Turkey & Nuclear Weapons

[Webstral]

I can’t remember if this has come up before, but while re-reading the v1 chronology I was struck yet again by the fact that the US really leaves the Turks hanging in the nuclear exchange. The whole point of joining NATO is to get under the US nuclear umbrella, right? And yet the v1 chronology clearly states that a one-sided use of tactical nuclear weapons on the part of the Pact forces breaks the stalemate in Thrace. This is not a positive statement about the worthiness of the US as allies.

It looks like we also leave the Romanians in the lurch, too. There is no direct reference to a one-sided use of nuclear weapons, but the Romanian Army collapsed in part due to limited nuclear use. I can’t say for certain that the US failed to provide any balancing strikes. However, we clearly left the Turks to hang on their own.

[Olefin]

That is one area where the canon did leave a hole - but I think the US eventually did hit them back. The way it reads after the strikes the Bulgarians had a wide open path into European Turkey - but then in 2000 according to the NATO book the Turks still have Istanbul. So what stopped the Bulgarians - most likely US nuke strikes that arent told in the canon. Possibly a line got dropped in editing the original story about how US nuke strikes stopped the Bulgarians and Greeks cold but by then the Turks had been hit so bad that any chance of them coming to the support again of the Romanians was finished?

[Targan]

Boy did I misunderstand the title of this thread before I opened the first post. I was thinking "Wow, serious overkill, I'd just use a shotgun".

[HorseSoldier]

Even with US backing by the nuke exchange, Turkey's protection may have been limited by geography, with Italy and Greece now out. Books aren't handy, but the US Navy in the Med was badly chewed up by then. With an exchange in central Europe and the Middle East, Turkey may have been left in the breeze during the tactical weapon exchange, but back stopped when strategic weapons get employed.

[Matt Wiser]

Remember the nukes at Incirlik? Those bombs were meant not only for the USAF, but also for the Turks under the dual-key system. At least one Turkish AF unit (F-16s in T2K, but they flew F-104s and F-100s earlier) was certified to carry the weapons. And until the Turks retired the Honest John in the mid '80s, there were warheads kept in U.S. custody to be released to the Turks if/when the time came.

There's a story/factfile on Chico's site about a USAF Tactical Missile Wing that was kicked out of Sicily when the Italians left NATO, and they wound up in Turkey instead. 487th TMW, if memory serves.

[Webstral]

So we have a choice between claiming that the v1 chronology has a gap regarding Turkey and the nuclear phase or finding and explanation for why nukes at Incirlik didn’t get involved.

[pmulcahy11b]

Boy did I misunderstand the title of this thread before I opened the first post. I was thinking "Wow, serious overkill, I'd just use a shotgun".

+1!

[Olefin]

Frankly I think the authors missed the fact that the Turks had access to nukes. The whole situation in the Balkans isnt really handled that well in the timeline - for instance how did the CivGov forces get to Yugoslavia in the first place past not only MilGov but also the French patrols at Gibraltar, let alone the Italians and Greeks? And considering the areas they hold where did they even get ships and fuel for such an operation (all they have on the East Coast really is the enclave in the Carolinas - so how did they get a NY NG unit shipped out from there)?

You have the Turks getting nuked and the Bulgarians racing for Istanbul - and then the timeline goes silent. Whats funny is that you can tell the GDW writers themselves didnt know what to do with the Turks - because the NATO guides are full of "what the Turkish units did wasnt really known during the war" - i.e. they just sort of threw them in there and didnt know what to really do with them.

Sort of how Ploesti mysteriously doesnt get nuked out of existence when the US, who lost a lot of men bombing the place in WWII, would have made sure that the place was a huge molten crater for sure in real life. The Balkans are just sort of a big afterthought since their real focus was Poland in the initial releases and they probably never thought any player groups would head that way.

[WallShadow]

Boy did I misunderstand the title of this thread before I opened the first post. I was thinking "Wow, serious overkill, I'd just use a shotgun".

Uhh, couldn't we try the OVEN first????

[bobcat]

oh come on we all know aiming tactical nukes at a turkey is the traditional way to celebrate thanksgiving.:D

and yeah the timeline does leave everyone outside poland kinda hanging.

[Legbreaker]

Frankly I think the authors missed the fact that the Turks had access to nukes.

Access doesn't mean ability to use. The US still controlled the codes, etc and may have deliberately withheld them because of the wider strategic/global situation.

