![]() |
![]() |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
And by the time the nuclear strikes in Europe start, the conflict in Scandinavia is practically over and neither Finland or Sweden are engaged. Nuking the refineries "just because" doesn't seem to fit in, since there is no benefit in doing so for either NATO or Russia. Might happen in a general strategic exchange, but not in the "couple of warheads at a time" nuclear exchange that takes place in Twilight 2000. |
#32
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Isn't it specifiically mentioned in one of the modules (Boomer I think) that Norway is targeted by the Soviet during the 1997 strategic exchange?
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivor’s Guide to the United Kingdom |
#33
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Not to mention the fact that according to the Nordic sourcebook 3/4 of Norway's population was wiped out in the nuclear exchange and its aftermath. If a 1 Mt strike on Oslo doesn't constitute a strategic nuclear attack, I don't know what does.
Much as I like the Finnish sourcebook, this claim about Scandinavia being untouched by nuclear attack strikes me as a flaw. Maybe it was a case of wishful thinking by the authors ("Even if there was a nuclear war, we're so tiny and insignificant that the Russians wouldn't bother to nuke us, no sir... Please, please god let it be so") |
#35
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Yes, the lack of Scandinavian nuke strikes is completely unbelievable. But blend the two timelines (from canon and the Scandinavian Sourcebook) and you have something good.
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Essentially, it's of course up to how you want to see it: there's no real canon to go by here. If I would run a game where nuclear strikes against Finland and Sweden would figure, I'd probably adjust the list given in the Nordic sourcebook, since the list is sorta counter-intuitive. The oil refineries are way overprioritized over actual military assets, considering the distance to oil production and the narrow seaways to the refineries, they can be dealt with differently. |
#37
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
While I can't say with any certainty about Sweden without refering back to the books, I know for a fact Finland STRONGLY resisted both Soviet and NATO offensives through their country. They fought so hard and effectively they forced the Soviet offensive against NATO forces in Norway to falter and the Nato command to reassess their plans on a strategic scale after they too met with effective military resistance. Do you really think the troops on the ground wouldn't have shot back at the Finns? Can you honestly say the industry and resources Finland possesses wouldn't have been subjected to AT LEAST intensive conventional strikes? Anyone who believes that has got to be living in a dreamland. We had a discussion recently about Australia and whether or not it would have been nuked. As a country not involved in the multiple wars in the northern hemisphere (although possibly in Korea as part of the UN), and the fact it's on the other side of the planet, the concensus was the country WAS nuked. A country in the direct line of fire such as Finland (and possibly Sweden) wouldn't have had a chance.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem Last edited by Legbreaker; 02-17-2010 at 05:53 PM. |
#38
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I agree but until I have full knowledge about what the contents of all the Finnish books are, I would probably not use all caps. There appears to be a serious disconnect within books published by the same author(s), so who knows what might be in print somewhere.
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
It of course helps that this campaign was fought in Lapland, which has low population and little infrastructure to be damaged. Quote:
![]() What I consider the most important criteria for justifying military activity in the context of the game is "What is the strategic gain?". Denying the enemy strategic resources is of course a net gain, but it has to be weighted with other strategical considerations. Extending the all-out war isn't always good, especially if the nuclear strikes are done as a part of limited nuclear war. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
But as everyone who's read about Twilight 2000 knows, even the limited nuclear war dealt immense damage to the world. Countries like Australia, Sweden, Finland etc., you don't even need to use that many (or powerful) nukes to screw them up.
