Miscellaneous, Non-Frivolous ASB Ideas

[lordroel]

Jun 22, 2020 16:21:54 GMT Zyobot said:

'2020 Internet To 2010'.

Who owns what on the internet, 2020 companies in 2010.

[Zyobot]

Jun 22, 2020 16:26:20 GMT lordroel said:

Jun 22, 2020 16:21:54 GMT Zyobot said:

'2020 Internet To 2010'.

Who owns what on the internet, 2020 companies in 2010.

Eh, the past versions of current online creators probably own what comes back, maybe? While I'm no attorney, I'm not sure how Google can claim ownership over whatever Pewdiepie released (even if it's posted on YouTube, which is a child company of theirs).

[Zyobot]

'2000 US To 1940'. Aside from the usual chaos of an ISOT of this magnitude, I wonder how this will alter the coming presidential election to take place in November of that year.

[Zyobot]

'Warsaw Pact Never Gets Nukes'. At least intuitively, that probably makes it too easy for NATO due to the West's monopoly on nuclear weapons, and might also reduce incentives for nuclear proliferation due to the USSR, China and other communist powers finding themselves magically unable to produce H-bombs and the like.

[stevep]

Jun 24, 2020 21:14:46 GMT Zyobot said:

'Warsaw Pact Never Gets Nukes'. At least intuitively, that probably makes it too easy for NATO due to the West's monopoly on nuclear weapons, and might also reduce incentives for nuclear proliferation due to the USSR, China and other communist powers finding themselves magically unable to produce H-bombs and the like.

  What happens if an existing nuclear power, goes communist?  Does it magically have all its nuclear facilities - or at least weapons ones - be removed and lose the ability to reconstruct them?  Conversely can they regain the ability if they become non-communist?  Of course that also brings up the question of what is communist and who defines it.

  Also does this ban also apply for nuclear power plants and the like?  There's a grey area in terms of dirty bombs here as well.

  I think the communist powers would seek to find other alternatives, most likely massed chemical use and probably also a lot of work on 'germ' warfare.  They would want some counter to other powers nuclear capability.  Also they might make more use of guerilla warfare and other means to compete for power and influence.

[Zyobot]

Jun 25, 2020 7:51:22 GMT stevep said:

Jun 24, 2020 21:14:46 GMT Zyobot said:

'Warsaw Pact Never Gets Nukes'. At least intuitively, that probably makes it too easy for NATO due to the West's monopoly on nuclear weapons, and might also reduce incentives for nuclear proliferation due to the USSR, China and other communist powers finding themselves magically unable to produce H-bombs and the like.

  What happens if an existing nuclear power, goes communist?  Does it magically have all its nuclear facilities - or at least weapons ones - be removed and lose the ability to reconstruct them?  Conversely can they regain the ability if they become non-communist?  Of course that also brings up the question of what is communist and who defines it.

  Also does this ban also apply for nuclear power plants and the like?  There's a grey area in terms of dirty bombs here as well.

  I think the communist powers would seek to find other alternatives, most likely massed chemical use and probably also a lot of work on 'germ' warfare.  They would want some counter to other powers nuclear capability.  Also they might make more use of guerilla warfare and other means to compete for power and influence.

You've raised some pretty good points that I haven't considered. As far as what counts as communist, I suppose that nation-states that institute public ownership (e.g. state management) over the means of production and pretty much deify Marx would lose the capacity to produce nukes. Nuclear power plants are probably still allowable, though, since I think it'd give the capitalist West too lopsided of an advantage if their socialist counterparts were disadvantaged that much  .

