I’d say that effect is closer to being a staple of apocalypse fiction than “not explored”.
Also has a big ass oil industry. So nice of Americans to put economic and military targets close together. I gather the Russian warplan is codenamed “Fuck North Dakota”?
The Russians have enough nukes that their warplan is more likely codenamed “Fuck North America, and Western Europe, Japan, South Korea, and Australia just for good measure”
There really aren’t a lot of those. At least those with a reasonable amount of human inhabitation. Problem is if there are humans than likely a target nearby. Point is, you are missing the point. 
Which is why those “isolated” communities won’t fare well. Modern transportation is what has permitted them to live out in Bumfuck, Whateverland. Every few weeks or months they go and obtain supplies. Considering even in a smallish exchange, the transportation and electrical infrastructure is likely to be fucked.
Do you imagine that large cities are somehow less dependent on modern transportation?
Who do you think starves first in this scenario: the farmer and his neighbors or the urban apartment dwellers?
Even if (in the unlikely event) an Indo-Pak nuclear exchange is contained, there will be major global effects. The Sub-Continent is one of the Planet’s breadbaskets. And once the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor is fully setup late next decade, then it will have global economic effects.
Note I said “contained”. Most every knowledgeable person I have spoken to fully expects China and possibly the Gulf States to get involved (Pakistan has some pretty significant military infrastuture in the latter and India will probably target the former). That happens then we are look at a General Nuclear War, possibly within hours.
I don’t know who you’ve talked to, but I have a hard time seeing how an Indo-Paki nuclear exchange leads to “general nuclear war”. Who would nuke the USA in this case? Why the hell would they do that? Who would the USA nuke? Why would we do that? Same questions for the UK, France, Russia, Israel, etc. I don’t see why someone who is already facing some nuked cities would decide to go incite another uninvolved country with their own nuclear arsenal.
Really? Name one movie, TV series, or book where city people invade, say, West Virginia and get in a war with the locals over hunting game after the “end” of the world.
The farmer. Who lives in a much less populated place. Most of whose produce is sold and whose actual food consists of grocery store food like ours. Who can no longer transport produce to market? Who no longer has electricity to run tube wells and pumps. Or fuel to run farm machinery. Or the ability to get new seeds, fertiliser and pesticides? Or feed for animals.
The urban apartment dweller, if he survives, probably because the nuke targeting his city malfunctioned, will have people nearby with whom he can barter stuff. Unlike the farmer who might have to walk miles to the neighbouring farm.
Both of the guys are fucked. But fucked in different ways.
:rolleyes:
Dude, read a bit about the world outside your own country.
China is intimately involved in the region. It has actual disputes with India, including a major faceoff this year and is a major ally of Pakistan.
If there has been an exchange, there very little for Indian leaders to lose by not targeting China. If they don’t hit them there is a very real possibility that the Chinese will move into the disputed areas as well as into Assam and Nepal. And of course the Chinese might assist Pakistan. Pardhan Mantriji, we hit China. No General sahib, we will get nuked, wait a minute did we not just get nuked? Ok do it. And once China starts absorbing multiple strikes, it has its own disputes with its other neighbours to worry about… which would lead to worry about them moving against a weakened China…
“One Year After” by William R. Forstchen. City people invade a rural community in North Carolina, and the dispute is largely over food, if not specifically “hunting game”.
You must have missed it. I specifically did NOT ask about China because I could see a plausible scenario or two where they get involved. Once again, here’s the list of countries I asked about: USA, UK, France, Russia, Israel.
Really, who the fuck would says “oh, it’s a shitty day, some nukes fell on some of our cities, so let’s just go out with a bang and nuke USA / Russia”?
I screwed this up. It was “One Second After”. Same author.
Posse = city folks
This is a good thread because I grew up around nuclear facilities that were guaranteed first strikes in the 70s and 80s and you wanted to go quickly. I never thought much about EMP, that’s like a First World Post-Apocalyptic Problem if your Plan A is getting vaporized, but back then it would have been part of an exchange of thousands of missiles, the real end of the world. Now it’s one missile on a homebrew launch system and we’re talking more about EMP than Armageddon.
