NationStates Jolt Archive

The Peoples Freedom Times

Zimmerson Coastal Defense Section, The Peoples Freedom:

Today, Lord General Buscker has announced the completion of a five year long effort to bulk up the nation's coastal defenses.

According to the annual budget, the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps have all used a combined eight trillion dollars on the project. The project was sparked after several simulations where the enemy destroyed the Navy, and was free to invade.

The Air Force had originally argued against the project, claiming that they could prevent a landing by air power. However, simulations showed that they could only do this with favorable conditions. Thus, the project began.

The project took over one million workers and five years to complete. The Peoples Freedom High Command issued a statement:

" Project Tempest had been completed with most favorable results, and the High Command is very pleased with the finished product. Tempest ensures additional safety against an enemy invasion. Tempest, in concert with our mobile reserves will be able to halt most invasion fleets and landings. We thank the services for their close cooperation."

According to Freedom Security, a popular military think-tank, the project produced quite favorable results. A total of 3,000 SAM emplacements, 1,000 laser emplacements, more than 20,000 bunkers and pillboxes, more than 3,000 entrenched and hidden 155mm artillery pieces, 1,000 250mm ETC anti-ship guns, and 300 400mm ETC guns were built. This does not include the extensive tunnel system, mines, beach obstacle's, and various base structures. Also, the most likely routs of attacks are mined.

This is in addition to the two-million strong army group that's mission is to produce a counter-assault on any beachhead.

Also, the project chose many small towns and cities to be fortified for an additional defense line, known as the GHZ line. This line would be fallen back to if the mobile reserves failed, allowing them to be re-grouped and reinforced.

OCC: Comments are welcome.

(OOC: Yay! Now every Jack and Jill with a satellite fleet can earmark every last defensive position you have for destruction!)

(OOC: Yay! Now every Jack and Jill with a satellite fleet can earmark every last defensive position you have for destruction!)

OOC: I have to argee with you Velkya.

OOC: I have to argee with you Velkya.

0.o

So? They still have to get past them.

Sounds good, but say you have a situation where your airforce cannot repell an enemy attack (as you said so yourself) and thus failed to ensure airsuperiority. Your defenses and mine field could be bombed out by a carpet bombing campaign.

Sounds good, but say you have a situation where your airforce cannot repell an enemy attack (as you said so yourself) and thus failed to ensure airsuperiority. Your defenses and mine field could be bombed out by a carpet bombing campaign.


OCC: Then, we would fall back to the GHZ line, and don't forget I installed thousands of SAM sites.

<< OOC: History shows through numerous examples that fixed defenses can be overcome and bypassed. Notable examples include the Maginot Line, Hitler's "Atlantic Wall," the Great Wall of China, the British fleet-fort-field strategy, et cetera. Expect them to be savaged and/or bypassed in the next war. (I hope you have a backup strategy.)

Also, one other thing. The only way I can see your strategy winning is if you're in a war of attrition (i.e. trench warfare). If the enemy is determined enough, is willing to make sacrifices, and is committed to the campaign, then I can very easily see them flattening at least part of your defenses and obtaining a very sizeable breach ... or breaches. >>

<< OOC: History shows through numerous examples that fixed defenses can be overcome and bypassed. Notable examples include the Maginot Line, Hitler's "Atlantic Wall," the Great Wall of China, the British fleet-fort-field strategy, et cetera. Expect them to be savaged and/or bypassed in the next war. (I hope you have a backup strategy.) >>

I know this. That is why I have the mobile reserves. It is mainly to prevent a landing and provide enough time to mobilize the reserves if my Navy is defeated. Also I hope to produce enough deaths where they would have to turn back. Static defenses isn't foolproof, I know.

I know this. That is why I have the mobile reserves. It is mainly to prevent a landing and provide enough time to mobilize the reserves if my Navy is defeated. Also I hope to produce enough deaths where they would have to turn back. Static defenses isn't foolproof, I know.

OK, I can understand that philosophy. My impression was that you were tying your nation's security solely to the new coastal defenses. A delaying strategy makes much more sense, but keep in mind that that was also the primary philosophy behind the Maginot Line.

