• Welcome to the new COTI server. We've moved the Citizens to a new server. Please let us know in the COTI Website issue forum if you find any problems.

A Looter's Guide to the US, 2005

Originally posted by Drakich:
Mexico's refining facilities were nuked. By who? The Soviets. Which confounds the issue of why the Mexicans would then team up with the Soviets to invade the southern US.

The problem with Mexico successfully invading the southern US can be summed up by looking at the Mexican performance against the Chiapas rebels, and the Russian experience in Grozny. The Mexican military had trouble defeating a couple of hundred "rebels" who were VERY poorly armed (only a few guns among them, period). The Russians had and still have problems defeating the Chechen rebels despite having 50 to 1 advantages in manpower in Chechnya.

The Mexican military is not well equipped, is poorly led, and the logistic trail from the interior of Mexico to the southern US is untenable in any sort of conflict with the US.

As for the drought crippling the US, Texas makes Guadalajara look like a paradise in comparison with regards to climate and rainfall. Any sort of climatic upheaval involing drought that hits Texas will hit northern Mexico even harder.

My plan for making all this "fit" is fairly simple, and IMO, workable. Texas and northern Mexico are pretty well depopulated by the drought (see Howling Wilderness), per canon. But so are the US states bordering Texas.

Texas, on the other hand, recovers from the drought faster (meaning, rainfall patterns return to normal sooner). The Mexicans simply beat the Gringos in resettling Texas 2004 to 2020, and demographic transition makes the occupation become a de facto annexation.

Texas, circa 2005 will be divided into 3 basic areas with regards to population. The Rio Grande Valley, which will be almost exclusively Mexican and extremely poor.

The Gulf Coast, which will be mixed ethnic cantonments (Mexican, Mexican-American, Anglo).

North East Texas, which will be mostly Anglo and militantly anti-Hispanic (the vestiges of the Texian Legion).

West Texas and the Panhandle would be wasteland. Roadwarrior type stuff.
Just a tip: The Wehrmacht had major problems defeating the Yugoslawian rebels in 1941/42 despite being better equipped and more numerous. And this was the Wehrmacht at it's peak. I knew WWII veterans who volunteered for the eastern front in 1942 to get out of Yugoslawia. And not because they where after medals

The ability to defeat partisans says nothing about an armys ability in an open battle. Otherwise the US-Army isn't all that great either judging how they perform in Irak currently. Or the Brithish in Northern Ireland, or Napoleons army against the Spanish and Tirolians or...basically every army tasked with that lousiest of jobs.

Michael


Michael
 
Originally posted by Tom Kalbfus:
PBI said, </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Uh, Tom, the US wasn't trying to save the free world in the T2K timeline. If anything, the US joined in an unprovoked war of agression started by certain elements within Germany (as did the UK and Canada).
No? Then what was American troops doing in Europe selflessly defending democracy when it could have been at home defending itself against Mexican invasion. Germany was trying to take back what belonged to it, namely East Germany, and the Germans were also trying to rescue the rest of Central and Eastern Europe from Soviet (Russian) domination. This is very uncharacteristic of what we now know about Germany, but perhaps this was because Christian Democrats were in power instead of Social Democrats or Greens. the Americans were trying to roll back Soviet communism and made an error in judgement on what they could get away with. That's what I remember anyway. Of course I no longer have the material in front of me and perhaps I remember it incorrectly. Perhaps the source says, they Americans really wanted to enslave the Eastern European population and bring them to America so they can pick cotton on plantations but I doubt it.

</font>[/QUOTE]Wie bitte? Was ist hier los? (What? What's up?)

In the T2K V2.2 it's germany invading a non-communist poland that re-joined the "WP" due to massive aggressions of the (at that time re-united) germans.

IIRC in the original it is West Germany (my homecountry) invading the East germans, a legal, UN-certified State (They share a non-voting seat in the UN security council). If they'd done that IRL I would have been hard pressed to decide whom to shoot at (and quite a few of my fellow Bundeswehr soldiers would have been) And as for "rightfully ours" most germans below age 50 would have gladdly sold the east germans to anyone. If not in 1989 than 1-2 years later. None I know expected reunification.

Another hint: You know nothing about our governmental system or parties. There's next to no difference between SPD and CDU/CSU leaders and programms (That's why we'll likely get a new party this year that'll split from the SPD) And the SPD hasn't been Socialist since 1956 (They are Social Democrats meaning they opt for good public schools etc not Pre-Blair Labor with a desire to state-own all industrie), never having doubted the need for an army (or i.e NATO IRBMs on german ground) Besides Kossove and Afghanistan where Sanctioned by the SPD/Green government and the SPD stood firmly at the CDU side during 2nd Gulf (couldn't send troops without an Ammendment to the Constitution and that deliberatly is a slow process)

And it was Germany that started WW II....

Learn about a system before you belittle it.

Basically, the US was being a team player and a NATO alliance member and some other NATO allies were not. The Mexicans for one did not seem appreciative that US soldiers were fighting for their freedom and decided that for once that America's back was turn on them, now would be a good time to stab it. This is kind of like the defense of the Ghetto kid who stole a diamond necklace, "I had to steal it, she was flaunting the necklace too visiably and it was too good an opportunity to pass up!"


</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />As to your point about it being "unfortunate" that there have to be bad guys, well, yeah, that's what I was saying. There do have to be bad guys, but, more importantly, in a setting like T2K, though it's tempting to have one's real nation be exempted from the harshest treatment, it also would ruin the game.
Point well taken. How would you like to play a Swiss soldier in Twilight 2000. I think Switzerland stayed neutral as it always does. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Switzerland stayed out of the Twilight war and was not nuked and better yet did not attack anybody. I think the Soviet Red Army like the German Nazi Army of the previous World War felt that Switzerland was too small to bother with. I imagine many of the looters have swiss bank accounts. By the way, how would a PC open up a Swiss bank account if they have accumulated alot of loot and wish to sell it? I imagine the Swiss would let just anybody within their borders. Switzerland could probably turn into a market for selling stolen loot and turning it into hard Swiss currency. A PCs wealth would probably be better kept in a Swiss bank than on his person.
</font>[/QUOTE]No, the Swiss will play "close border" like they did in WW II. Oh and the reason the Germans didn't bother attacking Switzerland are quite simple:

+ It's a nice place to meet spys/informers
+ They did a lot of trade in robbed gold with the Swiss
+ A lot of the German<->US dealing (until end of 1941) did use that country
+ Switzerland is "Infantry country" and "Militialand", quite difficult and costly to crack
+ It's useless (since Austria/Italy are allies with better traffic infrastructure)


Oh, and France wasn't a NATO member back than (they are assosiated but not a member)

Michael

There are patriots and dumb patriots. Being one of the first is totally ok. Being one of the second is a good reason to be shot
 
Originally posted by Tom Kalbfus:
PBI said, </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />In brief, most things up to 92 happen as per real history, with some very notable exceptions. Poland and Hungary, more than a little concerned over the fact of a united Germany, request continued Soviet troop presence.
This is a little uncharacteristic of what I know about Poland. The Poles get their democracy and their elected government and the want the Soviets to occupy them again? A Catholic country wanting to join an Atheist Empire? German Nazism is ancient history compared to their more recent experience under the thumb of the Soviet Union.

