Post by Thorgrimm on Apr 22, 2017 15:42:34 GMT
I have always been of the opinion that games like Fallout were way too optimistic in its appraisal on how long it would take man to begin rebuilding his society and reclaim the wastelands that were his former home.
Below are my reasons why I think most post apoc games are too optimistic.
1) Most survivors would be country folk, not known for their technical acumen, survival yes, technological knowledge no.
2) Lack of medical care and medicines. After the bombs go off, the manufacture of medicine and the training of doctors would grind to a halt. Even if most of the cities were not touched, they would tear themselves apart as they rioted, and killed each other, for what medicines, food, and clean water was left. Then once that ran out, like a two-legged host of locusts, they would hit the countryside. Once there, how many city folk know how to hunt or fish? Much less how to build a shelter to protect themselves from the elements.
Then all these refugees from the cites have to urinate and excrete somewhere. All of this waste would build up, and then you would have outbreaks of cholera and other diseases. Modern man has come to rely on medicines to cure him of disease, and in the process has weakened his own immune system. All those so called 'conquered' diseases would reappear, and would be even more lethal as the survivors would have no way to combat them with a weakened immune system.
Then all those bodies begin to pile up and decompose, while other, and more deadly, diseases carried by the vermin attracted to those rotting corpses would begin to spread, accelerating the death toll in a snowball rolling down hill effect. I firmly believe that after a nuclear war 95% of the human species would be dead from the exchanges and it's aftermath, although only 15 to 20 percent of the deaths would be from the actual exchange itself, and the rest from the resulting breakdown of man's infrastructure.
3) Keeping the 95% death toll that would leave out of say 350 million Americans about 17.5 million alive. Now remember this number would be spread across the entire continent in small groups, not clustered together in one spot.
Now lets go to the thing that would keep us alive as a species, procreation. The infant mortality rate from disease, mutations, and just the lack of medical care, would cause it to rise to about 35 to 40%, or higher. Add in the death rate of mother's dying in childbirth of about 15 to 20%. Now, lets add in the death rate from cancer and other radiation induced melanomas. Then add in the 'normal' death rate for accidents and such in a post apoc world. Keep in mind that no more doctors, or medicines, to heal even the slightest of infections. So in this type of situation, even the smallest cut could eventually lead to death. Life in the wastelands is not easy and it is not looking good for the home team.
Example:
Lets keep the 95% death rate in six months after the exchange from all sorts of nastiness, In the US say it has a pop of 350 million before the exchange, six months after it would have a pop of 17.5 million. Not all grouped, but spread out all across the continent.
Now, that 17.5 million will then have to contend with the process of survival, which includes procreation. Now, lets take a look at this. For any chance of survival you have to drastically increase the birth rate. How many western women would bow to the idea of becoming breeding machines that never leave the home again because they are too important to the birth process? Not many that I know of. THIS may doom the western world, their females may NOT be willing to do what is needed and the death rate may not be overcome.
However, in the third world and Asian nations, the baby factories would continue apace, and that may be the areas where man once more strides out to tame the wastes. All because their women were willing to do what was necessary to overcome the death rates.
4) Agriculture, or the lack of. Let's talk about the radioactive isotopes Strontium 90 and Cesium 143. Both, by themselves, are not the worst of the isotopes released in a nuclear blast. HOWEVER, they both have interesting properties that should concern us about agriculture. They both love to bind themselves to the nitrogen in the soil. Moreover, as you all know, plants get their nitrogen from the soil. So anything grown in that soil will have both of these carcinogens in it's tissue.
Now, let's look at how this affects agriculture. First and foremost is that ANY plants grown in that soil will be radioactive and kill it's consumer over time. Both of those isotopes have a relatively short half life compared to some of the more nastier isotopes given off in a nuclear blast, only about 200 years. A relatively short time period as radioactive isotopes go. That means for 200 years, NO farming will be done in that soil, period, unless you want to kill everyone that consumes that plant material.
As you also know, plants are the bottom of the food chain, and WILL be consumed by the wildlife and so on up the food chain. Now you are asking, what does that mean? Well it means humanity would have to abandon the areas that had fallout and head for areas that were passed by or missed. Abandoning most of the fertile and former living spaces for areas that could at least support scratch farming at the subsistence level. Moreover, this level of farming does not allow for any trade what so ever. Nature would reclaim it dominance in the areas abandoned by man. And as we can see around Chernobyl, the plant and wild life is flourishing in the areas we had to leave.
