I wouldn't be surprised if China had set up propaganda before hand saying they had survived to inspire any splinter groups hidden in the US to keep fighting after the war even if they didn't really survive.

Mad Max Anyone xD

no one wins war

similar to "only the devil can win war"

Let's all move to Haiwaii.

Last game I played that had Africa in it was not that good.

It felt like N64 Gameplay with New age graphics.

It's a far cry 2 call the game I'm thinking of anything better than par (just barely above sub par).

PS. Don't forget folks there are still hundreds of tribes that have never met civilization . read it in either national geographic or new york times...I get those kind of articles mixed up between them.

Well from what you guys of said South America has got it good, seeing as it doesnt sound like they got nuked, being mostly jungle or desert and a few mountains.. The major cities arent even contenders in anything, even now. I mean unless everybody just had touchscreen monitors that were for targeting nukes and they just ran their hand across the world map mode and wherever it touched got nuked, I assume there are countries that werent even affected, until of course the fallout engulfed the planet and the nuclear winter came about...
Course after a nuclear winter only the strongest most "dug in" pockets of civilization could survive..
I just find it interesting that without the 50's esque knowledge its hard for me to pin the tail on the donkey, so to speak...


Honestly, China winning wouldbt be suprising seeing as how they are pushing 1.3billion in present day, I assume even with a 50's world it would be around there in 2077. Im pretty sure its hard to kill 1.3 billion people seeing as how its such a large number, then again thier insanely dense population could result in total anhailiation. Where as a surviving element in the central united states is more feasible, seeing as how there are no strategic military targets there, unless killing lassie is their goal in life. XD
Even now strategic targets havent changed much from old times, places of political power, places of industry, and enemy military installments. Afterwards they move onto major cities, then the invasion would occur cleaning up any resistance if necessary.
Meh look at me rambling on.

Idk, but hooray China!
Just in case

1.3 Billion could very well vanish in the dropping of a few dozen bombs. Especially considering the extreme concentrations of the Chinese in small pockets of the country .

China is just a little larger than the US land wise. And the population is concentrated mostly in the eastern part - half the country is desert or the Tibetan Plateau. More people to kill in the same size space (more "bang" for your bomb as it were).

Anyway, the whole premise of us never going to war with the U.S.S.R./Russia was the likelyhood of "M.A.D." - Mutually Assured Destruction. The U.S. could probably just blow up all its nukes on itself and still poison the world with radiation.

Hey what happened to Soviet Union? I thought they had the copyright laws over the "chinese assault rifle" (AK47) And aren't they people with the most abundant supply of nukes in the world?
Mikhail Gorbachev came a little early to Russia?

I mentioned that, somewhere in there I think? =o
Maybe I just thunk it and it didnt find its way to my keyboard.
Very true though either way, considering like 1 billion of them are in an urban area the majority of the day, making them easy pickens, the Russians would be tougher targets...


Yes, they do have control over the AK-47 and AK-74 and all of that Russian family, although nobody said China couldnt make their own and call it a Chinese assault rifle, CAR, wait america already has the CAR =o
Im not sure on the numbers, but I am pretty sure the united states had the to number of nukes on hand, the question shouldve been, who had ready to fire nukes, I would say Russia. America has them, intact and in storage but not active warheads.
Honestly, in the fallout world everyone probably had as many nukes on as many military bases as possible pointed in every direction.

In global scale nuclear war there are no winners........ Only losers......

nuclear safari anybody? imagine a mutated elephant!

DO YOU WANT TO PLAY A GAME.....................?

Copyright laws ? Since when did communist nations pay attention to capitalist laws ? A rather large proportion of chinese equipment in the 50s were Soviet "knock offs".

Strange-Game. The-Only-Winn-ing-Move-Is-Not-To-Play.

How-a-bout-a-nice-game-of-chess?

Naw, it's also about who lost the least

Guess we'll have to wait for Fallout 8: China

Sorry it was a misinterpreted bad joke.

