Caribbean Sea Region in the Year 2000

[Mahatatain]

Hi there.

Has anyone tried to put together a list of units/militias/marauder/pirate groups operating in the Caribbean Sea region during the year 2000? I'm working on an idea for a new campaign setting drawing from the Gateway to the Spanish Main module and I'm wondering whether anyone has done some development work on this already that I can either use for inspiration or just use.

Thanks in advance for any help.

Kind regards,

Mahatatain.

[Legbreaker]

Sounds like a great region for a new sourcebook....

[Mahatatain]

Thanks. There are a lot of countries in the region that were very unstable in the early 90's and I think that adding in the Twilight War, and working out the potential impact of that, can make it a very interesting campaign setting.

[Slappy]

I ran a campaign there once. It was highly entertaining.

The premise was post return from Europe the PCs sound themselves working for the Dutch attempting to gain control of and return to limited production some oil resources in Venezuela. The dutch had few resources, but superior organization and some very old operational warships allowed Aruba, Bonaire, and Curacao to be a regional island of stability.

Low density of nuclear blasts allowed the occasional electronics to operate, the PCs were floored when they were processed by a dutch immigration officer using a laptop computer. But the low level of government stability turned most areas into free for alls of subsistence farming and fishing with lots of roving pirates and raiders. Most sea travel had reverted to sail, but there were a lot of sailboats still about.

The brief regional situation as I remember it was:

Panama - Canal Zone nuked. General internal collapse.
Colombia - Limited functioning governance in Baranquilla and Cartagena, inland unknown.
Venezuela - Sporadic nuking of oil resources didn't create widespread devastation, but total central government collapse. Totally lawless, but a limited functioning regime centered on Maracaibo.
Trinidad and Tobago - Mostly collapsed.
Barbados - Relatively high functioning island of stability.
Martinique and Guadeloupe - Under French control and fairly stable. Not a big focus for the current French regime, but as France is the highest functioning government in the world, things are relatively well off.
Rest of Windward Isles - Lawless, insular, mostly subsistence fishing, farming, and raiding.
Puerto Rico - Small US military presence holding out in the ancient fort in San Juan and some local surrounding areas. Most of the island is lawless.
Haiti and the Dominican Republic - Total collapse.
Cuba - Pretty by the book. Relatively stable, but insular and husbanding resources for internal rebuilding. Some competition for local oil resources, but punching below its weight.

[Mahatatain]

Thanks for the info Slappy - very useful indeed.

I'm thinking of making some countries a little more organised than this and have actual military operations related to the Twilight War ongoing in the area and not just an anti pirate/marauder focus. I'm still researching each of the countries though and trying to decide how I want them to decline as part of the Twilight War.

[Raellus]

Maybe a border war, involving land, air, and naval elements, between Columbia and Venezuela?

How about a Spetznaz team detonating a nuclear demolition charge aboard a neutral-flagged merchantman transiting one of the major locks on the Panama Canal? It's got more flare than the standard- and slightly boring- ICBM or SLBM strike.

Although it's arguably right outside the Caribbean region, IIRC, there's a French rocket-launching facility in French Guyana. There's an adventure there, somewhere.

-

[Vespers War]

Originally Posted by Raellus

Maybe a border war, involving land, air, and naval elements, between Columbia and Venezuela?

How about a Spetznaz team detonating a nuclear demolition charge aboard a neutral-flagged merchantman transiting one of the major locks on the Panama Canal? It's got more flare than the standard ICBM or SLBM.

Although it's arguably right outside the Caribbean region, IIRC, there's a French rocket-launching facility in French Guyana. There's an adventure there, somewhere.

-

Guiana Space Center, near Kourou, French Guiana. Depending on how things were changed by the continuing existence of the USSR, existing facilities in 2000 might include:

ELA-1: Ariane 1, 2, and 3. In our timeline, deactivated in 1989, then modified from 2001-2012 to launch Vega rockets (which it's still used for).

ELA-2: Ariane 4. Deactivated in 2003, so should be active no matter what in a T2K timeline unless it's been destroyed.

ELA-3: Ariane 5. First used in 1996.

The existing ELS facility and the under-construction ELA-4 facility wouldn't exist, since France would not be launching Soyuz rockets and Ariane 6 doesn't exist yet.

