Australia Twilight War & After...

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Web

What you say make sense but it would be equally true for US, however (No I'm not anti-yank but governments continuously prove that they are not fair play independently of the side they are supposed to be on, and US already proved in past history that it is no exception).

I think that it's not the point in T2K because if you go that far, you don't end up with Twilight 2000 but with the movie "Wargame". Could be interesting to play but that would be an entirely different game.

I'm not sure I understand what is equally true for the US. That we would nuke a country aligned with our enemies regardless of whether that country could fire back? You can bet the farm on it. How does that unhappy fact prove or disprove the Soviet nuking of Australia?

I don't at all agree that there is some sort of firm boundary between a Twilight: 2000 exchange and a "Wargame" exchange and that we must find ourselves in one camp or another. The v1 chronology all but states that the level of nuclear exchange is based on what the Soviets feel they can get away with. They blow China to kingdom come because China can't effectively counterattack. The Soviets are more calculating with their nuclear use against the West because the West is capable of counterattacking. Fear of MAD counterbalances the impulse to use enough nukes to destroy the enemy's ability to pose any threat.

Note that Canada gets hit much harder than the US, given relative populations, etc. Canada can't fire back. Clearly, the USSR has decided that the US will retaliate for attacks on Canada to a lesser degree than for attacks on CONUS. If a single MIRV-capable SLBM takes out Sydney, Melbourne, and the appropriate military facilities, the US might not even retaliate. If the US does retaliate, then the appropriate targets would be in a Soviet satellite: the PDRK, Bulgaria, etc. Maybe Indonesia or Vietnam would suffer a couple of US strikes in exchange for a couple of strikes on Australia. At any rate, it's all part of the math. Only Westerners think in terms of absolute firebreaks. According to official doctrine, the Soviets calculate the relative merits of each strike and its most likely counterstrike.

Webstral

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I'm not sure I understand what is equally true for the US. That we would nuke a country aligned with our enemies regardless of whether that country could fire back? You can bet the farm on it. How does that unhappy fact prove or disprove the Soviet nuking of Australia?

Nothing on Australia, but I simply wanted to point out that if any one could go that far, there was no way back and no possible recover.

Originally Posted by Webstral

I don't at all agree that there is some sort of firm boundary between a Twilight: 2000 exchange and a "Wargame" exchange and that we must find ourselves in one camp or another. The v1 chronology all but states that the level of nuclear exchange is based on what the Soviets feel they can get away with. They blow China to kingdom come because China can't effectively counterattack. The Soviets are more calculating with their nuclear use against the West because the West is capable of counterattacking. Fear of MAD counterbalances the impulse to use enough nukes to destroy the enemy's ability to pose any threat.

Now I understand a couple of things. First, my thinking are inspired by the v2 chronology and it has a different approach on this (at least in the way I understand it). Second, yes there is a firm boundary between a twilight 2000 exghange and a "wargame" exchange; with T2K your PCs are driving fairly damages hummer and you still have some people around. with "wargame", the world population is reduced to a few million s (at most) and your PCs are walking and using stone axes (something resembling it at least). Third, I can buy the v1 but as I played much longer with v2 (got my hand on v1 only three years ago) I have a different approach. Also, I'll never play with v1 but that's simply because it doesn't make me dream (if T2K can give you anything else than nightmares).

Originally Posted by Webstral

Note that Canada gets hit much harder than the US, given relative populations, etc. Canada can't fire back. Clearly, the USSR has decided that the US will retaliate for attacks on Canada to a lesser degree than for attacks on CONUS. If a single MIRV-capable SLBM takes out Sydney, Melbourne, and the appropriate military facilities, the US might not even retaliate. If the US does retaliate, then the appropriate targets would be in a Soviet satellite: the PDRK, Bulgaria, etc. Maybe Indonesia or Vietnam would suffer a couple of US strikes in exchange for a couple of strikes on Australia. At any rate, it's all part of the math. Only Westerners think in terms of absolute firebreaks. According to official doctrine, the Soviets calculate the relative merits of each strike and its most likely counterstrike.

