Protect and Survive: A Timeline

[Baron Bizarre]

Originally Posted by Macragge1

I reckon people are going to have to get used to the radio for a while - radios are positively child's play to build compared to a television, and producing programming is a lot less labour intensive. All you really need is one guy with a mic at BBC Wood Norton/whatever regional station to relay news and orders, and then play records/ old shows for the rest of the hour. The Internet's a non-starter for a long, long time.

'

Never mind all that, when's Doctor Who coming back on?

[Blue cat]

Originally Posted by Baron Bizarre

'

Quote:
Originally Posted by Macragge1
I reckon people are going to have to get used to the radio for a while - radios are positively child's play to build compared to a television, and producing programming is a lot less labour intensive. All you really need is one guy with a mic at BBC Wood Norton/whatever regional station to relay news and orders, and then play records/ old shows for the rest of the hour. The Internet's a non-starter for a long, long time.


Never mind all that, when's Doctor Who coming back on?

I'm not sure radio broadcasting is going to be met with a great deal of offical approval after a nuclear exchange. Why make things easier for an attacker that might eventually decide to start a second round of hostilities.

[Macragge1]

Originally Posted by Blue cat

I'm not sure radio broadcasting is going to be met with a great deal of offical approval after a nuclear exchange. Why make things easier for an attacker that might eventually decide to start a second round of hostilities.

Without resorting only to encrypted military messages, it's impossible to completely remove the country's radio signature from those who have decided to seek it. I guess the authorities, knowing this, would decide that the practical and morale-boosting benefits of radio broadcasts would outweigh the risk it posed.

If anyone has decided to hit Britain again, I imagine they will do it regardless of what they hear on the radio.

[ivfl]

So is it safe to assume NATO won?By winning i mean there are still one or two governments left and something resembling authority left.Britain still has a goverment,something is still left in Norway.The belgians and the french are not included one is hiding in a cave the other fled to French Guyana.Still compared to the Eastern Bloc which hasnt said anything except for a lone sub.So in a who wins the war by winning i mean someone is still left to claim authority so far NATO wins.Sure its not much of a victory.Only one government is so far confirmed to still be in control of most of their country.The norwegian one for all we know only controls the immediate surroundings to their bunker and maybe a few soldiers here and there.Still so far NATO wins by virtue of still having someone.

[Unknown]

In East Texas, the surviving universities are: Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas A & M (A & M-College Station today in OTL) in College Station, the University of Texas at Tyler, the University of Texas Health Center at Tyler (both joined the University of Texas system in the 1970s), and Stephen F. Austin University (the only school that has a school of forestry in East Texas). Texas A & M has an engineering school that was ranked second in the nation in 2009 and also has an agricultural and veterinary program. In addition, it also has a Corps of Cadets (though I'm not sure how this will do much good in the postwar era in this TL), nearly half of whom join the military upon graduation.

Those programs will help East Texas recover, and, in addition, there is probably still enough oil in the East Texas oil field to do something similar in mechanized agriculture (as it is in some parts of Britain) in Central and East Texas.

The attacks in Texas were, probably, airbursts (over the cities).

In addition, the Red River Army Depot is located near Texarkana, which will help in producing weapons (at least until the parts run out). (1)

The Permian Basin still has several small towns, but with Midland and Odessa gone(2), Big Spring probably becomes the big town afterwards. (3)

Might Texas become a republic again, postwar (if a de-facto one), since they were one in the 1800s?

(1) Assuming the Soviets didn't blow it up (along with Texarkana).
(2) One of the interesting things about Doomsday: 1983 (I assume in that wiki that the missiles targeted there didn't make it).
(3) Assuming the Soviets don't target the (closed in 1977) Webb Air Force Base (I noticed Big Spring wasn't on your list of Soviet cities).

[Archangel]

Originally Posted by Dunois

Right its almost 2.00am more stuff on Energy and in other subjects will follow tomorrow !

Nice post! It's well thought and informative.



-----


Hope to see more about Europe and the rest of the World.

