Would France sit out the War?

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Thats right - Italy was already at war long before the nukes started to fly

Unless I'm mistaken it's exactly one week from when the Italians entered the War to the first use of nuclear weapons

Originally Posted by Olefin

always thought the only way they would have joined the war would be with a takeover by Socialists. I cant see Christian Democrats ever joining a war on the US and Germany - not without being attacked first.

It appears that's exactly what GDW had happening - from the BYB (V2.2) page 11

In late February (1997) the socialist Governments of Italy and Greece conclude a mutual defence pact

[Olefin]

V2.2

On July 1 st, 1997 Greece declares war against the NATO nations, and Italy, in compliance with her treaty obligations, follows suit on the 2nd

First use of nukes in Europe against civilian targets doesnt happen till the end of September. They were used against military formations only earlier as you stated so that is correct.

However the strikes against the French, which is the ones we were referring to that might have knocked the French out of considering any joining in the war didnt happen until November.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Olefin

V2.2

On July 1 st, 1997 Greece declares war against the NATO nations, and Italy, in compliance with her treaty obligations, follows suit on the 2nd

First use of nukes in Europe against civilian targets doesnt happen till the end of September. They were used against military formations only earlier as you stated so that is correct.

However the strikes against the French, which is the ones we were referring to that might have knocked the French out of considering any joining in the war didnt happen until November.

That's why I specifically stated the first use of nuclear weapons twice, but in any event I think we're agreed that the general nuclear exchanges from jul - nov 97 wouldn't have had an effect on Italy's participation as a belligerent on the warpac side.

[Webstral]

I’m not at all sold on the idea that France does not go nuke-for-nuke with the USSR. Why in God’s name would they have a nuclear arsenal if not to go nuke-for-nuke with the Soviets? As de Gaulle pointed out, it is not necessary to kill the enemy—only tear off an arm. The Soviets aren’t going to go nuclear with France in a separate show from the main East-West confrontation because hurting France won’t do much to the NATO war effort (if France is neutral), but French retaliatory nukes will definitely affect the Soviet war effort. France won’t get hit until the show starts winding down such that an intact France represents an intolerable salient of Western power. The idea that France would passively accept a mushroom cloud over any French city while the French nuclear arsenal remains unable stretches credibility pretty darned far.

[HorseSoldier]

Is there a published list of targets in France? I am not recalling one.

The Soviets don't have to hit every large refinery and major port in France to achieve their objective, which would be denying French facilities to NATO. I can see a pretty logical progression of other ports and fuel production available to NATO being taken off the board when the tactical and then strategic nukes fly. NATO's desperation may have allowed France sufficient ability to name their price that France might have loosened, or made political rumblings about loosening, their neutrality -- say, only allowing materiel for humanitarian disaster relief to go through. That may have been enough to trigger limited Soviet strikes less to eradicate French refining and shipping as to nudge them back out of even marginal support for NATO.

Or Soviet paranoia that France might open its ports and fuel reserves to NATO is entirely enough to trigger some strikes to show resolve and force a resolution involving continued French neutrality.

Neither of which precludes French retaliatory strikes from the scenario. I'd personally think that if France did not answer back at all they'd have taken more hits than they did.

As things went, I think we're discussing an extremely limited number of strikes -- less than five, probably 2-3, taken and reciprocated. France is depicted as having enough fuel reserves and refining capacity to function in the manner of a pre-nuke military, so the thumping can't have been that bad.

There is a viable alternate argument that the US/UK made the strikes. Either overtly to try and force France to open its ports, refineries and other facilities to support the war effort or (as was suggested up thread) as a black flag operation to try and provoke French entry against the Soviets. The former seems unlikely to me, since by that point in the war NATO has a lot more to lose from France not standing up to bullying than the Soviets do. Of course at a certain point -- after France invaded West Germany and the Netherlands to put its border on the Rhine, nuking France might start making a lot more sense. It might honestly be seen as obligatory.

The black flag option -- once the strategic strikes start, what's one more random SLBM launch from somewhere north of the Iceland-UK part of the G-I-UK gap?