I realize the world is a lot more technological now than it was in the 1950s, but with the blasts so close to Las Vegas and main power lines, is there data on how disruptive a nuclear EMP acutually is? I’ve seen hysterical reporting on one side that a decent airburst would plunge half of North America into a dark age; others say you don’t want to be in the same zip code as the explosion but you might only have to reboot your phone if you’re 50 miles out or whatever. Is there any consensus one way or another from atmospheric tesxts what the EMPs alctually do?
No.
To take just a “small-scale” example, let’s say three nuclear bombs were somehow detonated by terrorists, in NY, DC, and LA. Not only has the federal government been decimated, but FAR more importantly, there are millions of people without access to food, water, and utilities like electricity and refrigeration, to say nothing of the astronomical number of living casualties who need medical attention. The full resources of the federal government, including the National Guard of every single state, would be unable to cope with the situation in ONE of those cities, let alone three of them.
In the meantime, the state and local governments of every state and every city in the country are frantically scrambling to figure out what to do, how to maintain order, who to answer to, etc. The economic collapse caused by the attacks would result in widespread civil unrest. Mobs of people would be rioting all over the place. Civilization would revert to a Hobbesian nightmare.
Everyone should watch the movie “Threads.” This is the most accurate portrayal of the aftermath of nuclear war that I’ve ever seen. Now, in this movie, the perspective is mostly on cities in the UK that were directly hit with, or near the impact of, nuclear bombs. But the riots over food, the civil unrest, the inability of local authorities to manage the situation, would apply even in places that were far from the bombings.
To take just a “small-scale” example, let’s say three nuclear bombs were somehow detonated by terrorists, in NY, DC, and LA. Not only has the federal government been decimated, but FAR more importantly, there are millions of people without access to food, water, and utilities like electricity and refrigeration, to say nothing of the astronomical number of living casualties who need medical attention. The full resources of the federal government, including the National Guard of every single state, would be unable to cope with the situation in ONE of those cities, let alone three of them.
In the meantime, the state and local governments of every state and every city in the country are frantically scrambling to figure out what to do, how to maintain order, who to answer to, etc. The economic collapse caused by the attacks would result in widespread civil unrest. Mobs of people would be rioting all over the place. Civilization would revert to a Hobbesian nightmare.
Everyone should watch the movie “Threads.” This is the most accurate portrayal of the aftermath of nuclear war that I’ve ever seen. Now, in this movie, the perspective is mostly on cities in the UK that were directly hit with, or near the impact of, nuclear bombs. But the riots over food, the civil unrest, the inability of local authorities to manage the situation, would apply even in places that were far from the bombings.
So, China which has just absorbed dozens of nuclear strikes on its economic targets from India. (not just “some nukes”). Its surrounded to its East with countries which it hates and has current disputes with. And historical animosity. And heavily armed and ready to go armed forces.
So China is going to say; “ookaaay dudes, just gonna lie down for a few decades here, we good?”. Or everyone else is going to say “lets not expand at China’s expense they are really beat down now, won’t be fair”? Are the Chinese going to wait and see if their neighbours get aggressive. What would the US do in such a scenario, if they beleieve a Chinese attack is imminent in the far East. The US just also signed a logistics agreement with India. How happy/stable is the US about its personnel who just became collateral damage? And of course the Chinese also have a base in Djibouti, which presumably has also been hit. So sad about the American base nearby
Ignore China. India has developed Chabhar Port in Iran for use as a base, and operates/probably has usage rights of an Air base in Tajikistan. You think Pakistan is going to spare those, why? The latter even has a full-time Russian presence. Pakistan has fairly significant military presence in Saudi Arabia. India is going to let them go, cause, why?
There is a reason why everyone jumps in to diffuse Indo-Pak tensions, and its not altruistic purposes. International relations is a multi-dimensional chessboard.What happens in one area, affects another area. In 1914, the assassination of an Austrian ArchDuke by a Serbian nutcase, led six weeks later to British troops fighting German ones in Belgium. The world is a lot more interconnected today. Only the region we are talking about has nukes and ballistic missiles. Maybe it would remained contained. Maybe not. What keeps the peace there is the fact, nobody is particularly interested in finding out.
the novel On the Beach is about Australia after a nuclear war. They were not hit but they know the radiation is drifting their way to wipe them out.
It depends on the farmer. Most farmers will be hit pretty hard, but there will also be some who will be almost unaffected. I’m thinking especially of Amish and Mennonite communities who have deliberately made efforts to be independent and isolated from the rest of the world.