twilight2000-digest Monday, March 6 2000 Volume 1999 : Number 116 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: u.s. defense spending [was Game settings (Red Dawn)] Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) new timeline Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: response(Starvation) Re: Starvation, when does death occure. Fortress America Re: response(Starvation) Re: Fortress America Re: new timeline Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: Red Dawn noway, but Red Star Lone Star? Re: new timeline Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Re: new timeline Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 18:27:45 -0800 (PST) From: =?iso-8859-1?q?Michael=20Cook?= Subject: Re: u.s. defense spending [was Game settings (Red Dawn)] - --- Scott David Orr wrote: > At 02:54 PM 3/5/00 -0800, Michael Cook wrote: > > > > > >--- Corey Wells wrote: > >> Though it > >> also had a couple political points in it. > >> Historically (though so far this > >> hasn't held in the latter half of the century) > >> Americans tend to drop > >> defence after a major war. Probably part of the > >> reason it hasn't held true > >> was because of the "red Scare" and cold war. But > I > >> could see us easily > >> thinking that we have a couple major defence > >> systems, so we let the > >> conventional forces dwindle. I guess it's more a > >> statement about general > >> American attitude than a political (partisan) > >> statement. > >> > > > > Some people have indeed argued that U.S. defense R&D > is a hidden indistrial > R&D subsidy. A couple of clarifications are in > order, though. First, it's > not at all clear that such subsidies are necessary > for economic growth--no > one is sure that the government is better at > allocating R&D money than > industry would be, and in any case R&D money > allocated to defense, while it > may have spin-offs, would probably do more for the > economy if it were > allocated specifically for industrial uses (the > basic principle being that > you get more of what you pay for if you pay for what > you really want). > some very good points scott, and the allocation specifically for industrial uses is what is happening now. the subsidies are still continuing in a lot of areas, they are just more open now, and targeted right at the industries themselves. i can't remember the name of the govt organization that is involved in most of the subsidies nowadays, but they are continuing. the reason that the money was being routed through defense spending with the use of the whole cold war / red scare concoction, is that there is far less accountability and questioning of the spending that way. there was a lot more objective questioning of govt policy forty or fifty years ago than there is now, so it was likely a lot easier and safer for the policy makers to send the money through defense. and it isn't necessarily limited to simply a subsidy, it is in some cases likely a "clean" method of converting public tax dollars back into money for the rich. i'm not saying that that is/was the use of the money, i'm just saying that it is one possible destination. > Second, we need to avoid confusing defense spending > in general with R&D > spending. Defense spending in general is > undoubtedly a drain on the > economy, because it's money spent on doing something > that (aside from the > R&D benefits) has no direct return for the > economy--economically, it's like > buying cotton candy and ice cream. If the money > were spent instead on > business, a lot of it would be invested in the > capital stock (both physical > and human), and thereby increase productivity in the > future. It's true > that you can get a _short-term_ boost in economic > growth in a war, by > increasing defense expenditures (you could, in fact, > do the same by buying > cotton candy and ice cream), but you can't do this > for very long, because > ultimately you're robbing the country of productive > investment--thus, this > is a good thing for bringing a country out of a > depression caused by an > economy that's just stopped moving, with factories > ideal and people out of > work, and we see this effect in World War II, but in > the long term it hurts > the economy, as we saw in the later stages of > Vietnam. > agreed, to a certain extent. but basic defense spending does have a positive effect on the economy, when used in moderation. with a population the size of the united states, there is a sizeable percentage that is superfluous... for whom there really is little or no work. with a large professional armed forces, you provide employment for part of this population, atleast for some of their life. base construction and improvement fuels the construction / resource industries in a similar fashion to prison construction (i won't get into the related issues with that though) - - it's not huge, but is substantial. as does basic supply contracts - food, clothing, etc. yes the personnel