Some things have struck me reading though this....
If the UN is capable of 'encouraging otherwise unaffected nations who are stable and comfortable - and are unlikely to politically want to go to war - into war with the threat of blackouts.... That's a rather dystopic angle. For that matter, is the threat of a blackout a little bit of an empty one, when someone realises that powerless farms won't produce food, and powerless factories don't produce weapons? Both of which are as important to an army as troops on the ground. A canny politician or two may well gamble that the UN threat of reactor interdiction on such a large scale is an empty threat if following through on it leads to the crippling of its own war machine. That right there is another battle of wills which may well determine the future disposition of the UN, depending on who succeeds. Having been through two World Wars already - I doubt the vast majority of the European continent would be excited to get involved in what is clearly thus far a 'Pacific War'. They may well instead try to negotiate some form of Energy for Armaments deal. Keep the fusion power burning, we'll keep supplying food, ammunition, armaments, medical supplies.
It seems a far more natural response than an immediate UN-led dogpile on China. Faced with actually having to follow through on treaty commitments, nations will baulk at massive bloodshed in another part of the world far away for someone else, while the UN itself may well baulk at cutting off its supply of men and materiel just to encourage them to fight. "We're going to war because they'll turn off the lights if we don't" is a poor stoker for a people's fighting spirit. "We must stop the evil totalitarian Chinese" a better one... but even so, China is 'far away'. Far enough to be somebody else's problem for the time being.
This lasts, of course until local circumstances change that position. With the UN being weakened and otherwise having its attention directed, another European war may start as the local gallery of rogue nations takes opportunities they wouldn't otherwise have. As is the way with World Wars, it may well end up being a coalescing of multiple simultaneous conflicts as separate theatres form alliances, rather than the immediate BLAM! most people expect WW3 to be. World Wars historically don't start Global... they become global as more and more parties are dragged in, or other conflicts spill over. World War II was a seperate European War and a Pacific War that merged either when the United States was dragged into it, or when the Axis formed. World War 1 triggered as a Balkan war until every surrounding empire dogpiled and got dragged in by competing alliances in one long daisy-chain of historical grievances and alliances dating back over a century.
From a meta-standpoint - there's also a few years of war to fill, requiring turning points and an ebb and flow to give it narrative. A merging of the European conflict, or the ignition of a European conflict may well be a turning point in favour of the UN at it's Darkest Hour.
Ultimately when the dust finally settles, the UN as it has been will end up somewhat like the League of Nations after the last World War. The LoN worked for a while to prevent local wars and do some good, right up until its methods of maintaining peace were rendered innefective and it was made irrelevant by circumstances exceeding its capability. Once one nation found it could stand up to the League, that was it, its control was finished. The League itself clung on until 1946 - throughout the War. It's final act was to pass on the majority of its assets and more successful agencies on to its successor. The UN as it has existed in the IST world has just been made obsolete by events exceeding the capability of its methods of control. The end result is going to be a few new memorials, a few smouldering rubblepiles and a new UN organisation determined to prevent another war as destructive as the last onem while inheriting its more succesful agencies.
Complicating matters may well be the interference of extraterrestrial organisations now, and the knowledge that humanity is no longer alone.
The history of this 20th century may well be summarized as:
"My grandfather died in the Somme. My Father died in Arnhem. My son died in Hong Kong. And now my Grandson?"
I'm also forced to wonder if the act of preventing small wars between large nations means that, when a war does ultimately happen, it happens big. Similar to the theory governing network failures.... the more reliable and interconnected you make it, the more likely that any failures you have will take down the entire grid.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
If the UN is capable of 'encouraging otherwise unaffected nations who are stable and comfortable - and are unlikely to politically want to go to war - into war with the threat of blackouts.... That's a rather dystopic angle. For that matter, is the threat of a blackout a little bit of an empty one, when someone realises that powerless farms won't produce food, and powerless factories don't produce weapons? Both of which are as important to an army as troops on the ground. A canny politician or two may well gamble that the UN threat of reactor interdiction on such a large scale is an empty threat if following through on it leads to the crippling of its own war machine. That right there is another battle of wills which may well determine the future disposition of the UN, depending on who succeeds. Having been through two World Wars already - I doubt the vast majority of the European continent would be excited to get involved in what is clearly thus far a 'Pacific War'. They may well instead try to negotiate some form of Energy for Armaments deal. Keep the fusion power burning, we'll keep supplying food, ammunition, armaments, medical supplies.
It seems a far more natural response than an immediate UN-led dogpile on China. Faced with actually having to follow through on treaty commitments, nations will baulk at massive bloodshed in another part of the world far away for someone else, while the UN itself may well baulk at cutting off its supply of men and materiel just to encourage them to fight. "We're going to war because they'll turn off the lights if we don't" is a poor stoker for a people's fighting spirit. "We must stop the evil totalitarian Chinese" a better one... but even so, China is 'far away'. Far enough to be somebody else's problem for the time being.
This lasts, of course until local circumstances change that position. With the UN being weakened and otherwise having its attention directed, another European war may start as the local gallery of rogue nations takes opportunities they wouldn't otherwise have. As is the way with World Wars, it may well end up being a coalescing of multiple simultaneous conflicts as separate theatres form alliances, rather than the immediate BLAM! most people expect WW3 to be. World Wars historically don't start Global... they become global as more and more parties are dragged in, or other conflicts spill over. World War II was a seperate European War and a Pacific War that merged either when the United States was dragged into it, or when the Axis formed. World War 1 triggered as a Balkan war until every surrounding empire dogpiled and got dragged in by competing alliances in one long daisy-chain of historical grievances and alliances dating back over a century.
From a meta-standpoint - there's also a few years of war to fill, requiring turning points and an ebb and flow to give it narrative. A merging of the European conflict, or the ignition of a European conflict may well be a turning point in favour of the UN at it's Darkest Hour.
Ultimately when the dust finally settles, the UN as it has been will end up somewhat like the League of Nations after the last World War. The LoN worked for a while to prevent local wars and do some good, right up until its methods of maintaining peace were rendered innefective and it was made irrelevant by circumstances exceeding its capability. Once one nation found it could stand up to the League, that was it, its control was finished. The League itself clung on until 1946 - throughout the War. It's final act was to pass on the majority of its assets and more successful agencies on to its successor. The UN as it has existed in the IST world has just been made obsolete by events exceeding the capability of its methods of control. The end result is going to be a few new memorials, a few smouldering rubblepiles and a new UN organisation determined to prevent another war as destructive as the last onem while inheriting its more succesful agencies.
Complicating matters may well be the interference of extraterrestrial organisations now, and the knowledge that humanity is no longer alone.
The history of this 20th century may well be summarized as:
"My grandfather died in the Somme. My Father died in Arnhem. My son died in Hong Kong. And now my Grandson?"
I'm also forced to wonder if the act of preventing small wars between large nations means that, when a war does ultimately happen, it happens big. Similar to the theory governing network failures.... the more reliable and interconnected you make it, the more likely that any failures you have will take down the entire grid.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?