For those you who mentioned farmers, do you think the effects of a nuclear winter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter would seriously hamper their ability to survive? The first winter after a nuclear strike would probably kill off a lot of people in Canada and the United States. It would likely be the harshest winter in decades.
A detailed reading of the article indicates the classic “nuclear winter” abject disaster scenario is probably a gross exaggeration.
The collapse of modern economic farming will doom the vast majority. The subsistence farmers won’t be having bumper crops, but of all the stuff they have to worry about, I’d put nuclear “winter” down around number 12.
YMMV; nobody knows for sure. At least not in public. It seems the major debate centers on questions we don’t have data for: How do 20th & 21st century cities burn?
Yup. Mormons love their preps.
With or without a “nuclear winter” I still think the first winter after a major nuclear strike will kill off a good number of people in Canada and the United States, particularly if the transportation infrastructure is damaged. Most people won’t have fuel to heat their houses and with food shortages abundant, it will result in a lot of hardship and death. This would be exacerbated further if the strike was in the fall or start of winter because it wouldn’t give people much time to prepare for the coming winter.
Yes. Looking at the US County with the largest population of Amish, Lancaster county; Pennsylvania, the place seems to have industry, a railway hub and an airport. Chances are it gets at least some love from the Motherland.
Holmes County, in Ohio also has a large population and they seem not to have targetable industry or transportation/communications infrastruture.
The airport isn’t exactly a central pillar to the functioning of the Amish community.
Just did a test of a single Russian “Topol” Warhead (800KT) detonating on Lancaster. 100,000 dead. 100,000 wounded. Several Amish communities seem to be in the 5 PSI (house gets destroyed) to 1.5 PSI (glass breaks and loose objects start flying allm over). Plus also within the "50% chance of a severa burn range.
Thats not even counting the fact that Philadelphia and Baltimore are not too far away; and will each probably absorb multiple strikes.
Holmes County seems to do better, “only” 7,000 killed and 12,000 wounded. Unlikely they’ll be targeted. But they are almost equidistant from Columbus, Cleveland and Pittsburgh, about 120 km (80 miles) and Cincinnati, Indianapolis are not much further away. In addition, the place is smakc in the middle of a 500 km (300 miles) radius filled with medium to larger sized Metro areas and industrial zones, like Buffalo, Chicago, all of which will see multiple strikes.
How exactly are the Amish supposed to survive here?
I hope it’s the Amish and Mennonites - they’re total pacifists, so won’t put up any resistance to my rampaging horde!
Folks seem to be of the impression that Amish/Mennonite communities exist only in Lancaster Pa and other well known tourist locations, ONLY near to assumed, quasi-official nuclear strike sites. Contrary to this, **They are everywhere! **… Well, almost.
Nobody expects the Amish Inquisition.
Nuke the planet from orbit, it’s the only way to be sure.
It seems that the perfect place to ride out a US nuclear disaster is Durango, CO. They have surface water, abundant forests, farming and hunting, large amounts of shallow coal and natural gas and even when I dropped a 100 MT warhead on their closest neighbor they were barely in the 50% burn ring and that doesn’t account for the 1,100’ of elevation gain between the two. There are no military bases or major transportation hubs.
If the nuclear armageddon happened in the summer when the crops were already planted but before the food had been sold and shipped out they’d probably survive if for no other reasons the hoards from New Mexico and the Front Range would probably die long before they made it there so the only concern would be keeping the local systems running. Depending on the time of year the main problems would be food and power. Food is solvable unless either the new seeds haven’t shown up or the current crops are all hauled off. There would certainly be foraging and hunting to supplement but even the fishing could be useful. They’d need about 5 square miles under cultivation to feed everyone.
Power is the much bigger concern.There are some local solar and hydro installments but most power comes from the largest power plant in New Mexico but it’s a likely target and it’s 60 miles away so maintaining both the plan and the lines would probably be out of the capabilities. That means we’re talking about no electricity and heat needs to be generated by direct burning that tough in a place that gets below 0 in the winter. Daming the Animas and putting in hydroelectric is probably the best solution but I have no idea how you do that after everything is destroyed.
Yes, it is.
The Amish aren’t anti-technology. They use pesticides, fertilizers, fuel oil, gasoline, and, of course, medicines and medical technology.
And the local region doesn’t produce any such things. To quote someone else with a knowledge of the economics of rural regions:
Rural areas are economically passive, making nothing of their own, simply exporting raw materials and importing finished goods. The Amish are as tied into the global economy as everyone else.
Hordes. It’s “ravaging hordes”. Sorry, it’s been bothering me. A hoard is a hidden cache of goodies.
There are things that rural areas mostly don’t make and must import, and there are things that urban areas mostly don’t make and must import. But the things the rural areas import, you can do without for a lot longer than the things the urban areas import. A farmer will have a lot easier time making his own plow than an ubanite will have making his own corn. And farmers certainly already produce their own fertilizers, and many of them their own oil, too.