I don't remember where, but somewhere I read that you'd only need about 100 or so nukes to completely destroy the United States as an organized entity, maybe even less. Though it had its flaws, Jericho did a good job in showing how even 23 Hiroshima-size bombs detonated in as many cities could deal a hell of a lot of damage to the U.S. Total nuclear war is like two guys firing rocket launchers at each other: their bodies will blow apart. The limited nuclear war as described in T2K is more like two guys blowing each other's heads off with sniper rifles: the rest of the torso may be intact, but it's no good if your brains are all over the wall. Considering this, I find it to be no stretch of the imagination to consider that the Russians would have had no problem in expending a few nukes to make sure that Scandinavia (and Australia too, for that matter) would pose no problem for what remained of Russia in the post-nuke world. You can bet that the Americans would have the same policy. Heck, both sides have people whose sole job is to figure out how many nukes are needed and where the targets would be. P.S: I'll post this later when describing the Nordic countries in the Nordic sourcebook but I might as well post it in brief. While the Finnish Army didn't suffer particularly heavy casualties in the war itself, the ensuing chaos forced the army to split into numerous smaller units in order to better provide order. Also, the collapse in agriculture has caused most of the army to be demobilized in order to provide manpower for agriculture. At the moment the army is in peacetime levels (And it's not as if Russia is in any shape to threaten with invasion.). Oh yes, Finland is run by a military dictator who titles himself as "Marshal of Finland", like the late Marshal Mannerheim. As for Sweden, that country is locked in a messy and brutal civil war between the Royal and Republican armies. So I think it's safe to say that neither army is particularly intact. Well maybe the Finnish army, but it's been drastically scaled back, and is more geared for policing the country than anything else. Oh yes, and the Helsinki Metropolitan Area (meaning Helsinki, Espoo (the 2nd largest city in Finland) and Vantaa) is a no-man's-land, ruled by gangs of criminals, punks, Roma, skinheads and others. |
#41
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
As I think can be seen in the translations John has been kindly posting, it seems clear that the Finnish book is written to reflect local needs and perceptions rather than following canon to the letter. It is therefore fair to say it's more of an alternate reality than extension - very useful and interesting, however my personal believe is the GDW material should have priority where there is disagreement. Naturally everyone is free to do what they like as always. With that in mind, I think we can understand why the same writer has contradicted themselves - The Finnish book wasn't intended for sale and use out of one small area (or it would have been officially tranlated and published) and was written with that market in mind. A completely understandable position and something I'd probably do myself if it meant me being paid or not for my work. Regarding who got nuked how hard, we have an indication in "What's Polish for G'day" that Australia and France were not "irradiated", however this could be explained by the Australian tendancy to exaggerate unimportant details. In the context of the adventure, it doesn't matter what state these two countries are in - everything happens in Poland. I believe we also have other information from a number of sources including the 2.2 timeline that France was nuked. Quote:
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#42
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
Have we looked at the effect a major nuclear attack would have on the world besides normal fallout? Massive firestorms laying waste to valuable farmland, contaminated water sources, chemical spills from ruptured and destroyed plants...
I think the effects of the bombs are being understated... http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nukergv.html Quote:
__________________
************************************* Each day I encounter stupid people I keep wondering... is today when I get my first assault charge?? Last edited by Cdnwolf; 02-17-2010 at 08:20 PM. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
![]() |
#44
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
As your quoted statement is included in an obscure book intended for a small and select section of the T2K population, it's hard to say it's really "core material".
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#45
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
With that said, I could see the nuclear powers sparing a few warheads for targets that could be used by their opponent for eventual reconstruction (such as the Finnish refineries, no matter what their distance from oilfields would be), but it wouldn't be too widespread. Why? Given the immense destructive power of a even a limited strike, a large-scale nuclear exchange would result in us playing Gamma World rather than T2k.
__________________
I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for 12 hours. When it was all over, I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like... victory. Someday this war's gonna end... |
#46
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I agree. While it is fairly easy to come up with a list of potential targets, hitting more than a small proportion of them is obviously not what's happened in T2K.
The difficulty we all face as GMs and writers is coming up with a list of strategic targets that barely achieves the chaos and destruction necessary, then throw in a few more for flavour. With regard to smaller tactical nukes, I say it's a free for all. Throw 'em around like confetti! But the big stuff that requires a bit more than a 203mm howitzer, that needs to be tightly controlled.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
The European theater is a spectrum of how bad things are. Austria has ceased to exist, Poland and Germany are warzones, Belgium and France are mostly keeping it together. Most of the UK is in chaos, but has a stable government and is going to recover. Switzerland is untouched by the conflict, but feels the side effects. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Am I the only one wondering what has become of all those nuclear weapons, on all sides, that went unused during the Twilight War?
