NS Military Realism Consultation Thread

by **Transnapastain** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:46 pm

Foguk wrote:What do we think of small-to-medium sized isolationist nation who maintains a large nuclear arsenal as a deterrent to other nations?

Does this sound somewhat like Israel minus the isolationist?

A deterrent against what, exactly?

Realistically, if you're so small and isolationist, you shouldn't need a nuclear deterrent, since, in theory, no ones going to give a shit about you.

Do you have a natural resource or strategic position someone may want? If so, it might not be wise to use nuclear weapons to deter someone from taking possession of that. If you use them against an aggressor, its either going to be first strike, which doesn't make much sense, or if you use them in defense, staving off an assault, which has the potential to ruin whatever position or resource you were defending, along with your homeland. As an island, there's really not a lot of land for you to use, so ruining any of it really isn't going to do you any favors.

If you're just trying to discourage people from coming there....you don't need nuclear weapons for that. You just need to stay under the radar. Should be easy if you have nothing of value that nations can't get elsewhere. You can also do this by way of social and cultural actions which just make it unappealing to visit your lands. Such as executing left handed people....serious, I know a guy whose nation does this.

Also, think about this, as a small, isolationist island nation, how are you entirely self-sufficient? If you can't support large numbers, what good are having all those nukes to stave off the "ebil outside world" doing you?

Edit: I read "island" into your post, sorry about that. Some of the points are still valid. Also, now you have the added problems if your neighbors not being happy with the giant nuclear grouch living next to them, the one thy can't talk to without fear that you'll make them glow.

I wouldn't wanna live near you.

by **The Corparation** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:48 pm

Foguk wrote:What do we think of small-to-medium sized isolationist nation who maintains a large nuclear arsenal as a deterrent to other nations?

Does this sound somewhat like Israel minus the isolationist?

Is it just me or wasn't there a movie starring Peter Sellers about this very thing?

by **Spirit of Hope** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:49 pm

Foguk wrote:What do we think of small-to-medium sized isolationist nation who maintains a large nuclear arsenal as a deterrent to other nations?

Does this sound somewhat like Israel minus the isolationist?

Any small nation probably couldn't build and maintain a significant nuclear arsenal without hurting other parts of their economy. Israel is an exception mail because the US sells (read gives) Israel a bunch of new and old tech, up to and including nuclear weapons (probably). As an isolationist country you wouldn't have a backer like that, however you could say you do, or just louse out on the economy and get the nuclear weapons, like North Korea or Iran.

by **The Akasha Colony** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:06 pm

Point taken, remove two hard points, and replace the minigun with a standard MG. I'll also begin work on my standard and UCAV gunships.

On a somewhat separate note, how nesicarry is an AC-130-esque gunship?

Since my gunships won't likely need to land in the middle of dusty assed nowhere, do you think I could use gimbal mounted turbofans?

Depends on your fire support needs. But generally, they've been demonstrated to be a cheap and effective way to bring heavier firepower than helicopters can bring, yet with a greater station time than normal fixed-wing aircraft like the A-10, which have to make multiple passes against a target cluster. Their biggest advantage is firepower and accuracy, since even the A-10 doesn't have a 105 mm cannon sticking out the side.

For the turbofans, were you planning to make them tilt-fans for the gimbal mounts? If so, it's possible, but chances are the thrust power would make them hazardous to approach during takeoff and just after landing, until the engines can be spooled down. It's not a huge problem though.

What do we think of small-to-medium sized isolationist nation who maintains a large nuclear arsenal as a deterrent to other nations?

Does this sound somewhat like Israel minus the isolationist?