[Olefin]

once the nukes started to fly I doubt the US would have hidden the codes still from the Turks

by the way there is one very likely explanation for why the Turkish nukes never got used- maybe they got taken out by the Soviets either with a conventional raid, a nuclear one or Special Forces before they hit the Turkish army itself with nukes

Could explain why the Turks couldnt respond - because they had nothing left to respond with

[Targan]

by the way there is one very likely explanation for why the Turkish nukes never got used- maybe they got taken out by the Soviets either with a conventional raid, a nuclear one or Special Forces before they hit the Turkish army itself with nukes

Could explain why the Turks couldnt respond - because they had nothing left to respond with

Does anyone know what the protocols are for US nukes stationed in foreign countries such as Turkey? In times of war would all the warheads in such a country be kept in one place or dispersed?

[Matt Wiser]

This is only a guess, but I'd bet that the warheads (artillery shells-the Honest John warheads would've been long gone-and gravity bombs) would remain in their storage areas-and none of them were in European Turkey. AF and Army personnel guarded the storage sites, and would release them only upon receiving the appropriate release orders. Once the warheads are released, they can be used. The relevant NATO air command was 6th Allied Tactical Air Force, and once the gravity bombs are released, 6th ATAF would designate the targets. Artillery shells, though, would be used probably by Corps Commanders (the likely warheads are the 8-inch AFAP rounds for the M-110 howitzer). Once the Turks asked for release of the bombs and artillery shells, it goes up the line to SACEUR, then the President, who has to consent to release American weapons. Once release is granted, it goes back down the chain of command.

The bombs at Incirlik-along with the GLCMs of the 487th TMW-would be used by the USAF, though.

[Olefin]

So an attack on the storage sites - which of course the KGB knew exactly where they were - could have taken out the nukes allocated to the Turks before they ever had a chance to get them out of the bunkers. Especially if they had compromised US or NATO communications and got a heads up for the release request and hit them before the President could respond.

[bobcat]

So an attack on the storage sites - which of course the KGB knew exactly where they were - could have taken out the nukes allocated to the Turks before they ever had a chance to get them out of the bunkers. Especially if they had compromised US or NATO communications and got a heads up for the release request and hit them before the President could respond.

that right there is a good plausible reason for turkey falling out from under the nuclear umbrella. hell with foreknowledge of where the bunkers are located it could even be done with conventional bunker busters.

[James1978]

So an attack on the storage sites - which of course the KGB knew exactly where they were - could have taken out the nukes allocated to the Turks before they ever had a chance to get them out of the bunkers. Especially if they had compromised US or NATO communications and got a heads up for the release request and hit them before the President could respond.
In the case of the gravity bombs, taking out the storage site might not do the job. Toward the end of the Cold War, NATO was starting to move away from keeping the gravity bombs in central storage areas and toward storage in vaults built into the floors of individual HAS. The idea was to shorten the reaction/load time by eliminating the weapons convoys from the WSA to the individual HAS/QRA pad.

Which isn't to say that you can't take out each individual HAS, but they are often more numerous and more spread out than storage igloos. And I believe it would require simultaneously hitting at least five Turkish air bases.

All the above assumes a conventional attack. If we're talking nukes, well that's different.

[The Rifleman]

When I first saw this title, I actually thought it was about the Soviet surprise nuclear attack on Thanksgiving, 1997, thus "turkey and nuclear weapons".... it actually got me thinking quite abit about that topic. Really, why???? What could they possibly gain? I know its off topic, but just the title got me curious.

[Legbreaker]

But was it really all that much of a surprise? I mean really, isn't it just the logical next step in escalation of the war?
The only surprise may have been in the timing of it (but even that makes sense when you consider many of the emergency services people would have been out of position on holiday with their families).

[The Rifleman]

But was it really all that much of a surprise? I mean really, isn't it just the logical next step in escalation of the war?
The only surprise may have been in the timing of it (but even that makes sense when you consider many of the emergency services people would have been out of position on holiday with their families).

Well yes, your right, I think that everyone knew that sooner or later, it would happen. But as both sides were gently toeing the line, it was a big step. The story line in the opening books don't give the T-day attack justice. In the modules, it fills in a lot better. If I were the US getting hammered all at once, on a holiday, like they were, I probably would have thought it was the big one.

After all, if all they were after were just production centers, what difference would it make if you hit them a week apart?

