View Full Version : Red Dawn: Would You Fight?
Red October1984
12-01-12, 04:59 PM
I just saw the new one. I loved the old one. Lets say that this actually happened...
WOULD YOU FIGHT? :rock:
Platapus
12-01-12, 05:02 PM
What would be the alternative?
Jimbuna
12-01-12, 05:14 PM
Of course, better to do something rather than accept the alternative.
Madox58
12-01-12, 05:16 PM
I'd kill every SOB that I even suspected of being the Bad Guy or a sympathizer/traitor!
:shifty:
Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius
I would hide, keep my family safe and stay away from anything and everything. If something happens to my family at their hands, and I am alone, then my life is forfeit and I would take as many of them with me as I could.
Kind of reminds me of somewhere right about now...hmmmm.... :hmmm:
Jimbuna
12-01-12, 05:21 PM
I would hide, keep my family safe and stay away from anything and everything. If something happens to my family at their hands, and I am alone, then my life is forfeit and I would take as many of them with me as I could.
Kind of reminds me of somewhere right about now...hmmmm.... :hmmm:
Sunderland? :)
Sunderland? :)
On a Saturday night...yes...sounds about right. :haha: Although tomorrow night will be worse. :har:
It depends on a multitude of factors. First and foremost being "What would be best for the Terran People as a whole?" I care little about the well being of petty nationstates when speaking of the health of Humanity. For all we know the conquerors could bring about a golden age and all the "Bad-guying" was just nationalist propaganda.
If they truly were bad then it'd be mostly about laying low and finding a way to usurp the conquerors, probably from within. Throwing your life away five minutes into the resistance is pointless, even if you want to go around shooting people while screaming "DEY TURK OUR LANDS".
em2nought
12-01-12, 06:18 PM
I'd fight against Redbone Dawn, or at least sign an internet petition to secede. :D
"Secede to succeed" would be quite the catchy slogan. :D
Takeda Shingen
12-01-12, 06:42 PM
I'd probably have to stand on principle and fight against Patrick Swayze and Charlie Sheen. So, I would welcome our new Russian overlords in that pursuit.
1984's Red Dawn was, to me, the most ridiculous 114 minutes of cinema that I have ever seen and I'm including Fearless Frank (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061654/). From what I have read in reviews, the new Red Dawn is a ridiculous update of that already ridiculous original.
Sailor Steve
12-01-12, 06:54 PM
...the most ridiculous 114 minutes of cinema that I have ever seen...
I have to disagree. But it comes very close. :dead:
Well, if something threatened my family, homeland and way of life, heck yeah I'd have to fight!
...on the other hand, my homeland and family are Russian, and I have at least somewhat socialist political leanings, so you do the math on Red Dawn :dead:
I'd fight for my country and my community and although i'd probably die horribly I will not be one of those weak souls who'd abide a foreign military occupation. Death to tyrants and traitors!
Karle94
12-01-12, 07:22 PM
I would gladly fight, I would gladly kill, I would gladly bleed, I would gladly die for my country and its people. Never giving up, never giving in. If my country goes under, then so do I.
Buddahaid
12-01-12, 07:37 PM
I just saw the new one. I loved the old one. Lets say that this actually happened...
WOULD YOU FIGHT? :rock:
Well if I had to see the new one I'd likely be fighting too. Oh you meant.....
Skybird
12-01-12, 07:53 PM
The original movie was one of the worst movies I have ever seen. What does it tell me that such a crap movie is regarded to be worth an remake?
Nothing encouraging at least.
John Milius is a controversial director anyway. But his old "The Wind and the Lion" - that one I loved when I was young, saw it so many times that I know the texts from beginning to end.
the_tyrant
12-01-12, 10:32 PM
I was a card carrying commie back when I was in school in china (ok, young pioneer party, but still)
I'll just rejoin the party I guess
Red October1984
12-01-12, 11:30 PM
Man. You guys suck. The old Red Dawn is one of my favorite movies. The bad part about the new one is Josh Peck and Josh Hutcherson. I do not want those two in any kind of action movie.
I would definitely fight. I would fight until it's over.
If it ever did happen to America, I see it being the Chinese. They have a VERY large army. We couldnt repel an army of that size while we're deployed in the Mideast. We couldnt repel an army of that size while we're all at home. China has an army of about 2.2 Million active personnel and they have 385 million Chinese Males fit for Military Service. We have 1.2 Million Active Duty Personnel. We would need all of our citizens to step up and then there might be a small chance. A very minuscule one. Either way, I will fight to defend my home where i grew up and where i had all my childhood memories.
I dont ever want to see Chinese Paratroopers over my house...Actually...I live in Missouri.
If the Chinese pushed THIS far inland, America is in some deep $#!^.
Karle94
12-01-12, 11:40 PM
There`s no possible way China could invade the US. They`d have to get through the navy first. No combo of any 3-4 navies in the world could be the USN`s equal. Keep in mind, the USN is as big as the 13 largest navies in the world combined. A single carrier can sink an entire navy single handedly. A SSBN could level an entire nation. An air force capable of taking any civilization in history back into the stone age. China is nowhere near being the equal to any of that. Isn`t the new movie about the N.Koreans invading? All I can say is why? The DPRK can`t even take on ROK single handedly, how can they possibly take the US? The biggest problem for any nation is not taking the country, but holding it. Any idiot can by a pistol, even a rifle and loads of ammo. How many millions of enemy soldiers would be massacred by 311 million idiots with guns and IEDs?