I agree about Canada and always scaled down the exchange (back on "Wargames"). Something else on Australia: as someone pointed out its much further away and doesn't pose a direct threat in term of supply. I also understand the calculation point but when the entire chain of command is gone so is the calculation and things simply go wild. One more point, I agree with what you say on the West and that's why I made the West start the exchange. The Soviets (IMO) would never have started it. The main reason for Australia not being hit may simply come from the destruction of the subs who had to deliver the attack. Anyway, for my part I'm not interested in the reason, I simply like to have it that way. Your point is as good but if I was to follow you I would be much darker than you are.

My PCs would play in a world that would be more chaotic than the one in T2K: entire water supplies contaminated, canibalism everywhere, survivors in US being under 1 million (less than 10.000 in Poland a,d France destroyed); no cars, tanks..., nuclear winter in effect world wide since the exchange, snow to the chest and the best weapon in the group being a M16 with 5 bullets left. Their main problem would not be to avoid further contamination but it would simply be about how much time can they survive with such an important contamination level. Soviets wouldn't be a threat anymore, their fellow PCs would be the threat. As a result, I would not get any PCs and could close the chapter.: I would probably have no more friends any more as well.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Anyway, for my part I'm not interested in the reason, I simply like to have it that way.

...As a result, I would not get any PCs and could close the chapter.: I would probably have no more friends any more as well.

That's all you need to say. If that's the way you want it, no other justifications offered, I respect your position.

Webstral

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Webstral

If a single MIRV-capable SLBM takes out Sydney, Melbourne, and the appropriate military facilities, the US might not even retaliate.

If you nuked Sydney and Melbourne you would probably wipe out a third of Australia's population. That would take us out of any war pretty quickly. After that Australia would probably revert to state-based government rather than a federally-governed system (due manly to the huge distances involved). Australia's state governments already have a lot of power. They could operate as individual countries without too much trouble. That would be the end of the Commonwealth of Australia though.

Edit: The combined populations of Sydney and Melbourne are around 8.3 million. Australia's population is about 22 million. I guess nukes wouldn't kill all of the inhabitants of Sydney and Melbourne but my guess of a third of the Australian population wiped out was pretty close.

[Legbreaker]

Before we head too far down the path of what was and was not nuked, the subject of Australian (and New Zealand) involvement in the war needs to be addressed.

Nowhere in canon that I can see are Australia and New Zealand shown to be directly involved in any theatre of war other than against Indonesia - a totally seperate conflict to that occuring between Nato and the Pact. Non-canon backgrounds such as Mo's are another matter of course.

Canada on the other hand has forces directly in contact with Pact forces - they are a member of the beligerant nations.

Australia and New Zealands only involvement is the possible supply of raw materials and limited finished goods to Nato countries (and in my mind at least a probable involvement in Korea as part of the UN against the North Koreans). The only US facility in Australia is Pine Gap located hundreds of miles from virtually anywhere and barely worth dropping conventional weapons on let alone a low yield nuke.

New Zealand, as far as I am aware, has no US facilities located within it's borders (and the population get VERY stroppy when a nuclear powered vessel even comes close regardless if the US are allies or not!)

So, what are we left with then? A small facility located in the middle of nowhere plus the possibility of strikes against industrial capacity (likely) and the (unlikely) possibility of strikes against military bases which are spread wide across the country (taking one out with a nuke might cause a few problems, but give it a week or two and we're back, ready to go again). There's a lot to be said for decentralisation....

Something else to keep in mind is that as Australia was not directly involved as a combatant, nor had war been declared, there is a strong chance Australia (and possibly NZ) would join the war on Nato's side. Troops and war material would be sent to the middle east, or if Korea could be politically linked in the eyes of the populace, to Russia, by an increased commitment there (maybe lifting from a battalion plus supporting elements to a full brigade). Numbers might not be a lot considering what's also happening with Indonesia, but it would certainly be a consideration for the planning of any nuclear attack.

Therefore, I would suggest that the only target nuked in the first exchange would be Pine Gap to cripple the US early warning and electronic surveillance capacity (plus whatever else they do there).

The second exchange might be targeted at the naval facilities at Perth and Sydney and the industrial cities of Newcastle and Woolongong (last three on the east coast all within about 400km). This is provided the Soviets still had anything even capable of attacking across such a vast distance - ie they'd either need a couple of subs, or use ballistic missiles which I believe barely reach across the Artic to attack continental USA. Note also that missiles wouldn't necessarily have the earths rotation to assist them either....