On the other hand, the newfound incentive for the communist bloc to invest in chemical and biological weapons pretty nasty. And having thought a bit about the potential for guerrilla warfare, I wonder if that'd drive Marxist powers like the Soviets and Chinese to support far-left terror groups even more than IOTL. By that I mean terrorist cells modeled after the IRA, or even Red and atheistic versions of ISIS due to how desperation to compete with the West could lend itself to further radicalization. At the same time, I'm also curious as to the possibility that established, semi-sane communist powers remain smart enough to not get behind some Khmer Rouge analogue--or even TTL's version of the actual group itself--due to how it'd run society into the ground when a nuke-free communist bloc urgently needs to compensate for its lack of nuclear capacity (namely via investment in other WMDs as said earlier, as well as in other areas like living standards and scientific/technological parity with the West). With those massive ramifications in mind, though, I think that at this point, this scenario probably deserves its own ASB thread lest it take up too much room in this one.

For my next non-frivolous ASB idea, I've been contemplating writing a TL--which I initially expounded in the 'Story Ideas' thread--to be called The Panarchist Network (or something like that). In line with a more obscure ideology known as 'panarchy' (or 'panarchism'), it’s centered on people choosing which of the various worlds/dimensions dominated by a certain form of political organization they favor—liberal democracy, fascism, anarchism, whatever—and being ISOTed to their place of choice appropriately. Maybe as a caveat to prevent the denizens of certain realms from wanting to conquer others (i.e. a Nazified world planning to conduct lebensraum or a communist one plotting to export ‘revolution’ beyond its bounds), people who choose to live within whatever system they've selected find themselves unable to forcibly interfere in the politics of the other worlds.

If they’re dissatisfied with the new governments they live under (or perhaps lack thereof), they’re presented with another opportunity to change their mind. I can see particularly capricious individuals changing which world they live under every so often, which is no doubt helped by the fact that everyone has unlimited opportunities to change which realm they inhabit. It may seem like too much of a ‘get out of jail free card’, yeah—and I’m willing to reconsider that element of TTL, or at least modify it so that people don’t get off the hook quite that easily—but I think it’d be rather cruel, for instance, to force some dumb, naive kid with wacky political beliefs to live under the potentially nightmarish state that’d form if they actually got their way (you can probably think of some more concrete examples of what I might be referring to here).

Of course, I also believe that writing TTL as an overwhelmingly ‘everyone wins’ scenario and leaving it at that, at least in the long run, is ultimately too boring and free of the substance needed to tell an engaging story. As one possible way to ameliorate this, maybe conflict would arise over someone from Realm A accidentally winding up in Realm B. Some cases would turn out rather benign, namely someone from an American constitutionalist world winding up in one dominated by liberal-democratic monarchies modeled after the UK. Other cases, however—such as a military detachment from a global Greater Germanic Reich winding up in a world ruled by basically Ingsoc straight from 1984—would wind up far, far worse.

Another, less obvious peril could be that if the network somehow collapses and people with different ideological tastes can no longer live within their own bubbles, they won't be accustomed to mutual compromise and coexistence like we in the real world are (for the most part, that is). For that reason, a catastrophe that causes the barriers between realms to collapse and forces their diverse populations to live under one roof would cause far more fighting and disobedience of whatever authorities claw their way to the top, likely culminating in a multipolar bloodbath that makes even the World Wars look tame. Maybe you could get libertarians and Bourbon Democrats to be ideological BFFs, but getting fascists and communists to extend the olive branch—let alone to the various non-authoritarians who abhor their murderous, iron-fisted ways—would likely end in a Cold War that teeters on the precipice of going hot, at best.

Those are some initial thoughts of mine, anyway (though for those who have access, I've received apt and regardful feedback on AH.com as well). Maybe I'll add more either here or elsewhere, depending on what else comes to mind and how set on writing TTL I feel.

[Zyobot]

As an idea inspired by this AH.com thread, '1900 Russia Proper To 2000'.

[lordroel]

Jun 30, 2020 16:35:55 GMT Zyobot said:

As an idea inspired by this AH.com thread, '1900 Russia Proper To 2000'.

Long live the Tsar.

[Zyobot]

Jun 30, 2020 16:55:43 GMT lordroel said:

Jun 30, 2020 16:35:55 GMT Zyobot said:

As an idea inspired by this AH.com thread, '1900 Russia Proper To 2000'.