If the Chinese invade, I'm going to open a Chinese Restaurant! Peking Duck will be the specialty of the house, I'll make millions,lol
Isn`t the new movie about the N.Koreans invading? All I can say is why?
Because the movie was originally about the Chinese invading but the producers didn't want to alienate Chinese viewers or loose Chinese investment so the DPRK was substituted.
Sailor Steve
12-01-12, 11:54 PM
Man. You guys suck. The old Red Dawn is one of my favorite movies.
Nothing wrong with that. I just happened to already be in my 30s when it came out, so I could recognize how absolutely preposterous it was. On the plus side Leah Thompson got shot. Not that I don't love Leah Thompson. It was just that her character was so insipid. Well, they all were. That was another bad part.
Red October1984
12-02-12, 12:41 AM
There`s no possible way China could invade the US. They`d have to get through the navy first. No combo of any 3-4 navies in the world could be the USN`s equal. Keep in mind, the USN is as big as the 13 largest navies in the world combined. A single carrier can sink an entire navy single handedly. A SSBN could level an entire nation. An air force capable of taking any civilization in history back into the stone age. China is nowhere near being the equal to any of that. Isn`t the new movie about the N.Koreans invading? All I can say is why? The DPRK can`t even take on ROK single handedly, how can they possibly take the US? The biggest problem for any nation is not taking the country, but holding it. Any idiot can by a pistol, even a rifle and loads of ammo. How many millions of enemy soldiers would be massacred by 311 million idiots with guns and IEDs?
Our Navy is very small compared to what it used to be. And it gets smaller all the time with these defense cuts. I think if several Navies got together, they'd have a chance. And Americans aren't all idiots. We have a good amount though.
North Korea can't even feed its own people. They wouldn't be able to sustain a war with a major power for very long
Have you read Red Storm Rising by any chance? :06:
Tribesman
12-02-12, 04:50 AM
Our Navy is very small compared to what it used to be.
100 years ago it had 202 ships now it has 285.
And it gets smaller all the time with these defense cuts.
Its bigger than it was 5 years ago, must be those cuts.
100 years ago it had 202 ships now it has 285.
Its bigger than it was 5 years ago, must be those cuts.
It's still short of horses and bayonets, though!
Skybird
12-02-12, 05:13 AM
Historcially China has been the most defensive and peaceful empire ever, it seems. There tools by which they exported their influence, where different ones: economy and trade.
and these are what America must fear. Inm the dispoute with Japan over those islands, the ministry of trade has openly threatened Japan with using the immense stockpiles of Japanese state bonds to cast doom over Japan if they push too far over those islands. Japan has immense debts and the biggest buyer of its state bonds outside Japan is China. Their stockpile of Japanese bonds reaches as high as 230 billion.
Now translate that into the american example. ;)
China has also closed the door into the face of Europeans demanding them to buy more Euro bonds. They did not, instead they have bought a tremendous part of for example the filet pieces of Germany industry and hightech companies.
The Chinese will rule, and with iron hand, in parts of the world, especially Africa, they already do. But they will do it via economics. Kind of a payback for Western cannonboat diplomacy and opium wars of the past.
Anothe reason why an invasion of America is unlikely is that having a huge force pool, is one thing. Being able to transport that over the pacific and to the Westcoast, is something very different.
Forget the Reds the Banking Industry is the most dangerous thing we face today.
Skybird
12-02-12, 06:15 AM
Forget the Reds the Banking Industry is the most dangerous thing we face today.
The two biggest banks in the world are - red banks. :D
http://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/38289/umfrage/top-10-banken-nach-boersenwert/
Additionally to claiming first and second place, there are two more Chinese banks on six and seven, giving the Reds four amongst the top ten.
The two biggest banks in the world are - red banks. :D
http://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/38289/umfrage/top-10-banken-nach-boersenwert/
Additionally to claiming first and second place, there are two more Chinese banks on six and seven, giving the Reds four amongst the top ten.
Well they are all together scheming against us. :shifty:
Thanks Sky. :up:
Our Navy is very small compared to what it used to be. And it gets smaller all the time with these defense cuts. I think if several Navies got together, they'd have a chance. And Americans aren't all idiots. We have a good amount though.
North Korea can't even feed its own people. They wouldn't be able to sustain a war with a major power for very long
Have you read Red Storm Rising by any chance? :06:
Right, let's start at the top.
China invading the US?
No. Not going to happen. The PLAN isn't powerful enough to support the supply routes needed to sustain an invasion of America. Furthermore, the attrition rate would not be worth the effort of invading.
In WWII, the Japanese contemplated the United States, but only briefly, they realised it would be a doomed effort, because the IJN couldn't support such an invasion and the IJA would struggle to control the areas under its control. The same problems are put forward by China invading, or indeed ANY nation invading the US.
So, a combination of nations? The Russians and Chinese perhaps?