Attacking other cities would achieve little more than inflicting civilian casualties.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I'd like to add a little here, some of it is from a bit of reading and some from a friend who's father was a Major in the Australian Corp of Signals.

The items from the Merc: 2000 book are unfortunately, like a lot of game products dealing with Australia, lacking in some research;

"The army force of helicopters consists of 47 OH-58 Kiowa’s and 48 AH-1s." As much as I like the Cobra, it wouldn't have been selected for Australia unless a fantastically good deal was made for its purchase. We evaluated them during the Vietnam War and the decision was made to acquire them to the point where they were issued an Australian aircraft serial prefix but the war ended and no purchase was made.
Later evaluation in the 1980s decided that attack helicopters were a very low priority and that a helicopter better suited to Australia's environment and long distances was required. More importantly, up until the late 1990s, the Air Force would most likely have been the operator of any attack helicopters we purchased as it was seen to be the primary supplier of combat air assets.
Also, the Army operated the Bell 206B Jet Ranger and not the military model OH-58 Kiowa. As such, they were not fitted for armaments of any sort and were used as light utility, recce/observation only.
This isn't a complaint really, just an attempt to provide some better information for everyone.

"Indo-Australian fixed-wing assets in Indonesia consist of two 16 plane squadrons of A-6..." I believe this is a typo that slipped past the editors as no force outside the USA operated/operates the A-6 as far as I'm aware. I believe it should have read A-4 as Indonesia was a customer for the Skyhawk.

Another mistake in the Merc: 2000 book is the notion that we would automatically buy small arms from the UK so we would be using the L85 and L86 when in fact we were looking to acquire a licence to build M16A2 rifles here but Colt said no so we went for the AUG instead. This is common misconception with RPG companies in Europe as well as the USA.

The Millenium's End information while being more up to date is no less mistaken in some areas.

It is entirely unlikely that we would have bought brand new M2 Bradleys let alone secondhand ones as there has not been any need identified for the operation of MICVs here. They are the province of nations with bigger budgets or larger logistics support. The mech infantry role here is sufficiently covered by updated M113 vehicles.
No mention is made of the L14 Carl Gustav and we have many more of those than the Milan.

Again, it was unlikely any specialized PDW would have been adopted because the military wanted to keep as few types of ammunition as it could. With the use of the AUG, we simply got a shorter barrel version thus rendering the need for a PDW less important. The SAS here rarely use the MP5 in roles outside of CT or VIP protection or special needs (e.g. silenced weapons), they normally use the M4 carbine when an M16 isn't appropriate.

This may be nit-picking but Fremantle (as in HMAS Fremantle) is not spelt Freemantle.
The E-2C Hawkeye, was felt to be too limited in range to serve Australia's needs. An AEW version of the P-3 Orion was actually being developed for Australia although that was eventually dropped in favour of an AEW version of the Boeing 737.

As for what would have been a nuclear target in Australia, the list is actually larger than might be expected.
Certainly Pine Gap would be a target but also the Harold E. Holt communications station next to Exmouth in Western Australia as it controlled all communications to USN submarines in this part of the southern hemisphere. Melbourne would certainly have been a target because it was (still is I think) the location of a Corp of Signals base that handled all the communications between Australia and Canada, the UK and the USA during the Cold War period (it served as a backup for communications between the UK and Canada/USA and the UK and New Zealand too by the looks of things).

Perth may have been on the target list as it is the site of the deep water harbour of Fremantle plus a RAN submarine base, ship building facilities and some petroleum refining/storage. Canberra may be hit simply because it is the site of Australian military command (along with being the seat of government).

[Legbreaker]

With the limited number of targets in Australia and the restrictions distance places on the nuclear options, what's the thoughts regarding Spetznaz type attacks instead?

I honestly can't see a nuke being used to take out the relatively small facilities scattered about the country when other options costing far less and (depending on the actual target, etc) the resource / asset could be reused on other targets. These conventional weapon attacks would also be less likely to stir Australia into action than being nuked, a definate "plus" for the Pact planners.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

"The army force of helicopters consists of 47 OH-58 Kiowa’s and 48 AH-1s." As much as I like the Cobra, it wouldn't have been selected for Australia unless a fantastically good deal was made for its purchase. We evaluated them during the Vietnam War and the decision was made to acquire them to the point where they were issued an Australian aircraft serial prefix but the war ended and no purchase was made.
Later evaluation in the 1980s decided that attack helicopters were a very low priority and that a helicopter better suited to Australia's environment and long distances was required. More importantly, up until the late 1990s, the Air Force would most likely have been the operator of any attack helicopters we purchased as it was seen to be the primary supplier of combat air assets.
Also, the Army operated the Bell 206B Jet Ranger and not the military model OH-58 Kiowa. As such, they were not fitted for armaments of any sort and were used as light utility, recce/observation only.
This isn't a complaint really, just an attempt to provide some better information for everyone.