[Olefin]

Thanksgiving is the biggest travel holiday in the US - so it is a day when a lot of people are visiting family, out of town and not where they normally should be - including a lot of first responders. That would add to the disruption of the attack - i.e. you have the chaos of the attacks and of literally millions of people trying to get home afterward adding to that chaos. And other holidays would add a lot of symbolism to the attack that could make people want revenge even more - i..e Fourth of July or Christmas Day would really be bad ideas for attacks as that would only inflame US desire to hit back and pay them back even more.

And actually hitting on Thanksgiving Day would have also lessened the US civilian casualties - i.e. a lot of people were not at their jobs at the industrial centers that were hit, instead they were at home or grandmas's or wherever celebrating the holiday. And the attacks really werent going for a lot of civilian deaths as their main modus operandi - if they were then the NY attacks would have been on Manhattan Island and Queens and Brooklyn, not the oil refineries.

[The Rifleman]

Thanksgiving is the biggest travel holiday in the US - so it is a day when a lot of people are visiting family, out of town and not where they normally should be - including a lot of first responders. That would add to the disruption of the attack - i.e. you have the chaos of the attacks and of literally millions of people trying to get home afterward adding to that chaos. And other holidays would add a lot of symbolism to the attack that could make people want revenge even more - i..e Fourth of July or Christmas Day would really be bad ideas for attacks as that would only inflame US desire to hit back and pay them back even more.

And actually hitting on Thanksgiving Day would have also lessened the US civilian casualties - i.e. a lot of people were not at their jobs at the industrial centers that were hit, instead they were at home or grandmas's or wherever celebrating the holiday. And the attacks really werent going for a lot of civilian deaths as their main modus operandi - if they were then the NY attacks would have been on Manhattan Island and Queens and Brooklyn, not the oil refineries.

There are some really good points in that. The deaths probably were lower. But where I'm going with this is that all the missle silo operators were on duty. Wouldn't hitting all these major cities at once cause the US leadership to say, oh, crap, they are going for broke, launch them all NOW.

[Legbreaker]

From the three "official" timelines (V1, V2.0, & 2.2):NATO's theater nuclear missiles were launched against an array of industrial targets and port cities in the western Soviet Union. Throughout October the exchanges continued, escalating gradually. Fearful of a general strategic exchange, neither side targeted on the land-based ICBM's of the other, or launched so many warheads at once as to risk convincing the other side that an all-out attack was in progress. Neither side wished to cross the threshold to nuclear oblivion in one bold step, and so they inched across it, never quite knowing they had done it until after the fact.
First, military targets were hit. Then industrial targets clearly vital to the war effort. Then economic targets of military importance. Then transportation and communication, oil fields and refineries. Then major industrial and oil centres in neutral nations, to prevent their possible use by the other side. Numerous warheads were aimed at logistical stockpiles and command control centres of the armies in the field. Almost accidentally, the civilian political command structure was first decimated, then eliminated. The exchange continued, fitfully and irregularly, through November and early December, and then gradually petered out.
From Howling Wilderness:
In Late November, data from various sources indicated an attack might again be imminent. Congress declared an early recess (ostensibly for the Thanksgiving holiday, but this fooled no one). The teams were sent out once again, and even though some provision was made for families of team members, less than half of the required personnel showed up for duty. Everyone, from the President on down, seemed to think the whole thing was another false alarm.
The day after Thanksgiving, an orbiting military surveillance satellite picked up a number of IR signatures, characteristic of the launch of SLBMs. Within minutes, messages were zipping through established channels and alarms began ringing across the nation.
It seems clear the strikes against continental US occurred at the tail end of the 1997 nuclear attacks. Everyone had probably gotten very used to reports of "yet another nuke somewhere not here" and become quite blasé about the whole thing (those not on the receiving end of them at least).
With an established policy of one warhead in retaliation for another, a few dozen missiles fired at the US would not have been enough to prompt a massive response.
We also know from the above quotes that there wasn't all that much of a civilian command structure left at this time. While in Europe the destruction was undoubtedly a direct result of conventional or nuclear weapons, in the US riots and general panic coupled by the draining of manpower for the front lines would have had a similar effect. With government and supporting organisations stripped in this way, a handful of nukes aimed at strategic locations would probably have been enough to at least time what survived over the edge and beyond recovery.

Note also that the attack didn't happen until the day after Thanksgiving, and it wasn't the first time longer range nukes had been used, it was just the first time that we know of nukes being used against the US homeland.

