Okay so my main story takes place in the future, but I was thinking of writing an origins book just because I thought it would be fun. I am pretty bad at culture in a real world setting and have no entensions of becoming a culture expert to write speculation future fantasy. lol but that isn't to say that my common sense can fail me and I wouldn't mind improving it. So my question is this. Does the following scenerio make sense to you? and if not, why? 2050 ish. World War 3 begins. Fighting over what is deemed the ethical way to treat magically born people(some saying, they all need to die, including yours other countries and them not liking that.) 2060 ish. War has been raging nearly 10 years(that in itself I wonder if it could even happen. I know world war 2 lasted near 5. lol) In between these two time stamps. China, which began on one side(does it really matter which?) is no longer on that side. How this happens seems optional. Either forced out, or gave up or something. A friend suggested that they became disilusioned with their allies but didn't want to defect to the other side. Perhaps they only wanted to abandon some allies or didn't want to fight against some allies. Options is the point and sort of tried to become netural. Or sort of. After China drops out of the front lines of this ten year war. They sort of say "We want to survive this bullshit." and start changing policies toward that end. Becoming a safe haven for assassins, mercs and other such... people. And selling their services to either side in the ultimate goal of keeping themselves as a nation above water. Thats basically it. My arguement to people that tend to be like. "China wouldn't behave this way" is. Well, its a war, a ten year long war. That changes people and cultures. Leaders could die, new leaders could have a vastly different perspective considering war has been life for again a decade.
Nothing in what you've written seems like a deal breaker to me, as far as suspension of disbelief. Although the devil's in the details...most of which you label optional, and it's true that there are probably several ways you could plot this out. But it's hard to give much more feedback than that without knowing those details.
Oh yeah, but that is just the thing. I don't know the details and certainly the details will require much in terms of thought. If I ever actually give them(Another thing that requires a lot of thought). I mean the story is about a guy coming to this land after its like this. The point is many people have quoted it as being... "dead on arrival: and no details could save it. And ya disagree, which is what I was looking for. Now to see if more people disagree.
Maybe it's just the Marxist in me, but I feel like you're underestimating (or at least not mentioning) the economic factors in all this. It's really pretty rare to have a war fought on purely idealogical/ethical grounds... like, I can't think of a single one. More often, in my interpretation of history, wars start because one side has something the other side wants. For your magic users, maybe they were giving an economic advantage to the side that tolerates/celebrates them, so the other side started making demands to control/eliminate the magic users, the first side refused to give up their advantage, etc. I feel kinda cynical, writing that, but....
My main issue here is that China would actually be more likely to win due to the amount of resources they have. There's a reason a lot of their neighbors tend to seek US protection.Not to mention that nation that become "a safe haven for assassins, mercs and other such... people" tend to be that way because they are horribly unstable with not suitable law enforcement because no one really likes mercenaries because if you have them inside your country than could betray you for money. All of this is ignoring three other things. The first being that the amount of international trade in the world being stopped by a war does not destroy the economies of most countries. The second being that any country would go to war over how another country treats its own citizens. History has shown that this tends not to be how countries work. And finally, nukes. China and India have them. They would probably use them.
Such good replies. I am happy to have them. And I know I am underestimating this. That is why I ask. I am not soo good with like just googling it. I work better when I have someone to work off of. I think there is a money factor here or I imagine their would have to be. I was trying to be simplistic originally. The details always pop up a little in the thread. lol. In this case, I like to think of it as "the war the X-men are always talking about." So maybe not so simple as "we want you to do something!" but more like. Every nation is developing magic babies very suddenly. They try and keep it a secret. Try and develop it. Learn about the ones the other nations have. Maybe assassinate magic children whose powers are to be feared. It seems like this can escalate to war. And magic certainly has a core value. The ethical pretense I came to was more actually how the war ended now that I think about it. With the two sides realzing that its just gonna be a dead Earth soon, and they sort of back off each other. One nation feeling Magic is a act of god, loving and cultivating it. The other nation, thinking its already almost led to the end of the world once and want nothing to do with it(developing hyper levels of technology as a counter means.) And this is sort of the world I wanted to center my book around. Or main series. 1. Not sure I even implied that originally. If I did, how? 2. I sort of said that poorly originally, but I think fixed it above. 3. This I feel would have happened actually. I mean, that is much the point I tried to make with the 10 year war part. Like, this gives me an idea. Nukes were launched at places like China cuz they are big. China took heavy loses in the beginning and by the ten year mark, they are out of nukes or scared using them will end the world! Because that is my arguement. That such a large scale attack would change how China has to act as a country. Allowing me to add the mentally "my" china has without it being too distracting. yeah yeah I know real china probably isn't gonna act the way I write but that is why I wrote a war! Plus, I am writing future urban fantasy, or distopean(with the war) I am not actually trying to predict the future! Ya know? But thank you for reminding me about nukes.
