Yet another Alternative TW2K Timeline

[sglancy12]

Howdy folks,

Being a history/political science wonk from way back, I completely got off on the alternative history in the TW2K game setting. Like most of you I was sorry to see history render the game's setting obsolete, and was a little disappointed in GDW's attempts to tinker with their time-line to keep it relevant. Rather than advancing the time-line and setting the Twilight War further and further into the future, I felt that Twilight 2000 should be an alternative history set in the 1990s. By setting TW2K in an alternative past we can correct some of the faulty assumptions and presumptions the game designers made back in the 1980s when they were writing it. Furthermore, we can avoid our own faulty assumptions and avoid having real world events render our predictions "quaint" or even ridiculous.

Both these documents are very incomplete. The time-line dates for real world events have not been properly checked against off-line sources. The gazetteer, in particular, suffers from the use of online data (particularly from the CIA World Factbook) and is anachronistic because the data does not reflect 1997 conditions.

The time line and gazeteer diverge from TW2K canon on several major points:

1) I was never convinced that the Soviet Union could fight a two front war against the US and the PRC and manage to hold out for as long as they did before taking the nuclear option. From my perspective, once the second front opened up in the west, it would have been a matter or weeks before the Kremlin used the same sort of nuclear options in Europe that they used on the Chinese. I just don't see them as being able to keep up that pace conventionally without the empire falling apart.

The only country on earth that could simultaneously fight on two continents against two super powers (or close enough to being super-powers) is the United States. So I wanted to create a situation where the People's Republic of China patched up their differences with the USSR sufficiently to have them fighting against the west. That way the war could grind along conventionally with victory just within reach, thus discouraging the Reds from going nuclear until they've completely exhausted themselves.

Besides... I'm no more a fan of Red China than I was of the USSR. Having the Red Chinese on our side in the Twilight War is a lot like having Joseph Stalin on our side in WWII. I'd rather be shooting at them too.

Furthermore, for America to be so out of resources that we are down to one Los Angeles Class attack boat by 2000, we are going to need to have been slugging it out against both the USSR and the PRC. A war of attrition against both those powers might just grind the American military down to the nub it is in the canon materials.

2) I was not completely convinced about the likelihood of combatants nuking neutrals in order to deny the enemy the resources, particularly when it comes to oil resources. I can imagine Cahm Rahn Bay in Vietnam getting nuked, even if the Vietnamese didn't overtly join the USSR's war. I can also imagine Soviet listening posts in Cuba being knocked out, or that huge NSA facility in the Australian outback getting nuked, but I wasn't convinced that nuking neutrals would be as widespread as the canon indicated. In my world there are a lot of countries that never got hit. Sweden, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand, all of South America were spared the war's direct effects (mostly), but they would have plenty of problems to keep them occupied in the aftermath. The canon even has France getting nuked once or twice, and again, considering the French nuclear strike capacity, I just don't think that would have been a good idea for either side to provoke a French nuclear response.

3) I was never convinced that NATO allies like Italy and Greece would first duck out of the war and then enthusiastically join in again on the side of the Warsaw Pact. I can see the Greeks getting into it with Turkey... after all, what are Greeks and Turks supposed to do except shoot each other? But Italy? I kept Italy on the side of NATO, where they would be bogged down fighting in the Balkans.

Certainly I can see NATO bailing out when the war starts, leaving the UK, USA and FRG on their own. But when the Soviets try to invade Norway (and Denmark in my version), that brings the northern European NATO members back into the fold. That invasion would demonstrate that everyone is at risk, not just the Germans and their dream of unification.

4) Speaking of the Balkans... I never did make much sense out of anyone sending three divisions off to be marooned in Yugoslavia when they were so badly needed at home. In my time line, the Pentagon retains the IV US Corps in the States prior to the MilGov/CivGov split. IMO, CivGov's best hope to recruit military units away from MilGov in 1999 is by telling them the war is over and that they should be concentrating on rebuilding at home. A sales pitch like that could sway a lot of soldiers. In fact it does... within a year that message sways the Joint Chiefs of Staff and they launch Operation Omega to evacuate the European Command.

5) The old canon backgrounds seem to have missed out on radical Islam and the Jihadists. My preference was for a Twilight War waged between Western Democracies, Eastern Communists and Radical Jihadists. The Jihadists would be a kind of global New America... an insidious fascist totalitarian movement that is preying on the world when it is weakest. While there won't be armies of Mujahehdeen marching on Chicago, there are other parts of the world that are going to feel their effects... and more than just a few suicide bombers. The Persian Gulf, India, Pakistan, Indonesia... and Africa. From Cairo to Cape Town, from Tangiers to Zanzibar... radical Islam is going to turn Africa into a corpse factory. Throw in the AIDS pandemic and who needs nukes to create total devastation?

With more involvement from radical Islam the fight in the Persian Gulf would get more confused, with the Iranian Republic essentially shooting at everyone rather than forming an alliance with the west. Al Queda would be bombing and attacking US, UK and even French forces for "occupying the holy soil of Saudi Arabia." The aftermath of the Twilight War could easily be spun as "Allah's judgment on the infidel," with the least westernized and least modernized elements of the region seeing this as the perfect opportunity to rebuilt the Uma. There might be a point where the Soviet and US forces in the area start to realize they have more to fear from the Jihadists than from each other.

6) As part of the new background, I wanted to be sure to include real world events and "Twilightize" them into the context of TW2K. The Second Gulf War, for instance, and the break up of Yugoslavia. Those events are included, but recast in light of the Twilight War and the continued survival of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact.

Ugh... "Twilightize?" Sounds like there's going to be sparkly vampires... maybe we need a better term?

Finally I should point out that these documents are nowhere near complete. Even though both stand at somewhere around 35,000 words apiece, I expect the Gazeteer needs another 50,000 words and the time-line needs another 15,000. Of course with the time-lime I'm also going to lose some of the material that's there if it could not have happened in the alternative universe.

Nevertheless, comments are welcome.

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

[sglancy12]

Just giving my thread a bump to see if I can generate some more interest.

[kato13]

I like the gazetteer. I was thinking of doing a wiki at the US state and county level with similar information. I am actually trying to create a few business tools that use Google maps and the data overlap is substantial.

I have not dug into the history deeply but it is certainly has a good summary of disasters and terrorist attacks. Might be good to create a 'serious incident" table for when someone gets 01 on that luck roll.

[Legbreaker]

You know I'm interested! :D
Just might take me a bit of time to wade through the mountains of info you've got there.

Give me a week....

[Cdnwolf]

One questions and this is to all... but why does it take 5 years for the world to go to hell in a hand basket? So far in my timeline I can do it in 3 years max and thats only because the Spanish Flu took so long to spread.

[Legbreaker]

It's a long slow slide into hell. The longer and slower the slide, the further it gets before anyone notices, starts to panic, and DO something to stop it.

Make things happen too fast and it's too easy for those in power to take notice and get some political milage out of it.

Take global warming for example. Even now, decades after it was first brought to the worlds attention, there are those still denying it's existance, or downplaying it's effects. Is it real? Who knows? The point is that because change is (or is not) happening at such a slow pace, there's no urgency to do anything.

Now if the oceans where to rise 2 metres practically overnight, you can bet everyone in the world would be tripping over themselves to find a solution...

[sglancy12]

One questions and this is to all... but why does it take 5 years for the world to go to hell in a hand basket? So far in my timeline I can do it in 3 years max and thats only because the Spanish Flu took so long to spread.