[Panther Al]

From the three "official" timelines (V1, V2.0, & 2.2):
From Howling Wilderness:
It seems clear the strikes against continental US occurred at the tail end of the 1997 nuclear attacks. Everyone had probably gotten very used to reports of "yet another nuke somewhere not here" and become quite blasé about the whole thing (those not on the receiving end of them at least).
With an established policy of one warhead in retaliation for another, a few dozen missiles fired at the US would not have been enough to prompt a massive response.
We also know from the above quotes that there wasn't all that much of a civilian command structure left at this time. While in Europe the destruction was undoubtedly a direct result of conventional or nuclear weapons, in the US riots and general panic coupled by the draining of manpower for the front lines would have had a similar effect. With government and supporting organisations stripped in this way, a handful of nukes aimed at strategic locations would probably have been enough to at least time what survived over the edge and beyond recovery.

Note also that the attack didn't happen until the day after Thanksgiving, and it wasn't the first time longer range nukes had been used, it was just the first time that we know of nukes being used against the US homeland.


Not sure how well you know of Thanksgiving over here leg, but it's not, despite what the calendars say, a one day holiday. It always falls on a Thursday, and because of that, Friday is always taken off along with it to make for a long weekend. So for all intents and purposes, its a four day holiday - with Friday being the most dead to the world day of the bunch.

[Legbreaker]

Well then, perhaps it didn't happen during the holiday at all...
The day after Thanksgiving, an orbiting military surveillance satellite picked up a number of IR signatures, characteristic of the launch of SLBMs.
Perhaps it caught most people on the move back to their homes and jobs, away from their hoarded supplies, emergency weapons and carefully laid out disaster reaction plans. http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=3558

[Targan]

Not sure how well you know of Thanksgiving over here leg, but it's not, despite what the calendars say, a one day holiday. It always falls on a Thursday, and because of that, Friday is always taken off along with it to make for a long weekend. So for all intents and purposes, its a four day holiday - with Friday being the most dead to the world day of the bunch.

I didn't know for sure until this post, but I'd always assumed that the Thanksgiving Day holiday would be a long weekend. That's how most of our public holidays work here.

[Bullet Magnet]

Not sure how well you know of Thanksgiving over here leg, but it's not, despite what the calendars say, a one day holiday. It always falls on a Thursday, and because of that, Friday is always taken off along with it to make for a long weekend. So for all intents and purposes, its a four day holiday - with Friday being the most dead to the world day of the bunch.

And don't forget, it's also Black Friday. If the Soviets wanted to reduce the civilian population by 50% or more on this day, they'd target the malls.

[Olefin]

Where it caught them was at Grandma's or their cousins or their parents place - i.e. wherever they had traveled for the holiday. So now you have a huge fraction of the US population - perhaps as high as 25 percent or more - not at home, possibly several hundred miles away, all trying to get home after a nuclear attack, many of them with fried electrical systems in their cars preventing them from starting.

Or caught out on the road, either shopping or going back home and in monumental traffic jams caused by the strikes.

In our game when we did Allegheny Uprising we found a huge traffic jam of nuked cars sitting on the 81 west of Harrisburg that got nuked when the Soviets took out the Army War College with a 100kt nuke as part of the Massacre.

[Jason Weiser]

Or the exact opposite. Everybody's expecting a strike. I mean everybody. People are like a coiled spring, so they're doing what the Pembertons did in HW?

"Marsha dear, let's have our folks out here. It's better than them being downtown with all that's happening with the constant alerts. And just in case things get real bad, let's send the kids on a trip with Jim and his kids, they're all friends and he has a fishing cabin. We'll have dinner early."

A lot of families in the suburbs may have simply decided staying home to make sure they had those supplies would be a very good idea.

[The Rifleman]

Or the exact opposite. Everybody's expecting a strike. I mean everybody. People are like a coiled spring, so they're doing what the Pembertons did in HW?

"Marsha dear, let's have our folks out here. It's better than them being downtown with all that's happening with the constant alerts. And just in case things get real bad, let's send the kids on a trip with Jim and his kids, they're all friends and he has a fishing cabin. We'll have dinner early."

A lot of families in the suburbs may have simply decided staying home to make sure they had those supplies would be a very good idea.

It isn't the exact opposite. They weren't suspecting a thing. Even President Tanner got nailed.... I think perhaps a few smart families thought otherwise, but overall, its been since the war of 1812 a foriegn power hit the mainland....