(And, sitting here thinking about it, what about an atomic demolition charge? I think there might be an interesting campaign there. During the peak nuclear phase of the exchange, a group of SF types -- maybe Dutch or German, once the dead zone is established, maybe other NATO nation(s) -- get sent on a mission behind Soviet lines to seize some nuke man packs. Mission accomplished, same guys get ordered to smuggle said weapons back through Central Europe as the nukes fly, conventional fighting continues, and refugees, deserters, and marauders wander. Maybe the target for the original mission is situated so the PCs have to thread the eye of the NATO vs Italy fighting in southern Germany and Austria. Anyway, PCs are then to infiltrate the French border and deliver strikes with Soviet man pack nukes on multiple targets. Pretty murky but possibly a good sort of T2K/espionage fusion campaign. One could make it easy on PCs by having most or all of them being fluent French speakers, or not -- obviously by that phase of the war even for a mission involving national asset level SF you use what you've got available rather than wait for a 100% solution that may never arrive.)

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Does anyone know if France has a SIOP-like plan?

A decapitation strike on Paris followed up by Le Harvre, Calais, and a few other key points would pretty much knock them on their asses if France didn't have a SIOP in place.

[Raellus]

Where is the published French target list? The arguments that France got nuked hard and responded in kind don't hold much water considering what the published timeline stuff has to say about France's condition vis-a-vis the rest of western Europe c. 2000.

If one assumes every major French port facility and refinery is hit by a Soviet nuclear weapon, then yes, it does strain credulity to posit that France doesn't retaliate in kind. But where's the evidence that France got hit that hard? If it did, why didn't it join NATO in its larger war against the USSR/WTO? To suggest that France gets hit hard by the Soviets AND retaliates in kind BUT then sits on the sidelines, and still manages to avoid the destruction Germany and the UK experiences, doesn't make any more sense than the restraint argument.

On the other hand, if the Soviets hit only one or three such strategic French targets, combining that with the threat of much more to come unless the French deny the use of said ports to NATO, then I'm not sure it's such a stretch. We're not talking about Imperial Japan here, we're talking about France- the same country that sued for peace and set up the collaborationist Vichy government rather than continue fighting the Nazis when they still had the capacity (but not the willpower or strong leadership) to do so.

Just because one has the means to retaliate doesn't dictate that they will.

The published material is clear that France leaves NATO, sustains much less nuclear destruction than any other major NATO country, and opportunistically takes advantage of its eastern neighbors' weakened state. For this to occur, France can't have had a major nuclear exchange with the Soviet Union.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

(And, sitting here thinking about it, what about an atomic demolition charge? I think there might be an interesting campaign there. During the peak nuclear phase of the exchange, a group of SF types -- maybe Dutch or German, once the dead zone is established, maybe other NATO nation(s) -- get sent on a mission behind Soviet lines to seize some nuke man packs. Mission accomplished, same guys get ordered to smuggle said weapons back through Central Europe as the nukes fly, conventional fighting continues, and refugees, deserters, and marauders wander. Maybe the target for the original mission is situated so the PCs have to thread the eye of the NATO vs Italy fighting in southern Germany and Austria. Anyway, PCs are then to infiltrate the French border and deliver strikes with Soviet man pack nukes on multiple targets. Pretty murky but possibly a good sort of T2K/espionage fusion campaign. One could make it easy on PCs by having most or all of them being fluent French speakers, or not -- obviously by that phase of the war even for a mission involving national asset level SF you use what you've got available rather than wait for a 100% solution that may never arrive.)

In my last campaign, after the PC party successfully infiltrated and triggered a demolition nuke at the WarPac Reserve Front HQ in Lublin, the PCs were keen to attempt a similar operation against France. They didn't have a second backpack nuke but when they got back to Bremerhaven Major Po tried to sell the proposal to the US commanders there. US forces were in full-blown withdrawal mode by then and the idea fell on deaf ears but Po was still keen on the idea when he got back to CONUS. By then MilGov was keen to keep the French on good terms to continue the profitable Franco-US cooperation in the Middle East. The Joint Chiefs wouldn't have been willing to risk a nuke-equipped US team being caught inside France. In any case, as GM I never allowed Po's player to know how far up the chain his proposal had been heard.

