In Defense of the Red Army

[Raellus]

As for the tactical/strategic nuclear discussion...

I agree that certain systems were designed and intended for certain purposes. There are definitely nuclear weapons systems that can accurately be termed tactical, operational, or strategic.

I think for the purposes of this debate, though, that the type of target must also be considered in deciding how to classify a particular nuclear strike.

For tactical strikes, I'm thinking about major troop concentrations close to the front, bridgeheads, static defense lines, major crossroads immediately behind the FEB, and, technically, enemy tactical nuclear assets.

For operational strikes: transportation, logistical, and communications hubs, corps and army level HQs, and enemy operational nuclear assets.

For strategic strikes: the enemy's strategic nuclear assets (i.e. ICBM silos and SSBN pens, strategic nuclear strike command and control centers), concentrations of raw materials essential to the war effort, oil refineries, major port facilities, industrial centers, and major population centers.

In canon, it seems that this progression was followed pretty closely.

Anything missing or misplaced?

[Legbreaker]

Is there any real reason why thanksgiving day (a date really only relevant to Americans) is so significant?
Sure it was the first day nuclear strikes were made on North America, but dozens, even hundreds (thousands might be pushing it) of nukes had been fired in the preceeding five months all across the world.
Thanksgiving day, although an important date of it's own, was not the first time long range strategic strikes were made. Neutral countries had already felt the scorching fire of attack by then, fire inflicted upon them by both sides of the conflict.

I'm not interested in provoking anyone, but I feel the increasing focus on what happened to, with, by and against the USA and it's forces is clouding the issue and ignoring the fact that many, many other countries have what could be considered to be more important dates on the "Twilight nuke calendar".

[chico20854]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Is there any real reason why thanksgiving day (a date really only relevant to Americans) is so significant?
Sure it was the first day nuclear strikes were made on North America, but dozens, even hundreds (thousands might be pushing it) of nukes had been fired in the preceeding five months all across the world.
Thanksgiving day, although an important date of it's own, was not the first time long range strategic strikes were made. Neutral countries had already felt the scorching fire of attack by then, fire inflicted upon them by both sides of the conflict.

I'm not interested in provoking anyone, but I feel the increasing focus on what happened to, with, by and against the USA and it's forces is clouding the issue and ignoring the fact that many, many other countries have what could be considered to be more important dates on the "Twilight nuke calendar".

I think there are three reasons that the Thanksgiving Strikes are important. First, its the first use of ICBMs and modern SLBMs (older Soviet & NATO SLBMs were tasked with theater strikes). Prior to that point, the nuclear exchange had been carried out with tactical and theater/operational weapons. IMHO, the Soviets had not used silo-based missiles prior to that point.

Second, the Thanksgiving Day strikes were the transition between the operational targets Raellus listed above and strategic targets (with the caveat, again IMHO, that I would consider major ports in Europe to be operational targets). This is a grey area, as there is no clear dividing line for the Soviets between tactical, operational and nuclear strikes when they all land on Soviet territory - but going along the progression of escalation laid out in canon I could see how it could be reasonably argued that NATO would not have struck strategic targets (ICBM fields in Ukraine, the Kharkov tank plant, early warning radars in Western Ukraine) in the USSR prior to the TDM, even though they could have using tactical or operational weapons. Likewise, while the UK may have been struck prior to the TDM (I don't have the Survivor's Guide to the UK with me right now) the strikes on the royal family (a decidely strategic target) occurred on Thanksgiving Day too, again implying that the targets changed from an emphasis to destroying forces in contact (tactical targets) and the means to support and control them (operational targets) to destroying the enemy's ability as a nation to make war (strategic targets).

