SunlitZelkova
Posts: 209
Joined: 3/7/2018
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Randomizer
quote:
It reminds me of the Fallout series, in that it assumes the leaders of nations a whackjobs who will launch all of their nukes against everybody upon the slightest provocation.
The first national nuclear war plan of the United States, SIOP-62 included the targets in the PRC and DPRK regardless of whether they were involved in the triggering crisis or not. President Kennedy found this unacceptable and demanded options in future SIOP's but all of the agencies involved in creating SIOP-62 (the NSA, NSC, SAC, the USN, USAF, Army, CIA, NJTC and others) figured that hitting everybody in either a first or retaliatory strike made good policy and the plan was doctrine for over a year (May 1961 to June 1962). So the basic premise behind the scenario is not really outrageous.
-C
1988 is not 1962.
Also, considering the anti-Soviet fever was high at the time, it would make more sense for them to re-target most of their nuclear weapons towards the Soviet Union, not only because there was a warming of relations going on between China and the West, but also, because the USSR is the actual enemy in the war, not neutral (and theoretically, allied) China.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Excroat3
quote:
ORIGINAL: FlyForLenin
A few comments on the story-
The whole story is more fictitious than an actual representation of what nuclear war would look like. It reminds me of the Fallout series, in that it assumes the leaders of nations a whackjobs who will launch all of their nukes against everybody upon the slightest provocation. Why would the USSR launch against Israel and China when Israel and China weren't involved in the war? Likewise for the US. The leaders of the world aren't depressed, bloodthirsty whackos, they are, for the most part, sensible people, who don't want to kill millions of innocent people "because reasons".
If you had ICBMs reserved for attacking China, and they are about to be destroyed by an American counterforce strike, would you fire them at China or not? It seems like the Soviets took the "use it or lose it" mentality, and decided that striking now would be better than risking a stab in the back later down the road.
quote:
Another thing- the survival estimates are way to optimistic in my opinion. In general, the nations hit with nuclear weapons would have no semblance of society left in them after the end of the exchange, let alone rebuilding/building cities and governments. Places with high population density (namely Europe, Japan, and China) would likely not even have survivors.
Agreed. However, China is a large country, with a pretty large population out in their farmland. They would definitely have a large population survive, especially because they were not a main target of any nation. The author does mention that Chinese troops have occupied Japan.
quote:
How did the Nationalist Chinese government survive, if China launched their nukes?
It doesn't have to be the Taiwanese government specifically, it could just be that the winners of the civil war decided to adopt more western policies.
quote:
Furthermore, if all of the nuclear nations decided "F it, I am going to die, so the world must die too", then why weren't Brazil, Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, and the other surviving nations hit as well? If the USSR is going to do something as random as nuking Israel after being attacked by the US, why wouldn't they hit other US allied countries as well?
I think that even though the author dosen't mention strikes on these countries, they still might have gotten hit. Remember, the author only listed countries with more than 12 warheads targeted on them. Other than possibly Australia, those countries don't have 12 worthwhile targets, other than capital cities. Also, none of those countries have the means to strike back, so there's no reason to hit them in the first place.
quote:
Most of all, why would West Germany suggest invading East Germany, of all times, during a major political crisis across the entire Eastern Bloc? That would be suicide. If NATO or the Warsaw Pact wanted hostilities to begin with nuclear weapons, they wouldn't have waited until 1988 to do it, they would have done it right off the bat in the 60s or 70s.
Completely agree. I also think that the author wrote himself into a corner, and had to invent a way to introduce nuclear weapons use in the war. The Soviets using tactical nuclear weapons seems like the author just wanted them to be the generic bad guys. "Oh, we control half of Western Germany and we've thrown NATO into disarray with conventional weapons only? Yeah, lets bring out the Nukes!"
quote:
That background story reeks of "well, Fallout is cool, I want to see what it would be like in our world, so I'll slap this stuff I found together" as opposed to a realistic nuclear war scenario.
Isn't that the goal of the story? To see how a nuclear war would play out?
A. I disagree. China would have no reason to attack the USSR after the exchange because of what little would remain of their nuclear deterrence. Beyond, there is no reason to attack the USSR at all. Why would anyone want to invade a lawless, radioactive barren wasteland? At the most, they would try and retake certain parts of the disputed border, but given that a nuclear war had just happened, and the Chinese government would be busy trying to prepare for unrest/instability domestically and elsewhere, a war is unlikely.
B. Given China's economy had not really begun to "modernize" yet, and that nuclear winter is about to begin, coupled with hordes of refugees pouring in from the coast, I doubt any rural survivors would be able to feed themselves, let alone the rest of the country.
One thing no one seems to think about is the natural disasters that could occur along with nuclear war. With fires burning uncontrollably across the world, how nightmarish might a drought be?, etc., are things that kill the "billions of survivors" theory in my opinion.
C. The story states that "surviving Taiwanese forces are participating in the civil war in mainland China", the word "nationalist" is used as well, as a proper noun. I believe it is supposed to imply affiliation with the government of the ROC.
D. My main nitpick with this part is it just doesn't make sense in a story that already doesn't make much sense.
If there isn't a reason to hit countries that won't strike back, then why hit the countries that will strike back? If you're going to target a country as strategically insignificant as Israel, why not target arguably the "mini superpower" of South America (Brazil)?
E. No response needed.
F. I think the goal of the story is to be an interesting piece of fiction, rather than a realistic story.
Another thing I dislike is how the author seems to dismiss the threat of radiation. Cancer is brushed aside as being a minor cause of death (30 years later?!!) after the war. Even the most "positive" of nuclear war theorists believe cancer will at the very least, be alongside other factors (namely lack of food), a major cause of death soon after (within a couple months to a year) a nuclear war.
That said, I want to again state the my comments are solely in criticism of the "realism" in the background story, and not the scenario itself. You can have a crazy story where the Soviets strike first and raiders and factions fight in a post nuke world, but don't go around trying to sell it as realistic.
< Message edited by FlyForLenin -- 5/16/2018 7:45:35 PM >
_____________________________
Formerly known as Project2035, TyeeBanzai, and FlyForLenin
|
Printable Version
New Scenario for testing: A New World, 2005 - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread