Twilight War

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Sgt Biggles:
Command and Control of our strategic arsenal is not so simple as waiting for the president to say go and buttons get pushed. Models have been developed and tested and automated to the point of; if A and B happen, then D and E, launch authority will be automatic if C happens. By the same token, if we have solid intel predicting a nuclear attack we can make a preemptive strike, eliminating the potential threat.

I was wondering if that was still an active policy . And one hopes the intel would be better than the solid intel on the presence of various WMDs in the Big Sandbox.

In the scenario of the Twilight war, the 1st nukes were the so called battlefield nukes. No full scale retaliation was called for. Planners and strategists from both sides went into action to see just how far events could proceed before a full scale attack occurred. Boundaries were made and then broken, but no one wanted to waste the world so new boundaries were set, and broken.

For every effort to contain things, a situation dire enough seemed to arise to force an escalation. The world crept towards armaggedon, blindfolded.

Today, even a limited tactical nuclear exchange is almost impossible. Land, buildings and resources are much too valuable. Of course chemical and biological agents are a great second choice. Kill people, leave everything else, sounds pretty good to most strategic planners.

Ignoring a massive and costly cleanup effort plus the vast hazards of unleashing biological self-replicating weapons.

The limited nuclear war is as plausible as the unlimited one in that we have no real data to illustrate which is more likely (since we've only had one war with nuclear weapons, and it was 'limited', one would almost have to conclude, if one ignored other data, that the limited nuclear war was the only likely result.... however, that would ignore lots of things....). Point being, we can construct various 'limited exchange' scenarios enough to bring on the apocalypes in T2K.

One I always liked is "a lot of the gear, old and aging, and never tested, didn't live up to its advertisements". Fortunately for the major missile component suppliers, their facilities and boardrooms were already toast, or this would have generated some very bad after effects for them.

 

[Whipsnade]

Sgt Biggles wrote:

"There are a couple thoughts I'd like to throw in. The US has plans for several styles of nuclear strikes."


Sarge,

Yes, all that is true. The US did have several plans for the 'graduated' use of nuclear weapons. However, it seems that the Soviet Union did not.

All the Warsaw Pact materials shared with NATO by former members of that alliance point to one and only one Soviet nuclear war fighting plan; All or Nothing. This is what Eamon is driving at I believe.

A Pact invasion of Western Europe was to be an all-out assault with biological and chemical attacks, plus plenty of spetnatz action. If, and the Soviets pessimistically believed when, NATO went nuclear, the USSR would go for broke. It would be ICBM city smashing time throughout the northern hemisphere. Drop a nuc ash can on a Juliet and the USSR's silos would empty. The USSR made that perfectly clear to NATO also. There would be no tactical use, no gradual escalation. Pop one and they all get launched.

Now, all that being said, the gradual nuclear escalation used in T2K could have happened. Why? Because the Twilight War wasn't USSR vs. NATO at first. The war first went nuclear in China with the USSR trying to finish the PRC off and the PRC answering in turn. After that exchange, the USSR may have changed their plans and engaged in the 'tit for tat' exchanges that occurred during the war until the events of 'Black Thanksgiving'.

Using the T2K setting *as written* means you accept the idea of 'tit for tat' nuclear exchanges beyond the Chinese front. Your own T2K setting may very different from that and that is okay too. YMM and most certainly should V.


Sincerely,
Larsen

 

[Sgt Biggles]

Larsen, what you say is probably right, but the contradiction to only one massive Russian response comes from the Russian situation itself. Granted, it is only a rational thought but I hope there are rational men writing policy for all the nuclear powers.

While Russia has lots of land and resources most are either inaccessible or not worth much. For so many years the Soviet Union sunk money into the military and fell far behind in other industrial areas. Now, when they are trying to retool and rebuild they lack funds, resources and trained technicians. Had NATO presented such a threat or initiated a nuclear strike Russia would have to ask, "when missiles stopped flying will there be anything left." The land and resources of Eastern Europe would be critical to having even a slim chance at survival.

Would Russia risk the total genocide of their country? IMO I think self preservation would kick in. Russia might very well drop everything they had North America, but when it came to land they needed to survive they might would show a bit of caution. This is strictly a presumption on my part.

