in Afghanistan to help fund rebels there need to find buyers. With a Cold War running, would the War Against Drugs ever have occured? Or would it be a return to "Just say No"?There would be no Russian maffia in Europe, that is for certain. This would mean prostitution would be less rife in middle europe. There would be more spy scandals. As countries around the globe would be less interested in aiding the anti-doping campaign in sports, (in order to promote their system as "best" for young active  people) doping in sports would be rampant.This would cause 2010, the womans track and field record for 100m would be around 10 flat, and the mens around 9,40-9,50.Same tendancy in all sports. Extrapolate from there.</blockquote>

Verification