Fallout For Real - Could You Handle It?

[Fkemman11]

Something I saw recently started to make me think about real- life consequences of being somehow alive after everything we knew had been destroyed. Now think about this for a moment. All of the sudden, there is no law, no govt., no telephones, no cars, and very few people. Hell there is not any power anywhere so it is as if living in the past with no electricity. Would you lose your mind? Maybe. Would others lose theirs? Possibly. How long do you think it would take for the shock to wear off? Perhaps never. What if those people from that bad neighborhood across the way are still alive? What are they doing now that there is no one to call for help?

 

If you have ever watched or read about riots in various places in the world you might understand what I am alluding to. Are you more wary of people today than any animal? Why is that? What do you think will happen with a total absence of Law like in FO4? Would people resort to cannibalism? Might you be viewed as their next meal?

 

We tend to refer to people acting primal as like animals. But animals have a purpose in everything they do. Humans do not. I honestly do not think what was left of Humanity would survive for long.

 

Lets spin this another way. What if everyone was on the menu? Your definitely not going to survive on canned food for long. And all animal and plant life is now tainted with radiation. In short if nothing and no one is producing food then there is only one reliable source left. Now you have human cattle. Who decides who is to be on the menu and who is spared? A walk through DC market might let you shop for some leg shank or liver. Perhaps some human veal?

 

It all sounds ridiculously far-fetched doesn't it? But let me ask you how hungry you have ever been and multiply that about 10 times and then tell me what you think you might do. And whom do you think might taste good?

In fact lets just say what normally disturbing things about human nature could be made funny? Too much focus on what is reprehensible to us normally. But who is to say what is normal after everything is gone?

 

So in the spirit of dark humor let me say that I am rounding up unsuspecting settlers to ahh.....perform experiments with their capacity for sanity and after that to see how they taste with some seasoning and rice. Anyone else?

[McclaudEagle]

I think movies and games tend to portray post-nuclear apocalypse life rather differently to how it would actually play out in real life. What's usually shown is something akin to Mad Max, but the reality would probably be more along the lines of the dying days of the Wild West. Most major cities would be obliterated, so that leaves smaller towns and villages. Now, one of the most important things going for a village and town is the community. It's been shown time and again that during great tragedy (war, famine and natural disaster), people tend to band together to help each other survive and rebuild, with or without a functioning government or authority. Just like in the Medieval times, and during the Wild West, and during said tragedies, most people would just come together and try and make their new realities work out in the most peaceful way possible. Remember, most of these people have known each other for years and are generally likely to be on good terms.

 

There would likely be a spike in violence as bandit groups appear, but it's unlikely it'd be anything like you see on Fallout with the raiders. You'd have maybe small groups of bandits in camps, and it's more likely they'd be attacking each other as attacking a town which will no doubt now have armed volunteer security, would be suicidal. They might pick off the occasional traveler, but realistically most people would not venture out beyond the confines of their town/village's borders. The only people like to do so would be heavily armed trading merchants, and historically small groups of bandits wouldn't likely hit these groups as they pose too much of a risk, unless they can somehow perform a spectacular ambush. Mission critical stuff like trade caravans and envoys would be insanely well protected.

 

Neither food or water would really be much of an issue. Most villages and towns are populated by plenty of farmers who would have the knowledge and experience to continue crop production in some of the toughest conditions, but in reality, there wouldn't really be any major conditions to worry about unless you're a long way from a water supply. This leads me to the next point which almost always seems to appear in nuclear apocalypse movies and games.

 

The landscape would not suddenly become an endless barren sea of dust and rock. The vast majority of plant life and water bodies wouldn't even be remotely affected by nuclear war. There would be no "Glowing Sea" as modern nuclear weapons burn about 95% of their radioactive material, the rest would be diluted as it'd become spread out over such a massive area.

 

In essence, I think it would at worst, become something akin to the dying days of the Wild West.

[Fatalmasterpiece]

Eating other humans isn't very practical. For one it can cause neurological diseases which can be fatal. Humans have a relatively long reproductive cycle when compared to other animals. Further more, humans fight back far harder than a dog or sheep will. Keep in mind that if "all plant and animal" food sources are tainted with radiation, as will all human food sources.