[Graebarde]

Does France have ANY dometic oil production (wells/fields, not refineries)?

Where do they import their oil from?


If they have to import, and the production fields are closed, it doesn't matter if they can refine a billion barrels a day if they don't have the product to do it with.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by Graebarde

Does France have ANY dometic oil production (wells/fields, not refineries)?

Where do they import their oil from?


If they have to import, and the production fields are closed, it doesn't matter if they can refine a billion barrels a day if they don't have the product to do it with.

From here:

http://www.bonjourlafrance.com/franc...-of-france.htm

we see that:

With virtually no domestic oil production, France has relied heavily on the development of nuclear power, which now accounts for about 80% of the country's electricity production.

Now, does that mean they have no oil-bearing strata or lack the willpower to dig for it in their own backyard? Either way after the missiles fly they're going to be importing: setting up a refinery from zero requires nontrivial technology use that would likely require expertise and equipment that like everything in every other country calls for a degree of trade and import, two things that are not going to be happening much at all from 1997 to 20??.

With that said the authors wanted a forever crippled/subservient US, so at some juncture France gets its shit together and seizes control of just about everything, so clearly they do get POL up and running.

[HorseSoldier]

Oil is why they're parked in Kuwait in the RDF Sourcebook, isn't it?

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

Oil is why they're parked in Kuwait in the RDF Sourcebook, isn't it?

Yep.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Graebarde

Where do they import their oil from?

In addition to the Middle East, North and West Africa are also both possibilities dependent on how badly they've been hit. North Africa is touched on in Med Cruise but I'm not sure about the state of affairs in West Africa - I think consensus has generally been that Nigeria would get hit, but there are a lot more oil producing areas in Africa - if the Middle East didn't get flattened it's reasonable to assume that Africa didn't either. I'm going from memory here, but the V2 NATO guide has French troops based in Libreville in Gabon as well as somewhere else in West Africa (Ivory Coast maybe?)

[Olefin]

this line from V2.2 suggests that Nigeria, Libya and other areas producing oil got hit in Africa (we know that Libya is out of business from Med Cruise)

"Except for petroleum-producing areas, the bulk of the continent escaped the war, but prewar events combined with global chaos have taken their toll."

There is no way they didnt hit Nigeria - they alone produce more than enough to keep NATO, or whats left of it, awash in oil if their oil producing areas were still intact and functional.

And the line about no sizeable refinery closer than Romania also suggests every major refinery over the magic 100,000 bbl/day number got taken out as well - which would explain why Mombasa's refinery is still there (its only at 78,000) per Frank Frey and the ones in Egypt, Algeria, Libya, Senegal, Nigeria and other areas are gone.

V2.2 also has this - "France: Although ostensibly neutral in the war, France was still subjected to nuclear attacks to deny its port and oil refining facilities to NATO. Damage was largely confined to the coasts, but the resulting casualties were severe."

As per the list I submitted if they hit every oil refining target at or over 100,000 bbl/day then you are talking about 10 refineries going up in nuclear smoke. And if its ports you have to start putting a bunch more targets up as well - possibly as many as 15-16 nukes hitting France.

Places like Calais, St. Nazaire and the ports in Brittany are probably just smoking ruins by late 1997.

Thats a lot of nukes.

And they arent awash in oil or able to act like a pre-war military oil wise - Going Home makes that pretty clear

"Units in the dead zone are in constant radio communication
with their base. If they get into more trouble than they can handle
alone, they can call for and receive support in the form of
airstrikes or airmobile reinforcements (unlike their opponents,
the French Army still has a small quantity of functional aircraft
and the fuel to run them). Avgas does not grow on trees,
however, and the platoon who calls for aviation help had better
have a good reason for doing so."

A small quantity of functional aircraft and enough avgas to run a small quantity of aircraft is not a pre-war Army.

That could imply also that their aircraft industry got hit as well to some extent and aircraft spare parts are in short supply.