I'm quite surprised that America even fired the nukes at all. We don't even have the courage to step into Georgia for God's sake. (Probably provoking Russia to World War 3???)
It would seem more likely if Russia fired the nukes and China followed in.

The nuclear arsenal was so decentralized IIRC that it would be impossible for the soviets or chinese to knock all of them out before retaliation. ICBMs, ballistic missile subs, bombers... Did you know that for a while there was at least one airborne B-52 packing serious nuclear firepower 24/7 for quite a while during the cold war?

That's what Mutual Assured Destruction is about. You can't take out all their nukes before they're deployed against you, they can't take out all your nukes before you deploy against them. Annihilation of both you and your foe is guaranteed.

Also, remember that the flashpoint was China vs US. Either China or the US reached for the nukes, Russia in all likelyhood just opened up because their buddy China did.

I always thought the feud was between Russia VS U.S. That's why I thought the only reason China would open their silos was because of Russia.

"I don't know with what weapons WW3 will be fought. But WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones." --- Albert Einstein

Sticks, stones, baseball bats, 10mm pistols, gatling lasers...

http://img392.imageshack.us/my.php?image=thatmutiesabouttogetawhla7.jpg.

You're confusing Fallout divergence and real life

After WWII the US went into the Cold War with the Soviet Union in real life. In Fallout there probably still was the Cold War but it's not known. What is known is that the Resource Wars started in the 2000s and culminated in the Great War which is alleged to be primarily between China and the US. It's never implicitly stated in Fallout lore what the Soviet Union's stand in the Great War was, but it is known that they assisted with the construction of Liberty Prime.

In real life or in Fallout lore, make no mistake, despite both being communists, the Soviet Union and China were never true friends in any form. They shared technology, but it was never on truly friendly terms. Saying the Chinese and the Soviet Union were friends because they're both Communist is like saying that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were good friends because they were both Socialist organizations (though they were on decently good terms for a brief period before Hitler outright attacked them unprovoked).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Soviet_split

1. Currently, China is on the climb, and the US is on decline (in real life). Sorry folks, but the writing IS on the wall.

2. Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), was the US doctrine governing it's nuclear strategy - Maintain deterrence through the enemy's perception that a retaliatory strike would be overwhelmingly damaging (not necessarily wiping them out though). The lefties, greenies, do-gooders and leeches were against this strategy primarily because of the acronym, and also partly because they were funded and discretely and, in most cases, unwittingly and unknowingly, controlled by the KGB.

3. Soviet doctrine was based on the theory that a well prepared first strike WOULD be successful, however, due to the Western World's combined arsenal and defence capabilities that strike was never attempted prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union (we came closer than we ever did back in 1984 - closer than the Cuban Missile crisis of '62, but it was not recognised by such by most people.

There is NO theory of nuclear strategy that recognises a first strike total kill scenario, and there is NO theory that recognises a total secondary kill scenario ('secondary kill' referring to the death toll arising from disease, radiation, civil unrest, social collapse, etc). It has always been believed that humanity would continue in some form or another...not that this factored into the war strategies greatly.

The problem has always been that an advantage one way or the other confers the ability to either politically dominate or be dominated...hence the arms race. The fear was always that one side would achieve domination, therefore causing the other to launch. It wasn't much of an issue when the delivery systems could be blocked - i.e. B52's, slow and large ICBMs etc. Dismantling of the arsenals came about partly as a recognition that technology was advancing to the point where the weaponry COULD become unstoppable in delivery, the game stopped being a game and got serious.

Back in the 50s, some European nations still had colonies in Africa. Granted, they not have been worth nuking,
but if Europe never divested itself of its colonies after WWII when the timeline diverged....

On China winning, by the time the bombs fell, U.S. soldiers were in the process of conquering China with their
new powered armor and gatling lasers, etc. They had thrown the Chinese out of Alaska (which was taken only
by surprise attack). The U.S. was winning before the bombs fell, and more or less everyone lost thereafter.

On survivable atomic platforms, don't forget SSBNs and that the Navy used to carry nuclear warheads on its
surface ships. All of which are difficult to target directly.