First Strike PBEM #2

[John Henry Eden]

NATO, January 1975



President of the United States, Jimmy Carter, would like to extend a hand of friendship to the USSR.

Rather than through nuclear annihilation, the western world and the USSR can settle their differences through proxy wars waged in the remote parts of the world.

However, we would like to remind the USSR that we will not allow warships passage through the Oresund or the Bosphorus. We would like their submarines in the Mediterranean, apparently belonging to the Black Sea fleet, pulled back to their naval base until we come to some sort of naval agreement (our main concerns are heavy-tonnage ships and submarine-borne missiles/MRBMs).

We would also like to express our will to cooperate with India, Brazil and especially China. NATO ports are open to your trade goods, and we will work diligently in trying to create trade hubs which will yield massive returns.

As for the turn, got 3 pollution. 1 of it in Soviet territory, near Berlin, sadly, so I can't get to it.

VP, this Turn:
0, Trade
0, Tech
-3, Pollution (total: 3)

VP, all:
1. WARPAC: 0
2. Brasil: 0
3. Nato: -3
4. India: 0
5. China: -1

[JPetroski]

Though the Soviet Union believes President Carter is an honest man and a decent man, we are also aware that he will not be president forever. While we are willing to come to the table, we must always do so with the understanding that American foreign policy is only a single man's death away from completely changing.

However, we would like to remind the USSR that we will not allow warships passage through the Oresund or the Bosphorus. We would like their submarines in the Mediterranean, apparently belonging to the Black Sea fleet, pulled back to their naval base until we come to some sort of naval agreement (our main concerns are heavy-tonnage ships and submarine-borne missiles/MRBMs).

That you would use the English term "apparently" betrays the facts: IF the submarines presently in the Mediterranean did in fact originate from the Black Sea, they have long since passed the Bosporus undetected (this is the first we're hearing of it, after all), and we are therefore under absolutely no diplomatic obligation to withdraw them.

If you wish to keep our submarines out of the Mediterranean in the future, we suggest you permanently station a warship that can detect submarines near the exit of the Bosporus. The same goes for the Oresund, and any other straits you wish to close to submarine passage (in the interest of keeping these lanes passable by freighters, we will accept warships within two sectors of any strait to have "detected" our subs).

That being said, perhaps we can spare you the expense and trouble. We invite you to send diplomats to discuss this naval agreement.

[McMonkey]

Too long have the workers of Brazil been repressed by Ernesto Geisel's Military Junta. Voices for the left are silenced, activists are being tortured or even murdered, while the press is censored. Sensing unrest in the population the outlawed Brazilian Socialist Party (Partido Socialista Brasileiro, PSB) decides the time is right for action. The PSB begins a campaign of non violent subversion in the Amazon and other remote areas as well as in the Favelas. Many towns and villages set up their own socialist inspired councils. The Military Junta begins to try and crack down on this challenge to its power...





The National Renewal Alliance Party of Ernesto Geisel welcomes traders to Brazilian coastal ports. At the moment the interior is considered too dangerous to travel but the government assures the world the rebellious elements will be dealt with swiftly.

VP, this Turn:
0, Trade
0, Tech
0, Pollution

VP, all:
1. WARPAC: 0
2. Brasil: 0
3. India: 0
4. China: -1
5. Nato: -3

[Ingvar]

The Indian government has decided to re-unite India.

We will follow all the usual rules of engagement.
The war will begin in three turns.

VP, this Turn:
0, Trade
0, Tech
0, Pollution

VP, all:
1. WARPAC: 0
2. Brasil: 0
3. India: 0
4. China: -1
5. Nato: -3

[John Henry Eden]

That you would use the English term "apparently" betrays the facts: IF the submarines presently in the Mediterranean did in fact originate from the Black Sea, they have long since passed the Bosporus undetected (this is the first we're hearing of it, after all), and we are therefore under absolutely no diplomatic obligation to withdraw them.

Hm, seems you are right. I apparently interpreted "undetected" incorrectly, your way makes much more sense.

[JPetroski]

March, 1975

In world news, Marxist guerrillas rise against the American puppet Mobutu in Zaire.

The Soviet Union is sympathetic to the socialist revolutionaries in Africa and South America.

The Soviet Union is also sympathetic to India's desire to reunify their lands. Due to the proximity of Pakistan to Soviet and pro-Soviet territories, fighter and bomber squadrons based in Kazakh and Turkmen S.S.R. have been placed on high alert, with all leave canceled.

Any violation of Soviet or Afghani territory or airspace by NATO forces or Pakistani partisans will be dealt with swiftly and without negotiation.

In other news, as a courtesy, we have dispatched engineers to clean the West's pollution that winds have carried over our territory. They should begin work within a few months.

VP, this Turn:
0, Trade
0, Tech
0, Pollution

VP, all:
1. WARPAC: 0
2. Brasil: 0
3. India: 0
4. China: -1
5. Nato: -3

Edit - forgot the save:

[cupcoffee]

China continues to move forward.

