The ANZACs in T2k

[Legbreaker]

The oil refineries Australia does have aren't actually suited to processing the oil we have, and are located far from the oil fields anyway. The bulk of the crude processed in Australia is shipped in from elsewhere, while the oil produced mostly ends up in Asia.
https://www.aip.com.au/resources/aus...n-and-refining

The refineries really can't be the reason for any nukes.

[rcaf_777]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

The oil refineries Australia does have aren't actually suited to processing the oil we have, and are located far from the oil fields anyway. The bulk of the crude processed in Australia is shipped in from elsewhere, while the oil produced mostly ends up in Asia.
https://www.aip.com.au/resources/aus...n-and-refining

The refineries really can't be the reason for any nukes.

That what I thought too, I found this tool that shows Australia Crude Oil Consumption by Year. (https://www.indexmundi.com/energy/?c...on&product=oil) in 1998 Australia consumed 852,000 Barrels of oil, while producing 862,0000 Barrels. Which in theory is just enough to cover consumption is a very small surplus.

I also don't think that the Soviets have enough missiles left in Asia with the range to hit Australian targets. Best option is a Ballistic Sub Launched Missiles and then I would only have one sub attacking ports that the US could use.

[Olefin]

I would think that the only nuke targets that the Soviets might - and this is a big might - go after would be their intelligence gathering and satellite tracking stations - other than that I really dont see them nuking Australia - on the other hand the Indonesian oil fields or refineries might be a real target

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Olefin

I would think that the only nuke targets that the Soviets might - and this is a big might - go after would be their intelligence gathering and satellite tracking stations - other than that I really don't see them nuking Australia - on the other hand the Indonesian oil fields or refineries might be a real target

Even those targets are problematic really with facilities WIDELY dispersed and only staffed with perhaps a few hundred people. Conventional warheads or covert action may be more suitable.

Not sure about Indonesian targets. Doubtful they could be considered neutral and given the ANZUS treaty (yes, even without New Zealand) the US would technically be at war with Indonesia, even if they weren't able to actually send any soldiers or equipment. It's possible the US or even the UK nuked Indonesia, but I really can't see the advantage in doing that - Nato don't have any significant opponents anywhere near the area to potentially use the oil.

The whole region is proving somewhat difficult to depopulate and destroy. Fairly sure though that I'll send something like the Spanish Flu through and add in a few natural disasters to damage infrastructure. Most of Australia is prone to bushfires and/or flooding, both of which are difficult enough to handle in peace time, while parts of Indonesia are volcanically active.