And while France is getting oil from the Middle East (per the RDF it mentions that most is consumed locally, but a trickle is exported
by the various nations who control the oilfields. This trade in
oil is slowing, as attrition reduces the number of ships available.
What remains is now mostly with nations of the Franco-Belgian
Union) with most of their refineries and ports knocked out they wont have much in the way of production.

Again - if they took at least 15 nukes if not more (ports plus those ten refineries most likely) then they had to hit back and hit back hard. Or face, at the least, a de Gaullist coup to overthrown the government.

Its the one thing that is really missing from all the versions - I cant believe there is no French sourcebook.

[Olefin]

keep in mind guys that the strikes on the refineries may have been pin point strikes with small nukes - you only need about .25 megatons at most to really screw up a port or refinery

they arent using city busters - i.e. they arent taking out Paris - but a lot of French ports are very congested as to civilian housing areas being right on top of the port area itself - you would have a lot of deaths

and in Europe the workers tend to live right next to the plants they are working at - the Renault plant in Lyon for instance was right in the middle of a ton of houses and apts - you hit that with any kind of nuke and you kill 20-30K civilians no matter how pinpoint you are

2-3 nukes wouldnt do the job mentioned in V2.2 - you are taking over a dozen minimum considering how many ports that NATO could conceiveably use on the Atlantic and Med coasts along with taking out refinining capacity

[Rainbow Six]

With regards to whether French ports were or were not targets for nuclear attack, it's worth bearing in mind that even in belligerent nations ports were not always targeted. For example in the Survivor's Guide to the UK Portsmouth and Plymouth, both of which are major ports and Naval bases, were not nuclear targets (to the extent that Portsmouth now serves as the canon UK Capital). Bremerhaven also appears to be intact enough to support the US and British evacuations in late 2000.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Again - if they took at least 15 nukes if not more (ports plus those ten refineries most likely) then they had to hit back and hit back hard. Or face, at the least, a de Gaullist coup to overthrown the government.

Its the one thing that is really missing from all the versions - I cant believe there is no French sourcebook.

And if they hit back hard, why are they considered neutral? Why not throw their full weight behind the folks (NATO) fighting the folks (USSR) that nuked them so hard? Why risk further nuclear strikes by launching large scale retaliatory strikes?

The fact is, France remains neutral. France does not get hit as hard as Germany, the UK, or the USA. It does not support NATO. In fact, it invades at least one neighboring NATO country. This does not suggest a nation at war with the Soviet Union. It doesn't not suggest a badly hurt, hungry-for-vengeance country. It suggests a country doing its utmost to avoid full-blown [nuclear] war with the Soviets. It suggests an opportunistic, rather than idealist, nation.

I posted these arguments yesterday and, so far, no one on the other side of the debate has even attempted to refute them. Ignoring something doesn't make it go away.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Its the one thing that is really missing from all the versions - I cant believe there is no French sourcebook.

It would be an interesting project to try and create one, although it might be a challenge to put together something that would have broad appeal given the limited canon material and the range of differing opinions on France. I've toyed with the idea a couple of times as a companion piece to my UK work but I've been discouraged by a lack of time and the fact that I'm not French, so don't have sufficient knowledge of French culture, politics, etc.

[Olefin]

Actually the post by Rainbow Six earlier is the counterargument

"Those who do advocate a French attack on the USSR might be interested in this page on the etranger site which puts forward a scenario where that happened:

http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dh...ical/PGAA1.htm"

- it specifically mentions a limited French counterattack on the Soviets that basically says hit us again and we are at war with you but they stay neutral in the war - i.e. they hit the Soviets back but dont join the war in any way after that and the Soviets take the hint

and the French are neutral but they arent stupid either - no government could take being hit by nukes and say we wont hit back - not going to happen no matter how realistic or fantastical the scenario

seeing your people die under nukes when you were neutral and got hit anyway and doing nothing says MILITARY COUP in letters about 300 feet high - i.e basically what happened to bring De Gaulle to power with what happened in Algeria but this time with a lot more power and force because of the large amounts of deaths on French soil and the govt just taking it