(OOC: If your enemy gains air superiority, he gains victory. Even massed surface-to-air batteries can be countered with attrition, and a determined enemy can eventually cut a large enough hole in your defenses to make it useless. With the massive sums of money and manpower it would take to build such a massive network, you could have whole divisions and army groups which can actually move to counter a threat, no matter where it is hitting from.)

(OOC: If your enemy gains air superiority, he gains victory. Even massed surface-to-air batteries can be countered with attrition, and a determined enemy can eventually cut a large enough hole in your defenses to make it useless. With the massive sums of money and manpower it would take to build such a massive network, you could have whole divisions and army groups which can actually move to counter a threat, no matter where it is hitting from.)

<< OOC: Check the post that preceded yours, please. He already said that the defenses are not the sole means of his nation's defense. >>

(OOC: I'm aware of that, I'm pointing out that even backed up by armies and such, a large static defense network is impractical and the resources used to build such a network are better spent upgrading and increasing mobile units.)

[1. The Maginot Line never really failed, the Nazis just... well, avoided fighting it. You cannot blame the line, or the defensive layout for the Nazi Sucess. 2. Hitlers Atlantic Wall was not really finished when the Allies Invaded... that and the 'Wall' was horridly undersupplied and undermanned due to the various other fronts the Nazis were fighting. 3. The Great Wall of China was never meant to be a real, 'Defence', just a visual marker of a boundry, and line of warning. 4. The British Fleet-Fort-Field Strategy was quite different than why TPF seems to be doing.

If your enemy gains air superiority, he gains victory.
Vietnam would indicate otherwise.

@TPF. I would suggest adding stationary LADAR-Guided CIWS Guns next to key implacements such as Coastal Guns and Missile Batteries. Provides a last line of defence against missile threats, and are a good deal more reliable/durable than lazers.]

(OOC: Avoid citing Vietnam as an example of modern air combat, as fighting guerilla fighters in jungles is a tad different from fighting a modern army on largely open terrain. Restrictive rules of engagement (courtesy of McNamara, may he burn in hell) prohibited the United States from completely dominating the skies over Vietnam.)

The only thing with increasing and upgrading my forces is, they are already fully upgraded and I cannot support a larger force.

[Guerilla fighting in the jungle is a perfectly viable modern scenario. Not all wars are fought on the ideal flat grassy field without a tree or hill in site... as a matter of fact, most aren't. There is no guarantee that your enemy is going to fight you in to good ol' fasion line up and exchange volleys, I sure as hell wouldn't. The generalization that 'Air Superiority Yields Guaranteed Victory' is simply too flawed, as all modern war sucess depends on two things... who you're fighting, and where you're fighting them.]

(OOC: A guerilla army cannot win a war on its own. It can only bleed the enemy, not kill him. Imagine this. Military A gains air superiority over Military B. Not only can Military B no longer mount aerial attacks against Military A, but, since Military A dominates the skies, Military B can no longer move large vehicles like trucks or tanks in the open, mount large scale offensives, or set up an organized defense. An army unable to attack or defend without resorting to guerilla measures will not be able to challenge a modern army in any meaningful fashion.)

[Bleeding an army will eventually lead to that army... bleeding to death. It is true, the 'regularity' of the war will diminish... but what is the point of fighting a regular war? Immpossible to mount offensives? The Tet Offensive was pretty big, mounted mainly by Viet Cong infiltrating guerillas. But regardless, guerillas most defenitely can win a war, simply by changing, or limiting the enemies objectives. Guerillas always have one thing on their side... the fact that the occupier is always blamed for the damage caused. Guerilla Organizations effectively have unlimited pools of recruits, and constant fields of supply. If an enemies objective is to instill a new government... that objective can be easily thwarted. Our friends in Iraq are demonstrating that. (And they're not even working on the same side.) If the objective is to mine iron ore for profit, the guerillas need only to make the company, or enemy army become a deficit... make them lose more than it is worth.