Heck, we could do it in two months if we went with a huge Warsaw Pact invasion that blows through the Western Front and the only way to stop them is to deploy tactical nukes in West Germany or even the low countries. In that scenario, it was likely that the Sovs would start lobbing tac-nukes back at us and we'd be throwing theater nukes around in a matter of days. Then everyone in Washington and Moscow starts to panic that if they don't hit the button now 1/2 their birds will get caught on the ground if they wait. Then you get your strategic exchange... only problem is that the result is a northern hemisphere a bit too scorched and irradiated for interesting role-playing... at least for a couple hundred years.

The slow slide is the death of a thousand cuts for civilization. By inching forward by increments, civilization is worn down, rather that vaporized by a thousand suns. If it moves slower, the leaders have more time to consider their position and more time to react in proportion. Of course, a proportional reaction doesn't end the war, it just prolongs it as each side exchanges blows.

Frankly I like the 5 year schedule... the Sino-Soviet war (or Central Asian War in my time line) goes on long enough that it appears almost as distant as Vietnam or the Iraq War. Then when things break loose in Europe, its only a few months between the time the Sovs use tac-nukes on Pact soil, to the time the sneak attack during the peace negotiations in November.

After November of 1997, things fall apart over the next three years, not because the limited exchange was fatal, but because too much national effort is wasted continuing to fight the war.

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

[Legbreaker]

...to the time the sneak attack during the peace negotiations in November.

There were negotiations?

Ah! non-canon!

[Targan]

There were negotiations?

Ah! non-canon!
Yeah but its a non-canon thread (Yet Another Alternative TW2K Timeline).

[Legbreaker]

I really should go read those docs before I start commenting on them....

:o

[sglancy12]

There were negotiations?

Ah! non-canon!

I don't know about you, but I love the idea that after rising threat of armegedon, with the use of tactical and theater weapons in Europe (and of course the total nuclear massacre in China), that the Soviets would try to convince the US that it was time to negotiate an end to the war while simultaneously preparing a strike to decapitate the US leadership. I mean, in the canon, the US gets caught flat footed and we end up with the Speaker of the House as president. Meanwhile the Politburo is chugging vodka and borscht in the Yamantau bunker complex under the Urals, safe from a counter-strike.

Of course, in my alternative, non-canon timeline, the Sovs don't nuke china, but do nuke the shit out of their own Islamic rebels, the Afghans, a couple of Al Queda sites in Pakistan (and when the Pakistanis fire back with their tiny arsenal they get plastered), and Iran. Having used nukes on their own soil, the Sovs are teetering on the brink by October of 1997. They have to find a way to sucker-punch the US, and they do by starting peace negotiations, and then sneak attacking. They don't warn their Red Chinese "allies" that they are preparing a strike, so the ChiComs are caught flat footed by the US counter-strike and fare far worse than the Soviets.

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

[Mohoender]

These are some interesting thought you have here. However, may I ask you why the soviet whould use nukes on the Afghan?

They have left Afghanistan in 1988 but Najibullah's regime still hold the ground (and he remains a close ally to Moscow). In fact, by 1991, the Mujahideen are loosing ground everywhere after a serie of defeat at the hand of the Afghani army (starting with Jalalabad). In addition, the Afghani airforce developped anti-stinger tactics that proved highly successful and they are, then, totally unchallenged.

In 1991 the Mujahideen are on the verge of defeat, Massoud has been negociating with Najibullah's regime and (IRL) they lose only because of the sudden stop of soviet aid in 1992. Whatever, your timeline, soviet support will remain and there is a good chance to see the communist winning in Afghanistan by 1993-1994. In fact, by 2000, Kabul should be the last stable communist-like government. Of course, you can expect, unrest in Pashtoun regions but, with Pakistan devastated, nothing that can overthrow Najibullah's regime.

I know that in v2.2 canon is putting things very differently but with what they state in their timeline, it is non-sense. The only explanation that I can find comes from widespread disinformation on the situation in Afghanistan by the West at the time. I was in my 20's and I don't recall any report stating that the Mujahideens were on the verge of loosing the war (what they actually do at the hand of the Talibans in 1996).

[natehale1971]

My campaign has acutally used a series of highly public negoations occuring throughout the war right up to and after the major strat nuke exchanges that at least stopped the total MAD solution. In fact the earlier talks in Europe is why there wasn't much sooner tactical nuke exchanges until NATO forces crossed onto Soviet soil... i think that i have read somewhere that the Soviets had plans that if a 'forced' unification of Germany by forces other than the Warsaw pact occured, they where going to nuke the German states until they glowed so bright they could be seen from out of the solar system. And the outright 'aggression' of how the start of the war in Europe was original described would have definately put it into that category. it's one of the reasons why i have explained the fact that the East and West Germans both pressed for the fact that they both wanted to remain seperate nations right up until the French invaded the Rhineland. it would have given the NATO allies the ability to spin the war as a war of liberation, pointing at the fact they couldn't do anything during 'Black Winter', 'Prague Spring' ect... But they could liberate the Eastern Bloc form being bled dry in an 'Imperialist' Soviet war in the Far East. Turning the Central Asian states into a joint locale could even work for that... The same problems with islamic extremism that you've described the Soviets as having, would be the same as the PRC would have in their Central Asian territories (as we are seeing happening today, and why those guys that had been held in GITMO are now in the Caribbean instead of turned back over to the PRC who was actually 'begging' for them back)...

A USSR/PRC alliance to deal with the uprise of islamic extremism in their Muslim territories could easily be created, especially if the intial fighting was against EACH OTHER started by islamic extremists causing the border disputes in the first place (kind of like Coyle was able to get a war started between the USA and Mexico in 'Trail by Fire')...

sorry if this comes across as disjointed or rambling. my brain isn't working to well at the moment. i'm really sorry

[sglancy12]

These are some interesting thought you have here. However, may I ask you why the soviet whould use nukes on the Afghan?

You mention that the pro-soviet government in Afghanistan was holding its own against the Mujahedeen up until the total collapse of the USSR in 1991, so you don't see any reason for the use of tactical nukes in that theater.

In my alternative timeline, radical Islam (or Jihadism as I like to call it) gets its big boost following the assassination of Gorbachev in 1988, and the use of muslims as scape-goats by the Soviets. Then there is the Gulf War and the presence of US bases in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, and finally the Balkan Wars with the muslim Bosnians getting the worst of it. By the time of the Twilight War Pakistan is falling under the sway of radical islam and is supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan which has the pro-soviet government on the ropes. They use Paksitan, Afghanistan and Iran as the springboards to spread a full-scale nationalistic/religious war throughout Soviet Central Asia. The result: The Sovs get desperate in 1997 when NATO crosses the Soviet border and decide to end the rebellion with nukes. They nuke Soviet cities they've lost control of, concentrations of mutinous soldiers, and even training camps in foreign countries. That's why they nuke Afghanistan and Pakistan.

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

[sglancy12]

[SNIP] it's one of the reasons why i have explained the fact that the East and West Germans both pressed for the fact that they both wanted to remain seperate nations right up until the French invaded the Rhineland.

Oh, that is a good idea... maintaining that the GDR is not going to be annexed or reunified into the FRG is a brilliant propaganda strategy... not that the USSR, Poland and Czechoslovakia would buy that for a second. WWII is still living memory in 1996. I also like your idea that the pretense is dropped after the French invasion of the Rhineland Security Zone. It's what 1999? There's no point in pretending any more... besides, there's not much in the way of either German government by that time besides the military, which are under a joint command. That idea goes in my swipe file.

