RPG Forums

Go Back   RPG Forums > Role Playing Game Section > Twilight 2000 Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-05-2009, 03:32 PM
Dogger Dogger is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Central California USA
Posts: 41
Default Australia Twilight War & After...

Looking for any information on Australia during the war and after.

Was it nuked anywhere?

Did the government fall?

Current conditions in the country?

I seem to remember reading somthing way back about an invasion of OZ by Indonesia?

Any info wheather cannon or not would be helpful.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-05-2009, 11:40 PM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,506
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dogger View Post
Looking for any information on Australia during the war and after.
There is very little info about Australia and its region in 1st ed T2K (I'm not sure if there is much more info about Oz in versions 2 or 2.2). The invasion of the very far northern parts of Australia by Indonesia is mentioned in the Traveller 2300 timeline (which technically is T2K canon but has been disputed a fair bit in discussions by those on this board).

If you have a look through the thread map for this board you should be able to find a number of discussions about Australasia that we've had. Here are a few threads that contain musings on Australasia:

Oceania OOB http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=515
International Trade http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=530
Australia/New Zealand in the Twilight War http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.php?t=317

If you look at the threads in the DC Working Group section of the site map I seem to recall that there are some mentions of Australia there in terms of its use as a resupply point for US forces during the later part of the Twilight War.

You could use the search function at the top of the page as well to find mentions of Australia in our discussions over the years. I recall there have been many but its hard to remember which threads they came up in.
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli

Last edited by Targan; 10-05-2009 at 11:53 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-06-2009, 12:02 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,596
Default

I personally see Australia in 2000 in a similar way as it's depicted in the early stages of the classic book and movie adaptions of "On the Beach"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Beach_(novel)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Beach_(1959_film)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Beach_(2000_film)
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-06-2009, 04:53 AM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

Targan is right and he reminds me of what we already said on the subject.

For my part, Australia isn't nuked and I made it (in fact the Oceanian Union which includes Australia, New Zealand, Fiji Islands and Papua New Guinea) the last truly industrial part of the world (they have more than enough resources for that). Their industries was shot down by the EMPs of course, but as their country's infrastructures were intact, they could fix pretty much everything in a matter of a few month (limited electricity within days and all vital power supplies with a couple of weeks).

As a result, it is indeed supplying US but also many other belligerants. After all trade is trade and I can see Australia acting (after the nukes) like Sweden in WW2 (with the exception of the Warsaw Pact).

About civil unrest, as I already said in other thread, I simply don't buy it. You might have some but this IMO remain limited.

I keep the war with Indonesia but If the Indonesians effectively land at Darwin, they are repelled (AMX-13 and PT-76 are simply no match for Leopard 1 and eventually Abrams). Cannon states that both air forces and navies destroyed each other. Except if Australians are the most stupid fighter (what they are not) on this planet I see that totally unrealistic.

I agree that the Australian/N-Z navy will suffer some losses (may be serious ones) but it should (IMO) come up on top. First, they won't engage their whole force without full control of the air. Second, they have better ships and better trained crews. Third, their ships are better maintained and they have ample supply to repair them while Indonesia will quickly suffer from supply shortages. Later, I even have Australia commissioning at least 2 aircraft carriers (similar to Principe de Asturias) and they can build new ships as well to replace the eventual losses.

Air power is the key IMO. From what I get, the Indonesian air force is no match for the Australian/N-Z air force, especially on its own soil. Just look at the combat aircrafts.

- The indonesian will have about 10 F-16, 16 F-5 and 32 A-4 (su-30 cancelled and further deliveries of F-16 cancelled by Indonesia itself in 1989).

- Australia can count on 70+ F/A-18, 24 F-111 (not matched by anything flown by Indonesia), A-4 from New Zealand (better suited for anti ship missions) and eventually 28 F-16 (N-Z). Depending on your timeline and choice, they might have kept the 50 Mirage III sold to Pakistan in 1990. Nevertheless, even with the minimal amount of aircraft they are still on the winning side (Australians are not known to fly with broken harms). In addition, they can produce more aircrafts what Indonesia can't do.