Long live the Tsar.

Perhaps, but I think the long-term reign of the Romanov Dynasty depends on whether they cave into outside pressure and reform appropriately. They’ll certainly be spooked by news of how IOTL, the those godless Bolsheviks seized control of the country and had them executed. But then I’m concerned that left to its own volition, Russia will only crack down instead of easing up, e.g. gunning down every communist sympathizer in sight, without the liberal-democratic West sending them a ‘strongly worded message’ to legislate in the other direction.

Never mind the full century of the economic, infrastructural and technological modernization that Russia has yet to undergo.

[lordroel]

Jun 30, 2020 17:01:23 GMT Zyobot said:

Jun 30, 2020 16:55:43 GMT lordroel said:

Long live the Tsar.

Perhaps, but I think the long-term reign of the Romanov Dynasty depends on whether they cave into outside pressure and reform appropriately. They’ll certainly be spooked by news of how IOTL, the those godless Bolsheviks seized control of the country and had them executed. But then I’m concerned that left to its own volition, Russia will only crack down instead of easing up, e.g. gunning down every communist sympathizer in sight, without the liberal-democratic West sending them a ‘strongly worded message’ to legislate in the other direction.

Never mind the full century of the economic, infrastructural and technological modernization that Russia has yet to undergo.

But the UN can help them, it will take a long, long time and a lot of effort, but Russia could become a democracy under the Romanaovs. 

[Zyobot]

Jun 30, 2020 17:03:19 GMT lordroel said:

Jun 30, 2020 17:01:23 GMT Zyobot said:

Perhaps, but I think the long-term reign of the Romanov Dynasty depends on whether they cave into outside pressure and reform appropriately. They’ll certainly be spooked by news of how IOTL, the those godless Bolsheviks seized control of the country and had them executed. But then I’m concerned that left to its own volition, Russia will only crack down instead of easing up, e.g. gunning down every communist sympathizer in sight, without the liberal-democratic West sending them a ‘strongly worded message’ to legislate in the other direction.

Never mind the full century of the economic, infrastructural and technological modernization that Russia has yet to undergo.

But the UN can help them, it will take a long, long time and a lot of effort, but Russia could become a democracy under the Romanaovs. 

That’s what I’m hoping for, with the most likely compromise I can think of being that Russia builds off of the UK’s model of constitutional monarchy, with an actual, functioning Duma acting as their equivalent of Parliament. And unlike its weak and ineffectual counterpart IOTL, this one will have to put water-holding checks and balances on what the Russian monarch can (and can’t) do.

Whether Nicholas II is likely to listen to reason given how stubborn he seemed to have been IOTL—that is, refusing to reform until it’s too late to undo some very permanent damage—or will see the ISOT as an act of God and feel compelled to change his ways because of it, I don’t know. But given how much power the Orthodox Church has over the lives of rank-and-file Russians who might view it this way themselves, he’d be politically wise to take the more liberal-democratic route.

Besides, the West is by and large unlikely to offer Russia some of that sweet, sweet uptimer tech if the Tsar remains too stodgy. Maybe the likelihood that they have something for him haemophiliac son could serve as yet another bargaining chip in the West’s favor.

[stevep]

Jun 30, 2020 16:35:55 GMT Zyobot said:

As an idea inspired by this AH.com thread, '1900 Russia Proper To 2000'.

  Is this Russia in its 1900 borders.  If so its going to include much of Poland and all of the Baltic states and Finland as well as the Caucasus states and those in central Asia.  There will be bits of modern Russia left in terms of Kaliningrad in the west and S Sakhalin and the Kurils in the far east.  Possibly some other areas.  Both of those factors are going to cause political problems.  Does Poland, possibly backed by other parts of NATO seek to liberate at least its 2000 borders?  Remembering that there are also Poles further east in this period.  It would be massively outnumbered but heavily outclassing the very backward 1900 Russia army.  Japan might seek to take the Kurils back from modern Russia.

