FBU involvement in Africa

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Badbru

Seriously wouldn't both side want to be a little bit cautious about how many nukes get thrown around? Both the US and Soviets, heck even Europe, know
for certain they're going to get nuked somewhere and after that they're going to need intact friends to help them out. I can't think of a better way to destroy international relations than to drop a nuke on someone. Also cannon states the main two beligerants inched their way towards nuclear warfare in order to avoid the dreaded MAD massive exchange. As such I guess I'm a proponent of the less damaged approach, atleast to the not strickly involved in the war areas, such as Africa, South America, and Australia. Even Portugal and Spain get off lightly in my T2k environment.

Large parts of Africa are already halfway to Mad Max as it is. A handful of nukes is all it takes to upend the applecart. The v1 chronology tells us that both sides are willing to nuke targets in neutral countries to deny the enemy access to resources.

As for the balance of nuking, let’s remember that we’re talking the USSR here. Once they take a few hits, the surviving leadership is going to be thinking about the future. The chances for the Soviet Union to emerge in a favorable position are diminished by every other player who enters the recovery period in a better condition than the USSR. This is why the Soviets hit France, although France probably gets an even lighter treatment than the US. The Soviets will have very little to lose by giving Western allies in Africa a taste of the nuclear fire, since the Africans can’t retaliate. If the West reads the code, then they strike Soviet clients in the region. Very little skin off the Soviets’ nose. At the very least, the Soviets would want to render African electronics and power generation as inert as much of the Soviet system. The number of attacks on African cities, bases, and infrastructure might be very small. Pretoria, Johannesburg, Cape Town, the Nigerian oil shipping facilities… it doesn’t take a lot to take the pro-Western Africans out of the equation. Perhaps a few tacnukes are used against specific South African bases and the bases of any other pro-Western African nation with the resources to be a problem. Again, a handful will do the job.

Having Africans “taken out of the equation” doesn’t mean the place is completely wrecked. There’s plenty of room for things exactly like the operation in Kenya. But in many places, the ability of government to control the hinterlands was pretty weak already. Many of the African nations will fragment into much more organic states. Oil and electricity will become even scarcer throughout the continent. Civil war and civil disorder, which lurked just beneath the surface in many locations, will become pandemic. Of course, there will be islands of peace and relative prosperity. However, clients of both sides and the neutrals will become completely wrapped up in their own very local concerns.

[Targan]

I back Web's take on Africa. Good summary.

[Ironside]

Yes, the story hangs together well.

[Olefin]

I disagree with Web as to South Africa - depending on what happened there they may have 4-5 nukes still in their arsenal. And while thats not a lot its enough to really not make the Soviets day if they, oh for instance, give them to the Israelis to get some pay back one day or put them on a ship to try to pay the Sov's back themselves. (especially considering there isnt much left of the Sov Navy to stop them)

Course that depends on if you see South Africa as a pariah nation or if they have embraced change and are back in the company of nations again.

Also keep in mind that Senegal and Dijbouti hold together as nations according to the RDF - now if Africa is a nuked EMP blasted continent I doubt very much there would have been much left of either nation to join the FBU.

(I do heartily agree that much of Nigeria would be glowing in the dark because of the importance of its oil industry to the US and Western Europe)

However I can definitely agree that much of the continent would be a mess even if not one nuke landed south of Libya. In the module I am working on the 1st and 2nd Congolese Wars still occur - and its those wars that help turn much of Africa between the Sahara and South Africa into a landscape of failed nations - except for the ones the French and Belgians supported like Rwanda and Burundi (i.e. the Tutsi armies that came out of the Rwanda massacre)

[Legbreaker]

I'm with Web on this one.

[Olefin]

well I am with Frank Frey on this one and its his notes that are being used for Kenya. And I doubt that Kenya is the only nation in Africa that is in good shape.

[Webstral]

It's not an either-or. I'm describing an overall state of affairs. I specifically made allowances for islands of relative peace and prosperity so that Kenya and some other locations like it could be incorporated into an overall picture without the need for taking sides over something so ill-defined as Africa in 2000.

Surviving intact is very much a relative term in 2000. Even places that haven’t been directly affected by the nuclear exchange are going to be affected by the collapse of the global trade network and the disruption of the global petrochemical network. Even places that produce enough oil for fuel for their own needs and some export still can’t necessarily produce a wide variety of important petrochemical products, such as pesticides and fertilizers. Other products not produced locally will be unavailable. The local economy will be affected by the steep decline in trade—especially in places like Mombasa that were relatively cosmopolitan before the war. The ever-present urge for self-determination among the tribes not in power will grow as communications and interdependence decline.

Again, this isn’t worth taking sides over. There’s no Webstral’s-way-or-the-highway or Frank Frey’s-way-or-the-highway.