Protect and Survive: A Timeline

[Baron Bizarre]

I wanna see a version of that poster captioned "Day after day, it's the same damned thing."

 

[Bernard Woolley]

You don't seem to be paying a lot of attention to what others say, and you're making a lot of claims without providing any evidence for them. This is especially a problem when the claims you're making contradict other (more plausible) sources. Things like "(say 99% of all experts)" are not helping.

If informationfan is the same guy I've heard of from other threads here and on other sites it's what he does. Whatever we say will make so impact so I'd recommend just putting him on ignore.

Could you please tell us where you're getting this sort of information from? If it's true then I think a lot of us will need to change our opinions, but we need to have some idea of where to look.

His imagination, IMVHO if the other posts are anything to go by.

 

[Tovarich]

I wanna see a version of that poster captioned "Day after day, it's the same damned thing."

Ahhh, Russia. All them corn fields and ballet in the evening.

 

[Peelitebkearns]

Macragge1, keep this up! I know several people have said this but as a new member, I'd like to say I'm really enjoying this in a "thank god this didn't happen IOTL and hopefully never will in the future" kind of a way.
Anyone who works John Peel in to their timeline is good with me-I'm gonna give him a few cameo's in the TL I'm working on as it happens.
A thought on religion: I originally dismissed the thought from other members that it would be more prominant post attack but I'm having second thoughts on that now. Cecularism was pretty much the norm by 83/4 and I think that amongst older atheists/agnostics, the "god wouldn't allow a nuclear war" mentality would kick in. My Nan would be a good example of this-she was a staunch Atheist IOTL and if she survived the attacks (which is unlikely), she'd be even more firmly against the idea that there is any god.
I think there's more of a chance younger people who grew up to be atheists (like me) could be influenced by charity from churches though. So if I'm born (which is unlikely), there's a high chance I could end up religious.
Basically the older you are, the firmer your convictions, so a religious shift will be generational.
As for entertainment-I can see the 2 extremes being popular-you could have dark novels depicting the world as it is, along with more escapest material. As well as chearful children's books, I can see Mills and Boon style romantic novels being popular here, unfortunately. Harry Potter will be even more popular as well, if it is even published.
I wonder what the Alternate History novels where World War III is avoided envisage?
Come to think of it, I wonder how historians view the cold war and people like JFK, Thatcher and Reagan?
I know I'm treading old ground a bit, but as I said earlier, really enjoying this timeline!

 

[LeX]

I think your casualty projections would be very accurate should this have been a bolt-from-the-blue attack. Given that the international situation deteriorated over the course of several weeks, there have been preparations made here that would reduce the casualty figures.

Most homes will have undertaken some sort of Protect and Survive countermeasures. Whilst laughable against the full force of a thermonuclear weapon, the simple fact that most people are indoors and under some cover is a big thing when it comes to secondary damage such as flying glass and heat damage. Also, despite attempts to curtail this, there will have been rather large-scale flight into the countryside, the West Country, the Highlands etcetera (whilst these will reduce the initial casualty figures, they will also make for a serious refugee problem later on. We also have to factor in certain Soviet weapons failing - keep in mind that a single missile spinning off and landing in the sea/woods could mean the lives of one million people.

Of course, when we talk about limited casualties, we're still looking at 20 or 30 million people gone in almost an instant; anywhere from one third to a half of the pre-war population. Protect and Survive isn't a worst-case scenario in the sense that everything that could go wrong went perfectly wrong, but it's still basically the worst thing that's ever happened in human history - partly this is because I wanted to deal with the transition to war and therefore had to present the UK as a prepared target; partly it's because in reality, stuff doesn't work in such absolutes so I try to throw in luck and chance and the like.

Thanks for bringing it up; I hope I've managed to explain to you my reasoning behind setting things out the way I have.

Thanks for your explanation, though it seems like many millions of these "extra" survivors would perish within the first few months. In any case, this TL is still fantastic whether the death toll be 50 or 80 percent, so don't get discouraged by minor criticisms (like mine) and keep up the good work.

 

[Dunois]

hi,

so you basically say, all the problems the rest of the world see in a nuclear war is gone after 50 years?

you say, the consequences of nuclear hits on british nuclear power plants are near nil?