would still be buying food/clothing/etc if they weren't in the military, but it means you can turn this all to a few large suppliers, and thus increase job security for the workers of those suppliers and profits for the owners of those suppliers. etc etc. but yes, r&d is the main positive effect of military spending. vietnam eventually had a negative effect because it was a war, because it was eating up manpower, supplies, and equipment faster than the govt could really afford to replace them, and by the end of the sixties was starting to be increasingly disruptive to productivity at home, due to civil disobedience, reduced manpower for factories, rising resource prices and reduced college grads, etc. but i agree with you, too much defense spending is not a good thing in the long run. one needs to look no further than the soviet union. i think i read somewhere that they were spending somewhere in the realm of 20-30% of their GNP on their military. no country can survive like that. > To answer your specific examples, yes, the end of > the Cold War has hurt > major ship and airplane builders--but the money > that's been saved and used > on more productive investment has probably done more > good in other sectors > of the economy than the harm done to those specific > industries. > probably, but forty years ago that wouldn't have been the case. the initial development of the u.s. high tech sectors is a direct result of military r&d. forty years ago, how would you justify pouring billions and billions of dollars into the development of high technology? you'd have a huge outcry, with lots of critics saying it was a money pit and so forth. so you develop the industry through defense expenditures, justifying it with the red scare. and i think (correct me if i'm sadly mistaken here) the high tech sectors have really been the only major growth sectors since the end of the cold war. another huge r&d subsidy source was nasa. and it wasn't just that either. the space exploration component of it, and specifically the race to the moon, provided an aim for american society, something to capture the people's imagination and give them something to work towards. so for a time it also fed the social 'economy' as well. this is something that is totally lacking today, and is one of the strong arguments for funding a drive to colonizing mars. of course, today's economic situation means that such a drive would likely cripple the american economy, unless it was a drive taken in cooperation by all the industrialized nations, which isn't going to happen. we can hardly even cooperate long enough to get the international space station built, let alone explore mars and eventually build a self-sustaining population there. but something needs to be done to fuel people's minds, and capture their imaginations with something other than cheap consumer goods. michael __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger. http://im.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 13:46:19 +1100 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) Although I haven't seen the movie, I'll comment here on untrained resistance fighters. It is very dangerous fusing grenades, it's something you have to be shown. If one of your friends decides s/he'll be a freedom fighter and gets a crate of grenades they're going to, in all likelihood, die a messy death and put everyone else off playing with those things forever. RPG's, demolitions gear etc are a veritable science. It's unlikely anyone untrained can even ready them without dying in droves. Using the RPG, hand grenade etc is a job for a skilled specialist (Eg: Soldier). How many horror stories have you heard about grenade drill? Now imagine it with just some friends who know nothing about them in a back lot. Mortars are very difficult too, just gauging the amount of propellant you add before firing requires considerable training, let alone fusing the rotten things. Finally, there's the fact that Soldiers are now instructed on how to destroy irregular forces. Irregulars make predictable mistakes that look like good ideas at the time. They often do not have methods of reporting that could insure the avoidance of repeat mistakes. Equipment and doctrine aside, freedom fighters have of course won stellar victories in the past. What they are doing is of course totally illegal under international law, and armies are permitted to take extreme measures to insure that civillians do not involve themselves in conflicts (except as victims) The mere fact of a Soviet Invasion of the CONUS is so ridiculous that I try not to think too hard on it. Jim *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 19:27:56 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: new timeline It might be interesting if the list ran some sort of simulation of a current day ww3-- using harpoon for naval and air battles and something else for land. People on the list could roleplay the leaders of countries. A