Protect and Survive: A Timeline
- Thread starter Macragge1
- Start date
True. War will screw up most anyone to a point, really.
'By Dawn's Early Light' is a favorite of mine.
You get the impression that the only kind of people who wont be directly affected are people like hidden Amazon tribes and the like =/
At the risk of sounding like Steve Stirling, I would have thought the most likely targets for any NZ-bound bombs would be Auckland and Wellington, it's possible that South Island might escape. yes, they'd have to deal with refugees from the north, but if there's one thing NZ isn't short of it's food.
By the same logic (and again sounding like SMS...) but Tasmania is likely to be okay too, even if the mainland does take a few hits.
What about central America? I can see Panama getting hit with something big to close the canal, but would the Soviets really waste a bomb on the likes of Costa Rica or Guatemala?
Well, someone aimed at something in the South Atlantic. Whether it was the UK at Buenos Aires or Russia at the Falklands no-one knows...
I'm starting to be afraid to mention even the most remote corner of the world because I am afraid that Macragge1 should inform me that someone has seen fit to hit there as well with a few megatons
There were more than enough nuclear weapons in existence in the early to mid '80s for both sides to spare a few to use on minor countries. It was once observed on TBO.us that the Soviets planned to hit at the very least the capital cities of pretty much everybody.
I doubt any country has gotten off scott free.
I doubt any country has gotten off scott free.
Indeed, its actually logical.
For example,. hit the South American countries with a few each, that way they are concentrating on looking after themselves rather than helping the USA (which would have been likely if they'd been left untouched). Similarly, make sure any country even close to you is nuked so they wont come and do something to you when your busy recovering.
By MAD standards, its logical. After all, the USSR has more than enough weapons. And even the USA is going to spare some for regimes that are currently anti-america. The Middle east isnt going to be pretty.
Of the 'western' countries I'd expect Canada, Australia and NZ to be in the best state, as far as the survivors are concerned. Large, so while cities and military bases get nuked, the fallout covers a relatively small percentage of the land, able to feed themselves. The rural populations will be in pretty good shape (and while its heading into winter in the SH, at least there are plenty of sheep to eat
). They are so spread out, the rural areas are more used to looking after themselves than in places like Europe. The biggest problem is likely to be transport between the rural areas - supplies of aviation fuel will be an issue, as will petrol and diesel for trucks.While I like a lot of your story as you tell it, I couldn't put my finger on what was bugging me. You've managed to put my finger on it...The Last Ship was terrible about handwaving the annihilation of people on the US East Coast (even in a worst case scenario people would be able to survive), and was horrendous in its technical accuracy. For instance, it described Oscar-class submarines as carrying ICBMs tipped with MIRVs.
One thing you need to consider is that though the USSR had a lot of warheads, it does not have the capability of putting all of those warheads onto targets anywhere in the world. The idea that the UK would function in the manner you have suggested while the United States would completely lack governmental authority (though you haven't necessarily stated that, there's a complete lack of communication which implies the same) despite having a vastly greater surface area and a lower number of targetable warheads capable of being assigned to it (a few thousand is nothing to sneeze at, but results in less "carpeting" than in Britain) is ultimately a huge "meh" considering how interesting your discussion of the war's effect on Great Britain is.
While I like a lot of your story as you tell it, I couldn't put my finger on what was bugging me. You've managed to put my finger on it...The Last Ship was terrible about handwaving the annihilation of people on the US East Coast (even in a worst case scenario people would be able to survive), and was horrendous in its technical accuracy. For instance, it described Oscar-class submarines as carrying ICBMs tipped with MIRVs.
One thing you need to consider is that though the USSR had a lot of warheads, it does not have the capability of putting all of those warheads onto targets anywhere in the world. The idea that the UK would function in the manner you have suggested while the United States would completely lack governmental authority (though you haven't necessarily stated that, there's a complete lack of communication which implies the same) despite having a vastly greater surface area and a lower number of targetable warheads capable of being assigned to it (a few thousand is nothing to sneeze at, but results in less "carpeting" than in Britain) is ultimately a huge "meh" considering how interesting your discussion of the war's effect on Great Britain is.
One thing that would be different with the US is the huge amount of fallout caused by ground or even subsurface blasts. With a few exceptions, attacks on the UK would be airbursts - there simply arent that many big hard targets that need more.
