archangel
Chief petty officer
Posts: 115 
Likes: 69
|
Post by archangel on Feb 26, 2020 1:24:13 GMT
Good ending, James!
IMHO, Poland can survive the war, like Cambodia survived the Khmer Rouge.
The damages of the war, even with Chinese help (which at the point - 1980's - will be limited) are going to progressively degrade the Warsaw Pact economies. One day their control is gonna break down.
In the west, recovery, with the help of international trade, is going to take a while, but in 20 years things will be "normalized", apart from the complete rebuilding of the nuked areas, and the long term effects of the fallout (which are going to still be felt for more decades).
|
|
Brky2020
Sub-lieutenant
Posts: 406
Likes: 406
|
Post by Brky2020 on Feb 26, 2020 12:40:38 GMT
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,835
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on Feb 26, 2020 16:25:56 GMT
usnvet asked for a target list of when the nukes flew. I drew one up. It isn't 'comprehensive' as asked for but I tried my best. I've added it here as an attachment with an MS Word Doc. rather than post it and spend forever formatting. Should anyone wish to give additions/corrections/suggestions, I welcome them as long as it fits with the last parts of the story. Furthermore, if anyone wants to download the document, edit it and send it back to me with all the worldly knowledge I don't have added in, let me know too! I'd be very grateful.
Ouch, that's a lot of hits and near misses, even given relatively little of the total warhead stockpile was used.
With the fact both Britain and then the US hit Leningrad was there any prior agreement between the two. The reason I ask is that the British deterrent was based on the 'Moscow Criteria' i.e. the ability to penetrate the ABD defences and take out the Soviet capital. Hence I suspect, especially after an attack on the UK they would have gone for that unless they knew the US were going to hit it and hence picked a smaller target. Although that seems unlikely since the US then hit it later. Unless given the division in the UK [and especially the Tories] they decided to downgrade the initial counter strike - since the Revenge only used a couple of missiles and the other R class ships escaped the Soviet attack.
One other source of fall-out or at least making it worse is likely to be when nuclear weapons sites, especially sub bases were hit. There were bound to be at least some subs in base which means their reactors and unless they were removed - say the sub was on a longer term refit - their own warheads added to the mix. Not likely there would be a pop-corn effect of such missiles being ignited, at least in the west, but their fissile material is going to be added to the mix.
Steve
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Feb 26, 2020 20:48:09 GMT
Good ending, James! IMHO, Poland can survive the war, like Cambodia survived the Khmer Rouge. The damages of the war, even with Chinese help (which at the point - 1980's - will be limited) are going to progressively degrade the Warsaw Pact economies. One day their control is gonna break down. In the west, recovery, with the help of international trade, is going to take a while, but in 20 years things will be "normalized", apart from the complete rebuilding of the nuked areas, and the long term effects of the fallout (which are going to still be felt for more decades). Thank you. Maybe Poland can. They got hit pretty hard but you never know. I might have been to optimistic on USSR/WarPac regime survival. They probably will go down eventually though the 'we won, actually' story will be strong there and bullets can do a lot to maintain order. There will be no-go dead zones 20 years down the line. Places like NYC/Moscow will forever be deserts of poison with no rebuilding. You're right: tading economies will do better. Thank you. Roll on the next won!
Ouch, that's a lot of hits and near misses, even given relatively little of the total warhead stockpile was used.
With the fact both Britain and then the US hit Leningrad was there any prior agreement between the two. The reason I ask is that the British deterrent was based on the 'Moscow Criteria' i.e. the ability to penetrate the ABD defences and take out the Soviet capital. Hence I suspect, especially after an attack on the UK they would have gone for that unless they knew the US were going to hit it and hence picked a smaller target. Although that seems unlikely since the US then hit it later. Unless given the division in the UK [and especially the Tories] they decided to downgrade the initial counter strike - since the Revenge only used a couple of missiles and the other R class ships escaped the Soviet attack.
One other source of fall-out or at least making it worse is likely to be when nuclear weapons sites, especially sub bases were hit. There were bound to be at least some subs in base which means their reactors and unless they were removed - say the sub was on a longer term refit - their own warheads added to the mix. Not likely there would be a pop-corn effect of such missiles being ignited, at least in the west, but their fissile material is going to be added to the mix.
