Protect and Survive: A Timeline

I suspect even if the Finns didn't resist (which is very unlikely) that the USSR would stomp all over them.

I wouldn't be surprised that either way that there were elements in the Soviet military as well as in the Politburo that would not want a repeat of '39 and '41 when their backs are turned during the fight against NATO.
 
The ones with enough decency to look guily aren´t the ones who deserve the real beatings.


I'll settle for the ones that receive the nervous glances from the guilty-looking ones then :D


(Either that, or beat the guilty-looking ones anyhow so they can explain who the real guilty ones are...)
 
I'll settle for the ones that receive the nervous glances from the guilty-looking ones then :D


(Either that, or beat the guilty-looking ones anyhow so they can explain who the real guilty ones are...)

It is either that or you "volunteer" them for the nastier duties that need being done and if they survive they not only get food and shelter, they get British citizenship.
 
XVIII - Suffer Little Children


Without a sound, the Doctor walks over to his desk and makes a note.

John Seventy-Seven.

Just catching up with this timeline, so apologies if this has already been addressed, but - is this saying he's dealt with 77 kids like this, or does it mean something else? Because I turned to my Bible after reading this and John 7:7 goes -

"The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that its works are evil."

Which seems way too appropriate to the situation to be a coincidence. The hairs stood up on the back of my neck anyway...
 

Macragge1

Banned
Just catching up with this timeline, so apologies if this has already been addressed, but - is this saying he's dealt with 77 kids like this, or does it mean something else? Because I turned to my Bible after reading this and John 7:7 goes -

"The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that its works are evil."

Which seems way too appropriate to the situation to be a coincidence. The hairs stood up on the back of my neck anyway...

Seriously? Fucking hell; I just chose the number 'cos it was nice and alliterative; that is an amazing coincidence though, thanks for pointing it out.
 
Just catching up with this timeline, so apologies if this has already been addressed, but - is this saying he's dealt with 77 kids like this, or does it mean something else? Because I turned to my Bible after reading this and John 7:7 goes -

"The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that its works are evil."

Which seems way too appropriate to the situation to be a coincidence. The hairs stood up on the back of my neck anyway...



holy shit.

mine too!
 
Which side would be China on? Some other timelines I have read have China siding against the Soviet Union. I don't know too much about Sino-Soviet relations, though.
 

Macragge1

Banned
Which side would be China on? Some other timelines I have read have China siding against the Soviet Union. I don't know too much about Sino-Soviet relations, though.

It is unclear whether China fired at the USSR first or visa versa, but a devastating exchange took place.

The UK and US also sent devices to known Chinese nuclear weapons sites in an attempt to deny attacks on HK or the Pacific Coast, Hawaii etc.
 
Just catching up with this timeline, so apologies if this has already been addressed, but - is this saying he's dealt with 77 kids like this, or does it mean something else? Because I turned to my Bible after reading this and John 7:7 goes -

"The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify that its works are evil."

Which seems way too appropriate to the situation to be a coincidence. The hairs stood up on the back of my neck anyway...

That is indeed a pretty spooky coincidence right there...

Regarding what side China might be on in the exchange (both sides?!), it seems to me that in that sort of scenario a lot of realpolitik would be expressed in actions if not in words. At least every nation on Earth would finally, truly know what the other (or at least the nuclear-armed) nations truly thought of them. A bit too late, it could be argued, but still...
 
I wonder if any micronations will see minor expansion in absence of a stable national government. It would be interesting if some towns come under de facto control of minor states for the remainder of the crisis.

...

Yes, I'm trying to find some happy and amusing events for this timeline. Everyone likes San Marino wank, right?
 
I wonder if any micronations will see minor expansion in absence of a stable national government. It would be interesting if some towns come under de facto control of minor states for the remainder of the crisis.

...

Yes, I'm trying to find some happy and amusing events for this timeline. Everyone likes San Marino wank, right?

If I were in charge of soviet missile forces, I'd save one for San Marino for the lulz.
 
I wonder if any micronations will see minor expansion in absence of a stable national government. It would be interesting if some towns come under de facto control of minor states for the remainder of the crisis.

...

Yes, I'm trying to find some happy and amusing events for this timeline. Everyone likes San Marino wank, right?

Oh, of course! ;)

I know that statistically they are unlikely to be very well represented in any given sample of survivors, but I can't help wondering whether certain longstanding nationalist/separatist movements in various parts of the world wouldn't regard a situation such as this as the perfect opportunity to build a new order of sorts...

And, er, yeah, me too, Dr Strangelove... If I were some Soviet nuclear strategist, I'd probably give Vatican City its very own SS-18 just so it could no longer claim to be the world's smallest nation-state or whatever. And I say that as a sometime Catholic... :D
 
Oh, of course! ;)

I know that statistically they are unlikely to be very well represented in any given sample of survivors, but I can't help wondering whether certain longstanding nationalist/separatist movements in various parts of the world wouldn't regard a situation such as this as the perfect opportunity to build a new order of sorts...

And, er, yeah, me too, Dr Strangelove... If I were some Soviet nuclear strategist, I'd probably give Vatican City its very own SS-18 just so it could no longer claim to be the world's smallest nation-state or whatever. And I say that as a sometime Catholic... :D

Well Vatican City likely still exists. It's just an uninhabitable, radioactive crater located in what use to be Rome. ;)

What remains of the Archives and Church leadership on the other hand are likely somewhere in Brazil though.
 
How many deaths

Are there any estimates about the number of deaths worldwide from the war?I imagine at the very least over 300 million, probably double or triple?
 

Sir Chaos

Banned
My uneducated guess would be, immediate deaths from nuking and those dying of immediately nuke-induced injuries would be around 200 million in Europe, 100 million in North America, 300 million in China, 100-200 million everywhere else put together. Let´s say 750 million all told, and I think that´s a low estimate.

Deaths from starvation, exposure and disease would probably be about twice that over the next few years.
 
^: What? I think the death toll would be at least one and a half billion. By 1983 a huge amount of people were urbanized, or at the very least lived in nukeworthy towns.
 
It all depends on what kind of targets received the most hits.Most targets hit would have been military in nature plus political targets(capitals and regional capitals).Both sides would have been primarily interested in eliminating the other sides ability to strike back.Of course most military targets are close to cities, the US at least has a habit of having major military bases close to cities:San Francisco,Norfolk,San diego,Fort Worth,Tampa,Dayton to name a few cities close to major military targets.I wonder if during the cold war people in the US where nervous about living so close to primary military targets like the residents of Colorado Springs.
 
(My first post here - be gentle!) : )

Of course most military targets are close to cities, the US at least has a habit of having major military bases close to cities:San Francisco,Norfolk,San diego,Fort Worth,Tampa,Dayton to name a few cities close to major military targets.I wonder if during the cold war people in the US where nervous about living so close to primary military targets like the residents of Colorado Springs.

I've always wondered myself at the propensity to place major bases close to urban areas. Of course, part of it stems from urban sprawl - when the bases were established, they all weren't necessarily close to city limits, but the city grew towards them over time. A lot of them were established before nuclear warfare became a concern, too.

Then there's the wisdom of situating our missile fields in the midst of the nation's breadbasket. Who the hell approved that? Sure, let's put them in the middle and upwind of our major agricultural areas, so if nuclear war ever does happen it'll subject those areas to high levels of radiation. That'll be sure to make any recovery that much easier - who needs grain and livestock anyway? :rolleyes:
 
Actually, it's worse than that. When the Trident was at sea in sufficient numbers, all the missile fields should have been decommissioned imo.
 
Top