In Depth - The state of the UK : Fallout Series Discussion

» Fri Sep 04, 2009 11:05 am

You're proud that your country can defeat a dirt poor country with the world's most disorganized military?

As a british person I cannot explain how proud I am of the empire we created based on fair trade and occasional bloodshed. All the greatstuff we gave the world like football and cricket.

Well, of course! Have you not seen what our "fair trade" has done to Africa? Because zhey would be nothing without European systems and azzizte-ANCE! Can't you understand the advancement in such activities? We bring them OUR form of civilization! They should be happy, and therefore, WHY would they rebel?

It is the Whiteman's Burden after all, my good man, especially since Her Majesty's Empire doesn't build Herself.

Anyways on a serious point, the best reasons for not having Fallout in Europe, would be because it wouldn't be a sequel rather a spin off. Let's be honest, Fallout is the American struggle to discover its identity after a nuclear holocaust, I just couldn't conceive it any other way. Fallout: Europe would be the appropriate title to any game within Europe, not a sequel to Fallout, but a spinoff. I wouldn't mind it, but I think expectation seem way to high for Britain being this superior survivor after something it has not ever experienced before to everyone else.

I still believe, however, as long as we are speculating from nationalist point of views, because we don't even know what countries existed after the apocalypse or in what state, except, that they were all pretty much equally devastated by war after war on top of each other and then nuclear destruction came. That France would have superior geography, since that is the only thing we can be sure of, to Britain on its own in a mostly nuclear powered world with its huge reserves of Uranium and ore to make steel, they could build ships and reactors needed after the war to rebuild its segment of Europe.

Britain, on the other hand, is a tiny little island with oil reserves in Scotland, I think there is some ore in England, I could be wrong. Their navy was probably used, over and over again, drying up the oil, depleting ship after ship, draining at the ore upon the island. The colonies are thus heavily drained of resources, if the colonies are indeed still part of the United Kingdom in this scenario, forcing them to rebel. At the very brink of this escalation, a nuclear bomb hits Tel Aviv, the Middle Eastern part of the war ends when the Resources are gone. Then in Europe the Commonwealth disbands and they all start fighting each other until nuclear war ends it all, like a man shooting himself in the head in the midst of madness. But, of course, humans get second chances and that is where Fallout picks up.

Or a democracy for that matter, for all we know, the British Queen was the head of state for the entire thing, as unlikely as that may be, we just don't know.

Not if your armies and navies are bogged down in Europe fighting an endless war versus little powers as well as two huge superpowers slowly coming towards your island, not to mention a lack of fuel and uranium, the annexation of Canada would be the least of your problems.
Please explain who these super powers are? If the arms race continued then money would not have been leant to damaged countries after the war; Frace, Italy, Turkey, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, The Balkans, Germany and Austria would still be war torn [censored] holes...
Britain recovered on her own after WWII and thus would have been fine... Who else in Europe is there to contend with? Switzerland?

In the course of fighting the war, we used the Marshall Plan to beat the Russians in Europe. The arms race and the Marshall Plan happened at the same time, it was part of, not exclusive to itself, the Cold War. Why wouldn't we help rebuild our allies and repel Communism? The Marshall Plan was part of what America had learned to do after WWII, that to me, not happening would be out of pure stupidity rather than out of some misguided sense of patriotism.

The superpowers I was referring to was the Soviet Union and Communist China.

Only Britain Switzerland, Spain (who was [censored] after a civil war before WWII), Sweden and Russia are left... Unscathed after WWII, and Russia is known for burning her territory as she retreats.

Britain would have a advantage over Russia as she had less damage to her land and population...

Your deluded to think Britain could have recovered on its own, it took the Marshall Plan to help rebuild. The Brit's had huge financial problems after the war from the build-up and rebuilding after the war, as well as "Her Majesty's EXTENSIVE British Empire" bore down on the United Kingdom, that is why it had to be given up, the Cold War and anti-colonialism aren't mutually exclusive either.

Thats because after the REAL 2nd WW the world vowed no more wars and thus a huge empire was useless, however in the fallout world the arms race did not stop.
Empires are bloody useful in wars...

Your actually full of [censored]... evidence from historical examples shows every attempt to hold onto Empire resulted in bloody quagmires. The financial of a Great Empire was to great on Great Britain, especially the post-war British isles. You seem to forget that after World War II the time line diverges. Not to mention that explanation is full of [censored] in our time line to because Great Britain was still going through the Cold War and anti-colonialism had became a Soviet weapon, Britain couldn't have hoped to hold on to such an Empire, they knew it and its historically the primary reason.

If the arms race continued then money would not have been leant to damaged countries after the war; Frace, Italy, Turkey, Sweden, Finland, Belgium, The Balkans, Germany and Austria would still be war torn [censored] holes...
Britain recovered on her own after WWII and thus would have been fine... Who else in Europe is there to contend with? Switzerland?

If the arms race had continued, the Marshall plan would have been used, of course, why wouldn't we? It is only beneficial to us to see Europe back on its financial footing.

No, Britain did not, it recovered with American support, with disbanding much of its navy, with disbanding the Empire and with America footing the bill for its allies. Britain still had HUGE debt after all that, I believe yall are still paying it off.

The other Thread does indeed refer to the Baltic sea, presuming the Russians made ports in Denmark and Finland...

Hmm... Ok. Nonetheless, Finland, yes, it was part of their sphere and considered part of the country, even during WWII, why wouldn't they do that? Denmark would have been a walkover if Russia fought across Europe, presuming were talking about a Warsaw Pact Soviet Union and not a Post-90s Russia.

Their superiority in submarine tech, which was renowned in the Cold War, would help them against a primarily focused British surface fleet. If the Brits also decide to pounce on the Russians at either of these two points, Russia could use the Chinese doctrine of asymmetric warfare, and vaporize their surface fleet easily. The Mercenary's Mace is a very scary Chinese war plan, I must say, that they planned to use against our American Aircraft Carriers. Since we stress their use so much, the plan has rendered them obsolete when fighting an offensive war against the Chinese. Their "active defense" would beat any offensive navy, however, America used Power Armor, which devastated the Chinese on their own soil.

