Miscellaneous, Non-Frivolous ASB Ideas

[stevep]

Oct 30, 2019 21:07:08 GMT Zyobot said:

Oct 30, 2019 18:38:40 GMT stevep said:

  Unfortunately they wouldn't stand a chance.  Even without Russia using nuclear or chemical weapons they would have an overwhelming advantage against the rest of the world combined.

True. Assuming that it gets sent back shortly after August 1st, 1914--which I believe is when Germany declared war on Russia to support Austria-Hungary--I wonder what direction Russia will go in now that it's participating in World War One. Will they (temporarily) ally with the UK and France as was true IOTL, or perhaps go their own way now that they need a military partnership with neither?

  I would suspect that even if Putin initially was willing to 'ally' with the western powers it wouldn't be for long.  He can get just about anything he wants, which would probably include a lot of territory currently under French or British control plus his likely desire for control of Germany and Austria-Hungary, along with probably the Turkish straits would totally upset any balance of power and hence seriously worry the western powers.  Plus I don't think Putin has any concept of either morality or considering the desires and needs of others and he will, in many ways rightly, consider he no longer needs to.

  One thing I don't think has been mentioned is that 2014 Russia is dramatically smaller territorially than 1914 Russian empire.  It has a couple of sections of territory that the 1914 Russia doesn't have, including the Kalinngrad enclave and in Asia S Sahklin and the Kurils but doesn't have the Baltics, Russian Poland, Ukraine, Belorussia, Finland, the Caucasus region and of course Central Asia.  However I suspect that Putin will want to 'regain' many if not all of those regions.

  In fact the 1st conflict might be Russian on Russian as 1914 Russia had two armies moblising to invade E Prussia, so they could well run into their 2014 version!

[Zyobot]

'No Law of Diminishing Marginal Productivity' in economics.

[Zyobot]

'Libertarian USSR After 1953'--which is when Joe Stalin finally bites the bullet. I'd like to explore what'd occur if it took libertarian socialist, as well as libertarian capitalist directions in two separate rounds.

[Zyobot]

As yet another cross-time presidential election of mine that I’m thinking of making into a TL, ‘1944 FDR Vs. 2004 G.W. Bush’—in which the western half of the 2004 United States gets sent back to 1944. Once the usual shock and awe of this ISOT dissipates and assuming that a mutually agreed-upon election cycle takes place, the ensuing months should prove a tough match-up to call. It's the Silent-Generation New Dealer versus the Boomer neoconservative from sixty years into the future.

At first glance, the notion that FDR would stomp Dubya into the ground on Election Day makes sense, mainly because of his historical clout and lasting legacy. For one thing, he did lead America through the Great Depression and to victory in World War Two IOTL, leaving the US a global superpower with progressive legislation—whether welfare programs like Social Security, or minimum-wage and child-labor laws to protect workers—that remains in place to this day. Roosevelt also seems to be the most inherently charismatic of the two statesmen, with his trademark fireside chats and veneer as a strong, oratorically gifted wartime leader, despite his questionable health. However, I also think he has a number of things going against him that Bush would milk for just about every last drop.

Being someone straight from 1944, FDR would probably be too socially conservative to jive with most 2004 voters. Whereas Dubya is at least accustomed to the permissive society (even though he probably disapproves in private), someone like Roosevelt would probably balk at post-Sexual Revolution norms and conventions. He might also need to be a whole lot more quiet about civil rights concerns due to the attitudes of downtimer America, which works in Bush's favor since he can be a whole lot more vocal about it towards uptimer audiences than Roosevelt probably can to either half of the country. Add in FDR's mass internment of Japanese-Americans that Dubya hasn't even come close to replicating, and I'd be rather unsurprised at normally Democratic-leaning minorities largely supporting him this time around. I can definitely see uptimer senior citizens being more divided, though; on the one hand, many of them would have good memories of the era and lasting reverence for FDR as the man who got America through the Great Depression and (most of) World War Two, but on the other, they might also perceive him as too left-wing once they get wind of his economically progressive general platform. Moreover, so long as Roosevelt is just a few years shy of becoming a senior himself, uptimer revelations of his suffering health and otherwise-impending death in office from OTL might siphon off downtimer support as well, however much the man vows to get examined by the best doctors and take their advice all but religiously.

On foreign policy, they'd be mutually hellbent on ending World War Two and ensuring that America retains its superpower status into the coming decades and beyond, so there's no issue there. Even so, Bush might attack him for supposedly being too "generous" or "kid gloves-prone" with the USSR IOTL in terms of how Eastern Europe was ultimately carved up, and would voice a hardline opposition towards communism well in advance. How FDR might defend himself and convince the public that he hates those "dirty Reds" and what they stand for every bit as much as his Republican opponent from the next century, I don't know.

There's also '1944 FDR Vs. 1984 Ronald Reagan', which would also entail a number of Eighties states getting ISOTed back along with Gipper. Reagan's reputation as "The Great Communicator" and great GOP herald ought to be quite a foil for the progressive, New-Dealer Roosevelt come the actual 1944 election cycle. But more on that somewhere else, perhaps.