As others have noted, this is probably unnecessary. Unless you've got a coastline and the money for ballistic missile submarines, it'll be too easy to just take out your nukes in a single strike. SSBN's are expensive, to boot. The best idea is to simply try not to get targeted by big nations, or make good strategic partnerships to defend yourself. That's the real secret to Israel's survival: be best friends with the US and most NATO countries. Large nuclear arsenals are constricting because you basically have two options: blow up the world, or surrender. The US learned that the hard way after Eisenhower thought nukes were cool and that we no longer needed a big military. Then Vietnam came a-knockin' and we had to ramp up the size of the US military again.

by **The Archangel Conglomerate** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 12:37 am

*le snip*

by **Bears Armed** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 6:22 am

Azaca wrote:
Overall Number of Personnel: 300,962 Personnel
Number of Active Personnel: 110,587 Personnel
Number of Reserve Personnel 190,339 Reserve Personnel
Number of ships: 38
Number of Aircraft: 177
Secretary of the Navy: Agda Bjorge

Ships
1 Type 148 Aircraft carrier
4 Type 197 Destroyers
2 Type 252 Corvettes
2 Type 63 Minesweeper
1 Type 75 Minehunters
2 Type 77 Minelayers
2 Type 99 Large Landing ship
3 Type 164 Ballistic Missiles Subs
20 Type 175 Patrol vessels
2 Type 40 Electronic Surveillance ships
1 Type 43 Oceonographic Survey ships

Aircraft
60 Type 194 Transporters
55 Type 206 Transporters
12 Type 213 Fighters
50 Type 130 Transport Helicopters

That's somewhat better, although I still don't see why any nation that isn't a global superpower "needs" Ballistic Missiles Subs... but you now need a number of frigates (and/or possibly destroyers) to help protect your carrier and landing ships against enemy submarines, aircraft, and maybe missiles. Take a look at the composition of the task-force that (in RL) the British sent to the Falkland Islands in 1982...
Also, maybe 2 or 3 'hunter-killer' subs for threatening your enemy's main ships? (Look at what happened to the 'General Belgrano', and what effect that had on the Argentine Navy's willingness to send its ships out of harbour...)

by **DASHES** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 6:57 am

This is the current organization of the DASHES Infantry Core, a branch of the DASHES military known by some as the DASHES Army.

Feel free to use the below image for reference:

DIC Motorized Heavy Infantry Platoon

DIC Reconnaissance Platoon:

DIC Signal Platoon:

DIC Logistical Support Platoon

DIC Tank Squadron

DIC Maintenance Platoon:

At the Battalion Level, I have Military Police Companies

At the Division Level, I have Airborne Support Companies:

----------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------

by **Jagalonia** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 9:44 am

So you're just gona toss each troop $100 cash...?

Some of the things you're issuing, you really don't have to. That entire wallet is irrelivant except for the issued ID, and military licinse. Also, most troops will have their own watches.

by **The Anglo-Saxon Empire** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 9:47 am

Jagalonia wrote:Also, most troops will have their own watches.

But they aren't standardized. Every soldier must have the same everything, including watches. Also TBH I have never owned a watch in my life.

by **Jagalonia** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 9:51 am

The Anglo-Saxon Empire wrote:
Jagalonia wrote:Also, most troops will have their own watches.

But they aren't standardized. Every soldier must have the same everything, including watches. Also TBH I have never owned a watch in my life.

CO does a time check before doing a "major" operation (Raid, ambush, anything that requires precise timing.) I learned on my basic to always have a watch, even if I don't think I'll need it.

by **Allanea** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 9:52 am

Large nuclear arsenals are constricting because you basically have two options: blow up the world, or surrender

Let's ignore everything we know about limited atomic weapons use, nuclear landmines, etc.

by **Spirit of Hope** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 9:57 am

Allanea wrote:
Large nuclear arsenals are constricting because you basically have two options: blow up the world, or surrender

Let's ignore everything we know about limited atomic weapons use, nuclear landmines, etc.

Doesn't work that way, the only way you get "limited" nuclear weapons use is if one side is to devastated to respond.
http://homepage.mac.com/msb/163x/faqs/nuclear_warfare_101.html
http://homepage.mac.com/msb/163x/faqs/nuclear_warfare_102.html
http://homepage.mac.com/msb/163x/faqs/nuclear_warfare_103.html

Read those, they give some ideas about how nuclear weapons would be used in real life.

by **Kouralia** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:00 am

Okay, I was thinking of a way to differentiate between my Mechanised and Armoured Infantry companies, and I've come up with a way, I just want to see if it's feasible:

Effectively, my Mechanised platoons will operate from a trio of Patria AMVs; the Armoured platoons will operate from a trio of Patria AMVs with an additional AMV added. I'm unsure as to how to equip it -

Either a 150mm MGS, or a TRT25 RWS and racks of vertical firing ATGMs.