The same problems with islamic extremism that you've described the Soviets as having, would be the same as the PRC would have in their Central Asian territories [SNIP]

A USSR/PRC alliance to deal with the uprise of islamic extremism in their Muslim territories could easily be created, especially if the intial fighting was against EACH OTHER started by islamic extremists causing the border disputes in the first place

That's not a terrible idea... not a full scale war, more like a couple of border incidents provoked by the Jihadists which result in a lot of bad blood. Perhaps the USSR/PRC alliance breaks down after the Soviets launch their sneak attack on the US and China's command and control (with no for-warning from the USSR) gets badly damaged. Then the fight in East turns into a three-way brawl between renegade PRC units on one side, the USSR, loyal PRC and North Korean units on the other, and US, ROK and even Japanese units on the other. Might explain why there still would be Soviet units in Manchuria and Mongolia.

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

[natehale1971]

one of the biggest reasons i felt that keeping the DDR and BRD seperate is that they had developed two distinct national IDs. and even today, there are those in Germany who felt that the way unification happned in the 90s was just to lopsided and the West is still sending alot of money into the East to bring it up to western standards. And since the 2300ad future of the T2k universe stated that post war Germany was divided into five states just didn't make that much sense (especially since all that heavy weapons and equipment of USEUROCOM was left to the Germans giving them the paridy to have stood up to the French occupying the Rhineland). But hell, alot of what they didn't really didn't make since unless you where a wargamer. it's why we used the fact we RPed T2k until the 2050s with our PCs having become major shapers of the post-Twilight world, and incorporated that into the 2300ad universe. but that's a totally seperate story.

The Sino-Soviet Border War that started all the fighting in the Far East would have been the prelude to the fighting in Central Asia... basicly the Jihadist start a war between the USSR and PRC, to give them the 'cover' they would need to preform a coup that would allow them to create a massive Central Asian Islamic republic. Hell, it could have been bankrolled by Osama with the help of Iran and other really wealthy Jihadists. And it could have even gotten the support of Indonesia if done right.

[sglancy12]

The Sino-Soviet Border War that started all the fighting in the Far East would have been the prelude to the fighting in Central Asia... basicly the Jihadist start a war between the USSR and PRC, to give them the 'cover' they would need to preform a coup that would allow them to create a massive Central Asian Islamic republic. Hell, it could have been bankrolled by Osama with the help of Iran and other really wealthy Jihadists. And it could have even gotten the support of Indonesia if done right.

You mentioned Coyle's Trial by Fire, where drug lords provoke an American intervention in a Mexican military coup in order to destabilize the new regime. That's based on Pacho Villa provoking the American Expeditionary Force's deployment into Mexico to destabilize the Carranza government back in 1916.

It's not a bad idea, but, the point I'm trying to drive home with this alternative Twilight War is that the USSR and the PRC do not engage in a full-contact war. I just don't see the USSR being able to hold out during a 5 year slide into anarchy if they are fighting the remnants of NATO, the USA, the PRC, Japan, and an Islamic uprising all at the same time. For a long ugly (mostly conventional) war of attrition that grinds every combatant back to the 19th century, then I think you need the PRC and the USSR both fighting against the West.

Maybe the Jihadists can provoke a war, or at least a border incident or two, but when the USSR and the PRC figure out they've been played for fools they bring it to a close. I just can't imagine that a Sino-Soviet war could drag on for as long as the canon imagines, especially with a war in Europe and the Middle East at the same time. The USSR would have had to sue for peace or use their nuclear weapons sooner and in greater numbers. So, in my timeline the Jihadists replace the PRC as the grinding war in the USSR's backfield that prevents them from having overwhelming force to bear on Western Europe.


A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

[ChalkLine]

. . . In my alternative timeline, radical Islam (or Jihadism as I like to call it) . . .

Just a technical note; the term 'Jihad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad)' means 'struggle' or 'striving' and is a holy state. For acts of terrorism or religious fanatacism, acts that are patently un-Islamic in the view of most Muslims, the proper term would probably be 'Hirabah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muharib)'. Another term would be 'Fasad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasad)', or 'war crime', and terrorists should probably be referred to as 'Fasadis'.

As you are a publisher, I thought I'd take the liberty of pointing it to you, because I can understand that points like that would probably appeal to a wider audience. In my inarticulate way I'm trying to be helpful :)

[pmulcahy11b]

Just a technical note; the term 'Jihad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad)' means 'struggle' or 'striving' and is a holy state. For acts of terrorism or religious fanatacism, acts that are patently un-Islamic in the view of most Muslims, the proper term would probably be 'Hirabah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muharib)'. Another term would be 'Fasad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasad)', or 'war crime', and terrorists should probably be referred to as 'Fasadis'.

As you are a publisher, I thought I'd take the liberty of pointing it to you, because I can understand that points like that would probably appeal to a wider audience. In my inarticulate way I'm trying to be helpful :)

A friend of mine is part of a Jordanian family who owns three Shell stations in the area where I live. He goes by the name "Mike;" quite frankly, my American mouth can't properly pronounce his real name. I asked him several years ago if anyone was giving him or his family trouble because they were from the Middle East.

We were talking about Al-Qaida, and he told me, "Those people are not Muslims. They are simply evil, because they use Islam to trick people." You'll find that's the outlook of 99.9% of Muslims in this world -- they abhor what terrorists are doing in the name of Allah.

[ChalkLine]

A friend of mine is part of a Jordanian family who owns three Shell stations in the area where I live. He goes by the name "Mike;" quite frankly, my American mouth can't properly pronounce his real name. I asked him several years ago if anyone was giving him or his family trouble because they were from the Middle East.

We were talking about Al-Qaida, and he told me, "Those people are not Muslims. They are simply evil, because they use Islam to trick people." You'll find that's the outlook of 99.9% of Muslims in this world -- they abhor what terrorists are doing in the name of Allah.

The big problem with the term 'Jihadi' is that it means something like 'spiritual' or 'holy exemplar'. Naming a terrorist that, like calling a PIRA bomber a 'saint', is offensive to 99.9% of their co religionists and appealing to the other 0.1% and we don't want to appeal to those bastards.

[Mohoender]

I'll add one thing.

From my understanding and from the explanation of several Arabic friends "Jihad" cannot be launched on christians and jews. These two religions are to be considered sister religions (although wrong in their final outcom and broad understanding) and should be respected. Jihad is used against Barbarians (Bhudists, Hinduists, Annimists of all sorts...)

[Legbreaker]

I spent two loooooong weeks in a small car with a rabid islamic fanatic.
As I'm an atheist to begin with, it wasn't what I would call a "pleasant" experience.

While I'm not about to go into details and potentially insult all and sundry, I will say that I was left with no doubt that his brand of islam was all about taking over the world by either force or trickery.

Guess which one they prefered....

:firing:

[Targan]

I spent two loooooong weeks in a small car with a rabid islamic fanatic.
I'd love to hear the story one day about how that came about. I'm an athiest too. How did you avoid coming to blows with this person?

[pmulcahy11b]

I'd love to hear the story one day about how that came about. I'm an athiest too. How did you avoid coming to blows with this person?

Gee, I am too. (Lots of atheists on this board?) As far as the religious lunatics one finds in this country, there's a quote from Captain Jean-Luc Piccard that applies. When things were going nuts on his ship in one episode, he started laughing like hell and said, "Sometimes, you just have to bow to the absurd."