In short, even after a cataclysmic event, you would not find cannibalism to be very common or practical.

 

Probably the greatest concern and worry you would have in a post apocalyptic world is disease and lack of medical treatment. The common flu could wipe out an entire village in a week. Unsanitary conditions can easily lead to cholera which can kill hundreds and thousands.

 

Mcclaude is pretty right, it would be closer to the days of the Wild West or medieval times (with more technology) than Mad Max.

[Fkemman11]

@ McclaudEagle Have you ever heard of a nuclear winter? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

 

This is why not only would most of the earths surface would be uninhabitable but also too contaminated to grow any kind of crop. This is if multiple strikes from nukes do not knock the Earth off its axis. Violent deadly storms with some land masses disappearing coupled with the earth itself spewing lava and ash would not leave much for anyone to work with in terms of cultivation. Any survivors would be stuck underground for several generations at least. They could send out teams that are heavily protected for short missions to recover things from the surface. But that would be the extent of surface exposure that they could survive and also need to be decontaminated upon return. The sun most likely would be blotted out like in "The Matrix" leaving the earth in lasting darkness. Essentially it would be Hell on Earth above ground and maybe below too. :geek:

[dragonslayer2k12]

It wouldn't be totally like that because some parts of major countries don't have any military targets for nukes to be sent to. Each major country knows where the others nukes are because of a treaty the only thing they don't know for certain is where each others subs and ships and planes are during WWIII. Still the whole of a country would not be burned to a cinder and whoever survived would be living in those non target areas most likely farms and rural areas where animals live in large numbers. Thanks to the invention of walmart and walmart distribution centers you won't have to worry about running out of stuff in the short term instead you will be worrying about how to keep one of those places all to yourself and anyone you give a dam about. The whole thing would play out as groups of survivors against each other. Maybe at first common religions bring people together so they don't kill each other but once the stuff starts to run out things will get hairy unless they can actually work together and do things like grow their own food and make their own basic medicines so not just one but several doctors would have to be involved and many farmers and animal doctors too. Get a base like that going and survival is possible in the short to mid term but someone is going to have to turn the factories back on and make some stuff like asprin or antibiotics and other complex stuff. By the time something miraculous as that happens any army left standing after the war would already be near and trying to take over whatever is left. Not just one surviving enemy country but any and all would be roving over the affected major countries looking for whatever they wanted. Any left over govts from those hell holes would then be in charge of whatever is left of the world so lets see... drug cartels that survived and gangs that survived plus dictatorships that were too small fish to fire a nuke at would be fighting for control of things.

[Fkemman11]

1) Minimal nuclear winter: In the best-case scenario for nuclear war, a small enough attack would cause minimal cloud cover and little or no environmental impact. While the damage sustained by targeted areas might prove substantial, the rest of the world wouldn't suffer atmospheric consequences.

2) Marginal nuclear winter: Sagan and Turco predict a grim scenario for even a "marginal" nuclear winter. They calculate that a few nuclear detonations above urban centers in a contained nuclear war could lower temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere by a few degrees. Agricultural production would suffer, resulting in famine -- especially if accompanied by severe drought. While a great deal of the ash would return to Earth in black rains, much would remain in the upper atmosphere. Sagan and Turco predict that the deaths from such a nuclear winter would equal those killed in the nuclear war. Everything below the equator would remain mostly unaffected, given the hemispheric separation of air currents and the fact that most nuclear targets exist in the Northern Hemisphere.

3) Nominal nuclear winter: The authors deem this class of nuclear winter a low-end possibility for a full-scale nuclear war involving the detonation of between 6,000 and 12,000 nuclear weapons. Survivors would endure dark skies, widespread drought, fallout and global temperature drops of 18.3 degrees F (10 degrees C) in the Northern Hemisphere. Noon sunlight would be only one-third what it was before the war. In the following months, these clouds would dissipate, and the sun would seem to burn hotter than before. Because nuclear blasts would have destroyed much of the ozone layer, greater quantities of solar radiation would reach the Earth's surface. The Southern Hemisphere wouldn't experience major climatic change.