Quote:
" If, and the Soviets pessimistically believed when, NATO went nuclear, the USSR would go for broke. It would be ICBM city smashing time throughout the northern hemisphere. Drop a nuc ash can on a Juliet and the USSR's silos would empty. The USSR made that perfectly clear to NATO also. There would be no tactical use, no gradual escalation. Pop one and they all get launched. "

Like us, the Russians felt the kid with the biggest stick wins because they other guy wont swing. If the Russian leadership could convince the NATO leaders they would not hold anything back if even a nuclear firecracker went off, then NATO would be very hesitant to play with matches.

Lets hope we never have to find out how a nuclear exchange will play out. It is interesting talking about it, but no one wants to be the first to start that kind of a conflict. Of course there are some rather less than rational thinkers

with a handful of plutonium and a missile, that would like to play, but that is another discussion.

Kaladron and Larson, thanks for the comments.

 

[BMonnery]

Crossing the nuclear threshold was gradual, and during the 1st and 2nd exchanges, the enemies nuclear forces were avoided to avoid a spasm exchange.

This means that all of the nuclear armament was brought to bear, not 80 warheads falling in the US, but upto 8,000. The destruction was spread out enough that even neutral countries were reduced to avoid them giving aid later (specifically the Oil Industries).

By 2001, the population of the British Isles (Britain, Ireland and associates) is only 20 million from about 65 million. America by 2003 has a population below 30 million (52% killed by 2000, less than a quarter of the survivors survive past 2002). God alone only knows about Germany (I suspect it will be below 10 million by the end). We can expect the global population to stabilise below the 2 billion mark.

Bryn

 

[kaladorn]

Originally posted by Sgt Biggles:
Would Russia risk the total genocide of their country? IMO I think self preservation would kick in. Russia might very well drop everything they had North America, but when it came to land they needed to survive they might would show a bit of caution. This is strictly a presumption on my part.

Study a bit of Russian history, right back to the Napoleonic Invasions, through WW1, the Revolution, WW2, and the Cold War. That presumption of rational (as you name it) conduct is likely very flawed.

As an aside, I'm not sure that (MAD) would be irrational conduct. Only if you have an absolute and credible threat of total annihilation of your foe can you, as the smaller and less capable power, maintain deterence. The US has first strike doctrine, if they think they can get away with it (or did, in the Cold War years). They also scared the crap out of the Soviets with the first A-bombs and Nagasaki probably had more to do with a message to Stalin than it did to Hirohito. So the Soviets were scared, lived in a paranoid society (at the highest levels of the KGB and politburo) and many of the leaders drank too much or were a little off-kilter upstairs from stress and such. And their only real defence was "if you so much as touch a hair on my head, I'm going to blow your entire country off the map".

MAD may seem irrational. But it worked. The Soviet Union was spent into its grave (at dire cost to America) by the likes of President Reagan. Never (despite all the US hatred of communism and soviet-style oppressive government) was there an invasion or even a serious dust-up (The Cuban Crisis was fairly close, but in this case Kruschev flinched, Thank God).

We came out of the Cold War with no nuclear or even serious sub-nuclear conflict. And now the Russians are (as much as any other nation is) allied with the USA and sharing common interests.

Like us, the Russians felt the kid with the biggest stick wins because they other guy wont swing. If the Russian leadership could convince the NATO leaders they would not hold anything back if even a nuclear firecracker went off, then NATO would be very hesitant to play with matches.

Precisely.

And the more unstable and willing to do 'anything' one appears, the less likely that resolve is to ever be tested.

Lets hope we never have to find out how a nuclear exchange will play out. It is interesting talking about it, but no one wants to be the first to start that kind of a conflict. Of course there are some rather less than rational thinkers

with a handful of plutonium and a missile, that would like to play, but that is another discussion.

And I just hope that the grease-painted men whose jobs it is to stop *those* sorts continue to do a reasonably good job.

 

[Eamon]