  The other question in the Far East is what does China do?  Its got a very, very much weaker Russia now on its northern border, although it will have lost what settlers and investments it had before 2000.

  Then as well as other matters can you imagine the reaction of Israel to the existence of millions of Jews in the Pale and how harshly their discriminated against and abused.  You could see a massive flow of new settlers to Israel which is likely to further raise tension in the Levant.

  Europe could have some problems as its become so dependent on oil and gas from Russia and that's still largely undiscovered let alone the total lack of pipelines and other facilities.

  What happens to Russian forces and people outside the boundaries in 2000?  If their still about that would include a fair amount of military units and probably a few boomers.  Would they feel more loyal to their up time fragments or to the Czar's regime? 

  Also the question of disease probably will be an issue.  There will be a lot of nasty infestations still present in Czarist Russia including versions that won't be about in the 2000 world.  An 'old' version of flu say could possibly be very nasty for 2000.  As well as things like smallpox for instance.

  I suspect that Russia is going to lose its permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

  There's going to be a lot of issues and probably a lot of civil unrest in Russia as I can't see Nicholas II being that eager to change, nor much of his aristocracy, clergy and the establishment in general.

  Steve

[Zyobot]

Jul 1, 2020 10:54:12 GMT stevep said:

Jun 30, 2020 16:35:55 GMT Zyobot said:

As an idea inspired by this AH.com thread, '1900 Russia Proper To 2000'.

  Is this Russia in its 1900 borders.  If so its going to include much of Poland and all of the Baltic states and Finland as well as the Caucasus states and those in central Asia.  There will be bits of modern Russia left in terms of Kaliningrad in the west and S Sakhalin and the Kurils in the far east.  Possibly some other areas.  Both of those factors are going to cause political problems.  Does Poland, possibly backed by other parts of NATO seek to liberate at least its 2000 borders?  Remembering that there are also Poles further east in this period.  It would be massively outnumbered but heavily outclassing the very backward 1900 Russia army.  Japan might seek to take the Kurils back from modern Russia.

  The other question in the Far East is what does China do?  Its got a very, very much weaker Russia now on its northern border, although it will have lost what settlers and investments it had before 2000.

  Then as well as other matters can you imagine the reaction of Israel to the existence of millions of Jews in the Pale and how harshly their discriminated against and abused.  You could see a massive flow of new settlers to Israel which is likely to further raise tension in the Levant.

  Europe could have some problems as its become so dependent on oil and gas from Russia and that's still largely undiscovered let alone the total lack of pipelines and other facilities.

  What happens to Russian forces and people outside the boundaries in 2000?  If their still about that would include a fair amount of military units and probably a few boomers.  Would they feel more loyal to their up time fragments or to the Czar's regime? 

  Also the question of disease probably will be an issue.  There will be a lot of nasty infestations still present in Czarist Russia including versions that won't be about in the 2000 world.  An 'old' version of flu say could possibly be very nasty for 2000.  As well as things like smallpox for instance.

  I suspect that Russia is going to lose its permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

  There's going to be a lot of issues and probably a lot of civil unrest in Russia as I can't see Nicholas II being that eager to change, nor much of his aristocracy, clergy and the establishment in general.

  Steve

I was referring to 1900 Russia proper—as in, the region taken up by only modern Russia from one hundred years back—getting sent to 2000. So Poland remains territorially untouched, as do other nearby nations that are no longer part of the Russian Empire. And, much to Nicholas II’s consternation, he’s not likely to get them back, either.

Whatever Russian people, forces and assets were away at the time remain, so they’re not whisked away in the ISOT. Even though that’s certainly not the same as being completely unaffected, such as uptimer Russian citizens having lost friends, family and possessions in the displacement and being reluctant to return home to the backwards, monarchist downtimer counterpart of the land they once knew.