Steve
MIRVs a-plenty. My thinking on the UK strike was that it was decided quickly. When Belfast was hit along with Scottish RAF bases, the Gov. said 'shoot back' but decided on a lesser target than Moscow. Perhaps they were waiting for the London/Brum/Manchester strike to go after Moscow. Things were happening quickly. Other R boats, and the Revenge too, would all have been waiting for bigger strikes. The Revenge was the only Western SSBN which fired too: NATO kept its SLBMs in reserve. However, you're probably right that it should have been Moscow. Good point there on the sub bases and nukes. There are also a lot of sub reactors, failed nuke warheads and weapons which went down with ships/subs at the bottom of the ocean. During the period when at-sea use was at its extreme, sinkings of weapons platforms down to the bottom far out to sea but also in places near to land. |
|
sandyman
Petty Officer 1st Class
Posts: 99
Likes: 94
|
Post by sandyman on Feb 28, 2020 9:57:38 GMT
Amazing story loved every single part of it. I do hope that more is to come from you. Mind you the wife is still alive which is a bummer as In this time line gutted as the divorce settlement will be if the scale. Lol
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,835
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on Feb 28, 2020 12:58:23 GMT
Ouch, that's a lot of hits and near misses, even given relatively little of the total warhead stockpile was used.
With the fact both Britain and then the US hit Leningrad was there any prior agreement between the two. The reason I ask is that the British deterrent was based on the 'Moscow Criteria' i.e. the ability to penetrate the ABD defences and take out the Soviet capital. Hence I suspect, especially after an attack on the UK they would have gone for that unless they knew the US were going to hit it and hence picked a smaller target. Although that seems unlikely since the US then hit it later. Unless given the division in the UK [and especially the Tories] they decided to downgrade the initial counter strike - since the Revenge only used a couple of missiles and the other R class ships escaped the Soviet attack.
One other source of fall-out or at least making it worse is likely to be when nuclear weapons sites, especially sub bases were hit. There were bound to be at least some subs in base which means their reactors and unless they were removed - say the sub was on a longer term refit - their own warheads added to the mix. Not likely there would be a pop-corn effect of such missiles being ignited, at least in the west, but their fissile material is going to be added to the mix.
Steve
MIRVs a-plenty. My thinking on the UK strike was that it was decided quickly. When Belfast was hit along with Scottish RAF bases, the Gov. said 'shoot back' but decided on a lesser target than Moscow. Perhaps they were waiting for the London/Brum/Manchester strike to go after Moscow. Things were happening quickly. Other R boats, and the Revenge too, would all have been waiting for bigger strikes. The Revenge was the only Western SSBN which fired too: NATO kept its SLBMs in reserve. However, you're probably right that it should have been Moscow. Good point there on the sub bases and nukes. There are also a lot of sub reactors, failed nuke warheads and weapons which went down with ships/subs at the bottom of the ocean. During the period when at-sea use was at its extreme, sinkings of weapons platforms down to the bottom far out to sea but also in places near to land.
Thinking about it your probably right. Especially if Britain realises the Belfast strike was an accident they probably would want to avoid Moscow until its an all out strike as long as they are reasonably confident the deterrent force isn't compromised. IIRC the Polaris missiles had the capacity to be launched from harbour so a ship not out at sea could make this attack, rather than exposing any subs at sea.
Anyway, while I think both sides made too many mistakes - albeit that plenty will occur in any crisis - a very good story.
Steve
|
|
ricobirch
Petty Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 32
Likes: 26
|
Post by ricobirch on Feb 29, 2020 13:03:41 GMT
usnvet asked for a target list of when the nukes flew. I drew one up. It isn't 'comprehensive' as asked for but I tried my best. I've added it here as an attachment with an MS Word Doc. rather than post it and spend forever formatting. Should anyone wish to give additions/corrections/suggestions, I welcome them as long as it fits with the last parts of the story. Furthermore, if anyone wants to download the document, edit it and send it back to me with all the worldly knowledge I don't have added in, let me know too! I'd be very grateful. SS-24 [rail-mobile] Denver, Colorado. Hit, 3x Set nuke map to 550kt airburst
Assuming the targets were the state capitol, Lowery AFB, & Buckley AFBLooks like my childhood was cut short via a 5 psi pressure wave. |
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Feb 29, 2020 14:32:53 GMT
Amazing story loved every single part of it. I do hope that more is to come from you. Mind you the wife is still alive which is a bummer as In this time line gutted as the divorce settlement will be if the scale. Lol Thank you. Another big TL is in the works. I'm writing some small things at the minute but a new big one will be up soon. Sorry!
Thinking about it your probably right. Especially if Britain realises the Belfast strike was an accident they probably would want to avoid Moscow until its an all out strike as long as they are reasonably confident the deterrent force isn't compromised. IIRC the Polaris missiles had the capacity to be launched from harbour so a ship not out at sea could make this attack, rather than exposing any subs at sea.
Anyway, while I think both sides made too many mistakes - albeit that plenty will occur in any crisis - a very good story.
