List of European Nuke Strikes?

[Kemper Boyd]

No strategic importance You are joking right

Even without oil coming from Norway's north sea oil rigs, an undamaged refinery is of vital importance. It only takes one shipment of oil from somewhere else and suddenly "boom" you've got yourself a mobile division or two.

The Finnish and the Swedish armies are the ones in Europe which are practically untouched. The refineries would have a strategic value if they were somewhere else, but as long as there are intact armies to control them, neither NATO or the Russians are going to get use of them.

And by the time the nuclear strikes in Europe start, the conflict in Scandinavia is practically over and neither Finland or Sweden are engaged. Nuking the refineries "just because" doesn't seem to fit in, since there is no benefit in doing so for either NATO or Russia. Might happen in a general strategic exchange, but not in the "couple of warheads at a time" nuclear exchange that takes place in Twilight 2000.

[Rainbow Six]

Isn't it specifiically mentioned in one of the modules (Boomer I think) that Norway is targeted by the Soviet during the 1997 strategic exchange

[kato13]

Isn't it specifiically mentioned in one of the modules (Boomer I think) that Norway is targeted by the Soviet during the 1997 strategic exchange

Yep.

By November, the tactical exchanges had gone strategic,
and Norway did not escape.
Along with attacks on industrial centers, a nuclear bomb was
directed at Oslo, the capital. King Harald, who refused to abandon
the seat of government in the face of enemy attack, died
in the blast along with the Statsrad (state council) and most of
the Storting. Over a half a million Norwegians died in the attacks
on the capitol, the major industrial centers, and the nation's
petroleum facilities. The nation's naval bases at Horten,
Haakonsvern, Ramsund, and Olavsvern were destroyed or
severely damaged.

[John Farson]

Not to mention the fact that according to the Nordic sourcebook 3/4 of Norway's population was wiped out in the nuclear exchange and its aftermath. If a 1 Mt strike on Oslo doesn't constitute a strategic nuclear attack, I don't know what does.

Much as I like the Finnish sourcebook, this claim about Scandinavia being untouched by nuclear attack strikes me as a flaw. Maybe it was a case of wishful thinking by the authors ("Even if there was a nuclear war, we're so tiny and insignificant that the Russians wouldn't bother to nuke us, no sir... Please, please god let it be so")

[pmulcahy11b]

Yes, the lack of Scandinavian nuke strikes is completely unbelievable. But blend the two timelines (from canon and the Scandinavian Sourcebook) and you have something good.

[Kemper Boyd]

Much as I like the Finnish sourcebook, this claim about Scandinavia being untouched by nuclear attack strikes me as a flaw. Maybe it was a case of wishful thinking by the authors ("Even if there was a nuclear war, we're so tiny and insignificant that the Russians wouldn't bother to nuke us, no sir... Please, please god let it be so")

The bizarre thing is that its the same guys who wrote the Nordic sourcebook.

Essentially, it's of course up to how you want to see it: there's no real canon to go by here. If I would run a game where nuclear strikes against Finland and Sweden would figure, I'd probably adjust the list given in the Nordic sourcebook, since the list is sorta counter-intuitive. The oil refineries are way overprioritized over actual military assets, considering the distance to oil production and the narrow seaways to the refineries, they can be dealt with differently.

[Legbreaker]

The Finnish and the Swedish armies are the ones in Europe which are practically untouched.

Well that statement is just completely wrong.

While I can't say with any certainty about Sweden without refering back to the books, I know for a fact Finland STRONGLY resisted both Soviet and NATO offensives through their country. They fought so hard and effectively they forced the Soviet offensive against NATO forces in Norway to falter and the Nato command to reassess their plans on a strategic scale after they too met with effective military resistance.

Do you really think the troops on the ground wouldn't have shot back at the Finns Can you honestly say the industry and resources Finland possesses wouldn't have been subjected to AT LEAST intensive conventional strikes

Anyone who believes that has got to be living in a dreamland.

We had a discussion recently about Australia and whether or not it would have been nuked. As a country not involved in the multiple wars in the northern hemisphere (although possibly in Korea as part of the UN), and the fact it's on the other side of the planet, the concensus was the country WAS nuked. A country in the direct line of fire such as Finland (and possibly Sweden) wouldn't have had a chance.

[kato13]

Well that statement is just completely WRONG.

I agree but until I have full knowledge about what the contents of all the Finnish books are, I would probably not use all caps. There appears to be a serious disconnect within books published by the same author(s), so who knows what might be in print somewhere.

[Kemper Boyd]

I agree but until I have full knowledge about what the contents of all the Finnish books are, I would probably not use all caps. There appears to be a serious disconnect within books published by the same author(s), so who knows what might be in print somewhere.