Note that a regiment of the French Foreign Legion is stationed in French Guiana (the 3eme), and space center security is one of their missions (usually occupying 2-3 of their 5 companies whenever rocket material is on site).

[Olefin]

Several things we know from the modules

Grenada - occupied by a stranded Cuban unit and also having New America building a pirate fleet nearby in the early fall of 1999 - thus the player's actions may have changed that a lot by 2000

Aruba - seen as a prize to be raided by the pirate fleet - thus most likely still has an operational oil refinery and some oil supplies in 2000

Venezuela - per canon it was nuked either by the US or the Soviets in 1997

Panama Canal - most likely still operational and occupied by remnant US forces in the V1 timeline - and got me in the V2 - i.e. in the V1 timeline it was still operational and still under US control in March of 1999 long after the nuclear phase of the war is over - the 2nd edition does not mention the canal

Cuba - 2nd edition says their ports and oil processing facilities were the subject of military action - which could have been nuclear or conventional

Trinidad and Tobago arent specifically mentioned but most likely the oil centers got hit for sure

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Panama Canal - most likely still operational and occupied by remnant US forces in the V1 timeline - and got me in the V2 - i.e. in the V1 timeline it was still operational and still under US control in March of 1999 long after the nuclear phase of the war is over - the 2nd edition does not mention the canal

Where is that mentioned in 1st ed?

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Where is that mentioned in 1st ed?

Panama Canal being operational is in Satellite Down - the Virginia and her task force are heading for the Canal - ordered to go thru it by the USN - in March of 1999 - on the way there is when they encounter the Soviet task force of destroyers and get in the battle with them - the USN wouldnt have ordered them to use the Canal if it wasnt operational

given the date that means that it was past the nuclear phase of the war - i.e. the nukes that hit the US were in late 1997 to early 1998 - so we have canon that the Canal was still in operation by March of 1999 - thus most likely still operational in 2000 - no idea if still operational by April of 2001 which is the latest canon date - but this thread only states year 2000

[Olefin]

keep in mind that there could be a big difference between a V1 and a V2.2 game due to the timeline differences as to Panama- i.e. what the US might have deployed in Panama given the Cold War never ends versus the V2.2 timeline

also the other big question - i.e. do all the events of the V1 timeline as to modules occur in V2.2? There are big differences between the two - you only have to look at the descriptions of France and Japan and Vietnam to see that its not exactly the same between the two of them

[Raellus]

First off, the v2.2 timeline is revisionist garbage. Stick to the alternative history timeline of v1.0.

Second, damage to a stretch of canal from a relatively small-yield nuclear demolition charge could be repaired, so the Spetznaz attack that I proposed could have been carried out sometime between 1997-'98 and still have been repaired by the events of Satellite Down.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by Raellus

First off, the v2.2 timeline is revisionist garbage. Stick to the alternative history timeline of v1.0.

Second, damage to a stretch of canal from a relatively small-yield nuclear demolition charge could be repaired, so the Spetznaz attack that I proposed could have been carried out sometime between 1997-'98 and still have been repaired by the events of Satellite Down.

as to V2.2 - completely agree - big time

as to second point - heck yes - and in fact that could have been a factor in why the Soviets managed to get an invasion force into Alaska - i.e. the fact that with the canal damaged at that time the USN couldnt move units to the Pacific easily and had to do it the hard way - i.e. all the way around South America

[Legbreaker]

Warships are also generally radiologically shielded and can still operate in a radioactive area. As long as the channels were relatively clear, and locks operational (or quickly repairable to a semi operation state), warships should be able to make the passage.
Civilian ships on the other hand are a totally different matter, with crews possibly dying from radiation before completing the passage.
Just because the Virginia was ordered to go through the canal doesn't mean there were no nukes.

