>Colonels Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui argued that war was no longer about “using armed forces to compel the enemy to submit to one’s will” in the classic Clausewitzian sense. Rather, they asserted that war had evolved to “using all means, including armed force or non-armed force, military and non-military, and lethal and non-lethal means to compel the enemy to accept one’s interests.” The barrier between soldiers and civilians would fundamentally be erased, because the battle would be everywhere. The number of new battlefields would be “virtually infinite,” and could include environmental warfare, financial warfare, trade warfare, cultural warfare, and legal warfare, to name just a few. They wrote of assassinating financial speculators to safeguard a nation’s financial security, setting up slush funds to influence opponents’ legislatures and governments, and buying controlling shares of stocks to convert an adversary’s major television and newspapers outlets into tools of media warfare. According to the editor’s note, Qiao argued in a subsequent interview that “the first rule of unrestricted warfare is that there are no rules, with nothing forbidden.” That vision clearly transcends any traditional notions of war.
What might a strategy game based on unrestricted warfare look like?
A race to destroy the enemy's civilian population and production centers in order to severely cripple their ability to respond, or sustain the war.
For a start, there is no map. Geography becomes a lesser detail when you are fighting a battle on every conceivable front.
There will be charts, many of them, for the various forms of attack and their impact on the target.
The main resources would be money, time, agents, and armies. To cause a desired outcome, for example disrupting the target's hydroelectic power supply, you could chose to spend Money (bribe the right people to cause an 'accident'), agents (infiltrate the body who owns the dam to gain access) or armies (stage a 'terrorist bombing'). The cost would vary, and depending on how the target choses to use their resources determines the risk of failure/detection.
>>47167543
>the first rule of unrestricted warfare is that there are no rules, with nothing forbidden
Sounds like a very dangerous board-game to be honest familius
>>47167543
Monopoly.
>>47167543
And this dear friends is what many in the west still fail to understand, and why China will either cause world war 3 through financial conquest, military conquest or economic collapse.
These are the only prospects for our future, any other options are unlikely or require special circumstances to be true.
Thanks to this attitude our future is bleak. This is what we are up against.
>>47170699
Alright now fuck off this board.
>>47170699
>economic collapse
Let's narrow it down.
What "many in the West" fail to understand is that, if communist regimes are unsustainable by definition, how has red china outlived the soviets? The answer is in the OP: Unrestrained lying, cheating and stealing. Do What Thou Wilt shall be the whole of the law. Eventually, someone's going to get real tired of their shit, and drop dime on the scam. When it's revealed that their economy has been supported with trillions in imaginary capital since @1989...
That's when OP's "game" will begin.
Suggested title:
The Great Leap Back in Your Hole, Bitches
It already exists and is called Civilization
>>47170850
>if communist regimes are unsustainable by definition, how has red china outlived the soviets?
By not being a communist regime.
>>47170699
>implying the this notion of warfare is new to anyone
>environmental warfare
Such as the likes of Operation Popeye?
Mind you, even China is signatory to the ENMOD convention, which explicitly prohibits this.
>financial/trade warfare
Following the events of Ukraine, there's been instated numerous mutual sanctions between Russia and the West.
>cultural warfare
I'm sure /pol/ could teach you a few things about this.
>legal warfare
Is there not a currently ongoing legal dispute regarding some of the territory surrounding the arctic circle?
>>47170699
There was an economic prognosis that by year 2100 United States and Europe(an Union?) will have enough wealth to buy the rest of the world.
There was another prognosis that while that might be true, it's unlikely that China will want to sell it.
>>47167543
It would be something between Crusader Kings and Shadowrun.
>>47171413
This. China has steadily relaxed its communist policies since the 1980s, growing more and more liberal, though not enough to be open to true democracy. On top of that, they actually support their middle class, and there's a long-reaching nationalist idea going on since the early 20th century that China would survive and become world power to rival the Europeans that had nearly carved it up.
It's taken its damn time, but China's accepted a lot of modernization and stopped being so isolationist. Now if it could actually fix its corruption problems...
>>47172781
They're also busily buying up Africa using pretty much the exact same techniques that Mercantile Europe used.
Meanwhile Western leaders seem obsessed with opening borders and promoting sexual rights above all else.
>>47173399
Well it's not too surprising - didn't China declare itself a leader among third-world/communist nations at a conference in the 1960s? Many of those nations were African. I'm not surprised that they see an opportunity for trade and allies.
The west has some colonial guilt to work over, and let's be honest, Africa was left in a fucked up state. When a bunch of regions are split in ways that set ethnicities against each other, and their infrastructure is built around funneling resources out instead of a more independent economy, and you have a bunch of governments choosing sides because of the Cold War, it's not surprising that stable governments didn't miraculously spring up and military coups and infighting happened.