You make a good point, the Russians COULD use many tactics, however just because tactics exist does not mean that they are used.... During the Crimean War the Russians got their arses trounced by the British and French allience who exploited the Railways, yet more than a decade later the Russians almost lost the Russo-Japanese war due to NOT exploting their Railways.... Could and Would are very different

In the Crimean War, however, the Russians were horribly backward fighting superior forces, after the war they built a railway so that would not happen again. As for the Russo-Japanese, how do you exploit rail using ships? The Japanese were not considered a superior force, they considered sub-par, a native force that had decided to oppose a much bigger power. But, the Japanese were underestimated, mainly because of their past history that had saw them act very weak to shows of force, Matthew Perry with one gunboat opened up the whole island and destroyed an entire tradition.

So, when those ships made it to Siberia they wouldn't have believed the Japs would have a modern navy that was much greater, in training and ships, that defeated it. But, that is not what would happen if the Brit's attacked, the Russians would know where they would attack, there is only two places, and would be ready with asymmetric tactics since those were already adopted by a post-WWII Soviet Union. I wonder if you know what asymmetric means. It means tactics literally used by a weaker power against a stronger one, the Brit's having a stronger navy.

» Fri Sep 04, 2009 2:08 am

Anyways on a serious point, the best reasons for not having Fallout in Europe, would be because it wouldn't be a sequel rather a spin off. Let's be honest, Fallout is the American struggle to discover its identity after a nuclear holocaust, I just couldn't conceive it any other way. Fallout: Europe would be the appropriate title to any game within Europe, not a sequel to Fallout, but a spinoff. I wouldn't mind it, but I think expectation seem way to high for Britain being this superior survivor after something it has not ever experienced before to everyone else.

(For like the 10th time not in Britain, a British warship docked on the American Coast)

I still believe, however, as long as we are speculating from nationalist point of views, because we don't even know what countries existed after the apocalypse or in what state, except, that they were all pretty much equally devastated by war after war on top of each other and then nuclear destruction came. That France would have superior geography, since that is the only thing we can be sure of, to Britain on its own in a mostly nuclear powered world with its huge reserves of Uranium and ore to make steel, they could build ships and reactors needed after the war to rebuild its segment of Europe.
(And isnt it then possible that France and Britain being allies... That when everyone starts knocking on the French door asking for handouts she picks her oldest allie to help fend them off? However without Britain would still be able to plunder her Colonies if needed.)

Britain, on the other hand, is a tiny little island with oil reserves in Scotland, I think there is some ore in England, I could be wrong. Their navy was probably used, over and over again, drying up the oil, depleting ship after ship, draining at the ore upon the island. The colonies are thus heavily drained of resources, if the colonies are indeed still part of the United Kingdom in this scenario, forcing them to rebel. At the very brink of this escalation, a nuclear bomb hits Tel Aviv, the Middle Eastern part of the war ends when the Resources are gone. Then in Europe the Commonwealth disbands and they all start fighting each other until nuclear war ends it all, like a man shooting himself in the head in the midst of madness. But, of course, humans get second chances and that is where Fallout picks up.
(Australia and Kenya both have uranium Deposits, both British Colonies, Australia has huge Bauxite and Hematite deposits for aluminium and iron (thus steel))

In the course of fighting the war, we used the Marshall Plan to beat the Russians in Europe. The arms race and the Marshall Plan happened at the same time, it was part of, not exclusive to itself, the Cold War. Why wouldn't we help rebuild our allies and repel Communism? The Marshall Plan was part of what America had learned to do after WWII, that to me, not happening would be out of pure stupidity rather than out of some misguided sense of patriotism.
(You seriosely think that America could fun the space program, fission research, power armour research, Liberty Prime research, Skynet, FEV, nuclear weapons for the cold war, a nuclear deffence system, satalites that launch nukes, the huge tanks in the next installment of F3, gauss weaponry and vertibird research... Oh and fund destroyed countries?)

The superpowers I was referring to was the Soviet Union and Communist China.
(As far as we know China did not fight in Europe.)

Your deluded to think Britain could have recovered on its own, it took the Marshall Plan to help rebuild. The Brit's had huge financial problems after the war from the build-up and rebuilding after the war, as well as "Her Majesty's EXTENSIVE British Empire" bore down on the United Kingdom, that is why it had to be given up, the Cold War and anti-colonialism aren't mutually exclusive either.
(Its not possible that it could have fallen into a Dictatorship, the goverment refusing to pay for healthcare, rebuild destroyed houses or limit work hours and minimum wage? Its not like anyone in the world would complain it was going on elsewhere in the world, aslo they had years of experience using martial law in huge countries like india, it would be nothing to do a country as small as Britain.)

Your actually full of [censored]... evidence from historical examples shows every attempt to hold onto Empire resulted in bloody quagmires. The financial of a Great Empire was to great on Great Britain, especially the post-war British isles. You seem to forget that after World War II the time line diverges. Not to mention that explanation is full of [censored] in our time line to because Great Britain was still going through the Cold War and anti-colonialism had became a Soviet weapon, Britain couldn't have hoped to hold on to such an Empire, they knew it and its historically the primary reason.
(As above)

If the arms race had continued, the Marshall plan would have been used, of course, why wouldn't we? It is only beneficial to us to see Europe back on its financial footing.
(You seriosely think that America could fun the space program, fission research, power armour research, Liberty Prime research, Skynet, FEV, nuclear weapons for the cold war, a nuclear deffence system, satalites that launch nukes, the huge tanks in the next installment of F3, gauss weaponry and vertibird research... Oh and fund destroyed countries?)

No, Britain did not, it recovered with American support, with disbanding much of its navy, with disbanding the Empire and with America footing the bill for its allies. Britain still had HUGE debt after all that, I believe yall are still paying it off.
(If the arms race had continued and Britain had kept her Empire she would not have disbanded her army or scrapped her navy.)