At last, I adapted the situation described in the Gazeteer (Merc 2000). Indonesians were pushed back to the sea and the Australians landed in Indonesia, ultimately controlling Java and Sumatra under a puppet government. However, they are faced with a difficult situation there with terrorist attacks and opposing forces controlling most of the other islands (not to talk of piracy).

If Indonesia's bet was short live, Australia can't control Indonesia.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-06-2009, 03:03 PM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

I posted something on Australia under the thread dedicated to Regions.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-06-2009, 06:29 PM
boogiedowndonovan's Avatar
boogiedowndonovan boogiedowndonovan is offline
Activist Rules Lawyer
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: norcal
Posts: 309
Default

someone can correct me if I'm wrong, because I don't have my T2k books in front of me.

V1 doesn't mention anything about Australia and Indonesia.

V2 and 2.2 mention that Indonesia invaded New Guinea and Australia intervened. There were a series of aero-naval battles that wiped out both airforces and navies. V2 and 2.2 don't mention anything specific about the aero-naval battles.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-06-2009, 08:35 PM
Webstral's Avatar
Webstral Webstral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North San Francisco Bay
Posts: 1,687
Default

Have the Soviets become such nice guys that they allow Australia, an ANZUS ally and close partner with the other Western powers, to go un-nuked?

Webstral
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-06-2009, 09:24 PM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,596
Default

Not all that much here worth nuking really, at least not unless it's a total nuclear war with ballistic missiles, etc.
A few smallish oil refineries, the odd industrial centre, and lots and lots and LOTS of wide open space with very little in it.
Although possessing targets that warranted nuking if located in Europe or N America, halfway around the world from the conflicts, Australia, especially in the latter stages of the war, isn't really going to be able to supply much to anyone (even ourselves).

As a target, we're a waste of nukes - New Zealand even more so.
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-07-2009, 01:46 AM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webstral View Post
Have the Soviets become such nice guys that they allow Australia, an ANZUS ally and close partner with the other Western powers, to go un-nuked?

Webstral
Simply what is implied by Cannon (v2.2). Here is the text:
Australia was largely untouched by the nuclear exchange, but the global panic which followed left its mark on both the cities and outback. Large parts of the countryside are now in anarchy, terrorized, or insular, but the major cities are organized and controlled by the central government. A short war was fought with Inodnesia after it invaded Australia's ally, Papua-New Guinea. The indonesian offensive quickly halted, mostly due to logistical collapse, but not before a majority of Australi's and Indonesia's modern aircraft and naval vessels had been damaged or destroyed in a series of running aeronaval actions.

I was largely inspired by this but found it insufficient. I changed some elements (especially the countryside) as it serves my purpose better but kept many of the basics. Cannon made the soviets nice guys. In fact, it makes Australia insignificant.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-07-2009, 01:50 AM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
Although possessing targets that warranted nuking if located in Europe or N America, halfway around the world from the conflicts, Australia, especially in the latter stages of the war, isn't really going to be able to supply much to anyone (even ourselves).
I agree and that's why I made Australia trade with Thailand, France (In fact New Caledonia and may be Djibouti), and US troops in the Middle East (whuy not Kenya).
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-07-2009, 03:28 PM
Webstral's Avatar
Webstral Webstral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North San Francisco Bay
Posts: 1,687
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
Not all that much here worth nuking really, at least not unless it's a total nuclear war with ballistic missiles, etc.
A few smallish oil refineries, the odd industrial centre, and lots and lots and LOTS of wide open space with very little in it.
Although possessing targets that warranted nuking if located in Europe or N America, halfway around the world from the conflicts, Australia, especially in the latter stages of the war, isn't really going to be able to supply much to anyone (even ourselves).