It's kind of like dealing with officers who are too full of themselves -- just let them make fools of themselves. (And perhaps help them make fools of themselves if possible...)

I remember one time, though, an evangelist came to my door, and I managed to trick him into admitting that God was a flim-flam artist...

[sglancy12]

Just a technical note; the term 'Jihad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad)' means 'struggle' or 'striving' and is a holy state. For acts of terrorism or religious fanatacism, acts that are patently un-Islamic in the view of most Muslims, the proper term would probably be 'Hirabah (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muharib)'. Another term would be 'Fasad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fasad)', or 'war crime', and terrorists should probably be referred to as 'Fasadis'.

As you are a publisher, I thought I'd take the liberty of pointing it to you, because I can understand that points like that would probably appeal to a wider audience. In my inarticulate way I'm trying to be helpful :)

Calling them "Jihadists" is not my attempt to assign an Arabic term to accurately describe how reprehensible I think they are. If that were the case I'd try and find the Arabic term for "death-worshiping fuck-tard."

I call them Jihadists because, as a group, those who advocate terrorism to achieve the goal of a reborn Caliphate, have hijacked the term Jihad. In their own propaganda, Jihad is conflated to mean violence against any and all infidels, as well as against any Muslims who disagree with the terrorists' (usually Wahabbist) vision of Islam. Nearly all these terrorist groups have elevated Jihad as the single most important activity a Muslim can perform, more important the other six pillars of Islam because to engage in Jihad means getting a pass on violating all the other rules of Islam and forgiveness for all your sins.

In this country, there have been a number of attempts by the media to label this enemy. They've been called "Islamo-fascists" and "Islamists," but I am not satisfied with those labels. Their philosophy has less to do with Islam that it does with violence. And Jihad, I'm sorry to say, is the single most violent aspect of Islam.

Sure, there is some debate over whether Jihad is supposed to mean some sort of "spiritual" struggle against un-Islamic thoughts and deeds, rather than a martial struggle against non-Muslims, but I believe this is historical revisionism. For centuries the Uma was perfectly comfortable with the term Jihad having the meaning of "holy war." As for what defines a "holy war," I'll leave that for another argument.

So, I remain comfortable calling these fanatics and murderers Jihadists because they push the idea that Muslims who engage in Jihad are better than Muslims who do not, and therefore should have a greater place in Islamic society. I agree, however, that their philosophy is a perversion of Islam.

However, I do not want this thread to disintegrate into a back and forth about the pros and cons of Islam. Can we just stick to ripping the shit out of the historical and political improbabilities of my timeline and gazetteer?


A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

[sglancy12]

The big problem with the term 'Jihadi' is that it means something like 'spiritual' or 'holy exemplar'. Naming a terrorist that, like calling a PIRA bomber a 'saint', is offensive to 99.9% of their co religionists and appealing to the other 0.1% and we don't want to appeal to those bastards.

That's a better argument against using the term than your first suggestion. Nevertheless, I'll stick with my terminology.

[natehale1971]

You mentioned Coyle's Trial by Fire, where drug lords provoke an American intervention in a Mexican military coup in order to destabilize the new regime. That's based on Pacho Villa provoking the American Expeditionary Force's deployment into Mexico to destabilize the Carranza government back in 1916.

It's not a bad idea, but, the point I'm trying to drive home with this alternative Twilight War is that the USSR and the PRC do not engage in a full-contact war. I just don't see the USSR being able to hold out during a 5 year slide into anarchy if they are fighting the remnants of NATO, the USA, the PRC, Japan, and an Islamic uprising all at the same time. For a long ugly (mostly conventional) war of attrition that grinds every combatant back to the 19th century, then I think you need the PRC and the USSR both fighting against the West.

Maybe the Jihadists can provoke a war, or at least a border incident or two, but when the USSR and the PRC figure out they've been played for fools they bring it to a close. I just can't imagine that a Sino-Soviet war could drag on for as long as the canon imagines, especially with a war in Europe and the Middle East at the same time. The USSR would have had to sue for peace or use their nuclear weapons sooner and in greater numbers. So, in my timeline the Jihadists replace the PRC as the grinding war in the USSR's backfield that prevents them from having overwhelming force to bear on Western Europe.

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

Very true... but a short war (less than a year) between the USSR/PRC could acutally strengthen the bond between the two states fighting against the attempt to create an Islamic CAR. especially if you have the Western support for the PRC providing modern military hardware that could easily be 'shared' with the USSR after they both join forces to deal with the formation of the Islamic CAR.

[natehale1971]

I'll add one thing.

From my understanding and from the explanation of several Arabic friends "Jihad" cannot be launched on christians and jews. These two religions are to be considered sister religions (although wrong in their final outcom and broad understanding) and should be respected. Jihad is used against Barbarians (Bhudists, Hinduists, Annimists of all sorts...)

Christians and Jews are called the "Children of the book" and are suppose to be brought over to Islam through example. Those religions that are not 'infidels' or barbarians are those with a single God and a written 'word'... i can't remember the list of religions and their status off-hand. i use to have it written down somewhere, but can't find it now. :(

[Legbreaker]

How did you avoid coming to blows with this person?

They were armed.

I was not.

[Targan]

They were armed.

I was not.
Oh yeah, this just gets more and more interesting. You must relate this story to me some time.

[Mohoender]

However, I do not want this thread to disintegrate into a back and forth about the pros and cons of Islam. Can we just stick to ripping the shit out of the historical and political improbabilities of my timeline and gazetteer?


A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

I agree with you on that one and, as I said, I like several of you ideas also I came up with something entirely different while making the same critics. I also have to say that you come down hard on reformers in the communist world.

However, how is it possible that Georgia is on the way to independence as early as 1989? Shevarnadze is dead, Gorbi is dead and the red army is still fully in control. In addition, what about Zviad Gamsakhurdia? Merab Kostava was killed in a car accident on october 13th that year.

[sglancy12]

I agree with you on that one and, as I said, I like several of you ideas also I came up with something entirely different while making the same critics. I also have to say that you come down hard on reformers in the communist world.

Well if the reformers don't get squashed by the hard-liners and Stalinists, then it makes getting to WWIII a bit harder.

However, how is it possible that Georgia is on the way to independence as early as 1989? Shevarnadze is dead, Gorbi is dead and the red army is still fully in control. In addition, what about Zviad Gamsakhurdia? Merab Kostava was killed in a car accident on october 13th that year.

Well I do mention Zviad Gamsakhurdia as an ex-president of the republic who gets run out of office, turns guerilla, gets CIA support, but is eventually hunted down by Soviet security forces... a bit like what really happened.

I realize that I assassinated Shevarnadze along with Gorbachev in 1988, but I don't think that would stop the Georgian pro-independence movement from getting up and running. That motive was building in 1988: remember the massacre of protesters in Tsiblisi? But the hardline coup/assassination of Gorbachev catches them flat footed. Nevertheless, their independence movement is strong and it takes the USSR years to squash it back down.

One of the problems is that Georgia is very anti-Russian, very pro-independence. But if the USSR is going to invade Iran and fight a war in the middle east I'm going to need to keep Georgia in the USSR. I'm imagining that the USSR does so by fostering independence movements in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, so that if Georgia leaves the USSR, they will loose those territories. They end up staying in the USSR so as to keep the country intact, with the USSR deploying internal "peace keepers" to occupy the country. The same sort of thing happens in Nagorno-Kharabakh in Azerbaijian. The USSR uses the ethnic strife as an excuse to occupy both Armenia and Azerbaijian and keep them from seceeding.