sort of updated Axis and Allies but with something better than two d6 for combat resolution. Then again this could take too long. What do you all think? *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 19:28:52 -0800 From: "Jesse LaBranche" Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) > Although I haven't seen the movie, I'll comment here on untrained > resistance fighters. I think that it's a good movie and wouldn't personally bill it as "action" because it just wouldn't succeed as such in my eyes since I like my action movies to be fast-paced non-stop action. > It is very dangerous fusing grenades, it's something you have to be > shown. If one of your friends decides s/he'll be a freedom fighter and gets > a crate of grenades they're going to, in all likelihood, die a messy death > and put everyone else off playing with those things forever. RPG's, > demolitions gear etc are a veritable science. It's unlikely anyone untrained > can even ready them without dying in droves. > Using the RPG, hand grenade etc is a job for a skilled specialist (Eg: > Soldier). How many horror stories have you heard about grenade drill? Now > imagine it with just some friends who know nothing about them in a back lot. > Mortars are very difficult too, just gauging the amount of propellant > you add before firing requires considerable training, let alone fusing the > rotten things. Many good points, however I really have to question this. When I was in BASIC back in '82 the claymore mines and laws both had little pictures on them as well as an "A-Z" type categorization on how to fire them. I question whether the same would not be on soviet weaponry intended to be used by Cuban forces in such a conflict. Then, I have to think of such things that we "played" with when I was in my teens. Things like bottle rockets, homemade thermites, molitov cocktails, and other explosives that are far more unstable than military eq. I have never fired a mortar or any soviet weaponry, so the only thing that I have for a basis of comparison is what I've seen either while I was in the Army or friends who were in and gave me information though. > Finally, there's the fact that Soldiers are now instructed on how to > destroy irregular forces. Irregulars make predictable mistakes that look > like good ideas at the time. They often do not have methods of reporting > that could insure the avoidance of repeat mistakes. Question: Were they instructed in such methods at the time that Red Dawn came out? > Equipment and doctrine aside, freedom fighters have of course won > stellar victories in the past. What they are doing is of course totally > illegal under international law, and armies are permitted to take extreme > measures to insure that civillians do not involve themselves in conflicts > (except as victims) True enough. Hmm... George Carlin said it well enough. "If firefighters fight fire and crimefighters fight crime, then what do freedom fighters fight?" > The mere fact of a Soviet Invasion of the CONUS is so ridiculous that I > try not to think too hard on it. > Jim Back to the feasibility of invasion as presented in Red Dawn, it is very possible that such an event could not take place as presented in the movie at this point in time, however what about back when the movie first came out? Just an added point though, because I do get the feeling that you'll all blow the above question out of the water... How would YOU go about explaining the situation in Red Dawn in such a way that you would not be able to blow it out of the water just as easily? Later. Jesse. vanquer@email.msn.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 14:54:32 +1100 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) How would YOU go about >explaining >the situation in Red Dawn in such a way that you would not be able to blow >it out of the water just as easily? >Jesse. Mate! I'm frightened of that question! Last time I went into US scenarios I started a Constitution/Gun Rights/ Loyalty bun fight that went for a l-o-o-o-o-ng time. It was very boring for us Non-US citizens and when someone mentioned that we were roundly abused. I even prefaced it with a call for civility! Still, everyone seeme very civil nowadays. For a hostile power to invade the US, the most powerful nation on earth, you need a lot of factors. I'll try for two scenarios. Scenario 1 The US changes it's foriegn policy to some form that many others find disagreeable. (Not likely) A large coallition forms against the US but the US alienates it's allies. (Unlikely) The Coalition invades but the US's allies stand aside. or Scenario 2 Some form of civil strife bitterly divides the US. (Not Likely) Another power invades in support of one of the factions. (S-o-o-o-o hard!) That'll get a hostile power onto the CONUS, they're admittedly unlikely but Russia invading would mean disaster in Europe otherwise. Europe as a whole is a real military killer, I wouldn't want to leave them