Alaska and the Soviet Invasion (T2k)

[Legbreaker]

I don't think it matters if the nukes and invasion occur in the same week. The same month would be more than enough to add to the general chaos.
Doesn't even really matter which came first - if the landing was first, then perhaps the US were already in the process of reassigning units for Alaska, but then the nukes hit. That right there could delay units hitting the field by a few days at least as their orders are changed in transit.
If the nukes came first, then a landing would only add to the general panic felt back at HQ. Already struggling to deal with the escalation and destruction of what a couple of days before were strong and victorious units, they're suddenly faced with having to deal with a whole new and totally unexpected front opening up at their back door.

All in all and no matter which way you look at it, it's a scary time to be in command. It's no wonder that a certain US president (Munson?) suffered a nervous breakdown a few months later (around Feb 98?).

[Grimace]

Wow, a discussion about Alaska and Twilight 2000 and I'm late to the party. Not sure how I missed this when it started. Oh well.

For what it's worth, I agree almost 100% with HorseSoldier on his assessment of Alaska (having lived there for 20 years, myself).

While I always liked the idea of an invasion of Alaska by Soviet forces, some of the directions they supposedly invade and locations they invaded, were just lunatic.

What a lot of people don't get about Alaska is that it doesn't have the infrastruture that other states or even other countries have. Sure, Alaska is "technology hot" in that they have internet and do a lot of things via satellite, cable, or wireless. But that's more due to necessity rather than advanced infrastruture. When you have a capital city that IS NOT connected to anywhere else by road (only access by sea or air to Juneau) you make up for that deficiency in other ways.

People can also use Google Earth to pull up pictures of things, but until you are actually there it's difficult to grasp the reality of the situation. I remember talking to someone in Montana a couple years ago who was planning on a trip to Alaska to go out into the boonies for a backpacking trip. They figured they'd just pop on to Highway 6, shoot up to Central in an hour, then take this "state route" to Beaver. He figured by flying into Fairbanks he could be at Beaver in a couple 2-3 hours. I had to break reality into his travel plans. What's listed as a "highway" in Alaska doesn't match a highway in the lower 48. What's listed as a "state route" in Alaska becomes a dirt road that's mostly muddy in summer and rutted and unplowed in winter, compared to state routes in the lower 48 that are kept in MUCH better shape.

And "taking Juneau" always made me laugh. Besides the "official" seat of government in Alaska, there's really no reason to go there. ALL of their food, fuel and supplies have to be shipped in by sea. Every bit of it! Only their power is supplied locally from a dam. You isolate the capital by sea and they'll give up without a fight.

As for the Soviets....yes, they are the best capable of even remotely performing this action. That is why I never discounted the idea and use it in my games. However, the splendid ability of the Soviets to move things through Siberia and across as the enormously vast areas of Asia sits squarely on their rail capacity. The Soviets (now Russians) have a very good network of rail and know how to use it. The problem is...when you get to Alaska, there's no rail anymore. So the Soviets will be out of their comfort zone. They certainly won't steamroll the rather pitiful Alaskan defenders and the Soviet supplies will dwindle severely.

Really, though, I enjoy reading these threads and it's good to see there's another person from Alaska that can do a bit more confirmation of what I've always said about the state.

(and yes, I hang my head in shame for not ever creating an Alaskan sourcebook)