It is clearly stated in the list of targets that no British power plants have been targetted. We might learn more later, but I doubt that the picture will change much for the reasons me and JN1 have stated before. Namely that targeting power plant does not make sense in a quick nuclear war.

and - after 500 nuclear hits in great britain - the country can survive and feed its people? (at last the 30 million survivors?)
how - do they live from love and air? if you ignore the nuclear winter (so many people think that it would happen - if 100 - 200 nukes will be used - here we have around 70.000 nukes!), how do the people survive? they cannot go to any shop for long

It is highly unlikely that Britain has been hit by 500 hits and 500 megaton size hits at that. The United States merely has to target the USSR and Eastern Europe. The USSR on the other hand has to target the following geographic zones:
-The United States themselves, they will get the bulk of the hits.
-NATO allies in Western Europe, they will get hit hard depending on how close they are to the frontline and on their perceived strategic importance.
-China because of the Sino-Soviet Split, expect them to be hammered really hard (historical rivalries, split and fear of a "yellow tide" post war).
-SEATO Allies in Eastern Asia this means Japan, Thailand, the Philippines and so on)
-Western allies scattered all over the globe, this range from Saudi Arabia, to Pakistan, to South Africa, to Morocco to Israel.

Compared to the West, the USSR have more targets to hit and while they do have comparatively more weapons, they will be spread much thinner than western ones.

if they are out and wind is bad, they are dead in two days...
radiation destroy people, you know... and there is a lot radiation.
not only in great britain, even some nice burning powerplants in sweden are enough to make yor day look bad... cause if nobody stop this, they will poison the air and the ground for years...

I know what radiation is thank you very much, I even once had to use a Gieger counter in order to ensure that a place was safe during my degree. Do you know on the other hand, what a rem is, what a röntgen is, what a sievert is and what a curie is? Do you know what is the difference between alpha, beta and gamma decay is?

Radiation can be lethal is very high doses yes, but radiation levels won't stay the same foreover courtesy of radioactive decay and this mean that after some time the levels will have sufficiently decrease to be safe. A crue fallout shelter provide a lot of protection as well. The crude protect and survive shelters were not as good as an underground bunker. But they were good enough to stop dead in its tracks alpha and beta radiation and a good proportion of gamma rays.

The ground won't be poisonned for long everywhere, some parts might remains poisonned for a while but these will be very small and in size and in numbers. As as been mentioned before, even Chernobyl zone of alienation is quite safe these days. There won't be any human inhabitation for a while that's for sure, but one can work for several days and weeks in the zone and not feel any ill effect from radiation.

you cannot buy food from anybody - the lucky survivors will do not have enough, the starving people in great britain die. period. cause all harbours are gone, the oil drilling stations will be destroyed, oil - just think at the mexican gulf, just take 50-100 such events and nobody to stop it - will pollute the oceans...

You are really not thinking sufficiently out of the box with regards to the food supply. A lot of people will have stockpiled food ahead of the crisis, this coupled with what already exists in their homes is enough for two to three weeks. "Hard" foods like rice, pastas, biscuits and so on don't spoil and even today people usually have these in significant quantities in their homes (its cheaper to buy in bulk). Stuff like tinned sardines, tinned meat, tinned fruits and vegetables won't spoil either and this is again something which is rather abundant. Dried sausages, pickled eggs and other similar things won't spoil for a good while either. Anything frozen or needing refrigeration is a goner, but not if it is cooked immediately. There you have to remember that in 1984 people consummed these things, especially ready meals and such a lot less than today. Partly because it was more expensive, partly because familities ate toghether a lot more then. This mean that proportionlly more "hard" food items will be around compared to today.

Don't forget too that losses in population lessen the food needs yet further. In any case and I have made that clear earlier in a post about grain, we are not talking about feasts for everyone but about starvation rations for everyone. You may not like 200 grams of rice with a sardine, but this will sustain you for a good while. You may not like a brownish lump of bread, made with unrefined flour, water and a bit of salt, but this too will sustain you for a day.

This is hard to imagine for us with todays confort, but people have lived and still live on very meagre and bland diets. Ever heard the story of Kaspard Hauser?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspar_Hauser
He survived on a diet of bread and water for years and he was certainly not the only one. Don't forget that most peasants and farmpeople will living on bread only during the 18th and well into the 19th century. It was not the white bread we know either. Sometimes an egg, a bit of cheese, a bit of butter and some meat would supplement this diet. If anything they were probably a lot healthier in some respects than todays, as they exercised a lot on a daily basis.
Millions of people survived the Soviet Gulags and their diets of bad bread, cabbage and other less than adequate foods. They also survived beatings from guards, the very harsh Siberian weather and work related accidents. Granted some did die, but a lot did not.

