Let's assume our world, just like it is today, but it has taken a different path about five years ago. We are about five years in future.

Any country has joined one of two powerful "groups". (It's like a second cold war.)

1) The East

  • Asia
  • Europe
  • Australia

2) The West

  • North, Middle, and South America

What happened

Unfortunately, they didn't peacefully finish their world dividing. Still neutral are:

  • Africa (which has still its own problems)
  • Arctica (which is still melting and has no interesting resources)
  • Antarctica (two military groups saying they own it haven't found each other yet. Maybe they just aren't interested in doing this.)
  • Greenland. (Where our war is going to happen)

More details about the opponents

  • They aren't interested in nuking each other. (Note: They want to own everything, not destroy everything. Both think that they're strong enough to win.)
  • Any satellites have been destroyed. (And no new ones have been deployed for cost reasons.)

  • War should happen with huge army of trained soldiers for the Eastern side (so many young people who just became full-aged can join there)

  • Nearly no men for the Western side: automated killing robots are their weapon. (But the East found out how to destroy them)

My Question: What will the war look like?

This includes:

  • What strategies will be used/usefull?
  • What weapons will be used/usefull?

closed as too broad by Mołot, AlexP, EveryBitHelps, RonJohn, Renan Apr 25 '18 at 17:02

Please edit the question to limit it to a specific problem with enough detail to identify an adequate answer. Avoid asking multiple distinct questions at once. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If you assume everyone has gone insane and is acting irrational, you make it really difficult to answer. If everyone is completely out of his mind, how do you determine what weapon he will choose and what strategy he follows? $\endgroup$ – Raditz_35 Apr 25 '18 at 16:06
  • $\begingroup$ Why out of his mind? Some of the specifications seem to be strange, but there are reasons, coming from my plotline mostly – and I'm sure I will find enough reasons why they act strange seen from "war effectiveness point", but that's not the only point of view. Peoples opinions and to be elected again are important as well. $\endgroup$ – Asqiir Apr 25 '18 at 16:11
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ "There are resons" for Japan to be allied with China against the U.S.A., for India to be allied with Pakistan against Canada, for Iran to be allied with Israel against Mexico, for Finland, Hungary, Poland and Romania to be allied with Russia against Brazil? "There are reasons" for Europe to use massed infantry instead of top of the line technology? "There are reasons" for two mighty military blocks to fight to the death over the control of a 2 kilometers thick ice sheet? This is either a very good or a most silly story. $\endgroup$ – AlexP Apr 25 '18 at 16:19
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ In Greenland, what they would be fighting for, what's going to be the targets? US Navy alone is strong enough to deny all other nations combined access to Greenland, and pulverize any force that happen to land there. $\endgroup$ – Alexander Apr 25 '18 at 16:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Again on the Greenland note - Greenland is actually pretty small, all things considered - most map projections artificially inflate its size. It's actually about the same size as Mexico $\endgroup$ – bendl Apr 25 '18 at 19:13

5 years is not very far in the future.

Most likely technology is what you see today, but with minor small improvements.

It looks, however, in contrast that in this short time the world politically has altered significantly and drastically. The world has been divided on 'land mass' (except Australia) and not any historical affiliations. A major element of your story could simply be the back story of how this occurred - which could be intriguing as a story in its own right.

You did mention 'cold war' though - it is useful to therefore study this historical conflict closely. A few points about this period that may interest you:

  • It started at the end of World War II - when two superpowers emerged with (mostly) equal capabilities after a devastating conflict
  • Conflicts were more 'proxy wars' of influencing others rather than direct, as a direct conflict may result in mutual destruction.
  • The mutual capabilities of both, meant the Cold War was more concentrated in espionage, foreign influence, and technological improvement.
  • 'Taking territory' meant less than having an influence over its government - this was essentially what has kept borders fairly constant since WWII.

Therefore you can't ignore the oceans or space - access in these environments are the primary delivery mechanisms of your sphere of influence.

However as said above - I would be more intrigued by the back story of the major alteration of the geopolitical landscape, rather than the unlikely taking over of Greenland.


For the little trained soldiers, they should use the robot destroying weapons that they have found out. For the strategy I propose they destroy the robots quickly before the robots get up to much and then destroy any other ones as they arrive. And they should try to get along with each other and to stay warm.

For the automated killing robots: I propose they stay a distance from Greenland and attack incoming supply ships / planes, staying clear of the little soldiers (who can destroy robots). The little soldiers will get bored, cold and hungry. When they get really cold and hungry the killing robots can see if they have gotten killable; if not, wait a while more.


Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.