Hmm... Ok. Nonetheless, Finland, yes, it was part of their sphere and considered part of the country, even during WWII, why wouldn't they do that? Denmark would have been a walkover if Russia fought across Europe, presuming were talking about a Warsaw Pact Soviet Union and not a Post-90s Russia.
(Only because Russia invaded it in WWII)

In the Crimean War, however, the Russians were horribly backward fighting superior forces, after the war they built a railway so that would not happen again. As for the Russo-Japanese, how do you exploit rail using ships? The Japanese were not considered a superior force, they considered sub-par, a native force that had decided to oppose a much bigger power. But, the Japanese were underestimated, mainly because of their past history that had saw them act very weak to shows of force, Matthew Perry with one gunboat opened up the whole island and destroyed an entire tradition.

So, when those ships made it to Siberia they wouldn't have believed the Japs would have a modern navy that was much greater, in training and ships, that defeated it. But, that is not what would happen if the Brit's attacked, the Russians would know where they would attack, there is only two places, and would be ready with asymmetric tactics since those were already adopted by a post-WWII Soviet Union. I wonder if you know what asymmetric means. It means tactics literally used by a weaker power against a stronger one, the Brit's having a stronger navy.
(In the Russo Japanese war the Russians had ONE very slow suppy railway to her dry docks and front lines.)

» Fri Sep 04, 2009 1:52 am

Kenya or australia to Mainland britain is an awfuly long supply line, and you're assuming they didnt go it alone.

» Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:41 am

(For like the 10th time not in Britain, a British warship docked on the American Coast)

Hmm... possibly, but they most certainly would not have a working surface fleet, maybe a beached sub, but not a warship. Although, I still wouldn't quite understand why they would have ships, when they would need them in Europe fighting the Russian invasion and their neighbors, especially France and Germany, and not to mention Spain, who would use all this chaos to cease Gibraltar.

(And isnt it then possible that France and Britain being allies... That when everyone starts knocking on the French door asking for handouts she picks her oldest allie to help fend them off? However without Britain would still be able to plunder her Colonies if needed.)

No, "bickering" means no friends, everyone was fighting each other for resources. It is also possible the colonies wouldn't have been there to "plunder", rather, the British had to fend for themselves as well and decided that its nearest neighbors, France and Germany, with all those wonderful resources would be perfect to, as you put it, "plunder" instead. That, rather than plundering the colonies, would fit with the timeline and the whole concept behind the Resource Wars that fragmented Europe, no one had any friends left. When I imagine the Resource Wars I imagine an Orwellian War, in which all sides are continually changing and super-charged patriotism against all those the nation fights, whoever it may be until they become friends again... And, if this is the Cold War, France was very embittered after the war against Britain, they weren't "good" friends and in fact its only been recent that the French have even reentered NATO, they are bitter toward the West.

(Australia and Kenya both have uranium Deposits, both British Colonies, Australia has huge Bauxite and Hematite deposits for aluminium and iron (thus steel))

Kenya or australia to Mainland britain is an awfuly long supply line, and you're assuming they didnt go it alone.

Hmm... you know that if Britain tries to use Australia it will become a modern Revolutionary War and Kenya another Vietnam? In fact, you know, guerrilla forces were forming in Kenya very early on in WWII as it was being pushed to the brink, it was only Britain giving in early that the civil war didn't break out. In both situations getting resources from the colonies would be difficult if not impossible. Then, if the Russians get involved imagine the UK confined again by the wolf packs of the Germans, the isles starved then even though the Brit's had a huge navy, this time without America to save them, they will starve again.

(You seriosely think that America could fun the space program, fission research, power armour research, Liberty Prime research, Skynet, FEV, nuclear weapons for the cold war, a nuclear deffence system, satalites that launch nukes, the huge tanks in the next installment of F3, gauss weaponry and vertibird research... Oh and fund destroyed countries?)

Yes, as I have been led to believe, this whole period before the Great War was just one huge economic boom. Most of those projects weren't directly military funded, they were private, ah... the wonders of the military industrial complex and our fine Capitalist system. As well, it would be very strategic for the US to fund the rebuilding of Europe, it actually wasn't a big cost to us, you know, you might think it was but no not necessarily. Also, consider how much time passed, it was a long time to develop these things before the Great War even took place.

The superpowers I was referring to was the Soviet Union and Communist China.
(As far as we know China did not fight in Europe.)

Actually, neither do we know of a Soviet invasion, but I doubt both wouldn't directly help each other in such a situation. Nonetheless, the Soviet Union would need the resources of Europe as much as the Europeans would.

(Its not possible that it could have fallen into a Dictatorship, the goverment refusing to pay for healthcare, rebuild destroyed houses or limit work hours and minimum wage? Its not like anyone in the world would complain it was going on elsewhere in the world, aslo they had years of experience using martial law in huge countries like india, it would be nothing to do a country as small as Britain.)

How? Britain joined the European Commonwealth, it was still a Monarchy or I don't think it would have been called the United "Kingdom", why would they abandon hundreds of years of democracy? We know for sure America was still a democracy at the time. I see no reason why after beating fascism in Europe it would rise up in the United Kingdom. Nonetheless, the colonies would still be a financial strain that the British would not be able to hold onto, especially with anti-colonialism setting in.

(If the arms race had continued and Britain had kept her Empire she would not have disbanded her army or scrapped her navy.)

But that is the thing, even though the arms race heated up in OUR time line, Britain still disbanded much of its navy it built in WWII because it could not maintain it. I could see once Britain was rebuilt by America the navy could grow again, but Britain just simply couldn't do it directly after the war. If Britain was doing everything on its own, it DEFIANTLY wouldn't be able to have a HUGE navy, army and network of colonies, I'm sorry, but that is pure fantasy.