Well... For me the two big things that stand out as unrealistic are: a country switching sides because it became "disillusioned" with its allies, and total war caused by another country having weird babies. The former is a terrible reason, and even if that somehow was the case, admitting it would be embarrassing and delegitimising, leading to internal unrest, possibly the government being overthrown. Real countries did switch sides, but the reasons need to be tangible. Regarding the latter, weird babies with powers born in other countries is equivalent to countries developing their own nukes in real life. This is not nearly good enough - one might even say that it's the ultimate reason against it - for a total war, a conflict where every resource of an entire country is poured into the conflict, and countries keep at it until they have no nothing more to bleed and collapse. In real life this may cause a limited, surgical intervention, or a proxy war, or even just harsh relations. Other than that, here are some things that you might want to take into account. Other than nuclear developments, a rule of thumb is that wars always have more than one reason for taking place. You could say that the war broke our because Helen of Troy was taken, but in actuality, she was just an excuse, a spark. The true reasons were long standing rivalry and jealousy over exerted influence, trade. Also, you say that the war broke out in 2050ish, by then the Chinese One Belt One Road Initiative will likely have been in operation, reshuffling the world's wealth and military power. I mention this because wars have gotten shorter because of infrastructure and related institutions, which allow it be swift. Countries have standing armies, ready to be deployed anywhere in the world by the means of aerial transportation, as opposed to having to levy, equip, and slowly march wherever. We've also become very efficient at killing large amounts of people, even from distance and the comfort of shelter. Besides, countries are becoming more interdependent on each other and transnational corporations. What I'm saying is that armies are already going out of fashion, there would never be a total war, and if there was it would not last longer than WW2. Another thing is that, if the main motivation for war is ideological and the countries are in a last-man-standing situation, do you really think that they would allow the enemy country to back away, while they are still at war with others, with no consequences? Obviously, they are ideologically inferior, so how could you even trust that they will keep their truce, what if they're just regrouping? These aren't glaring things, but if you stop to think, they will lead to questioning. There was something else I wanted to say about Chinese and global urbanisation, and nukes, but I forgot and don't have the time now...
The 1917 Russian Revolution(s) took Czarist Russia out of WWI a year or so before the conflict ended. Have civilian shortages and/or excessive war deaths lead to a revolution or civil war in China, that leads one side or the other to accept mercs on contingency and accomplishes much of what you want to do.
How is China likely to get away with just dropping out? Their opponents aren't going to drop everything and just sign a treaty because one side feels like it. They're going to do everything they can to benefit, be it taking land or demanding reparations. Look at what happened to Germany after WW1. Additionally, China is absurdly dystopian in nature. You know that citizens are assigned citizenship for individual cities/areas, right? It's literally illegal for someone sent to live in Shanghai to move to Beijing. The idea of a country like that letting widespread criminality in the form of assassins and mercenaries fester is incredible in the original sense of the word.
Saying that real China wouldn’t behave that way seems odd to me when the story is set that far into the future. A lot can change with 40 years and a world war. My main question would be about the magically born people. If one side is protecting them and another is killing then, then presumably they’d be helping the side that’s protecting them. Since I’d assume that would be a pretty big advantage, would that side be a lot smaller?