The exact expression in the 2.2 main rulebook is "the two least damaged armies in Europe" from the timeline, from the spring of 1997. After that, Finland and Sweden aren't mentioned anymore in the timeline.

It of course helps that this campaign was fought in Lapland, which has low population and little infrastructure to be damaged.

We had a discussion recently about Australia and whether or not it would have been nuked. As a country not involved in the multiple wars in the northern hemisphere (although possibly in Korea as part of the UN), and the fact it's on the other side of the planet, the concensus was the country WAS nuked. A country in the direct line of fire such as Finland (and possibly Sweden) wouldn't have had a chance.

I actually read the Australia thread and didn't reach the same conclusions

What I consider the most important criteria for justifying military activity in the context of the game is "What is the strategic gain". Denying the enemy strategic resources is of course a net gain, but it has to be weighted with other strategical considerations. Extending the all-out war isn't always good, especially if the nuclear strikes are done as a part of limited nuclear war.

[John Farson]

But as everyone who's read about Twilight 2000 knows, even the limited nuclear war dealt immense damage to the world. Countries like Australia, Sweden, Finland etc., you don't even need to use that many (or powerful) nukes to screw them up.

I don't remember where, but somewhere I read that you'd only need about 100 or so nukes to completely destroy the United States as an organized entity, maybe even less. Though it had its flaws, Jericho did a good job in showing how even 23 Hiroshima-size bombs detonated in as many cities could deal a hell of a lot of damage to the U.S. Total nuclear war is like two guys firing rocket launchers at each other: their bodies will blow apart. The limited nuclear war as described in T2K is more like two guys blowing each other's heads off with sniper rifles: the rest of the torso may be intact, but it's no good if your brains are all over the wall.

Considering this, I find it to be no stretch of the imagination to consider that the Russians would have had no problem in expending a few nukes to make sure that Scandinavia (and Australia too, for that matter) would pose no problem for what remained of Russia in the post-nuke world. You can bet that the Americans would have the same policy. Heck, both sides have people whose sole job is to figure out how many nukes are needed and where the targets would be.

P.S: I'll post this later when describing the Nordic countries in the Nordic sourcebook but I might as well post it in brief. While the Finnish Army didn't suffer particularly heavy casualties in the war itself, the ensuing chaos forced the army to split into numerous smaller units in order to better provide order. Also, the collapse in agriculture has caused most of the army to be demobilized in order to provide manpower for agriculture. At the moment the army is in peacetime levels (And it's not as if Russia is in any shape to threaten with invasion.). Oh yes, Finland is run by a military dictator who titles himself as "Marshal of Finland", like the late Marshal Mannerheim. As for Sweden, that country is locked in a messy and brutal civil war between the Royal and Republican armies. So I think it's safe to say that neither army is particularly intact. Well maybe the Finnish army, but it's been drastically scaled back, and is more geared for policing the country than anything else. Oh yes, and the Helsinki Metropolitan Area (meaning Helsinki, Espoo (the 2nd largest city in Finland) and Vantaa) is a no-man's-land, ruled by gangs of criminals, punks, Roma, skinheads and others.

[Legbreaker]

The exact expression in the 2.2 main rulebook is "the two least damaged armies in Europe" from the timeline, from the spring of 1997.

I'm curious to know where exactly that is wrtten as I certainly can't find it in the 2.2 book....

As I think can be seen in the translations John has been kindly posting, it seems clear that the Finnish book is written to reflect local needs and perceptions rather than following canon to the letter. It is therefore fair to say it's more of an alternate reality than extension - very useful and interesting, however my personal believe is the GDW material should have priority where there is disagreement. Naturally everyone is free to do what they like as always.

With that in mind, I think we can understand why the same writer has contradicted themselves - The Finnish book wasn't intended for sale and use out of one small area (or it would have been officially tranlated and published) and was written with that market in mind. A completely understandable position and something I'd probably do myself if it meant me being paid or not for my work.

Regarding who got nuked how hard, we have an indication in "What's Polish for G'day" that Australia and France were not "irradiated", however this could be explained by the Australian tendancy to exaggerate unimportant details. In the context of the adventure, it doesn't matter what state these two countries are in - everything happens in Poland.

I believe we also have other information from a number of sources including the 2.2 timeline that France was nuked.

In Europe, France and Belgium had been hit the lightest and stand virtually alone in maintaining a semblance of internal order throughout the cataclysm.

France of course was at the time at least neutral, if not quietly hostile to Nato. This raises the question "can Finland and Sweden be classed as part of Europe" My thoughts are definately yes.

[Cdnwolf]

Have we looked at the effect a major nuclear attack would have on the world besides normal fallout Massive firestorms laying waste to valuable farmland, contaminated water sources, chemical spills from ruptured and destroyed plants...

I think the effects of the bombs are being understated...

