With Kato not around to split threads when needed I do as I can:). Leg, sorry to appear in your thread :o but I think that my answers will be perfectly relevant to it. Thanks for having started it.:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoender
(Post 14089)
Well this getting beyond the Australia discussion Mohender.
|
Not really but we have to make something clear. I'm thinking in game terms not in real life term. What you describe sounds to me as an all out nuclear attack. It could be but that is not what T2K is all about (IMO and according to what the authors say). Then, if that's what you use to play it, your point is perfectly good and it is entirely legitimate. I chose to answer here because if I desagree with Leg into my approach on cannon (sorry to bring you into this again:D:o), I perfectly agree with him on two things: it is a great game and I love the atmosphere of cannon. As a result, I don't modify it because I find it bad but because there are plenty of empty spaces into it.
In the meantime when I share ideas it's not because I'm right, it is simply because I hope to inspire others as I have been inspired by so many people from this forum (I would not have gone anywhere without everyone else:)).
To get back a bit on Australia and nukes, I modified my initial point because of everyone else ideas (including yours, RN7, on Pine Gap...). However, I didn't go as far as you simply because it doesn't fit in (IMO) with the atmosphere of T2K. If the Soviets eradicate Australia, they are in turn eradicated by the USA who are in turn eradicated by the Soviets (GAME OVER:D). The Soviets would not hesitate to sacrifice one or two of their allies if they think it useful to preserve Na Rodinia (Mother Russia). However, from what I have seen and what I have experienced of US, Americans are not like that. If anyone, obliterate one of their allies to the point you destroy Australia, they will not stop until full revenge is achieved (I would say that it is culutural to the religious point). If USSR sends 20-30 SS-18 carrying 20Mt warheads on Australia, US (IMO) will answer with a full scale attackon the Soviets...
Therefore, I agree with you if you talk of an all out attack but if that's not the case, they might indeed try to use SLBMs but they will forget about their ICBMs. I finally included that idea but I simply chose to make them fail because it helped my purpose.
You also included New Zealand, but New Zealand is no asset at all. Unlike Australia, they have no significant weapon industries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoender
(Post 14089)
I doubt bombers would used in a first strike by either America or Russia, particularly against each other. Although boomers may be used in conjunction with land based ICBMs.
|
- They are (in T2K) as both sides start with tactical and deep tactical strikes (SRBM, cruise missiles and aircraft nukes).
- IRL, you are right in theory. However as no war is ever fought as theory envisions it, you have 90% chance to be wrong (and I have 90% chance to be wrong). We will never know and I doubt that we ever came close to know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoender
(Post 14089)
They may use some, but there are other targets (Australia) that need to be hit as well.
|
As you noted, they had 308 SS-18 Satan, they need at most 30 on Australia (again only the 20Mt version can reach it for sure)+2 on New Zealand and a few on Brazil, Spanish speaking Latin America and South Africa (probably 50). They are not going to sit on the 200 remaining ones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoender
(Post 14089)
I think they would be largely used against American and NATO targets closer to the USSR.
|
SS-25 have a range of 10500 km, they are not intended for close targets. They were introduced mostly because they are less vulnerable (mobile), being the last line of defense in the case the silos are wiped out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoender
(Post 14089)
Well they dont really need to use the SS-18 (R-36M2) to hit the US as other ICBM's have the range, but to cause the most damage they would be well suited.
|
That's what I mean and every serious source states that a good part of them were targeted at the US. As you say because they are the best suited to do the most damages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoender
(Post 14089)
I don't think we will ever know will we.
|
We do (with reasonable doubts). I'm talking of T2K (again v2.2) and from what you read, you can make a reasonable guess and say that if ICBMs were used it was only on a limited scale (might be different with v1.0 but I don't know as I never read it carefully and never will). SLBM were used on a larger scales but according to game, all boomers were destroyed outside of the Barikada and its three remaining missiles (may be the French too). Also according to game, all ICBM bases are destroyed and given the assumption that ICBMs were only used on a limited scale, there are none left. Obviously, there still are nuclear warheads but attached to either mobile systems (SS-25, SS-20, Pershing), aircrafts (bomb and cruise missiles) or artillery shells.
IRL, you are right indeed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoender
(Post 14089)
If the Soviets launched a first strike on the US I think its highly probable that most if not all of the US silo based ICBMs would be launched before they were destroyed by the incoming Soviet missiles.
|
Right in the case of an all out attack. Again this is not what happens in T2K. They get to a limited exchange (a fairly descent one nonetheless) and they might simply have sacrificed their ICBMs. Of course, if you go by the
"little nuke book" you are right. But obviously, the author (and again in v2.2) don't go in that direction.
At last, IRL, things never go by the whatever
"little rule book" you have.
To get back to your first question, the all out attack may be what happens in your approach to the game. Then, your view is perfectly legitimate and your are right (for yourself). In addition, thank you for your thoughts and for the elements given as they have been useful (very useful) but there is no point to discuss it anyfurther. First I don't have that approach. Second if I was focusing on an all out attack I agree with you entirely.:)
