Protect and Survive: A Timeline

[Chipperback]

"Considerably reduce the likelyhood that the "United States falls apart" scenario used in the two American spin off will happens.

I think you are reading something in both my and Patton's scenarios that isn't quite there.

In the first few weeks and months after the attacks, everything going to be disjointed, no matter how much coordination or pre-planning you do, communications with the next town are down, let alone the entire country.

It's is going to be very difficult for a continental nation of the size of the United States to just pick up where they left off with two dollars and a biscuit.

My scenario is built around the idea, that if there is a federal government getting back in shape, our state will be ready to plug back in. Until that happens we need to get our stuff together as best we can.

Like the Governor's buddy Glenn said,

"there is continuity of federal government. FEMA will carry the ball on that, problem is they want to consolidate it their way and they think the can do it quick and it'll be damn near impossible to do that in a short term scenario. It may impossible, period. The only hope they have?Strong continuous governments within the states."

[Gen_Patton]

My goal is to have a "Continental Congress" to re-establish the United States in 1986ish, it sounds reasonable.

[John Farson]

Originally Posted by Chipperback

I think you are reading something in both my and Patton's scenarios that isn't quite there.

In the first few weeks and months after the attacks, everything going to be disjointed, no matter how much coordination or pre-planning you do, communications with the next town are down, let alone the entire country.

It's is going to be very difficult for a continental nation of the size of the United States to just pick up where they left off with two dollars and a biscuit.

My scenario is built around the idea, that if there is a federal government getting back in shape, our state will be ready to plug back in. Until that happens we need to get our stuff together as best we can.

Like the Governor's buddy Glenn said,

[/I]

Pretty much what I think. It's not that the states want to secede from the Union and become independent; they want to take orders from the Federal government. Problem is that the Federal government as we know it no longer really exists. Few people will even know that Reagan is alive (before he's blown up by one crazy SAS person). For better or worse, the individual state governments (those that are left) will have to take care of themselves.

[Weaver]

Where does the figure of 500 silos in the CONUS come from?

Surely the US had 1,054 ICBMs in silos at that time?

[ObssesedNuker]

Originally Posted by Weaver

Where does the figure of 500 silos in the CONUS come from?

Surely the US had 1,054 ICBMs in silos at that time?

I was given to understand that that was the US's numbers at its peak, which was in the late-60s... let me double check the number at this new website.

EDIT: Ah, yes. You are correct. So 3,000 warheads... that still leaves another 4,000 for the other targets.

[JasonQ]

Originally Posted by Dunois

Taking out the ICBM silos in the United States alone will require a lot of weapons. To be honest there, I am almost tempted to think that the Soviet Union may actually not target the silos per se, but more likely the communication apparatus and the control rooms required to actually launch the weapons.

This idea had occurred to US planners, which is why systems like LOOKING GLASS, Airborne Launch Control System, and the Emergency Rocket Communications System existed...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/DRC-...cations_System

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborn...Control_System

...basically forcing the Soviets to target the silos individually.

[Hörnla]

Originally Posted by Gen_Patton

My goal is to have a "Continental Congress" to re-establish the United States in 1986ish, it sounds reasonable.

Along with what Chipperback just said and which goes into a similar direction, I find this timeframe quite reasonable. And as long as there is no "key dividing issue" arising in the meantime, this congress will with a high probability re-establish (most of) the USA.

It will, however, be a largely de-populated, especially de-urbanized, to a large degree de-industrialized, impoverished third-world-USA (albeit on a globe which has little first and second world left, after all) with a drastically lowered life-expectancy and a lot of territories where you simply shouldn't go...

I am sure you will make a fantastic read out of it.

[Dunois]

Originally Posted by ObssesedNuker

The distinction between a tactical weapon and a strategic weapon is an academic one. A unitary warhead SS-20 carries a 500 kiloton warhead (slightly larger then one of the warheads on the Minuteman-3) and can hit Brussels from behind the Urals. From Belarus or the Ukrainian SSR, they could hit the entire European Continent The Soviets would not use ICBM's on European or Asian targets that can be hit by such weapons.

