I don't know there are some mountain ranges in the D.C. Wasteland I know don't exists during Pre- war times

I wonder if small islands were sunk/destroyed/etc or if some of them survived in some manner. Places like Tuvalu or Palau that are semi remote, sitting in the ocean miles away from any larger countries. Would anyone bother bombing them? Would the radiation be enough to contaminate entire oceans? I don't imagine they're ever going to tell those stories, I'm guessing since many of them rely almost entirely on foreign aid, with the world powers ripped apart and barely able to fend for themselves, they'd eventually be reduced to their own chaos, even if they weren't mutated or blown up.

Nice passive aggressive america hate bro.

So here's the thing, anywhere not hit by a nuke would receive fallout (of the real kind) than weather changes and other effects brought on, so people would survive, but they'd would've been through hard times the whole "World Bathed in Fire" idea is probably romanticized, it doesn't matter if it was fact then, we have statements from bethesda staff saying there's society in europe.

A major reason america did so well was vaults, we know there were these across america (including alaska, hawaii, and annexed canada) and we don't know whether other countries had other vaults.

So the place to start with a game in annexed hawaii, canada or alaska (please Alaska, with DLC here in the southeast) and maybe hint to nearby countries and progress to that country, somewhere on the rim, to ease fans into the foreign fallout feel then see if it's something we'd all be up for.

But it's they're property and they'll do whatever they want, so bickering about whether or not it works is pointless,

BETHESDA SAYS THERE IS, SO THERE IS.

You know, come to think of it, how did Tenpenny get across the Atlantic? Are there working boats now?

There would be survivors in Europe, Russia, China and pretty much alot of other places.

The elite at least the financial elite and some royalty plus the political elite will have hedged their bets. People/nations with access to oil will have grown wealthy and will have used some of that wealth to invest in fallout shelters and bunkers. Places like Norway for instance with alot of mountainous terrain, desolate fjords and access to north sea oil would have grown quite wealthy (more so than today) and they will have invested heavily in falloutshelters. After all... welfare states have a responsibility for their voters and who pay 50% in taxes .

Dictatorships around the world will have survived too because of their paranoia. So yes. There would be quite a few survivors. Humans are like Rats. We survive.

Yea, the whole world is pretty much in the same state, people trying to survive and what not. It would be rather stupid IMHO that Europe would be completely destroyed while America still has remnants of society. Both were advanced, first world nations and both were near collapse before the bombs were dropped, Europe with the resource wars and America having to annex Canada for resources.

But to be honest, I would think Europe would be in a BETTER position than America after the war. Think about it, Europe has over 2 thousand years of civilisation, which has basically prepared the continent for Armageddon. Look at the Black plague (Killed over three 3rds of the population of Europe), the countless wars and instability after the fall of Rome (the Dark Ages, essentially the same thing that is going on in post-war America). I see no reason at all that Europe wouldn't be just as civilised, if not a bit more so, than Post-war America.

- I think that heavily depends on how you define "civillization". Sure we have a great and rich history of art and culture... but we also have a great and rich history of killing eachoter in the most inventive and obscene ways possible. Europe is a really a mishmash of nation states made up of fiercely independent "tribes" . Sure we can and will unite against common foes and the occasional ruler with delusions of grandeur. But right after we deal with them we go back to squablling amongst ourselves. Really, the last 60 years of peace in Europe (well... barring Jugoslavia) is a period of unpresidented cooperation in europe. And if we consider that its not more than 25 years ago that a splattering of Eastern european old states were basically puppets of russia, then that period of peace and prosperaty narrows even further.

-however you are right about one thing. We are extremely resourcefull when we need to be. Just look at ww2 germany. The last few years of the reich showed a staggering leap in technological advances, years, even decades before its time. Jet engines, rocketry, assult rifles and a plethora of other things really owe themselves to those last 4 years of the german nazi state. If push came to shove (and it would with resource wars) we would again see unprecidented leaps in science. We are really great at inventing new and intrusive ways of killing our neighbors and eachother. .

In my opinion it is highly likely that the entire world was heavily nuked. The Enclave basically wrote off the mainland USA, they planned to re-colonize the mainland unopposed after the coast was clear. Either that or use the Vault experiments to gather data to facilitate moving to a new planet. <_< Leaving any other nations intact would seriously undermine their long-term goals and make them a relatively weak faction compared to whoever survived. From the Enclave's point of view, it makes no sense *not* to target every other nation for destruction, even the friendly ones.

In real life the USA has enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world several times over. I get the impression that the alternate time-line USA was even more prolific in its production of nuclear arms. The Enclave had motive, means, and opportunity to rain death on every corner of the world. I think they did it.