(Only because Russia invaded it in WWII)

Yes... they did invade Finland before WWII broke out, they failed, but during the war they fought them again and won. Finland actually surrendered to Russia, but Russia had to give them independence and self-determination. Except, since the time line diverges, it is possible Finland was absorbed with the rest of the Warsaw Pact into the Soviet Union, I could be wrong, but that would defiantly set up a more powerful Soviet Union that would perhaps not fall in the 1990s.

(In the Russo Japanese war the Russians had ONE very slow suppy railway to her dry docks and front lines.)

The Trans-Siberian railway, yes, an achievement of wondrous proportions, but that didn't necessarily loss them the war. They depended on what they felt was their modern navy, not their railway. A lose at sea, lost them the war. I mean, the ground battle was over worthless Manchuria.

» Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:39 am

Hmm... possibly, but they most certainly would not have a working surface fleet, maybe a beached sub, but not a warship. Although, I still wouldn't quite understand why they would have ships, when they would need them in Europe fighting the Russian invasion and their neighbors, especially France and Germany, and not to mention Spain, who would use all this chaos to cease Gibraltar.

(I disagree the British have always used mainly surface ships to make it a sub would be un steriotypical, this is fallout!)

No, "bickering" means no friends, everyone was fighting each other for resources. It is also possible the colonies wouldn't have been there to "plunder", rather, the British had to fend for themselves as well and decided that its nearest neighbors, France and Germany, with all those wonderful resources would be perfect to, as you put it, "plunder" instead. That, rather than plundering the colonies, would fit with the timeline and the whole concept behind the Resource Wars that fragmented Europe, no one had any friends left. When I imagine the Resource Wars I imagine an Orwellian War, in which all sides are continually changing and super-charged patriotism against all those the nation fights, whoever it may be until they become friends again... And, if this is the Cold War, France was very embittered after the war against Britain, they weren't "good" friends and in fact its only been recent that the French have even reentered NATO, they are bitter toward the West.

Hmm... you know that if Britain tries to use Australia it will become a modern Revolutionary War and Kenya another Vietnam? In fact, you know, guerrilla forces were forming in Kenya very early on in WWII as it was being pushed to the brink, it was only Britain giving in early that the civil war didn't break out. In both situations getting resources from the colonies would be difficult if not impossible. Then, if the Russians get involved imagine the UK confined again by the wolf packs of the Germans, the isles starved then even though the Brit's had a huge navy, this time without America to save them, they will starve again.

(For arguments sake say Britain does attempt this trade route after the war, it is peace time... No wolf pack submarines, and even if it wasnt peace time the Germans are in the biggest trouble of everyone.)

Yes, as I have been led to believe, this whole period before the Great War was just one huge economic boom. Most of those projects weren't directly military funded, they were private, ah... the wonders of the military industrial complex and our fine Capitalist system. As well, it would be very strategic for the US to fund the rebuilding of Europe, it actually wasn't a big cost to us, you know, you might think it was but no not necessarily. Also, consider how much time passed, it was a long time to develop these things before the Great War even took place.

(Im sorry but NASA currently struggles for funding even now and the ammount of launches that Fallout dicatates happen is increable, not to mention how much it costs to experiment with Fission technology...)

Actually, neither do we know of a Soviet invasion, but I doubt both wouldn't directly help each other in such a situation. Nonetheless, the Soviet Union would need the resources of Europe as much as the Europeans would.

How? Britain joined the European Commonwealth, it was still a Monarchy or I don't think it would have been called the United "Kingdom", why would they abandon hundreds of years of democracy? We know for sure America was still a democracy at the time. I see no reason why after beating fascism in Europe it would rise up in the United Kingdom. Nonetheless, the colonies would still be a financial strain that the British would not be able to hold onto, especially with anti-colonialism setting in.

(We do not know that is set as I have said in other posts the continuation of the arms race would mean people would not want to give up thier empires)

But that is the thing, even though the arms race heated up in OUR time line, Britain still disbanded much of its navy it built in WWII because it could not maintain it. I could see once Britain was rebuilt by America the navy could grow again, but Britain just simply couldn't do it directly after the war. If Britain was doing everything on its own, it DEFIANTLY wouldn't be able to have a HUGE navy, army and network of colonies, I'm sorry, but that is pure fantasy.

(The arms race did not heat up after the war, the majority of Europe believed it would never happen again and began demobalising at great speeds)

Yes... they did invade Finland before WWII broke out, they failed, but during the war they fought them again and won. Finland actually surrendered to Russia, but Russia had to give them independence and self-determination. Except, since the time line diverges, it is possible Finland was absorbed with the rest of the Warsaw Pact into the Soviet Union, I could be wrong, but that would defiantly set up a more powerful Soviet Union that would perhaps not fall in the 1990s.

(If you pressume that territory gained in WWII was held that would mean Britain had North Africa, oil was seeping out of the ground into the wells in N Africa...)

The Trans-Siberian railway, yes, an achievement of wondrous proportions, but that didn't necessarily loss them the war. They depended on what they felt was their modern navy, not their railway. A lose at sea, lost them the war. I mean, the ground battle was over worthless Manchuria.

(the ground battle resorted to trench warfare... we know more "Updated" stratergy than that was available but it was not used... also the russians only had 1 dry dock...)

» Fri Sep 04, 2009 2:09 am

Hmm... possibly, but they most certainly would not have a working surface fleet, maybe a beached sub, but not a warship. Although, I still wouldn't quite understand why they would have ships, when they would need them in Europe fighting the Russian invasion and their neighbors, especially France and Germany, and not to mention Spain, who would use all this chaos to cease Gibraltar.

(I disagree the British have always used mainly surface ships to make it a sub would be un steriotypical, this is fallout!)

Exactly, surface ships wouldn't have really survived the whole radiation thing, not to mention widespread acid rain and choked skies and I still don't get why a British ship would be in the Atlantic when they would be to busy fighting in Europe.

(For arguments sake say Britain does attempt this trade route after the war, it is peace time... No wolf pack submarines, and even if it wasnt peace time the Germans are in the biggest trouble of everyone.)