I am still not fully convinced to be honest, chiefly because of the "softer" nature of SS-20 on mobile launchers and such. I do nevertheless fully accept the fact that ICBMs will be primarily used against American targets.

That depends on the power plant. A nuclear plant would likely rate higher then a coal or oil plant. That does not garuntee the plant would be targetted. But sometimes that is unnecessary... there are some cases where multiple targets can be destroyed by a single warhead.

The Soviet leader in this case is from the Red Army (Ogarkov in OTL was actually famous in the Red Army for developing some operational concepts) and the Red Army, once they came around in the 70's, actually wound-up rejecting the concept of limited nuclear war far more thoroughly then even the Soviet politicians. They had to be pretty much be directly ordered before they drafted a nuclear war plan that did not constitute a civilization-shattering, full exchange in the 1980's. And even then they never took those plans with any seriousness.

I have heard conflicting stories on this to be fair, witness what some Soviet war plans had in mind for example:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...unearthed.html

Don't forget also that the Soviet Union civil defense arragements were far more advanced than the American plans. It would not surprise me the slightest if they had a huge bunker somewhere in the Urals for the leadership in case of strike. Of course it may have been targeted by NATO strikes.

Still, I think that the Soviets would keep some capability in reserve post trike. It is just common sense and basic strategy to keep part of your forces in reserve.

If you want to go into ASB land, sure. But the bastion area will be in the White Sea near Arkhangelesk, not Murmansk. The US attack subs will have to penetrate hundreds, even thousands of kilometers, of heavily patrolled Soviet waters to get to them. There would be a similar story with the Soviet Pacific Fleet.

American war plans included strikes on the Murmansk area using carriers and cruise missiles. In any case, naval support of NATO forces operating in Norway is a given. You presume a defensive posture from the Soviet Navy, which does not make sense as controlling the GIUK gap is of paramount strategic importance to them in order to deny NATO reinforcements.

I would also like to say that considering the time of the year, an easy way for NATO to possibly surprise the Soviets would be to attack them from the north by going under the icecaps.

Originally Posted by Chipperback

I think you are reading something in both my and Patton's scenarios that isn't quite there.

In the first few weeks and months after the attacks, everything going to be disjointed, no matter how much coordination or pre-planning you do, communications with the next town are down, let alone the entire country.

It's is going to be very difficult for a continental nation of the size of the United States to just pick up where they left off with two dollars and a biscuit.

My scenario is built around the idea, that if there is a federal government getting back in shape, our state will be ready to plug back in. Until that happens we need to get our stuff together as best we can.

Like the Governor's buddy Glenn said,
[/I]

Originally Posted by Gen_Patton

My goal is to have a "Continental Congress" to re-establish the United States in 1986ish, it sounds reasonable.

I thank you both for your clarification there, as things were far from clear in that respect especially in Gen_Patton timeline with the Republic of the Brazos thingy.

I do not challenge the idea that states and local communities will have to work on their own for themselves for sometimes. I actually think that the great deal of localism inherent to American society will make things a lot easier down the line.

Originally Posted by Hörnla

Along with what Chipperback just said and which goes into a similar direction, I find this timeframe quite reasonable. And as long as there is no "key dividing issue" arising in the meantime, this congress will with a high probability re-establish (most of) the USA.

It will, however, be a largely de-populated, especially de-urbanized, to a large degree de-industrialized, impoverished third-world-USA (albeit on a globe which has little first and second world left, after all) with a drastically lowered life-expectancy and a lot of territories where you simply shouldn't go...

I am sure you will make a fantastic read out of it.