[Olefin]

You couldnt keep the canal operational if there was a lot of radiation in the area - and even if a ship had radiation shielding and was buttoned up it takes too long to go thru the canal and the locks for it to be effective - if the canal is working in 1999 it wasnt nuked - or at most it was something low yield

also keep in mind you dont need nukes if you are the Soviets and want to have fun with the canal - you can do things like have the Spetsnaz sink a ship in the right place or blow up machinery and knock it out for weeks to months if you do it in the right place - heck just lay a lot of mines at the entrances and exits and give the USN fits raising wrecks and clearing the mines would be a load of fun and a great way to jam up traffic during the war

[Olefin]

Always keep in mind that the canon says the US and Soviets attacked things like refineries, ports and other facilities with both conventional and nuclear weapons - dont always go nuke when you look at the war - you can do a hell of a lot of damage to things like ports and canals and shipping terminals with good old fashioned conventional mines and Special Forces attacks - one sub with a load of mines and conventional torpedoes can do a lot of damage to those facilities - or a nice little band of Seals, Rangers or Spetsnaz raiders

[.45cultist]

Originally Posted by Olefin

Always keep in mind that the canon says the US and Soviets attacked things like refineries, ports and other facilities with both conventional and nuclear weapons - dont always go nuke when you look at the war - you can do a hell of a lot of damage to things like ports and canals and shipping terminals with good old fashioned conventional mines and Special Forces attacks - one sub with a load of mines and conventional torpedoes can do a lot of damage to those facilities - or a nice little band of Seals, Rangers or Spetsnaz raiders

Or a boat load of HE cruise missiles.

[Olefin]

Originally Posted by .45cultist

Or a boat load of HE cruise missiles.

Exactly - i.e. why use nukes to knock out the refineries at Curacao and Trinidad when one sub with a few HE cruise missiles can do the same job and not kill a couple of hundred thousand people as well in the bargain? And you can close a canal by sinking a ship in the locks with a simple limpet mine and screw it up for months if you do it at the right place

The Oscar carried a missile that could have a 750kg high explosive warhead or an FAE warhead - both of which would do a hell of a lot of damage to a refinery or port or for that matter the machinery on the canal without using a nuke - and could have been used earlier in the war (the non-nuclear stage) - and could explain why the USN had issues during the war - lose the canal because its damaged and being repaired and you have to go around South America to reinforce the Pacific or Atlantic fleet during the first critical months of the war

[RN7]

The Panama Canal is strategically important but I don't think the Soviets targeted it with nuclear weapons for a number of reasons.

Firstly they would need more than one nuclear weapon to destroy the locks as both the Atlantic and Pacific entrance are 50 miles apart with their own series of locks in separate channels.

Secondly the Atlantic entrance has two sets of locks with two separate channels. The Gatun Locks and the new Agua Clara locks that are miles apart, although I don't think the Agua Clara was completed at this time.

Thirdly the Pacific entrance also has two sets of locks with separate channels. The Pedro Miguel locks and the Miraflores locks, and each lock is also miles apart.

Fourthly I don't think Soviet missiles launched from either the Soviet Union or from a submarine are accurate enough to hit even one lock. Also US forces in the Panama Canal Zone are widely dispersed over the region and hard to destroy. The Panama Canal is also not in US territory but in a Latin American country, and a nuclear attack would anger other Latin American countries including Soviet allies Cuba and Nicaragua. However a Soviet sabotage mission to disable the locks would be on the cards.

[Vespers War]

Originally Posted by RN7

The Panama Canal is strategically important but I don't think the Soviets targeted it with nuclear weapons for a number of reasons.

Firstly they would need more than one nuclear weapon to destroy the locks as both the Atlantic and Pacific entrance are 50 miles apart with their own series of locks in separate channels.

Secondly the Atlantic entrance has two sets of locks with two separate channels. The Gatun Locks and the new Agua Clara locks that are miles apart, although I don't think the Agua Clara was completed at this time.

The Agua Clara and Cocoli were proposed in 2006 and began operation in 2016, so no, it was not completed at this time.

Thirdly the Pacific entrance also has two sets of locks with separate channels. The Pedro Miguel locks and the Miraflores locks, and each lock is also miles apart.

Ships have to pass through both sets of locks, but the Pedro Miguel and Miraflores each have two channels. The Cocoli is the parallel third lock, which was built at the same time as the Agua Clara. Ships either go through Pedro Miguel AND Miraflores, or they go through Cocoli instead. In 2000, Cocoli does not exist, so destroying either Pedro Miguel or Miraflores shuts down the canal (as does destroying Gatun at the other end).

