![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I'm firmly in the same camp as those who believe that Australia will receive a lighter load of nukes than, say, Canada. Issues like range, limited involvement, and limited capacity will be in turn limiting factors on what kind of megatonnage the USSR directs at Australia. My whole point is that the nuclear exchange will not simply bypass Australia and New Zealand, leaving two potentially important Western nations completely unscathed. I'm sure with a bit of research and analysis, we could come up with a list of ANZ targets that would involve perhaps five Mt--sufficient to knock out the site and support functions of civilian government, the principal military command-and-control center(s), a handful refineries, and a couple of important military bases in each country. The idea would not be annihilate Australia (or New Zealand), which would run the risk of an Allied nuclear response beyond the one already envisioned in canon. The idea would be to prevent Australia from projecting force beyond her own borders for a few years and to prevent the US from using Australia to pursue American aims in the South Pacific.
Webstral |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Well Targan unfortunately for Australia it would be very easy for the Soviets to do so. Despite the size of Australia most of the population, industry and military bases are clustered along the south-east corner in the states of New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia, along the south Queensland Coast and in Perth on the other side, with a few small remote towns and facilities elsewhere. Launching a dozen or so nuclear missiles against Australia is not much problem or a burden for the Soviets, and basically if they wanted they could make most of Australia uninhabitable for the next thousand years. |
#3
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
RN7
I understand your point and agree to some extend (in case of an all out nuclear war). However, that is not what happens in the twilight war. Why would the Soviets wipe out Australia and only lightly strike at the USA? I agree that a few SS-18 will do the job but simply what would be the point of doing it in such a context? I just don't get the logic behind this except if you understand the Twilight War as an all out nuclear war. But in that case welcome to an entirely different game. I definitely underestimated the importance of facilities such as Pine Gap (definitely not all in the South East) and finally blew them up but I don't see the point of sending that many SS-18 to Australia while according to the game not even one get to the US (probably because they are destroyed first hand by US). I reverted that in my game but in the original T2K the SS-18 bases are all gone (at least those the T2K original team could know of). Just because of that simple fact, it still can't be done. Of course, I'm not thinking IRL terms, If you do that is an entirely different matter again. |
#4
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I love the target list. Thanks for taking the time to assemble this great resource, RN7. We now have a good idea, I think, of the list of potential targets in Australia and can assign some sort of order of precedence to them.
I don't think RN7 is arguing that the Soviets would render Australia a wasteland--just that they could (and here's how they'd do it...). The same logic that would apply to exercising restraint regarding any Western non-nuclear power would apply to Australia. Attacks on Australia invite counterattacks against Soviet allies. Severe attacks on Australia may invite retaliation against the USSR. Better to inflict just enough damage to put Australia out of the fight. Webstral |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Exactly. |
#6
|
||||
|
||||
![]() |
#7
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
#8
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
![]() ![]() So to answer your question: - All ICBM bases are not listed as destroyed but if two SS-18 bases remain why not use any of them (104) against US/Canada and their highly strategic targets? - To retaliate the soviets still have boomers and aircrafts+mobile ICBM fire units (about 300 SS-25). - If the soviets starts, it is possible that they don't send SS-18 in the first place. However, I would agree that it is highly unlikely. On the other hand, again, why leaving about 80 SS-18 in their Silos while they are the best suited weapons to take out NORAD, the US ICBM bases and even Washington DC? In addition, according to the game text (again v2.2), both sides refrain from targetting the other side's ICBM land base for quite some times. At last, they do: All 4 US bases are taken out (Forks, Malmstrom, Minot & Warren +Vandenberg) and almost all Soviets bases in Russia with the base in others republics not accounted for (most likely forgotten). Then, they are two possibilities: All missiles are destroyed before being launched or they are launched before the bases are destroyed and, then, SS-18 should be accounted for all over (there are none/according to your own account most Satan were equipped with 20Mt warheads, they would have been used). I grant you that the Mt listed are highly questionable and can be open to debate (but that will become endless ![]() For my parts (I mean in my game), I use several SS-18 but only on highly strategic targets. They are not used extensively because the first strike is successful in decapitating the US ICBM force. Then, in turn, the Soviets' ICBM force (silo only) is decapitated by strikes from SLBM. Last edited by Mohoender; 10-14-2009 at 12:07 PM. |
![]() |
Tags |
australia |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|