How long would Aviation units be effective.

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

Once the nuke start flying anyone trying to buy military hardware from anyone would be called off. As I recall there were some Cadillac Cage Stingrays that some country had order that made their way into the US Inventory after the start of the war.

Abbott,

I'm sick and hopped up cold medication, so please take my comments with a grain of salt!

This is completely opposite case. The US, as a direct combatant with a damaged or destroyed industrial infrastructure, would have reason to appropriate vehicles already in inventory destined for someplace else. If Argentina or Brasil were at war with someone or each other it might be different, but they aren't as far as I'm aware. In other words, they have capacity to spare.

After all, it's not the US selling anything to Argentina, it's an intact Argentina selling Pucaras (and/or Brasilian Super Tucanos) to the USA. The crucial difference being these are not active combatants and they have (supposedly) intact industrial bases. Therefore if the US has something others want (either in the future or currently) then this kind of deal would (or at least could) happen because everyone benefits. Besides, it doesn't have to be hundreds of airframes but a dozen, plus spares and a licence to build more (which could be done even with a damaged industrial base).

As a note regarding the Royal Thai Stingrays, I'm unable to find reference if they were in action against the Burmese incursions in 2001. I'd think they would be effective against the Burmese T-54/55s but not so much against T-72s and upgraded Type-69s. As a personal note when I was in Myanmar I had a great opportunity to take pictures of a Chinese-made Nanchang Q-5 taxiing for takeoff at less than 50m range but my camera crapped out. Bummer!

Tony

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by helbent4

Abbott,

As a note regarding the Royal Thai Stingrays, I'm unable to find reference if they were in action against the Burmese incursions in 2001. I'd think they would be effective against the Burmese T-54/55s but not so much against T-72s and upgraded Type-69s.

They weren't. But the their Stingrays could handle T72s and anything else the Burmese have if they had to.

[James Langham]

Most western countries have a large number of civilian aircraft and helicopters. I can see many of these being pressed into service. Jury rigging a GPMG onto a door mount of a helicopter would be easy enough. The aircraft can be used in a liaison or scouting role. Ground attack would be unlikely as the air defenses used against them (even GPMGs and rifles) would make it next to lethal.

By 2000 I can see the English government using them heavily to find marauders etc as long as fuel can be obtained.

As an aside, Luftwaffe training in 1945 for the Me262 was basically this button does this, this pedal does that, off you go... Makes you wonder how far training could be truncated in 1996 onwards.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by helbent4

If Argentina or Brasil were at war with someone or each other it might be different, but they aren't as far as I'm aware. In other words, they have capacity to spare.

I can't be 100% sure about V1, but in V2.X Brazil and Argentina actually go to War with each other. It appears that Argentina might also have declared War on the United Kingdom in 1996.

From pg 242 of the BYB (V2; it's page 241 in V2.2)

Argentina / Brazil

The Argentineans attempted to reoccupy the Falklands after 1996 and the British were unable to spare more than a token force for the Islands' defence. Argentina itself withdrew when War broke out with Brazil in 1998 and a small scale exchange of low yield nuclear weapons between the two countries completed their slide into chaos. Central Government in noth countries has broken down and both are now divided into semifeudal territories ruled by military juntas or local community governments.

Reading that, it looks like the Argentineans manage to take and hold the Falklands for several years. Not quite where either side got the nukes from though. As I said I can't be sure for V1 as I haven't seen my V1 ref's book for years, but I would be surprised if it was drastically different...

I'm aware that the suggestion is that the Argentine Government supply aircraft to the United States after the 1997 nuclear attacks, which obviously predates the 1998 War with Brazil, but I have to agree with those who think any sort of trade of this nature taking place after Nov 1997 is highly unlikely.

Dave

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by helbent4

Protecting important databases from EMP is hardly rocket science.

Ok, the data may be safely backed up, but the ability to share that information is gone. Even if that information could be shared, how can it be verified quickly, or easily? There may be ways, but there are many more ways to falsify the data - therefore the data, correct or otherwise, is essentially worthless in proving the wealth, or otherwise of a nation, corporation, organisation, or individual in a trade situation.

Originally Posted by helbent4

Governments at least would be interested in doing business as usual, even during wartime, as they tend to see things in the long term.