</font>[/QUOTE]Poles are not held in high esteem in IRL germany. Even back in 1990 they were considered people that "take away jobs" by crossing the border and the common view of a pole is that of a small-time thief and fence (Doesn't help that the two best known polish females are ⌧ stars ;) ) or a dull farm-worker. And we have invaded/attacked/occupied the Poles so often that we are the bigger thread.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The Germans renounce all claims to pre-WWII borders, but they also state that Germany shall continue to take an interest in the welfare of ethnic Germans living outside Germany (a form of a Germanic Fracophonie, I suppose). That gives rise to an increase in membership in German cultural organizations in Germans areas outside of Germany, particularly in western Poland, where the conversion to a Western-style economy isn't going so well (it doesn't go that smoothly elsewhere, either but western Poland is a rung or two down the Polish gov't's priority list). This is all happening in 1990, by the way.
You have to make the Germans out to be Nazis to make this work. The dilemma here is that if the Germans become more like the Nazis, the Americans and other NATO countries become less likely to support them. Does a form of National Socialism take over Germany? This scenario seems to be the form of the Germans taking a poke at someone and then being unprepared for the response of righteous indignation of Warsaw pact members.

</font>[/QUOTE]You've never heard a "East Prussian Expatriate" (Vertriebenenverbände) speaker (A legal, above-ground organisation) talking about how East Prussia "remains ours", have you? Or the fact that the ex-GDR is called "Middle-Germany".

If you look into those groups they are a minority even in their own peer-group (Being half east-prussian I get the majority view that East Prussia is lost and that it's okay) but a loud one and one that gets money from the state (They are tax-exempt etc, a Verein) A lot of germans don't realise that so to foreigners...

So I suppose the US decides to take a "poke" at Mexico and are "shocked" when this gets the Mexicans mad at them and causes them to invade Texas with righteous indignation.

Most World War III scenarios I've heard about start with the Soviet Union invading Western Europe. In this scenario we have a mischievous US President and German Chancellor who go around stirring up trouble and then finding themselves unprepared for the consequences when trouble comes.
And I knew a lot of germans who like that. Because it's an alternate to the "Bad ruskie-good ami" clichee. Please remember that more german civilians died in Dresden than in Hiroshima. For most germans the USA as well as the UdSSR are/where "grey" and a bit crazy.

I suppose in a fictional timeline you can make The US do whatever you want. The only question is whether the US is likely to behave in this way. One can postulate a set of alternate histories where the US behaves very differenly from what we expect. One could even imagine a Soviet Union that is fully democratic and pluralistic and which is only defending itself against aggressive western imperialistic power, who by the way don't have very much in the way of brain power. they make a feeble attack, one just enough to get its enemies angry, then the US's enemies take the US apart in righteous fury and the feeble US barely puts up a fight. The Mexicans conquer Texas, and the Texans knowing their in the wrong accept this without too much struggle.

So the Germans put on a Nazi act and go "Boo!" scaring all the former Warsaw pact members into reconstituting the Warsaw pact and crying to Mother Russia for Help. Of course a real "Hitler Reborn" wouldn't be so stupid as to start a war that it obviously couldn't win, he had some reasons to believe he could win World War II though. The German facism is just window dressing to bring Poland into line besides its socialist brothers. I kind of prefer the first version where the Germans don't play into so much contration camp stereotypes and the Poles aren't such good socialists. I don't much buy into the old Soviet line that the Warsaw pact was an actual voluntary membership of East European countries genuinely concerned about Western Aggression, this stuff was Pravda grist. I prefer that the countries involved behave more like they did during the Cold War rather than take on new natures. The US is not going to ally itself with the "Fourth Reich", at least not the US I know.
Actually germany never had a chance to win it the moment they attacked the Russians (And wether you like it or not, the Russians and Ukranians are what make up the majority of the UdSSR people so if you know them you can predict the UdSSR) in 1941. Adding the US did shorten the war a year but that's it.


Michael
 
Originally posted by Tom Kalbfus:
PBI said, </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />a fear which existed in real life, particularly among the USSR and the rest of the Pact, but also in France
This is a gem! France wanted to keep Germany particianed much like France hoping for the CSA to succeed during the American Civil War. Now Germany thinks that France makes a much better ally than the USA? This is so precious, really!

As for the Germans going Nazi, they didn't. A small group in the right posiitons went right-wing (or simply stopped pretending) and decided to try a grab for power, thinking that because they wished a thing, then that thing would happen.
A right wing German government would be anticommunist and support Polands anti-communism as well. Poland as you remember threw out the communists, and they aren't going to welcome them back and invite them to take back their political monopoly. Russia and Poland were never natural allies, even in the time of the Czars this was true. As I recall, Poland was particianed by Germany, Austria, and Russia in the 18th century. Poland got its independence after World War I, and Poland was once more invaded by Germany and Russia at the start of World War II. Why Poland would Trust Russia, makes not sense to me.
</font>[/QUOTE]Our current right-wingers (NPD/Republican Party/DVU) are anti-american.

And IRL France was arguing massively for a severely downsized german army (from 495k +GDR to a max of 280k in total). Btw. the Brits also where anti-reunification (Just ask Baroness Thatcher)

Add in that this is Gorbachevs UdSSR and it's known that the Russians are not the biggest fans of the Poles either, add in the Hitler-Stalin Pact and the UdSSR Problems with some already gone Republics and you get the right-wingers thinking the UdSSR might keep out of the war and than request the same when the go up against the Balts. Our right-wing never understood how the Russian/Ukranian works.

If he gives you his word, he keeps it or dies trying. He's murderous, devious and bloodthirsty in battle but once the fight ends, he's quick to make peace, forgive and start rebuilding a friendship. He's a lot of thinks but he's not sneaky or backstabbing. He's hardy and accepts hardship without moaning but never forgets good deeds you did to him. He likes to party wild and work hard. The best friend and worst enemy to have.

So the right-wingers (and they exist in the german armed forces[1]) got what they deserved. Sadly others paid too.

