Australia Twilight War & After...

[Dogger]

Looking for any information on Australia during the war and after.

Was it nuked anywhere

Did the government fall

Current conditions in the country

I seem to remember reading somthing way back about an invasion of OZ by Indonesia

Any info wheather cannon or not would be helpful.

[Targan]

Looking for any information on Australia during the war and after.

There is very little info about Australia and its region in 1st ed T2K (I'm not sure if there is much more info about Oz in versions 2 or 2.2). The invasion of the very far northern parts of Australia by Indonesia is mentioned in the Traveller 2300 timeline (which technically is T2K canon but has been disputed a fair bit in discussions by those on this board).

If you have a look through the thread map for this board you should be able to find a number of discussions about Australasia that we've had. Here are a few threads that contain musings on Australasia:

Oceania OOB http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.phpt=515
International Trade http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.phpt=530
Australia/New Zealand in the Twilight War http://forum.juhlin.com/showthread.phpt=317

If you look at the threads in the DC Working Group section of the site map I seem to recall that there are some mentions of Australia there in terms of its use as a resupply point for US forces during the later part of the Twilight War.

You could use the search function at the top of the page as well to find mentions of Australia in our discussions over the years. I recall there have been many but its hard to remember which threads they came up in.

[Legbreaker]

I personally see Australia in 2000 in a similar way as it's depicted in the early stages of the classic book and movie adaptions of "On the Beach"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Beach_(novel)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Beach_(1959_film)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Beach_(2000_film)

[Mohoender]

Targan is right and he reminds me of what we already said on the subject.

For my part, Australia isn't nuked and I made it (in fact the Oceanian Union which includes Australia, New Zealand, Fiji Islands and Papua New Guinea) the last truly industrial part of the world (they have more than enough resources for that). Their industries was shot down by the EMPs of course, but as their country's infrastructures were intact, they could fix pretty much everything in a matter of a few month (limited electricity within days and all vital power supplies with a couple of weeks).

As a result, it is indeed supplying US but also many other belligerants. After all trade is trade and I can see Australia acting (after the nukes) like Sweden in WW2 (with the exception of the Warsaw Pact).

About civil unrest, as I already said in other thread, I simply don't buy it. You might have some but this IMO remain limited.

I keep the war with Indonesia but If the Indonesians effectively land at Darwin, they are repelled (AMX-13 and PT-76 are simply no match for Leopard 1 and eventually Abrams). Cannon states that both air forces and navies destroyed each other. Except if Australians are the most stupid fighter (what they are not) on this planet I see that totally unrealistic.

I agree that the Australian/N-Z navy will suffer some losses (may be serious ones) but it should (IMO) come up on top. First, they won't engage their whole force without full control of the air. Second, they have better ships and better trained crews. Third, their ships are better maintained and they have ample supply to repair them while Indonesia will quickly suffer from supply shortages. Later, I even have Australia commissioning at least 2 aircraft carriers (similar to Principe de Asturias) and they can build new ships as well to replace the eventual losses.

Air power is the key IMO. From what I get, the Indonesian air force is no match for the Australian/N-Z air force, especially on its own soil. Just look at the combat aircrafts.

- The indonesian will have about 10 F-16, 16 F-5 and 32 A-4 (su-30 cancelled and further deliveries of F-16 cancelled by Indonesia itself in 1989).

- Australia can count on 70+ F/A-18, 24 F-111 (not matched by anything flown by Indonesia), A-4 from New Zealand (better suited for anti ship missions) and eventually 28 F-16 (N-Z). Depending on your timeline and choice, they might have kept the 50 Mirage III sold to Pakistan in 1990. Nevertheless, even with the minimal amount of aircraft they are still on the winning side (Australians are not known to fly with broken harms). In addition, they can produce more aircrafts what Indonesia can't do.

At last, I adapted the situation described in the Gazeteer (Merc 2000). Indonesians were pushed back to the sea and the Australians landed in Indonesia, ultimately controlling Java and Sumatra under a puppet government. However, they are faced with a difficult situation there with terrorist attacks and opposing forces controlling most of the other islands (not to talk of piracy).

If Indonesia's bet was short live, Australia can't control Indonesia.

[Mohoender]

I posted something on Australia under the thread dedicated to Regions.

[boogiedowndonovan]

someone can correct me if I'm wrong, because I don't have my T2k books in front of me.

V1 doesn't mention anything about Australia and Indonesia.

V2 and 2.2 mention that Indonesia invaded New Guinea and Australia intervened. There were a series of aero-naval battles that wiped out both airforces and navies. V2 and 2.2 don't mention anything specific about the aero-naval battles.

[Webstral]

Have the Soviets become such nice guys that they allow Australia, an ANZUS ally and close partner with the other Western powers, to go un-nuked

Webstral

[Legbreaker]

Not all that much here worth nuking really, at least not unless it's a total nuclear war with ballistic missiles, etc.
A few smallish oil refineries, the odd industrial centre, and lots and lots and LOTS of wide open space with very little in it.
Although possessing targets that warranted nuking if located in Europe or N America, halfway around the world from the conflicts, Australia, especially in the latter stages of the war, isn't really going to be able to supply much to anyone (even ourselves).

As a target, we're a waste of nukes - New Zealand even more so.