Britain still has a lot of land available and a lot of grains in the silos. This will make all the difference. Granted it will be grim and sad at first, but nations have rebuild themselves from ashes in semi similar circumstances, just think of what Germany endured between 1945-47 and Japan too.

or to say it short:
if you just take the bombs and ignore radiation - the damage ww3 will cause wreck human society so bad, that it destroy us. now take the radiation and the price goes up
if you add now the fire and the burning chemicals from all the chemical industries... they kill a lot people - if attacked conventionell.

The damage won't be spread all over Britain since some areas won't be targetted under any circumstances. This coupled with what infrastructure has survived provides a sufficient base with which to rebuild the country step by step. As I have said before, even in a small town of 10 000 inhabitants, you will still have machine shops, technically savvy people, people with degrees, doctors and skills generally.

the us of a looks as bad as the rest, it is cold, really cold, cause all the dust have an impact - you say no nuclear winter - many people say that it will be between 6 months and 6 years... it could even lead to a new iceage - because if the oceans cool down it can change e.g. the gulf stream. without it, england get really cold.

The first year will be bad and temperatures will be lower, I fully accept that, as there is plenty of scientific evidence to prove this. On the other hand I very much doubt the truth of the "studies" mainly because several suppositions made by their authors have been disproven by what happenned in reality. Carl Seagan predicted something akin to nuclear winter folliwng the Kuwaiti oil well fires of 1991, but nothing happened beyond some mild regional effects.
As for changes in oceanic currents following the nuclear war, it is clear that you don't know what you are talking about. The Gulf Steam could stop, but the basic physics favouring it are still srong even if the water cools. The current might weakens, but this is already happening on a yearly basis naturally as thermohaline circulation is far from a stable process.

 

[modelcitizen]

there seems to be a kind of argument going on... I haven't read the involved posts in any depth, but, I think the gist of it is to what degree life would suck after World War Three.


can't we just agree that life would suck after World War Three, period, and that degrees of suckitude is something we can agree to disagree on?


it's kind of like arguing whether you want the cover for your autobiography to be painted by Edvard Munch or by Hieronymous Bosch. it seems like a matter of taste, really.

 

[darkblue1893]

What would happen to the supply of drinking water post-war? Most of Britain's water supplies come from large reservoirs how polluted would the water be?

Will the water in the reservoirs be radio-active? or will it be a toxic chemical soup from all the "black rain" that's going to be falling after war?

How will fresh, clean water be distributed, by water tankers? and will it be extracted form boreholes?

 

[Bernard Woolley]

there seems to be a kind of argument going on... I haven't read the involved posts in any depth, but, I think the gist of it is to what degree life would suck after World War Three.


can't we just agree that life would suck after World War Three, period, and that degrees of suckitude is something we can agree to disagree on?


it's kind of like arguing whether you want the cover for your autobiography to be painted by Edvard Munch or by Hieronymous Bosch. it seems like a matter of taste, really.

Of course it would suck, big time, but there is a big difference between claiming that everybody (or almost everybody would die) and civilisation would be destroyed and lots of people would die, but civilisation would carry on, if battered.

One other thing to mention about the food situation in the UK. As time goes on we would actually have more food per head of population than just after the strike. The population would continue to shrink while food supplies would begin to rise again.

 

[Bernard Woolley]

What would happen to the supply of drinking water post-war? Most of Britain's water supplies come from large reservoirs how polluted would the water be?

A lot of it would be contaminated, however there were plans to supply drinking water to the survivors. We do also get a lot of our water from underground reservoirs; a lot of buildings that people mistake for bunkers are actually reservoirs.

Will the water in the reservoirs be radio-active? or will it be a toxic chemical soup from all the "black rain" that's going to be falling after war?

It would initially be contaminated, but would get better with time.

How will fresh, clean water be distributed, by water tankers? and will it be extracted form boreholes?

Distribution of potable water was to be the job of the fire service post-strike. It was why in the '80s it was planned to evacuate most appliances to a safer location. This is hinted at in Threads when survivors are seen being given water from a Green Goddess.