Enjoyed reading all the messages, lots to think about.
I realise my information is out of date. Once I got out of the army and later stoped playing T2K I did not keep up on my nuc news.
I did have a pregame where I would play out the ICBM strikes using the best info on hand. I tried different ways to fight that war and it came down to this. I ran out of cities before I ran out of missiles. This also included the world wide resouces the Soviets needed to destroy to prevent the the US from getting them.
I never liked the world view the designers presented it read too much like a Circle Trigon scenario.
I believe most countries if given the chance to be neutral during a nuclear war would take it. Even if they had been hit with several nucs such as Nigera or Mexico.
It seems the Soviet nuclear experts hid most of the information concerning the long time effects of a war from the Soviet leadership. As a result the Soviet military thought of a nuclear missile as realy big artillery shell. Meaning it wasn't something to be used as a last resort.
It turns out the Soviet commander in Cuba had authority to use the nucs in case of US invasion.
Even allowing the use of the IRBMs to attack targets in the US.
The point is we are looking at how and where the nucs are used from our prespective and not the Soviets.
As far as war plans are concerned most are written at the various Staff Colleges by the students. This is where the invasions plans for the Iraq war came from. The details were then written out by the JCOS and the various commands.
The military probably has war plans on every possible sitution with every possible country. Whether we would still have those resources to carry out those plans is another story.
At the journey's end what we want is a world where our players can influence events at a local level. This means a low population level thought the world. I believe a plague is the best way to go it could spread evenly thought the world. While a nuclear war with Europe, China,North America,USSR as the main targets would still leave large population countries such as Brazil and Nigera viturally untouched in the short term.

 

[Sgt Biggles]

I agree Eamon. The Twilight history has to expound some on what may or may not be actual results while still maintaining the feeling of “Oh great…this could happen.”. Between nukes, chemicals and biological strikes, plus the addition of a nuclear winter (which is also a hard event to predict) you add riots, lose of sewage, medical and transportation resources, and starvation the number 2 killer of the earth population would be disease, or plagues even. Every major city in the world would be subject to contamination by travelers, if not by direct strikes. In turn the populations of the major cities would flee into the smaller cities and into the sparsely populated areas. Many would be carriers, infecting more and more persons. I guess the model I like best for that part of the scenario is Stephen Kings “The Stand.”

Keeping in mind the Twilight War did have a nuclear exchange as part of the history and the world population is low, what would it look like, feel like? Are there any cities not touched by battle? Has every place been stripped and ransacked or just places with a perceived value? What has changed concerning value? Paper money no longer has any value, but would gold and silver carry more value than food and meds, or even a good cow? Thoughts?

Kaladorn,
What can you tell me about a nuclear winter? I have talked to 2 local college professor’s, a history and medical/biology Prof. Each put a little diferent spin on the possibilities.

 

[kaladorn]

Nuclear winter is an interesting topic.

There are, of course, some historical precedents for a chilling effect caused by pollutants in the atmosphere, primarily volcanic activities.

Yet, at the same time, we're talking about massive in-atmosphere nuclear detonations, some airbursts in the lower atmosphere and some probably what Supremacy would call a 'space burst' to take out enemy communications, etc. That has to bake off a whole whack of our ozone layer that protects us from radiation.

And do all the burning cities etc. provide enough pollutant gasses to cause a greenhouse effect? We're already at the front end of a serious greenhouse effect. What would it take to accelerate it?

And another thought: Earth's magnetic dipole isn't the most stable. With all those big EM pulses, is it going to be screwed up?

And what about our deep ocean currents and the key environmental cycles those represent?

One possible post-acpocalyptic scenario involves a nuclear exchange triggering various climatic catastrophes.

How likely any or all of them are depends on whom is paying for your research at the University. I think the truth is 'no one knows'. You can probably just make up something and be as likely to be right as wrong.

 

[Eamon]

Sgt. Biggles
Some quick thoughts.
I agree that T2K has to revised the back history of the Twilight War to account for the possibilities of organized survival groups. The only reasonable way is reduce the world wide stockpile of nuclear weapons from 10000 plus to a more reasonable 2-400 hundred.
Either they never existed or they were reduced in greater numbers following the collapse of the Soviet Union.
You are right about the cascade effects of a war given that most major cities only have 1-2 days of food in stock and are dependent upon the transportation network for daily resupply.
The after effects of a nuclear strike would probably kill more people then the strike itself.
As far as people moving away from the cities I think any intact government would try to prevent that. First any relief effort would be located in the target area,outside the radiation zone. You would not find food or medical supplies outside the city and large numbers of refuges would only overwhelm the local governments causing more problems for the national government.
Second, if you want to continue to fight the war or even to start the national recovery you are going to rebuild or construct new cities. Only the concentration of capital,resouces,and labor can any sort of industrial recovery be started.
As far as money is concerned, the only value money has is what people agree it is worth. After all there is not enough gold in the world to take the place of paper money. Paper money itself is only 5 to 10 % of the total money in the US. The rest is held as electronic credits most would probably lost because of EMP.
The barter system might be used in a local economy but it is simply too inefficent to be used on a wide scale basis.
While not the best example people fled the cities during the black plague but returned because of the higher wages offered due to the scacity of labor.