Such input and ideas are partly why I made the thread, ya know? It's tricky, because I put a lot of work and effort into this. And I like what I have done, but I do like gaining some input so I don't miss something obvious and easily fixable. Like I didn't know that about China but again I can't reasonable learn so much of each place in the world. Ya know? I still stand that years in the future and a world war are reasonable things to create a huge culture shift. The magic side being smaller? That makes sense since they have magic lol. But to look at things that simplistic would probably be a mistake. I think a better way to say it is. Both sides probably use that(even anti nuclear people can't refuse nukes in a nuke war, ya know?) But rather the mentality of the people at large. America for example may use magic users to try and beat down the other sides but since the American public as a whole hate Magic and think its the product of the devil. When the war ends they well make laws against magic. Which sure gives the magic guy a reason not to be on this side but its never that simple. He could have family? Or pride in his country. Or willing to die. Or planning to run. Or maybe only waiting for a chance to run. lol.
Your worries don't really concern me, but I have a question. Why would WWIII not be a nuclear war? Is there some reason it cant be?
I think I have several answers to this question. 1 War is worthless if the land is unusable after. 2. I think some nukes would be used at tactical points. 3. I find this concept boring. Nuke in a fighting concept is a win button. The struggle of two soldiers trying to kill eachother is so much more interesting. Maybe not true to life but... well I am not writing a guide to proper war but a story to engage a reader.
Given your time period in which it takes place, China cannot afford to sit on the side lines and just offer assassin/mercenary aid to those that can pay. Eventually they would be roped back in by one side or the other, seeing as they would have to be an active participant once fighting becomes an issue on their border. It really depends on which side sees the need to push things that far, since China has a lot of land and has a massive population. While it may not be Russia/Siberia in terms of being outright inhospitable land for large treks of it, China may be veiwed as a a viper waiting to strike with a massive offensive and destroy whom they wish when the time is right. Better to keep a massive army in reserve, and then turn around and take advantage of the weakened parties fighting amongst each other. If they ally with India, then they could essentially amass two huge armies and then proceed to conquer the rest of the world after the other powers are weakened to the point where they cannot fight off the joint effort of those two armies. Since you are not using nukes, this is a quite feasible premise, and would work given the fact that all they would have to do is wait for the right time to exact such a strike. They would have the numbers available to overrun and overwhelm anyone near the end of the war at that point. Realistically though, it would fall upon who has the most battle hardened armies going into such a war of attrition to begin with. And if more contemporary history has anything to say about it, China is not really up to par with the west in terms of being in combat nor technology. So there would in all likely hood be from one side or the other to keep them out of the fighting almost entirely. Which could include a protocol to wail on China with bombardment or a measure to kill off any and all Chinese at any opportunity with extreme prejudice (possibly in mass at the borders) to keep them from re-engaging by offering assassins or mercs to begin with. It may not a PC approach, but it will take the incentive out of it for them to try and be sneaky in that fashion. More than likely they will side with those that feed into their interests and ideals. Meaning that those that buy/trade from China will gain favor and backing by such a super power. Feeding a steady flow of bodies and hardware to the side they are in league with. Quite the demoralizing factor for most when facing an near endless army to fight regardless of combat effectiveness. Cause they can use their mass to overwhelm pretty much all but the most dedicated of armies into submission, by simply making them waste resources and manpower to that scale of fighting. Simply put they would do well to sit neutral until the latter years, and then become the victors by shear power and influence once they have the means to do so. Much better to be the defacto saviors and make everyone else look like a bunch of jerks in the long run. Then China dominates the global stage, and that is where things go well/ill based upon who they deem to be ally/enemy. And the global language will be Chinese as a result of such a shift in influence and power. Though you will have to consider for conventional warfare that any army will only be able to march on it's stomach. Hence why china cannot really afford to do a lot at the current day in age (unless they resort to cannibalism). So it is better to have Combat proven over just a massive body of guns and men to meet the grinder. 1 war tested soldier is worth 20 that don't have the same experience.
Damn. Like. I can't even remember. My base knowledge is way too low. I kind of suck at this lol. Claps to your genius!