As my timeline takes place a little later (5 years later in fact), I provide Australia with Tiger attack helicopters.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

"Indo-Australian fixed-wing assets in Indonesia consist of two 16 plane squadrons of A-6..." I believe this is a typo that slipped past the editors as no force outside the USA operated/operates the A-6 as far as I'm aware. I believe it should have read A-4 as Indonesia was a customer for the Skyhawk.

Yes about 32 A-4 that they got almost from the black market. I believe the deal was barely legal.

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

This may be nit-picking but Fremantle (as in HMAS Fremantle) is not spelt Freemantle.
The E-2C Hawkeye, was felt to be too limited in range to serve Australia's needs. An AEW version of the P-3 Orion was actually being developed for Australia although that was eventually dropped in favour of an AEW version of the Boeing 737.

The Fremantle might well come from me (just a small mispelling) and it would have come unoticed if you had remained silent on it. Thanks.. What you say on the AEW Orion implies that you might find it in Australia (deal not cancelled)

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Nowhere in canon that I can see are Australia and New Zealand shown to be directly involved in any theatre of war other than against Indonesia - a totally seperate conflict to that occuring between Nato and the Pact.

I could be wrong but I recall reading somewhere that Australian and New Zealand forces fought in Vietnam during the Twilight War (and maybe Korea too?). I could definitely see ANZAC spec ops (though probably in very small numbers) being sent to the Persian Gulf. They could well have been recalled to Australia for operations closer to home prior to late 2000, and if that was the case they wouldn't be listed in the RDF Sourcebook or Kings Ransom.

[RN7]

"The army force of helicopters consists of 47 OH-58 Kiowa’s and 48 AH-1s." As much as I like the Cobra, it wouldn't have been selected for Australia unless a fantastically good deal was made for its purchase. We evaluated them during the Vietnam War and the decision was made to acquire them to the point where they were issued an Australian aircraft serial prefix but the war ended and no purchase was made. Later evaluation in the 1980s decided that attack helicopters were a very low priority and that a helicopter better suited to Australia's environment and long distances was required. More importantly, up until the late 1990s, the Air Force would most likely have been the operator of any attack helicopters we purchased as it was seen to be the primary supplier of combat air assets.

Probably the thinking with the Cobra in Australian service was that it was bought second hand from the Americans, and was needed to give air support to the large mercenary force (nine brigades) that Australia created to occupy Indonesia.

Also, the Army operated the Bell 206B Jet Ranger and not the military model OH-58 Kiowa. As such, they were not fitted for armaments of any sort and were used as light utility, recce/observation only.
This isn't a complaint really, just an attempt to provide some better information for everyone.

Maybe similar thinking with the Kiowa, bought second hand from the US Army and used to supplement the Cobra force. Probably would have been better off buying more UH-1 or a few UH-60s though.

"Indo-Australian fixed-wing assets in Indonesia consist of two 16 plane squadrons of A-6..." I believe this is a typo that slipped past the editors as no force outside the USA operated/operates the A-6 as far as I'm aware. I believe it should have read A-4 as Indonesia was a customer for the Skyhawk.

Definetly a typo, Indonesia was a customer for the A-4.

Another mistake in the Merc: 2000 book is the notion that we would automatically buy small arms from the UK so we would be using the L85 and L86 when in fact we were looking to acquire a licence to build M16A2 rifles here but Colt said no so we went for the AUG instead. This is common misconception with RPG companies in Europe as well as the USA.

Common notion this, although both countries used to use much the same small arms. I think the only small arms of British origin that the Australian's currently use are sniper rifles and 81mm mortars, although both countries use the same German sub-machine guns, American heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, short range anti-armour weapons, shotguns and anti-tank guided missiles, Belgian light machine guns and general purpose machine guns, and Swedish recoilless rifles.