Which would be better?

by **The Akasha Colony** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:04 am

Allanea wrote:
Large nuclear arsenals are constricting because you basically have two options: blow up the world, or surrender

Let's ignore everything we know about limited atomic weapons use, nuclear landmines, etc.

Except that it never ends that way. Sure, you just tac-nuke one of his armored columns. Then he starts tac-nuking your bases. Then you retaliate on his. Then he hits your industry, and you hit his. Cities are next, until there aren't any left. Chances are though that these intermediate steps will be skipped in favor of going straight for the kill, flattening the entire nation.

When was the last time anyone fought a real limited nuclear war? Presumably, if you're worried about larger and more powerful nations, they would have a nuclear arsenal as well. Likely a bigger one, or at least one of comparable size. The US and USSR thought it'd be great to design all sorts of battlefield nuclear weapons, from nuclear recoilless rifles to nuclear battleship shells. None of which were ever used despite the vast number of conflicts fought during the Cold War.

And a small-to-medium nation can't really afford to use scorched-earth tactics with tactical nukes. The use of nuclear landmines and tactical nukes against encroaching columns means the damage will be dealt to the defender, who lacks the open space to give up such land in a matter than is essentially permanent. Using them offensively against targets in the attacker only invites further nuclear retaliation.

by **Galla-** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:06 am

The Akasha Colony wrote:Large nuclear arsenals are constricting because you basically have two options: blow up the world, or surrender.

Nuclear weapons do not magically invalidate the importance of conventional military forces. If you think that a war between nuclear powers necessarily devolves into a missile duel, you're mistaken.

Colonel General G. Khetagurov wrote:It is erroneous to think that a future war will actually become a type of "nuclear missile duel". To that same extent, it is incorrect to believe that the operations of the ground troops will lose their significance and that their missions will be limited to overcoming the un-organised resistance of the remnants of the enemy's troops and the occupation of his territory.

The experience of many exercises testifies that even with the complete destruction of the majority of the industrial areas, the elimination of the most important transportation centers from use and the destruction of the most important air and missile bases, the enemy in many cases preserves the 'capability not only for resistance but also for the delivery of powerful strikes, frequently restores the combat effectiveness of groupings of his armed forces, and often attempts to seize the operational initiative. His complete and final destruction in the in the theatre of military operations, under any scale of the use of nuclear missile weapons by both side, is achieved as a rule only as a result of very intense combat, after the capture by ground and airborne troops of vitally important areas of territory, of centers of nuclear/missile weapons production, of the main airfield network, and also of the majority of the siting areas of the enemy's operational and operational-strategic missiles.

by **Allanea** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:07 am

1. The damage from nuclear explosions is not permanent in an environmental sense. You can walk on the ground where a nuke was set off a few days later, with no serious health damage. Unless its salted.

2. There have never been total nuclear wars in RL either. All major nuclear powers had plans, however, for both total and limited nuclear wars.

3. I have fought limited nuclear wars in NS, I do not see how they are impossible.

by **Faberry States** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:08 am

Just wondering what would be a reasonable sized Navy for a nation of my size and relatively small military budget? I'm thinking of along the lines of the size of Canadian Navy.

by **Allanea** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:08 am

Faberry States wrote:Just wondering what would be a reasonable sized Navy for a nation of my size and relatively small military budget? I'm thinking of along the lines of the size of Canadian Navy.

Why? You're several times the size of Canada, and Canada already has a relatively small military budget.

by **Spirit of Hope** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:10 am

Galla- wrote:
The Akasha Colony wrote:Large nuclear arsenals are constricting because you basically have two options: blow up the world, or surrender.

Nuclear weapons do not magically invalidate the importance of conventional military forces. If you think that a war between nuclear powers necessarily devolves into a missile duel, you're mistaken.

Yes and no, certainly not every war between nuclear powers results in nuclear exchange. However neither side could push the war to a decisive finish, i.e. invading and conquering the enemy home land, because that would push them to a nuclear exchange.

by **Galla-** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:12 am

Spirit of Hope wrote:
Galla- wrote:
Nuclear weapons do not magically invalidate the importance of conventional military forces. If you think that a war between nuclear powers necessarily devolves into a missile duel, you're mistaken.