Michael

[1] Nazis where a common german army problem from day one. Only in the late-80s did they start "weeding them out". When I tried to get leave on the 20th of April (to help set up my grandmothers 70s birthday on the 21) I found myself in the Brigadie Generals! office[I was a private!] within an hour. Only a call to my grandmother saved me. I love that general!
 
Originally posted by Tom Kalbfus:
A. Gubler said, </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />A good book for what a conventional war in West Germany would actually be like is Ralph Peters’s “Red Army”. The idea that the Soveits would happily march into the sights of the NATO armies in the mad Russian scenario is nonsense. The US Army in the south of Germany would be mostly bypassed and eventually trapped between Austria/Switzerland, the Rhine and the Soviet Army astride the North German plain.
Why because the Soviets win?

Whilst a terribly unpopular viewpoint amongst the ostriches of the west I have little doubt that the Soviet Union could have trounced NATO, the US and just about everyone else up until about 1988. Why? Because they had the strategy, the plan and the Soviet Warfare State to back it all up and make it possible.
So why didn't they? You keep saying that the Soviets would have beaten them. Yet we defeated the Yugos, The Iraqis and so forth who used their equipment and followed Soviet Style tactics. Also if the Soviet commanders were so brilliant, then how come a smaller state like Germany was able to beat them back almost all the way to Moscow? I think the Soviet Generals had to learn on the battlefield from the Germans. If the Russian commanders knew what they were doing from the start, they wouldn't have let the Germans beat them back so far before turning the tide. I'm sure if it was the Soviet Union that started World War II with an Invasion of Western Europe, the Germans would have beaten them badly. You must know that with all else equal the attacker has a disadvantage in that the defender gets to prepare the battlefield in advance, he has time to place all his units, lay mines, and set up kill zones. The invader on the other hand has to move his troops into position while under fire, it is only when the defender is grossly underprepared that you can have things happen like the German invasion of France during World War II. Another major disadvantage is that Soviet doctrine discourages individual initiative. Soviet troops are trained for one specific task and don't switch jobs too easily. Also political orthidoxy determines who advances to high rank rather than military competance, and you know what happens to those military commanders who say no to Stalin or that it can't be done. The political leaders tend to override the General's judgement, saying things like, "Attack, attack, never retreat!" Sometimes holding ground under certain situations can cause an army to be captures where it otherwise might be saved, regroup and receive reinforcements.

I also think it is too easy to take one view of a country say Poland and simplify it down to that: Poland is anti-communist, Catholic, Russian haters. Poland is more complex that that, if the above was the case why do they keep electing the Communists to power or at least minority opposition?
They are not really communists! They have not enacted communist legislation. They may have been communist party members during the Warsaw Pact days, but that was because the Communist Party was the only game in town at that time if you wanted to be a public official. These communists you speak of are career communists, the join the communist party to advance their careers, it is not because they are true believers of Karl Marx and Engles. Most Poles make sure that ther communists they vote for aren't real communists, at most they are socialists, and their main selling point is their administrative experience they have accumulated under the previous communist government. I know many Polish people, they are not the Russian's Pavlov's dogs. Poles fighting to save the USSR are kind of like black slaves in the old south fighting to save the CSA. There were some slaves with such an enourmous slave mentality that they were willing to fight to the death to save their "Massah's" Plantation, but most black people were happy to be free, and it is insulting to most of the to suggest they enjoyed their servatude.

By the way Gubler, how many Poles did you really talk to? Did they express their undying devotion to the Soviet Union? Most Poles I met hated the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was just another name for the Russian Empire, and none of the romer Soviet Republics except perhaps the Belorussians and Russia itself actually misses it much. I know alot of the leftists during the cold war actually said the Poles actually loved being under Soviet domination, My history teacher in college was one of them, I believe I got a D in his class, but I tookthat class in 1988, the very next year, the communists were voted out of office in Poland and I got my revenge. He he
</font>[/QUOTE]Actually the UdSSR isn't communistic nation either and doesn't even claim to be (They where a "dictatorship of the proletarians" and that is a step before Communism - They still had a cader-style KP i.e while full communism has no parties at all) ;)

And as for "we have beaten X"

- The Iraquis used the lower-powered "export" versions of UdSSR second line tanks

- The did it in a pro-NATO (long range/open) environment

- The only used parts of the UdSSR equipment i.e far less AA vehicles, smaller and lower-tech airforce, older missiles and systems. Lack of mobile artillery[2]

- Conscript forces always have low morals until properly motivated. In the 531 Jäger the cry "Let's go kick some Ami/Belgian/British/Dutch... butt" usually did that. (Remember who won most NATO tank competitions ;) ) Attacking their homeland usually does the same for Russians[1]

- Study of East German T72 tanks (equal to than current UdSSR versions) and AA systems as well as missiles led to some massiv upgrades (like the Leopard IIA5 frontal armor) and even new directions in missile design (EADS is copying/improving on a Sovjet design with the IRIS-T)

- I wouldn't call Kosovo a victory. NATO never engaged the "enemy" in ground fighting (And I know a few tanker who weren't all that keen on doing "inside 1000m discussions" with an M84) They mostly dropped bombs from high above hoping to hit something (and missing a bit too often like the german ALARM that hit a greek! airport radar ;) ) And again, the Serbians where not fully Sowjet (I.e middle/high tire SAM was 60s tech)

And finally: The Sowjet generals did out-fox and out-maneuver the best germany had to offer on more than one occasion in WWII. Using a lot of soldiers when you have them is not a bad tactic if you do it properly. Kursk-Orel is a nice example.


Michael


[1] Take a look at the language Stalin used in WW II. He never! called for the defence of the party/system. Always the motherland. And don't overestimate the Republics wish to seperate. The learned the hard way that the devil you know can be better than the next one.

[2] The "famous" South Afrikan Howitzers get a lot less dangerous when you have counter-battery guns that match them in range. Like the long-barreled french and british howitzers in Gulf II
 
Actually the UdSSR isn't communistic nation either and doesn't even claim to be (They where a "dictatorship of the proletarians" and that is a step before Communism - They still had a cader-style KP i.e while full communism has no parties at all) ;)
So you saying Communism was just a bunch of huey to justify a dictatorship? Kind of like a magician uttering a bunch of "magical" incantations to distract the audience while he performs the slight of hand. What a dictator says to justify his rule is of no importance; the dictator will always find excuses to retain power, he can do the Communist mumbo jumbo, he can utter "magical" incantations, he can claim to be a god, the son of God, or the Prophet of God, it just doesn't matter, and if those excuses run out he can make up some more, this has been going on since the beginning of history, the talk has changed but the dictator's actions have not. At the heart of every dictator is someone who wants to maintain his hold on power no matter what. Saying a country is not a communist country is like saying someone is not an elf, there is no such thing as an elf, their are no genies or poltergeists either and such things are impossible, so claiming something is not communists in some theoretical sence is just a distraction.