What government is this exactly? Page 13 of the 2.2 BYB and pg 26 of the 1.0 Referees Manual state "Peace might have come, but there were no surviving governments to negotiate it."
Yes, there is Milgov and Civgov in the US, however these were not formed until after the Spring planting in 1999 was finished, and certainly wouldn't have been in any shape whatsoever to carry out international negotiations for quite some time (chances are because of the same reasons that caused the split, foreign nations would have refused to deal with either one for fear of backing the wrong horse and having the payment fall through).

Originally Posted by helbent4

As for Ft. Knox, it's more than likely the gold was evacuated; it wasn't like no one thought a nuclear war was a possibility. After all, someone tried (and at least partially failed) to recover the gold in Manhattan. Ft. Knox would have a higher priority and easier security.

How? Where to? There is over 4,176 (according to Wiki) tonnes of the stuff in there - not a simple task to carry out unnoticed...

Originally Posted by helbent4

This is completely opposite case. The US, as a direct combatant with a damaged or destroyed industrial infrastructure, would have reason to appropriate vehicles already in inventory destined for someplace else.

Correct, and we see this several times in the books (the Cadillac Gage tanks for example). What we do not see is the US retaining anything even close to the ability to seize the goods and possessions not within shooting distance of a US military unit strong enough to throw it's weight about on foreign soil.

Originally Posted by helbent4

After all, it's not the US selling anything to Argentina, it's an intact Argentina selling Pucaras (and/or Brasilian Super Tucanos) to the USA.

Originally Posted by helbent4

The crucial difference being these are not active combatants and they have (supposedly) intact industrial bases.

To quote page 241 of the 2.2 BYB:
"Agentina itself withdrew (from the Falklands) when war broke out with Brazil in 1998, and a small scale exchange of low-yield nuclear weapons between the two countries completed their slide into chaos. Central government in both countries has broken down, and both are now divided into semi-feudal territories ruled by military juntas or local community governments."

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Ok, the data may be safely backed up, but the ability to share that information is gone. Even if that information could be shared, how can it be verified quickly, or easily? There may be ways, but there are many more ways to falsify the data - therefore the data, correct or otherwise, is essentially worthless in proving the wealth, or otherwise of a nation, corporation, organisation, or individual in a trade situation.

Leg,

It's not the stored data that's important, an agreement can be made on paper like in the days of yore. Like, the 80's. In the 90's it would have been via fax, after by email.

I don't see your point about Ft. Knox; gold can be moved by plane, train, truck, mule train, etc. Moved to wherever safe, it's not germane to the discussion. Let's try to keep focused here!

What government is this exactly?

The Brasilian or Argentinian governments. Do try to keep up, eh? (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

What we do not see is the US retaining anything even close to the ability to seize the goods and possessions not within shooting distance of a US military unit strong enough to throw it's weight about on foreign soil.

This doesn't seem relevant to the discussion. We're talking trade, not seizure.

"Agentina itself withdrew (from the Falklands) when war broke out with Brazil in 1998, and a small scale exchange of low-yield nuclear weapons between the two countries completed their slide into chaos. Central government in both countries has broken down, and both are now divided into semi-feudal territories ruled by military juntas or local community governments."

So, there's nothing to stop a trade with either Argentina or Brasil up to and including 1998 then? Thanks! For all we know, the nukes from one or both could have been supplied by the Americans (or at least the technical know-how) in exchange for Super Tucanos or Pucaras. It makes sense, it's a mutually beneficial and logical exchange.

Tony

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by helbent4

It's not the stored data that's important, an agreement can be made on paper like in the days of yore. Like, the 80's. In the 90's it would have been via fax, after by email.

Considering the data in question is the financial records of at least one country, I rather think is is VERY important.

Originally Posted by helbent4

I don't see your point about Ft. Knox; gold can be moved by plane, train, truck, mule train, etc. Moved to wherever safe, it's not germane to the discussion. Let's try to keep focused here!

Ok, lets spell it out.
4000+ tonnes of gold would require approximately 80 trucks assuming a 50+ tonne capacity. That's a LOT of trucks or return journeys, and they're trucks at the big end of the scale too. That's also a LOT of fuel if you're taking it any distance, not to mention manpower for security, and with that manpower comes many opportunities for gold to go missing....
Now as to where? 4000+ tonnes, as we've seen in truckloads, is a LOT of bulk to find somewhere secure to hide. Yes, it's extremely unlikely that each truck would be filled by cubic space to capacity, but even so, you're going to need more than an average warehouse to keep it all in.
It's not impossible to do, but even in peacetime, it's a hell of a logistical effort to keep under wraps!