Any other suggestions how the post-Gorbachev USSR might keep the Caucasian Republics in line? At least until the Twilight War?

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

[Marc]

First of all, I have not read the timeline but I hope to do it very soon. Only two small comments about the matter


3) I was never convinced that NATO allies like Italy and Greece would first duck out of the war and then enthusiastically join in again on the side of the Warsaw Pact. I can see the Greeks getting into it with Turkey... after all, what are Greeks and Turks supposed to do except shoot each other? But Italy? I kept Italy on the side of NATO, where they would be bogged down fighting in the Balkans.


I totally agree that this is one of the weak points of the Twilight timeline. I've been working in Italy for months and while in Kosovo we were (I don't know if still they are) under Italian jurisdiction. I've been working and living together with soldiers from the Ariete Armored Brigade and the Garibaldi Bersaglieri Brigade. Our close languages make our communication easier and, my feeling is that , though Italy probably would not leave NATO in the beginning of the war depicted in the v2 Twilight timeline, it would be a political decision against a very reluctant population that would put the country in a very difficult situation. Riots and civil disobedience are probable. I cannot imagine Italy leaving NATO to avoid the war and then entering in the fight for an alliance (without precedents) with Greece.

About the gazeteer I've only have a quick look to it, searching for the references to Spain. The situation depicted seems very plausible. An evacuation from Ceuta and Melilla and a fighting withdrawal from these two enclaves are credible and, most probably, it is an old studied maneuver in the Spanish army high command. They are not military valuable. Canarias and the Balearic Islands are a total different matter and they will be defended for their strategic position. The coming together between Spain and France seems plausible, too. About the Basque country I think that sometimes the situation is enourmously exagerated for the foreigners. I think that If you want to create enough instability to force the Spanish army to send there "limited resources" (as stated in he gazeteer), a conscription could be the suitable trigger.

[RN7]

One thing I've always noticed about Islamic extremists is that Western countries and even Islamic countries tolerate them in a way that would not tolerate voilent nationalist movements or racial supremist, until they do something really bad like go out and massacre innocent people.

Another thing that strikes me about Islamic extremist is that their recruitment pool is pretty much at the bottom of the pile in whatever country they are found. In the Islamic world the recruits are usually sociopaths, criminals and gullible peasants. In Western countries they are generally unemployed misfits and petty criminals from ethnic backgrounds who have finally found a purpose in life, or Western converts who were unemployable social weirdos to start off with.

A final thing that strikes me about Islamic extermists is that they never stop talking about the injustices and evils inflicted on them by Western countries and Israel, but never talk or want to hear about the injustices and evils they have inflicted on non-Muslims for the past 1,500 years.

Maybe I'm being a bit harsh but I realy think Islamic extremists are pond life, and I have no time for Muslims who justify terrorism and elevate their religion above everyone elses.

[sglancy12]

First of all, I have not read the timeline but I hope to do it very soon.

Please remember that it is a mess and needs a great deal of work to adjust real world incidents to the TW2K timeline.

Only two small comments about the matter

And at least they were both positive comments. I'm glad you generally approve.

I totally agree that this is one of the weak points of the Twilight timeline. I've been working in Italy for months and while in Kosovo we were (I don't know if still they are) under Italian jurisdiction. I've been working and living together with soldiers from the Ariete Armored Brigade and the Garibaldi Bersaglieri Brigade. Our close languages make our communication easier and, my feeling is that , though Italy probably would not leave NATO in the beginning of the war depicted in the v2 Twilight timeline, it would be a political decision against a very reluctant population that would put the country in a very difficult situation. Riots and civil disobedience are probable. I cannot imagine Italy leaving NATO to avoid the war and then entering in the fight for an alliance (without precedents) with Greece.

Yes, but like anything involving the Italians, where there are five Italians there are likely to be ten opinions on any given subject. Italy would be torn by political strife at home, maybe even a resurgence in the Red Brigades with covert KGB assistance. Governments would fall, form and fall again, leaving the Italian military in a precarious position of not knowing when their orders are going to change on any give day.

About the gazeteer I've only have a quick look to it, searching for the references to Spain. The situation depicted seems very plausible. An evacuation from Ceuta and Melilla and a fighting withdrawal from these two enclaves are credible and, most probably, it is an old studied maneuver in the Spanish army high command. They are not military valuable. Canarias and the Balearic Islands are a total different matter and they will be defended for their strategic position. The coming together between Spain and France seems plausible, too.

The Secretary General of NATO at the time (Javier Solana) was, and still is, very anti-NATO, seeing it as an extension of US power over European sovereignty. I can easily see Spain (and Portugal) quitting NATO under the TW2K scenario. Of course, if Portugal stays in NATO, their joint-use military bases could be subjected to Soviet nuke strikes and the resulting chaos could land Spain with a massive refugee problem, plus a fair bit of fallout. Who needs to get nuked if your country is over-run by starving refugees from next door.

So, big question back to you, as a resident of the Iberian Peninsula, would Portugal (in the mid-1990s, not now) stayed in NATO or withdrawn? Under a goon like Salazar they would have stayed in, but I'm not familiar with Portugal's politics in the 1990s. They, like Spain, have everything to lose and nothing to gain by joining the conflict. At least in the short term. Granted, it would suck to have the Iron Curtain roll all the way forward to the Rhine for the next 50 years, but I just can't see the Red Army (in TW2K) rolling through Portugal and Spain.

The only places on the Iberian peninsula I imagine getting nuked are Gibraltar and any NATO bases still in use. Of course, I'm imagining the Spanish taking a very hard line neutral position on the war, perhaps totally withdrawing from NATO and forcing a withdraw from the airbases, because they can afford to. The USSR isn't going to get to them even if they win. France will prevent that. So Spain can afford to try and avoid getting nuked in the crossfire. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose by joining in the Twilight War.

About the Basque country I think that sometimes the situation is enourmously exagerated for the foreigners. I think that If you want to create enough instability to force the Spanish army to send there "limited resources" (as stated in he gazeteer), a conscription could be the suitable trigger.

I agree that the Basques would definitely resist a move to have forced conscription. And forced conscription would definitely be happening as the government tried to keep order (with the lights going off due to energy shortages), distribute food, and keep the country from being over-run by refugees.

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

[sglancy12]

One thing I've always noticed about Islamic extremists . . .

Woah! Stop! Hold on! Back up!

Please, I don't want this thread to derail into a back and forth about how justified or unjustified Islamic extremists are in their positions. My views are pretty harsh and unforgiving on the subject matter, and they'll probably come out as you read the timeline and the gazetteer, but please keep the comments confined to the documents.

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

[pmulcahy11b]

Another thing that strikes me about Islamic extremist is that their recruitment pool is pretty much at the bottom of the pile in whatever country they are found. In the Islamic world the recruits are usually sociopaths, criminals and gullible peasants. In Western countries they are generally unemployed misfits and petty criminals from ethnic backgrounds who have finally found a purpose in life, or Western converts who were unemployable social weirdos to start off with.

So basically, in both cases terrorists are recruiting from the same pool. It just looks different because of the difference in cultures. In the West (especially in the US), most people have a different opinion of such wackos -- we laugh at them and make fun at them, to the point that most of them don't want to show their faces or admit they are a part of such an organization. In the Middle East and Southern Asia, terrorists have demonstrated that they are a lot more dangerous, and the locals are afraid of them, to the point that even a $25 million reward can't get anyone to turn Osama Bin Ladin in.