As a target, we're a waste of nukes - New Zealand even more so.
Waste is all about perception. Those with lots of resources often are wasteful about the use of said resources. The USSR of 1997 has a spectacular number of warheads and delivery systems. The Soviets clearly aren't concerned about fair play: look at the pasting they give Canada. If we're to imagine that the Soviets smash virtually all of Canada's principal cities just to deny Canadian resources to the United States, then surely both Australia and New Zealand deserve a megaton or five. It's not like you guys will shoot back; nor are the Soviets short on warheads or delivery systems. Disrupting the main American forward bases in that part of the world is nothing more than a cheap insurance policy.

Webstral

P.S. Sorry to sound like such an ugly Yank.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-07-2009, 04:15 PM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

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.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-07-2009, 05:34 PM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,506
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webstral View Post
If we're to imagine that the Soviets smash virtually all of Canada's principal cities just to deny Canadian resources to the United States, then surely both Australia and New Zealand deserve a megaton or five. It's not like you guys will shoot back; nor are the Soviets short on warheads or delivery systems. Disrupting the main American forward bases in that part of the world is nothing more than a cheap insurance policy.
So which targets then? The RAN's two main naval bases on the east and west coasts? Pine Gap? Auckland?
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-07-2009, 05:48 PM
Webstral's Avatar
Webstral Webstral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North San Francisco Bay
Posts: 1,687
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoender View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-07-2009, 05:52 PM
Webstral's Avatar
Webstral Webstral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North San Francisco Bay
Posts: 1,687
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Targan View Post
So which targets then? The RAN's two main naval bases on the east and west coasts? Pine Gap? Auckland?
I honestly don't know without doing some research. Off the top of my head, I'd say the respective headquarters of Australia's Navy, Army, and Air Force; the capitol; the principal refinery(ies); and the most important defense-related industrial center(s). The same applies to New Zealand. Whatever logic applies to the attacks on Canada probably would apply to attacks on Australia and New Zealand.

Webstral
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-07-2009, 07:10 PM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webstral View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webstral View Post
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).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webstral View Post
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.

Last edited by Mohoender; 10-07-2009 at 07:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-07-2009, 08:13 PM
RN7 RN7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,237
Default

From Merc 2000:

Current Conditions:
In 1997 a military junta seized power in Indonesia and invaded Papa New Guinea, in what outside observers labelled as a desperate attempt to distract the attention of the populace from the nation’s economic problems. Australia (the defender of Papua New Guinea by treaty) sent troops in response. This army was the first of many forces to be primarily mercenary, but it was not the last. In 1999, the Australian mercenary army defeated the Indonesian forces on Java and Sumatra, and the government in Jakarta surrendered, although parts of the defeated army (primarily the units in Borneo) refused to surrender.

The forces of the pro-Australian government currently control 90 percent of Java and Sumatra (including 100 percent of the oil fields on these two islands), and all major airfields and seaports in the rest of the Indonesian Archipelago, except for the islands of Timor and the Moluccan group, which are controlled by Timorese and Moluccan insurgents, respectively. Some of the inhabitants of the smaller islands in the Sulu Sea region have fallen to their own devices and returned to their old livelihood-piracy. Technically, the Indonesian Army officers control the mercenary units, but the major command slots of each mercenary unit (and most of the Indonesian units) are occupied by Australians holding Indonesian commissions.

Ground Forces:
The Australians have raised nine brigades of mercenaries for service in Indonesia, and also have available the Australian SAS regiment, a cavalry regiment, and an armored regiment. An infantry division of native Australians remains in reserve, to be used only in case of dire emergency. The army force of helicopters consists of 47 OH-58 Kiowa’s and 48 AH-1s.

Air Power:
Indo-Australian fixed-wing assets in Indonesia consist of two 16 plane squadrons of A-6, one 14 plane squadron of F-5s, two KC-130 tankers, and two 14 plane squadrons of C-130 Hercules transports (Indonesian), plus two 18 plane squadrons of F-111s, three 16 plane squadrons of F-18s, and 24 C-130 Hercules transports (Australian). Rotary-wing assets include 12 Bo-105, 18 UH-1 (Indonesian), and 8 CH-47s and 12 UH-1s (Australian).

