![]() |
Quote:
As I think can be seen in the translations John has been kindly posting, it seems clear that the Finnish book is written to reflect local needs and perceptions rather than following canon to the letter. It is therefore fair to say it's more of an alternate reality than extension - very useful and interesting, however my personal believe is the GDW material should have priority where there is disagreement. Naturally everyone is free to do what they like as always. With that in mind, I think we can understand why the same writer has contradicted themselves - The Finnish book wasn't intended for sale and use out of one small area (or it would have been officially tranlated and published) and was written with that market in mind. A completely understandable position and something I'd probably do myself if it meant me being paid or not for my work. Regarding who got nuked how hard, we have an indication in "What's Polish for G'day" that Australia and France were not "irradiated", however this could be explained by the Australian tendancy to exaggerate unimportant details. In the context of the adventure, it doesn't matter what state these two countries are in - everything happens in Poland. I believe we also have other information from a number of sources including the 2.2 timeline that France was nuked. Quote:
|
Have we looked at the effect a major nuclear attack would have on the world besides normal fallout? Massive firestorms laying waste to valuable farmland, contaminated water sources, chemical spills from ruptured and destroyed plants...
I think the effects of the bombs are being understated... http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nukergv.html Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
As your quoted statement is included in an obscure book intended for a small and select section of the T2K population, it's hard to say it's really "core material". |
Quote:
With that said, I could see the nuclear powers sparing a few warheads for targets that could be used by their opponent for eventual reconstruction (such as the Finnish refineries, no matter what their distance from oilfields would be), but it wouldn't be too widespread. Why? Given the immense destructive power of a even a limited strike, a large-scale nuclear exchange would result in us playing Gamma World rather than T2k. |
I agree. While it is fairly easy to come up with a list of potential targets, hitting more than a small proportion of them is obviously not what's happened in T2K.
The difficulty we all face as GMs and writers is coming up with a list of strategic targets that barely achieves the chaos and destruction necessary, then throw in a few more for flavour. With regard to smaller tactical nukes, I say it's a free for all. Throw 'em around like confetti! But the big stuff that requires a bit more than a 203mm howitzer, that needs to be tightly controlled. |
Quote:
The European theater is a spectrum of how bad things are. Austria has ceased to exist, Poland and Germany are warzones, Belgium and France are mostly keeping it together. Most of the UK is in chaos, but has a stable government and is going to recover. Switzerland is untouched by the conflict, but feels the side effects. |
Am I the only one wondering what has become of all those nuclear weapons, on all sides, that went unused during the Twilight War?
If, indeed, the line was inched across in dribs and drabs and no one went for the throat on a true counterforce strike, then somewhere there must be some Minuteman IIIs and SS-24s and SS-25s out there waiting in the wings for proper authority. Or has that been covered in one of the rulebooks? |
Quote:
The interpretation I take to the various Broken Arrow (loose nuke) scenarios is that the various authorities - Milgov, Civgov and the remnants of the Soviet government - want to maintain control of the remaining nuclear weapons. I believe there is a reference in Airlords of the Ozarks to Milgov sending a team into the remnants of Eaker Air Force Base shortly after it had been nuked to retrieve the warheads. The warheads are probably sitting in a secure tunnel somewhere. Cheyenne Mountain (and its Russian equivalents)? The USAF also maintained a stockpile of inactive nuclear weapons at Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, NM in underground/hardened facilities. In addition to Minuteman IIIs, there are probably also bombers at various diversion fields - military and civilian airports with runways over 10,000 feet or so. I've got some ideas about these too... |
I think an excellent place to store "decommissioned" nuclear weapons would be the Yucca Mountain Site in Nevada, which was designed to store nuclear waste...what better place, as the gamma flux from the waste would help mask the prescence of weapons thought to be already disposed of.