[Webstral]

As I have posited in the past, in all probability there would be a wide range of behaviors by Thanksgiving. The survivalist types probably would be in their hidey-holes already. At the other end of the spectrum we would find millions in complete denial that the nuclear exchange would catch up with CONUS. Millions more would take a nihilist approach. Crime and disorderly conduct would be considerably elevated by Thanksgiving.

The media would run the gamut as well. Some would play doom-and-gloom features, while others would emphasize the size of the US nuclear deterrent in the interests of fostering as much of a business-as-usual atmosphere in the US. After all, by November China has been destroyed as a modern nation, while nuclear use in Europe would have caused huge damage in Germany, Poland, Belarus, the Ukraine, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Jugoslavia, and probably the Netherlands and Denmark. Yet the US would have remained untouched (except perhaps Alaska). To many hopefuls, this would have represented proof that the Soviets weren't willing to risk a direct exchange with the US. To others, this would represent proof that things were getting out of hand.

We should bear in mind that the global economy already would have been seriously affected by the destruction in China and Europe. It's hard to imagine that the economy of the FRG was not in tatters by Thanksgiving. The de facto default of China on her stupendous debt would have sent shock waves around the world by August.

[Legbreaker]

Or the exact opposite. Everybody's expecting a strike. I mean everybody. People are like a coiled spring, so they're doing what the Pembertons did in HW?
Umm, no.
Everyone, from the President on down, seemed to think the whole thing was another false alarm.
It isn't the exact opposite. They weren't suspecting a thing. Even President Tanner got nailed.... I think perhaps a few smart families thought otherwise, but overall, its been since the war of 1812 a foreign power hit the mainland....
I'm right with you RM. Sooooo many false alarms previously as stated in the books.
I'm guessing the Soviets might actually have timed their attack to this date specifically because most people could be expected to be away from the target areas (industrial, military, government centres, etc). It could be seen as either a conscious effort to limit civilian casualties, or inflict the greatest stress on recovery and emergency services (as mentioned a few weeks ago in another thread - can't remember which and by who though), or both.

[Jason Weiser]

Umm, no.

I see, netiquette aside, I am going to research further into HW, but I am pretty sure folks in the US weren't totally surprised about the attack and might have taken steps to stay close to the homestead. Plus, consider one other limiting factor on travel...fuel. Even in 1996-97, there were regional shortages, look at the background info in The Last Submarine.

With the US in the fight for it's life and tac nukes turning the logistical structure into glowing objects of modern art, fuel is going to be harder and harder to come by for civilians for their holiday travel. This would be especially true for civil air travel, and here's another question? How many civil aircraft are left to the airlines after CRAF really begins to swing into high gear?

Finally, a lot of folks may see this coming, see the traffic of folks thinking "What the hell, let's try to get to Grandma's" wind up in a four hour backup on I-95 and say to hell with this! The roads will be even more crowded than usual because of the lack of fuel for trains and buses. Hell, the government might have PSAs "Stay home this Turkey-Day, and save some fuel for the boys and girls at the front and you'll also keep the roads clear for military movements (Yes, I know most major movements are by rail, and even that's going to play hob with Amtrak!)."

There's plenty of reasons people might decide to stay close to home come the T-Day massacre.

[HorseSoldier]

I'd agree. There were probably significant panics in the US and other western nations previously with German reunification, another with the entry of the US, UK, and other NATO nations into the fight, and probably a huge one with the first reports of nuclear weapons used on the battlefield. Some or all of those probably saw some degree of civil unrest with panic shopping food, fuel, and other emergency supplies. Outright rioting may have occurred in some areas during these stresses.

However, by late fall, there's probably a heavy degree of panic-fatigue setting in. A lot of the people who ran for the hills (or grandma's place out in the countryside, etc) initially probably filtered back home when the sky didn't fall and finances got tight. Some probably did stay, and not just survivalist types, or left the kids with rural relatives and that sort of thing.

By Thanksgiving there may have been a lot of (perhaps premature . . .) desire to celebrate that the world hadn't ended. How much travel was involved would depend on whether or how much the war effected fuel supplies for civilian activities but anybody who was on the road with a modern car with an engine computer would be walking the rest of the way home if they were near a strike and EMP.

[Targan]

Plus, consider one other limiting factor on travel...fuel. Even in 1996-97, there were regional shortages, look at the background info in The Last Submarine.