Sure, but that isn't when I was talking about, I was talking about the Resource Wars, when resources from the colonies would matter, till then the colonies would seem more of a financial liability than a cash cow.

(Im sorry but NASA currently struggles for funding even now and the ammount of launches that Fallout dicatates happen is increable, not to mention how much it costs to experiment with Fission technology...)

Actually, fission technology scared the pants off the public and the higher-ups in our government and we didn't want to use it in our rockets, we've had the technology since the 60s to put it into our rockets. But, in their timeline, they would have used fission technology which would eliminate the most expensive part of space shuttles, rocket fuel. It is why I hate peaceniks and hippies so much, bastards keep us from getting into space on a daily basis.

(We do not know that is set as I have said in other posts the continuation of the arms race would mean people would not want to give up thier empires)

In order for Britain to have rebuilt itself, it would have had to give up it's colonies.

(The arms race did not heat up after the war, the majority of Europe believed it would never happen again and began demobalising at great speeds)

Ok... I see no reason why that still wouldn't happen, nothing in the canon says otherwise.

(If you pressume that territory gained in WWII was held that would mean Britain had North Africa, oil was seeping out of the ground into the wells in N Africa...)

Um... I don't think Britain would be in its right mind and it certainly would not be the leader of the European Commonwealth, which included France and Germany, France would fight a war, which they did, to hold onto Algeria. I can't believe it would be insinuated any other way, really, Algeria was considered another state of France, they would never allow North Africa be given to Britain. De Gaulle despised Britain, that would have given him enough reason to declare war or even start a cold war with Britain, absolutely not be led by them.

(the ground battle resorted to trench warfare... we know more "Updated" stratergy than that was available but it was not used... also the russians only had 1 dry dock...)

Hmm... no trench warfare was still the doctrine of the day it wasn't really until WWII that changed... with Total and Mobile War, I mean France built the Maginot Line they didn't utilize the tank. And as for the dry dock, so? They thought they would fight a single battle with some raging Japs and then leave after they surrendered.

» Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:37 am

Real world full name: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

An island nation in Europe far to the east of the core region/known world for the Fallout series. Before the Great War it was a wealthy country and most likely a nuclear power (like its real world counterpart). It was the leader of the states in both the normal Commonwealth and European Commonwealth. Allistair Tenpenny is known to have come from the United Kingdom before travelling across the Atlantic. It is not completely known what happened to the UK, however as it is very similar to the U.S. both socially and ecologically therefore it is presumable that it's recovery is much like that in the U.S. thought this is not completly verified.

- The Vault

I'm know this isn't canon but "It was the leader of the states in both the normal Commonwealth and European Commonwealth". The British Commonwealth is not to mistaken with the British Empire. It is a coalition of VOLUNTARY countries acknowledging our common history. It tends to be the nations who are proud of, and identify with, their British heritage. There are also several benefits in such an organisation (including a military pact). However, in practical terms a Commonwealth country has opted to have the British Monarch as their Head of State (This can be revoked by that nations government at any time, see Republic of Ireland). This being the case if the UK is disbanded and has no monarch THERE CANNOT BE A COMMONWEALTH! It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

So logically , as it was still the leader of the British Commonwealth, it is logical that there is still a British Monarch, If it was also the leader of the European Commonwealth then it follows that the British Monarch is the leader of the European Commonwealth. I agree that in real life this would never happen but in the Fallout world perhaps the UK, because of the Commonwealths resources, suffered less than the other European countries in the Resource wars. Perhaps the UK took leadership of the European Commonwealth by force? We have the largest military spending in the EU (and I think the 3rd highest in the world but don't quote me on that).

» Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:03 pm

I'm know this isn't canon but "It was the leader of the states in both the normal Commonwealth and European Commonwealth". The British Commonwealth is not to mistaken with the British Empire. It is a coalition of VOLUNTARY countries acknowledging our common history. It tends to be the nations who are proud of, and identify with, their British heritage. There are also several benefits in such an organisation (including a military pact). However, in practical terms a Commonwealth country has opted to have the British Monarch as their Head of State (This can be revoked by that nations government at any time, see Republic of Ireland). This being the case if the UK is disbanded and has no monarch THERE CANNOT BE A COMMONWEALTH! It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Not quite true.

There are plenty of republics in the brittish commonewealth without her majesty as head of state - Pakistan, Fiji and India spring to mind. Mozambique is also a commonwealth member but was not a Brittish Colony (it was Portuguese).

Neither the Queen as head of state, or a Brittish colony are pre requisites for being a commonwealth member. The current rules are, according to Wikipedia:

accept and comply with the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harare_Declaration.
be fully http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty states.
recognise the monarch of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_realms as the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_of_the_Commonwealth.
accept the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language as the means of Commonwealth communication.
respect the wishes of the general population vis-?-vis Commonwealth membership.

Not really any big issues there - The Harare principles just say you believe in the rule of law, in Democracy where the government is concerned (the government is not to be confused with the head of state - In a consitutional monarchy like the UK, Australia, ETc, The Executive branch is not like the Executive branch in the US, it doesnt govern on a day-to-day level). It also says you believe in equality and that economic improvements should help everyone (Essentually you want to shrink the gap between rich and poor). Other than that you just have to be a full and proper country, agree Her Majesty is currently the head of the commonwealth(not the queen of all nations, just the head of a club they chose to join) agree to speak english at all meetings, and if your population want out, you have to leave.

The Appointed, non hereditray head of the commonwealth is, at this present time her Majesty, but the title will not automatically go to Charles (or whoever the crown goes to, this title is not a part of the crown, it is seperate) when she is no longer able to carry out those duties - The commonwealth will select a new head (who in all likelyhood will be Charles)

» Fri Sep 04, 2009 3:34 am

Dis agree if the British Empire had stayed intact then Britain would have been a HUGE power to contend with during the Resource War.
Having India, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Kenya, South Africa, a small part of Mexica and Brazil...
I dont believe people quite understand the sheer size of the British Empire before it was forced to relinquish its grip on the world after WWII
Its all the blue bits in this link.

what kind of map is that? England invading Gothenburg and Norway? is this Fallout canon or something made up?

» Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:54 am

There are plenty of republics in the British Commonwealth without her majesty as head of state - Pakistan

Nope, Pakistan is NOT in the British Commonwealth. It lost it's membership.

OK, I stand corrected that members of the Commonwealth do not have the Queen as head of State but they must recognise the Queen as head of the commonwealth. No Monarch = no commonwealth as I said. If the monarchy is abolished in the UK who would take on that role? The British prime minister? Nope, why would any autonomous state have an elected foreign beurocrat as their head of state?

It's the Queen for historical reasons, mostly because the members of the Commonwealth WANT to be associated with the British Monarchy.

A British Commonwealth without a monarchy pointless, it's essentially like saying the Royal Air Force would still be called the Royal Air force without a monarch. No Royal, no Royal Air Force!

» Fri Sep 04, 2009 12:03 am

what kind of map is that? England invading Gothenburg and Norway? is this Fallout canon or something made up?

Made up.

» Fri Sep 04, 2009 10:49 am

Nope, Pakistan is NOT in the British Commonwealth. It lost it's membership.

OK, I stand corrected that members of the Commonwealth do not have the Queen as head of State but they must recognise the Queen as head of the commonwealth. No Monarch = no commonwealth as I said. If the monarchy is abolished in the UK who would take on that role? The British prime minister? Nope, why would any autonomous state have an elected foreign beurocrat as their head of state?

It's the Queen for historical reasons, mostly because the members of the Commonwealth WANT to be associated with the British Monarchy.

A British Commonwealth without a monarchy pointless, it's essentially like saying the Royal Air Force would still be called the Royal Air force without a monarch. No Royal, no Royal Air Force!

Pakistan is a member. It left in 1972, and rejoined in 1989. It never lost its membership, it was however suspended (not kicked out) several times.

Please, do some research before posting - Its not that hard. A little google and Wikipedia and you stop looking so silly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_Commonwealth_of_Nations

As for your other point, its ridiculous, there still would be an air force, it would be the same organisation with the same history, and traditions; the same leaders and members. Removing the monarch does not remove the RAF from existence, any more than it would stop a canandian mountie being a mountie. In the Commonwealth of Nations case, they'd choose another leader. The Head of the Commonwealth is not a role invested in the crown, its a seperate job entirely.

Considering only 16 of the 53 states call her queen, your claims of the links being to attach to the monarchy are not substaniated. The queen provides no direct purpose for those other members, other than convening the commonwealth. The reason for the commonwealth to exist is to support the frameworks of the Singapore declaration, and later the Harare declaration:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Declaration

To quote the delcaration itself:

These relationships we intend to foster and extend, for we believe that our multi-national association can expand human understanding and understanding among nations, assist in the elimination of discrimination based on differences of race, colour or creed, maintain and strengthen personal liberty, contribute to the enrichment of life for all, and provide a powerful influence for peace among nations

No mention of pushing for Monarchies and fudalism.

President Bush recently talked about a leauge of democracies - It already exists in the Commonwealth of Nations.

You've got an interesting idea about the goal of the organisation.

» Fri Sep 04, 2009 12:33 pm

@ agent c. Not using Wikipedia for your info will stop you looking silly too!

You misundestood my point about the RAF. Of course there would still be an air force but they would be called the British Air Force not the Royal Air Force. A Canadian mountie is a great example (Thank you), They are actually called the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. No UK monarchy and they instantly become the Canadian Mounted Police. Now do you see what I was getting at?

Without the monarchy, the Commonwealth offers no more to the members than they currently get from NATO. The Singapore declaration shows that. My version: "Lets all be nice to each other, Group Hug!"

The British Commonwealth is pointless without a British monarch. The ties are based on heritage not mutual advantage (although there are many). I personally don't think the monarchy will be around in 50 years. When it goes, the Commonwealth will be disbanded 2 days later. If i'm wrong i'll bump this thread and send you a personal apology.

» Fri Sep 04, 2009 2:41 am

See, all you need to sort out the wasteland, is Micheal Caine with his Webley, and a few Welshmen, dressed in scarlet jackets, with pith helmets, and Martini-Henry rifles...who last but not least....can sing a rousing rendition of "Men of Harlech"!

» Fri Sep 04, 2009 3:34 am

Remember that after Britain's failure to defend Singapore in WW2, and Australia coming under attack on it's own soil (not really the fault of the British of course, those Japanese were rather numerous in that part of the world), and now in the growing Cold War climate, Australia and New Zealand realised the UK couldn't be relied upon to defend them and so they also militarily aligned themselves more strongly with the US shortly thereafter with the ANZUS treaty in 1951.
So, that leaves the possibility that Australia an NZ may have been more loyal to the US than Britain by 2077, especially if Cold War paranoia about the Chinese threat was almost continuous; they'd have almost certainly wanted to be on the good side of the Pacific's superpower for protection moreso than the protection of the British.

» Fri Sep 04, 2009 12:38 pm

That's true Richard. It is far more practical for Australia and New Zealand to be allied with the States. That's kind of my point. The alliance with the US is strategic and economical, the Commonwealth is based more on heritage and friendly sentiment. Thus my point, no monarchy, no Commonwealth.

» Fri Sep 04, 2009 2:15 am

@ agent c. Not using Wikipedia for your info will stop you looking silly too!

You misundestood my point about the RAF. Of course there would still be an air force but they would be called the British Air Force not the Royal Air Force. A Canadian mountie is a great example (Thank you), They are actually called the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. No UK monarchy and they instantly become the Canadian Mounted Police. Now do you see what I was getting at?

Without the monarchy, the Commonwealth offers no more to the members than they currently get from NATO. The Singapore declaration shows that. My version: "Lets all be nice to each other, Group Hug!"

