Do you find Homefront's story plausible?

[Virgilthepagan]

Hello to all, I've been wandering around these forums for a while, but something has finally bugged me enough to post a topic.

I've been mildly curious about the game "Homefront" for a bit, mostly because the writer from "Red Dawn" was assigned to the story, and as the topic suggests, it bugs me.

A quick rundown courtesy of Wikipedia:
* 2011: North Korea faces another UN sanction over its latest nuclear test.
* 2012: Kim Jong-Il dies and is succeeded by his son Kim Jong-un.
* 2013: Kim Jong-un is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and featured on the cover of Time Magazine for his accomplishment of Korean reunification.
* 2014: American military withdraws from the Korean Peninsula. General Motors declares bankruptcy for the second time.
* 2015: The effects of peak oil are felt as gas prices reach up to 20 dollars a gallon due to a war between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Russia cuts off all oil trade with Europe. Survivalist literature become bestsellers in America. China's influences diminish.
* 2016: America withdraws its military from Japan and other countries overseas, focusing on its instability back home.
* 2017: Martial law is declared in the United States as its infrastructure crumbles due to financial deficiencies.
* 2018: After the destruction of one of its nuclear facilities by Korean special forces, Japan surrenders to the Greater Korean Republic and is capitalized into a vassal state.
* 2019: The UN goes out of commission.
* 2020: Canada closes its borders to Americans. The US military takes over the functions of many emergency services, as well as the distribution of basic goods. This causes many Americans to abandon the suburbs in exchange of the military-managed urban centers.
* 2021: Korean forces succeed in annexing many countries in Southeast Asia. A new pandemic known as the Knoxville Cough, a type of bird flu, begins to spread in the United States.
* 2022: To prevent the contagion of the Knoxville Cough, Mexico closes its borders to Americans. Hyperinflation pushes the US dollar to the edge of collapse.
* 2023: The Knoxville Cough ravages the American public. The Korean People's Army reaches 20 million total personnel.
* 2024: Using the captured M-V rockets at the Uchinoura Space Center, Kim Jong-un announces a new space satellite program, under the pretense of replacing the decaying GPS system, which America could no longer afford to maintain.
* 2025: A thermonuclear device is detonated by one of the Korean satellites 300 miles above Kansas, blanketing America with an EMP that wipes out its power grid and most of the electronics above ground. The US infrastructure is virtually in ruins. This is followed by the Korean seizure of Hawaii and landings in San Francisco. Korean paratroopers are dropped into central United States. The economic downfall in Europe prevents its nations from intervening.
* 2026: The United States is split into two as the KPA irradiate the entire Mississippi River, as a fortification for their control of the western side.
* 2027: The United States Armed Forces are completely scattered.



I wouldn't care so much, but it's worth remembering that South Korea alone boasts an army that is better equipped, trained, and has more experience than the DPRK's, so I fail to see how this scenario is even remotely possible. I wouldn't care so much, but it seems the game developers are treating it that way.

After hearing a couple reviews call the setting "plausible" (Gametrailers) or "engrossing/well constructed" (Gamespot) I've got to ask. Does anyone actually think this is a plausible twenty year scenario?

 

[Doive]

Well no, but 99% of games with pretences of realism have completely implausible plots. If it makes for a decent game experience then it doesn't really matter in todays market.

 

[ReincarnatedFTP]

Well much of it is plausible, but other parts are entirely random or very dependent on so many little preexisting conditions.
Overall, I think it's silly but it's a much better go at plausibility than most games involving North Korea or silly Red Dawn fantasies.
I mean, even now, Kim Jong Il is just an attention whore. An attention whore who recently got some people killed for attention, and then even had China leave his ass out to hang for the most part.
North Korea as a nation-state and KJI as a person aren't massive threats to anything, they just like to pose like they are and the media loves to do it too because it makes for interesting news.
The actual threat from North Korea is where their nukes and weapons might end up eventually if at any point NK undergoes chaos or mismanagement ("oops can't find those weapons we had, well fuck.").
Kinda the same way I see Pakistan's posession of nukes.

 

[Louzerman102]

I have no problem with Homefront's story because
1.) 2027 which is 16 years from now.
2.) Remember how quickly the Credit Crunch thing popped up
3.) It's a video game and deserves my suspension of disbelief
4.) The U. S. military mentioned that China could collapse the economy in one day by moving around U. S. debt.