It is entirely unlikely that we would have bought brand new M2 Bradleys let alone secondhand ones as there has not been any need identified for the operation of MICVs here. They are the province of nations with bigger budgets or larger logistics support. The mech infantry role here is sufficiently covered by updated M113 vehicles. No mention is made of the L14 Carl Gustav and we have many more of those than the Milan.

Probable thinking was that if they are using the Abrams well the M2 would complement it, maybe bought second hand or new in smaller numbers to supplement the M113.

This may be nit-picking but Fremantle (as in HMAS Fremantle) is not spelt Freemantle.

A typo perhaps!

As for what would have been a nuclear target in Australia, the list is actually larger than might be expected. Certainly Pine Gap would be a target but also the Harold E. Holt communications station next to Exmouth in Western Australia as it controlled all communications to USN submarines in this part of the southern hemisphere. Melbourne would certainly have been a target because it was (still is I think) the location of a Corp of Signals base that handled all the communications between Australia and Canada, the UK and the USA during the Cold War period (it served as a backup for communications between the UK and Canada/USA and the UK and New Zealand too by the looks of things). Perth may have been on the target list as it is the site of the deep water harbour of Fremantle plus a RAN submarine base, ship building facilities and some petroleum refining/storage. Canberra may be hit simply because it is the site of Australian military command (along with being the seat of government).

Other targets of significance might be Adelaide were they build the Collins Class submarines and military vehicles, and Bendigo and Williamstown in Victoria were they build military vehicles and warships respectively. Possibly Lithgow in New South Wales as well were most Australian small arms are built.

Any thoughts on the HMAS Perth and Australian Harriers?

[Targan]

Originally Posted by RN7

Any thoughts on the HMAS Perth and Australian Harriers?

It would be nice. But that would involve taking Australia's levels of defence spending to to whole new level.

[RN7]

It would be nice. But that would involve taking Australia's levels of defence spending to to whole new level.

Maybe not so, have a look at the two new planned Canberra Class LHDs..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra_class

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

The only US facility in Australia is Pine Gap located hundreds of miles from virtually anywhere and barely worth dropping conventional weapons on let alone a low yield nuke.

I'm curious how you define "barely worth". Do you believe that the Soviets are afraid of angering Australia in the midst of an East-West nuclear exchange? Do you believe the Soviets will struggle to get a warhead on target? Do you believe the Soviets are rationing their thousands of nuclear warheads and/or missiles? Do you believe that the administrative effort of ordering a strike on Australia would be taxing on the Soviet leadership?

My affection for my Aussie cousins is great. Therefore, it with a heavy heart that I point out to you that you are in fact members of a Western nation with a sizeable population, industry, and resources. In the Twilight: 2000 world, you're going to get a bite of the s**t sandwich the rest of the Western world has to eat. The Soviets are not nice people who play fair. With thousands of warheads and delivery systems, they will ensure that Australia does not become a problem for them down the road. Bear in mind that the neutral countries were nuked just to deny their resources to the combatants. Australia is an American ally. Sorry guys--that's justification enough for a handful of nuclear strikes.

Webstral

[StainlessSteelCynic]

Some rambling thoughts here,

First to address RN7's post, with the Merc: 2000 situation.
Australia and the UK would be operating Milan as their ATGW and not a US system. I am fairly certain that the Javelin ATGW was not obtained by either nation until the early 2000s.
As for the Abrams and Bradleys, I think it was just a lucky guess that GDW picked the Abrams as MBTs for Australia, certainly the decision wasn't really made to buy them until long after the game books were published.
The thinking of the time was that we were probably going to buy the Leopard 2 or perhaps the Challenger to replace the Leopard 1. The Abrams was not a good choice for the Australian Army but it was a very good for the Australian government.

Second,
I support Webstral's assessment of the situation, Australia was already a target simply because we are heavily populated with peoples from NATO countries and therefore friends/allies with them. Sounds too simple but it is a simple truth, we are a former British colony so we are naturally going to be against the Soviets. Plus we have a massive reserve of natural resources that could be safely (well, reasonably so) shipped to Europe via the US via the lower part of the Pacific Ocean were the Soviet fleet would be spread too thin. Ruining Australian ports to prevent those resources reaching NATO nations would always be a consideration of Soviet high command (think of the movement of supplies from Argentina and Brazil to assist the Allied war effort in WW2).