Regarding economic destabilization, I’m guessing that the sudden lack of Russian oil and gas should at least cause a sizable recession throughout Europe. Gas prices will skyrocket, and people who rely on gas-powered vehicles will need to ration in a much more austere fashion for the time being. Depending on how big of an energy sector it has at this time, the US might eventually step in to fill the void?

Maybe downtimer Russia could theoretically fill it thanks to its more-untouched oil and mineral reserves, but then there’s its lack of modern machinery and probably also know-how in tapping into it. That, and uplifting Russia into a modernized mining power entails lending uptimer technological knowledge, which you probably don’t want in the hands of a stubborn, anachronistic, absolutist regime like that of Tsarist Russia. In fact, I’m fearful that it could essentially become a gigantic Saudi Arabia unless it’s pressed to reform before it gets caught up and starts to establish economic ties with the rest of the world.

Otherwise, I don’t have as much in the way of data or statistics go off of to gauge where Tsarist Russia’s economy was just prior to the ISOT. Wikipedia aside, this was probably the best I could find on the subject.

All in all, though, with its probable unwillingness to change even when the light is shown on what a backwards and counterproductive system Russia has in place—and the old-time diseases and crap that’ll creep into the outside world, due to its dated knowledge and lack of a real medical apparatus—how much action is the rest of the world likely to take in order to drag Russia into the current century, kicking and screaming? They’re almost certain to become a pariah state, let alone lose their UN seat as you’re already said. But could the international community take it a step or two further beyond just economic and political sanctions, if you know what I’m trying to imply here?

[stevep]

Jul 1, 2020 16:19:08 GMT Zyobot said:

Jul 1, 2020 10:54:12 GMT stevep said:

  Is this Russia in its 1900 borders.  If so its going to include much of Poland and all of the Baltic states and Finland as well as the Caucasus states and those in central Asia.  There will be bits of modern Russia left in terms of Kaliningrad in the west and S Sakhalin and the Kurils in the far east.  Possibly some other areas.  Both of those factors are going to cause political problems.  Does Poland, possibly backed by other parts of NATO seek to liberate at least its 2000 borders?  Remembering that there are also Poles further east in this period.  It would be massively outnumbered but heavily outclassing the very backward 1900 Russia army.  Japan might seek to take the Kurils back from modern Russia.

  The other question in the Far East is what does China do?  Its got a very, very much weaker Russia now on its northern border, although it will have lost what settlers and investments it had before 2000.

  Then as well as other matters can you imagine the reaction of Israel to the existence of millions of Jews in the Pale and how harshly their discriminated against and abused.  You could see a massive flow of new settlers to Israel which is likely to further raise tension in the Levant.

  Europe could have some problems as its become so dependent on oil and gas from Russia and that's still largely undiscovered let alone the total lack of pipelines and other facilities.

  What happens to Russian forces and people outside the boundaries in 2000?  If their still about that would include a fair amount of military units and probably a few boomers.  Would they feel more loyal to their up time fragments or to the Czar's regime? 

  Also the question of disease probably will be an issue.  There will be a lot of nasty infestations still present in Czarist Russia including versions that won't be about in the 2000 world.  An 'old' version of flu say could possibly be very nasty for 2000.  As well as things like smallpox for instance.

  I suspect that Russia is going to lose its permanent seat on the UN Security Council.

  There's going to be a lot of issues and probably a lot of civil unrest in Russia as I can't see Nicholas II being that eager to change, nor much of his aristocracy, clergy and the establishment in general.

  Steve

I was referring to 1900 Russia proper—as in, the region taken up by only modern Russia from one hundred years back—getting sent to 2000. So Poland remains territorially untouched, as do other nearby nations that are no longer part of the Russian Empire. And, much to Nicholas II’s consternation, he’s not likely to get them back, either.

Whatever Russian people, forces and assets were away at the time remain, so they’re not whisked away in the ISOT. Even though that’s certainly not the same as being completely unaffected, such as uptimer Russian citizens having lost friends, family and possessions in the displacement and being reluctant to return home to the backwards, monarchist downtimer counterpart of the land they once knew.