If America gets its act together, it will be an industrial nation once again by TTL 2011. Standards of living will be lower than they were pre strike, but there is a limit as to how low you can fall. The main issue one and two years after the strikes will however be the reestablishment of moneyed exchange and of the dollar as a viable currency. It is actually what the official study from 1979 I linked too in a previous post said quite clearly.



The other thing we really need to agree on is fallout and radioactivity. The more research I make on the subject, the more my view that radiation levels would fall back to a low point is strenghtened. So I advise anyone working on the P&S project to do a lot of reading on radiation physics and science in order to get a better idea of things.

[Hörnla]

Originally Posted by Dunois

If America gets its act together, it will be an industrial nation once again by TTL 2011. Standards of living will be lower than they were pre strike, but there is a limit as to how low you can fall. The main issue one and two years after the strikes will however be the reestablishment of moneyed exchange and of the dollar as a viable currency. It is actually what the official study from 1979 I linked too in a previous post said quite clearly.

That is 27 years down the line, though. Of course, I expect there to be industry within the US. But it won't be able to develop further than the demand on shrunken markets, interior as well as exterior, allow for. Also, how much of the pre-war market-position will be taken away by less affected competitors in the Southern hemisphere?

So I expect the industrial capacity to be such far lower that the degree of industrialization will be noticeable lower than OTL 2011. This also has to do with the mainly rural outlook of the more survivable regions.

I am not so worried about the return of the $. If you have a recognized government, you can have a currency. It will be like West-Germany 1948. Everyone gets a fresh start with 40 bucks and then you go! (Yes, that was simplified).

What you had on accounts, you will be hard pressed to find evidence (although, back in the 80s, a lot more of these information will have been on paper still and not just electronical data).

But the Americans won't boycott the new $. Because life is easier with money.

[ObssesedNuker]

Originally Posted by Dunois

I am still not fully convinced to be honest, chiefly because of the "softer" nature of SS-20 on mobile launchers and such.

Depending on how lax you want to be with the definition, mobile launchers are actually the hardest land-target there is. The key behind this is, in fact, their mobility. The Iraqis demonstrated this perfectly in Gulf War 1 with their Scuds... we never managed to take a Scud launcher out before it fired its missiles. Even the ones we did manage to destroy after they fired usually came down to being lucky enough to having a loaded fighter craft already nearby when the missile left its launch platform.

Take into account the USSR's much greater size, much better terrain for hiding in, and greater technical skill across the entire board, and you'll come out with a nuclear launch system that will only be surpassed by US boomers in its survivability.

I would expect for the SS-20's and other IRBM's to be used pretty much against everything west of the Rhine, alongside nuclear-armed Soviet strike fighters[1] and naval launched missiles[2]. Targets between the Rhine and the Soviet front will largely be attacked by short-range ballistic missiles and nuclear shells fired by artillery. In the former category, we're looking at yields between the hundreds of kilotons into the single-digit megatons. The latter category will see yields ranging from the hectaton to a few hundred kilotons.

I have heard conflicting stories on this to be fair, witness what some Soviet war plans had in mind for example:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...unearthed.html

Literally in the first line of the second paragraph of that story:

According to scenarios drafted in 1964

This is when the Red Army did believe in a survivable nuclear war. They changed their views in the 70's, which helped lead to the USSR's adoption of a no-first use doctrine.

There was actually a study conducted in 1996 that chronicled the evolution of Soviet nuclear doctrine and thinking in both the military and the political leadership. I don't have time to look for it after I post this.

It would not surprise me the slightest if they had a huge bunker somewhere in the Urals for the leadership in case of strike. Of course it may have been targeted by NATO strikes.

I recommend you look up Mount Yamantau.

Still, I think that the Soviets would keep some capability in reserve post trike. It is just common sense and basic strategy to keep part of your forces in reserve.

I don't know if there was anything definitive, but such an idea runs counter to the logic the Soviets were using. In any case, a large proportion of mobile missile launchers would likely survive the exchange, along with some of the stockpiled missiles, so maybe that would be the reserve they were thinking of.

