|
Argonaut II I think we should get the Sultan of Oman on the phone and see what we can come up with on mobilization. It gives us a nice foothold without going full hog and mobilizing the Saudi's. We've got enough trouble up North, I think if we can keep the kettle on low steam with Iraq and Iran we'll be doing OK. If it comes down to it later we can get the Saudi's involved.
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 21:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 06:13 |
|
|
Randomcheese3 posted:There are two problems with trying to rely on nuclear weapons to stop a Soviet invasion. The first is that if we have to nuke Bonn, Brussels, Amsterdam because the Soviet spearheads got there before we're ready to launch, we've lost. Without troops in position to block a Soviet advance, this is entirely possible. The other problem is that we cannot justify such an escalation if the Soviets attack neutrals. It looks entirely possible that the Soviets may be attempting an amphibious coup-de-main against Stockholm, for example. As it isn't an attack on NATO, we cannot justifiably respond with nukes, but it would greatly destabilise our defensive positions in Norway and Denmark. Mobilising immediately will help to reduce the effects of this. Having an excuse to nuke Bonn, Brussels and Amsterdam is reason enough to not mobilise. And if they simply want to take action against neutrals? Serves them right for not joining us. By the way, are there any penalties for nuking our own side? This may become relevant on the frontlines. I will however wait for the Americans to take action before proposing or voting on anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 21:20
|
|
|
gently caress it, I am Maggie Thatcher
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 21:32
|
|
|
There are no in game effects, other than casualties and the risk of sending fallout over yourself in allies, in the house rules I'm running though, nuclear weapons will be taken very seriously and civilian governments have right to be wary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 21:55
|
|
|
 I fully support Operation Argonaut. Nancy has informed me that vast and unknowable forces will be displeased if the Soviets set one boot on NATO soil. as elected leaders, it falls on us to prevent the worst case scenario. We must mobilize NATO Additionally, we should engage in some defensive diplomacy. The time for sitting on the sidelines has passed. Defensive Diplomacy:Press Sweden and Austria to join NATO. Other diplomacy: Covertly increase tensions between Iraq and Iran. If we can get these two pointing guns at each other, then they won't be in a position to cause anyone else trouble. paragon1 fucked around with this message at 22:04 on Jan 25, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 22:01
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:
I will say for the record that no matter how hard people try the game only has a binary side vs side. Iraq and Iran are theoretically on the same side even though they can't enter each others territory or even remotely cooperate. The diplomatic game in the Middle East is more about whether you want to take the risk of Iran inviting Soviet ground forces. E: Picking outside the diplomatic options provided will mean that your effects will take place down the line. In the case of Sweden and Austria, this could be a huge boon if the Soviets are preparing to invade, because you will be one step ahead of them. However, I cannot implement it in game until the physical "theater option" appears. Yeah, TOAW IV can be really limited. Top Hats Monthly fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Jan 25, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 22:07
|
|
|
 (Ciriaco De Mita, the guy that was the Prime Minister of Italy in 1988) I support Operation Argonaut with the addition that in the event of an invasion of Albania being authorized the Italian navy be pulled back from the Western Mediterranean so that it can support the invasion along with any Italian units that may be needed. The populace might not want the army to fight outside of Italy but I'll be damned if we sit back and let the Russians have an unsinkable aircraft carrier that close to Taranto. Gain the support of Oman, their position in the Strait of Hormuz is invaluable if we end up fighting the Iranians and they can move against South Yemen if we need them to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 22:37
|
|
|
Canada has vote for Cedar, eh? We don't see a much greater Soviet threat than the usual war game movements. I'm far more concerned that those Tabernac Quebecoise get low oil prices so they don't go off on a huff about stopping maple syrup production to raise prices "pour le cout de production". Unless and until we have the technology to get oil out of Alberta's tar sands, making sure the middle East keeps energy prices low is of paramount importance. Canada wishes to prioritize Lowering tension in the middle east above all and can't approve of more aggressive actions in Europe until this situation is resolved But should NATO deploy, rest assured the Canadian military has your back, eh?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 22:45
|
|
|
 I endorse Argonaut and, Informed by Mr. Reagan's wife that "outside forces" (Probably the Provo) will not permit us to play them against each other, Detente with Iraq and Iran OOC EDIT: Can I order my own forces mobilized or is that locked with NATO? Kavak fucked around with this message at 22:59 on Jan 25, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 22:56
|
|
|
Kavak posted:
NATO is locked in, all go together.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 23:01
|
|
|
 NATO backs Operation Argonaut II. There is no need to mobilize right this second. Our foes have yet to engage us on a war footing. NATO is a defensive alliance, not an offensive one. We've been well aware since the end of the last war that most of the mainland can be easily taken in a matter of days by a belligerent, totalitarian force. It would do well for all involved to remember that irregulars, saboteurs and guerrilla forces caused such a totalitarian force major problems before the cellphone and the Kalashnikov. Not to mention that the enemy is likely to exercise caution and move slowly, as to mitigate the risks of our nuclear arsenals being brought to bear. Pressing Sweden and Austria at our earliest convenience would also be good. Oman will allow us security at Hormuz. NATO would also like to remind civilian leadership that Argonaut and Argonaut II are separate plans. Argonaut II is listed below. It is our opinion that this is a wiser course of action. Randomcheese3 posted:
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 23:15
|
|
|
I must admit that I find your mention of irregular forces and civilian resistance perplexing. Surely you are not suggesting that we ask that civilians risk taking up the burden of defending their homes while we insist that the regular armies stay in their barracks?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2020 23:51
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:
I find your perplexion even more perplexing. Isn't arming such forces against Communism the cornerstone of your foreign policy? It is our duty to save the day. Heroes rise when confronted by villainy. They do not rise preemptively.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 00:00
|
|
|
 endorses Operation Cedar. Europe has already seen 2 great wars this century. Let us not rush headlong into a third.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 00:09
|
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:
Such measures are necessary where there is no free army or government to fight for freedom. This is not the case in Europe, and even suggesting that we stand to the side while Soviet columns roll into Paris is unacceptable. It is indeed our duty to save the day. We cannot remain seated at the peace table after our counterparts have clearly walked away and started loading a rifle!
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 00:20
|
|
|
Kavak posted:Ireland is neutral but has American flag icons on her cities. Does that mean she can join if things go south or something happens? I believe if the USSR manages to hammer Northern Ireland Ireland can mobilize.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 00:28
|
|
|
Russia will burn before soviet tanks roll down the Champs-Élysées.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 00:53
|
|
|
Slaan posted:Canada has vote for Cedar, eh? We don't see a much greater Soviet threat than the usual war game movements. I'm far more concerned that those Tabernac Quebecoise get low oil prices so they don't go off on a huff about stopping maple syrup production to raise prices "pour le cout de production". Iceland It was only two years ago that I held a summit with Ronnie and Gorby together. We must not let those efforts to ensure world peace die over tensions caused by events no one here can even elaborate on or explain. I agree with the PM of Canada: Plan Cedar/lower tensions in the Middle East
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 02:10
|
|
|
Turkey Voting for Full Mobilization Also vote for Inviting/Pressuring Sweden and Austria to join NATO And in the event of war to pressure Finland to mobilize. While they are not formally a member of NATO they are hostile to the USSR and it gives us a position to threaten a thrust into the USSR from the North, which will require them to put forces up there to screen and the Finish military can handle thier own borders. In the event of a general mobilization the Soviets are likely to threaten the Finns regardless, so we're in a good position either way. Also endorse Defuse tensions in Middle East Turkish navy will be brought to full readiness and airbases prepared in event of shifting of NATO air support. Also recommend all priority infrastructure targets have enhanced security. Many wargames that have simulated Soviet invasions have shown a degree of vulnerability to them in case of sabotage or first strikes. wedgekree fucked around with this message at 06:34 on Jan 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 06:30
|
|
|
Bully the pseudo-Germans and both of the shite Viking countries in, why not (Yes this means Finland)
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 07:03
|
|
|
Argonaut: 5 votes Argonaut II: 3 Cedar: 3. Since everyone who can has voted I’ll leave it open for 10 more hours in case anyone wants to change votes or argue more. Currently, the leading diplomatic options are: Mobilizing NATO (can be done this turn) Mobilizing Oman (can be done this turn) Pressure Sweden (will be implemented as soon as possible) Pressure Finland (same) Pressure Austria (same) Top Hats Monthly fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Jan 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 19:32
|
|
|
What about pressuring Austria?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 20:21
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:What about pressuring Austria? Fixed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 20:41
|
|
|
It's been ascertained that we certainly have a majority consensus against full scale mobilisation. I would suggest Argonaut II to be the wiser plan when compared with Cedar. President Reagan's support of Argonaut I is the sole factor that places it ahead. Let us not jump the gun. Simply prepare to fire. NATO would like to remind civilian leadership that the Soviet forces have only moved their Category A troops - a common wargame action, and not sufficiently numerous as to be a true threat to the mainland. Do not underestimate our SIGINT capabilities - total mobilisation of European forces will certainly come in time to match any potential Soviet spearhead in a holding action. Then, the US forces may act as our own spearhead once they arrive. As such, there is no need for preemptive mobilisation. It only invites the risk of Soviet nuclear attack. A question for THM - if Argonaut is voted for, can we still vote against mobilisation, or is that considered a part of SACEUR's proposal?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 20:55
|
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:
I will always try and implement the plan to the best of the ability even if civilian authorities constrain it or reduce the options available (unless it was something like have Pakistan invade Afghanistan, and then not mobilize Pakistan. There would be no forces). In the case of Argonaut, the lack of forces would mean the AFSOUTH plan would mean that only the Folgore (Italian paratroopers) would be able to move to the Austrian/Yugoslavian borders. It would be a tough sell, but since it would be the SACEUR plan taken, I would work for it. At the current moment, the leaders of Italy, Turkey, and the United States (and I'm presuming the UK as well) are in favor of mobilizing NATO, so it will almost certainly go through without a major change of votes in the next few hours.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 21:20
|
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:
Very well, the distinguished gentleman is correct. Between the two options, Argonaut II is far better than Argonaut I. Sometimes being in power requires strategic voting rather than holding the country's actual position. Though Cedar is truly the best option on the table, it shall not pass. Better a lesser evil than greater evil.  switches from Cedar to Argonaut II
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 21:35
|
|
|
The Secretary general's complete disregard for the will of the civilian leadership of Turkey, Italy, and the UK is noted. Half measures will not safeguard anyone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 21:47