Nope, still not enough and again supply problems would make any invasion grind to a halt not far from the seaboard.
The enemy carriers would be a key target for US attack, as would any coastal airfields that are captured. Robbed of key air cover, the enemy ground forces would be subjected to daily air attacks from every corner, up to and potentially including tactical nuclear weapons, chemical and biological devices. Their landing zones would be bombarded mercilessly from air and sea and their supply ships sunk in droves. Mass desertions would begin as the invading army ran out of ammunition and food (although some could continue functioning for a short period using captured food and weapons from the local populace, but eventually they too would be faced with an opposition they couldn't counter).
The only advantage the enemy would have in the initial attack would be the element of surprise...however, this is not Pearl Harbour any more, the US has a better intelligence network and it's not easy to hide a carrier fleet from things like RORSATs.
They could use merchant ships as a cover, firing ballistic missiles into an altitude high enough to create mass EMPs across America, this would create pure chaos, but primarily amongst the civilian populace, the military would fare better and eventually be able to counter the invasion for reasons mentioned above. However, the effect on the civilian populace would be pretty devastating and there would be a LOT of deaths from lack of medication and health care, and a lot more from people failing to adjust to a situation where there is no electricity. However, the retaliation against the enemy nation would be just as devastating and perhaps lead to a full scale exchange, in which case a lifetime without electricity would be the civilian populaces smallest problem.
Once the element of surprise is lost then so is any invasion of America. It's too big, too well armed and the populace too prone to uprisings. The Soviets couldn't have done it, the Japanese couldn't have done it, we tried and failed at it, so the Chinese certainly wouldn't consider it. Besides, the Chinese don't generally act against nations outside of their sphere of interest. If they wanted to attack America they might missile the shoreline cities from SSGNs or perhaps detonate bombs in cities through espionage and gangs...I imagine the triads might be willing to assist the PRC, but an actual invasion...no, it's not their doctrine. If you lived in Vietnam or Taiwan, then I'd say that you might have something to worry about, but in America? Nah, ain't happening.
Still, it makes for a good film for the masses that don't know any better, stirs up the patriotic spirit and all that.
By the way, Red Storm Rising, as excellent a novel as it is, is inaccurate in one major factor. The absence of nuclear weapons. The Soviet and NATO war plans of the period involved the liberal use of nuclear weapons from almost day one, particularly the Soviets. They would be used to clear a way through NATO defences and paralyse their airforce and command structure. Of course, as soon as the first mushroom went up, NATO would retaliate, the escalation ladder would be climbed and eventually World War III would consist of a handful of Soviet and NATO troops wandering around a nuclear wasteland.
All this within about three or four days.
Obviously this makes for pretty poor reading material, so most games, books and films take the nuclear weapons out of the picture until such a time that the armed forces have had their fill of action.
There is a chance that neither side would want to use nuclear weapons first, however generally speaking within a week or two of fighting, someone would have resorted to it. Either NATO to stop the Soviets, or the Soviets to make a breakthrough as their invasion begins to overstretch and run out of steam. Failing that, West Germany would have surrendered before the nukes came out, fearing the total destruction of Germany as a whole. Better Red than Dead and all that.
It's still a good book, and certainly one of Clancys finest, alongside HFRO, and certainly if a number of factors fell the right way then it could be a realistic look at a Soviet invasion of West Germany, however it would take a great number of things to fall the right way for the original plans to be altered so much.
Take a read of 'Chieftains' by Bob Forrest-Webb, you're probably best doing it through something like Kindle because the going rate for the original book is a stupid amount of money, but it has a fairly realistic look at WWIII, that is to say, it doesn't end well.
Here's some more recommended reading:
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/field-mess/1053-acig-thread-wwwiii-e-88-germany-czechoslovakia-austria.html
http://www.jrnyquist.com/may14/ussr_war_plan.htm
http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-447673.html
Would I fight?...
...Sigh.... I supose so.....:salute:
Being an 'old cold war warrior' Like more than a few peeps here, I would like to have the cosy staff job this time round :arrgh!:
Standing watch in the cold dark night in the middle of the ocean miles from land is bad for my rheumatism. Being stuck in a submarine with my bad gas would be fatal for my oppo's :03:
As my old Chief said 'If yoo don't have a sense of humour yoo should not join' :rock:
Cheers
gary
Betonov
12-02-12, 09:54 AM
Sure I would. We Slovenes have a history of rebelions.
Not only we'd fight against the occupator, we'd start a civil war against ourselves at the same time
Sure I would. We Slovenes have a history of rebelions.
Not only we'd fight against the occupator, we'd start a civil war against ourselves at the same time
A bit like us Scots then :woot:
Cheers
Gary
Red October1984
12-02-12, 12:42 PM
Well.
I've been proved wrong. I seem to have some bad information. I, just having finished RSR, am just starting to look at WW3 possibilities.
I was a card carrying commie back when I was in school in china (ok, young pioneer party, but still)
I'll just rejoin the party I guess
Print out this message and if you are captured by my partisan band i'll see that you get a fair trial. :yep:
CaptainMattJ.
12-02-12, 01:46 PM
Right, let's start at the top.
China invading the US?
