At least until the scarcity of food comes up... they better have some mulchers ready.
Land of Flatwater: Protect and Survive Middle America
- Thread starter Chipperback
- Start date
At least until the scarcity of food comes up... they better have some mulchers ready.
Don't let the fact get in way of trying to sell some books.
No doubt. I hope to really drive this home in the next installment. Imagine a tunnel vision so intense that you only know where you are at the moment. No sense of time. Barely a sense of place behind whats in front.
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
Banned
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."
Regardless, in TTL it's not so much "Morning in America" as "Mourning in America" (I know, bad joke, bad joke).
That's pretty much war: there's going to be chaos and tactical problems on both sides with the soldiers largely having only the picture right in front of them to use as any guess for how everything is going. It will be the high level guys who have the good pictures and there the Warsaw Pact will have more grins then grimaces in comparison to the NATO commanders.
Oh indeed. Outside of the Soviet Union, the Poles and East Germans represented the best troops and the fervent belief some of them showed to the communist cause could be surprising (there is no better fanatic then a convert indeed). But even then, they'll be riddled with nationalists and the Soviets will be careful to avoid sending East German units against West German units and Polish units against American units.
Pretty much. Quantity has a quality all on its own... particularly if you know how to best use that quantity.
The Soviet Atlantic and Pacific Fleets are rather defensively geared anyways (the latter more so then the former) and would probably avoid fighting the US on the open oceans. The Baltic and Black Seas fleets are more offensively oriented, but in a manner to support the ground armies via amphibious operations against the Scandinavian countries and Turkey (respectively).
Cargo planes can certainly bring in a good number of men, but supplies and equipment can only come in sufficient quantity via sea... and its a 6-8 days sail from the US mainland to Europe. Fortunately, the prolonged crisis probably allowed the US to forward deploy the forces marked for REFORGER already and for NATO as a whole to expand their munitions stocks.
Oh boy yes. The Soviet Frontal Aviation would actually in a manner imitate its ground counterparts: maintain an air offensive against NATO air forces with a secondary role of conducting interdiction against NATO targets in support of the ground forces. The ground forces air defence would be left in the hand of... well, the ground forces air defence's. What this would mean is the establishment of Free-Fire Zones where as far as Soviet AA troops are concerned: if it flies, it dies.
The targets deeper in the Soviet rear would be protected through the use of amazingly sophisticated camouflage techniques, something the Soviets were remarkably good at and which caused us problems against Serbia in OTL's 1990s.
John Farson said:
Not really, no. But its always been a fascinating subject for me so I talk about it.
Last edited:
In the long run (a decade or 2 later) of this TTL it will be remembered that it happened during the Reagan Administration rather than Reagan got us nuked. The American colonel who ordered the nuclear launch will be remembered in infamy as will the American military in general. The Soviet leadership and military will (outside whatever remains of the SU) also be vilified for lighting the fuse which led to armageddon.
BTW Chipperback, Reagan's speech was good, I could actually "hear" (imagine) his voice. Also, will Congress issue an official declaration of war before the nukes fly?
TheKinkster
Banned
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.
IMHO, getting from the Czech-Bavarian border in just three days is already a considerable breakthrough which assumes at least moving the best part of the Southern German front ca. 500 km against US, German and French forces. That is 7km per hour, day and night, against supposedly devoted resistance , taking only few deviations. Chapeau!
From this point on, getting to the Rhine is simply a last determined leap through the hills of the Black Forest et .... voilá.
Likewise, finishing off Stuttgart is a realistic possibility. 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.
You are right.
"It just can't have been that way."
And besides, I doubt that the image of the US forces would suffer in America, as long as they are seen as having fought valiantly before things went out of control. "Our boys did so good, they saw no other way than to nuke us. But guess who is still there."
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.
Pretty much. Of course, if the units on the North German Plain start a wholesale withdraw, there is going to be a break in the linear front facing the Soviet forces there... especially since many West German units wouldn't like the idea one bit. Such a break is the absolute worst thing that could occur for NATO in the conventional fight, since it represents a prime opportunity for the northern front commander to release his OMG.
And once its through, the withdraw would in all likelyhood rapidly become a route. The late 1943-1945 period is the greatest example of his: the Germans tended to suffer the worst casualties when their defense lines became untenable and they attempted a withdrawal. With Soviet exploitation forces running around in their rear, the withdrawals would almost always became desperate retreats.
As one writer in the 1980's noted: "If the forward defense[1] [of West Germany] fails, only two things could potentially halt the Russians: the traffic jams as 25 million German civilians become motorized refugee's... or NATO nuclear weapons."
Of course the jams would be occurring well before the Soviets cracked the NATO front open and the Soviets have rather simple ways of coercing foreign drivers off the road, so that leaves the nukes. Even if Stuttgart hadn't gone down the way it did, NATO would have been forced to choose between three options: peace on Soviet terms with the iron curtain moving too the Rhine[1], accepting complete conventional defeat in West Germany and, by extension, seeing continental europe go red[2], or go nuclear.
[1]That is, the deployment based on the commitment to defend Germany as far forward as possible.
[2]Possible. Particularly if the Germans and/or French decide to renege with NATO and give in. Rather less likely with Ronny Raygun in charge of the US.
[3]And like hell the French would let that happen. Their stated doctrine was one Soviet company gets on French soil and they'll throw the entire nuclear arsenal at them.
Last edited:
Ravenwood Solutions?
Umm, no. You wont see Jennings and Rall trucks driving up around here.
But we do have some Johnston and Jake Green-type folks
Umm, no. You wont see Jennings and Rall trucks driving up around here.
But we do have some Johnston and Jake Green-type folks
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.
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.
Last edited:
Man...looming nuclear holocaust, bacon, Stinger missiles and knockin' a piece off with Debra Winger. This story has EVERYTHING!
Okay, srsly, I really enjoyed this installment. Nice little interlude before everything goes to complete shit in a handcart. One little critique...the past tense of "is" is spelled "were," not "where". I'm being a tight-ass, I know....I just stumble over it every time I see it.
While Congress might declare war, in OTL Congress has not declared a war since December 8th 1941. Vietnam, Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan are not actually "wars" but things of other names, "Policing actions" or "military interventions." It is more probable that congress in the chaos of flight will not declare war, and the President will declare some kind of military action. Most people will still see the war as WWIII even if it is never declared. The Soviets unconditionally surrendering also will help this view, as well as allow the remaining governments in the old USA to declare "victory."
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.
Last edited:
War was officially declared via conference call, since most of Congress was out of position (a good number either fled back to home district or to Greenbrier. Nebraska's five-member delegation returned to Nebraska at the request of the Governor.)
A nod to the "Cuban Missile War" timeline...If you haven't read that...take a few hours and do it. That was a seriously good story
A nod to the "Cuban Missile War" timeline...If you haven't read that...take a few hours and do it. That was a seriously good story
I beg to differ.
The most patriotic country in the world?
With a Constitution which worked over a huge unveleoped country while neither telegraph nor railways existed?It will take a while to sort things out, but the USA will certainly be back. Maybe it takes a Postman to accomplish this.
Maybe give or take a few stars. Maybe it will be a "Holy American Empire"-kind of thing for a time. But I cannot imagine Americans even imagining the unimaginable.---
Also, the Thirty-Years-War only led to a situation where processes already a long time in the making were finally acknowledged and spelled out. In a way, the ensuing order stabilized Pan-German institutions.