The British Commonwealth is pointless without a British monarch. The ties are based on heritage not mutual advantage (although there are many). I personally don't think the monarchy will be around in 50 years. When it goes, the Commonwealth will be disbanded 2 days later. If i'm wrong i'll bump this thread and send you a personal apology.

I think you'll find most of the Commonwealth members arent in NATO. Nato is after all the "North Atlantic Treaty Organsisation" - Not too many of them are in that particular region.

The British commonwealth is pointless if the only goal is to be closer to the monarch - Only 16 member states call her queen, why would they want another pointless figurehead? The Commonwealth provides other benefits which is why states join. Membership isnt free, why would any nation pay hundreds of thousands to join a club where the key benefit is once every so often, a lady comes who can open fetes/bridiges/hospitals/etc instead of the regular guy?

This is all like saying people only join the UN because they think Ban-ki-Moon is a swell guy. Your argument makes no logical sense.

» Fri Sep 04, 2009 3:11 am

Not all institutions, change their titles. A great example of this is the Rhodesian British South Africa Police(even after UDI was declared). If you remember your Rhodesian history, the BSAP, continued with their original title(instead of becoming Rhodesian South African Police). So lets face it, even if the British monarchy were to be abolished, the Canucks might still call their Federal Police force the RCMP, or for that matter the British Navy might still retain the title of the Royal Navy(after all, esprite de corps, is very important when it comes to military,provost and civil policing units)....after all, long standing traditions die hard.

» Fri Sep 04, 2009 4:29 am

Actually fear mongering about a nuclear war has presented a lot of bad information. Surviving a nuclear war is quite possible, a lot of what has been suggested about the death of humanity from side effects both no longer applies (technology had advanced in the weapons themselves) and also it was largely based on the idea that a lot of things would turn out in the worst possible way (while claiming that was the best possible way). It should also be noted that there are a lot of differant kinds of nuclear bombs nowadays that do differant things. By the logic of many who claim everyone would die (totally invalidating post apocolyptic scenarios) humanity should have died out in a domino effect starting with the end of WW II.

That said I think the UK itself would stay together in a time of crisis largely for the sake of survival, especially if surrounded by enemies.

I can see a European Union/Commonwealth acting for a common goal, such as to obtain fuel (especially if Russia closed down the pipelines more or less permanantly). But once it came down to a huge, overwhelming East Vs. US conflict with China and Russia on one side, and the US on the other, and things get to the point where you HAD to take a side, I don't think the Commonwealth would be able to agree and it would fragment and the nations making it up would go to war in of itself as everything else was going on. Everyone backing the idealogy they support, or who they think the winners were going to be.

I don't think the UK would take that oppertunity to say "well hey, let's have a civil war!" if anything I believe there is enough history to hold them together in the face of such a threat.

Of course the problem I see is when diametrically opposed members of the former commonwealth go to war, some realize they are losing, and then fire nukes to bring down their conquerers at the same time. There just really isn't much distance to intercept them (no oceans to fly over for the most part) so it's going to be a gigantic fratriciding blood bath. On top of this both China/Russia and the US are going to probably be lobbing a few nukes down there too, in order to take out opposing nations.

While not effective in an internal point blank nuclear showdown, consider that nations like France and The UK have some of the most advanced Submarines in the world, which are doubtlessly carrying missles. These subs couldn't shoot down missles travelling at those ranges, but everyone would want to miminize the risk of EU/EC subs or whatever making it to their coastline and firing off their payloads. If there was a massive resource war, who knows what kind of firepower wound up being based where in the Commonwealth before an inevitable collapse.

» Fri Sep 04, 2009 3:31 am

Y'know what's scary about nuclear war? That it will happen eventually when oil/rescourses run out. Right now, noone is stupid enough to launch a nuke. Atleast for now =p.

» Fri Sep 04, 2009 6:03 am

Y'know what's scary about nuclear war? That it will happen eventually when oil/rescourses run out. Right now, noone is stupid enough to launch a nuke. Atleast for now =p.

I dont agree with that assesment.

Theres a good change by then we'll have moved on to other fuels so its not really an issue.

» Fri Sep 04, 2009 9:27 am

No, that glory goes to the UK as well. Canada is the second largest country on Earth and it was part of the Empire (Bigger than the Mongol's territory)

No, it doesn't. Not by a long shot.
Modern Canada: 9,984,670 square km?.
Mongol Empire (under Khublai Khan in 1268) - 33.2 million km?.

As for the UK? Being a nuclear power it would probably have been attacked (and fired off a few nukes herself) in the Great War. My guess is London is blasted nothing, with the rest of the country not as bad. No Super Mutants, but still pretty dire.

The Commonwealth or continuation of Empire is irrelevant. All roads are destroyed, all transport and communication infrastructure is destroyed. Every nation, at the start every community, is cut off from the outside world. Look at how fragmented and isolated the U.S. becomes and the union between States is far stronger than the British Commonwealth.

» Fri Sep 04, 2009 2:47 am

No, it doesn't. Not by a long shot.
Modern Canada: 9,984,670 square km?.
Mongol Empire (under Khublai Khan in 1268) - 33.2 million km?.

As for the UK? Being a nuclear power it would probably have been attacked (and fired off a few nukes herself) in the Great War. My guess is London is blasted nothing, with the rest of the country not as bad. No Super Mutants, but still pretty dire.

Actually, it makes little sense for a nuclear exchange between European powers, nor against the Soviet Union, or the Soviet Union against Europe. The reason China even used their nukes was because they were on the brink of defeat by the United States, in retaliation we fired our nuclear weapons, and the resulting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout spread across the planet. Hence, the name of the game...

The Commonwealth or continuation of Empire is irrelevant. All roads are destroyed, all transport and communication infrastructure is destroyed. Every nation, at the start every community, is cut off from the outside world. Look at how fragmented and isolated the U.S. becomes and the union between States is far stronger than the British Commonwealth.