No. Not going to happen. The PLAN isn't powerful enough to support the supply routes needed to sustain an invasion of America. Furthermore, the attrition rate would not be worth the effort of invading.
In WWII, the Japanese contemplated the United States, but only briefly, they realised it would be a doomed effort, because the IJN couldn't support such an invasion and the IJA would struggle to control the areas under its control. The same problems are put forward by China invading, or indeed ANY nation invading the US.
So, a combination of nations? The Russians and Chinese perhaps?
Nope, still not enough and again supply problems would make any invasion grind to a halt not far from the seaboard.
The enemy carriers would be a key target for US attack, as would any coastal airfields that are captured. Robbed of key air cover, the enemy ground forces would be subjected to daily air attacks from every corner, up to and potentially including tactical nuclear weapons, chemical and biological devices. Their landing zones would be bombarded mercilessly from air and sea and their supply ships sunk in droves. Mass desertions would begin as the invading army ran out of ammunition and food (although some could continue functioning for a short period using captured food and weapons from the local populace, but eventually they too would be faced with an opposition they couldn't counter).
The only advantage the enemy would have in the initial attack would be the element of surprise...however, this is not Pearl Harbour any more, the US has a better intelligence network and it's not easy to hide a carrier fleet from things like RORSATs.
They could use merchant ships as a cover, firing ballistic missiles into an altitude high enough to create mass EMPs across America, this would create pure chaos, but primarily amongst the civilian populace, the military would fare better and eventually be able to counter the invasion for reasons mentioned above. However, the effect on the civilian populace would be pretty devastating and there would be a LOT of deaths from lack of medication and health care, and a lot more from people failing to adjust to a situation where there is no electricity. However, the retaliation against the enemy nation would be just as devastating and perhaps lead to a full scale exchange, in which case a lifetime without electricity would be the civilian populaces smallest problem.
Once the element of surprise is lost then so is any invasion of America. It's too big, too well armed and the populace too prone to uprisings. The Soviets couldn't have done it, the Japanese couldn't have done it, we tried and failed at it, so the Chinese certainly wouldn't consider it. Besides, the Chinese don't generally act against nations outside of their sphere of interest. If they wanted to attack America they might missile the shoreline cities from SSGNs or perhaps detonate bombs in cities through espionage and gangs...I imagine the triads might be willing to assist the PRC, but an actual invasion...no, it's not their doctrine. If you lived in Vietnam or Taiwan, then I'd say that you might have something to worry about, but in America? Nah, ain't happening.
Still, it makes for a good film for the masses that don't know any better, stirs up the patriotic spirit and all that.
By the way, Red Storm Rising, as excellent a novel as it is, is inaccurate in one major factor. The absence of nuclear weapons. The Soviet and NATO war plans of the period involved the liberal use of nuclear weapons from almost day one, particularly the Soviets. They would be used to clear a way through NATO defences and paralyse their airforce and command structure. Of course, as soon as the first mushroom went up, NATO would retaliate, the escalation ladder would be climbed and eventually World War III would consist of a handful of Soviet and NATO troops wandering around a nuclear wasteland.
All this within about three or four days.
Obviously this makes for pretty poor reading material, so most games, books and films take the nuclear weapons out of the picture until such a time that the armed forces have had their fill of action.
There is a chance that neither side would want to use nuclear weapons first, however generally speaking within a week or two of fighting, someone would have resorted to it. Either NATO to stop the Soviets, or the Soviets to make a breakthrough as their invasion begins to overstretch and run out of steam. Failing that, West Germany would have surrendered before the nukes came out, fearing the total destruction of Germany as a whole. Better Red than Dead and all that.
It's still a good book, and certainly one of Clancys finest, alongside HFRO, and certainly if a number of factors fell the right way then it could be a realistic look at a Soviet invasion of West Germany, however it would take a great number of things to fall the right way for the original plans to be altered so much.
Take a read of 'Chieftains' by Bob Forrest-Webb, you're probably best doing it through something like Kindle because the going rate for the original book is a stupid amount of money, but it has a fairly realistic look at WWIII, that is to say, it doesn't end well.
Here's some more recommended reading:
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/field-mess/1053-acig-thread-wwwiii-e-88-germany-czechoslovakia-austria.html
http://www.jrnyquist.com/may14/ussr_war_plan.htm
http://www.pprune.org/archive/index.php/t-447673.html
QFR
This is the unfortunate reality of a war with a nuclear power. However, there is a chance people could come to their senses about the damned things. Considering they've made 50 megaton nuclear bombs, they could potentially cause global nuclear winter with just a few nukes. The fact that you'd be ending a war while also dooming everyone on the planet (including yourself) should be deterrent enough against nuclear weapons getting involved (at least, the large ones. Tac nukes and possibly a MIRV low-yield nuke may be used but wont cause as much global devastation).
So it is possible nukes on a large scale may not be used, and that a war would probably end with the soviet invasion being pushed back to the border and suing for peace.
The common belief among the troops during the late 1970's when I was stationed over there was that without tactical nukes we'd be steadily beaten back by the vastly larger Soviet military machine and that after a week we'd be lucky to hold any of the continent at all. With tactical nukes on the other hand we had a chance to hold if the Soviets.