Important point, that. By '97 there must have been severe fuel shortages in some parts of the CONUS. Hoarding would be rampant too.

[Olefin]

Well from Last Submarine we know of one place where fuel was short in 97 - but it also sounds like there was plenty of gas elsewhere - the relevant passages

"On 1 3 April 1997, Bostonians were rudely jarred from their
apathy by news of the sinking of the Universe Carolina, a supertanker
bound for Boston Harbor. The military authorities placed
the residents on notice that gasoline and heating oil rationing
were imminent."

"The area was moving into summer, and the heating oil shortage
would not be severe, but the sudden shortage of automotive
gasoline and diesel fuel caused considerable unrest. While the rest of the nation could drive where it wanted, New England felt discriminated against. Conditions remained fairly calm everywhere but Boston."

"By the end of September, the local fuel crisis was beginning
to be relieved, and state and city police felt that the 43rd could
safely be withdrawn to other duties"

Clearly that shows a US where fuel was still available for civilians outside of New England before the Thanksgiving massacre and thus there were probably lots of people on the roads a la a traditional US Thanksgiving when the attack happened - or at grandma's, dad's, etc..

[Rainbow Six]

I'm going from distant memory here as I haven't read the module for years (if not decades), so could be totally wrong, but isn't there an NPC in Urban Guerilla (a TV reporter?) who was on a commercial flight to somewhere in Florida when the nukes hit? If so, that would suggest there were still at least some commercial flights still operating at that point.

[Jason Weiser]

Yes, but again, she was a "name reporter" by then, so it's hardly unheard of of a network making sure she got a seat on a flight.

But facts remain, CRAF would have been implemented as part of the mobilization. And it probably would have been a Stage III call up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Reserve_Air_Fleet

@Olefin:

Other than this passage that you've cited? We really don't know much as to the scarcity or not of fuel for the civil populace on the US home front. I suspect however that some sort of rationing HAD to be instituted. We're talking a mobilization that has not been seen in the US since the 2nd World War. We had to ration then too. So did everyone else.

Not saying you're wrong, canon is again, sketchy. But to assume people are going around driving blithely to Grandma's under the threat of nuclear attack and while a major war is going on, with the likely rationing scheme that would be implemented is kinda hard to believe.

YMMV on this argument I suppose.

[Olefin]

Well I hate to use Howling Wilderness as source material because frankly I consider it to be apocrypha on a level with the LA module as do others here, at least once it gets to 2001.

However the material I will cite is from 1997 so that to me is still canon.

In Prelude on Page 5 it says the following "there were periodic shortages of some consumer products, but unlike WWII there was no rationing"

That to me also implies no gas rationing prior to the Massacre as does the statement on Page 6 about the September scare when tactical nukes were used first in Europe - i.e. "in any case, the minor civilian panic clogged roads and made transportation difficult"

for civilians to be clogging roads in a panic means they had gas to panic with

So between Last Submarine and HW you have a clear picture of a government that in most of the country didnt ration gas and of civilians who had the gas to travel prior to the Massacre

also keep in mind that most of the transport of US troops over to Europe occurred in 1996 - so the airlines may actually have gotten many of their planes back prior to the Massacre

[Webstral]

I’m inclined to agree that there was no gasoline rationing per se. This doesn’t mean that prices didn’t rise considerably. The feds may have decided to let the market do the rationing.

I’m doubtful that the federal government handed back all of the civilian aircraft by the end of 1997. The need to move replacements to the front at the best possible speed would have been enormous from the get-go. Bulk items obviously would have to go by water. However, people and high-value items like AAM and electronics still might have moved by air. Several of the US divisions that moved overseas in 1997 moved by sea and air.

[Olefin]

Keep in mind how many commuter and short range airplanes the airlines use. They would be useless for carrying troops overseas but would be perfect for use here in the States for the airlines. Think how after 9/11 so many airlines switched to them when a lot of the overseas travel dried up for a while.

Add in planes like Southwest's fleet of 737's and you still have a lot of civilian travel.

Now the 747's and the like they would all be impressed into carrying military traffic. But thats a small amount of the overall civilian airfleet.

If anyone would be hit hard it would be FEDEX and the like - their cargo carriers would be prime carriers for the military.