In the vernacular a communist country is a country like the Soviet Union or Cuba, and is defined through common usage as a autocratic dictator or oligarchy that uses communist language to rationalize their undemocratic rule.

Some Marxian professors might disagree with that definition according to their thorough studies of the works of Karl Marx, but for everyday Joe a communist country is something like the Soviet Union. Words are defined by their most common usage. Eggheads might have different definitions, but they are overruled if the word they are trying to defined is in common usage and defined differently from what they intended. If the word is not in common usage, then those people who use it the most get to define it for the dictionary.

For example: their might be some strange birds out their who write a book and think that a pile of crap is a pretty flower and if their book they'll write:

Pile of Crap def-A Pretty flower

But that doesn't make them right now does it.
 
I once tried to redefine the word liberal as to include Republicans who wanted to stand up and fight for Freedom, but that definition just wouldn't take hold. Most people when they say liberal mean someone who wants to spend alot on social programs and to cut defense spending to pay for it. If some outside force were to threaten their liberty, a modern liberal wouldn't worry about that according to the most common definition of the term. Instead the liberal would cast a suspicious eye at the government that is trying to defend their liberties from this outside threat and they would instead expect a conspiracy by the government to take away their rights. Liberals look inward for the threat. If there is evil in the world, they look to themselves first to see that they're not doing any evil, then they look to their government to see that its not doing any evil and they usually don't look to see what's outside their country that might threaten them, they figure that if they take care of their own home terf, others will take care of their places.
 
Depends on how you interprete communism. Your version is:

"We call them commies and so everything similar to them are commies"

They never considered themselfs communists (neither did i.e the east german government - those where Socialists) but a Dictatorship!

Pure "Kommunists" would call them Fashists! since Leninism != Marxism


And your whole argument breaks down with countries like GB under "Old Labour" (Considered a democracy but by your interpretation they were commies complete with censorship[1]) or Hungaria (Commies but with multi-partie systems and some entrepreneursship) and even NAZI Germany (NSDAP is the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei - They are Sozialists!, they have state controlled and regulated industrie, oligarchie and the language is the same once you strip racism)

And last but not least: A real communism is sadly not possible due to humans nature. The idea behind the system is great (Ever watched StarTrek - They are commies in the sense of the Communistic Manifest)


Michael


[1] There's no "Freedom of Speech" in the MagnaCarta
 
Michael Brinkhues said,
And last but not least: A real communism is sadly not possible due to humans nature. The idea behind the system is great (Ever watched StarTrek - They are commies in the sense of the Communistic Manifest)
Exactly my point. Communism as Karl Marx defines it does not exist. Every "so called" communist state calims to be pushing forthis ideal, but none of them has reached it by Karl Marx's definition or by their of interpretation of what they think Karl Marx's definition of communism was. Natually they aren't discouraged by this lack of success, because as long as they appear to try they can continue to rule in an oppresive undemocratic fashion. A monarchy is a similar thing when stripped down to its essence. A monarch is simply a dictator who follows the ideology of heredity to justify his rule, some religion is mixed in with it too, giving the King a divine right, naturally the King has a say in who gets to run the Church.

Nazism is another such ideology, that uses the idea of racial purity to justify putting a dictator such as Adolf Hitler in power, and that is exactly why Adolf Hitler crafted this ideology in the fist place. In order for Hitler to stay in power, he had to obey the dictates of the ideology he created that kept him in power, in othe words he had to kill Jews to saty self-consistent. Fidel Castro Likewise, that is why he has military officers running Hotels, so they wouldn't be private enterprise.
 
I don't know, maybe someone thinks all this Communist jabber means something, but I pay attention to what these countries do, not what they say. So far all these countries have tried to achieve an impossible ideal (like building a perpetual motion machine).

No one has yet built a true perpetual motion machine, but one can try for as long as one likes. Trying to attain true communism is a similar endeavor, but I think the leaders like Fidel Castro know its impossible, they don't expect ever to achieve it, but its the journey that keeps them in power. All of Castro's underlings expect Castro to try to achieve true Communism and they are not smart enough to know that its impossible, but if Castro were to admit such then these underlings would topple him and replace him with a leader that they thought was better at achieving true Communism.

Castro latched on to this ideology to get him in power, and the conditions Communism imposes on him requires that he at least appear to follow this ideology if he wants to remain in power, it doesn't matter if Communism really works, there are men with guns who think it works and if they perceive someone is not trying to make it work they get mad and start shooting. You can always point a gun at someone and say, "Work or I'll shoot you!" That's not how communism is supposed to work, but that's how many communist countries work it. The actual term is called slave labor.
 
Drop the political rhetoric or move it to the Political Pulpit. It does not belong here.

Hunter
 
Originally posted by hunter:
Drop the political rhetoric or move it to the Political Pulpit. It does not belong here.

Hunter
<Protest mode on> <Sign weaving mode on>
But my right to <add here>
<Sign weaving mode off> <Protest mode off>

Mostly wanted to show why the T2K V2.2 timeline seems not too unrealistic for a german. Got carried away a bit. Maybe. Please terminate yourself since you've heard me admitting an error ;) Actually I start my WWIII scenarios with a modified version of "Vortex" leading to massive tensions and then go to "Red Storm Rising" where one side or the other (given stated US doctrin of the 80s and experience from various exercises[1] often the US in "Fulda Gap") starts and the other side answers until someone uses a big one


Okay, somewhat back to topic. Let's define some questions to ask when you're about to ruin a country. Gurps:Y2K comes in handy as does traveller and having a country ruined once. Let's assume the Footfall Aliens/The Hammner-Brown Comet/The Posleen/The Swiss-Austrian terrorist movement attack so we can keep the "we do/we don't" stuff out. Some facts I don't know so I ask.

1) Power

Judging from the recent brownouts/blackouts in the US and Canada, the power production is barely keeping up with demand. Killing a few major plants like Hoover Dam and some nuclear plants will kill a lot of power. That kills long time storage of foodstuff and medicin (No freezing) and affects irrigation. And don't mention waste processing[Honest question: How much human wastes in the US is processed and who much is just pumped in the sea or on a large field to settle after minimal processing?] or sanitarian needs (Quite a few cities will need pumps to get water around)

What is the percentage in power production between coal/oil/nuclear? How large a portion of the plants have local fuel reserves (i.e. one german 800MW plant sides 150 meters from a coal mine!)