Originally Posted by helbent4

The Brasilian or Argentinian governments. Do try to keep up, eh? (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

So we've got Argentina effectively at war with Britain (and probably preparing for another invasion from the UK to kick them out of the Falklands) while relations between Argentina and Brazil are going down the toilet... Wars don't just happen after all, there's usually a period of "troubles" before the shooting breaks out. During this lead-in it's EXTREMELY unlikely either country would be willing to part with military hardware (especially Argentina!).
We also have the fact that the US was without a government for the critical period.
Looking closer at Howling Wilderness, we see that the last legitimate President (the Secretary of Energy) committed suicide sometime between taking office on the 19th of May 1998 and the 2nd of June 1998. The "Rump Congress" reconvened on the 19th April 1999, nearly a year later, which left only the Joint Chiefs in control. I can't think of many foreign governments which would be willing to negotiate with them given the fact they have nothing to offer in return (and their legitimacy is rather questionable). Of course you also need a foreign government in the first place (most of which have been effectively wiped out by nukes, civil disorder, etc).

Originally Posted by helbent4

This doesn't seem relevant to the discussion. We're talking trade, not seizure.

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

Once the nuke start flying anyone trying to buy military hardware from anyone would be called off. As I recall there were some Cadillac Cage Stingrays that some country had order that made their way into the US Inventory after the start of the war.

I thought seizure was solidly on the table.... :S

Originally Posted by helbent4

So, there's nothing to stop a trade with either Argentina or Brasil up to and including 1998 then?

Besides the fact that as mentioned above, both nations were preparing to go to war with each other for some time and unlikely to have any significant amounts of hardware to spare? And that beginning in November 1997 the US government (what was left of it) was under ever increasing pressure to deal with the after effects of the nukes? Not to mention that prior to the nukes, the US didn't really need the slow moving, prop powered, ground attack aircraft. Even if somebody had identified a need for such a craft, negotiations regarding supply and purchase would likely to have barely begun, heavily hampered by US corporate interests more inclined to push for their own products to be taken up by the military than allow foreigners access to "their" market.

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Considering the data in question is the financial records of at least one country, I rather think is is VERY important.

It's not impossible to do, but even in peacetime, it's a hell of a logistical effort to keep under wraps!

Leg,

Important in an abstract sense, but not germane to the conversation. Agreements and bookkeeping can be done on paper.

I agree moving gold out of Fort Knox is difficult, but if it needed to be done it could.

During this lead-in it's EXTREMELY unlikely either country would be willing to part with military hardware (especially Argentina!).

We also have the fact that the US was without a government for the critical period.

Both points tend to work in my favour. If the USA, or a faction of the USA were to be trading nuclear technology to one or both nations, then they would have incredible incentive to part with what is a "lesser" technology.

If the US government has collapsed, then there is effectively no oversight. Whoever has the technology (if it's nuclear) can trade it as soon as they like without any cumbersome bureaucratic or indeed legal restrictions.

A deal could realistically be completed in months, if not sooner. The longest part of the process could be the physical transfer of materials. So, this could certainly happen for the most basic of reasons any trade happens: "you have something I want, I have something you want."

Tony

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by helbent4

Important in an abstract sense, but not germane to the conversation. Agreements and bookkeeping can be done on paper.

ARGH!
It's of vital practical importance! With the loss of computer networks, aka the stock markets and banking system, the US is effectively BANKRUPT. They have next to nothing to offer besides the gold (probably irradiated and worthless) or nukes (but anyone caught handing even one over to a foreign power is likely to be shot for treason).
Yes, agreements and bookkeeping can be done on paper, but that's not really the point. Without the information from the stock market, banks, etc, almost all of which was lost during the nukes, a country has almost nothing they can use to pay for the needed/desired goods. It's really not as simple as sending a load of say iron ore over in exchange - where is it coming from? How are you going to pay the mining company? How are they going to pay their workers, etc, etc, etc. Even sending gold bars from Ft Knox isn't all that straight forward since "Ten members of the Depository staff must dial separate combinations known only to them"1. How likely is it that all ten people will a) survive the nukes and b) be on hand? It's not like the place has a turnstile for the tourists... Also, as previously mentioned, gold is heavy. It also looses a bit of it's value when people are more interested in putting something edible in their mouths.
Of course there's nothing to say it couldn't be used, but it would be damn difficult!

Originally Posted by helbent4

Both points tend to work in my favour. If the USA, or a faction of the USA were to be trading nuclear technology to one or both nations, then they would have incredible incentive to part with what is a "lesser" technology.