 

[Macragge1]

Using the target list provided by Macragge1 we know for sure what has been hit and how hard it has been hit. Food and fuel distribution networks have been damaged but you are very much overestimating their importance in order to feed the population. As I have said before, according to some documents I have found, agriculture use of fuel is possibly just in the order to hundred of thousands of tons a year at the moments and possibly even less than that. Keeping a skeleton fuel distribution network going for such small amounts is not impossible, especially considering the stocks inevitably left in service stations, local depots and the like. There is fuel around, the trick is just to have enough organisation going in order to reestablish a semblance of a distribution system.

Food distribution is full of redundancies and of excess fuel miles at the moment. It is not uncommon for something produced in northern Britain to be turned into a ready meal or any consumer grade product in a factory in southern Britain. It will then be shipped back up north for distribution and by the end of this journey it could very well end up on a supermarket shelf somewhere up south. This is crazy but this kind of stuff inevitably happens in a world where energy and transportation costs are low. Post exchange this can't happen and several steps in the process will also be missed. As soon as the potatoes are dug out of the ground in a field, they will be consummed almost immediately. They won't be turned into chips, crisps, or mash, saving time, energy and effort. A sack of 20kgs of potatoes can be carried on the back of a man or a woman and be carried for quite a distance this way.

The modern consumer society of the 1980s Britain is gone for forty to fifty years. But don't forget that in the late 1840s Ireland sustained eight million people on a diet of potatoes and prayer. Here we have both, but we also have german theory, communications by radio, some amount of fuel and machinery available and many other things.

A figure of twenty to twenty five millions survivors long term is therefore not impossible for me. Thirty and even thirty five millions would have been doable had Britain been more prepared with a higher level of civil defense preparations, larger stockpiles of everything and better communication systems.

Humans are adaptative creatures, don't forget that intellectuals, philosphers and other apparently "soft" individuals survived for years in the Gulag for example and millions did.

Yeah - life will be hard and unpleasant, and many will die, but I don't see a precedent for humanity just laying down and giving up.

hi,

so you basically say, all the problems the rest of the world see in a nuclear war is gone after 50 years?

you say, the consequences of nuclear hits on british nuclear power plants are near nil?


and - after 500 nuclear hits in great britain - the country can survive and feed its people? (at last the 30 million survivors?)
how - do they live from love and air? if you ignore the nuclear winter (so many people think that it would happen - if 100 - 200 nukes will be used - here we have around 70.000 nukes!), how do the people survive? they cannot go to any shop for long
if they are out and wind is bad, they are dead in two days...
radiation destroy people, you know... and there is a lot radiation.
not only in great britain, even some nice burning powerplants in sweden are enough to make yor day look bad... cause if nobody stop this, they will poison the air and the ground for years...

you cannot buy food from anybody - the lucky survivors will do not have enough, the starving people in great britain die. period. cause all harbours are gone, the oil drilling stations will be destroyed, oil - just think at the mexican gulf, just take 50-100 such events and nobody to stop it - will pollute the oceans...

or to say it short:
if you just take the bombs and ignore radiation - the damage ww3 will cause wreck human society so bad, that it destroy us. now take the radiation and the price goes up
if you add now the fire and the burning chemicals from all the chemical industries... they kill a lot people - if attacked conventionell.

the us of a looks as bad as the rest, it is cold, really cold, cause all the dust have an impact - you say no nuclear winter - many people say that it will be between 6 months and 6 years... it could even lead to a new iceage - because if the oceans cool down it can change e.g. the gulf stream. without it, england get really cold.

the good thing is, that the few survivors of this holocaust can feed themself (untill they die by radiation or lack of infrastructure)... but that are maybe 5 million in the first week after the war, 1 million after the first year and 10.000 after 10 years...

best thing to do in a nuclear war is - to go to some important place and have fun untill the bombs hit. Game over (say 99% of all experts...)

I think your solution is a rather depressing one that fails to take into account that humans are actually capable of putting up with an awful lot just in order to survive. I would be very interested to see where the statistic '99% of all experts' comes from, and who these experts are.

I think it'd be hard to come up with art that was sufficiently evocative of the desperation caused by the actual war, of course I could be wrong.

Maybe in some circles the cultural of creativity could swing in the extreme opposite direction, with the churning out of feel-good pieces aimed primarily at children and also of sufficient quality to keep accompanying adults from making cynical observations that could detract from the intent of the material. There are various kinds of art and other creative works that could come from a "Keep Hope Alive" direction of thought.