[Blue cat]

Originally Posted by Macragge1

Without resorting only to encrypted military messages, it's impossible to completely remove the country's radio signature from those who have decided to seek it. I guess the authorities, knowing this, would decide that the practical and morale-boosting benefits of radio broadcasts would outweigh the risk it posed.

If anyone has decided to hit Britain again, I imagine they will do it regardless of what they hear on the radio.

Still I suspect there would be a lot of censorship taking place if formal broadcasting was allowed. I can't imagine the names of surviving cities being broadcast for example or any information being divulged that would help the enemy make up a target list for round 2. (Even if the enemy only consists of an isolated commander trying to decide how to target a handful of nukes.)

Maybe falsely broadcasting that a few destroyed cities have in fact survived with minimal damage might be worth while ?

[Apollo 20]

Very interesting discussion of the postwar world. The discussion of postwar aviation got me to thinking about the fact that there are most likely a large number of British passenger and freight aircraft, with crews, scattered across the world in places not attacked. I can't imagine, given the way the attack unfolds with some warning, that either BA or the British government would have a vast fleet of heavy aircraft sitting on the tarmac at Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton with a bullseye on them. It doesn't seem far-fetched that there are planes and crews sitting around in some desolate airport in Northern or Central Africa far from any likely target with enough fuel left in the tanks to get home...

[Weaver]

That's an excellent point.

Would there be a reverse "diaspora" of expats trying to get home?

Somehow I doubt it.

(Speaking as exactly such an expat, now Oz Citizen.)

[modelcitizen]

Originally Posted by Apollo 20

Very interesting discussion of the postwar world. The discussion of postwar aviation got me to thinking about the fact that there are most likely a large number of British passenger and freight aircraft, with crews, scattered across the world in places not attacked. I can't imagine, given the way the attack unfolds with some warning, that either BA or the British government would have a vast fleet of heavy aircraft sitting on the tarmac at Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton with a bullseye on them. It doesn't seem far-fetched that there are planes and crews sitting around in some desolate airport in Northern or Central Africa far from any likely target with enough fuel left in the tanks to get home...

I imagine there'd be a number of airliners or other large planes repurposed where they are.

[modelcitizen]

Originally Posted by Macragge1

Had to look that up. What the fuck is with this place.

You can't bring 'Rock, rap, jazz and country music, as well as religious music that borrows from these styles' (Jazz? Is this 1928? Country?! THE FUCK!) but you can bring a pistol.

You can't go to movie theatres or wear A&F because of an 'unusual degree of wickedness' that these terrible clothes apparently espouse.

Fhat the Wuck.


I've got no problem at all with folks having their religious beliefs. This place, though, it's like a parody played dead straight. They must be one big thunderstorm away from drinking the Kool-Aid over there.

and people wonder why it's so much fun to imagine what could happen in the United States if Things Fall Apart! notions of pocket theocracies are not so far-fetched when you could just take existing entities and add thirty to forty percent and/or extend their reach a tad.

[Macragge1]

Originally Posted by Apollo 20

Very interesting discussion of the postwar world. The discussion of postwar aviation got me to thinking about the fact that there are most likely a large number of British passenger and freight aircraft, with crews, scattered across the world in places not attacked. I can't imagine, given the way the attack unfolds with some warning, that either BA or the British government would have a vast fleet of heavy aircraft sitting on the tarmac at Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton with a bullseye on them. It doesn't seem far-fetched that there are planes and crews sitting around in some desolate airport in Northern or Central Africa far from any likely target with enough fuel left in the tanks to get home...

The problem here is that during the Transition-to-war phase, the government planned to requisition the British Airways fleet (as well as Cross-Channel Ferries and the railways) in order to transport men and materiel to their staging posts in Europe (and also to evacuate dependents from these areas.)

Therefore, the majority of BA's fleet will have been working the route between Stansted/Gatwick/Heathrow/Large Int'l UK Airport and various airports and military bases in Europe (especially Germany) since before the shooting started. This means that as well as the aircraft scrubbed by WarPac attacks during the conventional phase, a large portion of the fleet will have been destroyed by tactical devices within Germany or strategic attacks on UK airports.

Still, as you say, there will be something of a skeleton fleet remaining. Some aircraft that were airborne during the Exchange may have been lucky enough to find somewhere to land, others may have been in maintenance away from target areas.