that doesnt mean they join the war - it means a hit back to say dont screw with us again or we are in and in all the way

as for the US doing it - no way - the French are sitting on the jugular line of supplies for the US to their forces in Europe - plus the French would not be helping the US logistically in the Middle East if we nuked them - if anything they would have joined the Soviets in kicking us out

now there is one alternative that is suggested by the wording of V2.2 that says maybe they didnt hit back and that there was a coup attempt that failed, possibly with some of the military in on it as well

i.e. "Some areas (the mountains, especially) are in open rebellion against the central government, and martial law is in effect almost everywhere"

those areas could have risen against the central government because France took that hit and just sat there and took it without hitting back - would give a reason for why they are in rebellion - and the mountains would be where rebel or dissident military forces could hold out against the rest of the loyal military -

[Raellus]

You're ignoring the historical precedent. How did the French government respond to the Nazi invasion in 1940? There's nothing "fantasical" about that.

Also, you assume Soviet cooperation with the French strategy described in the link. In terms of their respective nuclear arsenals, the Soviets have the capacity to destroy France; the French don't have the capacity to destroy the Soviet Union. Why would the Soviets back down?

I've never argued for a U.S. nuclear strike on French targets.

[Olefin]

I didnt say you argued for the US hitting France -that is a reply to earlier posts thinking it might have been the US that hit them by other posters.

I think the Soviets would have backed down after a French counterstrike for three reasons

1) Its limited and its communicated as such - this is in response to what you did to us. If you reply then we are at war. And by limited I am thinking the French hit a couple of targets - enough to say we got pay back and mollify their military but not enough to push the Soviets over the edge.

2) The USSR by then would have taken a lot of hits from the US and the UK and all they dont need is facing another nuclear power hitting them with their full arsenal.

3) The Soviets already had nuked what they wanted to nuke in France - NATO didnt have ports to use and French refining capablites are severely impacted - their is nothing to gain with more nukes and a lot to lose if France joins the war.

Thus France hitting back in a communicated limited fashion and then staying neutral because the Soviets take the hint works.

This isnt the Nazis attacking France with a hundred plus divisions in 1940 - the Soviets didnt take out Paris, Lyon, etc.. - it was a limited strike on limited targets.

In other words, in this one case, nuclear deterrence worked for both sides - the Soviets took out the targets they wanted, the French hit back for national pride in a limited way and then the war, such as it was, between them came to an end.

And by the way - the French being neutral doesnt mean they couldnt have had a short war of their own against the Soviets. It means they didnt join NATO in their war. So could they have had a two day war of their own - i.e. the Soviets hit them, they hit back and thats it and they dont join NATO in the general war and thus the timeline is still intact?

The answer is yes.

However that doesnt mean they did.

It just means that a short Franco Soviet War of basically exchanging two limited nuclear strikes is possible without France joining NATO in their war and thus staying neutral as far as NATO versus the Soviets are concerned.

[Raellus]

I guess your take is somewhat plausible, Olefin. I guess I just prefer my France pusilanimous and duplicitous. I also prefer my alternative history, v1.0 T2K-style.

My France is a little left of center and very alarmed at the forced reunification of Germany (v1.0) and subsequent fighting with Soviet forces still stationed there. "Within a week [of the bloodless military coup in W. Germany in early December of 1996], France, Belgium, Italy, and Greece first demanded that U.S. troops withdraw to their start line, and then withdrew from NATO completely." (v.10 Twilight 2000: Referee's Manual, p. 24).

My France wants to avoid any kind of war with the Soviet Union. My France breaks with NATO well before nuclear weapons come into play at all. In fact, in v1.0, there's very little, if any, reason for the Soviets to have used nuclear weapons on France. Even if they did so, it was likely only very lightly. Read on.

"1998... In Europe, France and Blegium had been hit the lightest and stood virtually alone in maintaining a semblance of internal order throughout the cataclysm. As refugees began flooding across their borders, the French and Belgian governments closed their frontiers and military units began turning back refugees with gunfire. The French government authorized the army to move west to the Rhine to secure a solid geographical barrier." (v.10 Twilight 2000: Referee's Manual, p. 26) That's the last time France is mentioned in the chronology. This also fits with the 2300 world, as I understand it.