American war plans included strikes on the Murmansk area using carriers and cruise missiles. In any case, naval support of NATO forces operating in Norway is a given. You presume a defensive posture from the Soviet Navy, which does not make sense as controlling the GIUK gap is of paramount strategic importance to them in order to deny NATO reinforcements.

It takes a week for a ship to cross the Atlantic, then you have to off-load the equipment at the ports in France and the Low Countries and move it too the front. From this schedule we can note three points that argue for a defensive stance by the Soviet Atlantic Fleet.

1. Reinforcements can be attacked by the full-extent of Soviet air power as they offload and move up to the front. Attacking the ports themselves would also inhibit their use by the enemy.
2. Because of the pro-longed build-up to war, in all likelyhood NATO has either fully or largely completed REFORGER which means that most of the reinforcements the US planned to send to Europe have been sent. Any further deployments would be by units that were not planned to be moved there prior to the war.
3. The length of time required to ferry troops from the US to the FEBA is much longer then the rapidity of the ground war. In the time it takes the US to send one division to Europe, the Soviets could smash several NATO divisions and, since its only a single nights trip from the Ural to the Inter-German border, the Soviets can reinforce much more rapidly.

As for you idea of the Americans attacking Murmansk: they would suffer terrible, terrible losses even if Soviet nuclear subs and major surface ships don't attack them. Mobs of missile-armed littoral combat vessels, diesel submarines, land-based air power, and ground-based missile launchers.

I would also like to say that considering the time of the year, an easy way for NATO to possibly surprise the Soviets would be to attack them from the north by going under the icecaps.

Still icefree enough for the Soviet navy to inhibit them.

[1]Remember, by this point NATO F-16s and Soviet MiG-27s can lug around bombs with yields up to a megaton yield...
[2]Both cruise and shorter-ranged SLBMs.

[modelcitizen]

Originally Posted by Hörnla

...

Nothing but a few villages and small towns exists in Denmark.

To plaster Denmark with more than 20 nukes, you really have to go.....counter-area and nuke it because it is there (given the idiocy of nuclear war, one cannot rule this possibility out). I cannot think of many actual targets there unless you have a nuclear naval battle waged there.

that's some sad stuff to consider.

thousands of nukes, diverting 20 is like a "sprinkle" of oregano when making a metaphorical pizza out of Europe.

[freivolk]

Originally Posted by Hörnla

Nothing but a few villages and small towns exists in Denmark.

To plaster Denmark with more than 20 nukes, you really have to go.....counter-area and nuke it because it is there (given the idiocy of nuclear war, one cannot rule this possibility out). I cannot think of many actual targets there unless you have a nuclear naval battle waged there.

?

The Soviets wanted to use 76 nukes on Schleswig-Holstein alone, so I assume 20 nukes for Denmark are possible.

[ivfl]

20 nukes for Denmark is way too low.As I said near the front lines both sides would go wild when it comes to targeting ,literally anything they can target will be targeted.Anywhere soviet and enemy forces meet once the go order is given anything in sight is nuked.I would estimate 100 or more nukes for Denmark, literally carpet-nuking it.I'm sorry for any danish fans but the danes are gone.Small villages and very small towns are all that is left.Further away from the front lines we wouldn't get to that level of overkill but anywhere near it its everything in sight.It also makes sense since near the front lines troops would be in almost every city and town or near it.While not all would have large numbers because of its proximity to the front there would conceivably be at least a company of men near some town or village.Once you introduce nukes on the battlefield the temptation to use them even for unimportant enemy forces is too great.

[Dunois]

Originally Posted by freivolk

The Soviets wanted to use 76 nukes on Schleswig-Holstein alone, so I assume 20 nukes for Denmark are possible.

It would be awesome to get a source for this !

Originally Posted by ObsessedNuker

I recommend you look up Mount Yamantau.

That's it, that's what I was thinking about!