[Zyobot]

As an idea that I’ll colloquially refer to as ‘Age-Old Ancapistan’, I wonder what’d happen if libertarianism overtook the ancient world at some yet-unspecified point and place of origin—with its ideals of total free markets, self-ownership and the non-aggression principle remaining pretty much sacrosanct and the political gold standard into the 21st Century and beyond. It’s ASB for more than one or two reasons, of course, but might make for an interesting (not to mention unusual) scenario nonetheless.

[Zyobot]

'2020 Media To 1980'.

[Zyobot]

‘1984 Western US To 1954’ or thereabouts. President Reagan would come along for the ride to represent the uptimers and their interests; how he’d get along with President Eisenhower and end up received by the downtimer public, I’m unsure.

[lordroel]

Nov 8, 2019 12:20:07 GMT Zyobot said:

‘1984 Western US To 1954’ or thereabouts. President Reagan would come along for the ride to represent the uptimers and their interests; how he’d get along with President Eisenhower and end up received by the downtimer public, I’m unsure.

Will 1984 Reagan meet his younger 1954 counterpart.

[Zyobot]

Nov 8, 2019 12:29:27 GMT lordroel said:

Nov 8, 2019 12:20:07 GMT Zyobot said:

‘1984 Western US To 1954’ or thereabouts. President Reagan would come along for the ride to represent the uptimers and their interests; how he’d get along with President Eisenhower and end up received by the downtimer public, I’m unsure.

Will 1984 Reagan meet his younger 1954 counterpart.

That’d be an interesting encounter even for a time-travel ISOT. However, since I’m guessing that Reagan the Younger would’ve been in California at the time, probably not.

Still, I could amend the scenario so that only certain ‘80s states—excluding California and other famous downtimer-dense places—get sent back to 1950-something. 

[lordroel]

Nov 8, 2019 12:35:47 GMT Zyobot said:

Nov 8, 2019 12:29:27 GMT lordroel said:

Will 1984 Reagan meet his younger 1954 counterpart.

That’d be an interesting encounter even for a time-travel ISOT. However, since I’m guessing that Reagan the Younger would’ve been in California at the time, probably not.

Still, I could amend the scenario so that only certain ‘80s states—excluding California and other famous downtimer-dense places—get sent back to 1950-something. 

Well there can only be one Reagan, a younger Reagan and his older counterpart would be to much, like many other people who might have to face tier younger counterparts.

[Zyobot]

Nov 8, 2019 12:41:03 GMT lordroel said:

Nov 8, 2019 12:35:47 GMT Zyobot said:

That’d be an interesting encounter even for a time-travel ISOT. However, since I’m guessing that Reagan the Younger would’ve been in California at the time, probably not.

Still, I could amend the scenario so that only certain ‘80s states—excluding California and other famous downtimer-dense places—get sent back to 1950-something. 

Well there can only be one Reagan, a younger Reagan and his older counterpart would be to much, like many other people who might have to face tier younger counterparts.

Alright, then. In that case, I suppose that Reaganite California does indeed get sent back with the rest of of America’s west half as of 1984.

[lordroel]

Nov 8, 2019 14:10:20 GMT Zyobot said:

Nov 8, 2019 12:41:03 GMT lordroel said:

Well there can only be one Reagan, a younger Reagan and his older counterpart would be to much, like many other people who might have to face tier younger counterparts.

Alright, then. In that case, I suppose that Reaganite California does indeed get sent back with the rest of of America’s west half as of 1984.

Well to bad the Korean War just ended a year ago, otherwise 1984 America could have show what power it has.

[Zyobot]

Nov 8, 2019 14:12:53 GMT lordroel said:

Nov 8, 2019 14:10:20 GMT Zyobot said:

Alright, then. In that case, I suppose that Reaganite California does indeed get sent back with the rest of of America’s west half as of 1984.

Well to bad the Korean War just ended a year ago, otherwise 1984 America could have show what power it has.

True, true. Actually, what about sending the 1981 or ‘82 western US back to 1951 or ‘52, which is when Gipper is serving his first term in office?

[stevep]

Nov 8, 2019 14:15:47 GMT Zyobot said:

Nov 8, 2019 14:12:53 GMT lordroel said:

Well to bad the Korean War just ended a year ago, otherwise 1984 America could have show what power it has.

True, true. Actually, what about sending the 1981 or ‘82 western US back to 1951 or ‘52, which is when Gipper is serving his first term in office?

  Given western US's resources and knowledge of the cold war and what the USSR doesn't have in the way of nukes capable of hitting the US - or with a bit of pre-planning probably most/all of western Europe - I suspect the answer would be STOMP! 

[Zyobot]

Nov 8, 2019 14:40:15 GMT stevep said:

Nov 8, 2019 14:15:47 GMT Zyobot said:

True, true. Actually, what about sending the 1981 or ‘82 western US back to 1951 or ‘52, which is when Gipper is serving his first term in office?

  Given western US's resources and knowledge of the cold war and what the USSR doesn't have in the way of nukes capable of hitting the US - or with a bit of pre-planning probably most/all of western Europe - I suspect the answer would be STOMP! 

I’d probably have to agree with this. There’s also Gipper’s likely advocation of military adventurism and a revival of American patriotism that the almost-immediately post-WW2 US would probably side with in principle.

However, I do wonder if someone like Ike might be more...reluctant, shall we say. Never mind how he receptive he might be to the Reaganite GOP, though whether their ideas actually hold up to scrutiny or not is a separate debate that I’d prefer to avoid here.