[HorseSoldier]

+1 on the ver1.0 timeline. Version 2.x really did nothing to improve the chronology or the game mechanics, in my opinion.

As was noted, the 2300 timeline implies both France and Japan weathered the Twilight War in comparatively very good order. The main problem there is that I think the 2300 timeline was written before the publication of Howling Wilderness and later supplements and the Drought storyline is not consistent with it. There was definitely no effort made to keep the 2.x additional information consistent with 2300AD (or overly consistent with ver 1.0).

Anyway, I think there are two separate issues on the table here -- first, why didn't France nuke back at the Soviets. I don't think anyone is opposed to the concept that a limited exchange took place. The other is why France did not join NATO in the war -- and I think the majority of people are entirely comfortable with the fact that the game setting says they didn't, so they didn't.

(Though honestly it doesn't make any difference in the game except for potentially tweaking things a bit in a couple of supplements -- if that. When I played Going Home years ago, nobody went anywhere near the dead zone, for instance. You could play a full run from Kalisz back to the US and all the US modules without France having any impact at all . . .)

[Webstral]

On this one, I find myself supporting a position very similar to Olefin’s. A very limited Franco-Soviet nuclear exchange is quite likely for reasons I have beaten into the ground. I believe the timing would coincide with other Soviet strikes against important neutral nations. The same tit-for-tat logic that would apply to US-USSR exchanges would apply to a Franco-Soviet exchange as well. The French will reply in kind to Soviet attacks until the French nuclear capability ceases to exist. France enters the Twilight War with 500+ nuclear devices.

The French nuclear capability was based on the idea that if they could kill more Soviets than there were French for the Soviets to kill, the Soviets would find France an unrewarding and therefore uninviting target. Although the logic of a limited East-West exchange altered the equation somewhat, the unhappy fact remained that France could hurt the USSR very badly indeed in an all-out Franco-Soviet exchange. The limited nature of the exchange had been intended to keep the combatants from crossing the threshold of annihilation. The loss of additional Soviet targets to French retaliation on top of Soviet targets lost to Anglo-American strikes would hardly be seen to be checks in the plus column unless Soviet strikes on France were against very important targets whose destruction would have important long-term consequences.

As always, I maintain that the Soviets would have nuked Paris. Why Paris? Paris is France, as they say. Paris is to France what Moscow is to the USSR and London is to the UK. By the time the Soviets hit Paris, Moscow probably has been destroyed. In a one-for-one exchange, the Soviets come out ahead in that the French are obliged to choose a lesser Soviet city.

The Soviets might very well have hit Brest (which is, I believe, the main French naval base on the Atlantic) and the main French naval base in the Mediterranean (Marseilles?). The main French nuclear air base probably would have taken a hit, too. The most important French refineries probably would have been hit, too. The total package might have been 7-10 warheads. France would have retaliated against a suitable number and type of surviving Soviet targets.

Failure on the part of France to respond in kind to a nuclear attack would be to invite further attack. The Soviets are not nice people, after all. Unless the French want to suffer further damage, they are obliged to retaliate to keep what they have left. While the nuclear exchange stopped far short of killing everybody, in 1997 and 1998 there was no way of knowing where the limits would end up being. So the French really have no choice but to counterattack. The Soviets would expect it. That’s why the French built a nuclear arsenal in the first place.

[Legbreaker]

Please note that V1 and V2.x histories are virtually the same and almost word for word except for a the lead up to the war (pre December 1996).
Everything after the war kicks off is cut and pasted from V1 to V2.x (excluding some VERY MINOR exceptions).

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by Webstral

On this one, I find myself supporting a position very similar to Olefin’s. A very limited Franco-Soviet nuclear exchange is quite likely for reasons I have beaten into the ground. I believe the timing would coincide with other Soviet strikes against important neutral nations. The same tit-for-tat logic that would apply to US-USSR exchanges would apply to a Franco-Soviet exchange as well. The French will reply in kind to Soviet attacks until the French nuclear capability ceases to exist. France enters the Twilight War with 500+ nuclear devices.