VP, this Turn:
0, Trade
0, Tech
0, Pollution

VP, all:
1. WARPAC: 0
2. Brasil: 0
3. India: 0
4. China: -1
5. Nato: -3

[John Henry Eden]

Rapid industrialization and globalization continues.

VP, this Turn:
0.5, Trade
0, Tech
2, Pollution

VP, all:
1. WARPAC: 0
2. Brasil: 0
3. India: 0
4. China: -1
5. Nato: -4.5

[McMonkey]

Continued political unrest in Brazil. The Military Junta begins arresting anyone suspected of supporting the outlawed Brazilian Socialist Party. In many parts of the country the people take to the streets to protest and the Army is called in to maintain order. How much longer can the unpopular National Renewal Alliance Party hold onto power in the face of the popular socialist movement sweeping the country?

[Ingvar]

Indian military units are gathering at the borders of both Pakistan and Bangladesh. Now only they await the order to strike....

(If I unde the rules correctly I may not attack until after next turn. My fourth game turn that is?)

VP, this Turn:
0, Trade
0, Tech
0, Pollution

VP, all:
1. WARPAC: 0
2. Brasil: 0
3. India: 0
4. China: -1
5. Nato: -4.5

[John Henry Eden]

I think that's correct.

Can you attack neutrals, though?

I had a neutral terrorist unit pop up in Italy, and upon attacking it it said I was allied with the neutrals (probably a measure to prevent people from attacking them, though I am not sure if it applies to everyone or just the NATO/USSR).

Either way, I am not sure whether neutral countries can be attacked anyway in accordance with the house rules.

[Ingvar]

Hm, I didn't notice that, it seems I´m actually not allowed to attack the neutrals! This means Bangladesh stays independent.

[JPetroski]

In world events, the Islamic Liberation Front launches raids in the Philippines.

Industrialization causes two pollution squares of our own...

VP, this Turn:
0, Trade
0, Tech
-2, Pollution

VP, all:
1. WARPAC: -2
2. Brasil: 0
3. India: 0
4. China: -1
5. Nato: -4.5

I'd like a rules clarification please. I don't understand the following:

What countries you may attack
In general all "Pro-" countries are subject to proxy wars (exept Cuba and Chile), but for the mentioned on the excluded list the player get a legitimate chance to declare war on the opposing side, without loss of victory points (VP). In this situation it will be regarded as a provocation by the opposing side and he will suffer -25 VPs in accordance to VP rule #2.

This isn't clear to me... Does this mean that any country OTHER than Cuba or Chile can be attacked freely, or do ALL "pro-" nations need to be attacked after a cassus belli has been determined... And if so... Who determines if a war is just anyway?

[John Henry Eden]

Hm. I'd say that it is kind of up to the players here, with some historical context, to determine what nations may be subject to proxy wars.

Frankly, I think the best system to use here would be gentlemen's agreements. There are countries one can fight over, and countries which seem too central to one's security to be jeopardized in proxy warfare.

For example, I do not really care about Chile (what a bizarre choice of capital for the pro-western faction anyway) while I would certainly consider the nuclear option if Japan or Australia were attacked. Similarly, the USSR would probably just be as dismayed at an attack on Vietnam or Cuba.

I think we should just circumvent this rule and determine a sensible list of what countries we consider fair game and what countries are off-limits unless one wants to risk a nuclear war.

For my part, as I said, I'd consider Japan and Australia off-limits and the rest fair game, which sounds more than fair. If you agree with my assessment, please give me a list of countries you would like to similarly protect.

[JPetroski]

The U.S. has the clear geographic advantage, with easy access to both oceans and quick routes to numerous trading partners (pro-west nations). The USSR on the other hand, almost completely lacks that.

You mention Japan and Australia as nations you want to protect, which I can completely understand. But at the same time, you mentioned Cuba and Vietnam for me. There's a huge difference between the two sets of nations. Japan and Australia are large, rich, and on separate land masses from you. Excellent trading partners. Vietnam, by contrast, is essentially worthless, and Cuba isn't much better.

In short, the only position that we can possibly take is that if you want massive concessions from us that two of the richest nations are off-limits, then we require significant concessions from you. Our terms, for your consideration:

1. The Soviet Union shall respect the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Japan and Australia, and will pledge never to preemptively strike the forces or cities of these nations;

2. The British will immediately transfer sovereignty of Hong Kong to the Chinese, rather than waiting until 1999;

3. The United States and NATO will disinterest themselves in the affairs of Taiwan;

4. The United States shall agree that the Monroe Doctrine only applies to colonization efforts of the western hemisphere by European powers; and

5. The United States, Britain, and France agree to a United Nations Resolution that Soviet peacekeepers will be sent to Manila to aid the Muslim freedom fighters in their campaign for freedom. We would ask China to also not veto this, as a courtesy for points 2 and 3.

This agreement would allow your trade routes security in exchange for allowing the Soviet Union to develop a few of their own, peacefully. Shall we be diplomats, or pythons?

Submitted for consideration this 1st day of May, 1975.