If, indeed, the line was inched across in dribs and drabs and no one went for the throat on a true counterforce strike, then somewhere there must be some Minuteman IIIs and SS-24s and SS-25s out there waiting in the wings for proper authority. Or has that been covered in one of the rulebooks? |
#49
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
The interpretation I take to the various Broken Arrow (loose nuke) scenarios is that the various authorities - Milgov, Civgov and the remnants of the Soviet government - want to maintain control of the remaining nuclear weapons. I believe there is a reference in Airlords of the Ozarks to Milgov sending a team into the remnants of Eaker Air Force Base shortly after it had been nuked to retrieve the warheads. The warheads are probably sitting in a secure tunnel somewhere. Cheyenne Mountain (and its Russian equivalents)? The USAF also maintained a stockpile of inactive nuclear weapons at Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque, NM in underground/hardened facilities. In addition to Minuteman IIIs, there are probably also bombers at various diversion fields - military and civilian airports with runways over 10,000 feet or so. I've got some ideas about these too...
__________________
I love the smell of napalm in the morning. You know, one time we had a hill bombed, for 12 hours. When it was all over, I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one stinkin' body. The smell, you know that gasoline smell, the whole hill. Smelled like... victory. Someday this war's gonna end... |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I think an excellent place to store "decommissioned" nuclear weapons would be the Yucca Mountain Site in Nevada, which was designed to store nuclear waste...what better place, as the gamma flux from the waste would help mask the prescence of weapons thought to be already disposed of.
I can't remember, is the Pantex facility in Amarillo on the strike list? Zlatoust, in the Ural Mountains, is probably the mountain storage facility you're thinking of; a gigantic sprawling site akin to the Manzano Mountain facility at Kirtland. And, previous treaties aside, once open war broke out in Europe, I would imagine that both sides would again arm surface warships, dig out the air-launched nukes, etc. Just in case. |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Chico -
Not to open sore wounds, but I think you covered such a case of several B-52's that had landed at Columbus AFB. During the DC Group's Recovery Plan. Which was one hell'va document if I say so myself. |
#52
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
Later GDW decided that there were no nuclear strikes in Scandinavia. You all know that there are minor differences if you have enough time to study V1, V2 and V2.2 editions. This is one of those. ![]() V 1 Norway Oslo 1 Mt Political and industrial center. Tromso 100 kt Naval base. Town destroyed. Drammen 100 kt ground burst Petroleum industry. Town destroyed Harstad 100 kt naval base. Town destroyd. Bergen 100 kt naval base and harbour. Stavanger 100 kt petroleum industry. Horten 100 kt naval base. Northern Norway badly damaged from tactical nukes and conventional warfare. Sweden Karlskoga 2 X 50 kt Defense industry. Town destroyed. Nynäshamn 20 kt Petroleum industry Malmà 20 kt Petroleum industry and harbour. LingkÃping 50 kt Aircraft industry. Town destroyed. GÃteborg 50 kt. Missile didnt hit targeted oil refinery. Minimal civilian casualties. Stockholm City Badly damaged by Great fire of Stockholm in 1997. Reconstruction have been difficult because area is near frontline. (Swedish civil war.) Finland Helsinki 10 kt. Santahamina military base and petroleum industry area. Second cruise missile heading to downtown was shot down by airforce. In 2001 Helsinki area (including Vantaa and Espoo) is not under government control. Upinniemi naval base 10 kt. Naantali 50 kt Oil refinery and Pansio naval base. Firestorm destroyed large parts of Turku and Naantali. Porvoo 10 kt Oil refinery. Town badly damaged in firestorm. Iceland Keflavik 100 kt airbase. Denmark Copenhagen destroyed by conventional bombing. V2 & 2.2 Scandinavia: While nothing in the Scandinavian countries was subjected to nuclear attacks, the peninsula saw considerable fighting during 1997-98 between NATO and Soviet forces. Cut off from world trade, life is becoming increasingly difficult for most Scandinavians. Most of the cities of Scandinavia are independent or insular, althought broad regions in the south are organized. Areas int the north subjected to fighting during the war are either cantonments, devastated, or in anarchy. |
#53
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
|
#54
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
As far as Scandinavian targets, the 1st edition timeline does mention that at first, only "enemy" targets were hit with nukes, but eventually, neutral targets were hit as well, to prevent the enemy from seizing control of them. Norway, being with NATO, would naturally have been attacked by the Pact. Sweden could have take a few hits when the combatants got around to neutral targets. Finland could be in the same boat as Sweden, but I think they also have some conflict with the Russians in their history; that may have the effect of exacerbating any Soviet strikes against them if anything.