It would probably be in the government's presumed interest to come up with sufficiently inspiring public art to attempt to conjure up some wisp of hope in those that behold it. Some of it, dedicated to farmers and other vital workers, could end up like the better examples of the glorify-the-worker stuff produced by the USSR.

PIC

"Day after day, life becomes even happier!"

that could be toned down to "Day after day, life is happening"

and nix the car, of course.

(edit: and the watch, and the rosy-cheeked complexion, and that smile, etc. maybe the wires should be shown as under construction.)

Yeah - I imagine that for a while, the emphasis is going to be on escapism - given the logistic constraints that afford the survivors (try finding the time to go to a recording studio or even get a clean easel and some paint) means that we're going to be looking at art that has already been produced - a lot of 'recent' music is out because the early '80s had this big theme of nuclear paranoia; still, there's enough nice harmless disco and whatever out there; whilst personally I find the idea of Boney M playing over the wasteland a particularly chilling one, it would certainly be more popular with the survivors than sitting listening to Unknown Pleasures or something.

I like the poster - whilst as you say there'll be some changes related to situation and geography, I can see posters with similar sentiment cropping up eventually.

Macragge1, keep this up! I know several people have said this but as a new member, I'd like to say I'm really enjoying this in a "thank god this didn't happen IOTL and hopefully never will in the future" kind of a way.
Anyone who works John Peel in to their timeline is good with me-I'm gonna give him a few cameo's in the TL I'm working on as it happens.
A thought on religion: I originally dismissed the thought from other members that it would be more prominant post attack but I'm having second thoughts on that now. Cecularism was pretty much the norm by 83/4 and I think that amongst older atheists/agnostics, the "god wouldn't allow a nuclear war" mentality would kick in. My Nan would be a good example of this-she was a staunch Atheist IOTL and if she survived the attacks (which is unlikely), she'd be even more firmly against the idea that there is any god.
I think there's more of a chance younger people who grew up to be atheists (like me) could be influenced by charity from churches though. So if I'm born (which is unlikely), there's a high chance I could end up religious.
Basically the older you are, the firmer your convictions, so a religious shift will be generational.
As for entertainment-I can see the 2 extremes being popular-you could have dark novels depicting the world as it is, along with more escapest material. As well as chearful children's books, I can see Mills and Boon style romantic novels being popular here, unfortunately. Harry Potter will be even more popular as well, if it is even published.
I wonder what the Alternate History novels where World War III is avoided envisage?
Come to think of it, I wonder how historians view the cold war and people like JFK, Thatcher and Reagan?
I know I'm treading old ground a bit, but as I said earlier, really enjoying this timeline!

Thanks very much, I'm glad you're enjoying it. I agree with your analysis on entertainment - whilst there'll probably be an artsy hardcore (for want of a better term) that produce realism-inspired stuff, I imagine that for a long time the popular culture is going to be a) fragmented and b) concerned with being as far away from what's going on as possible.

Thanks for your explanation, though it seems like many millions of these "extra" survivors would perish within the first few months. In any case, this TL is still fantastic whether the death toll be 50 or 80 percent, so don't get discouraged by minor criticisms (like mine) and keep up the good work.

I honestly appreciate the minor criticisms - stuff like that makes me think about what's been written; even I understand something a lot better when I'm forced to explain it. I also agree that these extra survivors will have a very bad death rate - note that the 25-30 million figure is just those killed by the initial blast, heat and fallout from the bombs, rather than the collapse afterwards.

It is clearly stated in the list of targets that no British power plants have been targetted. We might learn more later, but I doubt that the picture will change much for the reasons me and JN1 have stated before. Namely that targeting power plant does not make sense in a quick nuclear war.



It is highly unlikely that Britain has been hit by 500 hits and 500 megaton size hits at that. The United States merely has to target the USSR and Eastern Europe. The USSR on the other hand has to target the following geographic zones:
-The United States themselves, they will get the bulk of the hits.
-NATO allies in Western Europe, they will get hit hard depending on how close they are to the frontline and on their perceived strategic importance.
-China because of the Sino-Soviet Split, expect them to be hammered really hard (historical rivalries, split and fear of a "yellow tide" post war).
-SEATO Allies in Eastern Asia this means Japan, Thailand, the Philippines and so on)
-Western allies scattered all over the globe, this range from Saudi Arabia, to Pakistan, to South Africa, to Morocco to Israel.