Regarding economic destabilization, I’m guessing that the sudden lack of Russian oil and gas should at least cause a sizable recession throughout Europe. Gas prices will skyrocket, and people who rely on gas-powered vehicles will need to ration in a much more austere fashion for the time being. Depending on how big of an energy sector it has at this time, the US might eventually step in to fill the void?

Maybe downtimer Russia could theoretically fill it thanks to its more-untouched oil and mineral reserves, but then there’s its lack of modern machinery and probably also know-how in tapping into it. That, and uplifting Russia into a modernized mining power entails lending uptimer technological knowledge, which you probably don’t want in the hands of a stubborn, anachronistic, absolutist regime like that of Tsarist Russia. In fact, I’m fearful that it could essentially become a gigantic Saudi Arabia unless it’s pressed to reform before it gets caught up and starts to establish economic ties with the rest of the world.

Otherwise, I don’t have as much in the way of data or statistics go off of to gauge where Tsarist Russia’s economy was just prior to the ISOT. Wikipedia aside, this was probably the best I could find on the subject.

All in all, though, with its probable unwillingness to change even when the light is shown on what a backwards and counterproductive system Russia has in place—and the old-time diseases and crap that’ll creep into the outside world, due to its dated knowledge and lack of a real medical apparatus—how much action is the rest of the world likely to take in order to drag Russia into the current century, kicking and screaming? They’re almost certain to become a pariah state, let alone lose their UN seat as you’re already said. But could the international community take it a step or two further beyond just economic and political sanctions, if you know what I’m trying to imply here?

  Zyobot,

  Ah thanks for the clarification.  So its the area covered by the 2000 Russian republic that is replaced by its 1900 equivalent.  That raises the question of whether the Kaliningrad enclave is 2000 Russia or 1900 E Prussia [part of].  With the other former areas as they are now, i.e. Baltic, Ukraine, Belarus, Central Asia etc that really whittles down the area affected.  The rump empire could face problems with multiple neighbours possibly seeking border 'rectifications'.  Also I wonder what Russians from 2000 in the near abroad will do?  Press for reform or be willing to help the 'Russian' state even if as likely reform is going to be slow and difficult.  Its going to leave the pro-Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine and their forces abroad, such as Syria and Libya somewhat stranded.

  I don't think Saudi Arabia would be a good comparison in that I can't see Russia being an exported of extreme religious views, let alone terrorism.  Unless you mean more that its a socially backwards countries with vast mineral resources?  In that case yes.  Of course its going to be ripe for a lot of exploitation as the up-timers know where a lot of resources are, especially in Siberia, and have the technology to develop them quickly.  That is relatively quickly as Russia lacks so much infrastructure.  The Trans-Siberian Railway isn't completed yet and IIRC the initial route included a section through Russian dominated Manchuria, which obviously isn't going to be available here.

  Can see some human rights issues possibly getting some support.  For instance if their in Russia at the time I don't think Lenin, Stalin or Trotsky are good candidates for life insurance and relatively few governments are likely to complain too much.

  In terms of economy Russia was starting to build up some large industries but even in 1900 terms they were based more on large amounts of cheap labour as much as machinery so tended to be distinctly inefficient.  A lot of this was foreign owned or at least with foreign investment so this could be a bit of a boost as the Russian government is likely to take them over.  Not likely to be many descendants of 1900 investors going to make claims on such property.

  In terms of military intervention I'm in two minds.  There are likely to be arguments for it on human rights grounds and also border security in some areas.  On the other hand, like Saddam's invasion of Kuwait it opens a nasty door that many might want to keep close.  What if for instance China starts claiming 'Chinese lands lost to the unequal treaties' on the grounds of 'protecting human rights'?

  Just thought there are likely to be a fair number of foreign diplomats, merchants etc in Russia who are going to have a shock when they return 'home'.

  Steve

[Zyobot]

'1950 Federal Politicians Govern 2010 America'.