Remove ads

The World Turned Upside Down - A 20th Century Nation Game (HIATUS?)

Reader mode
Heavy W. Guy said:
And?

Yes, the Confederacy has nuclear weapons, but it probably doesn't have very many of them. And even among its current arsenal, there are bound to be plenty of warheads that fail simply due to poor maintenance, technical error, etc.

And first-strike use of nuclear weapons by the "Confederacy" would immediately invite the US to retaliate with the same. Except the US retaliation actually has the capability to destroy every "Confederate" city with a population of 50,000 or more. The "Confederacy" can use the threat of its nuclear weapons to keep the US from invading it, but as soon as it actually uses nuclear weapons, it will simply be destroyed by the retaliatory second strike. Period. Dot.

To call this mutually-assured destruction would be inaccurate. The "Confederacy" is putting a gun to its head and threatening to pull the trigger.

Now of course, we could assume that the "Confederate" leader is some complete psychopath who is willing to doom his entire nation to nuclear fire but I wonder if everyone around him displays similar levels of dedication.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You're actually very wrong with your estimate about the number of nuclear weapons I have and the capability of them to destroy the U.S. Rest assured that if I chose to, the entire Eastern Seaboard could be wiped out. But feel free to carry on the fiction that the Confederacy has very poor nuclear capabilities.
 
Arrow said:
You're actually very wrong with your estimate about the number of nuclear weapons I have and the capability of them to destroy the U.S. Rest assured that if I chose to, the entire Eastern Seaboard could be wiped out. But feel free to carry on the fiction that the Confederacy has very poor nuclear capabilities.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This doesn't change the simple reality that a US second-strike would effectively destroy the CSA. Confederate leaders would no doubt be reveling in their glorious immolation of the hated Yankees for a period of roughly 10-20 minutes or thereabouts before US warheads reach their intended targets.

As is said about thermonuclear war in WarGames: sometimes the only winning move is not to play.
 
Heavy W. Guy said:
This doesn't change the simple reality that a US second-strike would effectively destroy the CSA. Confederate leaders would no doubt be reveling in their glorious immolation of the hated Yankees for a period of roughly 10-20 minutes or thereabouts before US warheads reach their intended targets.

As is said about thermonuclear war in WarGames: sometimes the only winning move is not to play.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Even then, how many CSA field commanders would follow through? Nonzero, yes, but that's still a hell of a gamble
 
Arrow said:
You're actually very wrong with your estimate about the number of nuclear weapons I have and the capability of them to destroy the U.S. Rest assured that if I chose to, the entire Eastern Seaboard could be wiped out. But feel free to carry on the fiction that the Confederacy has very poor nuclear capabilities.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Okay, let's say that you actually manage to level the Eastern Seaboard (which is a mighty big "if"); you've then just blown your entire international legitimacy and given basically every global power a blank check to utterly dismantle the Confederacy (and that's assuming there's anything left after the US strikes first/strikes back).

And, as per the OP and the original version, nukes are in the hundreds of kiloton/very low megaton range, and are primarily seen as just Very Big Bombs used to target armies or supply depots, and in extreme cases as defensive weapons of last resort; they're not weapons used for targeting civilian targets for the express purpose of killing civilians. There's also, AFAIK, never been a military use of nuclear weapons by any power, ever.

So, I guess you could make the case that the CSA is out of options and is willing to go full Samson Option given the circumstances, but it would be seen ITTL as absolutely bugfuck crazy.
 
@Maugan Ra if these two clowns do end up having a nuclear exchange what's say we get this tension out the way and do the same
 
Arthur Frayn said:
Okay, let's say that you actually manage to level the Eastern Seaboard (which is a mighty big "if"); you've then just blown your entire international legitimacy and given basically every global power a blank check to utterly dismantle the Confederacy (and that's assuming there's anything left after the US strikes first/strikes back).

And, as per the OP and the original version, nukes are in the hundreds of kiloton/very low megaton range, and are primarily seen as just Very Big Bombs used to target armies or supply depots, and in extreme cases as defensive weapons of last resort; they're not weapons used for targeting civilian targets for the express purpose of killing civilians. There's also, AFAIK, never been a military use of nuclear weapons by any power, ever.

So, I guess you could make the case that the CSA is out of options and is willing to go full Samson Option given the circumstances, but it would be seen ITTL as absolutely bugfuck crazy.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I mean, at this point, the CSA's nuclear arsenal is basically most ideal for guaranteeing that the US will not invade. The USA knows without doubt that invading the CSA would result in the use of its nuclear weapons so they are a form of insurance for the Confederate regime.

Secretariat said:
Even then, how many CSA field commanders would follow through? Nonzero, yes, but that's still a hell of a gamble
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

It really only takes one commander following his orders to initiate the deadly escalation. Once the nuclear genie is out of his bottle, it's very hard to put him back. If the CSA used even one nuclear weapon as a first-strike, the temptation of the US to escalate to full-scale nuclear weapons use in response would be near-unavoidable.
 
Arthur Frayn said:
The Commonwealth and the Concordat drifting apart is inevitable, but things escalating to a full scale war so quickly is unlikely. The countries that want to pull away from London's orbit are likely to do so around the edges (protesting/not participating in the invasion of Mesopotamia, for one) and try to form some alternate power structures than just straight up starting a shooting war.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Pretty much.
Heavy W. Guy said:
The thing is, what will Britain do? Invade and occupy South Africa to install a pro-British government? Embargo South Africa? Impose sanctions? All of these actions are possible, the latter is arguably quite probable, but they all have a cost, and they show other Commonwealth members that Britain will hold them in by force.

Which is... actually quite destructive to the Commonwealth in the long-term.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I actually told him that, almost exactly.

