Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark
Sure, but that's where the Soviet nuclear strikes make sense. Rather than widely dispersed industrial sites, focus on the (relatively) centralized fuel production. Harvey knocked out around 25% of the US's refining capacity. Hitting the Baton Rouge area and the two refining centers in California in addition to Houston/Galveston would knock out close to 60% of US refining capacity.
|
That's true but what happens if the nuclear missile doesn't hit the target and you still have a functional or even partially functional oil refinery, and also have a fully functional tank factory?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark
Harvey knocked out around 25% of the US's refining capacity. Hitting the Baton Rouge area and the two refining centers in California in addition to Houston/Galveston would knock out close to 60% of US refining capacity.
|
Are we talking 1997 or now?
Sure Texas, Louisiana and California have a big chunk of America's oil refining capacity but there are plenty more today. There are 6 refineries in Alaska, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Wyoming, 5 in Washington state and Utah, 4 in Illinois, Mississippi, Montana, Ohio and Oklahoma, 3 in Alabama, Kansas and New Mexico, 2 in Arkansas, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Minnesota and North Dakota, and I in Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Tennessee, Virginia and West Virginia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark
Most refineries are also near port facilities, so striking them will also damage shipping capacity and limit imports of fuel. That will force the use of ground transportation to move supplies, which requires more fuel, further exacerbating the shortage. Striking at the refineries is a logistical attack.
|
BY 2000 there is basically no functional air or shipping capacity, so in the main it will all be by ground transportation.