out of my calculations and the Russians certainly wouldn't. China is a good choice for a bad guy (I never forgave them for Tienamin square, shows doesn't it?). They've got a way big army with enough nukes to dissuade the use of nukes on our side (I'm assuming a pro-US Oz too) There's enough ethnic chinese for rampant nationalism to alienate a decent sector of your community to supply some 5th columnist's (communist fifth columnists?). If they where to head an anti-US coalition and come into the west coast you have a possible scenario, but there's no real foothold for basing and resupply. Getting across the puddle is going to cost them everything as the frightening US navy pulls the gloves off. Even if Mexico was supporting their thrust (Canada wouldn't, I don't know much about Mexico so I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt) and providing bases they're naval elements aren't up to the task. I think that the current situation has to change in a huge way before it is remotely feasible to attack the CONUS with ground forces. (Manstien said that about Russia too but Hitler didn't listen) Jim *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 22:25:21 -0600 From: Steve Subject: Re: response(Starvation) Scott David Orr wrote: > > > > Sorry, can't help you--I don't know anything about this famine. Actually, > are you sure you're not confusing it with the infamous Ukranian Famine of > the 1930's? That one was caused by the collectivization of agriculture by > the Soviet Union, and the resistance to it (people who didn't want to > collectivize weren't fed). > Yes, you are correct, this is the famine I was thinking of, the link I was trying to make is that these people could not forage, fish, hunt enough food in the area to survive, if they could there would not be a famine, this would be similar in effect to my dead river scenario, although the causes are completly different, would that be accurate? > > Remember that most types of fallout will have dissipated in the strength > relatively quickly, and that at any rate they'll tend to disperse. > Likewise, nuclear winter wouldn't last more than a year at most, if it > occured at all (given the slow speed of the exchange in the game's > timeline). And yes, chemical contamination could be nasty, but it tends to > be localized, and unless you have a permanent source of pollution (like a > factory or constant use of pesticides on farms), it's going to dissipate > too--though its environmental effects (such as dead fish) will take much > longer to recover. > > I can see having some problems, but environmental conditions ought to be > improving gradually, since the sources of contaminants are no longer active > (indeed, most of the normal pollution sources of the modern world are now > gone--though some, like water pollution from lack of sewage systems, will > have returend from the pre-modern era). > In this case the contamination is not from fallout, but rather a continual toxic release into the ground water table and river system, when the river flooded it increased the contamination on the surface soil as well. Yes, I agree with you that radiation from a nuke disperses readily. I am not aware of any studies as to the effects of reactor contamination in ground water. I think chernobyl would be close, but in my campaign at the time many years ago, all of the reactors melt down at the site, and are not contained, I gave this reaction 6 months of dumping into the water systems. > Why for hundreds of square miles along the river? Even if the water is > radioactive, and you wouldn't want to drink it or bathe in it, you'd just > about have to be touching it for it to pose a problem. Radiation just > doesn't carry that far. > > Scott Orr I had to make a guess as to the effect of a series of nuclear reactors that are in a state of meltdown that are expelling their contents into a River system, and more importantly expelling into the water table below for a number of months. I had to guess that this river would not dilute the toxins within at least hundred miles down stream as this is a highly variable on many conditions. I also felt that the water table would also be contaminated within 50 miles on each side of the river. (A guess at best, I suppose) thus the huge radius along the river. Hmmm... ...a lot of guessing, I wonder if I missed something? :o) When the river flooded in the spring, it would diffuse the toxins onto the land and the volume of water would dilute the river. I do not know of any study of nuclear meltdown effects on river ecology, if you have any leads on this it would be appreciated for my fall campaign in Australia. Also, Does anyone know if Australia has any nuclear reactors, where are they located, is this scenario possible there? Steve *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 22:27:18 -0600 From: Steve Subject: Re: Starvation, when does death occure. GRAEBARDE wrote: > Steve: > > I think you approached the