2) Traffic

One can counter 1) with "I have a local generator" [Question: How many Americans have? In the large cities?] but that one depends on fuel. And after the local stocks have been used up, you need additional fuel. What parts of the US traffic network depend on large bridges? What is the state of your rail network and how would EMP affect train engines (i.e. german ICE trains would be killed by it) What is the state of the US river/channel network and how many tugs/frighters are there? How dependent is it on locks/pumps/major river crossings (i.e. Middleland channel crossing the Weser in germany. About 1/3-2/3 of european channel/river nets can be killed by killing the locks)

How many steam engines and engineers using/repairing/building them are still around (i.e. the last Bundesbahn engines where mustered out in the 70s and a lot ended up in remote parts of germany as museum engines. Even more ended up in front of train stations. In 1995 engineers trained in this would be age 40+ no longer drafted but fit enough to survive hardship)

3) Farming

IIRC farming in the US is rather concentrated. What is the connection between farming areas and 2) What amount of farmland is still useable without electrically powered irrigation and artificial manuere (Dünger) or pestizides? What is the amount of semi-sterile "Superwheat" in US farming? How survivable is your cattle without medication (i.e a lot of german pig-farms will quickly die due to wide-spread infections) And what amount of meat can be canned/smoked etc?

4) Medicin

How many producers of important medicin you have? (i.e around 5 in Europe) and how well can the stuff be distributed. One can live without Viagra but without Antibiotics, Morphine and Ether (or the modern Anastetics) it's getting critical. What about stuff like Asprin, Insulin and how many US citizens need anti-histamins or be overwhelmend by Hayfewer?

5) Vehicles

There's more to US cars than Detroid. How many car-manufacturing places are there? And how many warfts? How many that can build steamtugs or ocean going sailing ships like the famous P-Liners? http://www.janmaat.de/pamir_leb.htm

6) Organisations

My view on US Militia is possibly tainted by the Wako incident, portrajal in various movies/TV shows and documentations about the 60s era KKK. So feel free to reject this part. My "picture" of them is as (localy) well-organised groups with a dislike of the US government, firearms and mostly located in rural areas. So how big is the chance that they form their own "states" and declare independence? How big is the chance that groups are organised enough to grap say a state? And when they are in power, what will they do? Act as "overlords" and subject "minor people" or try to save civilisation and build a base for the future? Gather enough power to stay independent or just enough to have a say when the US reconstitutes? There might not be a "New America" but are there a lot of independend "new nations?"

8) Churches

US churches are a bit closer together than european ones (With no church tax it's less hassel to not belong - just don't go) And some (Like the Latter Day Saints/Mormons) have the "be prepared" and "help others" creed. Will this affect their surroundings after "The big one"? Can LDS members use violence for self protection? Will say Utha return to pre-Treaty rules?

What about the Muslims? Mostly concentrated in the black parts of society IIRC will they be a power to behold?

9) Them Indians

What is the state of the Native Americans? Some are well off due to gambling rights or oil. Some are not. Are they "one group" or are they still "many tribes". How will they handle the breakdown of civilisation. Maybe try the same as 7)?

10) Refining

There's more to fuel than having crude oil. Even today the US has not enough capacity, buying refined oil overseas. How many refineries are there in the US? How many survive? How many have enough power supplied.

Same for things as steel production or coal improvement (basic coal is useless for smelting)

11) Tough questions

What will you do with the elderly and bed-ridden? The mentally challenged and the criminals? How will you behave towards foreigners? Who will trade and how?


Going through this questions should give an idea of:

- How likely is the area to be hit by a nuklear attack (or a large rock)

- What will the population do and how fast?

- What will remain behind if a region becomes un-inhabitable (i.e. a power plant in the desert might be abandoned due to lack of food&water. But it will still be useful for parts)

- Where will be plaque areas

- Where will gangs be most active

Michael

[1]Aka "Death of Ahlen". In one exercise "Force Blue" dropped 20! nuclear grenades on a 50km stretch of land between Unna and Ahlen.
 
Michael Brinkhues said,
8) Churches

US churches are a bit closer together than european ones (With no church tax it's less hassel to not belong - just don't go) And some (Like the Latter Day Saints/Mormons) have the "be prepared" and "help others" creed. Will this affect their surroundings after "The big one"? Can LDS members use violence for self protection? Will say Utha return to pre-Treaty rules?

What about the Muslims? Mostly concentrated in the black parts of society IIRC will they be a power to behold?
Armageddon is in the bible. Many Evangelists will interpret the Twilight War as fulfilment of prophesy from the book of Revelations. They'll be expecting an Anti-Christ and the second coming of Christ. It is possible that someone will pretend to be Christ and claim someone else to be the Anti-Christ. The fact that the war happens close to the year 2000 is a big help to the millenialists. Jesus is commonly understood to have been born in the year 4 BC. The number of years between 4 BC and 1997 AD is exactly 2000. The Christian calender doesn't contain the year zero so 4 BC = -3 AD. No doubt this is fertile ground under which cults can develop.

As for Muslims, there may be trouble, as people get more religious, they may become less tolerant of minority religions. A segment of the Christian religions may think that this is Judgement Day.
 
Response to Michael's "Honest Question": In urban areas the waste is treated. I have no idea how or what mechanisms are used.
In rural areas, there is no central sewer system. Each home has a septic tank, which is sort of a natural treatment facility: waste goes in, water comes out. The water feeds down pipes to a "leach field" that will water the lawn.
If everything goes perfectly, the system should work fine for years if not decades.
However, often the amount of waste going in can overload the tanks capacity. Then you have to get someone to pump the tank empty.

In the semi-rural city where I live, a hurricane that hit a year ago knocked out power and one of the first problems was that the sewer pumping stations couldn't pump.

On to your list:

1) Power

Urban areas will be hard hit by any significant loss of power. And powerplants will be hard hit by nuclear war, even if they aren't the target. For instance, they are extensively computerized.
I would guess most US power plants use coal. I can't find numbers on that, but nuclear is comparatively rare and hydroelectric is regional (northeast and northwest, mostly).
Again guessing, but I doubt they maintain much fuel in reserve. Instead, they rely on railroads making constant deliveries (once a week at least).

2) Traffic

As we found out during the hurricane, and New York was reminded during the blackout, fuel delivery systems require power. You can't get gas from the gas station if the gas station has no power.
Now, in dire circumstances you can run a hose from a hand pump down the filler hole into the tanks, but ...
Most people do not have a generator or anything like one.
There are bridges absolutely everywhere, but most of them will hold up just fine for a few decades without maintenence. After all, most of them have already.