4) Substantial nuclear winter: This scenario, following full-scale nuclear war, involves catastrophic consequences for the Northern Hemisphere: freezing temperatures, widespread fallout, pollution, ozone depletion and disrupted precipitation. Imagine a deeply overcast day -- now imagine those conditions persisting for years. Green plants would barely receive enough sunlight for photosynthesis. Crops would fail, billions of humans would die, species would go extinct and while humanity would likely survive, civilization as we know it might not. Damage to the Southern Hemisphere would depend on the number of detonations below the equator.

5) Severe nuclear winter: In this scenario, less than 1 percent of the sun's light makes it to the Earth's surface for a period of months, resulting in temperature drops around the globe and insufficient light for photosynthesis. In addition to widespread famine and pollution, Sagan and Turco predict that agricultural production would be reduced to levels not seen since the Dark Ages.

6) Extreme nuclear winter: In this worst-case scenario, based on the conditions in 1990, nearly all the world's nuclear weapons are deployed. The result would be utter darkness at noon. Much of the planet's life would perish within the chilly confines of this black, atmospheric tomb.

 

Source is "A Path Where No Man Thought" by Carl Sagan and Richard Turco

[dragonslayer2k12]

It is hard to find things that are not tainted by fake science like climate change and global warming stuff. Look at this for info on what has already happened because of the earth itself no human wars required: https://connecticuthistory.org/eighteen-hundred-and-froze-to-death-1816-the-year-without-a-summer/

 

No matter what humans say they can do it is nothing compared to what the world can do with volcanoes and the only thing to upstage that is a giant asteroid smacking into the earth or worse the moon. People cannot kill this world but this would could kill a lot of people.

 

The ozone layer can repair itself and life comes back to a place after a while like chernobyl or japan but it does take a long time and people suffer and die quickly from nuclear war in large numbers. Most likely we won't kill each other with nukes it will be more of these reactor meltdowns at worst. Humans never change we do the same things all the time because our passions never change.

 

I don't think we will see a war with north korea more likely fat boy will be taken out by his own people after showing just one sign of weakness just as he has done to those who came before him. A superior enemy doesn't have to do a bunch of chest thumping to scare their enemies only a weak enemy has to do that sort of thing. Either his own people take him out and their regime sinks into decay or china performs a midnight cou and removes his regime in some sort of agreement with south korea but that would only happen if china went capitalist and dumped communism completely. Right now their economy is contracting so there is less support for north korea than they would like to give. The most likely scenario is that a new world reserve currency comes along someday and replaces the dollar from somewhere in asia it would have to be china who else has such huge economic power? and that would only happen if they went capitalist. Imagine the opportunity of a new currency with little or no restrictions and taxes (for now) it would be like the dollar was to europe all over again. People would flee the dollar and go into that currency and with china as a capitalist country there would no longer be any support for north korea so it would just be korea again in a day or so. Other dictators would dry up real fast too it would be a game changer for russia I don't think they could continue to support the usual suspects they way they do now. At some point in time the human race will decide (finally) that marxism doesn't work and just abandon it so that gets rid of a lot of wars and nation building efforts from any side. Wars after that would have to be about limited resources and the egos of worthless politicians with their corrupt agendas. We laugh at dictators and their banana republics but no country is perfect and I don't think any country can defeat the military industrial complex which has been around as long as humanity itself.

 

Maybe space travel would force wars and those who want them to travel away from the earth to some other planet to fight each other like mars but I don't think we would ever actually see WWIII unless it was guaranteed partially assured destruction for whoever thinks they could win such a thing. One or more sides would have to totally overtake the others in missile defense and destructive capacity at the time they were able to strike and know that for sure not just an estimate or a guess. Of course by the time that sort of thing can be done those weaker empires would fall and be replaced just like they were throughout history.