Pine Gap was most definitely worth a nuclear strike as it was and still is an important link in the US (and also NATO) satellite communications network amongst it's other roles. Traffic from NATO forces in former Yugoslavia was apparently sent through Pine Gap.
Fremantle port (and by default Perth itself) was a known Soviet target simply because US fleets often called in for R&R and resupply & simple repair/maintenance let alone the facilities I mentioned earlier. As a side note, you could always tell when a USN fleet was due in because you'd start to see C-2 Greyhounds flying in to the Perth airport.
The other places I mentioned before were also known to be on Soviet target lists.

I also see that missile strikes on Australia would be far more efficient than sending special forces units (or any other type of attack force) simply because one Soviet submarine would possess all the warheads necessary to do the job.

However one thing I would say, when Webstral mentioned that the Soviets are not nice people who play fair, I'd extend that across the board to all the nations involved. As much as we like to believe that we ourselves would be more civilized/polite/fair/gentlemanly etc. etc., differences of ideology aside, we are all as bad as each other. I think once you throw nuclear weapons into the fight, you're really saying "The gloves are off, now we start to really get nasty".

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic

However one thing I would say, when Webstral mentioned that the Soviets are not nice people who play fair, I'd extend that across the board to all the nations involved. As much as we like to believe that we ourselves would be more civilized/polite/fair/gentlemanly etc. etc., differences of ideology aside, we are all as bad as each other. I think once you throw nuclear weapons into the fight, you're really saying "The gloves are off, now we start to really get nasty".

Sad, but true.

Webstral

[ChalkLine]

It'd be madness for the USSR to nuke Australia unless a US warship is in port or they hit the telemetry stations at Pine Gap or North West Cape. Everything else is far less unimportant than tasking more warheads to critical European and US targets where the initial warheads may not get through.

Canonically the USSR plays a gentleman's nuclear war with the USA, launching just a few warheads at a time before making a half-hearted strike (that somehow takes everyone by surprise!) that is launched in dribs and drabs. In this odd and unrealistic scenario they may nuke an ally 'to show that it could be done', but no one was ever in any doubt anyway. They'd make the point better by nuking Peurto Rico.

It's all academic anyway. Both systems were designed that once confirmed nuke launches or strikes were observed the arsenals were immediately launched, because otherwise they would risk being destroyed in their silos. The crews knew they would be dead shortly anyway.

If there's one part of the canonical backstory I would have GMs looking at addressing, it is the fundamental question of how the nuclear aspect of the war was waged. At present it is ridiculous.

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by ChalkLine

It'd be madness for the USSR to nuke Australia unless a US warship is in port or they hit the telemetry stations at Pine Gap or North West Cape. Everything else is far less unimportant than tasking more warheads to critical European and US targets where the initial warheads may not get through.

How would it be madness? Any form of retaliation Australia might mete out to the Soviets or their satellites is exactly the sort of thing a modest nuclear strike would be intended to prevent.

[QUOTE=ChalkLine;13921]It's all academic anyway. Both systems were designed that once confirmed nuke launches or strikes were observed the arsenals were immediately launched, because otherwise they would risk being destroyed in their silos. The crews knew they would be dead shortly anyway.
QUOTE]

Simply not true. If this were the case, we'd have been incinerated already due to the number of false alarms--some of them extremely convincing. In any event, the idea of massive automatic retaliation takes the fate of nations out of the hands of exactly the kinds of people who prefer to make important decisions themselves. The US (and presumably the other nuclear powers as well) haven't invested literally billions in communications so that a general can call up the President and tell him, "You're ******, sir. Sorry, you don't get a say. It's all automatic." It's a fact that some aspects of the system are automated. It's not a fact that the President gets no say.

Webstral

[jester]

The land of Oz and nukes:

As Web said, yep you would get it!

You are a regional power. And thus a threat. Ivan has tons of nukes and the reality is, many targets have multiple warheads for redundancy sakes. A mirv, well, each rocket has X mumber of warheads and each one is programable for a different target. 1 missile in your direction landing half a dozen warheads would be enough.

You are a line of communication and a floating aircraft carrier, port and shipping facilities those factors alone would make you a nice juicy target.

And your folks in New Zealand would also be on the list as well for the same reason. A base of operation for any other allied nation to operate out of or even for their damaged vessels to head to after attacks by submarines, aircraft and comerce raiders per the Marines heading to Korea.