[Mohoender]

Have the Soviets become such nice guys that they allow Australia, an ANZUS ally and close partner with the other Western powers, to go un-nuked

Webstral

Simply what is implied by Cannon (v2.2). Here is the text:
Australia was largely untouched by the nuclear exchange, but the global panic which followed left its mark on both the cities and outback. Large parts of the countryside are now in anarchy, terrorized, or insular, but the major cities are organized and controlled by the central government. A short war was fought with Inodnesia after it invaded Australia's ally, Papua-New Guinea. The indonesian offensive quickly halted, mostly due to logistical collapse, but not before a majority of Australi's and Indonesia's modern aircraft and naval vessels had been damaged or destroyed in a series of running aeronaval actions.

I was largely inspired by this but found it insufficient. I changed some elements (especially the countryside) as it serves my purpose better but kept many of the basics. Cannon made the soviets nice guys. In fact, it makes Australia insignificant.

[Mohoender]

Although possessing targets that warranted nuking if located in Europe or N America, halfway around the world from the conflicts, Australia, especially in the latter stages of the war, isn't really going to be able to supply much to anyone (even ourselves).

I agree and that's why I made Australia trade with Thailand, France (In fact New Caledonia and may be Djibouti), and US troops in the Middle East (whuy not Kenya).

[Webstral]

Not all that much here worth nuking really, at least not unless it's a total nuclear war with ballistic missiles, etc.
A few smallish oil refineries, the odd industrial centre, and lots and lots and LOTS of wide open space with very little in it.
Although possessing targets that warranted nuking if located in Europe or N America, halfway around the world from the conflicts, Australia, especially in the latter stages of the war, isn't really going to be able to supply much to anyone (even ourselves).

As a target, we're a waste of nukes - New Zealand even more so.

Waste is all about perception. Those with lots of resources often are wasteful about the use of said resources. The USSR of 1997 has a spectacular number of warheads and delivery systems. The Soviets clearly aren't concerned about fair play: look at the pasting they give Canada. If we're to imagine that the Soviets smash virtually all of Canada's principal cities just to deny Canadian resources to the United States, then surely both Australia and New Zealand deserve a megaton or five. It's not like you guys will shoot back; nor are the Soviets short on warheads or delivery systems. Disrupting the main American forward bases in that part of the world is nothing more than a cheap insurance policy.

Webstral

P.S. Sorry to sound like such an ugly Yank.

[Mohoender]

Web

What you say make sense but it would be equally true for US, however (No I'm not anti-yank but governments continuously prove that they are not fair play independently of the side they are supposed to be on, and US already proved in past history that it is no exception).

I think that it's not the point in T2K because if you go that far, you don't end up with Twilight 2000 but with the movie "Wargame". Could be interesting to play but that would be an entirely different game.

[Targan]

If we're to imagine that the Soviets smash virtually all of Canada's principal cities just to deny Canadian resources to the United States, then surely both Australia and New Zealand deserve a megaton or five. It's not like you guys will shoot back; nor are the Soviets short on warheads or delivery systems. Disrupting the main American forward bases in that part of the world is nothing more than a cheap insurance policy.

So which targets then The RAN's two main naval bases on the east and west coasts Pine Gap Auckland

[Webstral]

Web

What you say make sense but it would be equally true for US, however (No I'm not anti-yank but governments continuously prove that they are not fair play independently of the side they are supposed to be on, and US already proved in past history that it is no exception).

I think that it's not the point in T2K because if you go that far, you don't end up with Twilight 2000 but with the movie "Wargame". Could be interesting to play but that would be an entirely different game.

I'm not sure I understand what is equally true for the US. That we would nuke a country aligned with our enemies regardless of whether that country could fire back You can bet the farm on it. How does that unhappy fact prove or disprove the Soviet nuking of Australia

I don't at all agree that there is some sort of firm boundary between a Twilight: 2000 exchange and a "Wargame" exchange and that we must find ourselves in one camp or another. The v1 chronology all but states that the level of nuclear exchange is based on what the Soviets feel they can get away with. They blow China to kingdom come because China can't effectively counterattack. The Soviets are more calculating with their nuclear use against the West because the West is capable of counterattacking. Fear of MAD counterbalances the impulse to use enough nukes to destroy the enemy's ability to pose any threat.

Note that Canada gets hit much harder than the US, given relative populations, etc. Canada can't fire back. Clearly, the USSR has decided that the US will retaliate for attacks on Canada to a lesser degree than for attacks on CONUS. If a single MIRV-capable SLBM takes out Sydney, Melbourne, and the appropriate military facilities, the US might not even retaliate. If the US does retaliate, then the appropriate targets would be in a Soviet satellite: the PDRK, Bulgaria, etc. Maybe Indonesia or Vietnam would suffer a couple of US strikes in exchange for a couple of strikes on Australia. At any rate, it's all part of the math. Only Westerners think in terms of absolute firebreaks. According to official doctrine, the Soviets calculate the relative merits of each strike and its most likely counterstrike.

Webstral

[Webstral]

So which targets then The RAN's two main naval bases on the east and west coasts Pine Gap Auckland

I honestly don't know without doing some research. Off the top of my head, I'd say the respective headquarters of Australia's Navy, Army, and Air Force; the capitol; the principal refinery(ies); and the most important defense-related industrial center(s). The same applies to New Zealand. Whatever logic applies to the attacks on Canada probably would apply to attacks on Australia and New Zealand.

Webstral