Fourthly I don't think Soviet missiles launched from either the Soviet Union or from a submarine are accurate enough to hit even one lock. Also US forces in the Panama Canal Zone are widely dispersed over the region and hard to destroy. The Panama Canal is also not in US territory but in a Latin American country, and a nuclear attack would anger other Latin American countries including Soviet allies Cuba and Nicaragua. However a Soviet sabotage mission to disable the locks would be on the cards.

To be honest, I'm not sure you'd need to precisely hit the locks. Wiping out the mule locomotives would cripple the canal, since they'd no longer be able to safely position ships in the locks. Small vessels would still be able to transit with handlines, but anything large wouldn't be safe because it would damage both itself and the canal walls. Destroying the mules would be easier than destroying the thick locks, but I'm not certain whether long-range weapons would be precise enough.

Also, the Panama Canal was US territory until 1977 and joint US-Panama territory until 1999, and likely would still be jointly held in the Twilight War.

[Olefin]

But said mule locomotives would be very easily dealt with with say several sacks of explosives placed by a Spetsnaz team

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Vespers War

The Agua Clara and Cocoli were proposed in 2006 and began operation in 2016, so no, it was not completed at this time.


Ships have to pass through both sets of locks, but the Pedro Miguel and Miraflores each have two channels. The Cocoli is the parallel third lock, which was built at the same time as the Agua Clara. Ships either go through Pedro Miguel AND Miraflores, or they go through Cocoli instead. In 2000, Cocoli does not exist, so destroying either Pedro Miguel or Miraflores shuts down the canal (as does destroying Gatun at the other end).

So as I said more than one nuclear weapon would be needed to do the job.

Originally Posted by Vespers War

To be honest, I'm not sure you'd need to precisely hit the locks. Wiping out the mule locomotives would cripple the canal, since they'd no longer be able to safely position ships in the locks. Small vessels would still be able to transit with handlines, but anything large wouldn't be safe because it would damage both itself and the canal walls. Destroying the mules would be easier than destroying the thick locks, but I'm not certain whether long-range weapons would be precise enough.

So as I said it would be better not to use a nuclear weapons against the Panama Canal.

Originally Posted by Vespers War

Also, the Panama Canal was US territory until 1977 and joint US-Panama territory until 1999, and likely would still be jointly held in the Twilight War.

The treaty to transfer the canal to Panamanian control came into effect in September 1979. And no the Panama Canal was not jointly held by the US and Panama but under US occupation. Remember the US invasion of Panama in 1990 to oust General Noriega. The US took control over the whole of Panama and basically dismantled the Panamanian military. After the invasion only a Para-military police force remained in Panama, and it was smaller and much lighter armed than the US garrison based in Panama. But of course everyone still said that it was under joint US-Panamanian control.

[Legbreaker]

Just one warhead would be all that's needed to render the canal impassible to civilian (unshielded) shipping. An area of residual radiation to kill off, or at least make unprotected people VERY sick.
Physical damage to the machinery, etc needn't be particularly heavy either in that situation - just enough to slow passage of any military vessels and make the transit too dangerous (from radiation) for general use.
Given it was in US possession in 1997 and represents a VERY significant bit of international infrastructure, there's no logical reason the Soviets wouldn't have targeted it - the disruption to their enemies would be extreme to say the least!

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Just one warhead would be all that's needed to render the canal impassible to civilian (unshielded) shipping. An area of residual radiation to kill off, or at least make unprotected people VERY sick.
Physical damage to the machinery, etc needn't be particularly heavy either in that situation - just enough to slow passage of any military vessels and make the transit too dangerous (from radiation) for general use.
Given it was in US possession in 1997 and represents a VERY significant bit of international infrastructure, there's no logical reason the Soviets wouldn't have targeted it - the disruption to their enemies would be extreme to say the least!

But wouldn't the radiation from a nuclear detonation spread through atmospheric winds and enlarge the nuclear fallout zone hundreds of miles in different direction. This would effect the whole of Panama, northern Colombia, Costa Rica and large parts of Nicaragua.