[Rainbow Six]

Keep in mind how many commuter and short range airplanes the airlines use. They would be useless for carrying troops overseas but would be perfect for use here in the States for the airlines. Think how after 9/11 so many airlines switched to them when a lot of the overseas travel dried up for a while.

Add in planes like Southwest's fleet of 737's and you still have a lot of civilian travel.

Now the 747's and the like they would all be impressed into carrying military traffic. But thats a small amount of the overall civilian airfleet.

If anyone would be hit hard it would be FEDEX and the like - their cargo carriers would be prime carriers for the military.

Some numbers re: the above...

Per the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics (which I presume is a Government body), as of 1996 there were 7,478 passenger and cargo aircraft registered in the US (assuming I'm reading it correctly - link as follows):

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.html

According to the wikipedia page Jason linked to earlier as of May 2007 1,364 aircraft from 37 carriers are enrolled in CRAF (the same table states that as of 2007 there were just over 8,000 aircraft registered, which means that in 2007 the CRAF has around 16% of available aircraft if my maths is correct).

Some further digging suggests that the CRAF was much smaller in the 90's, i.e. in 1990 a stage three mobilisation would entail 506 aircraft (from an available total of just over 6,000, so less than 10% of available aircraft were in the CRAF)

(Source http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA246916)

It is of course, quite possible (if not probable) that the CRAF was downsized following the end of the Cold War, so 1980's figures may have been higher, and it is equally probably that additional aircraft not in the CRAF were requistioned at the start of the War, so, whilst number crunching isn't one of my strong points, there does seem to be a justifiable case for significant numbers of aircraft to still be available to airlines in 1997 (although as Olefin has already stated, much of these may be shorter range commuter aircraft). A general break down of aircraft types is on the following table

http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_13.html

So in 1996 just under 5,000 aircraft were passenger jets, of which less than 10% were four engined (presumably 747's and the larger airbuses such as the A340). Over half are twin engined, a number of which would be capabale of transatlantic flight, e.g. Boeing 757's and 767's. To be fair, even a 737 could do a transatlantic flight in certain circumstances (KLM Royal Dutch Airlines used to operate a 737 Amsterdam - Houston non stop in an all Business Class config, so could only take approx 50 passengers).

[HorseSoldier]

As needed, shorter ranged aircraft could be used, I think, flying out of Newfoundland and following the Greenland-Iceland-UK Gap for refueling stops. Presumably all the former USAF or NATO airbases in that area circa the 80s would not have been closed in the post-'92 timeframe.

If CRAF was inadequate for military requirements (which are going to be extreme with the US trying to support a war effort on European, Middle Eastern, and Korean fronts, plus continued logistical support to the PRC to keep them in the fight), I'd expect additional airframes to be leased by the US gov't, drawing down assets available for the civilian market to some extent as well.

[Rainbow Six]

As needed, shorter ranged aircraft could be used, I think, flying out of Newfoundland and following the Greenland-Iceland-UK Gap for refueling stops. Presumably all the former USAF or NATO airbases in that area circa the 80s would not have been closed in the post-'92 timeframe.

If CRAF was inadequate for military requirements (which are going to be extreme with the US trying to support a war effort on European, Middle Eastern, and Korean fronts, plus continued logistical support to the PRC to keep them in the fight), I'd expect additional airframes to be leased by the US gov't, drawing down assets available for the civilian market to some extent as well.

I'd agree with all of the above, although it's difficult to guess at how many additional aircraft would need to be called up. Assuming an average 747-400 series can take at least 500 passengers if it strips out most of its premium seats and replaces them with economy ones and assuming an average US Army Division of the time had around 20,000 men (I think - correct me if I'm wrong) you'd need around forty 747's to transport an entire Division's manpower.

Given that CRAF entailed calling up approx 500 aircraft, even if it went up to 1500, which would be an increase of 200%, that would still leave just under 6,000 aircraft available to operate commercial routes, either domestically or on whatever international routes remained operational.

Presumably there's likely to be a huge need for additional aircraft when things first kick off, but how many of those additional aircraft will still be required as we move further into 1997? (Obviously freight will still need to be carried as well, but I'm presuming that the majority of freight, particularly the heavy stuff will go by sea or on USAF C5's / C141's, plus aircraft requisitioned from people like Fedex and UPS, again as mentioned earlier, so less likely to impact on scheduled passenger services?)

(As none of this has anything to do with Turkey and nuclear weapons, might be appropriate for a moderator to split this thread?)