 

[emeraldrafael]

Well... no, not right now. I think there's definite plausibility there,just not in that short of span.

 

[Teddy Roosevelt]

No, not at all. The United States is far too advanced in terms of its military. It will take far too much for us to be lowered to North Korea's level. Look for my post in the first announcement of Homefront, if you're willing to look. I think it was page three or something. I'll try and find it for you people, but I outlined in detail why it is implausible.

Unlike some posts I saw as I scanned this thread, I mean no disrespect to anyone here when I say that a successful invasion of the United States by anyone, especially North Korea, is damn near impossible. Now, I'm not just an over-patriotic fool. Being into military science and military history, though still not (yet) a professional, I have been able to look around and understand how such an invasion would work. I can honestly say that I don't see a successful invasion of the US being possible by any nation for the next 50 years, and at the least, if we are generous and give the enemies of the US the benefit of the doubt to say they get very powerful very quickly, 20 years.

Take China for example, being currently the nation most likely to get in a fight with the US. China's total military size, including reserves, active personnel, and paramilitaries, is about 3.45 million personnel. The US has a total of about 2.45 million. So, yes, they outnumber us by damn near 1 million exactly. That's about 1.4 Chinese soldiers per American. Then, take into account the total populations of each country. The US has near 310 million people to China's 1.3 billion. So, China certainly has the numerical advantage, since they could quickly build their numbers and industry with untrained manpower (training takes time, of course, so if they need to really sap their numbers to use human-wave, that is not ideal for time's sake).

The United States would, initially, have a vastly superior conventional force against the Chinese with better trained soldiers and higher quality equipment. In the ideal, rapidly moving modern war that is very likely in this day and age, the real thing to consider is the order of battle of a nation to start. Only in a total war scenario in which populations and industries are mobilized does one really consider the rate at which material and personnel strength is replenished. In addition, China's troops are not fully mechanized or equipped for proper transportation. US troops are, of course, very well equipped and mechanized.

The real issue is the fact that the US and Chinese are separated by 5,000mi of Pacific Ocean. Currently, the United States Navy currently has a total of 11 aircraft carriers, ten Nimitz Class and one Enterprise Class. Now, not all carriers would be in the Pacific Theater to fight at first, but the Navy has fleets in the Pacific Ocean, South China Sea, and Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf, or rather those regions in general. All such fleets would be able to challenge Chinese naval power. Additionally, American air forces would likely have access to bases, as it already does, in Japan, which would also be able to contribute the JASDF (Japanese Air Self-Defense Force) to the fight. The US also has footholds in South Korea, which is also a US ally and would be able to put its forces (however inferior to China's) into action.

North Korea would likely support China, but its forces would be negligible compared to either superpower. Now, given the US presence nearby, the Chinese would surely have something to offer. Unfortunately, the Chinese Navy is as yet insufficient to fight ours (I have heard that they are just now building their first carrier. I'm not sure how true this is and frankly it is surprising, so I don't yet believe it), though I don't have the specifics on the Chinese Navy quite yet. In any case, the addition to American carriers would come in the form of the second naval vessel which still serves a large purpose in modern strategy: submarines. US nuclear submarines have only gotten stealthier, and as a result, deadlier since the Cold War. Aircraft carriers are used to project firepower over long distances, and submarines are used to deny an enemy access to a region. Submarines are to naval warfare what parrying is to fencing. They prevent the enemy from using his projection of power.

This isn't even taking into account NATO. China, for purposes of remaining unrestrained by permanent alliances, is in none that I am aware of. However, America has NATO, and Britain, the nation ranked second in the world for power projection, would likely come to the aide of its ally.

So, without control of the Pacific, China would be unable to transport troops overseas, thereby stopping the invasion before it even begins.

But, Homefront has North Korea, not China. I think you see my point, though. North Korea is much, much weaker than China, and the if the US is not likely to be beaten by China, then North Korea will need to do a lot of improving, and the US a lot of falling into the crapper, before something like this is even remotely plausible.

 

[GuitarSlingingManiac]

Not as real as Resident Evil!

 

[Smagmuck_]

Oh God, not this thread again...

 

[hem dazon 90]

Yeah. Although the beginning is a bit sketchy

Even if it wasn't plausible the game still tells a well told story so I'm still okay with it.