The real wildcards are the aircraft allocated to pick up dependents (embassy/oil workers etc) in Africa, South America and so on. Whilst these will not have been hit during the war, I can see the pilots in certain places seeing a life with a senior position in the Nigerian Air Force as better than taking a chance on finding a surviving UK. In other cases, the governing country might decide that it would quite like the fuel from the aircraft; if not the aircraft itself. This will further deplete the available stock.

Originally Posted by modelcitizen

I imagine there'd be a number of airliners or other large planes repurposed where they are.

Neat!

[iainbhx]

Originally Posted by Macragge1

Therefore, the majority of BA's fleet will have been working the route between Stansted/Gatwick/Heathrow/Large Int'l UK Airport and various airports and military bases in Europe (especially Germany) since before the shooting started. This means that as well as the aircraft scrubbed by WarPac attacks during the conventional phase, a large portion of the fleet will have been destroyed by tactical devices within Germany or strategic attacks on UK airports.

Still, as you say, there will be something of a skeleton fleet remaining. Some aircraft that were airborne during the Exchange may have been lucky enough to find somewhere to land, others may have been in maintenance away from target areas.

As you quite rightly point out, much of the fleet will have been used to effect the Queen's orders. Very little of it will be out anywhere exotic.

BA does it's maintainence at Cardiff Rhoose, which may be far enough away to escape the Cardiff bomb.

Oddly enough, most passenger jets don't need that much runway to land, it's the fully loaded take offs that are the problem and RAF Boscombe Down, which I think is still extant has a nice long runway, as does RAF Valley on Ynys Môn.

[Dunois]

Originally Posted by iainbhx

As you quite rightly point out, much of the fleet will have been used to effect the Queen's orders. Very little of it will be out anywhere exotic.

BA does it's maintainence at Cardiff Rhoose, which may be far enough away to escape the Cardiff bomb.

Oddly enough, most passenger jets don't need that much runway to land, it's the fully loaded take offs that are the problem and RAF Boscombe Down, which I think is still extant has a nice long runway, as does RAF Valley on Ynys Môn.

I don't think that BA had their base in Cardiff in 1984 I think that it came a bit later in 1986.

In any case indeed, if the plane is empty not a lot of runway is needed to land a passenger jet. 2.5km is enough for almost everything including a Boeing 747.

[Hörnla]

Originally Posted by CaliBoy1990

I'll have to disagree on one thing; less TV & PC gaming won't stop the literacy decline. In fact, if anything, it may actually speed it up just a little. Also, I don't see regular schooling returning for many years in G.B. Some of the more enlightened parts of the U.S., perhaps within a decade. But not in Britain, or anywhere else in Europe, for that matter.

On literacy, I should have marked the comment with a "tongue-in-cheek" smiley. However, in this timeline, if you have a little leisure and seek for distraction, books will be your primary source for quite some time.

My impression of this timeline so far is that the US and the UK are similarly hard hit, if the US has not been hit harder.
Again, this timeline doesn’t allow you to not differentiate between the different parts of Europe. Apparently, the UK is significantly better off than most parts of Europe, except maybe Sweden, Switzerland and some regions in France and Spain.
I am also not sure what you mean with "more enlightened parts of the US". If there is such a division, those urban parts will be the more heavily nuked parts. But, I agree that lightly hit US states might (autonomously) fare “rather well”, similar to the UK in this timeline.
If you regard regular schooling as 12 years of all-day-schooling followed by a master-degree in the arts, you are of course right. If you regard it as a few years of elementary school, maybe in the evenings, to prohibit a lack of basic understanding of the world.
There will be (elderly?) people who provide this schooling once the immediate “survival phase” is over, and there will be parents who kick their kids’ backsides (and their own) to get them there. Also, again, if a nation/region/tribe will try not to fall back several centuries, but rather less than one (I agree with another poster that mid-term recovery in the UK will something like a 1910s-30s standard of living), it will have to provide schooling still. I am quite sure that already in the 1980s it was known that children learn easier than adults. If you miss to learn reading and writing when young, it will prove rather hard to learn it later on when times are easier.