[RN7]

So basically, in both cases terrorists are recruiting from the same pool. It just looks different because of the difference in cultures. In the West (especially in the US), most people have a different opinion of such wackos -- we laugh at them and make fun at them, to the point that most of them don't want to show their faces or admit they are a part of such an organization. In the Middle East and Southern Asia, terrorists have demonstrated that they are a lot more dangerous, and the locals are afraid of them, to the point that even a $25 million reward can't get anyone to turn Osama Bin Ladin in.

Unfortunately or fortunately the grass roots have similar backgrounds no matter what culture they come from, they are usually as dumb as a box of rocks but are still voilent and dangerous. In Europe extremist are actually quite vocal and a lot of left wing and trendy people will listen to them and even sympathise with them. Recently in Britain airmen were ordered not to wear their uniforms in Luton because of the trouble it would attract from some Islamic nutters on the streets at night. Naturally enough the Queen was a bit upset that her soldiers were made to feel ashamed in their uniforms in their own country and the government gave them permission to wear their uniforms outside of their base. Could you imagine that happening in America?

[ChalkLine]

At this point Kato would shift the conversation to a new thread. Shall we do that rather than derailing sglancy12's thread? It only seems polite.

[Marc]

So, big question back to you, as a resident of the Iberian Peninsula, would Portugal (in the mid-1990s, not now) stayed in NATO or withdrawn? Under a goon like Salazar they would have stayed in, but I'm not familiar with Portugal's politics in the 1990s. They, like Spain, have everything to lose and nothing to gain by joining the conflict. At least in the short term. Granted, it would suck to have the Iron Curtain roll all the way forward to the Rhine for the next 50 years, but I just can't see the Red Army (in TW2K) rolling through Portugal and Spain.

Bon dia!

Sadly, I must recognize my nearly total ignorance about Portugal and the Portugueses. I suppose that my situation at the opposite site of the Iberian Peninsula (I live near Barcelona) is one of the causes of this ignorance. In Catalonia, more commonly we tend to travel across our northern frontier towards France, Central Europe or Mediterranean Europe. Now, thinking about it, we received very few news from our discreet neighbors of the East, especially when compared with the quantity of news and information from the rest of Europe. So, my lack of knowledge about Portugal prevents me to make any well-based supposition about their attitude towards NATO in case of a Twilight-style war.

Other regions of Spain (among others Extremadura or Galicia) have very strong ties with Portugal. If Spain retreated from NATO and with the situation depicted in the gazetteer (retreat from Ceuta and Melilla, pirate incursions in the Mediterranean coast, etc.), I think that Spanish government would try to accept Portuguese refugees. If not, probably the government would have to do it after discovery that Spanish citizens have been accepting them before any official declaration. The situation would be bad but not desperate, especially if we had not try to keep the impossible to defend Ceuta and Melilla, and the pressure to help the Portuguese civilians would be strong.

[sglancy12]

Other regions of Spain (among others Extremadura or Galicia) have very strong ties with Portugal. If Spain retreated from NATO and with the situation depicted in the gazetteer (retreat from Ceuta and Melilla, pirate incursions in the Mediterranean coast, etc.), I think that Spanish government would try to accept Portuguese refugees. If not, probably the government would have to do it after discovery that Spanish citizens have been accepting them before any official declaration. The situation would be bad but not desperate, especially if we had not try to keep the impossible to defend Ceuta and Melilla, and the pressure to help the Portuguese civilians would be strong.

That seems reasonable. I'm not sure how badly Portugal would be hit, even if they did stay in NATO, so I'm not sure how many refugees there would be leaving Portugal for Spain. Of course, since Brazil isn't hit in my scenario, maybe Brazil shows up to offer aid to Portugal... even offering to take in refugees. This could cause big problems at home in Brazil where taking in Portugese refugees might be seen as giving aid to "whites" while the "blacks" in the Brazilian slums are suffering. I'm not sure what Brazil's race relations are like, but they didn't dump slavery until the 1870s and there is definitely a color line in the country. Still, it would be an interesting turn of events to have the home country getting aid from the former colony.

Does Spain still have a "Foreign Legion?" Once upon a time there was such a formation, much like France's colonial military. If Spain is overrun by Portuguese refugees, one way to ensure your family stays fed and sheltered by the Spanish (or French) government would be to sign up for military service. I'm sure both countries would rather burn up foreigners than natives keeping the Muslim pirates and Jihadists away from their borders.

Undoubtedly there will be a few over-anxious North African wack jobs who think that now is the time to reconquer Spain and declare the Caliphate of Al-Andalus. I'm not expecting Morroccan tank brigades rolling through the Spanish hills, but bands of fanatics armed with AKs would be showing up confident that Allah will grant them victory and their faith will armor them against the infidels' bullets.

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

[Marc]

Does Spain still have a "Foreign Legion?" Once upon a time there was such a formation, much like France's colonial military. If Spain is overrun by Portuguese refugees, one way to ensure your family stays fed and sheltered by the Spanish (or French) government would be to sign up for military service. I'm sure both countries would rather burn up foreigners than natives keeping the Muslim pirates and Jihadists away from their borders.
A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

Here you have a link to a previous post about the Spanish Legion

http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=872

Surely the Spanish Legion would be one of the Brigade-Sized units implied in the withdrawal from Ceuta and Melilla, together with the 52nd Melilla Regular Infantry Regiment and the 54th Ceuta Regular Infantry Regiment. The three units have their origins in the colonial wars in the former Spanish Protectorate of Morocco. The "Regulars" were originally formed by native troops but in the present day their personnel are mainly Spanish.

[Marc]

Given the situation a reactivation of the policy to incorporate foreign citizens in the army is possible. Also, you make me think that, with a growing distrust against our own Muslim citizens, a lot of them could try to join the army to try to probe their fidelity to the country where they live now as a way to avoid problems to their families.

A lot of nasty situations could be expected regarding to the relationship between former Spanish citizens and those who have born in North Africa.

[Mohoender]

So, big question back to you, as a resident of the Iberian Peninsula, would Portugal (in the mid-1990s, not now) stayed in NATO or withdrawn? Under a goon like Salazar they would have stayed in, but I'm not familiar with Portugal's politics in the 1990s. They, like Spain, have everything to lose and nothing to gain by joining the conflict. At least in the short term. Granted, it would suck to have the Iron Curtain roll all the way forward to the Rhine for the next 50 years, but I just can't see the Red Army (in TW2K) rolling through Portugal and Spain.



I think, I'll be the one to answer that question as I spent plenty of time in Portugal from 1986-2002 (my mother living there). Also I happen to meet most of the army head officers in 1995 (including the Portuguese chief of staff).

First of all, IMO, Portugal will definitely remain within NATO and that will be for a very simple reason. That country was always faithfull to its ally and the Portuguese are very proud of that.

Portugal would not benefit much for it, I agree, but they have a very important position for the alliance. NATO ship are more than able to operate from Portugal and patrol most of of the western central Atlantic. However, their army would not represent a great addition but they have some experience abroad that have been lost by everyone else (especially in Africa and Jungle' regions).

Portugal is remote enough to escape most bombing except for Lisbon and Porto. Lisbon would certainly be entirely whiped out but that is not as sure for Porto. The northern half of the city would be destroyed but the southern half will certainly survive.

