I don’t think the population will be reduced to something like ten million. The great urban centers in the East and California will probably collapse but areas like the Pacifiic Northwest outside of Seattle and Portland or the rural South probably can maintain some semblance of order. Also in this situation most of the bank clerks, telephone sanitizers etc. will die at a higher proportional rate than farmers or soldiers or others with useful skills.
China is not a “tropical” country, “tropical” is not equivalent to “arable”, and China has far, far less arable land than the US (and always has).
I’d be careful about calling other people ignorant there, Punchy.
How are they going to do this in the face of hundreds of tens of millions of wandering refugees?
That’s a real problem. As the people in the cities start to starve they aren’t going to just sit there. They will move out over the countryside as they have in every other famine in history. Only now the city populations are much larger than at any other time and the road network so much better. Even on foot a person can walk across the whole continent in under six months.
Even if we restrict ourselves to refugees from within a thousand kilometres/two weeks walk, that still means the Northwest is going to be inundated by refugees from as far afield as Calgary, Salt Lake City and San Francisco, while the rural south, depending how you define that, will be taking in people from Washington and Mexico City.
Maintaining a semblance of order when the locals are outnumbered at least 20 to 1 by starving hordes is going to be tricky.
Uh, yeah, it is.
See that dotted line?. Do ya see it? That’s the tropic. Runs right through China.
Who ever said that?
Who ever said otherwise?
:rolleyes:
When someone starts telling me that China isn’t in the tropics, I feel pretty confident calling them ignorant.
When they then start making up shit that has never been mentioned in the thread, then I feel pretty confident calling them grossly ignorant.
Establish a cans-for-c---- program.
Yeah, you’ll eventually die too but might as well use up those ole cans of beets first.
Actually, they can’t and they won’t. When we rewrote our neighborhood plan this year, we were told by the city that their city disaster plan (earthquakes and volcanic activity) calls for all residents to be totally self-sufficient for a minimum of two weeks, preferably 30 calendar days. That means no assistance whatsoever from police, fire, official rescue units, etc., since they are already preoccupied with standing up the bureaucracy and the infrastructure.
So that means no utilities, no food, no protection, etc. Using the OPs premise here, we are totally on our own. One should expect the ignorant city dwellers go after each other, eventually spreading to the more rural (and often) more self-sufficient folks. Common sense and organization should win out in the end, but until that starts to happen, there will be lots of needless violence and deaths.
Given that I’m in (greater) China and that line is about 100 miles south of where I’m standing, I am aware of the Tropic of Cancer; and I’m aware that a miniscule percentage of China’s territory falls below it. By no stretch of the imagination does this make China a “tropical” country.
Hey, let’s look at this map of Saudi Arabia. Unlike China, the Tropic of Cancer really does “run right through it.” You gonna tell me that Saudi Arabia is a “tropical” country too?
You didn’t use the word “arable”, probably because you never heard it before. But you dismissed Lantern’s comparison of US population now and China’s 19th century population, with the implication that the latter was far better able to support its population (being one of those lush tropical countries over there in the Orient, dontchaknow.) If you weren’t implying that China as a whole has more productive agriculture than the US (which would have to mean more arable land), then what was your point?
And to flank your anticipated retreat into pedantry, here’s the definition of a tropical climate:
Given that Taiwan has been cold as fuck the past few days, I can assure you this is anything but a tropical clime. 
The reason China (China proper, not counting the outlying territories) had the greatest population density in the world is because China had the most productive farmland in the world.
You betcha - after I stop at Walmart for some looting, my next priority is going south. Too damned cold here without central heating.
That is exactly what it makes it. Here’s a clue for you
“relating to or situated in or characteristic of the tropics (the region on either side of the equator)”. Yep, that’s China. It’s situated in the Tropics.
Ah, yeah. Of course it is. 
What sort of crazy arsed definition of tropical are you using that excludes China and Saudi Arabia. And can we please see the source?
Yep, PhD in crop physiology and I’ve never heard the word.:rolleyes:
You are apparently ignorant of the fact that “agricultural”, “cultivated” and “arable” are not synonyms.
WTF?
I wasn’t implying that, I was stating it boldly.
Once again your gross ignorance is showing.
China does have more productive agriculture than the US. That’s an indisputable fact.
Look at the following figures for agricultural production from the FAO on total food production 2005 (Mt)
Country Item
China Cereals 423531448
China Fruit excl Melons 87055600
China Oilcakes Equivalent 33418803
China Pulses 5490500
China Roots and Tubers 187320792
China Treenuts 1363400
China Vegetables&Melons 435024075
Total 1, 173, 204, 618
Country Item
USA Cereals, 364019526
USA Fruit excl Melons, 25872900
USA Oilcakes Equivalent 71656063
USA Pulses, 2096880
USA Roots and Tubers, 19811380
USA Treenuts, 1296390
USA Vegetables&Melons, 39185160
Total 523, 940, 304
Despite having, as you yourself noted, much more arable land, the US still produces less than 50% of the food of China.
China has more productive agriculture than the US both in terms of absolute tonnage and in terms of tonnage per hectare. How the hell else did you think it fed 1/4 of the world’s population?
At this stage you should probably give up Koxinga.
Anyone who is so ignorant that they dispute that Saudi and China are tropical nations, who doesn’t understand the difference between “agricultural” and “arable” and who disputes that China is much more agriculturally productive then the US really can’t achieve much here.