The big question would be whether the Germans would be willing to let their country be destroyed in order for us to hold long enough to let the REFORGER plan work. Between nukes and the Soviets expected use of Chemical weapons, not to mention the intensity of the conventional combat in German cities and towns I always figured that they'd eventually throw in the towel as in alternate ending of the book "The Third World War: The Untold Story" by John Hackett.
u crank
12-02-12, 03:01 PM
I was a card carrying commie back when I was in school in china (ok, young pioneer party, but still)
I'll just rejoin the party I guess
Print out this message and if you are captured by my partisan band i'll see that you get a fair trial. :yep:
:har:
QFR
This is the unfortunate reality of a war with a nuclear power. However, there is a chance people could come to their senses about the damned things. Considering they've made 50 megaton nuclear bombs, they could potentially cause global nuclear winter with just a few nukes. The fact that you'd be ending a war while also dooming everyone on the planet (including yourself) should be deterrent enough against nuclear weapons getting involved (at least, the large ones. Tac nukes and possibly a MIRV low-yield nuke may be used but wont cause as much global devastation).
So it is possible nukes on a large scale may not be used, and that a war would probably end with the soviet invasion being pushed back to the border and suing for peace.
The problem is the ladder of escalation, the outbreak of war is the first step on the rung. Now, the war would go one of three ways. Either the Soviets would push NATO back and at some point they would cross a line which NATO would deploy nuclear weapons to stop the Soviet advance, or a stalemate would occur that would require nuclear weapons to resolve, or the Soviets would advance, fail at logistics and be pushed back hard, in which case they would probably in fear of a repeat of 1941, use nuclear weapons to stop the NATO advance.
On most of the war plans put forward by the Soviets though were based around NATO launching a nuclear first strike, which, as we know, was not NATO policy, however the Soviets lived in worry of a repeat of Barbarossa and built a massive intel network to determine if NATO was going to fire first. This level of fear almost sparked WWIII in 1983, and both sides lived on a knife edge of worry that the other would launch a first strike.
However, if, through whatever accident on the border, a shooting war began before the birds flew, then it is likely that they would be unleashed at some point in the war at some form. Potentially nuclear mines first, then escalating up to TBMs, Scuds and Honest Johns. Then someone would launch a strategic first strike in order to protect their airfields and silos, after all, in the early days before the BMEWs went up, you could expect to get about ten minutes warning if you were lucky that missiles and bombers were inbound. That's ten minutes, to open the silos and fire back, ten minutes to scramble the bombers, ten minutes to evacuate the President/Premier to a safe location. Of course, steps would have been taken as soon as war broke out to move the leadership to a safe place. The US had an absolutely fantastic system to ensure continuation of government after a nuclear exchange, and their command and control network through airbourne stations was, and indeed, still is, second to none.
The Soviets relied more on human intelligence, they identified a number of specific steps the US would go through before they launched a nuclear strike, which would enable them to launch their strike before the US finished going through the steps to launch theirs. Unfortunately this particular intelligence network in the US/NATO nuclear forces (codenamed RYAN) was around when the US and NATO went through a full scale nuclear attack exercise, which was relayed back to the Kremlin and almost caused them to launch a first strike.
Either way, someone would figure that the other guy was going to launch a strategic attack first, and get their shot in first, and once the birds are launched, contrary to what you might see or read in some fiction, there are NO self-destruct codes (there's just too much of a risk the enemy would hack the codes and shut down the entire strike), once they're gone, they're gone and there's no calling them back. Of course, as soon as the enemy sees that you've launched, they'll launch and, well, everyone knows what happens after that.
I won't deny that it's possible that a conventional war would happen, but I see it as being very unlikely, because the losing side would be too tempted to use their ultimate trump card in protection of their nation and people. There would also be the case that if NATO or Soviet aircraft went after nuclear weapons sites they might elect to 'use it or lose it' that they had nothing left to lose. Remember, the people who make the decision will spend the exchange in a bunker deep underground, with plenty of food, water, comfortable bedding and men around them to protect them (or, possibly coup them, but that's another kettle of fish entirely), they would not go through the same sort of consequences that their people would. It's possible that the President/Premier might decide to stay at Ground Zero and not have to face the nation post-strike, in which case the next person in the chain of command would take over, but needless to say, whoever it is that is in charge of the post-strike nation will be doing it from a bunker hidden somewhere deep underground or from an aircraft trying to avoid the nuclear explosions. Not on the ground where life will be rather grim. So the mindset is a little different, there's a bit less to lose from launching, and if the fate of your nation depended on stopping the enemy from invading then you would gladly push the button with the amount of pressure on you and the hawks around you telling you that there is no other option but to use the nuclear weapons that you have. Perhaps just one weapon to begin with ("What use is a deterrent if you're not going to show that you're willing to use it Comrade/President?") but the response that that one weapon received might escalate into a full scale exchange, or it might stay as a limited exchange. There are literally hundreds of scenarios that could spiral either into a full exchange, a limited exchange or no exchange at all. However, those that spiral into a full or limited exchange are greater in number than those that do not.