[Panther Al]

There is one big argument against calling up those shorter ranged aircraft: Bang (Or more like, Pax) for the buck. Yes, a lot of the larger commuter planes could hopscotch over to Europe, but would it be worth it?

If one of those planes can only haul 60 people - and not much kit at the same time, it probably wouldn't be worth bringing it into service once you take into account the amount of fuel to move those 60 people.


You might say what about VIP's and other 'oh crap gotta move this guy now' missions, but there is plenty of business and small jets already in service for those.


So, I would say all the 4 engine airliners, and the more capable 2 to 3 engine jobs would be taken into service, which leaves a lot of aircraft to support civil aviation. Even during a war, there is still a lot of need for commercial traffic to handle business needs.

[pmulcahy11b]

Could you rip out the passenger seats of those aircraft and outfit them with standard troop seats and stretcher stands? What level of modification would this take if it is possible? Might be able to put more people and gear in the same space, though it wouldn't help the problem with weight and fuel expenditure...

[Rainbow Six]

I don't know about putting in military style seating, but you can reconfigure a passenger jet to increase its capacity, for example by stripping out the First Class and Business Class seats, which have a bigger seat pitch, to put in more economy seats. I'm no expert on the subject, but the seats basically get fitted into rails on the floor and can be removed / amended as neccessary- I don't think it's a major operation. iirc Sanjuro works in the airline industry so might be able to go into more detail.

The record for maximum number of passengers on a single flight belongs to an El Al Israeli Airlines 747.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Solomon

It's interesting to note they planned for 760 passengers, so that may be approaching maximm capacity, although Addis - Tel Aviv would presumably require much less fuel than a transatlantic flight, so would consequently be able to carry more passengers.

Personally, I think there would be enough wide bodied 747's, 767's and 777's (which were just entering service) and equivalent Airbus types (I'm not sure if US carriers are big users of Airbus' wide bodies?) available to meet Government needs (and probably still leave the airlines with enough to maintain remaining international services), so there would be no need to go as far as requisitioning 737's (or even 757's).

[Schone23666]

Just posting my two cents in regards to gasoline hoarding and rationing.

Having witnessed it myself, I think we can pretty well agree that gasoline, or any sort of fuel hoarding would be rampant once word reaches of a pending apocalypse. In the case of T2K, it was a rather popular idea during the Cold War that once the U.S. and U.S.S.R. literally began locking horns in Europe and elsewhere, the situation would quickly deteriorate and go nuclear. Lines at gas stations would increase drastically with panic buying and the stations would get jammed, fights would break out (with some likely turning bloody) and police and perhaps even National Guard in a few cases would take control of the gas stations, with forced rationing put into effect. There may be more cases of looters attempting to siphon gas from any sort of parked vehicles including construction equipment to fill their own spare tanks as well.

This would also just as well apply to any other basic necessities. Food and drinking water would get hoarded as any sort of grocery or supermarket gets their shelves cleaned by panic buyers and/or opportunists and looters. I'd also expect runs on other things such as batteries, candles, portable radios, hygienic supplies, etc. Oh yes, the gun stores will be making a killing too, assuming they don't get robbed or looted as well.

After that...well, once things go completely south and the nukes fly? Anyone who's got a decent cache of supplies will, sadly, have to realize there's plenty others out there who would rather take those supplies for themselves, one way or another...

[Legbreaker]

I think we can point to natural events such as Sandy to see a small sample of what would happen. In T2K with the tension continuing for months (not just the days prior to a big storm) the situation could probably be MUCH worse. Logistics networks may even break under the strain, especially when the desperate mobs start hijacking the trucks before they even reach the warehouses.

[Schone23666]

I think we can point to natural events such as Sandy to see a small sample of what would happen. In T2K with the tension continuing for months (not just the days prior to a big storm) the situation could probably be MUCH worse. Logistics networks may even break under the strain, especially when the desperate mobs start hijacking the trucks before they even reach the warehouses.

Without getting into details, it was getting ugly up here in northern New Jersey and New York for the week after Sandy hit. So, as you said, with a looming nuclear apocalypse, rumors flying rampant and tensions building to an unbearable level, matters would be getting ugly on the home front, and all that would be playing out BEFORE the strikes.

Though admittedly, this is being seen mostly from a POV of what might/would have occurred on the American home front, I'd be curious as to how bad, if not worse it would be playing out on the other home fronts such as Australia, the U.K., France, etc.