starvation in a very good > [brilliant] way. It was not the HOG, but the PC's. They > refused to accept "reality". That true in many cases of > starvation. It "snuck up" on them so to speak. I assume > they had an option of leaving the area in question, in > which case, if they don't "what be will be". You can help > the PC's intelligence by rolling their intelligence and > giving them information you feel they would know [if they > don't and should], but there are NO controlling attributes > for common sense, THAT is up to the individual. > > Thank-you; Vindicated at last Steve *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 23:27:35 EST From: Calibur1@aol.com Subject: Fortress America In a message dated 3/5/00 5:10:15 PM, baiya@geocities.com writes: << Actually, I was just asking if anyone else knew about the game. It was a decently fun game. Not as good as Axis and Allies, or even the Samurai game the produced (which has been re-released under a different name.) >> I used to have it. We didn't quite care for it. We thought it was drastically unbalanced. - -Billy Bob *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 15:27:25 +1100 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: response(Starvation) >Also, Does anyone know if Australia has any nuclear reactors, where are they >located, is this scenario possible there? >Steve One tiny reactor at Lucas heights in southern Sydney, NSW. It's mainly used for research and the production of medical isotopes. The greenise want it shut down (of course, nuclear = bad) even though the cost of an x-ray would skyrocket and chemotherapy would be a thing of the past (rant, rant) The reactor is so small it's not a good candidate, but there's some great chemical factories around that would fit the bill for an environmental disaster! Jim *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 23:31:19 -0600 From: "Fugitivus" Subject: Re: Fortress America i found it nearly impossible to win as the invaders. i thought it had a alot of promise till we played it. aaron > I used to have it. We didn't quite care for it. We thought it was drastically > unbalanced. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 23:37:01 EST From: Calibur1@aol.com Subject: Re: new timeline In a message dated 3/5/00 11:26:01 PM, fitek@ix.netcom.com writes: << It might be interesting if the list ran some sort of simulation of a current day ww3-- using harpoon for naval and air battles and something else for land. People on the list could roleplay the leaders of countries. A sort of updated Axis and Allies but with something better than two d6 for combat resolution. Then again this could take too long. What do you all think? >> I think that this isn't the forum to do that. Considering that we're all from around the world and have different schedules, it would be very difficult to manage here. BUT, it may make a good PBeM game run from someones website. Think about it. - -Billy Bob *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2000 20:41:35 -0800 From: "Jesse LaBranche" Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) > >How would YOU go about explaining the situation in Red Dawn in such > >a way that you would not be able to blow it out of the water just as easily? > >Jesse > Mate! I'm frightened of that question! Last time I went into US > scenarios I started a Constitution/Gun Rights/ Loyalty bun fight that went > for a l-o-o-o-o-ng time. It was very boring for us Non-US citizens and when > someone mentioned that we were roundly abused. I even prefaced it with a > call for civility! Still, everyone seeme very civil nowadays. Jim, this is meant as a sort of "off the wall' compliment- don't take any offense or what-not. I don't know what it is with you Aussies, but I can't help but always crack a smile when I hear y'all talk, and now when you write too. Hopefully, I've shown well enough that I am willing to withdraw my opinion or shut-up as opposed to getting drawn into those long debates- hopefully you have nothing to worry about with US scenarios :-) > I think that the current situation has to change in a huge way before it > is remotely feasible to attack the CONUS with ground forces. (Manstien said > that about Russia too but Hitler didn't listen) >Jim Now, is this the same opinion with everyone else that thought Red Dawn was an action flick, but highly unrealistic? If so, what I am hearing (and do correct me if I'm wrong) but according to that criteria, Red Dawn either... A. Needed to go into a complete world-changing mess that would probably have taken as long as the movie itself was in order to explain the events, or... B. Could never have presented such a situation to begin with. Is this correct? To me, it seems that they did about the best that could possibly be done to bring about a scenario that would put a bunch of high school kids into such a combat situation. As I said before, the movie was not jam-packed enough for me as an action movie, but I did love it for the "concepts" portrayed within even if it wasn't very feasible that the event could occur. Moving on back to Twilight, saying that someone wanted to run a Red Dawn type setting. I think the list has shown well enough that doing it the way Hollywood did just wouldn't work. What would you guys (both for and against the movie) set up to put American teen-agers into a combat situation where they'd have to fight a guerilla war with opposing forces? Jim, more elaboration on the two scenarios and sub-scenarios that you presented would be interesting too. Later. Jesse. vanquer@email.msn.