I can't remember, is the Pantex facility in Amarillo on the strike list? Zlatoust, in the Ural Mountains, is probably the mountain storage facility you're thinking of; a gigantic sprawling site akin to the Manzano Mountain facility at Kirtland. And, previous treaties aside, once open war broke out in Europe, I would imagine that both sides would again arm surface warships, dig out the air-launched nukes, etc. Just in case. |
Chico -
Not to open sore wounds, but I think you covered such a case of several B-52's that had landed at Columbus AFB. During the DC Group's Recovery Plan. Which was one hell'va document if I say so myself. |
Quote:
Later GDW decided that there were no nuclear strikes in Scandinavia. You all know that there are minor differences if you have enough time to study V1, V2 and V2.2 editions. This is one of those.:rolleyes: V 1 Norway Oslo 1 Mt Political and industrial center. Tromso 100 kt Naval base. Town destroyed. Drammen 100 kt ground burst Petroleum industry. Town destroyed Harstad 100 kt naval base. Town destroyd. Bergen 100 kt naval base and harbour. Stavanger 100 kt petroleum industry. Horten 100 kt naval base. Northern Norway badly damaged from tactical nukes and conventional warfare. Sweden Karlskoga 2 X 50 kt Defense industry. Town destroyed. Nynäshamn 20 kt Petroleum industry Malmà 20 kt Petroleum industry and harbour. LingkÃping 50 kt Aircraft industry. Town destroyed. GÃteborg 50 kt. Missile didnt hit targeted oil refinery. Minimal civilian casualties. Stockholm City Badly damaged by Great fire of Stockholm in 1997. Reconstruction have been difficult because area is near frontline. (Swedish civil war.) Finland Helsinki 10 kt. Santahamina military base and petroleum industry area. Second cruise missile heading to downtown was shot down by airforce. In 2001 Helsinki area (including Vantaa and Espoo) is not under government control. Upinniemi naval base 10 kt. Naantali 50 kt Oil refinery and Pansio naval base. Firestorm destroyed large parts of Turku and Naantali. Porvoo 10 kt Oil refinery. Town badly damaged in firestorm. Iceland Keflavik 100 kt airbase. Denmark Copenhagen destroyed by conventional bombing. V2 & 2.2 Scandinavia: While nothing in the Scandinavian countries was subjected to nuclear attacks, the peninsula saw considerable fighting during 1997-98 between NATO and Soviet forces. Cut off from world trade, life is becoming increasingly difficult for most Scandinavians. Most of the cities of Scandinavia are independent or insular, althought broad regions in the south are organized. Areas int the north subjected to fighting during the war are either cantonments, devastated, or in anarchy. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
As far as Scandinavian targets, the 1st edition timeline does mention that at first, only "enemy" targets were hit with nukes, but eventually, neutral targets were hit as well, to prevent the enemy from seizing control of them. Norway, being with NATO, would naturally have been attacked by the Pact. Sweden could have take a few hits when the combatants got around to neutral targets. Finland could be in the same boat as Sweden, but I think they also have some conflict with the Russians in their history; that may have the effect of exacerbating any Soviet strikes against them if anything. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
"By November, the tactical exchanges had gone strategic and Norway did not escape. Along with attacks on industrial canters, a nuclear bomb was directed at Oslo, the capital. King Harald, who refused to abandon the seat of goverment in the face of enemy attack, died in the blast along with the Statsrad (state council) and most of the Storting. Over half million Norwegians died, in attacks on the capitol, the major industrial centers, and the nations petroleum facilities. The nations naval bases at Horten, Haakonsvern, Ramsund and Olavsvern were destroyed or severely damageded." Boomer p. 12. For those who are wondering new inconsistencies. Boomer uses base names or municipality names and Nordic uses nearest town. For example- Haakonsvern is naval base just outside Bergen. Nordic source book uses material from Boomer (history of Norway and Finland in Twilight war). Danish and Norwegian OOB:s are from NATO Vehicle Guide. Cold weather rules are from Challenge 29. If we speculate the situation in 1997 and 1998. Would the soviets use nuclear weapons against Finland and Sweden - the answer is certainly yes. Sweden was perhaps neutral but it was a pro-Western nation. During cold war Sweden had a very large air force and it also had very large military industrial capacity. Finland had already repelled soviet troops that tried to use its territory to chase fleeing NATO forces. |
Quote:
I was actually talking about V2. |
I tend to disagree with the 2.x statement about the lack of strikes in the north. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me what with all the resources and facilities in the area, not to mention military presence.
Perhaps it should be seen as no strategic strikes which would allow tactical nuke use. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:38 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.