Out of the two, I think the Soviet Union would have been slightly more likely to push the button if their backs were against the wall, because they share a land border with Europe, whereas the United States has two oceans between it and the Soviet Union and thus is less likely to be invaded. However, there is the wild card of France which may begin a nuclear exchange by itself since its nuclear force operated outside of the NATO command chain, because it was not willing to gamble that the US would 'trade Washington for Paris'. With the French launching then it would be debatable if the UK would follow suit, and if the UK fired then the US would face the choice to either abandon its allies to their fate (and never be forgiven) or invite the same fate upon itself, and most likely would take the latter option, the sheer amount of pressure on the president to do so would make it appear that he has very little other choice, despite the hordes of CND and peace protesters that would no doubt be camped outside the White House at the time.
In regards to weapons used, the fifty megaton weapon that you mention was a one-off prototype, and was horrendously ineffective. When it initiated it fired most of its energy upwards into the atmosphere and did a lot less damage that was expected, furthermore it was a big and bulky monstrosity of a weapon which had to be used by a specially converted bomber (a little like the first two atomic weapons) and was more a show of force than it was an actual weapon.
The more likely weapon yield would be in the range of kilotonnes rather than megatonnes, however multiple warheads would be used on cities to ensure maximum destruction. Although some cities could potentially be spared, warheads are not perfect, some would overshoot their targets, some would fail to detonate, some would even be knocked off their paths by the detonation of other warheads potentially. But the major cities would have so many warheads targeted on them that it wouldn't matter if one missed, because the other twenty three probably wouldn't.
The megaton weapons would come by bomber, and would most likely be used against Command centers, airfields, ports, rail yards and possibly cities as well. Potentially TBMs could also use megaton weapons but they would be in the low yield (3.5MT from a PGM-17 Thor missile vs 25MT from a B41 nuclear freefall weapon) but they would most likely use kiloton weapons and/or chemical and biological weapons.
Either which way, it would be messy, and that's an understatement, and I believe that it would have been an almost inevitable outcome of a NATO/Soviet conflict which both sides would have been preparing for since even before the first shot was fired or missile launched. Both sides had systems in place to get missiles launched at the first possible warning that the other had fired and to continue firing even if the leadership was knocked out (the US had a SIOP and the USSR had a 'Dead Hand' system). In fact the only thing that would stop the firing would be if they run out of weapons or if individual commanders refused to fire, in which case they would probably be removed and someone else would fire.
As Joshua put it, the only way to win is not to play...and that, plus negotiations treaties and proxy wars, kept us all from blowing ourselves to smithereens for fifty years. :yep:
An armed society is a polite society,,it all comes down to who has the biggest stick and the resolve to use it,,so, who would you steal from,, the guy with barb wire fence, bars, and gun turrets, or the house down the street with the white picket fence..peace through strength.
Takeda Shingen
12-02-12, 05:15 PM
An armed society is a polite society
Wyatt Earp called. He said that simply wasn't true.
Skybird
12-02-12, 05:22 PM
The common belief among the troops during the late 1970's when I was stationed over there was that without tactical nukes we'd be steadily beaten back by the vastly larger Soviet military machine and that after a week we'd be lucky to hold any of the continent at all. With tactical nukes on the other hand we had a chance to hold if the Soviets.
The big question would be whether the Germans would be willing to let their country be destroyed in order for us to hold long enough to let the REFORGER plan work. Between nukes and the Soviets expected use of Chemical weapons, not to mention the intensity of the conventional combat in German cities and towns I always figured that they'd eventually throw in the towel as in alternate ending of the book "The Third World War: The Untold Story" by John Hackett.
The Russians would have started any WWIII in Europe with nuclear attacks on day one, hour one, against NATO critical targets like airbases and CCCI, maybe even armour concentrations - but especially airfields. The POMCUS sites probably also would have been nuked, and Atlantic harbours along the continental coast. The first offensive in that war already would have been a nuclear one, no doubt.
Seen that way, all that conventional yearly exercises and cold war on the continent - was just a stage play.
Raptor1
12-02-12, 05:41 PM
The notion that, in a NATO/Warsaw Pact scenario, a nuclear exchange would only occur after days of mostly conventional conflict, when one side or the other would have been pushed to the brink of defeat or through gradual escalation is pretty unlikely. Assuming a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, the Warsaw Pact would almost certainly have used tactical and strategic nuclear weapons from the very first moments of the offensive in order to cripple NATO combat forces, command and control, logistics and nuclear retaliation capabilities. The notion of withholding nuclear weapon use solely on the basis of NATO being nice enough not to use them either would most likely (and, quite probably, rightfully) have been rejected outright by Soviet leadership in the event of war, so using them right at the very beginning, when they are most effective, to destroy NATO's ability to fight and its ability to harm the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact with its own nuclear arsenal would have been seen as vastly preferable to wasting the initial advantage by waiting until the slow escalation to a strategic nuclear exchange which would have (almost inevitably, otherwise) occurred.