Another point I want to make is the process of bio-magnification. Bio-magnification is the build up of toxins through the food chain. For example, a bit of algae is 20% contaminated with whatever. The fish that eats its own body weight in algae a day, after a week, is now more than 20% contaminated by the same toxin. As you go further up the food chain, the contamination is now so severe that it kills. The algae and the fish that eats it may be OK, because for this toxin they might be able to resist up to 50% contamination, but what eats the fish, and what eats that, will be unhealthy because the toxin level is magnified as you go higher up the food chain.
Then lets not forget the nuclear strikes in the territories of those third world nations. And make no mistake, every nation on this planet has strategic targets in them, if for no other reason than to deny the resources to the enemy.
As for the third world nations, yes it could be debated that since they are third world nations, they would not fall as far. Just keep one thing in mind, can any of those third world nations feed their entire populations? If not, then what will happen to them when their imports of food and medicines begin to run out?
Also, how will a third world nation deal with the strontium and cesium build up in their soils? They would not, and in that would actually kill themselves off due to radiation poisoning.
One thing to remember is that the US, Canada, and Australia are the breadbaskets of the world. with them gone EVERY nation that relies on those countries for food imports WILL fall apart. Now what will happen when all those corpses begin to decay and the diseases begin to run rampant? We are not just saying one disease like Cholera alone, which by itself is devastating, but a whole host of bugs at the same time. I feel the third world will be hit just as hard as the first world nations.
As to Radioactive Fallout, in a full exchange between the nuclear powers there would be so much Fallout in the atmosphere that in a year, two at most, depending on the jet streams, every part of this planet would be irradiated.
BUT, and there always is a but, there is a slight bit of hope in this very dark and bleak outlook. Strontium and Cesium irradiated soil, once detected, can be stripped, as the two isotopes do not penetrate more than six inches into the soil.
So once the fallout in the atmosphere has settled, it can be scraped away and small plots of land returned to food production. Then some doctors will survive and possibly, just possibly, small groups of humans will survive the fall and after a few centuries may begin to flourish once again. It would be a long shot, but it is possible.
I think that most folks ignore the impossibility of agriculture at all, in Strontium and Cesium laced soil. If anybody tried to grow plants in that soil, they would be dead within months of ingesting that food. Truth be told, due to Fallout patterns and the population density of the US, I think only a couple of million would survive.
As for the strikes themselves, instead of one one warhead, the nuclear powers use MIRVs, Multiple Independently targeted Re-entry Vehicles, of 10 100 Kiloton warheads. The benefit of such a vehicle is to spread the damage over a wider area. So instead of just the center of a city having the snot blown out of it, the ENTIRE city would be blown to hell as the ten warheads are spread out to the extent of where their blast radii's overlap and create even worse damage patterns.
One thing people MUST remember, the warhead size in mega-tonnage no longer MATTERS, it is the number of warheads. As in the above example, those ten 100 kiloton warheads would do FAR MORE damage than one one megaton warhead. The larger warheads are for silo and bunker busting.
I still feel that most people who look at this extremely disturbing subject fail, through either not knowing or not wanting to, know what most of the isotopes do in their interaction with the environment. Most concentrate on the lethiality of the more nastier isotopes and do not care about the lesser lasting isotopes. Even though those isotopes such as Strontium and Cesium are more relevant to the survival of the human species due to their affect on agriculture.
Food, and procreation are THE major factors in the survival of a species. For if the death rate is higher than the birth rate, the species is riding the abyss on the edge of extinction.
All of these points I have raised are the reasons why, in my opinion, man would not even begin to be able to expand until more fertile areas could be reclaimed once the strontium and cesium irradiated soil became usable once again. Moreover, without farming you are a hunter-gatherer nomadic people, not known for their technical expertise.
Survival and not education, or even teaching your progeny to read, would be the overwhelming and ONLY thing on your mind. Where your next meal or drink of clean, radiation free water would come from would be more important than trying to learn how to read.
Hell, in the scenario I have described, there would be a good chance mankind would become extinct, not expand, because of the high mortality rates of infants and mothers. A truly sad state of affairs. Moreover, if we did expand once again, I truly believe it would be centuries, not decades, before we even began to try.
