The use of Biofuel will indeed be very useful after the war, given the likey scarcity of access to oil.
At least until the scarcity of food comes up... they better have some mulchers ready.
The use of Biofuel will indeed be very useful after the war, given the likey scarcity of access to oil.
"I've read a lot of nuclear war books in the early 1980s, and a lot of them had the Soviets as evil occupiers who occupy America after they win the nuclear war.
That is...b*******, given how many ICBMs both sides had.
The guys in Germany are going to be exhausted.
And there is airpower. Soviet numbers and tactics vs. Western technology and tactics. It's a horserace.
And it isn't a picnic for the Russians either. Their thrust is rolling.
But like any alliance, there's bound to be issues between the partners, and even the Warsaw Pact has those (ex: Poland, some of the less committed of the DDR Volksarmy, some rather hacked off Estonians and Lithuanians)
What is helping the Soviets is their gameplan which is effectively using their other advantage, the numerical superiority that they have on the west.
On the NATO side, John Lehman's aggressive forward defense strategy on the seas has kept the Soviet Navy contained to where the amount of help they lend the boots on the ground isn't at the level they'd like it to be.
Western commander like that, because it give them a better chance to plug up the gaps and buys time for the American C-5s to send more calvary in from the states, and British VC-10s to bring more Her Majesty's Forces to bear.
And there is airpower. Soviet numbers and tactics vs. Western technology and tactics. It's a horserace.
John Farson said:Does it really matter who has the better strategy when the world is gonna get blown to hell in a few days?
Does it really matter who has the better strategy when the world is gonna get blown to hell in a few days?
Also, how will future generations see Reagan in the Protect and Survive-verse? I'm asking because I recall that in the Cuban Missile War TL it was implied that JFK was remembered in infamy because of his role in starting the war (rightly or wrongly). Likewise, because of this and LBJ's authoritarian rule the Democrats were thouroughly discredited. Will a similar thing happen to Reagan and the GOP? People in 2014 might be thinking "Ok, so the economy was crap under Carter and there were the hostages. But then Reagan gets in, and just a couple of years later we got nuked.".
Going from Protect and Survive, it seems the Soviet Front* commander released his Operational Maneuver Group (OMG) following the breakthrough against the French south of Stuttgart. This is a reserve maneuver formation made explicitly to exploit gaps such as those in the TL, and once the OMG starts moving, the only thing stopping the Warsaw Pact is the nuclear option.
In all likely hood, the OMG would move as three mutually supporting spearheads: one to cut off the Americans in Stuttgart, one to thrust north to the channel and cut off the British, Dutch, and West German formations on the North German Plain (not to mention capturing NATO's main supply ports), and the last would make for the Rhine to secure a bridgehead for further offensives.
It is very, very doubtful in this timeline that the average person would EVER know the cirucmstances leading to strategic nuclear war...they'd revile the Soviets, but they'd never know about the American colonel firing the first shot.
Maybe the regular (and largely having perished) Army, Air Force and Navy will be heroified after the war whereas the role of National Guard, Security Forces, Ravenwood etc. will be seen critical to hateful by survivors....depending on the situation they found themselves in.
But I see getting from this position to the Channel, a several times more ambitious aim, a bit more critical, rather I would see this move is a mean to activate and engage NATOs (and probably France's) last reserves and to confuse the lines so far as to force NATO to pull back to the Rhine and to redeploy forces Southwards in order to prevent a rerun of that 1940-show. That would be quite a success and bring the Rhine.
"Same situation," the Commander said. "We're massed just outside of the city with the Dodge County deputies. One thing we did occupy is the Hormel Plant. Fremont doesn't like it, but there's nothing they can do about it. If nothing else we can distribute some fine meat products."
"I think I missed a spot," she beckoned. "Care to join me?"
Will Congress formally declare war?It might seem irelevant since its obvious there's a war on but according to the Constitution only it can formally announce a war declaration,plus a formal war declaration would automatically bring the full might of the US economy to bear among other things.Its not just a piece of paper without any practical effects.Of course the fear of a surprise attack would create some problems with getting Congress in session.Still a formal declaration would be useful.
As for how will things be viewed in 2010 the big question is just how much will there still be a USA around?Persons born in 1985 would know little about the world before 1984 for them San Diego or Omaha are just some ruins abandoned decades ago.They would probably blame everyone regardless 'our parents made things like this' and the US would possibly be viewed as something from another era.Regardless of how things evolve with a surviving or not US the americans of 2010 in this world would be very different from the americans of 2010 of our world.
The USA is dead. There is no going back. Much in the same way the Thirty Years War, destroyed Germany and made reunification impossible for 200 years, reunification may take centuries or never happen at all. To anyone born after Armageddon, the only country they know is their family, and we may see a rise of a sort of neofeudalism in areas where a continuous government can not be found.