__________________
"They couldn't hit an elephant at this dis...." Major General John Sedgwick, Union Army (1813 - 1864) |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The timeline says that, but in the nation summaries further on it specifically says no nuclear targets in Scandinavia.
|
#56
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
That would require a general alteration of the long-range timeline -- Scandinavia could rival France for world power.
__________________
I'm guided by the beauty of our weapons...First We Take Manhattan, Jennifer Warnes Entirely too much T2K stuff here: www.pmulcahy.com |
#57
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I'm certain that the Boomer module states that Norway was attacked with nuclear weapons. That may be the source of Trooper's list and / or anything published in the Finnish sourcebook - Oslo for sure was mentioned as a target.
__________________
Author of the unofficial and strictly non canon Alternative Survivor’s Guide to the United Kingdom |
#58
|
||||
|
||||
![]() Quote:
"By November, the tactical exchanges had gone strategic and Norway did not escape. Along with attacks on industrial canters, a nuclear bomb was directed at Oslo, the capital. King Harald, who refused to abandon the seat of goverment in the face of enemy attack, died in the blast along with the Statsrad (state council) and most of the Storting. Over half million Norwegians died, in attacks on the capitol, the major industrial centers, and the nations petroleum facilities. The nations naval bases at Horten, Haakonsvern, Ramsund and Olavsvern were destroyed or severely damageded." Boomer p. 12. For those who are wondering new inconsistencies. Boomer uses base names or municipality names and Nordic uses nearest town. For example- Haakonsvern is naval base just outside Bergen. Nordic source book uses material from Boomer (history of Norway and Finland in Twilight war). Danish and Norwegian OOB:s are from NATO Vehicle Guide. Cold weather rules are from Challenge 29. If we speculate the situation in 1997 and 1998. Would the soviets use nuclear weapons against Finland and Sweden - the answer is certainly yes. Sweden was perhaps neutral but it was a pro-Western nation. During cold war Sweden had a very large air force and it also had very large military industrial capacity. Finland had already repelled soviet troops that tried to use its territory to chase fleeing NATO forces. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
I was actually talking about V2. |
#60
|
||||
|
||||
![]()
I tend to disagree with the 2.x statement about the lack of strikes in the north. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me what with all the resources and facilities in the area, not to mention military presence.
Perhaps it should be seen as no strategic strikes which would allow tactical nuke use.
__________________
If it moves, shoot it, if not push it, if it still doesn't move, use explosives. Nothing happens in isolation - it's called "the butterfly effect" Mors ante pudorem |
![]() |
Tags |
europe, maps, nuclear strikes |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests) | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Map of CONUS Nuke strikes. | kato13 | Twilight 2000 Forum | 53 | 07-09-2018 02:26 PM |
Expanded CONUS nuclear strikes map. | kato13 | Morrow Project/ Project Phoenix Forum | 11 | 03-09-2010 07:55 PM |
Wanted: European Target List/Map | Raellus | Twilight 2000 Forum | 1 | 07-10-2009 04:41 PM |
Map of USSR nuclear strikes. | kato13 | Twilight 2000 Forum | 0 | 06-06-2009 04:31 PM |
European Micro-States OOB | Canadian Army | Twilight 2000 Forum | 0 | 01-14-2009 07:17 PM |