Even assuming the Warsaw Pact wouldn't have gone with a first strike at the beginning of the invasion, for some reason, the war would have quickly turned nuclear anyway, because NATO was fully prepared to resort to tactical nuclear weapons even without the Soviets using them first. For example, in the early 1970s, NATO disbanded most of its chemical weapon stockpiles in West Germany, so to counter the tens of thousands of tons of chemical weapons the Soviet Army had piled up on the Central Front, its doctrine instead called for the use of tactical nuclear weapons in response to Warsaw Pact employment of chemical weapons. Since the Soviets would have almost certainly used chemical weapons, the escalation to the use of tactical nuclear weapons by both sides would have been immediate, and strategic weapons would have followed in short order. Red Storm Rising conveniently got around this with the East Germans convincing the Soviets not to use chemical weapons because of the expected civilian casualties.
As Oberon said, while a purely conventional war between NATO and the Warsaw Pact would have been, in theory, possible, I think the chances of it actually happening were extremely slim. There were simply far too many scenarios in which either side would have used nuclear weapons and which would have resulted in a strategic exchange for it not to have happened.
Tribesman
12-02-12, 05:43 PM
An armed society is a polite society
Mogadishu is well known for the good manners of its residents.
Wyatt Earp called. He said that simply wasn't true.
I guess he hadn't seen the movie Tombstone.
nikimcbee
12-02-12, 06:10 PM
Time to re-install World in Conflict.:hmm2:
http://worldinconflict.uk.ubi.com/
Time to re-install World in Conflict.:hmm2:
http://worldinconflict.uk.ubi.com/
Try Wargame: European Escalation too. :yep:
nikimcbee
12-02-12, 06:28 PM
Try Wargame: European Escalation too. :yep:
:hmmm:Need to look into this.
What you guys ain't playin that new Call of Duty ????????????
What you guys ain't playin that new Call of Duty ????????????
Are you?
Can't afford the system, looks alittle wild for me, hate to be the low guy on the poll, it took a while for me to hold my own in IL-2 in hyperlobby.
nikimcbee
12-02-12, 07:11 PM
What you guys ain't playin that new Call of Duty ????????????
:Kaleun_Sleep:You've played one CoD, you've played them all. CoD is turning into Madden for me. I have CoD MW2?:haha: I play it so often, I don't even remember which one I have.:haha:
nikimcbee
12-02-12, 07:16 PM
:hmmm:Need to look into this.
The DRM is an offshoot of the StarForce DRM,:o
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/001/384/Atrapitis.gif
Raptor1
12-02-12, 07:25 PM
Wargame: European Escalation has StarForce? It uses Steam... :hmmm:
:Kaleun_Sleep:You've played one CoD, you've played them all. CoD is turning into Madden for me. I have CoD MW2?:haha: I play it so often, I don't even remember which one I have.:haha:
That's what I was thinkin, hardly justifies spending money on a new system, when I have so much.. Maybe asassins greed might change my mind
nikimcbee
12-02-12, 08:03 PM
Wargame: European Escalation has StarForce? It uses Steam... :hmmm:
One final note we have to mention is that Wargame comes with some added DRM even through the Steam version, which isn't mentioned anywhere on the game's store page, limiting you to five installs. The DRM is an offshoot of the StarForce DRM, which has been known to cause problems for some computers. I haven't encountered a single problem with Wargame, and the community seems to be more upset that the DRM was never mentioned on the Steam store than whether it actually causes any problems, so it's doubtful you'll run into troubles either.
http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/03/08/wargame-european-escalation-review
...Runs for life after kicking starforce hornet nest.
Sailor Steve
12-02-12, 08:04 PM
Why are we discussing wargames in a thread dedicated to a...
Oh.
Never mind. :dead:
nikimcbee
12-02-12, 08:09 PM
Try Wargame: European Escalation too. :yep:
So Oberon, do you own this game? What do you think about it?:hmm2:
Raptor1
12-02-12, 08:14 PM
http://www.ign.com/articles/2012/03/08/wargame-european-escalation-review
...Runs for life after kicking starforce hornet nest.
Well, I have it and I haven't encountered limited installations or anything StarForce like that I can recall...
Why are we discussing wargames in a thread dedicated to a...
Oh.
Never mind. :dead:
Well, if it helps, despite its title Wargame: European Escalation is really more of an RTS than an actual wargame... :O:
Sailor Steve
12-02-12, 08:15 PM
:rotfl2:
No.
It doesn't help. :stare:
nikimcbee
12-02-12, 08:33 PM
@Raptor1
So, do you enjoy it? Have you ever played World in Combat?, If yes, how does it compare to it or Company of Heroes?
nikimcbee
12-02-12, 08:38 PM
The original WiC was kinda cool, because a lot of the fighting is in South Seattle.:haha: It was pretty funny when I was at Centurylink field, just to the west of there is where the Soviets land in the game.
The Russians would have started any WWIII in Europe with nuclear attacks on day one, hour one, against NATO critical targets like airbases and CCCI, maybe even armour concentrations - but especially airfields.
Unlikely and unnecessary.
Unlikely as it's not a good idea to nuke areas that you will soon be capturing and occupyingand unnecessary because the Russians had plenty of conventional assets to do the job and do it better. After all between them and the Warsaw Pact they had something like 9 Airborne divisions. They would do a much better job of denying nato the use of their airbases while still leaving them usable once the front line passes them.
If anyone would use nukes on the first day or two I'd think it would be NATO. The time to use them would be when those Soviet tank and motorized divisions are bottled up in choke points like Fulda. By day 3 or 4 their effectiveness would be greatly reduced.