Originally Posted by LeoXiao

I'd say that a lot of people would think that the war was divine punishment for human arrogance and/or a test, and thus become more devout and form strong spiritual communities. These communities, since they work on a more emotional level than bureaucracies, would probably go a long way to support a wounded population and help them recover psychologically. Atheism can't really do that, although depending on the beliefs of the local leaders you could have regions of low religiousness that might look quite Soviet in the way they try to pull themselves together and rebuild society. Of course, after some time as the religious communities get larger and more powerful they will evolve into something that isn't about spiritual solidarity so much as plain and simple power over the masses.

I think that ruling via religion is passé. Maybe it can occur in some isolated areas which were really thrown back. That does not mean that there will not be a religious revival. Christian charity will be very important and the churches will have the opportunity to prove their worth to a lot of people, I absolutely agree in that part. This will gain them respect. But it will not turn everybody into a regular churchgoer nor into a firm believer of God. Again, there is not such an easy turning back into the Early Middle Ages, at least not in places where mid-term-recovery is possible.


Earlier on, someone mentioned football. I had been thinking about that myself. Sports are a distraction and part of British identity, and, to a certain degree, healthy. I am sure that authorities will not suppress, but rather (after the initial survival phase) encourage its recovery. It will be amateur sports, though. And there won’t be a “league” for some time. But my guess is, still, that the government will encourage county cups whose winners will fight each other in a few regional tournaments until the last four teams do the semi-final and finals in Portsmouth. Even in decades, everybody will remember how they gathered around the radios to listen to the commentary on the 1986 cup final.

Generally, concerning the often quoted toil of agricultural work and reconstruction: there is less to do in agriculture during the (long?) winter – with its different problems. And concerning reconstruction: the survivors don’t have to rebuild Britain for 55 million inhabitants but for – I am not sure, has a number been given so far? – 30? 25? 15million? And where people survived long-term, structures are mostly intact.

Which brings me to London. In the longer run, London will be re-constructed. Like Dresden, like Warszaw, like Gdansk….like Münster, Würzburg, Tokyo. It will be the capital again one day. Like Berlin. But- it won’t be stretch much further than what you find on the map on the backside when you buy a London tourist guide. London at least has the potential to become a city of a million again someday in the 21st century due to its “charisma”.
I doubt that all destroyed cities will survive in name. In some cases, surviving suburbs might pick up the name and a new city centre relocated there (the 95%-destroyed city of Münster seriously considered a similar concept after 1945), but the new cities will be far smaller than the pre-war ones, simply because too many inhabitants have died. And those who survived in smaller cities will have little inclination to fill up, e.g., New Birmingham. The exception might be some cities which are built directly on coal which will create jobs in the post-war era while commuting would still be hard to afford.

Originally Posted by ivfl

Regarding Germany while not every place would end up targeted,the numbers would have been so high that it would make little to no importance.Alongside nuking the troops at the front there would be nuking of any troops away from the front lines,and once things really get out of hand any other targets with vague military importance:civilian airfields,administrative centers,industrial targets,main bridges canals.[...] So while a few german cities of less than 100000 would still be around they would end up devastated in the long term due to famine,disease or fallout.

Yes, a field day for archaeologists. Ghost cities whose inhabitants fled or died after the exchange. Someone mentioned Landhut? I checked…regional seat of government and a BMW-factory? Street- and railway hub behind the front? Garrison of Bundeswehr Panzerbrigade 24? Looks not so good, I am afraid.

Münster, where I lived in ’83, would be so multi-targeted (just as during WW2) due to its administrative function PLUS a multitude of British and German garrisons that it is rather boring to speculate about it. Dorsten, where I live now, might be more interesting. While not by itself an interesting target, the MUNA ammunition dump (I am not sure whether British, German or shared at this point of time) to the North, the CWH chemical industries complex in Marl to the East, the refineries in the North of Gelsenkirchen and one of the largest power-plants in Germany, Scholven, both to the South, all make interesting targets each about 3-8 miles away from the city centre. That should do it.