What does everybody else think would happen in a nuclear war?
Thank you all for listening to the ravings of a mad man. :-)
Cheers, Thor
Below are my reasons why I think most post apoc games are too optimistic.
1) Most survivors would be country folk, not known for their technical acumen, survival yes, technological knowledge no.
2) Lack of medical care and medicines. After the bombs go off, the manufacture of medicine and the training of doctors would grind to a halt. Even if most of the cities were not touched, they would tear themselves apart as they rioted, and killed each other, for what medicines, food, and clean water was left. Then once that ran out, like a two-legged host of locusts, they would hit the countryside. Once there, how many city folk know how to hunt or fish? Much less how to build a shelter to protect themselves from the elements.
Then all these refugees from the cites have to urinate and excrete somewhere. All of this waste would build up, and then you would have outbreaks of cholera and other diseases. Modern man has come to rely on medicines to cure him of disease, and in the process has weakened his own immune system. All those so called 'conquered' diseases would reappear, and would be even more lethal as the survivors would have no way to combat them with a weakened immune system.
Then all those bodies begin to pile up and decompose, while other, and more deadly, diseases carried by the vermin attracted to those rotting corpses would begin to spread, accelerating the death toll in a snowball rolling down hill effect. I firmly believe that after a nuclear war 95% of the human species would be dead from the exchanges and it's aftermath, although only 15 to 20 percent of the deaths would be from the actual exchange itself, and the rest from the resulting breakdown of man's infrastructure.
3) Keeping the 95% death toll that would leave out of say 350 million Americans about 17.5 million alive. Now remember this number would be spread across the entire continent in small groups, not clustered together in one spot.
Now lets go to the thing that would keep us alive as a species, procreation. The infant mortality rate from disease, mutations, and just the lack of medical care, would cause it to rise to about 35 to 40%, or higher. Add in the death rate of mother's dying in childbirth of about 15 to 20%. Now, lets add in the death rate from cancer and other radiation induced melanomas. Then add in the 'normal' death rate for accidents and such in a post apoc world. Keep in mind that no more doctors, or medicines, to heal even the slightest of infections. So in this type of situation, even the smallest cut could eventually lead to death. Life in the wastelands is not easy and it is not looking good for the home team.
Example:
Lets keep the 95% death rate in six months after the exchange from all sorts of nastiness, In the US say it has a pop of 350 million before the exchange, six months after it would have a pop of 17.5 million. Not all grouped, but spread out all across the continent.
Now, that 17.5 million will then have to contend with the process of survival, which includes procreation. Now, lets take a look at this. For any chance of survival you have to drastically increase the birth rate. How many western women would bow to the idea of becoming breeding machines that never leave the home again because they are too important to the birth process? Not many that I know of. THIS may doom the western world, their females may NOT be willing to do what is needed and the death rate may not be overcome.
However, in the third world and Asian nations, the baby factories would continue apace, and that may be the areas where man once more strides out to tame the wastes. All because their women were willing to do what was necessary to overcome the death rates.
4) Agriculture, or the lack of. Let's talk about the radioactive isotopes Strontium 90 and Cesium 143. Both, by themselves, are not the worst of the isotopes released in a nuclear blast. HOWEVER, they both have interesting properties that should concern us about agriculture. They both love to bind themselves to the nitrogen in the soil. Moreover, as you all know, plants get their nitrogen from the soil. So anything grown in that soil will have both of these carcinogens in it's tissue.
Now, let's look at how this affects agriculture. First and foremost is that ANY plants grown in that soil will be radioactive and kill it's consumer over time. Both of those isotopes have a relatively short half life compared to some of the more nastier isotopes given off in a nuclear blast, only about 200 years. A relatively short time period as radioactive isotopes go. That means for 200 years, NO farming will be done in that soil, period, unless you want to kill everyone that consumes that plant material.
As you also know, plants are the bottom of the food chain, and WILL be consumed by the wildlife and so on up the food chain. Now you are asking, what does that mean? Well it means humanity would have to abandon the areas that had fallout and head for areas that were passed by or missed. Abandoning most of the fertile and former living spaces for areas that could at least support scratch farming at the subsistence level. Moreover, this level of farming does not allow for any trade what so ever. Nature would reclaim it dominance in the areas abandoned by man. And as we can see around Chernobyl, the plant and wild life is flourishing in the areas we had to leave.