Compared to the West, the USSR have more targets to hit and while they do have comparatively more weapons, they will be spread much thinner than western ones.



I know what radiation is thank you very much, I even once had to use a Gieger counter in order to ensure that a place was safe during my degree. Do you know on the other hand, what a rem is, what a röntgen is, what a sievert is and what a curie is? Do you know what is the difference between alpha, beta and gamma decay is?

Radiation can be lethal is very high doses yes, but radiation levels won't stay the same foreover courtesy of radioactive decay and this mean that after some time the levels will have sufficiently decrease to be safe. A crue fallout shelter provide a lot of protection as well. The crude protect and survive shelters were not as good as an underground bunker. But they were good enough to stop dead in its tracks alpha and beta radiation and a good proportion of gamma rays.

The ground won't be poisonned for long everywhere, some parts might remains poisonned for a while but these will be very small and in size and in numbers. As as been mentioned before, even Chernobyl zone of alienation is quite safe these days. There won't be any human inhabitation for a while that's for sure, but one can work for several days and weeks in the zone and not feel any ill effect from radiation.



You are really not thinking sufficiently out of the box with regards to the food supply. A lot of people will have stockpiled food ahead of the crisis, this coupled with what already exists in their homes is enough for two to three weeks. "Hard" foods like rice, pastas, biscuits and so on don't spoil and even today people usually have these in significant quantities in their homes (its cheaper to buy in bulk). Stuff like tinned sardines, tinned meat, tinned fruits and vegetables won't spoil either and this is again something which is rather abundant. Dried sausages, pickled eggs and other similar things won't spoil for a good while either. Anything frozen or needing refrigeration is a goner, but not if it is cooked immediately. There you have to remember that in 1984 people consummed these things, especially ready meals and such a lot less than today. Partly because it was more expensive, partly because familities ate toghether a lot more then. This mean that proportionlly more "hard" food items will be around compared to today.

Don't forget too that losses in population lessen the food needs yet further. In any case and I have made that clear earlier in a post about grain, we are not talking about feasts for everyone but about starvation rations for everyone. You may not like 200 grams of rice with a sardine, but this will sustain you for a good while. You may not like a brownish lump of bread, made with unrefined flour, water and a bit of salt, but this too will sustain you for a day.

This is hard to imagine for us with todays confort, but people have lived and still live on very meagre and bland diets. Ever heard the story of Kaspard Hauser?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaspar_Hauser
He survived on a diet of bread and water for years and he was certainly not the only one. Don't forget that most peasants and farmpeople will living on bread only during the 18th and well into the 19th century. It was not the white bread we know either. Sometimes an egg, a bit of cheese, a bit of butter and some meat would supplement this diet. If anything they were probably a lot healthier in some respects than todays, as they exercised a lot on a daily basis.
Millions of people survived the Soviet Gulags and their diets of bad bread, cabbage and other less than adequate foods. They also survived beatings from guards, the very harsh Siberian weather and work related accidents. Granted some did die, but a lot did not.

Britain still has a lot of land available and a lot of grains in the silos. This will make all the difference. Granted it will be grim and sad at first, but nations have rebuild themselves from ashes in semi similar circumstances, just think of what Germany endured between 1945-47 and Japan too.



The damage won't be spread all over Britain since some areas won't be targetted under any circumstances. This coupled with what infrastructure has survived provides a sufficient base with which to rebuild the country step by step. As I have said before, even in a small town of 10 000 inhabitants, you will still have machine shops, technically savvy people, people with degrees, doctors and skills generally.



The first year will be bad and temperatures will be lower, I fully accept that, as there is plenty of scientific evidence to prove this. On the other hand I very much doubt the truth of the "studies" mainly because several suppositions made by their authors have been disproven by what happenned in reality. Carl Seagan predicted something akin to nuclear winter folliwng the Kuwaiti oil well fires of 1991, but nothing happened beyond some mild regional effects.
As for changes in oceanic currents following the nuclear war, it is clear that you don't know what you are talking about. The Gulf Steam could stop, but the basic physics favouring it are still srong even if the water cools. The current might weakens, but this is already happening on a yearly basis naturally as thermohaline circulation is far from a stable process.