I imagine our gas and diesel locomotives are much like yours: computerized to the hilt. AFAIK, an EMP will kill any car made after 1972 (the advent of electronic ignition).
Canalization is the exception, not the rule in the US. The New York State Barge Canal runs from Albany, NY (a seaport believe it or not) to Buffalo, NY on Lake Erie. The Mississippi River has locks on it. There are others, but those are the main ones.

Without constant dredging, many of our ports will begin to fill with silt. Sandbars will quickly block some of them.

There are a few museum-peice steam locomotives still around. Better still, there are several dozen that are still in use, pulling trains of tourists or as "working museums".
"Several dozen" locomotives will not be nearly enough. Also, the traks are already in poor repair in many places, and if you think diesel locomotives are heavy then you need to weigh a big steam engine.
A Union Pacific 4-12-2 was around 355 metric tons!


3) Farming

The amount of surviving farmland is enormous. Much of the farmable land is not currently farmed, and while the portion turned into parking lots is going to be hard to reclaim, the part that is somebody's lawn will be easy to plant crops on.

Most farm equipment is non-electric. Every farm I've seen has a tractor-pulled manure spreader. Farms are also far more likely to have their own generators and fuel storage. Of course, that makes them great for looters.
I have read that virtuall all US crops use sterile varieties. This keeps the farmer coming back for seed next year. It also pretty well dooms us if distribution networks are shut down.
Livestock should be ok. But I don't know that much.

Ham smokes well. Don't know about beef.

4) Medicin

Most of the US pharmeceutical companies do their manufactuing in other places. Puerto Rico is popular.
I don't know of anyone who NEEDS antihisitmanes. Hay Fever ranges from mildly to incredably unpleasant, but is not dibilatating. Get over it.
Distribution of drugs will be no better than anything else: if the trucks start we'll do well, but if they don't we're screwed.

5) Vehicles

There are car building plants all over the US. Toyota has one in Kentucky, while Honda IIRC is in Tennasee. However, in the event of nuclear war I think a new car will be the least of anyone's wishes.
Similarly, there are car-part factories all over.

Building bigger things gets harder. I don't know how many shipyards capable of building small craft there might be, but there are only a few that can build really big stuff and they tend to be close to other things worth nuking. For instance: Groton, Connecticut is home to the only facility in the US that can build a double-hull tanker, and one of only 2 that can build nuclear submarines. It is also close enough to the major east coast submarine base to be a two-fer. Make it a big nuke and trown in the US Coast Guard Academy across the river.
Newport News Shipbuilding is, AFAIK, the only facility in the US that can build a Nimitz-class carrier. It is also the other place that can build nuclear subs. It is also close enough to ... the largest navy base in the world, Combat Air Command Headquarters (formerly Tactical Air Command Headquarters), the HQ for NATO in the US, the Atlantic Fleet HQ, NASA's wind tunnel, and CIA Headquarters that the odds of it not glowing in the dark are slim.

San Diego has a major shipyard, as well as the main west coast Navy base.
And so on.

6) Organisations

You view of US "Militias" is held by a lot of Americans, too. I am sure that some of these people are dedicated and responsable, but ones in front of the TV cameras tend to be paranoid loonies.
Idaho is a popular place to "Get away from it all". A big chunk of the population there moved there because they wanted a place to get away from the government, and preferably one far from nuclear targets. If the "Survivalists" try to take over an area for themselves, Idaho would most likely be it.
The main obstacle they will face is how little they have in common beyond not liking most people and believing the government has turned evil. I mean, right now there are racist groups and religious groups and everything else that all make good neighbors because they all want the government to leave them alone. However, philosophical differences may prevent their ever unifying to become a government.
Right now, they think "We hate the government". Post WWIII that could well become, "I'm none to fond of you guys, either." Soon the white-supremecists want to conquer new lands while the white-seperatists want to leave other folks alone and the ...
You get the picture.

Some of these groups might just turn out to be Democracy's best hope, though.

8) Churches

I'm not a Mormon but I do know that the use of force has been a very divisive issue for the church in the past. Some believe it is wrong to fight others over their beliefs, others say that attitude got Joseph Smith killed. I'm not sure, however, how that applies to other use of force. I don't know, for instance, about serving in the military.

Most of the Muslim population is black, and urban black at that. Most of the Muslim population is also, IIRC, members of the Nation of Islam, which is a particular variant of the Muslim faith. Militant and organized would be two words well applied to the Nation of Islam. Armed is another.

9) Them Indians

The Native Americans (American Aboriginal Peoples?) are not a unified group. The individual Nations are spread out geographically as well. For instance, Nearly every east coast state has a "reservation" or two.
Some, no doubt, would welcome the collapse of "the white man's ways" and the chance to return to "the old ways". Most, however, have been so thoroughly integrated into mainstream society that they'd starve with the rest of us. Many of the others would be surprised to find out how truly hard-to-kill a buffalo is.

I doubt they'd try to rise up and take over. Much more likely in my opinion is a "Stay the f**k off my land!" attitude. Of course, they might take the opportunity to move to better land than the cast-off scraps we made them live on.


10) Refining

Lots, a few, fewer still.
Worse, our refineries are decentralized. There is a major pipeline that runs up the east coast bringing oil from Texas to refineries. That pipeline needs electricity to run.

I imagine steel and coal are a little better off, but they depend entirely on railroads to supply them.

11) Tough questions

In the immediate aftermath of catastrophe, I think people will be far too busy saving themselves to worry about others. Many of the elderly and bed-ridden will die before anyone thinks to help them. Many of the others will be turned loose, either through intent or neglect, and will survive or not on their own. A group of survivors may try to keep "the crazy guy" alive, but if he cannot find such a group, or cannot socialize enough to be tolerable, he will have to fend for himself.
Criminals will be largely forgiven, provided they contrubute and behave.
At the individual level, either everybody is foreigners or nobody is. If you were here when the bombs dropped, you're in the same boat as the rest of us now. However, if you came over after, you had better be offering to help. Otherwise, quit eating my food, quit drinking my water, and quit breathing my air.
 
Got some concrete information about power plants from the World Almanac.

First, let me mention that the old Morrow Project target list had a missile for most major nuclear or hydroelectric plants, so their odds of surviving the Twilight War are not great. Probably for the very reason why we want to know if they survived (self-sufficient power supply).

There are 104 nuclear reactors in the US with an average output of 937MW. This is 19.83% of the electrical generation capacity of the US and about 11% of the total US power consumption.

Hydroelectric power is 4% of the total US consumption. Only 2 US hydro plants made the list of those with a design capacity of 2715MW or more; Grand Coulee at 6495MW currently and Oak Creek with 3600MW currently.

The amount of geothermal, solar, and wind power in the US does not even rise to 1% of the total US consumption, but wood, waste, and alcohol account for 5%.
Liquid natural gas is 4% of total consumption, oil is 17%, natural gas is 27%, and coal accounts for 32%.