[Legbreaker]

That depends on a number of factors - wind direction and strength at time of detonation, ground or air burst, warhead yield, and location of the blast just to name a few.
In my T2K world, the canal gets nuked. Not irreparable, certainly not destroyed, but rendered impassible to unshielded vessels for a few years at least. Taking it out of commission accomplishes more than a dozen other infrastructure nuke strikes elsewhere by forcing vessels to go all the way around South America burning much more fuel, taking potentially a month or more longer than through the canal, all the while exposed to possible enemy submarines and surface raiders. Sure, convoys would (and should) be used, but we're talking in excess of an additional 10,000 miles or more and there are only so many warships available for escort duty.

[Olefin]

I think a non-nuclear attack that damaged the Canal earlier in the war but that led to it being able to be repaired by early 1999 so it was functional again makes a lot more sense as to how the canon mentions it. It could explain why the USN didnt move the Virginia and its DD's earlier to the Atlantic - i.e. they didnt have the fuel to spare to send them all the way around South America after the nuclear strikes (the destroyers couldnt have made the trip), the Canal was still being repaired so they stayed where they were. Once they had it fixed they ordered them back - but they ran into the Soviets on the way.

[Vespers War]

Originally Posted by RN7

The treaty to transfer the canal to Panamanian control came into effect in September 1979. And no the Panama Canal was not jointly held by the US and Panama but under US occupation. Remember the US invasion of Panama in 1990 to oust General Noriega. The US took control over the whole of Panama and basically dismantled the Panamanian military. After the invasion only a Para-military police force remained in Panama, and it was smaller and much lighter armed than the US garrison based in Panama. But of course everyone still said that it was under joint US-Panamanian control.

The canal was run by the Panama Canal Commission, which, per Article III of the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977, consisted of 4 Panamanians nominated by the Panamanian government and approved by the American government and 5 Americans, with an American as Administrator until 1990, when a Panamanian took over (until the invasion and occupation that coincidentally happened the year the Administrator role was to be transferred). For the duration of the treaty (i.e. until 12/31/99), the United States bore primary responsibility for canal defense per Article IV of the treaty. Agencies and instrumentalities operating for the US to support the Canal were immune to Panamanian law. The only real limits were that military forces were not to exceed what had been in the Canal Zone unless necessary, and 20% of the US workers would be replaced within 5 years of the ratification of the Treaty. If it wasn't joint, then it was heavily slanted in favor of the United States.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Vespers War

The canal was run by the Panama Canal Commission, which, per Article III of the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977, consisted of 4 Panamanians nominated by the Panamanian government and approved by the American government and 5 Americans, with an American as Administrator until 1990, when a Panamanian took over (until the invasion and occupation that coincidentally happened the year the Administrator role was to be transferred). For the duration of the treaty (i.e. until 12/31/99), the United States bore primary responsibility for canal defense per Article IV of the treaty. Agencies and instrumentalities operating for the US to support the Canal were immune to Panamanian law. The only real limits were that military forces were not to exceed what had been in the Canal Zone unless necessary, and 20% of the US workers would be replaced within 5 years of the ratification of the Treaty. If it wasn't joint, then it was heavily slanted in favor of the United States.

So basically during the Twilight War and in real life the US military ran the Panama Canal.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by RN7

So basically during the Twilight War and in real life the US military ran the Panama Canal.

Which makes it an even more viable and attractive target for the Soviets.
I can just see the Soviet leadership now saying something like "lets leave one of the largest and most important pieces of transportation infrastructure in the world intact and in US hands..."
Yeah, doesn't sound very plausible does it?

[RN7]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Which makes it an even more viable and attractive target for the Soviets.
I can just see the Soviet leadership now saying something like "lets leave one of the largest and most important pieces of transportation infrastructure in the world intact and in US hands..."
Yeah, doesn't sound very plausible does it?

But it is not a target that you can effectively destroy with one nuclear weapon, and if you use a nuclear weapon against it the fallout will spread across Central America and parts of South America. These are territories that the Soviet propaganda machine has told its allies that it wants to liberate from the American imperialists, and it is what all those Marxist guerrilla movements plus Cuba and Nicaragua have been fighting for. So a nuclear weapon against a target that it won't destroy will just radiate the whole area and alienate all the Soviet allies in Latin America. I think a demo job by a group of Spetsnaz would be a lot more effective in every way.