Third, I disagree with your assertion that the nuclear conflict had spread worldwide, to both nuetral and belligerent nations, prior to the TDM. I think the importance of the TDM is that it is the date at which the conflict does become worldwide. When you look at the list of tactical and operational targets, there are very few of them that nuetrals possess that are useful to beligerants. (And the few are, again IMHO, mostly French - ports, Pluton missiles, transport facilities, all of which it could be reasonably argued France had cut off NATO's access to when they withdrew from NATO). And while canon states that both NATO and the Pact strike nuetral nations once things "go strategic", IMHO most of those strikes are by the Soviets simply because the USSR is essentially surrounded (except for possibly a tenuous supply line across the Mediterranean the Soviets face NATO or NATO-allied troops on the west, south, southeast and east, and the sea lanes from the north lead through NATO controlled waters) so they are unable to receive any war material from nuetral nations - the only beneficiery of nuetral nation's raw materials, energy supplies and export arms are NATO or NATO-allied nations. (Much of the vaunted imported crude oil coming to the US is imported by pipeline from Mexican and Canadian oilfields - so prior to the Mexican invasion the only nation with a reason to nuke Mexico would be the Soviets).

I'm sorry if we give the impression of being US-centric. There are a couple reasons for this. First, all the folks in the DC group are Americans and we prefer to work on things we know best, to avoid making blunders with assumptions about other countries - look at the reception that the Survivors Guide to the UK receives from the Brits here. Rainbow is doing a wonderful job with a more local perspective on things, and we're trying to coordinate our effort with his, and Deacon and Fusilier have provided us valuable input on Canada. Second, the amount of documentation that is available for us to research is greatest about the US, with the USSR a somewhat close second. This allows us to go into much greater detail.

[chico20854]

A pretty interesting source of info on what the Soviets can do (and what the US feared they could do!) is the declassified CIA national intelligence assessments from the 1980s. They cover much of the ground we have discussed here.

The search site is http://www.foia.cia.gov/search.asp.

Some interesting ones to browse through:

"SOVIET STRATEGY AND CAPABILITIES FOR MULTITHEATER WAR"
"TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENTS IN WARSAW PACT THEATER FORCES, 1985-2000 "
"SOVIET MILITARY FORCES IN THE FAR EAST"
"SOVIET CAPABILITIES FOR STRATEGIC NUCLEAR CONFLICT"
and much more...

[kato13]

Originally Posted by chico20854

A pretty interesting source of info on what the Soviets can do (and what the US feared they could do!) is the declassified CIA national intelligence assessments from the 1980s. They cover much of the ground we have discussed here.

The search site is http://www.foia.cia.gov/search.asp.

Some interesting ones to browse through:

"SOVIET STRATEGY AND CAPABILITIES FOR MULTITHEATER WAR"
"TRENDS AND DEVELOPMENTS IN WARSAW PACT THEATER FORCES, 1985-2000 "
"SOVIET MILITARY FORCES IN THE FAR EAST"
"SOVIET CAPABILITIES FOR STRATEGIC NUCLEAR CONFLICT"
and much more...

Well there goes my free time for the next few weeks

Seriously though, once again the more I hear from The DC group the more confident I am in the final product.

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by kato13

Seriously though, once again the more I hear from The DC group the more confident I am in the final product.

I with you there, Kato. Although thay and I have had a couple of spirited (but cordial) debates in the past, I think it really speaks volumes about the DC Group that they are willing to address constructive critisism, accept input from others, and try to incorporate the work of other non-group contributors. Like Paul M., they are putting loads of time and energy into their product for this arcane (but brilliant) '80s-era RPG. Thanks, guys!

[Targan]

Originally Posted by chico20854

Rainbow is doing a wonderful job with a more local perspective on things, and we're trying to coordinate our effort with his, and Deacon and Fusilier have provided us valuable input on Canada.

What has happened to DeaconR? I miss him.

[chico20854]

Originally Posted by Targan

What has happened to DeaconR? I miss him.

I haven't heard from him since September. His email address is bouncing.

I hope he's ok...

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by chico20854

I haven't heard from him since September. His email address is bouncing.

I hope he's ok...

He is ok. He plays in my online game. His email has changed a few times in just a couple months, and has been a bit busy.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Fusilier

He is ok. He plays in my online game. His email has changed a few times in just a couple months, and has been a bit busy.

Could you please let him know from me that I'd love to hear from him again. DeaconR is a good guy and in the past his forum contributions have been intelligent and thoughtful.