I would imagine that the USA would be amenable to backing Israel if necessary against Iran. I have trouble imagining India going after China after a war with Pakistan (Or China going after India). My impression - not an expert - is that China has an absolutely massive conventional army, likely not much of it concentrated in convenient targets. If attacked by India, expect that army to march west. If not attacked, I assume they would simply do a few aggressive maneuvers (like their recent road-building ear the border) to remind struggling India who’s got the upper hand now, and possibly resupply Pakistan (as the USA did to Israel during their wars). Neither side wants an all-out shooting war, and I don’t know the relative arsenals, but I’m going to guess India has quite a few more nuclear weapons than Pakistan and China has even more than India. Similarly, China is not about to invite Japan or Korea (or Russia, or Taiwan) to attack by weakening itself with direct unprovoked attacks.
Is the south Asian subcontinent really such a massive food producer that the rest of the world would suffer if it went off-line? My impression is that the opposite effect would happen - only the area itself would crash, and an untouched world would probably hasten to help - so your best bet would be to live near a port that did not get bombed.
The biggest question is how big an all-out nuclear war? It seems to me at least for now, the scenario “they could launch a sneak attack at any time” mentality has disappeared, because Russia - even in its current state - is far far more open than it ever was before 1989. There is not a weird and unknown force at work on the “other side”. IIRC we no longer have air wings and missile subs in large numbers constantly on mission to induce similar paranoia on the other side. Similarly, START and other treaties have significantly (allegedly) reduced the total nuclear arsenal, which IIRC at its peak was 20,000 or more. Would the initial exchange in a heated situation be an all-out barrage or a tit-for-tat exchange?
Even in the early days - read if you can find it, Pat Frank’s “Alas Babylon” where he details the effect of a small Florida community after a nuclear exchange. Toward the end of the cold war, the “On the Beach” scenario was more likely - completely life-destroying nuclear haze slowly working its way into every corner of the globe.
Numerous “after the bomb” novels of the 60’s and 70’s suggested roving gangs. While guns and ammunition (and fuel) are still obtainable, and law enforcement may not be up to the task of containing armed gangs. they may not dress like Max Max extras, but certainly when law enforcement is absent, you have only to look at any of the chaos from Beirut in the 70’s to Iraq and Syria nowadays to see what happens when people know there is no police coming to get them.
We are far too dependent on technology. Even today’s farms don’t run without diesel. Fortunately, many farms have large tanks of diesel then they can ration. But many operations also depend on electricity, as do all urban inhabitants. So the question is whether the attack targeted industrial infrastructure - especially oil refineries. If not, perhaps the US military could eventually round up the necessary troops and irregulars (a well regulated militia) to impose order. But then, those troops will come in and commandeer that farmer’s diesel supply to themselves.
Urban dwellers - depends again how bad everything is hit. Somewhere there’s a year’s supply of grain spread among assorted storage facilities; hope you live near one, and hope local power plants can keep running to run the mills and the bakeries. And most of all, hope some army base nearby steps in and guarantees law and order. It seems to me that an urban center would be a lot safer with regular patrols with shoot-to-kill-looters orders would be safer than living isolated in the countryside. But, the same rules apply; if you have something vital to social reconstruction the army will come and take it - your supply of car parts, tires, computers, etc.
Another interesting question is what documentation survives? When 9/11 happened, Cantor Fitzgerald had offices high in one of the towers. Fortunately they had built an automated backup site in New jersey, which kicked in not long after. Unfortunately, most of the techie who built their systems did not get out of the tower. Who has documentation of all the power lines, fiber optic lines, switches, etc. if all the major cities evaporate? Without knowing what lines are what (or the passwords for the backbone routers) how do you get the phone and internet back up again? And so on… New Orleans was chaos for years after. Puerto Rico is going through the same thing… and those are just isolated areas. I suspect the first casualty of war would be civil liberties - the state will take what it needs for the good of the state to get the country back on its feet… and meanwhile, the people calling the shots won’t starve. And we haven’t even addresses all your money, which is electronic bytes in vaporised computers - no bank balance, no pensions or IRA’s, etc. etc.
Great post overall. Thank you. Ref the snip…
I recall reading an article (sorry no cite) on the population of horses in the US over time. Horses were a booming industry with a rapidly growing population up to about 1920 or 1925. Then the ICE vehicle in all its forms (car, truck, tractor, bulldozer, motorcycle, barge tow, etc.) arrived en masse. The horse population crashed to barely 10% of the peak within just a few years.
The relevance to this thread being that the widespread loss of diesel power would produce a desire to replay the crash of horse population in reverse. But faster. The current US human population is far more than it was in 1920, but the immediate post WWIII population would be a lot closer to 1920s numbers. Which implies a similar demand for horses. Shame about the supply.
Not to mention of course all the support industries that used to exist to supply horse stuff and would need to be recreated. Including the buggy whip makers much beloved of Econ 101 textbook writers.
Exceptions to the rule may have lead you to make these exaggerated conclusions that are essentially incorrect when kept in perspective.