RE: Limited nuclear exchange?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Limited nuclear exchange?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> Mods and Scenarios >> RE: Limited nuclear exchange?

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Limited nuclear exchange? - 9/22/2014 6:29:43 PM

mikeCK

Posts: 565
Joined: 5/20/2008
Status: offline

I think there are so many variables that whatever the plans are at the beginning (relating to when and how nukes will be used) would change during the conflict. It's one thing to say "we won't use them first". It's something else to see the enemy breaking through your lines in nicely packed armor formations

(in reply to FlyingBear)

Post #: 31

RE: Limited nuclear exchange? - 9/23/2014 4:49:45 AM

Mgellis

Posts: 2054
Joined: 8/18/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: FlyingBear

Any NATO conventional or nuclear attack would result in a Soviet nuclar response. Any Soviet attack would be nuclear from the beginning and result in a NATO nuclear response.

Therefore I do not see a scenario where NATO misunderstands the Soviet strategy so that a limited NATO nuclear response to a conventional Soviet attack results in an unanticipated Soviet all out nuclear attack. Reason: There would be no such thing as a conventional Soviet attack that NATO could try to counter with a limited nuclear response.

/FlyingBear

Just curious...what do you think of this situation:

One of the superpowers attacks an ally of the other one (e.g., the U.S. attacks Syria, the Soviet Union attacks Japan, etc.) Neither superpower is directly threatened, but the ally is important enough that the superpower allied with it feels it has to do something and moves forces to help defend its ally.

For example, say the Soviet Union had attacked Pakistan in 1982. Not even an invasion, but blowing up some air bases that it believed were providing help to Afghan rebels. An American carrier battle group in the area aids Pakistan in defending itself. So American and Soviet forces are directly engaged, but there is no direct threat to either the Soviet Union or the United States. Could a war like this stay regional, in effect another Vietnam? Or would it automatically escalate into a global confrontation?

Related question...what if the Soviets used tactical nukes against Pakistan?

A somewhat different question...is there any way to model chemical weapons in Command?

What are your thoughts?

(in reply to FlyingBear)

Post #: 32

RE: Limited nuclear exchange? - 9/24/2014 3:37:18 AM

FlyingBear

Posts: 133
Joined: 7/12/2014
Status: offline

I can easily answer that: I don't know.

In my somewhat categorical statements I was considering the big deal, a direct, major confrontation between NATO and the Soviets.

I think it is obvious that the risk of escalation was the reason why both sides were extremely reluctant to directly attack each other's allies, even "less important" allies like Syria. Let's recall the Yom Kippur Defcon 3 incident...

(in reply to Mgellis)

Post #: 33

RE: Limited nuclear exchange? - 9/24/2014 9:12:08 AM

lowchi

Posts: 421
Joined: 10/14/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mgellis

A somewhat different question...is there any way to model chemical weapons in Command?

As i Recall, the devs said that they probably implement this in the future.

BUT in the Mega FAQ if found something interesting:

What kinds of warhead types and explosives types are modelled?

http://www.warfaresims.com/?page_id=2920#412

but I found no Chem/Bio/EMP weapons in the DB....

The antielectr. BLU-114/B however is modelled, but i have not tested it yet

Devs??