The US is different - just the missile fields will require a lot of surface bursts, and it has a lot more deep haredened targets. So there will be a LOT more radioactive dust in the air after, and all that fallout from the missile fields is likely to dump in the East.
I'm starting to be afraid to mention even the most remote corner of the world because I am afraid that Macragge1 should inform me that someone has seen fit to hit there as well with a few megatons
He's probably making it up as he goes along: Ask him if East Podunk, Wyoming, has been hit and he'll decide it has.
Macragge1
Banned
Thanks for the comments;
I've definitely exercised a lot of vagueness with regards to the Continental US - a lot of this stems from the fact that, when I started this timeline, I literally expected to write one line about the country having been 'effectively wiped out'. Given the amount of interest in how America had got on (something that I should have prepared for given the amount of Americans on the board), I sort of decided to work in the American story around the British one.
The key reason for my postulation that there's no communications coming out of America is, in honesty, as much out of poetic license as anything. If, in the narrative, there were communications between the two powers, I'd have an excuse to simply type out a telex-style list of city names and casualty figures - the idea of the Prospero storyline was to inject a sort of darker Boys' Own style adventure to counteract the main narrative which is fairly centred upon the North East Region of England. The vagueness also allowed for a bit of stalling on my part which let me keep the momentum up whilst brushing up on American defense plans etc which hopefully will make that part of the story more exciting.
It's entirely the fault of my vagueness that I've led you to believe that there's no governmental authority in the USA - I can assure you now that that isn't the case - the country has been very, very badly damaged, as has Britain, but its status is closer to Britain's in Protect and Survive than Planet of the Apes. The differences will come mostly thanks to the vast, vast size of the USA compared to our tiny island and how planners over there planned to deal with such a crisis.
Again, thanks for bringing those issues up and letting me try and explain a bit about how my TL's panning out as it is.
Last edited:
Macragge1
Banned
He's probably making it up as he goes along: Ask him if East Podunk, Wyoming, has been hit and he'll decide it has.
That's half the fun of it
The thing about America as well is that while there will be a government, and it will have some control, there are presumably going to be some non-government groups that have de facto control over small areas. I'm thinking of survivalist cults and the like. How long these small de facto states last is interesting to me.
One big difference between the UK and US you will have to consider is the tradition of local governments having power. That means in a lot of places the de facto authority will be the governor of the state or whoever is next in line and survives. (I am assuming that the Soviets hit most if not all the state capitals. Which would kill most of the Governors and the successors and a good number of state legislators)
In some places mayors or county sheriffs could possibly be in charge. Theoretically in surviving areas of New England town councils might be ruling as there has been some sort of tradition of town meetings there a la Nantucket in ISOT.
And besides in some parts of the country people are either really isolated even in the best of times here in 2010. And in many parts of America the Federal Government isn't too popular to begin with, so I only can imagine how low the opinion of the Feds sinks after a nuclear attack.
Furthermore the majority of our ICBM fields were located on the Great Plains, where a lot of food is grown along with several of our important B-52 bases. So some of our best farmland is radioactive or is covered in radioactive dust. Our oil fields in Texas and Alaska are most likely still burning. Our coal producing regions are saturated with fallout.
Another huge factor would be all the heavily armed anti-government survivalists who could see their ranks swell if they control the local food supplies in certain areas. As you have already demonstrated desperate hungry people will do almost anything for a meal.
In some places mayors or county sheriffs could possibly be in charge. Theoretically in surviving areas of New England town councils might be ruling as there has been some sort of tradition of town meetings there a la Nantucket in ISOT.
And besides in some parts of the country people are either really isolated even in the best of times here in 2010. And in many parts of America the Federal Government isn't too popular to begin with, so I only can imagine how low the opinion of the Feds sinks after a nuclear attack.
Furthermore the majority of our ICBM fields were located on the Great Plains, where a lot of food is grown along with several of our important B-52 bases. So some of our best farmland is radioactive or is covered in radioactive dust. Our oil fields in Texas and Alaska are most likely still burning. Our coal producing regions are saturated with fallout.
Another huge factor would be all the heavily armed anti-government survivalists who could see their ranks swell if they control the local food supplies in certain areas. As you have already demonstrated desperate hungry people will do almost anything for a meal.
Yeah, as I said, there are probably at least one or two de facto nations run by those groups. The big problem for any US state or federal government that remains is how the hell do you deal with those groups?
Well they can copy the British governments policy, which seems to be to kill every man, woman and child that opposes there rule.