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 00:06:50 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) At 04:25 PM 3/5/00 -0800, Michael Cook wrote: > >IF (and this is a biggie) some major port cities could >be secured, resupply could be accomplished by ship. If the ships started out right next to the ports, that would be a short-term solutions. But the Soviet Union would have had trouble in WWIII just interediction NATO shipping in the North Atlantic. Getting its own supply ships to the U.S. coast once a war started would be out of the question. The Soviets were always badly outclassed at sea. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 16:03:48 +1100 From: "Jim & Peta Lawrie" Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) > Moving on back to Twilight, saying that someone wanted to run a Red Dawn >type setting. I think the list has shown well enough that doing it the way >Hollywood >did just wouldn't work. > What would you guys (both for and against the movie) set up to put >American >teen-agers into a combat situation where they'd have to fight a guerilla war >with >opposing forces? > Jim, more elaboration on the two scenarios and sub-scenarios that you >presented would be interesting too. >Later. >Jesse. Isn't it terrible when someone asks you to put your money where your mouth is? Campaign setting - Teenage Freedom Fighters! A hostile country decides to annex a small island country on which a university campus resides. Rather than relive Grenada, the US sends in the diplomats to sort it out - but the students have fled into the hinterlands after the first acts of unbelievable cruelty. One NPC is required, a former serviceman (not a SpecFor please!) to provide rudimentary training. Ideally he should be sick or disabled early, perhaps in the initial breakout. The island should be heavily populated and have a good relationship with the kids facility, if the campus operated a clinic (provides an NPC doctor and medical training) the populace may well hide the kids activities. The invaders should be of a different ethnic type to the island populace. The campaign would be short, but when you're dead it was long enough! The kids should have some sort of special intel that they should try to get to the outside world, if the invaders know this they can step up their efforts to eliminate the group. Possible variation. A tourist resort is good for this, they are often islands. Perhaps the mainland nation discovers a previously unavailable resource and sends in the troops. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 00:16:21 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Red Dawn noway, but Red Star Lone Star? At 05:22 PM 3/5/00 -0800, GRAEBARDE wrote: >I'm enjoying the input on the feasibility of Red Dawn.. If >nothing else it has made people think.. atleast in hind >sight. > >It's been pointed out that there is no way an overland >invasion would be supported from Mexico. To this I agree. >If the Mexican government went Marxist, probably preceded >by Revolution, the USA would probably get their hands dirty >south of the border.. it wouldn't be the first time.. > >Which leads to the question: how could the situation in >Mexico escillate far enough in T2K timelines for the Cuban >brigade to enter the Texas Front through Mexico. > >I realize the bombs are falling, and the third Battle of >the Atlantic is raging and such, but would/could intell >sources fail to see what was going on, given the scale of >preperation needed? What did I miss [or forget]? > >By the book 49th Armored Div [TX ANG] was still in Texas. >By the time of the invasion it would not be operating out >of armories, but full mobilized at Hood. There were other >Army units in the 5th Army Area, both regulars and >reserves. Everyone seemed to get caught with thier pants >down and got clobbered by a Soviet brigade and the Mexican >army??. > I think the key to the whole Red Star/Lone Star scenario is that everything happened after the nuclear exchange. Evne if the U.S. had noticed it (likely there are no operable satellites still in the air), what was it gonna do about it? Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 05 Mar 2000 21:16:03 -0800 From: Peter Vieth Subject: Re: new timeline Calibur1@aol.com wrote: > In a message dated 3/5/00 11:26:01 PM, fitek@ix.netcom.com writes: > > << It might be interesting if the list ran some sort of simulation of a > current day ww3-- using harpoon for naval and air battles and something > else for land. People on the list could roleplay the leaders of > countries. A sort of updated Axis and Allies but with something better > than two d6 for combat resolution. Then again this could take too long. > What do you all think? >> > > I think that this isn't the forum to do that. Considering that we're all from > around the world and have different schedules, it would be very difficult to > manage here. BUT, it may make a good PBeM game run from someones website. > Think about it. > > -Billy Bob Yes a pbem is what I had in mind-- I dont see an actual real time game working very well. Give each country a few days to respond. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 00:17:47 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) At 05:20 PM 3/5/00 -0800, Corey Wells wrote: > >But that is exactly not what guerillas are, in the sense we were discussing. >In fact, that may not even fit the general definition of guerillas, even if >the type of fighting does fit the definition of guerrilla-warfare. I'd >think that trained personnel, operating behind enemy lines, would be more >like commandos than guerillas. > I think commandoes generally refers to people inserted behind enemy lines, general to perform a single mission. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 00:22:05 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) At 06:04 PM 3/5/00 -0800, Corey Wells wrote: > >Probably not. But, the discussion was still dealing with untrained civilian >fighters (or mostly untrained.) If Guerilla can be used for either >untrained civilians, or trained military personnel, then we need a new term. >I'd agree that either could carry out guerilla warfare, as that is the way >of conducting operations/tactics, and isn't concerned with who carries them >out. And as I think of it, it is probably commonly accepted that the Viet >Cong were guerillas. But, a lot of Viet Cong were trained by NVA, or other >SOF/Advisor personnel. And they tended to be organized a lot like regular >army, and had an uniform of sorts (the pajamas?) So I guess that guerilla >doesn't apply to untrained civilian fighters, but to anyone operating behind >lines, often out of contact with a higher command (which would eliminate >VC...) > "Guerilla" usually refers to a style of warfare, using hit-and-run raids rather than trying to take and hold territory; it also usually implies that you're living off the land, making use of support from civilians, and so on. The VC did all of these things, even if they had orders and supplies from outside (just about all successful guerillas have some supplies from outside). >One thing to look at, though they'd have a higher command, and probably a >base on friendly sides, doesn't US SOFs often operate behind enemy lines for >extended periods. Even sometimes establishing a forward base of sorts that >would be considered inside enemy territory? Would that then make Green >Berets operating in such a circumstance, guerillas? > Actually, Green Berets are trained specifically to train guerillas. They do other stuff as well (long-range recon, training counterinsurgency forces, and other things), but that's one of their main missions. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2000 00:20:31 EST From: Calibur1@aol.com Subject: Re: new timeline In a message dated 3/6/00 1:15:09 AM, fitek@ix.netcom.com writes: << Yes a pbem is what I had in mind-- I dont see an actual real time game working very well. Give each country a few days to respond. >> Everybody involved would also need a copy of, or at least access to, whatever rules are used. - -Billy Bob *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2000 00:28:48 -0500 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Game settings (Red Dawn) At 01:46 PM 3/6/00 +1100, Jim & Peta Lawrie wrote: > Equipment and doctrine aside, freedom fighters have of course won >stellar victories in the past. What they are doing is of course totally >illegal under international law... AFAIK, as long as they wear uniforms and obey the laws of war, they're perfectly legit--especially if fighting against an occupier who's invaded their country. >...and armies are permitted to take extreme >measures to insure that civillians do not involve themselves in conflicts >(except as victims) > If civilians actually take up arms, without wearing uniforms, soldiers can treat them as spies/criminals and can shoot them rather than taking them prisoner. I suppose they're criminals also if they aid the guerillas--but aren't there limits to what a military force can do here without violating the laws of war? > The mere fact of a Soviet Invasion of the CONUS is so ridiculous that I >try not to think too hard on it. Indeed. :) Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1999 #116 *************************************