The French nuclear capability was based on the idea that if they could kill more Soviets than there were French for the Soviets to kill, the Soviets would find France an unrewarding and therefore uninviting target. Although the logic of a limited East-West exchange altered the equation somewhat, the unhappy fact remained that France could hurt the USSR very badly indeed in an all-out Franco-Soviet exchange. The limited nature of the exchange had been intended to keep the combatants from crossing the threshold of annihilation. The loss of additional Soviet targets to French retaliation on top of Soviet targets lost to Anglo-American strikes would hardly be seen to be checks in the plus column unless Soviet strikes on France were against very important targets whose destruction would have important long-term consequences.

As always, I maintain that the Soviets would have nuked Paris. Why Paris? Paris is France, as they say. Paris is to France what Moscow is to the USSR and London is to the UK. By the time the Soviets hit Paris, Moscow probably has been destroyed. In a one-for-one exchange, the Soviets come out ahead in that the French are obliged to choose a lesser Soviet city.

The Soviets might very well have hit Brest (which is, I believe, the main French naval base on the Atlantic) and the main French naval base in the Mediterranean (Marseilles?). The main French nuclear air base probably would have taken a hit, too. The most important French refineries probably would have been hit, too. The total package might have been 7-10 warheads. France would have retaliated against a suitable number and type of surviving Soviet targets.

Failure on the part of France to respond in kind to a nuclear attack would be to invite further attack. The Soviets are not nice people, after all. Unless the French want to suffer further damage, they are obliged to retaliate to keep what they have left. While the nuclear exchange stopped far short of killing everybody, in 1997 and 1998 there was no way of knowing where the limits would end up being. So the French really have no choice but to counterattack. The Soviets would expect it. That’s why the French built a nuclear arsenal in the first place.

If you guys are theorizing about a general WWIII scenario, then yes, your version makes a fair bit of sense. But if you're trying to "reconstruct" what happens in the T2K-verse, based on the very sparse published material out there that specifically references France, then your picture strays pretty far from what's been established. I will punch the deceased equine one more time by reposting:

"1998... In Europe, France and Blegium had been hit the lightest and stood virtually alone in maintaining a semblance of internal order throughout the cataclysm. As refugees began flooding across their borders, the French and Belgian governments closed their frontiers and military units began turning back refugees with gunfire. The French government authorized the army to move west to the Rhine to secure a solid geographical barrier." (v.10 Twilight 2000: Referee's Manual, p. 26)

That does not sound like a France where the major Atlantic ports, fuel refineries, and Paris have been nuked by the Soviets.

[kato13]

Originally Posted by Raellus

That does not sound like a France where the major Atlantic ports, fuel refineries, and Paris have been nuked by the Soviets.

According to V2.2 country summaries we can assume that Paris was nuked.


"France: Although ostensibly neutral in the war, France was still subjected to nuclear attacks to deny its port and oil refining facilities to NATO. Damage was largely confined to the coasts, but the resulting casualties were severe."

"Marseilles is the largest undamaged city"

This also rules out NATO attacking IMHO


V.2.2 Manual ~ Page 226

[Webstral]

"1998... In Europe, France and Blegium had been hit the lightest and stood virtually alone in maintaining a semblance of internal order throughout the cataclysm..." (v.10 Twilight 2000: Referee's Manual, p. 26)

This excellent passage from the Referee’s Manual offers a great deal of latitude for interpretation. France and Belgium are hit the lightest, meaning only that they aren’t hurt as badly as everyone else. France and Belgium maintain a semblance of internal order throughout the cataclysm, which also leaves a great deal of room for bad things of all description.