Democracy, I am talking here about the United Kingdom, will probably be reinstated in the mid-term. Although, it probably shall look a lot different from before. A few thoughts: I am not sure if Macragge has told us about it, but there should be someone who can act as King or Queen. Whoever tries to control Britain will have to try doing that, if only as figurehead for a few banal semantical, but maybe not that unimportant reasons called ROYAL Army, ROYAL Navy, ROYAL Air Force…HER MAJESTY’S Government etc. pp. The monarch has no power, but still a great value as a figurehead AND can turn the head of administration into the Prime Minister! Second, I think that neither the Royal inheriting the crown nor a majority of the military resp. administrative staff running surviving Britain are intent to stick to emergency rule longer than necessary. Years maybe…but decades? Suggesting that emergency rule would be upheld infinitely, implies that this is the secret wish of 1980s British military and bureaucracy.
Besides, to add legitimacy to any sort of administration, I see a high probability that a rump parliament will be established as soon as possible, even if only to nod at decisions taken elsewhere (à la “Jericho”’s ASA-Congress…or, actually, most Western Parliaments ;-)?). For the foreseeable future, there will be a “National Coalition” anyways. The longer I think of it, the way I know British sentiment, anybody trying to rule post-war Britain will do well to make it as much as possible a re-enactment of 1940-45. Though the actual situation is of course far worse, there will be plenty of propaganda alluding to exactly the myth of that historical situation “and how all turned out well in the end”. Final side-thought, and I hope to hear a little from our Brits on this; I completely forgot the House of Lords. I have no clue how much influence they had left by that time, but may it be that its role might be a bit more pronounced afterwards, or rather of the hereditary seats? And another idea… might we see a return of rotten boroughs? In the form of nuked boroughs? ;-) Loads of possibilities to manipulate…
But I have to thank to whoever pointed out that war brings out not only the worst, but sometimes also the best in people. It is nuclear war, yes, but not a zombie virus which turns every survivor into a Nazi-asshole.

Concerning the survival of knowledge. I think that there cannot be a comparison to the Dark Ages. In the 1980s, every small town in the Western world should bring up enough books in libraries, offices, businesses and private households to keep things running. And academics and engineers live and work everywhere. But I agree that there will be little high-end-research. If there is research, it will rather go into the direction of making things easier to maintain and more economic. So, the world will be stuck on 1980s tech level for quite some time.



By the way, Dunois. I cannot be thankful enough for your analysis. Even though it goes a bit to the “least-bad”-side, there are a lot of interesting information and good thoughts on it. I also started to think about the North-Sea-oil and the probability to link it to a refinery again. I also wonder if it would be an apt strategy to assess whether it is possible anywhere (generally, Britain is rather benefitted with coal and oil compared to other places in Europe) to establish a hub where coal, petrol, food and energy is available on a rather good level. From this relative island of stability, efforts can more easily spread out to more and more regions?

Concerning currency. I suggest, that the black market will come up with a replacement quickly. Post-war Germany was famous for the cigarette currency.

BTW, someone mentioned a “re-introduction of private ownership” earlier on. So Great Britain turns Khmer Rouge? Come on. Even if the military or other authorities force you to hand over possessions, they are still yours. They were just taken away from you. You may bet that you even get handed a worthless piece of paper in most cases.

[Sam R.]

Originally Posted by Hörnla

Even in decades, everybody will remember how they gathered around the radios to listen to the commentary on the 1986 cup final.

A little bit early for battery resources dedicated to this.

if only as figurehead for a few banal semantical, but maybe not that unimportant reasons called ROYAL Army

Not in relation to the Army.

Second, I think that neither the Royal inheriting the crown nor a majority of the military resp. administrative staff running surviving Britain are intent to stick to emergency rule longer than necessary. Years maybe…but decades? Suggesting that emergency rule would be upheld infinitely, implies that this is the secret wish of 1980s British military and bureaucracy.

After 10 years of emergency rule it is going to be difficult to unfuck the state. Quite a large number of commonwealth countries have permanently suspected constitutional government.