 

[XenonZaleo]

It is more likely that Dante is going to break down my door and ask if I'm a bad enough dude to save the president tommorrow than it is likely that the events of Homefront will come to pass. There are all sorts of reasons, but the best/easiest one to look at is how magically North Korea reuinites the penninsula. Which is just shy of the least likely thing to ever happen..

 

[Sarge034]

Search bar at all? This has been done at least four times over.

Plausible if all all events come to pass in the order described in the prologue.

 

[Goofguy]

The hard fact is: us Canadians wouldn't be able to close our massive border with the U.S. even if we wanted to.

 

[Oilerfan92]

It's no worse than any other FPS storyline. Hell when you think about it it's half way decent.

But trust me. The story isn't the biggest problem with is game...

 

[gundamrx101]

No, the fact that Canada and the UK wouldn't send any aid what so ever and unless there's a specific reason the UN disbanded then I don't accept that.

 

[gyroscopeboy]

* 2018: After the destruction of one of its nuclear facilities by Korean special forces, Japan surrenders to the Greater Korean Republic and is capitalized into a vassal state.

OMG! Korea sent the earthquakes & tsunamis!

 

[Brawndo]

The only part that really bothers me is

* 2013: Kim Jong-un is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and featured on the cover of Time Magazine for his accomplishment of Korean reunification.

There is no way the two Koreas would unify under the leadership of the North without a protracted war. The developers and their consultants have tried to explain all other parts of the story to make it plausible, but they completely skirt this issue.

The Saudi-Iran war is plausible, especially due to the Shiite-Sunni thing. Also, we WILL see the end of cheap oil in our lifetimes, it just probably won't be as soon as Homefront predicts.

 

[Sniper Team 4]

When I heard that an EMP bomb wiped out the U.S. electronic systems I went, "Okay, I can accept that." The one thing that I could fathom--and thus stopping me from looking at the game--was how Korea would get such a jump on the U.S. military. Taking away the military and launching a surprise attack before it can recover makes it so I can accept this story.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

The only part that really bothers me is

* 2013: Kim Jong-un is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize and featured on the cover of Time Magazine for his accomplishment of Korean reunification.

There is no way the two Koreas would unify under the leadership of the North without a protracted war. The developers and their consultants have tried to explain all other parts of the story to make it plausible, but they completely skirt this issue.

The Saudi-Iran war is plausible, especially due to the Shiite-Sunni thing. Also, we WILL see the end of cheap oil in our lifetimes, it just probably won't be as soon as Homefront predicts.

The government of North Korea is, effectively, whomever is the current dictator. Given that the current government is replaced according to the game's fiction, there is no particular reason to believe the new government of North Korea would not attempt to improve public perception of the nation in order to unify the two nations. Keep in mind that unification is a goal of both nations and has been since the end of the second world war when the nation was artificially split in two by American and Soviet troops.

 

[McNinja]

Hello to all, I've been wandering around these forums for a while, but something has finally bugged me enough to post a topic.

I've been mildly curious about the game "Homefront" for a bit, mostly because the writer from "Red Dawn" was assigned to the story, and as the topic suggests, it bugs me.

-snip-



I wouldn't care so much, but it's worth remembering that South Korea alone boasts an army that is better equipped, trained, and has more experience than the DPRK's, so I fail to see how this scenario is even remotely possible. I wouldn't care so much, but it seems the game developers are treating it that way.

After hearing a couple reviews call the setting "plausible" (Gametrailers) or "engrossing/well constructed" (Gamespot) I've got to ask. Does anyone actually think this is a plausible twenty year scenario?

Not even remotely. As soon as North Korea even tried something, South Korea would retaliate, along with its allies (barring the U.S., because China basically owns us and China is allied with North Korea).

A more plausible plot would have Nk attacking SK, then that escalating into World War 3. Which would have been much more awesome.

Also, the whole gas price thing would never happen. Ever. Ther would be riots in the streets once gas hit even five dollars. Not to mention that by 2020 would should that whole fusion power thing down. And the 50 years worth of oil in Alaska. Maybe if the U.S. wasn't retarded and would try to be somewhat self-sufficient (in terms of oil), gas wouldn't even bee at the prices its at now.

Also, Alaska would still have power. So would Canada. Canada would wreck the North Korean army's s**t so hard they would crap themselves back to North Korea.