Internally, Portugal would be more stable than Spain. Algarve and Parts of the South would be mostly insular with each fortifed city/town/village living on itself. A strong pro-soviet movement would plague Alentejo, the surroundings of Lisbon and part of the central area. The coast would be cantonment with military garrison in every coastal fort (at the time they were still owned by the army). Lisbon itself would be full chaos as a small area north of Porto. I'm not entirely sure for central Portugal but it might be partly organised around the university town of Coimbra. At last, the northern area (north of the Douro river and including what is left of Porto), would remain organized and faithfull to NATO (fully anti-communist). In addition, this last region might include what was Spanish Galicia.

The Portuguese army would lack a great number of modern weapon but firearms are more than common with a few private people still owning artillery pieces. One of my mother's neighbour was living on a hill top with his house defended by Bofors 40mm gun and Machineguns. Up to the early 1990's most rich portuguese were still travelling with weapons at their side (an effect of the 1974-75 revolution).

[Marc]

Bon dia Mo!

I was waiting for your opinion about Portugal, given your background.:) It's strange (and sad) to verify my ignorance about Portugal, given our geographical position.

I only will add two points from my personal point of view:

-The opinion about the Portuguese paratroopers in the Spanish Parachute Brigade is high. They were also under Italian jurisdiction in Kosovo and, though our relationship was more frequent with the Italians, we considered the Portugueses much more "reliable".

-The incorporation of Spanish Galicia to Portugal would depend of the relative damaged suffered by the two countries in the used timeline. If Spain is untouched by nukes, I think it would not happen. Though Galicia has some nationalist movement, it has not the same "colour" that in Catalonia or in the Basque Country. They will remain (if possible) faithful to Spain. I must add the importance of the Galician naval shipyards for Spain. Anyway I will ask a Galician friend his opinion about the subject in our next roleplaying session. It would be interesting.

[sglancy12]

A lot of nasty situations could be expected regarding to the relationship between former Spanish citizens and those who have born in North Africa.

As North Africa melts down, particularly Algeria and Egypt, the Mediterranean is going to be overwhelmed by a combination of "boat people" and pirates, the aquatic version of refugees and marauders. The Mediterranean is going to look a lot like it did during early middle ages, where Saracen pirates did what the Vikings did to the Baltic and Northern Europe.

Even where the refugees don't turn to raiding, people in un-nuked countries like France are going to get nervous about too many people "swamping" the lifeboat. Then things are going to get ugly and racist. France after the Twilight War is likely to look a lot like the UK did in the movie Children on Men. Refugees would be regularly rounded up and placed in internment camps... unless they have a specific skill set the state needs.

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

[sglancy12]

... and based on what you fellas have said, I'm thinking that in my alternative TW2K timeline Portugal will hang tough with NATO and be rewarded by having their joint use naval and air bases nuked. A half-dozen strikes and Portugal would be seriously fucked.

Which isn't to say that Spain wouldn't be seriously fucked too what with the world economy and world trade wrecked, the importation of fossil fuels derailed, their next door neighbors nuked, and refugees are stressing the resources that remain in Spain. But unlike Portugal, there weren't any direct nuke strikes, no serious fallout, no out of control fires in urban centers and all the other consequences of 100-500Kton airbursts.

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

[Mohoender]

It's strange (and sad) to verify my ignorance about Portugal, given our geographical position.

That must come from History matters:) As you are Catalan you aren't very much concerned by these but Portuguese and Spanish are much like Irish and English.:D


-The incorporation of Spanish Galicia to Portugal would depend of the relative damaged suffered by the two countries in the used timeline. If Spain is untouched by nukes, I think it would not happen. Though Galicia has some nationalist movement, it has not the same "colour" that in Catalonia or in the Basque Country. They will remain (if possible) faithful to Spain. I must add the importance of the Galician naval shipyards for Spain. Anyway I will ask a Galician friend his opinion about the subject in our next roleplaying session. It would be interesting.

I definitely agree and assume than Spain is much as it is described in canon: "Its central government is a shamble, now represented by roving bands of Guardia Civil and military units."

I don't buy that statement entirely for Portugal for several reasons:
- GNR are not Guardia Civil but they are closer to the french Gendarmerie.
- Each portuguese regiment was (and somehow remain) attached to its garrison city. In case of chaos, Portuguese units in Porto would be faithful to that city and the surrounding areas. It would be similar for every city: Braga, Coimbra, Evora...

sglancy I don't wan't to contest your point (It is yours) but with Lisbon and the refinery in Porto I almost covered all my bases (outside the Azores and Madeira which can become other targets). Several regiments were stationed in Porto but the nuking of the refinery would also wipe out most of the industrial port. What facility would remain are unable to accomodate anything bigger than an Aviso or a small Frigate. There is no true air base in Porto and if the airport was run partly by the air force (G-91R were stationed there), its facilities will never make it a primary target. The base was never opened to F-16s and is now closed.
It has one of the shortest airway of Europe and only very well trained pilots can land there. In fact, qualification must be the same than that for Madeira and the old Hong Kong airport. It also has the simplest radar equipments and it is closed one third of the time. Each time you have fog on it, the airport is closed (1 day out of 3) as it is not equipped with the proper tools.

Other strategic bases do exist indeed but they are all in the south and mostly around Lisbon. Sintra would definitely be a target (you'll find the peacetime portuguese HQ there). Montijo could also be targeted as it is the main transport base but again it is only a few miles away from Lisbon. Sad, I would not be able to go there and watch corridas any more (they are the most beautiful).

The last two targets would be Monte Real (on the coast halfway between Lisbon and Porto) and Beja. For Beja I don't believe it would be nuked because it is right in the middle of the communist region of Alentejo. It would, however, be the center of heavy fighting between military and guerrilas.

Still, the North would escape almost untouched. It is a very mountainous region and it would have some strong point for survival. Several mines on the Douro river can provide what is needed to manufacture ammunitions (+tungsten for trade). Again, the Douro region can easily be turned to producing energy for the entire area (oil and alcohol in large quantities) plus tools in every village. In addition, Villa Nova de Gaia could be turned to energy production in no time.

[sglancy12]

sglancy I don't wan't to contest your point (It is yours) but with Lisbon and the refinery in Porto I almost covered all my bases (outside the Azores and Madeira which can become other targets).

I don't think we are in disagreement about what would happen to Portugal during a Soviet nuclear attack. I just don't have enough information at my end to speculate on which targets in Portugal would be targeted.

I agree with your assessments about Porto and Lisbon. Porto's facilities sound like they would all be wound up by a mid-range nuke: the port, the refinery and the airport would all be severely damaged by a single airburst. And Lisbon's got so many facilities in the area that it sounds like one MIRV dropping four or five 100K weapons over the area would pretty wipe out the NATO facilities and the central government's command and control.

I do have some more questions for you:

1) Is Porto used by NATO ships? Is it just a port or is there a naval base?

2) Where are the Portuguese naval bases?

3) What are the critical targets in Monte Real and Beja? Sintra is the military HQ, Montijo is a transport base (do you mean that it's a rail transport hub?), but what's in Monte Real and Beja that's work a nuke?

I don't think the old men in the Kremlin will give a damn about any Portuguese leftists in the blast radius around Beja. If Beja is worth nuking, then it's gonna catch a nuke. On the other hand, I do like the idea that there could still be European leftist groups fighting against what's left of the central government. During the war, these groups would have organized civil disobedience, protests, the avoiding of conscription and in the most extreme cases acts of domestic terrorism as part of political campaigns against the war effort. After the nukes and the general slide into chaos, there's no reason why the more communist elements (those that envision a time for armed struggle) wouldn't try to organize for genuine revolution... or if not a genuine revolution then a warlord-style cantonment where they call each other "comrade" and steal all the farmers' crops for "redistribution."