Besides, to add legitimacy to any sort of administration, I see a high probability that a rump parliament will be established as soon as possible, even if only to nod at decisions taken elsewhere (à la “Jericho”’s ASA-Congress…or, actually, most Western Parliaments ;-)?). For the foreseeable future, there will be a “National Coalition” anyways. The longer I think of it, the way I know British sentiment, anybody trying to rule post-war Britain will do well to make it as much as possible a re-enactment of 1940-45.

Interesting supposition. Given that the last electorate was universal with a reformed commons, and given that a majority of the electorate are going to be held in corvee labour, it is unlikely that the original franchise will be restored. Restoring a non-original franchise is pretty much exemplary of Emergency rule. Any franchise is likely to be riddled with rotten boroughs with a limited personal access to franchise. Instituting constitutional change without the assent of parliament is a key example of permanent emergency rule.

Also, in 1945, UK troops in the field were in mutiny about the unfairness of parliament, and parliament had been held over without election for an exceptionally long period. The results were a landslide away from the government of the day. Orwell's Lion and Unicorn writings ought to help you here.

BTW, someone mentioned a “re-introduction of private ownership” earlier on. So Great Britain turns Khmer Rouge? Come on. Even if the military or other authorities force you to hand over possessions, they are still yours. They were just taken away from you. You may bet that you even get handed a worthless piece of paper in most cases.

That is an interesting assertion of universality of a socially constructed phenomena. When requisitions happen with worthless IOUs (and commonly "Babies can't work" without) and without a court for redress, to what extent can you claim this is property?

yours,
Sam R.

[Tovarich]

Originally Posted by Hörnla

Even in decades, everybody will remember how they gathered around the radios to listen to the commentary on the 1986 cup final.

Especially if a handballing Argentinian midget plays in 1986, as per OTL, which would be a good enough excuse for the nuke to Buenos Aires that often gets mentioned in this TL

Originally Posted by Sam R.

A little bit early for battery resources dedicated to this.

Should Trevor Baylis survive in this TL, would batteries be an issue?
Indeed, may he not have been inspired to the clockwork-radio earlier?

[ivfl]

Quite an interesting question,what happened to Maradona?At this point Argentina is probably in chaos with the nuking of Buenos Aires.To make matters worse the country had just reinstated democratic rule following the military junta years.Raul Alfonsin would have just been democratically elected and been president for barely three months,starting in december 1983.Its hard to say what impact if any the deteriorating international situation would have had on Latin America but it can be assumed that they where the last to actually go on alert.We also don't know what happened to the argentine goverment but most likely they where in the capital and the nukes would have been targeted at the area with the main government buildings.So Raul Alfonsin probably died in the strike alongside 90% of all government officials.Taking into account that,what surviving argentine generals there where probably tried to take over and reinstate military rule.Whether they could or not is hard to say.After the strike the country was probably thrown into chaos with panic taking over in many areas.This leads to the question of whether Brazil,Chile maybe even Paraguay decided to invade.Seeing as the country is collapsing an invasion is actually justified especially if they fear instability to spread further.So at this point we would have most likely a war between Chile,Paraguay and Brazil for Argentina with what remains of the argentine military and probable civilian insurgents trying to fight off the invaders.I find it unlikely for the neighbours of Argentina to have ignored it completely especially in the current international situation.So no more Argentina and a massive South American war are most likely what is happening there.Poor Maradona will never be famous.

[trekchu]

Originally Posted by Gunnarnz

I just can't agree with this. Wikipedia (I know, I know...) seems to indicate that Germany received nearly $1.5 billion (in 1948-50 dollars), so saying that they didn't receive anything is quite a jump. Where did you hear this?

I have to agree with this. The Marshal Plan aid is/was such an integral part of the German economic recovery that denying it happened is about as logical as Sealion.

If pressed I could find dozens of period pictures that say (in German) that the building/bridge/whatever has been constructed with Marshal Plan Aid.

COurtesy of the Wayback Machine.

[modelcitizen]

Originally Posted by Dunois

I don't think that BA had their base in Cardiff in 1984 I think that it came a bit later in 1986.

In any case indeed, if the plane is empty not a lot of runway is needed to land a passenger jet. 2.5km is enough for almost everything including a Boeing 747.

fragments of straight-ish interstate that aren't too blocked will do in a pinch