Very strong analysis, espec. with regards to the food situation. It's important to note that the quality of food will drop sharply, but survival of the most basic kind is possible with relatively little. Agree too about market towns and such like having enough machine shops/garages/local libraries to keep society sliding back too far, if not entirely.

there seems to be a kind of argument going on... I haven't read the involved posts in any depth, but, I think the gist of it is to what degree life would suck after World War Three.


can't we just agree that life would suck after World War Three, period, and that degrees of suckitude is something we can agree to disagree on?


it's kind of like arguing whether you want the cover for your autobiography to be painted by Edvard Munch or by Hieronymous Bosch. it seems like a matter of taste, really.

It would really, really suck. Still, as others have mentioned, there's a big difference between things being very bad and the collapse of human existence.

 

[Baron Bizarre]

there seems to be a kind of argument going on... I haven't read the involved posts in any depth, but, I think the gist of it is to what degree life would suck after World War Three.


can't we just agree that life would suck after World War Three, period, and that degrees of suckitude is something we can agree to disagree on?


it's kind of like arguing whether you want the cover for your autobiography to be painted by Edvard Munch or by Hieronymous Bosch. it seems like a matter of taste, really.

If he were still alive, I would like the cover of my autobiography to be drawn by Wayne Boring.

 

[Gunnarnz]

The USSR on the other hand has to target the following geographic zones:
...
-SEATO Allies in Eastern Asia this means Japan, Thailand, the Philippines and so on)

Don't forget SEATO was dissolved in 1977, and was never really an effective security alliance anyway. There really wasn't much common ground, and it was difficult to get the Atlantic powers like the UK and France interested in something they didn't feel was very relevant to them.
It's questionable how much firepower would be devoted to the ex-SEATO countries simply because of that membership (there are other reasons they might get hit, of course).

 

[Cockroach]

The Gulf Steam could stop, but the basic physics favouring it are still srong even if the water cools. The current might weakens, but this is already happening on a yearly basis naturally as thermohaline circulation is far from a stable process.

Actually, it's possible that a cooler Arctic (more ice formation therefore more cold dense and salty water therefore increased downwelling therefore increased transport northwards to compensate) may actually intensify that limb of the gloabl overturning circulation... Of cause, the time period for the effects of such a change to propergate back south will be in the order of years.

 

[Falkenburg]

This one's for Macragge. I'm imagining a work party toiling away, reclaiming arable land.

Falkenburg

 

[Sam R.]

Thanks very much, I'm glad you're enjoying it. I agree with your analysis on entertainment - whilst there'll probably be an artsy hardcore (for want of a better term) that produce realism-inspired stuff, I imagine that for a long time the popular culture is going to be a) fragmented and b) concerned with being as far away from what's going on as possible.

"…until dead. dead. dead," thundered the magistrate. The guilty party looked on blithely and uncaring. He had gotten out of London, with paints and board. He'd been fed by a "wealthy" friend, and had enough for the household he'd taken with him. He was a bit disappointed that he had to screw different canvases together to get the effects he'd wanted, but he'd managed. At first he was very angry that they might destroy his exhibition—but while he was held in prison[1] a minor royal instructed him that the chief head quarters had collected his paintings, and that they would be displayed in the planning rooms until the emergency had ended. When they'd shot Francis Bacon, his latest exhibition only ended up in a region command centre.

All in all, Lucien Freud thought be hung for subversive painting was a decent way to go.

* * *

yours,
Sam R.

[1] The second floor disabled toilet in a local council building. Freud was to be made an "example."

For some inspiration for "post-war" Bacon and Freud:
Bacon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Study_after_Velázquez's_Portrait_of_Pope_Innocent_X
Freud: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Freud,_girl-white-dog.jpg

 

[ivfl]

The target list for the US would be the USSR,Warsaw pact countries,North Korea,Cuba,Iran,Lybia,Syria,Nicaragua and Vietnam.Syria and Vietnam would be targeted because of the soviet navy bases there,Nicaragua because of the Sandinista left-wing government.Of course not all would be equally targeted Iran would possibly have only the capital and maybe a naval base destroyed.
For the Soviets the targeting list would be NATO with priority towards the US,France and Britain being nuclear powers,China, and in descending order Israel,Japan,South Korea,Australia,The Phillipines,New Zealand,plus all the neutrals in Europe and one or two on other continents like South Africa.
The chinese would have targeted the soviets,Taiwan,India and Vietnam.
Israel would have attacked Syria,Jordan,Egypt the peace treaty being ignored,Irak,maybe Iran and Lybia a couple of strikes in Lebanon as well.
Britan the USSR and Argentina the french only the USSR.