[HeyYou]

Survival in a post-nuclear war setting would depend a LOT on the scale of the war. And the problem with that boils down to the "use it or lose it." philosophy..... Should any state actor launch a nuclear attack, that targeted state WILL have some advance warning, (around 30 minutes or so) They then have to decide how to respond, and when they do, the original side would then need to decide how THEY are going to respond. The likelihood of a nuclear war escalating to a full-scale strategic attack, is pretty good. (assuming that the original state actor is one of the major nuclear powers.) So, it won't be JUST military targets, ANY (every?) large population center will also be a target. Any city that has any industrial capacity at all will be a target. Some military installations WON'T be, as by the time the weapons get there, the reason for sending them will be gone. (Missile bases, strategic bomber bases, places of that nature.) Even the city I live outside of, population of about 30K, is a target... Why? Because we have industrial capacity here, that during WWII, built tanks.

 

Given that I am bracketed by large population centers, Chicago, Detroit, Toledo, Lansing, Jackson, etc, there is ZERO chance I would survive. If the bomb didn't get me, fallout from the nearby cities would. Wouldn't matter which direction the wind was blowing, fallout from at least a couple targets would blanket the area.

 

As for the Southern Hemisphere...... The 'barrier' created by wind currents would not be proof against the fate of the Norther Hemisphere crossing over, and also affecting the rest of the world. Wind and weather patterns would be disrupted by the war, and fallout would eventually creep south. It may not be as profound of an affect, but, affect there would be. Not to mention all the refugees fleeing south......

 

From what I have learned over time, a strategic nuclear war would indeed spell the end of humanity. It might take a decade or three, but, in the end, no one would survive.

[ReaperTai]

There was a book I read in high school (many years ago) that described this scenario. Believe it was called "on the beach".

 

In the book nuclear war wiped out the northern hemisphere and no bombs fell below the equator. Australia became the center of commerce and manufacturing and military and such. Using submarines they would cruise around the northern hemi looking at coastal cities for signs of life. Some of the hardier plants were still growing (pines and maples type thing) and grass eventually grew. Some wildlife was still seen occasionally. No humans. Eventually (over years) the radiation did spread south following odd wind areas and high altitude winds and radiated water in places like the gulf of mexico. At the end of the book everybody dies from global radiation poisoning.

 

The book was written in like the 50's so a few things have changed tech wise since then but the theory is still sound.

[Greslin]

I've read a lot of post-apoc fiction. When it's good, nothing is better.

 

Short answer to your question: Hell no. For too many reasons to list here. Civilization is a good thing. I'd get shot in the head by the first passing raider.

 

As for the long answer, which really has nothing to do with the original question.. drawing on literature (which we have to do, because we've never really dealt with this scenario before), different situations yield different results.

 

"The Road" (Cormac McCarthy): Extreme short term. We're all just waiting to die. I'd be done in under eight hours, because in that situation, no one is concerned about the long term. There isn't a long term. Cannibalism is the norm, might makes right, and the intelligent quickly get killed off by the dumb but strong. We're all animals until we're all dead.

 

"A Canticle For Leibowitz" (Walter Miller): Extreme long term. Survival depends on being lucky enough to be born at the right time and around the right people, and then being willing to put your head down and grind out the work, knowing that you'll never see the ultimate end product. If I'm one of those lucky ones, I might last a while.

 

"The Postman" (David Brin): Mid term. Remnants of civilization still exist in disconnected villages, small groups of clever con artists, and large scale marauder gangs. We're slowly rebuilding, but it'll still take a while, and in the meantime, clever people are needed. I'd probably do okay.

 

"The Goneaway World" (Nick Harkaway): Term unknown. The world has ended, and things have gotten really, really, REALLY weird, and no one has any idea if this is the end of everything or the start of some new form of society. Survival basically depends on being flexible enough to adapt to extremely strange circumstances. I like to think I'd do okay in this one, but I probably wouldn't. As an old friend once told me, I like to "get to the bottom of things". I'm not a big fan of things that I can't piece together. So who knows.

 

A number of other books come to mind: Earth Abides, On The Beach, etc. But in my mind, they're all just different versions of those four basic types. I kinda see the Fallout universe as a mix of "Postman" and "Goneaway World".

Edited April 30, 2017 by Greslin