Naval Forces:
The Australian naval assets devoted to the Indonesian theatre consist of a Perth class (ex-US Adams class) destroyer and 12 patrol boats similar to the SAR-38. Long-range recon duties are performed by seven Sea King helicopters of the Fleet Air Arm. Much of the Indonesian Navy was destroyed during the war, but another 17 patrol boats are available for pro-Australian use as well as 18 unarmed maritime recon aircraft.

Australian Organizations:
At the conclusion of the formal portion of the war the Australians retained most of the mercenary forces for occupation duties, while dismissing the bulk of their regular units. This has eased the burden on the Australian labour pool, since it is not necessary to take large numbers of the Australian workforce into the military. Nonetheless supporting the large mercenary contingent has placed a strain on the economy. Recruitment of Australian civilians is minimal. The total Australian force breaks down to about 20 percent Australians and New Zealanders, 45 percent Indian, 15 percent former Soviet, 10 percent German, with the remainder consisting of mixed nationalities. Most of the combat mercenaries are Russians, Germans and Americans, although other nationalities are well represented. Some of the units have been in service for years, causing the Australian force in Indonesia to be nicknamed the Australian Foreign Legion. The Australian organisation and equipment mix represents a departure from their normal organisational practises and represents the realities of the situation in Indonesia.

Free Indonesian Army:
This force consists of remnants of the old Indonesian Army. Units from platoon to battalion size are still in action (more of the former than of the latter), and hold much of Borneo. This includes the oil fields of Borneo, although Australian air patrols and a semi-unfriendly government in Malaysia keep them from exporting. Small pockets of anti-Australian resistance are present on Sumatra, Java, and Irian as well. A single surviving light tank company is hidden somewhere on Java, hidden in the interior of the island where it awaits an opportunity to strike. The Free Indonesian forces also have four UH-1 s and an armed Bo-105 (hidden in the interior of Borneo). The Free Indonesian forces have no naval assets, except for a few small island hopping cargo boats, unarmed fishing boats, or tramp steamers. Some of the larger fishing boats or steamers are big enough to carry one or two armored vehicles while still being small enough to land anywhere along the coast.

Revolutionary Front East Timor:
For decades before the war with Australia, the Indonesians had been fighting a low-level guerrilla war against a small but virulent Timoran insurgency.

Free Papua Movement:
This group is still opposed to the Australian presence in Papua New Guinea. It consists of a few hundred ill armed guerrillas operating in the mountainous jungles on the island.

Front for an independent Moluccas:
These guerrillas operate from the islands of Moluccan Sea, but have terrorist cells as far away as Europe.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-07-2009, 08:16 PM
RN7 RN7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,237
Default

From Millennium’s End:

No nuclear war in this scenario but a similar world environment to Merc 2000. Economic recession, separatist movements and international terrorism has plunged the world into crisis and strained the resources of many of the worlds militaries, but the Australia armed forces seems to be doing well out of it.

The Australian Army
The Australian Army has undergone the largest expansion of the three services. Together with the purchase of US Army surplus after the Gulf War, this has provided a potent combination of modern equipment mated to traditional Australian field craft. There is a Mechanised Infantry Regiment equipped with M1A1 Abrams, M2 Bradley’s, and LAV-25’s. There is an Air Mobile Regiment with the UH-60 Blackhawk as transport, and a Marine Assault Regiment based around the Navy’s HMAS Perth (a former Tawara class amphibious assault ship). Two squadrons of Eurocopter Tiger helicopters provide Anti-armour and Close Air Support. A small air defence unit with a battery of Patriot and several batteries of Rapier are tasked with mainland air defence.

The Australian SAS Regiment consists of three sabres. At any time, one of these is tasked with Counter Terrorism, while the others are used as raiders, or in recon. The CT role is rotated regularly to ensure a broad mix of skills. In the field, Australian troops are armed with the Steyr AUG (the M203 grenade launcher is issued one per fire team), the M249 SAW and a mixture of Milan and the M-72 LAW for anti-tank / anti-bunker work. The SAS use what they want, typically the M-16 or the H&K MP-5. There is no PDW for rear echelon troops, but this is being evaluated, and it is likely that the FN P-90 will be adopted shortly. Training exercises are regularly held in conjunction with the Singaporean army in the jungles of northern Queensland and in the deserts of Western Australia.