As for a Speitznaz unit verses a nuclear attack. That would make for a cool campaign. But, selecting, training, equiping for operations and we are talking long term operations over wilderness and urban operations in a remote area, getting them into the region then deploying them to the target country and then inserting them into the target. That is going to take alot of logistics. And maintaining communications with the team to report mission success and assign new targets based on the equipment and personel left, the skills of the personel and the intel delivered.

And of course the whole escape and or evasion the team would have to manage after their first couple of raids when it was determined that there is a comando force operating in the area. And your areas are often open deserts, <As scenes from Bravo 2.0. and "The One That Got Away." flash into my head, that is what a team would be up against. The logistics, the chances of success, the resources needed and the cost would be something that would make it a lower priority than punching a code into a nuclear weapon and pushing "launch" or just adding it to the target list.

I mean, what base would the team deploy from? The Soviet Pacific Bases is the nearest. And the most likely method would be by submarine. Which would be risky with the sensor and active anti submarine operations. And then having them surfaced long enough to get the team and their equipment enough to conduct combat operations and to survive with, ashore. And enough diverse equipment to plan and accomplish any number of unknown missions so they are going to have to bring ALOT of gear, I would guess over two tons of equipment for a squad. Figure about 4 large packs per man when you are talking food,some water, radios, spare radios, batteries, demotlitions equipment, camoflauge equipment, medical kits, personal weapons, special weapons, ammunition, special mission essential items, spare equipment and items all to last for an unknown but extended period of time. And none of your missions are planned, so you must have all manner of gear to cover all methods of attack.

You would need a good ammount of redundancy as well, setting up caches incase your main camp was compromised as well as for convience. Its easier to move with just a combat harness and personal weapon move to a cache where your food, water and demo is then assault the target than to trek 30km with all your goods.

It can be done. But there is alot of risk, alot more uncertanty. Heck, a P3 Orion nail the submarine leaving port and the mission is over before they even touch land.

A better use of a small team like that is to have assets already in place studying the target, knowing the specific target what it is and predetermining how your are going to attack it. Then you land, spend less than a week on station studying, moving and attacking and then immediate extraction. That sort of mission you can get away with one pack per man in addition to specialty equipment for the mission.

Nope, nuking Oz is the best way.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by jester

As for a Speitznaz unit verses a nuclear attack. That would make for a cool campaign. But, selecting, training, equiping for operations and we are talking long term operations over wilderness and urban operations in a remote area, getting them into the region then deploying them to the target country and then inserting them into the target. That is going to take alot of logistics. And maintaining communications with the team to report mission success and assign new targets based on the equipment and personel left, the skills of the personel and the intel delivered.

They would be russian head-long to their dooms (horrible pun I know but I couldn't help it). If the crocodiles and the brutal Australian environment didn't get the the Spetznaz first, NORFORCE would eventually detect their presence, track them, and finding them in a weakened and demoralised state, destroy them.

Originally Posted by jester

Nope, nuking Oz is the best way.

Sad but true . I respect your decision to tell it how it is despite the bitter flavour left in my mouth having read it .

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by jester

You are a regional power. And thus a threat. Ivan has tons of nukes and the reality is, many targets have multiple warheads for redundancy sakes. A mirv, well, each rocket has X mumber of warheads and each one is programable for a different target. 1 missile in your direction landing half a dozen warheads would be enough.

3 at most given the boomer types with for half of them only 12 missiles.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by jester

I mean, what base would the team deploy from? The Soviet Pacific Bases is the nearest. And the most likely method would be by submarine. Which would be risky with the sensor and active anti submarine operations. And then having them surfaced long enough to get the team and their equipment enough to conduct combat operations and to survive with, ashore. And enough diverse equipment to plan and accomplish any number of unknown missions so they are going to have to bring ALOT of gear, I would guess over two tons of equipment for a squad. Figure about 4 large packs per man when you are talking food,some water, radios, spare radios, batteries, demotlitions equipment, camoflauge equipment, medical kits, personal weapons, special weapons, ammunition, special mission essential items, spare equipment and items all to last for an unknown but extended period of time. And none of your missions are planned, so you must have all manner of gear to cover all methods of attack.

Here Jester, you are fueling my point on the Boomer. I agree nuking is their best option but a risky and hazardous bet nonetheless.