Oh no, just ask Koxinga. He will tell you that you are wrong for implying that China has more productive agriculture than the US…
What’s that you say “Tropical climates are classified as type A climates” Gee and according to Köppen’s climate classification, the four climate types in Taiwan are a Monsoon and Trade-Wind Coastal Climate (Am) in the south…
Well shit, there’s a surprise The south of Taiwan, the part within the tropics, has type A tropical climate. Its almost as if The Tropic of Cancer (23.5° N) running across its middle section divides [Taiwan] into two climates, the tropical monsoon climate in the south and subtropical monsoon climate in the north.
But we know that’s not right because Koxinga has just told us that “Taiwan… has anything but a tropical clime.
Once again, your gross ignorance is showing Koxinga. Just to drive the point home, here are a few pother references form some other universities.
The following countries are found in the tropics.:China, Saudia Arabia, Taiwan.
Economic convergence was possible for the following tropical-zone countries:: Taiwan.
And on and on and on.
At this stage Koxinga, with all these university academics telling us that Taiwan, China and Saudi Arabia are found in the tropics and have tropical climates, you really should present your evidence for your extraordinary claims to the contrary.
But that may simply mean that it has a larger percentage of its arable land under cultivation. That is not the same as saying that Chinese land is more fertile (which is really the original point you were trying to make). It may simply be the case (and probably is the case) that the US has more untapped potential. Speaking for the Southeastern US, I can tell you that there is a LOT of arable land that is uncultivated here.
All you need to know you’ll find in Revelation X: The “Bob” Apocryphon, Chapter 10, “X-Odus”:
Hate to burst your bubble, but the government has enough radio gear holed up in EMP-resistant bunkers to support essential operations that even a country-blanketing EMP (which requires five to seven exoatmospheric bursts each of at least 50 MT in carefully planned locations) would only disrupt essential communications for maybe four hours. In addition, a great deal of currently in-service military communication gear is already EMP-resistant; while some it would crap, most of it would not.
In addition, there’s enough hams out there with stocked up old radio gear that would be unaffected (tube radios are largely immune to EMP effects) that civilian emergency communications would likely be restored within 24 hours.
Finally, optical fibre, which is something like 70% of our communication capacity today, is entirely immune to EMP, and the major telcos have bunkered spares that could be pulled out to restore at least a significant fraction of failures. Yes, capacity would be reduced, but essential traffic would get through.
The “EMP knocks out all communications” scenario is long-dead; we’ve long since engineered our way past it.
Thought that’d get your goat. Yup, I pegged you for an academic-- who else would bring this level of vitriol and belaboring pedantry to a lighthearted discussion?
Anyway, the point stands: China is not a “tropical country” in any way that makes sense in this discussion. (“Country” implies you’re looking at the territory as a whole, not just the miniscule portion that happens to fall below 23°26′N.) You yourself cite Taiwan’s mean temperature as justifying that a portion of the island ought to be considered “tropical”, before backpedalling to state that “tropical” means nothing more than “a small segment of the country happens to be touched by an imaginary line.”
It could, but it doesn’t.
Cultivated land area in China and the USA are both about 130 million hectares depending on who you ask. And for both the US and China approximately 50% of potentially arable land is currently in use.
My original point is that it is more productive, not more fertile. Fertility helps, but most of that productivity simply derives from higher temperatures, more sunlight and more water. Even if the fertility were identical China would still be twice as productive as the US.
To within the accuracy of the measurement techniques, the US and China both have the same amount of untapped potential, at least in terms of area. What that translates to in terms of productivity I doubt if anyone knows. It all depends on the quality of that unutilised land, which given that they are still unutilised after all this time is probably damn low in both cases.
The southernmost part of China is tropical but most certainly not the whole of the country. In any event I am not sure what the relevance of this is. Tropical agriculture isn’t necessarily more productive than in temperate countries. Tropical countries have more serious pest problems because of mild winters for example. In any event my point isn’t restricted to tropical countries. Several temperate countries like France in the early 19th century also supported population densities greater than the US today .
I had a feeling you were going to use the analogies of the Soviet Union and Maoist China but they are largely without merit because their circumstances were completely different from the hypothetical. For one thing these countries were simultaneously trying to boost their agriculture and industrial production. One of the big problems with the Great Leap Forward were those backyard furnaces which diverted resources away from agriculture. The political context would be completely different as well. The collectivization in communist countries was a matter of ideological whim not necessity. In our hypothetical it would be clear to the vast majority of the population that the agricultural system would collapse creating mass starvation unless there was a massive government-led transformation.
Isn’t the answer obvious? The US has superb infrastructure and can produce enormous amounts of food with very few people. It doesn’t need to worry about producing massive amounts of food quickly to survive In our hypothetical you have exactly the opposite: little infrastructure and large number of surplus workers. Completely different situation so agricultural solutions that are not needed today would be quickly developed and tried out.
Reported for trolling.
Because you are spouting provably ignorant crap. This boar dis suposed to be about fighting ignorance, not broadcasting it.
Well I’ve cited at least two university academics who have aid it is tropical in terms of agriculture, which is the whole point of this discussion.
So hows about you pony up with your references to support your contention.
Oh that’s right, You can’t because you are totally ignorant on the subject and just made some shit up.
No, I don’t. I simply quoted respected academics who state in simple terms that southern Taiwan *is *tropical. Not ought to be. Actually and indisputably is.
Once again, it’s time for you to pony up with your references to support your ignorant contention that Taiwan is not tropical.
WTF? What backpedalling? Where did I ever say anything but that? That is precisely what tropical means, and I’ve provided impeccable references to support that. Whereas all you have brought is gross ignorance
Look Koxinga it is quite clear that you are completely ignorant on this topic and just trolling. Your claim that Chinese agricultural land isn’t more productive than the US was the final nail in your coffin.
Either bring some evidence for these ignorant claims or quit spewing them. Please.