|
|
|
Going with anything less than Argonaut is suicide for Italy. With only a single brigade to guard our borders the Russians will be halfway to Milan if mobilization is delayed for even a single day. With all due respect to the Prime Minister of Canada it will take time for your forces to cross the Atlantic in the event of either a full or delayed mobilization and that isn't time that Italy (or Turkey) can afford. zetamind2000 fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Jan 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 22:02
|
|
|
At the very least, NATO would like to officially state their opposition to mobilisation. Should all backers of Argonaut II and Cedar support this separate diplomatic action, even if Argonaut proves successful, we may safeguard ourselves from Soviet reprisal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 22:08
|
|
|
 The objections of the Italians are noted, but it is the position of Canada that the best way to keep your people safe - and MY people safe- is to ensure that this minor kerfuffle doesn't expand into a full blown war. If it becomes a NATO-PACT conflict it will be decided with nuclear weapons, not troops. Mobilizing now just makes it more likely that President Reagan and PM Thatcher hit the big red button. And that, friends, is what must be avoided.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 22:17
|
|
|
Turkey considers it highly probable that the Soviets will invade. Also, switching support from Cedar to Argonaut II The soviets are extremel ylikely to launch a preemptive attack. The number of Category A divisions at the border of Warsaw Pact territory threatens to immediately thrust into Germany and break through hte strategic defensive line. Given the roughly 10-14 days estimated to complete Reforger and full mobilization of NATO, by the time significant American forces are in the Soviets can have threatened to break through to Berlin and be in a significant position for further inroads. Mobilization to full defensive status allows us to blunt any attack early and before the Soviets have moved up their full forces to the front lines, allows us to dig in and engage in secondary lines of defense. Presuming a heavy Warsaw Pact attack can be blunted quickly ad wtih minimal casualties, the Soviets will hopefully back down before a full exchange is done. Also all wargames signify a massive expenditure of munitions, theoretically with NATO running low within three to five weeks. The sooner that forces are mobilized, the sooner that large scale weaponry can be readied to be shipped over and a strategic reserve established. A defensive war makes it unlikely that there will be a nuclear exchange whereas a Soviet thrust far into Germany before defensive lines can be established all but guarantees it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 22:47
|
|
|
HerpicleOmnicron5 posted:
Some fair points. Iceland will switch support from Cedar to Argonaut II and oppose mobilization.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 22:58
|
|
|
wedgekree posted:Turkey considers it highly probable that the Soviets will invade. Also, switching support from Cedar to Argonaut II OOC: Uhhh wedgkree I'm confused. You never voted for Cedar in the first place, but you did vote for Full Mobilization. Argonaut II calls for NOT mobilizing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 23:14
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:OOC: Uhhh wedgkree I'm confused. You never voted for Cedar in the first place, but you did vote for Full Mobilization. Argonaut II calls for NOT mobilizing. As intended, Argonaut II calls for mobilising, but in as limited a manner as possible.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2020 23:21
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:OOC: Uhhh wedgkree I'm confused. You never voted for Cedar in the first place, but you did vote for Full Mobilization. Argonaut II calls for NOT mobilizing. Guh. Shows you my brain and my brain on nyquil. Remain for Cedar at the point I'm out of my brain fuzz. Thanks for the correction and I should reread things before reposting!
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 00:47
|
|
|
wedgekree posted:Guh. Shows you my brain and my brain on nyquil. Remain for Cedar at the point I'm out of my brain fuzz. Thanks for the correction and I should reread things before reposting! But you weren’t originally cedar 
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 00:53
|
|
|
In conclusion, Turkey is a land of contrasts.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 01:01
|
|
|
Fine! I'll go for Argonaut 1. THIRD TIME HAS TO BE THE CHARM. Turkey, land of Fez's, far too much alcohol, and good footrests.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 01:06
|
|
|
VP Bush-Argonaut II (Mobilize) Turkey-Argonaut I (Mobilize) Iceland-Argonaut II (Oppose mobilization) Italy-Argonaut I (Mobilize) Canada-Argonaut II (Oppose) NATO GS (2 votes)-Argonaut II (Oppose mobilization) United Kingdom-Argonaut I (Mobilize) POTUS (3 votes)-Argonaut I (Mobilize) Argonaut II-5 Argonaut I-6 Cedar-1 Argonaut I IS IMPLEMENTED NATO will MOBILIZE Oman will MOBILIZE Pressure will be applied to Sweden, Finland and Austria Attempts to defuse Middle East tension will be carried out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 05:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 06:13 |
|
|
What can Italy expect to field when full mobilization takes effect? Is the Italian army bigger than the combined forces of Spain and Portugal?
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2020 05:28
|
|