Steve
It was just how I saw it. I imagine another R-boat was ready to fire on Moscow and never got the word to do what the Americans did. There were four subs. My thinking was that by this point in the war, at least two were active. The other two would have not been at Faslane - towed away if necessary - but, then again, maybe at least one was there and could have launched from port. I didn't know that was possible but, now the Soviets launching on US sub bases and vice versa makes more sense. Thank you. No story is ever perfect... like any war plan! That is a target plot I agree with. I've been tinkering, a bit each day, with my target list and plan to post an updated document. I'll add this Denver plot in. My apologies for making you glow in the dark!!! |
|
sandyman
Petty Officer 1st Class
Posts: 99
Likes: 94
|
Post by sandyman on Feb 29, 2020 17:05:47 GMT
It may be that the UK government thought that hitting Moscow would bring a strike down on London capital for capital and that would mean more escalation.
|
|
lordbyron
Warrant Officer
Posts: 235
Likes: 133
|
Post by lordbyron on Feb 29, 2020 18:53:08 GMT
What's your new timeline about, James G? |
|
archangel
Chief petty officer
Posts: 115
Likes: 69
|
Post by archangel on Feb 29, 2020 21:31:20 GMT
There will be no-go dead zones 20 years down the line. Places like NYC/Moscow will forever be deserts of poison with no rebuilding. You're right: tading economies will do better. I didn't mean to imply that they won't be rebuilt, it's just that it will be necessary: * to rebuild conventional damages; * to recover the economy; * rehouse refugees; * create jobs, etc, with a reduced global economy (the developing countries that are pro-west or going to become pro-west due to the drying of Soviet support are going to help - and will want to help both for humanitarian and economic reasons - but it will take longer given the damage to developed economies), and with the need to give time for radiation to decrease, it will take quite some time to rebuild the nuked areas (and it will take longer in the communist countries) |
|
lordbyron
Warrant Officer
Posts: 235
Likes: 133
|
Post by lordbyron on Feb 29, 2020 22:21:52 GMT
How's my hometown of Corpus Christi doing? I know it wasn't hit from looking at the list, but it is southwest of Houston and, if San Antonio were hit (San Antonio was home to Kelly, Lackland, and Randolph Air Force Bases--the latter two still exist, BTW--and Fort Sam Houston), Corpus would get the refugees (as it would get refugees from Houston)...
|
|
James G
Squadron vice admiral
Posts: 7,608
Likes: 8,833
|
Post by James G on Mar 1, 2020 13:26:29 GMT
It may be that the UK government thought that hitting Moscow would bring a strike down on London capital for capital and that would mean more escalation. That was my thinking. They were also only getting some information at the time and were unaware that the strike which hit Scotland & Ulster was unauthorised. It looked like an opening shot to test their will and so they responded in kind. Things were very crazy and decisions were made in haste. What's your new timeline about, James G? A war in the 1990s. I'm not ready to go with it yet. I don't want to jump in too fast and go wrong. I need to do a bit more research. However, the story will start soon. I didn't mean to imply that they won't be rebuilt, it's just that it will be necessary: * to rebuild conventional damages; * to recover the economy; * rehouse refugees; * create jobs, etc, with a reduced global economy (the developing countries that are pro-west or going to become pro-west due to the drying of Soviet support are going to help - and will want to help both for humanitarian and economic reasons - but it will take longer given the damage to developed economies), and with the need to give time for radiation to decrease, it will take quite some time to rebuild the nuked areas (and it will take longer in the communist countries) Sorry, I misunderstood: my bad. There will be a lot of rebuilding on that scale indeed. How's my hometown of Corpus Christi doing? I know it wasn't hit from looking at the list, but it is southwest of Houston and, if San Antonio were hit (San Antonio was home to Kelly, Lackland, and Randolph Air Force Bases--the latter two still exist, BTW--and Fort Sam Houston), Corpus would get the refugees (as it would get refugees from Houston)... The strategic level strikes didn't follow the 'standard' pattern of escalation from target set to target set. Steps were jumped, including US air bases and such like. Texas airbases and garrisons should have been on the list ahead of cities but they were missed out. I don't know which was the wind blows away from Houston but, just speculating, in theory CC and SA look okay at first. Houston is the only Texas strike and the nearest ones are up in Missouri on the Minuteman silos. Texas should pull through. |
|
lordroel
Administrator
Member is Online
Posts: 67,976
Likes: 49,378
|
Post by lordroel on Mar 1, 2020 14:15:09 GMT
A war in the 1990s. I'm not ready to go with it yet. I don't want to jump in too fast and go wrong. I need to do a bit more research. However, the story will start soon. Can you give the United Kingdom a break i feel sorry for them every time they appear in one of you great TLs James G. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,835
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on Mar 2, 2020 15:30:30 GMT
A war in the 1990s. I'm not ready to go with it yet. I don't want to jump in too fast and go wrong. I need to do a bit more research. However, the story will start soon. Can you give the United Kingdom a break i feel sorry for them every time they appear in one of you great TLs James G .
James's time-lines tend to be hard on most of those involved. TTL, depending on the impact of the fall out, other than Belfast and the immediate military losses the destruction hasn't been that great for the UK compared to the sort of mess that a lot of the continent east of France has been through.
|
|