Note that "total energy consumption" includes a lot of things not covered under electric. For instance, the house I grew up in used oil for heat and hot water and natural gas for cooking, so for that house electricity only covers the lights.
 
SpyOne said:

>Response to Michael's "Honest Question": In >urban areas the waste is treated. I have no idea >how or what mechanisms are used.

>In rural areas, there is no central sewer >system. Each home has a septic tank, which is >sort of a natural treatment facility: waste goes >in, water comes out. The water feeds down pipes >to a "leach field" that will water the lawn.
>If everything goes perfectly, the system should >work fine for years if not decades.
>However, often the amount of waste going in can >overload the tanks capacity. Then you have to >get someone to pump the tank empty.

Actually "Leach Fields" (german: Rieselfelder) was what I referred to with "pumped on a field".

And as for the latter: Pumping barely/totally untreated human waste to sea/in a river was quite commen in parts of Europe until at least the 80s. Look at the Rhine or some Mediterrane coasts (Okay, they used a long pipeline but with adverce weather...)

Private Sewage tanks (actually: Three step cleaning caverns) have been legal in germany until the 1980s (We got [much to our dislike due to the high costs] central sewage disposal in 1990. Until then everybody down the street (small town) used a sewage tank system.

So it was really a honest question given that our greenies are a bit more powerful than the US ones (and pushed that useless law through)

Michael


Michael
 
Originally posted by SpyOne:
Response to Michael's "Honest Question": In urban areas the waste is treated. I have no idea how or what mechanisms are used.
In rural areas, there is no central sewer system. Each home has a septic tank, which is sort of a natural treatment facility: waste goes in, water comes out. The water feeds down pipes to a "leach field" that will water the lawn.
If everything goes perfectly, the system should work fine for years if not decades.
However, often the amount of waste going in can overload the tanks capacity. Then you have to get someone to pump the tank empty.

In the semi-rural city where I live, a hurricane that hit a year ago knocked out power and one of the first problems was that the sewer pumping stations couldn't pump.

On the other hand, manure can be used to produce power through a bio-reactor. So those rural tank systems might be useful. Maybe they are already used that way. Some german farmers do.

On to your list:

1) Power

Urban areas will be hard hit by any significant loss of power. And powerplants will be hard hit by nuclear war, even if they aren't the target. For instance, they are extensively computerized.
I would guess most US power plants use coal. I can't find numbers on that, but nuclear is comparatively rare and hydroelectric is regional (northeast and northwest, mostly).
Again guessing, but I doubt they maintain much fuel in reserve. Instead, they rely on railroads making constant deliveries (once a week at least).
Again, most europeans do also. It's just that quite a few of the major cities sit right in the coal producing areas and power production is handled as locally as possible so the plants sit on the mines.

2) Traffic

As we found out during the hurricane, and New York was reminded during the blackout, fuel delivery systems require power. You can't get gas from the gas station if the gas station has no power.
Now, in dire circumstances you can run a hose from a hand pump down the filler hole into the tanks, but ...
Most people do not have a generator or anything like one.
There are bridges absolutely everywhere, but most of them will hold up just fine for a few decades without maintenence. After all, most of them have already.

I imagine our gas and diesel locomotives are much like yours: computerized to the hilt. AFAIK, an EMP will kill any car made after 1972 (the advent of electronic ignition).
Canalization is the exception, not the rule in the US. The New York State Barge Canal runs from Albany, NY (a seaport believe it or not) to Buffalo, NY on Lake Erie. The Mississippi River has locks on it. There are others, but those are the main ones.

Without constant dredging, many of our ports will begin to fill with silt. Sandbars will quickly block some of them.

There are a few museum-peice steam locomotives still around. Better still, there are several dozen that are still in use, pulling trains of tourists or as "working museums".
"Several dozen" locomotives will not be nearly enough. Also, the traks are already in poor repair in many places, and if you think diesel locomotives are heavy then you need to weigh a big steam engine.
A Union Pacific 4-12-2 was around 355 metric tons!
OOOps. That's a lot bigger than ours. A late model german steam train is smaller than a current model electrical and comes in belov 200 metric tons. On the other hand quite a few of the smaller diesel trains are 1960s vintage with few electronic components. And even a few diesel powered high-speed engines from that era are still in use on secondary railways.

3) Farming

The amount of surviving farmland is enormous. Much of the farmable land is not currently farmed, and while the portion turned into parking lots is going to be hard to reclaim, the part that is somebody's lawn will be easy to plant crops on.

Most farm equipment is non-electric. Every farm I've seen has a tractor-pulled manure spreader. Farms are also far more likely to have their own generators and fuel storage. Of course, that makes them great for looters.
I have read that virtuall all US crops use sterile varieties. This keeps the farmer coming back for seed next year. It also pretty well dooms us if distribution networks are shut down.
Livestock should be ok. But I don't know that much.

Ham smokes well. Don't know about beef.
Pig does also. Main problem is to do it (or canning) large scale if you want to use supply chains, exspecially wide area.

As for animal husbandry, here in germany we tend to distinguish between "Landschwein" (runs around free, digs in the mud, rugged, only used by part time farmers and natural/green farmers, tends to run you over if shocked) and "Zuchtschwein" (kept indoors in small cages, gets ill quickly, tends to die if shocked, can't be kept outside) Same with Cows and chicken/turkey.

4) Medicin

Most of the US pharmeceutical companies do their manufactuing in other places. Puerto Rico is popular.
I don't know of anyone who NEEDS antihisitmanes. Hay Fever ranges from mildly to incredably unpleasant, but is not dibilatating. Get over it.
Distribution of drugs will be no better than anything else: if the trucks start we'll do well, but if they don't we're screwed.

5) Vehicles

There are car building plants all over the US. Toyota has one in Kentucky, while Honda IIRC is in Tennasee. However, in the event of nuclear war I think a new car will be the least of anyone's wishes.
Similarly, there are car-part factories all over.

Building bigger things gets harder. I don't know how many shipyards capable of building small craft there might be, but there are only a few that can build really big stuff and they tend to be close to other things worth nuking. For instance: Groton, Connecticut is home to the only facility in the US that can build a double-hull tanker, and one of only 2 that can build nuclear submarines. It is also close enough to the major east coast submarine base to be a two-fer. Make it a big nuke and trown in the US Coast Guard Academy across the river.
Newport News Shipbuilding is, AFAIK, the only facility in the US that can build a Nimitz-class carrier. It is also the other place that can build nuclear subs. It is also close enough to ... the largest navy base in the world, Combat Air Command Headquarters (formerly Tactical Air Command Headquarters), the HQ for NATO in the US, the Atlantic Fleet HQ, NASA's wind tunnel, and CIA Headquarters that the odds of it not glowing in the dark are slim.