Still, the North would escape almost untouched. It is a very mountainous region and it would have some strong point for survival. Several mines on the Douro river can provide what is needed to manufacture ammunition (+tungsten for trade). Again, the Douro region can easily be turned to producing energy for the entire area (oil and alcohol in large quantities) plus tools in every village. In addition, Villa Nova de Gaia could be turned to energy production in no time.

I also presume that the north of Portugal has a fairly low population density too. I like the idea of civilization retreating to the fastness of the mountains to regroup. Of course, their biggest problem will be getting over-run by refugees fleeing all the chaos, fallout, and panic in the south of the country.

A. Scott Glancy, President TCCorp, dba Pagan Publishing

[Mohoender]

I don't think we are in disagreement about what would happen to Portugal during a Soviet nuclear attack. I just don't have enough information at my end to speculate on which targets in Portugal would be targeted.

I agree and that's why I only list one target in the North. There is of course a few Dams on the Douro river but nothing to justify a nuke.

The main differences between Porto and Lisbon lay in the cities layout.
- Lisbon is located on the Tage river and it is wide open. It is also a fairly flat area with a few low hills. If hit by a MIRV nothing will stop the blast. All facilities are located both on the Atlantic and on the Tage which is very large.
- Porto is on the Douro river and the region is not as flat. The refinery and the modern harbour are located to the north and, if the refinery is hit, the modern harbour will be destroyed as well. The modern quarters and the upper parts of the city will also see extensive damages while the modern building on thesouthern bank will suffer some damage as well. As I expect only a limited strike on the city, I count that the old city will be relatively shielded as it is located on both side of the river, at the bottom of two high cliffs. Even the eiffel bridge could survive. The airport, however (on the south bank), will survive and will certainly be turned into the main base for what survive of the airforce. The only other airport of some importance being at Villa Real and Braga.


1) Is Porto used by NATO ships? Is it just a port or is there a naval base?

2) Where are the Portuguese naval bases?


At Porto you'll find nothing more than a few patrol ship (mainly police and custom). The main naval base is and always was at Lisbon. If the modern harbour at Porto survive, it could be of use but I doubt it does.


3) What are the critical targets in Monte Real and Beja? Sintra is the military HQ, Montijo is a transport base (do you mean that it's a rail transport hub?), but what's in Monte Real and Beja that's work a nuke?


Monte Real is the fighter base while Beja is the training and naval patrol base. For Montijo, it is the main airlift base.


I don't think the old men in the Kremlin will give a damn about any Portuguese leftists in the blast radius around Beja. If Beja is worth nuking, then it's gonna catch a nuke. On the other hand, I do like the idea that there could still be European leftist groups fighting against what's left of the central government. During the war, these groups would have organized civil disobedience, protests, the avoiding of conscription and in the most extreme cases acts of domestic terrorism as part of political campaigns against the war effort. After the nukes and the general slide into chaos, there's no reason why the more communist elements (those that envision a time for armed struggle) wouldn't try to organize for genuine revolution... or if not a genuine revolution then a warlord-style cantonment where they call each other "comrade" and steal all the farmers' crops for "redistribution."


Today you would be right but at the time of T2K it would be an entirely different matter. I would have expected these guys to retain several weapon caches. In addition, they are far from being simple leftist and they are true diehard communist in the old meaning. Don't forget that they took over the Portuguese revolution only 20 years before and they had very strong ties with Moscow. They were only countered by the return of Mario Suarez. At last, all the archives of Salazar's regime have disapeared and they are strong rumors that they have been transfered to Moscow. I agree with you on what they would establish over the South.


I also presume that the north of Portugal has a fairly low population density too. I like the idea of civilization retreating to the fastness of the mountains to regroup. Of course, their biggest problem will be getting over-run by refugees fleeing all the chaos, fallout, and panic in the south of the country.


You presume in the wrong way:). Portugal's population is about 10 million with the most populated area being Lisbon and its surrounding targets (3.5 Million). These will almost be entirely gone (at least 75% casualties) with 80% of the country's industrial capacity.

The second most populated area is Porto with roughly 2 Million. There, you can expect a good 1 million casualty with more damage to the industrial network. However, the wine business at Villa Nova de Gaia will be turned to energy production and the Douro river can be used as a good bloodline. Hard road communication will not be a problem for those living there. In 1986 you needed 4h to go from Porto to the wine producing region only 80 miles away. In 1995 that time was down to 2h30. Most vehicles will be donkeys, mules, old Mercedes, Bedford and Toyotas. You can even expect the train to be still running between Porto and the Alto Douro.

What I count as being the Northern region is composed of 6 districts (Aveiro, Braga, Bragança, Viana de Castello, Villa Real and Viseu) plus that of Porto. Outside Porto they represent 2.5 million people with the most fertile area. In fact the only region of Portugal that can sustain itself in term of food and water.

What remain of the country would, then, represent only 2 million people with the South being the least populated. As a result, the districts bearing the weight of refugees would be more these at the center (Castelo Branco, Coimbra, Guarda, Portalegre and Santarem).

A last thing will make a difference. The regions I counted in the north are considered to be the heart of Portugal and Braga is it's capital city by heart (the Portuguese reconquesta started from there, from Villa Real and Lamego). People living there are tough by our standards (even more so at the time of T2K) as many were used to live with limited electricity and water. In addition, they don't like people from the South and I have no doubt that they would not hesitate to turn them back at gun point. During the revolution, communists took over most of the country but they were never able to achieve much control over the North:D.

The North represents 40% of the pre-war population and it would get 60-70% of the post strike survivors.

[Kellhound]

The only places on the Iberian peninsula I imagine getting nuked are Gibraltar and any NATO bases still in use. Of course, I'm imagining the Spanish taking a very hard line neutral position on the war, perhaps totally withdrawing from NATO and forcing a withdraw from the airbases, because they can afford to.

Some soviet documents declassified in the 90's showed we had a few "secondary targets" in our country. From naval and air bases to civilian airports and harbors, to refineries (Tarragona was higher than some bigger ones in other European countries, since it had also a harbor and other chemical plants close by) and shipyards (Galicia).
Even in case of extreme neutrality, only a couple small tac-nukes are needed to avoid these resources to fall in enemy hands.


I agree that the Basques would definitely resist a move to have forced conscription.
In this country, most cases of forced conscription have ended in open riots and street battles, and armed forces taking the streets.


-The incorporation of Spanish Galicia to Portugal would depend of the relative damaged suffered by the two countries in the used timeline. If Spain is untouched by nukes, I think it would not happen. Though Galicia has some nationalist movement, it has not the same "colour" that in Catalonia or in the Basque Country. They will remain (if possible) faithful to Spain. I must add the importance of the Galician naval shipyards for Spain. Anyway I will ask a Galician friend his opinion about the subject in our next roleplaying session. It would be interesting.
Knowing them, it's more likely to have Portugal joining Galicia ;)
Ok, this is only half a joke, not suitable for, or understandable by foreigners. :D


I definitely agree and assume than Spain is much as it is described in canon: "Its central government is a shamble, now represented by roving bands of Guardia Civil and military units."

I agree mostly with this.
But only until a foreign soldier (any foreign soldier) tried to occupy any ground or impose it's language and strange customs. ;)

[Mohoender]

I agree mostly with this.
But only until a foreign soldier (any foreign soldier) tried to occupy any ground or impose it's language and strange customs. ;)

At least you know that the foreign soldier won't be french. We had enough when Napoleon tried.:D