[rcaf_777]

My two cents is there is nothing saying that a ANZAC Division could organized and trained and sent somewhere ethier the middle east or Europe in the later stages???

I also think that eveybody needs to take a look at target list for nukes and remember that, they are just lists, many factors have taken into account for actually nukes fired off durring TW2000

The Targets Are

US Forces in Europe and Misslie Launch feilds in the CONUS

Then Staging/Training areas for troops for US Forces in CONUS (cause that were the bulk of it Military is)

War Industrials CONUS

Now comes tragets outside the CONUS but still covering the same areas

But we must remmber the following

how much was used before the counter attack ?
how missile fail to go off ?
how many were used againist new targets?

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I'm curious how you define "barely worth".

As in a few hundred people. The facility itself is important, but not exactly large. A few well placed explosives detonated at a critical time may well be enough.

Originally Posted by Webstral

Do you believe that the Soviets are afraid of angering Australia in the midst of an East-West nuclear exchange?

Afraid? Of course not. But bringing in yet another country on the enemy side is never a good thing, especially when that country is not within easy striking distance and possesses a signifiant resource base to exploit.
During WWII, Australia's military grew larger than the population could support, even with rationing, etc. At the height of the war, contrary to all other combatant nations, Australia actually REDUCED their military so it would have enough manpower to feed the nation, etc.
I can't recall any other country in history ever having so many people voluntarily carrying arms full time that they couldn't feed themselves....
That fact alone is going to give pause to anyone planning an attack against Australia (though probably won't stop them by itself).

Originally Posted by Webstral

Do you believe the Soviets will struggle to get a warhead on target? Do you believe the Soviets are rationing their thousands of nuclear warheads and/or missiles? Do you believe that the administrative effort of ordering a strike on Australia would be taxing on the Soviet leadership?

No, I'm simply questioning the need to use a nuke when other more efficent options (such as a Spetnaz type unit) may be available. Unlike a nuke, a team on the ground can be reused time and time again (provided they're not caught of course).

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

As in a few hundred people. The facility itself is important, but not exactly large. A few well placed explosives detonated at a critical time may well be enough.

Delivered how? Aircraft, surface ships, and submarines approaching Australia's coastline are far more vulnerable to interception than a ballistic missile. A ballistic missile is quick, easy, and painless--at least from the Soviet point of view. Commandos, on the other hand, are valuable assets.

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Afraid? Of course not. But bringing in yet another country on the enemy side is never a good thing, especially when that country is not within easy striking distance and possesses a signifiant resource base to exploit.
During WWII, Australia's military grew larger than the population could support, even with rationing, etc. At the height of the war, contrary to all other combatant nations, Australia actually REDUCED their military so it would have enough manpower to feed the nation, etc.
I can't recall any other country in history ever having so many people voluntarily carrying arms full time that they couldn't feed themselves....
That fact alone is going to give pause to anyone planning an attack against Australia (though probably won't stop them by itself).

That's exactly what strategic surgical strike is supposed to prevent. Why hope that a member of an alliance with the United States will sit on the sidelines ad infinitum when a handful of already paid-for ICBM and their warheads can take the guesswork and diplomacy out of the equation?[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

No, I'm simply questioning the need to use a nuke when other more efficent options (such as a Spetnaz type unit) may be available. Unlike a nuke, a team on the ground can be reused time and time again (provided they're not caught of course).

It's true that the Spetznaz offer a superior degree of precision. You don't knock nations out of war with commando raids, though. You knock nations out of a war by destroying their production facilities, their military facilities, and their power generation. The Soviets built a truly gratuitous armory of nuclear warheads (in a variety of sizes and colors) and missiles (in a variety of ranges and carrying capacities) so that they would have the option of attacking hard-to-reach targets at long range. (The US also assembled a gratuitous armory for exactly the same purpose.)

The very existence of a fully functional Australia furthers the aims of the Western powers. This is the way the Soviets will see it, at any rate. If Australia has sat on the sidelines until 1997 (an idea I question, but I'm not familiar with any canon material on Australia), then her military and industrial capabilities represents a very useful strategic reserve for ANZUS and, in effect, the Western Allies. The Soviets have no good reason to leave Australia unscathed and plenty of good reasons to ensure that a member of the Western Alliance is not in a position to cause mischief in the Pacific.

Webstral