San Diego has a major shipyard, as well as the main west coast Navy base.
And so on.
I was thinking spare parts (and some rugged replacements for current-day vehicles in the long run - Think WWII military trucks and WWII Willis Jeep, the plans should be somewhere) rather than new limousines or sub-urbans

6) Organisations

You view of US "Militias" is held by a lot of Americans, too. I am sure that some of these people are dedicated and responsable, but ones in front of the TV cameras tend to be paranoid loonies.
Idaho is a popular place to "Get away from it all". A big chunk of the population there moved there because they wanted a place to get away from the government, and preferably one far from nuclear targets. If the "Survivalists" try to take over an area for themselves, Idaho would most likely be it.
The main obstacle they will face is how little they have in common beyond not liking most people and believing the government has turned evil. I mean, right now there are racist groups and religious groups and everything else that all make good neighbors because they all want the government to leave them alone. However, philosophical differences may prevent their ever unifying to become a government.
Right now, they think "We hate the government". Post WWIII that could well become, "I'm none to fond of you guys, either." Soon the white-supremecists want to conquer new lands while the white-seperatists want to leave other folks alone and the ...
You get the picture.

Some of these groups might just turn out to be Democracy's best hope, though.

8) Churches

I'm not a Mormon but I do know that the use of force has been a very divisive issue for the church in the past. Some believe it is wrong to fight others over their beliefs, others say that attitude got Joseph Smith killed. I'm not sure, however, how that applies to other use of force. I don't know, for instance, about serving in the military.

Most of the Muslim population is black, and urban black at that. Most of the Muslim population is also, IIRC, members of the Nation of Islam, which is a particular variant of the Muslim faith. Militant and organized would be two words well applied to the Nation of Islam. Armed is another.

9) Them Indians

The Native Americans (American Aboriginal Peoples?) are not a unified group. The individual Nations are spread out geographically as well. For instance, Nearly every east coast state has a "reservation" or two.
Some, no doubt, would welcome the collapse of "the white man's ways" and the chance to return to "the old ways". Most, however, have been so thoroughly integrated into mainstream society that they'd starve with the rest of us. Many of the others would be surprised to find out how truly hard-to-kill a buffalo is.

I doubt they'd try to rise up and take over. Much more likely in my opinion is a "Stay the f**k off my land!" attitude. Of course, they might take the opportunity to move to better land than the cast-off scraps we made them live on.


10) Refining

Lots, a few, fewer still.
Worse, our refineries are decentralized. There is a major pipeline that runs up the east coast bringing oil from Texas to refineries. That pipeline needs electricity to run.

I imagine steel and coal are a little better off, but they depend entirely on railroads to supply them.
Horse drawn wagons work for limited use (Heating, Smithwork) Or waterways and horse-pulled barges

11) Tough questions

In the immediate aftermath of catastrophe, I think people will be far too busy saving themselves to worry about others. Many of the elderly and bed-ridden will die before anyone thinks to help them. Many of the others will be turned loose, either through intent or neglect, and will survive or not on their own. A group of survivors may try to keep "the crazy guy" alive, but if he cannot find such a group, or cannot socialize enough to be tolerable, he will have to fend for himself.
Criminals will be largely forgiven, provided they contrubute and behave.
At the individual level, either everybody is foreigners or nobody is. If you were here when the bombs dropped, you're in the same boat as the rest of us now. However, if you came over after, you had better be offering to help. Otherwise, quit eating my food, quit drinking my water, and quit breathing my air.
Thanks for the insights,

Michael
 
Chello!

Originally posted by PBI:
Couple things you forgot, Drakich. The units that give Ft Hood its firepower are in Europe at the time of the Mexican invasion, so there was nothing more than border guards, local police forces and maybe some National Guard units who had most of the kit taken away and sent off to the front in Europe or possibly the Persian Gulf.
PBI, I disagree with this assessment in a major way. While Ft. Hood is currently not a primary training center (as Fts. Benning, Knox and Bragg, for example are), in the vent of a WWIII, Ft Hood would almost assuredly be used to train new troops.

While a large amount of troopwere deployed, more would be trained to become replacements and reserves.

Of course, after the Thanksgiving exchange, who knows what shape Hood is in. The war in Europe grinds down in 2000....my knowledge of post 2-K US is kinda sketchy.

Tony

Just a thought, anyway.

Tony
 
A difficulty with a lot of manufacturing in the US is that a great deal of the subcoponents for any complex system, say a car, are manufactured all over the country. The business philosophy of 'just in time' delivery means that for the most part, a manufacturing site doesn't have an extensive stockpile of parts lying around.
 
Well once WWIII start many bases that weren't used for training, would be converted to do this. Fort Hood would probably due to the nature since it house the bulk of two Armored Divisions would be used for training of new Armored and Mechanized Division being formed by the US Army as well as training of Nataional Guard Divisions before they ship out. Also there are various Camps and bases that haven't been used since WWII era that would be re-open and pressed into service.

As for the Army taking Kit away from Army units based in the US to give to those units in Europe or Middle East. Don't see this as real issue. For each of the Heavy Division had trained to deployed to Europe bringing their own equipment, in reality they would fly their and acquire pre-position equipment if the war was in Europe. This equipment at their former bases would be used to train National Guard units and update their equipment somewhat, but more than likely the equipment left behind would be used to raise new Divisions and then they would move out with equipment. It was one thing that GDW didn't do to well is that in reality the US Army would reactive Infantry Divisions 11-23 with half of them already moving to their operational areas by thanksgiving 1997. Also one would see the US reactiving or in the process up to 6 Armored Divisions in the same time frame with use of Fort Knox, Fort Hood, and Fort Carson.

The war was winding down both in Europe and Korea in 1999 and 2000 due to the fact that both sides had really fought themselves to exhaustion and the lack of ability for either side to resupply their troops or more importantly reinforce their troops. Several Commander on both sides were starting to see the only thing another Offensive would really produce was give the winning side more mouths to feeds and kill a valueable and scarce resource(Trained Military personnel).

As for the manufacturing prospects, not many factories were using the 'just in time' philosphy in 1995 and 1996 when the shooting started. The use of internal warehouse in most factories were small one would be surprise how many factories still had two or more days supplies of parts to used to make their products. Several of the issues of subcoponents being made far away will be elimited due to the fact that many of these factories would be converted or in the process of converting to war production since some of these place would have started in 1995 to help China if you go by V1.

Just some thoughts

Abbott
 
Back
Top