An army unable to attack or defend without resorting to guerilla measures will not be able to challenge a modern army in any meaningful fashion
It depends what you mean by the word 'challenge'. Is the ability to make an army's home nation despise and hate the war the power to challenge? If an organization can make the populace of their enemy hate their own soldiers... is that the ability to challenge? I believe it is. Thats not even talking about the financial and military 'challenge' in the terms of billions of dollars and thousands of soldiers. Now of course if you like to godmod and pretend that every last soul in your nation is a die hard warmongering radical conservative, that would never dare stop supporting the war with all of his or her essence, then yes, waging a war against guerillas is easier. However, you really underestimate the potential of guerillas.]

Bleeding an army will eventually lead to that army... bleeding to death. It is true, the 'regularity' of the war will diminish... but what is the point of fighting a regular war? Immpossible to mount offensives? The Tet Offensive was pretty big, mounted mainly by Viet Cong infiltrating guerillas.

And a massive loss in manpower for the VC, as the "Offensive" was repelled virtually overnight by American forces. The American media only portrayed it as a loss for the United States.

And don't drag this out of context and play the media card on me. Democracies that aren't properly censored for wartime (as they were in the two World Wars) will always drag out what ever setbacks the military runs into. While I'm definetly not going to argue that Iraq is going down the toilet faster than an unwanted pregnancy, the truth is, for a military operation of its scale, casualties have been quite light.

I'll tell you one thing, if the military would take the steps to make the guerillas fear them, this war would be over quite fast, I assure you.

OOC: Sorry, no IC oppnion on the project.
But OOCLy, sounds like the Hedgehog strategy employed [i]very effectivly[/i[ by the Germans when the Russians went on the offensive in WW2. The problem was the Germans ran out of mobile armoured reserve in almost no time, and that's a key element.
Other then that, it will work. Too many people jump to fixed defences as being worthless, completely forgetting the Maginoit lines was bypassed through Belgum because the Belgians got pissed and wouldn't let France build the line on their border. Those parts of the line that the Germans assaultd held out until the government surrendered, or even longer in isolated incidents. The incomplete lines on the eastern front caused massive setbacks for both sides when they had to attack them (First Germans attacking, then Russians. Finnish lines slaughtered the Russians. And even the incomplete undermanned, poorly designed in some places Atlantic Wall managed to slaughter thousands of troops who had air superiority and attacked the weakest parts of the wall, while the wall had no reenforcements comming to their aid. The concept is sound, but should never be an all-in single defencive system, it's part of a whole.

And a massive loss in manpower for the VC, as the "Offensive" was repelled virtually overnight by American forces. The American media only portrayed it as a loss for the United States.

And don't drag this out of context and play the media card on me. Democracies that aren't properly censored for wartime (as they were in the two World Wars) will always drag out what ever setbacks the military runs into. While I'm definetly not going to argue that Iraq is going down the toilet faster than an unwanted pregnancy, the truth is, for a military operation of its scale, casualties have been quite light.

I'll tell you one thing, if the military would take the steps to make the guerillas fear them, this war would be over quite fast, I assure you.
Now whether or not their offensive was sucessful was not the issue. The reason the US Media took the Tet Offensive as a failure had nothing to do with casualties, hell, look at the casualty differentiation for the total war! The point was, the Govt. had been saying exactly what you were saying. 'They are guerillas. They cannot win. They cannot effectively fight, they cannot effectively defend. The war is over.' Well one day the media has word of a massive offensive involving hundreds of thousands of men. What do you think as an American? Regardless of casualties, the govt. had said they could not launch any type of offensive... the Tet Offensive said one thing, 'We can, and will, continue to fight and attack... forever.'

The media card is actually quite important when discussing war. Never again will the US ever get into another war without reporters in the trenches... on NS however, different story. If the US employed measures more brutal to supress the guerillas, they would simply be lengthening the insurgencies duration. Nazi occupational techniques were nice, but in the real world, impracticle. Yes, casualties in Iraq have actually been ridiculously light, for us, but it simply serves a point. The US is fighting an enemy that is more divided than Africa, an enemy who has no unified goal, that fights each other and has no real desire to win. They are horridly supplied, and terribly organized, fighting in terrain not exactly ideal for guerillas. A force with better funding... some degree of unity, fightinting in a non-flat desert, would have a field day against most militaries of the world. [Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan.]