 

[informationfan]

The target list for the US would be the USSR,Warsaw pact countries,North Korea,Cuba,Iran,Lybia,Syria,Nicaragua and Vietnam.Syria and Vietnam would be targeted because of the soviet navy bases there,Nicaragua because of the Sandinista left-wing government.Of course not all would be equally targeted Iran would possibly have only the capital and maybe a naval base destroyed.
For the Soviets the targeting list would be NATO with priority towards the US,France and Britain being nuclear powers,China, and in descending order Israel,Japan,South Korea,Australia,The Phillipines,New Zealand,plus all the neutrals in Europe and one or two on other continents like South Africa.
The chinese would have targeted the soviets,Taiwan,India and Vietnam.
Israel would have attacked Syria,Jordan,Egypt the peace treaty being ignored,Irak,maybe Iran and Lybia a couple of strikes in Lebanon as well.
Britan the USSR and Argentina the french only the USSR.

well, as long as someone say that 500 hits (why only 500 for uk? at last uk had nukes directed to russia...) with fat 100k-1M-Bombs are not really an "ending" event it is difficult to discuss things

the russians had - in 1983 around 37.000 warheads... they can reach UK with a lot of em (the smaller ones, short ranged)

you can be sure that russia will give uk and its important areas big attention...

the basic understanding about ww3 is, that is not a war to be won - but to destroy the enemy.

the whole concept is "if you try to beat me, i kill you"... it worked. But this means, if you have WW3 it is game over... the overkill for ALL people was 10:1, some say 30:1... but this will not spread over all people but mostly the russians, the european, china, japan and the usa...

so - if someone make a plot about brasila struggeling for surviving... fine.
but writing about UK survive with "only" 20-30 million deaths and any future for a country is just asb.

how seriously some people here ignore any deadly facts about nuclear war, its consequences (10 nukes against london? you take 3 1-2M-Bombs and London is gone - for ever... cause the debris are really "hot") and especially the russian methods to kill european nuclear power plants to multiply the damage for these countries... is funny.

if the thread starter move it to 1962 it could work (even here the loss ratio is way higher).

about the 99% of the people... the destructions are really seriously and a lot people die by the consequences of the nuclear war in the next 2-10 years, many more die because the modern life is destroyed.

here we do not care about the nuclear winter - even if a lot people think this will happen - with deadly consequences also for countries not hit much by nuclear weapons.

modern people cannot - i repeat - cannot survive as a caspar hauser... at last 99% of them cannot. so basically 10% of the survivors have a mid term chance... but not long term.

 

[Bernard Woolley]

Actually what's funny is the 'facts' you have posted which are at odds with reality, but never mind.

Can you share the sources for your claims? Otherwise they are just opinons.

 

[Falkenburg]

I'm so far out of my depth when it comes to discussing the technicalities that I can't even see the bottom.
However, Information Fan, that won't stop me from observing that you are making some sweeping generalisations with no supporting sources.

This seriously undermines whatever points you're trying to make.
You are not coming across as credible without citing references, IMO.

Statements like "modern people cannot - i repeat - cannot survive as a caspar hauser... at last 99% of them cannot. so basically 10% of the survivors have a mid term chance... but not long term. "

Being charitable, I'm going to assume you're referring to the population of the UK ITTL when you say 'Modern people'?
Do you understand the actual living standards of that part of the population away from major urban areas at the time?

I grew up in the late Seventies and early Eighties and knew many families who regularly subsisted on what we would now deem to be starvation rations.
Days without food, lack of heat and light, ragged clothes, no indoor plumbing (pitiful violin music swells ).

Now that's just me. I consider myself fairly average, given my age and background.

My point is that my personal experience makes me scoff at the generalisations you make in this case, which creates a reluctance to lend credence to anything else you claim.

Providing references and sources would help clarify what informs the opinions expressed and assists me (and others) in determining what value to place on them.

This is one of the best written and most technically robust Time Lines I've come across.
Almost every major contributor has brought a depth of knowledge and a commitment to constructive engagement that is both impressive and daunting.

If you would play a similar role, references are essential.

Falkenburg