Yes and no, certainly not every war between nuclear powers results in nuclear exchange. However neither side could push the war to a decisive finish, i.e. invading and conquering the enemy home land, because that would push them to a nuclear exchange.

Read the edited quote.

And it's not like you can't shoot down MIRVs or anything.

by **Faberry States** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:13 am

Allanea wrote:
Faberry States wrote:Just wondering what would be a reasonable sized Navy for a nation of my size and relatively small military budget? I'm thinking of along the lines of the size of Canadian Navy.

Why? You're several times the size of Canada, and Canada already has a relatively small military budget.

I have a relatively small military budget.

by **The Akasha Colony** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:15 am

Galla- wrote:
The Akasha Colony wrote:Large nuclear arsenals are constricting because you basically have two options: blow up the world, or surrender.

Nuclear weapons do not magically invalidate the importance of conventional military forces. If you think that a war between nuclear powers necessarily devolves into a missile duel, you're mistaken.

I don't think that wars between nuclear powers become missile duels, but if you read the entire proposal, he basically wanted to rely solely on a nuclear arsenal to keep the enemy at bay, forgoing a large, conventional military. Which limits his options in a conventional war. The other guy will of course be invading with conventional forces, which if the defender has only nukes, they can either launch them (and get nuked back), surrender, or pray that someone comes to their aid, because they have no conventional forces to fight back with.

1. The damage from nuclear explosions is not permanent in an environmental sense. You can walk on the ground where a nuke was set off a few days later, with no serious health damage. Unless its salted.

2. There have never been total nuclear wars in RL either. All major nuclear powers had plans, however, for both total and limited nuclear wars.

3. I have fought limited nuclear wars in NS, I do not see how they are impossible.

1. Depends on altitude. Air bursts dissipate quickly, but ground-burst nuclear mines will not, since they will irradiate the ground around them as fallout.

2. None of those plans were ever tested, and many were terribly unrealistic in hindsight. They also changed with each new administration, some favoring nuclear options more than others (like Eisenhower).

3. NS doesn't count. Because we can have all sorts of rather implausible and impossible things, and do basically whatever we want and can justify. I've fought space wars, doesn't mean that they're any more likely to happen IRL.

by **Spirit of Hope** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:15 am

Galla- wrote:Read the edited quote.

And it's not like you can't shoot down MIRVs or anything.

First read the links I posted above. They give a nice insight into nuclear exchange. Second, yes you can shoot down MIRVS but you won't be able to shoot down enough of them. Along with other delivery methods that would likely get involved, such as bombers, special forces, battleships, carrier fleets and Infantry units.

by **The Akasha Colony** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:19 am

Galla- wrote:
Spirit of Hope wrote:
Yes and no, certainly not every war between nuclear powers results in nuclear exchange. However neither side could push the war to a decisive finish, i.e. invading and conquering the enemy home land, because that would push them to a nuclear exchange.

Read the edited quote.

And it's not like you can't shoot down MIRVs or anything.

Economics is what makes shooting down MIRVs hard. Between nations of the same technology level, it's cheaper and easier for the attacker to put more MIRVs in a missile than it is for the defender to built interceptors, unless those interceptors can destroy the attacking missile before it releases its MIRVs. Hence, between two nations of the same industrial strength and technology, MIRVs favor the attacker, as they did during the Cold War.

by **Jagalonia** » Thu Mar 22, 2012 10:20 am

Faberry States wrote:Just wondering what would be a reasonable sized Navy for a nation of my size and relatively small military budget? I'm thinking of along the lines of the size of Canadian Navy.

So....6 ships and 2.5 subs?

Nuclear Death Machines Here (Both Flying and Orbiting) Orbital Freedom Machine Here	A Subsidiary company of Nightkill Enterprises Inc.	Weekly words of wisdom: Nothing is more important than waifus.- Gallia-
Making the Nightmare End ~~2020~~ 2024	WARNING: This post contains chemicals known to the State of CA to cause cancer and birth defects or other reproductive harm. - Prop 65, CA Health & Safety	This Cell is intentionally blank.

NS Military Realism Consultation Thread

Who is online