My exact analogy was the Phillipines and Cuba. Either way we're going independent, it's just a question of how we will feel about Britain afterwards.
 
Theravis said:
Pretty much.

I actually told him that, almost exactly.

My exact analogy was the Phillipines and Cuba. Either way we're going independent, it's just a question of how we will feel about Britain afterwards.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Speaking of South Africa going independent can North Germany buy Botswana off you?
 
Wouldn't the CSA nuking the USA be the equivalent of using dynamite in a melee fight? I mean, you're too damn close in case the concentrated fallout comes in.

Also, sure, you'd end the enemy, but the enemy would end you as well, regardless of whether the CSA has good or poor nuclear deterrence. Also, please note the word "deterrence"; it means "convincing the other guy NOT to do anything rash, because you can severely hurt or even kill him in return". If the enemy believes you're taking him out regardless, he might decide preemptive payback may be in order, and the CSA gets obliterated too.

End result: both USA and CSA are wiped out as nations, Canada, Mexico, and the nations between them are left dealing about the fallout, and the rest of the world gives as much a toss as a quadriplegic shot-putter (to quote Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw).
 
Last edited:
ChaoticGenius said:
There will be a news article on this, but the debt accrued by your four million reservists would like to protest this offer.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Botswana is largely inhospitable and unpopulated but woulda great addition to Germanys existing colony in southwest Africa, but on debt considering the state capitalism thing Germany has they should have a variety of corporate incomes from at home and abroad (including the large economic and corporate interest in Poland) to supplement their tax income including profits mineral including diamond mining in Southwest Africa.
 
Last edited:
mcclay said:
Boats
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's... not quite the answer you might think it is. Unless the Egyptian Navy is a LOT stronger than IOTL, it's not going to be very capable of sending an invasion fleet by sea; for one thing, that requires amphibious landing units, logistical ships, and various other units to make a landing possible. And even then, you probably need logistical support from neighboring countries, so unless Palestine or Turkey is aiding you, you're going to have a LOT of trouble making it to shore.
 
Cybandeath said:
Botswana is largely inhospitable and unpopulated but woulda great addition to Germanys existing colony in southwest Africa, but on debt considering the state capitalism thing Germany has they should have a variety of corporate incomes to supplement their tax income.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

My issue as moderator is not with the colonialism: four million is far too many reservists to have, even in a modern Prussian-dominated state.

The end of the Great Game have many mothers and wives bothering their husbands to vote out the party that keeps their sons and brothers unnecessarily mobilized.
 
ChaoticGenius said:
My issue as moderator is not with the colonialism: four million is far too many reservists to have, even in a modern Prussian-dominated state.

The end of the Great Game have many mothers and wives bothering their husbands to vote out the party that keeps their sons and brothers unnecessarily mobilized.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
I asked earlier if the numbers where too high while trying to get the Prussian militarism down right XD I would halve it down to two if you wanted me too.
 
Saint_007 said:
That's... not quite the answer you might think it is. Unless the Egyptian Navy is a LOT stronger than IOTL, it's not going to be very capable of sending an invasion fleet by sea; for one thing, that requires amphibious landing units, logistical ships, and various other units to make a landing possible. And even then, you probably need logistical support from neighboring countries, so unless Palestine or Turkey is aiding you, you're going to have a LOT of trouble making it to shore.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

I am actually curious what is the status of Palestine in TTL?
 
ChaoticGenius said:
My issue as moderator is not with the colonialism: four million is far too many reservists to have, even in a modern Prussian-dominated state.

The end of the Great Game have many mothers and wives bothering their husbands to vote out the party that keeps their sons and brothers unnecessarily mobilized.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

When will be the elections in Australia by the way? And do I get to control it or will you the GM handle election results?
 
Alex Costa said:
I am actually curious what is the status of Palestine in TTL?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
heres the background info from the scenario

Republic of Palestine
Yet another country where the British attempted to export the Hashemite royal family to, the Palestinian experience has been much calmer and far less violent than that of its Syrian and Mesopotamian neighbors. Having kicked the Hashemites out in a peaceful, democratic referendum in the mid-80s, Palestine has remained close to both Hashemite Arabia and the United Kingdom, mostly as a bulwark against Egyptian and Syrian aggression. With a rapidly developing economy, Palestine has a bright future if it plays its cards right. Unfortunately, with waves of Anti-Semitic moods coming and going in Europe, and spouts of outright violence against Jewish communities in countries like France, Prussia, and across Eastern Europe, Jewish migration to the Levant has steadily increased over the years, leading to friction between Jewish and Arab populations. While the more education, urban elites see no problem with similarly educated, and at times fairly well off, Jewish migrants from Europe, many of the lower classes and rural populations don't see eye to eye. And then there's the whole problem of Zionist militant groups, often times using terrorist tactics to fight against the British-armed Palestinian National Army, occasionally acting out in violence against the state and the general public…
 
ChaoticGenius said:
My issue as moderator is not with the colonialism: four million is far too many reservists to have, even in a modern Prussian-dominated state.

The end of the Great Game have many mothers and wives bothering their husbands to vote out the party that keeps their sons and brothers unnecessarily mobilized.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

Militaries tend to get smaller, not larger, in the modern era, not to mention the scale of that is just incredibly skewed. The army of the Russian Federation as of 2019 has around 3,5 million soldiers counting both active-duty and reservists. This is from a nation with a population of over 150 million. It's really not like the 18th-century where Prussia had huge numbers of smallholders who were free to be called up for service at a moment's notice.

Even if Northern Germany maintains a conscription-based army, there's no way it could maintain that level of troop strength in peacetime without devoting a solid fifth of its budget to military spending. That's not Prussia, that's post-1990s North Korea.
 
Reader mode
You must login or register to reply here.
Remove ads
Back
Top