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nukergv.html

At 11:59 the Valley had a population of 797,000 and Brownsville contained 135,000 people. At 2:00 PM the Valley's population is 449,000 (including 104,000 injured seriously enough to require hospitalization under normal conditions), and only 1,700 people from Brownsville survive. A total of 568,000 have been killed and 310,000 injured in Texas and Mexico.

As far as 290 km (180 miles) downwind of these explosions--including Harlingen--exposed persons develop radiation sickness and 50% die within 2 months--assuming they are uninjured. Nearly all persons with severe injuries who receive this dose will die within a month. In the Brownsville area most survivors develop radiation sickness by 6:30 the night after the attack. Most pregnant women miscarry their babies, and after two months the radiation sickness has killed 30% of those uninjured and 50% of those injured. In Matamoros and South Padre Island, about half those exposed develop radiation sickness to some degree, brain damage is produced in 20% of unborn babies, the immune system is impaired, and some deaths occur.


By five years post-attack, the Rio Grande Valley is almost recognizable. Pre-attack radiation standards would declare the rest of the Valley safe--although the devastated Brownsville, McAllen, and Raymondville areas remain unrebuilt. Cancer and genetic defects are now emerging in Valley survivors, and will continue to emerge throughout one and several generations, respectively. These will not pose major threats compared to other problems (because any amount of radiation sufficient to produce these effects to a truly significant degree would destroy the exposed population outright)--in fact, fear of these effects could be worse than the effects themselves. Genetic disorders will be noticeable in no more than 5% of the babies born in the area over the next few generations, and many of these defects will not be especially harmful. Induced cancer cases will be similar in quantity to levels produced by cigarette smoking in the population.

[Kemper Boyd]

I'm curious to know where exactly that is wrtten as I certainly can't find it in the 2.2 book....

I was supposed to mention that it's in the finnish 2.2 rulebook, apparently forgot to mention that

[Legbreaker]

I was supposed to mention that it's in the finnish 2.2 rulebook, apparently forgot to mention that

See my previous comments on the Finnish sourcebook...

As your quoted statement is included in an obscure book intended for a small and select section of the T2K population, it's hard to say it's really "core material".

[chico20854]

But as everyone who's read about Twilight 2000 knows, even the limited nuclear war dealt immense damage to the world. Countries like Australia, Sweden, Finland etc., you don't even need to use that many (or powerful) nukes to screw them up.

I don't remember where, but somewhere I read that you'd only need about 100 or so nukes to completely destroy the United States as an organized entity, maybe even less. Though it had its flaws, Jericho did a good job in showing how even 23 Hiroshima-size bombs detonated in as many cities could deal a hell of a lot of damage to the U.S. Total nuclear war is like two guys firing rocket launchers at each other: their bodies will blow apart. The limited nuclear war as described in T2K is more like two guys blowing each other's heads off with sniper rifles: the rest of the torso may be intact, but it's no good if your brains are all over the wall.

Considering this, I find it to be no stretch of the imagination to consider that the Russians would have had no problem in expending a few nukes to make sure that Scandinavia (and Australia too, for that matter) would pose no problem for what remained of Russia in the post-nuke world. You can bet that the Americans would have the same policy. Heck, both sides have people whose sole job is to figure out how many nukes are needed and where the targets would be.

This is an issue that has been brought up here and on the previous RPGHost forum numerous times over the years, and, not surprisingly, we as a group always end up agreeing to disagree. Ultimately, I feel its up to each GM to decide what level of devastation his T2k universe has. With that said, I agree completely with the above. While we can all come up with a great many potential nuclear targets (I have a list of over 1450 Pact ones, some of which could conceivably take over 350 warheads), the breakdown portrayed in T2k (of whatever version) doesn't require all of them, or even 25% of them, to actually be hit. A modern economy, particularly a war economy, is a large and delicate instrument, a very complicated system of systems, that is relatively easy to upset. (In WWII in Europe, the USAAF had a campaign to strike the ball bearings plants as a way to cripple the German economy, as was the successful effort to starve the Wehrmacht of fuel.) A massive strike of thousands of warheads or hitting every conceivable target is simply unnecessary to create the breakdown portrayed in T2k (of any version). (And some assets will be shut down without a strike - we have discussed the possibility of refinery workers not reporting to work once other refineries have been hit, and Howling Wilderness, I believe, mentions that the nuclear power plants were taken offline to avoid damage.)

With that said, I could see the nuclear powers sparing a few warheads for targets that could be used by their opponent for eventual reconstruction (such as the Finnish refineries, no matter what their distance from oilfields would be), but it wouldn't be too widespread. Why Given the immense destructive power of a even a limited strike, a large-scale nuclear exchange would result in us playing Gamma World rather than T2k.