So Oberon, do you own this game? What do you think about it?:hmm2:
I have it, and I haven't noticed any problems with DRM outside of Steam, and Steam is a subject that I'm not going to go into because I know how it's a bit love/hate to people.
The gameplay itself is similar to World in Conflict but much more realistic. There are no fixed wing aircraft (but there will be in the sequel coming out next year called Airland Battle). Units are unlocked through gaining points through playing either online or singleplayer missions (and you'll want to play the campaign first to unlock the nice stuff) and then you use your unlocked units to build up particular 'decks' of units. For example I have my BAOR deck which is comprised of only British vehicles (with one exception being the HEMETT which I added because there are no Bedfords :wah:). The BAOR deck has the strong but snail like in speed Challenger I, the faster but lighter armoured Chieftains, the mainly useless Rardens (good for scouting and cannon fodder), and the not-too-bad-but-could-be-better Strikers with their Swingfire missiles.
You can play against people or do co-op matches with them against the AI. A word of advice in regards to playing with friends against the AI, pack SAM launchers, particularly if you're name is Raptor, because the AI likes to build a swarm of Mi-2 Salamandras which can be pretty devastating if they bounce you early. For some reason in our games 9/10 they head straight for Raptor, still haven't figured out why, which is probably just as well because without the Tracked Rapier British AA cover is pretty poor, relying on chaps with Blowpipes and hoping that the helos are dumb enough to come into range of the autocannons on the Rardens.
Cover is fairly basic but effective, you can hide any unit (except helos) in bushes and forests, but vehicles may suffer faults whilst navigating rough terrain such as a gearbox failure or even throwing a track which will mean that they will have to stop to repair it. That doesn't normally take long and it doesn't happen frequently to be anything more than a minor nuisance that makes you consider where you send your units. Cover lowers the enemies ability to hit you accurately while you can hit them, obviously though the longer you fire from the same spot and the closer they get, the more they'll see you and the more accurate their fire gets. Shoot and scoot.
In regards to the developers, I can't fault them at all. They have released, to date, four sets of DLC, adding new multiplayer modes, new maps and a new singleplayer campaign, and the whole lot has been absolutely free. In an era when just updating old DLC can result in the whole thing being reshipped and you having to buy it over again (I'm looking at you Train Simulator 2013), that sort of service is a breath of fresh air.
You will find some things with it that you don't like, you may come to think that Soviet units are overpowered, or that NATO missiles are too accurate. People have varying ideas of what they expect out of PACT and NATO units, but generally speaking, any faults I've found have been through my own expectations and bad tactics, not reality.
IMHO, they've done a good job, it's worth playing, and there's not that many proper Cold War gone Hot games out there that don't wonder into 'Invasion:Amerika' territory but stick to the more likely battlefields of Central Europe, so on that merit alone it's worth looking at. Not that I'm dismissing WiC, it was a great game and a lot of fun to play, but...unlikely in its primary battleground. The New York cinematic (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srb4_7F3lAc) was breath-taking in its emotional impact though, and I did love all the (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnTn1LSG9Zo) CGI (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-oUOlNySY0) vids (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TN68sp-vIw) they released.
I keep meaning to reinstall it with the graphics jacked up on this machine, see it in its full glory. :yep: Wonder if there are many playing online still...
Anyway, there's a thread over in the General Games forum for W:EE, so check it out: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=192893 :salute:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=192893 Almost a necro tread, :o
Raptor1
12-02-12, 10:14 PM
@Raptor1
So, do you enjoy it? Have you ever played World in Combat?, If yes, how does it compare to it or Company of Heroes?
I like it enough. It has some problems, but overall it is a good game. I posted my first impressions of it on the thread when the game came out (here (http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=1848507&postcount=29)), and I think most of that still holds; besides that I can't think of much that Oberon hasn't already said.
I haven't played World in Conflict in a long time, so I can't directly compare it to Wargame, but the concept is mostly similar, though Wargame is somewhat more realistic in both premise and gameplay. As for Company of Heroes, it has some similarities, but the larger scale, lack of base building, different setting (of course) and other factors make Wargame play quite a bit differently to it.
For some reason in our games 9/10 they head straight for Raptor, still haven't figured out why, which is probably just as well because without the Tracked Rapier British AA cover is pretty poor, relying on chaps with Blowpipes and hoping that the helos are dumb enough to come into range of the autocannons on the Rardens.
I keep telling my troops to spray the chopper repellent on their combat vehicles, but they never listen... :nope:
Red October1984
12-02-12, 11:13 PM
I keep telling my troops to spray the chopper repellent on their combat vehicles, but they never listen... :nope:
I have the same problem with EndWar. :hmmm: Where can I buy this...Chopper Repellent? :hmm2:
:har:
Google:
<game of choice> cheat codes.
I believe chopper repellent is under invisibility... :)
Wouldn't stinger missles work instead, of course I've never heard of this game so I'm talking out of my butt, they worked well in Afganistan matter of fact it was a game changer..I'd have stingers on both flanks of a column of armor. Gee I wonder where 20,000 Lybian shoulder held ground to air missles went ??????
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.