If the US government has collapsed, then there is effectively no oversight. Whoever has the technology (if it's nuclear) can trade it as soon as they like without any cumbersome bureaucratic or indeed legal restrictions.

Except their own conscience, or that of those around them. Plus of course the logistical issues, but given enough will, a way would be found. A few years down the track, any illegal actions may come back to haunt them too...

Originally Posted by helbent4

A deal could realistically be completed in months, if not sooner. The longest part of the process could be the physical transfer of materials. So, this could certainly happen for the most basic of reasons any trade happens: "you have something I want, I have something you want."

Correct, but there would be some serious trust issues to overcome. Without the prewar international trade infrastructure, which essentially removes the need for trust (a transaction can take place in the blink of an eye and depending on what it is, might not even involve physical transfer of goods), the risk of something going wrong or one side stiffing the other grows almost exponentially. If the trade involves shifting goods halfway around the planet using unreliable post nuke transportation resources, and across lawless seas and lands, the likelyhood of problems increases to the point of near total failure (so many things that could go wrong before completion of the contract).

1. http://web.archive.org/web/200802010...fort-knox.html

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

They have next to nothing to offer besides the gold (probably irradiated and worthless) or nukes (but anyone caught handing even one over to a foreign power is likely to be shot for treason).

Correct, but there would be some serious trust issues to overcome.

Leg,

I think you're too wrapped up in the intricacies of modern trade and banking.

This is more like a drug deal or a black market arms deal (which is literally true). All any trade requires is two parties that have something the other wants. Illegitimate deals like this by definition do not rely on legitimate and conventional means of verification, fiduciary responsibility and due diligence. It's a black market deal. With some experts to verify the materials under consideration, maybe third parties that can vouch for either parties legitimacy, and a deal is done.

Tony

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by helbent4

So, there's nothing to stop a trade with either Argentina or Brasil up to and including 1998 then? Thanks! For all we know, the nukes from one or both could have been supplied by the Americans (or at least the technical know-how) in exchange for Super Tucanos or Pucaras. It makes sense, it's a mutually beneficial and logical exchange.

Tony

Actually, given T2K orginal timelines, this nukes would have probably been produced localy. Brazil had run a thriving nuclear program from the 1970's on and only renounced nuclear weapon development in the early 1990's. With the coming of the twilight war such renouncement is doubtful. Moreover, given US distrust of Brazilian intentions, US backing in the development of nulcear weapon is very unlikely.

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profil...zil/index.html

Argentina did something similar.

http://www.nti.org/e_research/profil...ina/index.html

In addition, both countries had a missile program at the time. All of these were cut in the mid-1990's but given the twilight war, they would probably have been accelerated instead.

That has not been developped by any of us but it could be interesting to look deeper into these two countries.

[Abbott Shaull]

Oh great what the world needs is two minor nuclear powers....

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Abbott Shaull

Oh great what the world needs is two minor nuclear powers....

Its never the big dawg that you have to worry about, its that mob of little dawgs that will get you every time.

Besides, wait a couple of years until Iran gets the bomb...not to mention a certain terrorist group that divides its time hating Israel and the US...

Then you get to see what the TSA really means by "full body cavity search!"

And my boss wants to know why I won't fly commercial!!!

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by dragoon500ly

Its never the big dawg that you have to worry about...

Ehh, speak for yourself.

[helbent4]

Originally Posted by Mohoender

Actually, given T2K orginal timelines, this nukes would have probably been produced localy. Brazil had run a thriving nuclear program from the 1970's on and only renounced nuclear weapon development in the early 1990's. With the coming of the twilight war such renouncement is doubtful. Moreover, given US distrust of Brazilian intentions, US backing in the development of nulcear weapon is very unlikely.

Mohoender,

They could, not that they automatically would.

There's no evidence that either country could complete research and development of their nuclear weapons programs in a timely fashion, if trestarted. This would be a golden chance to accelerate their nuclear development programs by months or even years!

An American faction or local commander with the right materials (fissile material, plans, even a completed weapon) could make the trade on their own, with no oversight. If the US government has collapsed, they can't exercise proper control of nuclear materials. Distrust of Brasil or the political cost of support for a potential foe of the UK like Argentina is not a factor.

Tony

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by helbent4

Mohoender,

They could, not that they automatically would.


Tony

Tony, I agree with you. I should have used could. That's also why I like T2K, it's because every problem has a multiple solution.