Another point I want to make is the process of bio-magnification. Bio-magnification is the build up of toxins through the food chain. For example, a bit of algae is 20% contaminated with whatever. The fish that eats its own body weight in algae a day, after a week, is now more than 20% contaminated by the same toxin. As you go further up the food chain, the contamination is now so severe that it kills. The algae and the fish that eats it may be OK, because for this toxin they might be able to resist up to 50% contamination, but what eats the fish, and what eats that, will be unhealthy because the toxin level is magnified as you go higher up the food chain.
Then lets not forget the nuclear strikes in the territories of those third world nations. And make no mistake, every nation on this planet has strategic targets in them, if for no other reason than to deny the resources to the enemy.
As for the third world nations, yes it could be debated that since they are third world nations, they would not fall as far. Just keep one thing in mind, can any of those third world nations feed their entire populations? If not, then what will happen to them when their imports of food and medicines begin to run out?
Also, how will a third world nation deal with the strontium and cesium build up in their soils? They would not, and in that would actually kill themselves off due to radiation poisoning.
One thing to remember is that the US, Canada, and Australia are the breadbaskets of the world. with them gone EVERY nation that relies on those countries for food imports WILL fall apart. Now what will happen when all those corpses begin to decay and the diseases begin to run rampant? We are not just saying one disease like Cholera alone, which by itself is devastating, but a whole host of bugs at the same time. I feel the third world will be hit just as hard as the first world nations.
As to Radioactive Fallout, in a full exchange between the nuclear powers there would be so much Fallout in the atmosphere that in a year, two at most, depending on the jet streams, every part of this planet would be irradiated.
BUT, and there always is a but, there is a slight bit of hope in this very dark and bleak outlook. Strontium and Cesium irradiated soil, once detected, can be stripped, as the two isotopes do not penetrate more than six inches into the soil.
So once the fallout in the atmosphere has settled, it can be scraped away and small plots of land returned to food production. Then some doctors will survive and possibly, just possibly, small groups of humans will survive the fall and after a few centuries may begin to flourish once again. It would be a long shot, but it is possible.
I think that most folks ignore the impossibility of agriculture at all, in Strontium and Cesium laced soil. If anybody tried to grow plants in that soil, they would be dead within months of ingesting that food. Truth be told, due to Fallout patterns and the population density of the US, I think only a couple of million would survive.
As for the strikes themselves, instead of one one warhead, the nuclear powers use MIRVs, Multiple Independently targeted Re-entry Vehicles, of 10 100 Kiloton warheads. The benefit of such a vehicle is to spread the damage over a wider area. So instead of just the center of a city having the snot blown out of it, the ENTIRE city would be blown to hell as the ten warheads are spread out to the extent of where their blast radii's overlap and create even worse damage patterns.
One thing people MUST remember, the warhead size in mega-tonnage no longer MATTERS, it is the number of warheads. As in the above example, those ten 100 kiloton warheads would do FAR MORE damage than one one megaton warhead. The larger warheads are for silo and bunker busting.
I still feel that most people who look at this extremely disturbing subject fail, through either not knowing or not wanting to, know what most of the isotopes do in their interaction with the environment. Most concentrate on the lethiality of the more nastier isotopes and do not care about the lesser lasting isotopes. Even though those isotopes such as Strontium and Cesium are more relevant to the survival of the human species due to their affect on agriculture.
Food, and procreation are THE major factors in the survival of a species. For if the death rate is higher than the birth rate, the species is riding the abyss on the edge of extinction.
All of these points I have raised are the reasons why, in my opinion, man would not even begin to be able to expand until more fertile areas could be reclaimed once the strontium and cesium irradiated soil became usable once again. Moreover, without farming you are a hunter-gatherer nomadic people, not known for their technical expertise.
Survival and not education, or even teaching your progeny to read, would be the overwhelming and ONLY thing on your mind. Where your next meal or drink of clean, radiation free water would come from would be more important than trying to learn how to read.
Hell, in the scenario I have described, there would be a good chance mankind would become extinct, not expand, because of the high mortality rates of infants and mothers. A truly sad state of affairs. Moreover, if we did expand once again, I truly believe it would be centuries, not decades, before we even began to try.
What does everybody else think would happen in a nuclear war?
Thank you all for listening to the ravings of a mad man. :-)
Cheers, Thor