By way of comparison, we should look at the maps of Germany, Poland, and the Netherlands that come with some of the modules. These places are wrecks. With few exceptions, the major cities all got reduced to rubble. If memory serves, Czechoslovakia is in much the same condition as Poland and Germany. We know the Soviets use tactical nuclear weapons in Jugoslavia, Romania, and Turkey. We know from The Survivor’s Guide to the UK that the United Kingdom is hit pretty hard. A lot of Europe gets to the end of 1998 in wretched condition. What I’ve described for France is pretty modest treatment, given the size and population of the country. There are plenty of other Atlantic ports besides Brest, and there are other large cities besides Paris. Three or four nukes directed against the largest refineries won’t end France’s ability to refine crude, but they will prevent France from maintaining a mechanized wartime economy up to prewar standards. France doesn’t get hit by battlefield nukes, like so many other countries in Europe. So even with the loss of Paris, Brest, Marseilles, and some refineries, France is doing much better than Germany, Poland, the Netherlands, the UK, Czechoslovakia, and probably Jugoslavia, Romania, Turkey, and Italy.

[Rainbow Six]

On the subject of Paris the RDF sourcebook has the following quote:

The French Force Actione Rapide (FAR or Rapid Action Force) is the visible symbol of French military and diplomatic presence in the Persian Gulf region. The FAR was created in the 1980's to provide France with power projection capabilities similar to those of CENTCOM. Like CENTCOM, it is a unified command.

The first major deployment of the FAR came in the fall of 1995. The Foreign Legion Operational Group was activated and sent to Djibouti to assist in internal security duties. A task force of French Marine Infantry was stationed at Dakar at the request of the Senegalese government. In 1998, when the Franco-Belgian Union was formed, Senegal and Djibouti became member nations. The biggest break came when the governments of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia gave permission for France to station troops in their countries (to the chagrin of some Americans in the region). The Paris government responded quickly and by fall of 1998, the 9th Marine Infantry Division and the 2nd Brigade of the 11th Airborne Division were in the region along with supporting elements. There they have remained, providing a visible symbol of France's commitment to the stability of the region (and to assure that France gets its share when the Americans leave).

The Survivor's Guide to the UK has the following in the bio of Colonel Patrick Rochefort

When war broke out between NATO and the Warsaw Pact, Rochefort was in the forefront of French military personnel demanding that France help NATO.
He spent the next two years in Paris trying to convince the French government to join NATO. Seeing that his cause was getting nowhere, he began to organize his own political party and gained strong support from right-wing figures who feared that the Soviets would soon be at France’s borders.

Bolding is mine. If War broke out in late 96, unless I'm mistaken Rochefort (and the French Government) must have been in Paris from late 96 - late 98.

V2 Sourcebook does state that Marseilles is the largest undamaged City in France, which presumably rules out a nuclear strike on Marseilles (although that doesn't really help much working out what else was attacked because Marseilles is the second largest City in France after Paris), so it would appear that Paris certainly suffered some sort of damage from either nuclear or conventional attack (it's possible that conventional attacks could have been carried out by Dutch or German air forces following the invasion of those countries by the FBU in January 1998).

However the above quotes suggest (to me at least) that the French Government is still located in Paris in 1998 (and I see no reason for it to move after that date).

Originally Posted by Olefin

I think the Soviets would have backed down after a French counterstrike for three reasons

1) Its limited and its communicated as such - this is in response to what you did to us. If you reply then we are at war. And by limited I am thinking the French hit a couple of targets - enough to say we got pay back and mollify their military but not enough to push the Soviets over the edge.

2) The USSR by then would have taken a lot of hits from the US and the UK and all they dont need is facing another nuclear power hitting them with their full arsenal.

3) The Soviets already had nuked what they wanted to nuke in France - NATO didnt have ports to use and French refining capablites are severely impacted - their is nothing to gain with more nukes and a lot to lose if France joins the war.

I also find this quite a plausible scenario.

[HorseSoldier]

Severe rioting and arson could also result in a city being describable as damaged -- think LA riots if they had occurred while nukes were falling and huge chunks of emergency services and military were tied up elsewhere. Suppressing those riots in that scenario would have likely been a heavy handed operation, with more resultant damage. Top it off with a devastated economy making rebuilding difficult and you could easily have big burned out zones of Paris, with refugee camps or shanty towns making up for lost housing and spotty utility services to non-essential facilities.

Doesn't require any conventional or nuclear action. Which is not to say such didn't occur, only that there is more than one way to rubble a city.