Not everything would be decimated, there would be infrastructure left. It would be debatable what kind of government is left and whether or not that government would have any military power behind it. What was devastating to European infrastructure and communication was not necessarily the Great War but rather the Resource Wars, which would have left Europe much like it was in Belgium directly after the original Great War, World War I. Then, with Fallout, most in Europe would be dead, at least those without necessary shelter how many of those a nation has dictates more or less success after fallout would dissipate. The United States could afford a huge vault program, could a Britain with a huge Empire afford that? Probably not. That has sort of been my argument that nations would be more concerned with vault construction, which was costly for the United States, according to canon, pushed it on the edge of bankruptcy. Yet, the United Kingdom would hold on to the Empire? Give me a break.

» Fri Sep 04, 2009 12:08 am

Actually, it makes little sense for a nuclear exchange between European powers, nor against the Soviet Union, or the Soviet Union against Europe. The reason China even used their nukes was because they were on the brink of defeat by the United States, in retaliation we fired our nuclear weapons, and the resulting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallout spread across the planet. Hence, the name of the game...

Not everything would be decimated, there would be infrastructure left. It would be debatable what kind of government is left and whether or not that government would have any military power behind it. What was devastating to European infrastructure and communication was not necessarily the Great War but rather the Resource Wars, which would have left Europe much like it was in Belgium directly after the original Great War, World War I. Then, with Fallout, most in Europe would be dead, at least those without necessary shelter how many of those a nation has dictates more or less success after fallout would dissipate. The United States could afford a huge vault program, could a Britain with a huge Empire afford that? Probably not. That has sort of been my argument that nations would be more concerned with vault construction, which was costly for the United States, according to canon, pushed it on the edge of bankruptcy. Yet, the United Kingdom would hold on to the Empire? Give me a break.

Unlikely. Two nuclear powers wipe each other out, in accordance with the MAD doctrine, yet carefully spend all their nuclear weapons on each other, leaving all other nuclear nations alone to achieve global supremacy? Pfft. In a nuclear war it's all or nothing. Potential allies would be hit to prevent further strikes. First Stike doctrine, assuming China stuck first (the details are unimportant, the result is the same); China nukes the U.S. assumes the rest of the world won't stand for it, especially those with links to the U.S., and takes care of them too. Second strike, the U.S. does the same. Of course, the U.K., France, Russia etc all have their own agendas and allegiances. No nuclear nation gets off unscathed. Read up on First Strike, Second Strike, Massive Retaliation, MAD and other Cold War doctrines that would have been invoked given the the setting of Fallout. Your anology to Belgium in WWI is flawed because WWI =! massive nuclear exchange. There's...fallout. Boom-tish.

Not everything would be decimated? A look around the Capitol Wasteland proves otherwise. Not one stretch of clean road, rail, working ports, communication lines, nothing, nada. No reason to assume Europe would be any different. Or, from earlier on in the Fallout canon; California. Much bigger than the U.K., France, etc, still the same decimated wasteland.

I never argued the UK would hold onto Empire, so give yourself a break. Fallout diverges after WWII; the British Empire was pretty much dead and buried by then anyway.

» Fri Sep 04, 2009 7:12 am

Unlikely. Two nuclear powers wipe each other out, in accordance with the MAD doctrine, yet carefully spend all their nuclear weapons on each other, leaving all other nuclear nations alone to achieve global supremacy? Pfft. In a nuclear war it's all or nothing. Potential allies would be hit to prevent further strikes. First Stike doctrine, assuming China stuck first (the details are unimportant, the result is the same); China nukes the U.S. assumes the rest of the world won't stand for it, especially those with links to the U.S., and takes care of them too. Second strike, the U.S. does the same. Of course, the U.K., France, Russia etc all have their own agendas and allegiances. No nuclear nation gets off unscathed. Read up on First Strike, Second Strike, Massive Retaliation, MAD and other Cold War doctrines that would have been invoked given the the setting of Fallout.

I don't think so, at all, it would make no sense, even if nuclear war seems illogical and, as you put it, all or nothing, it really is not as "dire" as you state it. The facts we know say that there was a nuclear exchange between China and the United States. From the Middle Eastern exchange, in which the European Commonwealth used most likely neutron attacks against their targets, we know for a fact they weren't using massive retaliation doctrines, because by that logic with that exchange the Soviet Union and China would assume the worst and fire their nukes, but they didn't neither did America for that matter. There was no chain reaction, what resulted from the war between China and the United States, known as the Great War, was fallout, which would have radiated the stratosphere killed life across the planet, this is why there are Wastelands and there still is something left standing.

Not everything would be decimated? A look around the Capitol Wasteland proves otherwise. Not one stretch of clean road, rail, working ports, communication lines, nothing, nada. No reason to assume Europe would be any different. Or, from earlier on in the Fallout canon; California. Much bigger than the U.K., France, etc, still the same decimated wasteland.

Your anology to Belgium in WWI is flawed because WWI =! massive nuclear exchange. There's...fallout. Boom-tish.

Actually the United States proves nothing about Europe, this is why we argue about the place of the United Kingdom and Europe within the lore. That isn't what I was talking about, I was talking about Europe directly after the Resource Wars. After the massive nuclear exchange, solely between China and the United States since no other sources exist that point to otherwise, fallout would have preserved a war zone devoid of life, of course, the fact is it would still be a war zone and very much as destroyed, of course in a different way, as the United States.

Devoid of life would translate into a broken ecosystem and a massive wasteland within Europe, as well as whole cities totally abandoned, not to mention any population above ground dead. After 200 years without radiation poisoning the air, however, war would tare across the European continent in the struggle for order that would ensue without clear governmental structures and worn out infrastructures, from 200 years of decay as well as huge amounts of radiation that would have bombarded structures in the immediate fallout and huge acid rains from the fallout.

No, not everything would be decimated, but much of it.

I never argued the UK would hold onto Empire, so give yourself a break. Fallout diverges after WWII; the British Empire was pretty much dead and buried by then anyway.

Not necessarily, which others were arguing, with a weapons build up far into the future, would mean the British Empire would be held onto, but when one considers financial and social whiplash toward the Great War, this would have been nearly impossible.