[freivolk]

Originally Posted by Dunois

It would be awesome to get a source for this !

This articel:
http://www.alternatewars.com/WW3/the..._never_was.htm

That is what the Warsaw Pact high command expected. At least, so say some of the more than 25,000 GDR military documents that came into possession of the Federal German Ministry of Defense on 3 October 1990, as a result of the unification of the Germanys. Those documents chronicle high-level Warsaw Pact staff exercises, and what is fascinating about them is not merely the speed at which the Soviets intended to conduct military operations (an advance so rapid Soviet category II and III units could not have been mobilized and deployed). Rather, it is the fact that from 1988 and beyond the Soviets seemed to believe such a victory was possible only by massive initial use of tactical nuclear weapons. Indeed, some 840 warheads were to be used, some 76 to devastate the border area of Schleswig-Holstein alone in the northeastern FRG. Those same exercises prepared commanders for an initial or retaliatory NATO nuclear strike involving 1,528 to 2,714 warheads-the exact number expected depending on such factors as French participation in NATO operations. Final authority for nuclear release, and the dangerous consequences of escalation, naturally resided in the hands of the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

A very interesting read.

[Lord Grattan]

Originally Posted by freivolk

This articel:
http://www.alternatewars.com/WW3/the..._never_was.htm

That is what the Warsaw Pact high command expected. At least, so say some of the more than 25,000 GDR military documents that came into possession of the Federal German Ministry of Defense on 3 October 1990, as a result of the unification of the Germanys. Those documents chronicle high-level Warsaw Pact staff exercises, and what is fascinating about them is not merely the speed at which the Soviets intended to conduct military operations (an advance so rapid Soviet category II and III units could not have been mobilized and deployed). Rather, it is the fact that from 1988 and beyond the Soviets seemed to believe such a victory was possible only by massive initial use of tactical nuclear weapons. Indeed, some 840 warheads were to be used, some 76 to devastate the border area of Schleswig-Holstein alone in the northeastern FRG. Those same exercises prepared commanders for an initial or retaliatory NATO nuclear strike involving 1,528 to 2,714 warheads-the exact number expected depending on such factors as French participation in NATO operations. Final authority for nuclear release, and the dangerous consequences of escalation, naturally resided in the hands of the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.

A very interesting read.

Note the highlighted part above. The scenario in TTL is set 4 years before the Soviets adopted the strategy you cite (a citation from a secondary, not a primary source).

[ObssesedNuker]

Despite the vast numbers of soldiers, tanks and cannon it deployed, GSFG as a conventional force had failed.

Mmmm, sort-of bollocks.

The simple fact is that PGM's and similar weapons would not be available in the needed quantities to have the influence that Ogarkov feared until the late-90s. Before then, the Soviet Ground Forces would remain NATO's conventional superior... except for one thing.

The post-88 shift was more based on the simple fact that the woes of the Soviet economy was finally inflicting its damage on the Soviet military and both troop morale and discipline was going straight to hell.

Also, the report apparently makes the classic mistake of assuming the equipment fielded by the Iraqis were as good as the same equipment fielded by the Soviets. Pro-tip: Iraqi T-72s were either the 'M' model which was specifically designed for export and deliberately given the crappy stuff in the process or they were the even WORSE locally-built knock-offs. Oh, and the tank gun ammunition the Iraqis used was locally-built junk that was beyond horrible.

[Macragge1]

48.156007, 10.524902



Err, Sultan, this is Saracen Five-Six-Six, are you there, over?

Saracen Five-Six-Six receiving, over

Sultan, we're...we're getting some strange signals from--------

Saracen Five-Six-Six this is Sultan, say again your last, over

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Saracen Five-Six-Six this is Sultan, are you receiving, over?

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Saracen Five-Six-Six - Do you read us, over?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------///

[Gen_Patton]

Hmmm. I wonder what's going on in Germany?

[Baron Bizarre]

Mac, you tease...