The Royal Australian Navy (RAN)
The RAN has done well out of the expansion of the defence forces. The pride and joy of the Navy is HMAS Perth, formerly the USS Peleliu (A Tawara class Amphibious Assault Helicopter Carrier). Used in both the ASW and Amphibious Assault roles, she can carry almost 2000 troops, plus up to 35 helicopters. AV-8B Harrier II’s may be purchased to provide a self defence ability in the near future.

Available to escort HMAS Perth are three almost new former US Navy Arleigh Burke class AEGIS destroyers (HMAS Brisbane, HMAS Hobart and HMAS Freemantle). HMAS Hobart was badly damaged in a suicide boat attack in 1999, but is now back in service. 6 OH Perry class Missile Frigates (FFG) and 8 ANZAC class frigates (FF) round out the surface navy. Eight new Collins class conventional (non-nuclear) submarines make up the submarine fleet. These have been fitted with Tomahawk missile launching capability, and can carry up to 8 Tomahawks each. Silent when operating on batteries, they have also been used in landing special operations troops. The navy also maintains a small anti-mining and ports clearance unit to guard against mines and enemy SCUBA units. This unit regularly trains with the Singaporean navy. Navy air units are currently limited to the S-70 Sea Hawk and the SH-3 Sea King. The Sea Harrier, or AV-8B Harrier II may be purchased in the near future. The RAAF provides P-3 Orions for ASW and SAR work, and a squadron of former RNZAF A-4 Skyhawks for aggressor training. The RAAF’s F/A-18’s can be configured for an anti-surface role with Harpoon and Maverick missiles.

The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF)
The RAAF has doubled in size since 1990. There are now four squadrons for F/A- 18’s providing both air defence and ground strike. The two squadrons of F-111’s have been expanded by the purchase of USAF surplus FB-111’s to provide a strategic strike capability. A number of new E2 Hawkeye’s have been purchased to provide AWAC’s along with the Jindalee OTHR long range radar system. Air transport is an area of concern, as although the number of C-130’s has increased, they are limited in load. Where heavy lift is required, Russian or Ukrainian Antonov’s have been leased and this is likely to continue in the future in the absence of either the C-17 or the Airbus 400. A number of converted Boeing 707’s provide air-to-air refuelling expanding the area covered by the RAAF’s strike force.

A number of new bases have been opened in northern Queensland, the Northern Territory and Western Australia to provide basing for the new squadrons. A squadron of either F-111’s or F/A-18’s rotate to Changi Air Base in Singapore as part of the defence agreement, while Singaporean F-16’s fly training exercises over north Queensland.

The Australian Security Intelligence Organisation (ASIO)
The ASIO is the Federal Government branch tasked with dealing in internal security and counter espionage. ASIO Headquarters are in Canberra with district offices in each state or territory capital. It is thought that around 600 people work for the ASIO, scattered around locations in Australia. The focus of the ASIO is on espionage, terrorists and violent political groups. It also performs background security checks on personnel working in areas of national interest, and it works closely with the Department of Immigration to weed out undesirable elements.

By law, it is not permitted to operate outside of Australia, but several recent operations appear to have had an overseas connection, much to the annoyance of the ASIS. Contacts with the British Security Service and America’s FBI are good, with a great deal of information exchanged between the organisations. Any actions requiring heavy duty firepower would be backed up by elements of the CT sabre of the SAS. Friction between the ASIO and State Police forces mean that Police SWAT teams are only occasionally used.

The Defence Imagery and Geospatial Organisation (DIGO)
The DIGO is a branch of the Ministry of Defence. Its role is to provide intelligence to government agencies from satellite and other imagery sources. To provide this service it has the use of a number of assets include Photo-Recon configured RAAF F-111’s, Falcon business jets, E-2 AWACS and Aus-Sat (a spy satellite launched in 1999 from Guiana). It is run from Bendigo in Victoria, with a headquarters detachment in Canberra. It is suspected that members of DIGO are also present on the ground photographing sensitive overseas sites. Major roles handled by the DIGO include tracking of unknown shipping, unauthorised flights to and from Australian airspace and monitoring of National Security and Defence exclusion zones in the Northern Territories, Western Australia and Queensland.

The Australian Secret Intelligence Service (ASIS)
The ASIS is Australia’s overseas intelligence collection agency. Its primary function is to obtain and distribute information about the capabilities, intentions and activities of individuals or organisations outside Australia which may impact on Australian interests. The ASIS tasks include reporting on major defence, international relations and national economic issues. The ASIS is not regarded as a police or law enforcement agency. It is prohibited by law from planning for, or undertaking, paramilitary activities involving violence against the person or the use of weapons. Any operations requiring these activities are passed over the Australian Defence Forces. It is thought that in a number of these operations have been co-ordinated or headed by an ASIS staff member. It is certain that a number of ASIS field staff are former Special Forces members.

The ASIS headquarters are in Canberra. All Australian Embassies and Consulates in the Asian region will have at least one staff member working for the ASIS. In areas regarding as high priority such as Indonesia, India and China, that number will be much higher. The Director of the ASIS reports directly to the Prime Minister. It is though that there may be 400 staff based in Australia, and up to 50 based at foreign locations. The ASIS enjoys good relations with the UK SIS and with the CIA. Its relationship with the ASIO is not so good, as several operations by the ASIS have resulted in Australian espionage rings being exposed.

Joint Defence Facilities
These are US intelligence bases within Australia which are jointly owned with the Australia government. Australians provide much of the staffing and resources, and both share in information gleaned. The three known bases are Harold Holt Station near the North West Cape in Western Australia, Pine Gap near Alice Springs and Nurrungar which is within the Woomera defence zone in South Australia. Pine Gap is the only one easily accessible by the public, and attracts regular protests.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-07-2009, 10:18 PM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,506
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webstral View Post
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.
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli

Last edited by Targan; 10-07-2009 at 10:30 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-07-2009, 11:42 PM
Webstral's Avatar
Webstral Webstral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North San Francisco Bay
Posts: 1,687
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mohoender View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 10-07-2009, 11:52 PM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,596
Default

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.
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 10-08-2009, 01:13 AM
StainlessSteelCynic's Avatar
StainlessSteelCynic StainlessSteelCynic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 1,852
Default

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).
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 10-08-2009, 01:24 AM
Legbreaker's Avatar
Legbreaker Legbreaker is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 4,596
Default

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.
__________________
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
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 10-08-2009, 01:29 AM
Mohoender's Avatar
Mohoender Mohoender is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Near Cannes, South of France
Posts: 1,653
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic View Post
"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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic View Post
"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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by StainlessSteelCynic View Post
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)
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 10-08-2009, 03:21 AM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,506
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
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.
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli

Last edited by Targan; 10-08-2009 at 03:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 10-08-2009, 06:19 AM
RN7 RN7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,237
Default

Quote:
"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.

Quote:
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.


Quote:
"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.


Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.


Quote:
This may be nit-picking but Fremantle (as in HMAS Fremantle) is not spelt Freemantle.
A typo perhaps!

Quote:
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?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 10-08-2009, 07:19 AM
Targan's Avatar
Targan Targan is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 3,506
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RN7 View Post
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.
__________________
"It is better to be feared than loved" - Nicolo Machiavelli
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 10-08-2009, 12:01 PM
RN7 RN7 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,237
Default

Quote:
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
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 10-08-2009, 04:55 PM
Webstral's Avatar
Webstral Webstral is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: North San Francisco Bay
Posts: 1,687
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legbreaker View Post
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
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 10-08-2009, 06:21 PM
StainlessSteelCynic's Avatar
StainlessSteelCynic StainlessSteelCynic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Western Australia
Posts: 1,852
Default

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".
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.