Wouldn't there be places in the world that are untouched by : Fallout Series Discussion

» Mon Dec 28, 2009 12:53 pm

I mean i know Reno nevada was spared in the great war but isn't there other countrys that would untouched by the horrors of nuclear warfare. Namely the more meaningless countrys in africa and also the laid back australians. Because people woundn't waste there nuke on those countrys.

» Mon Dec 28, 2009 3:12 am

Technicaly, yes. They wouldn't have had Nuclear Bombs dropped on them.

But there would've been a global spread of radiation. So while they still have infrastructure (depending on how bad the conventional wars were in those respective countries) they still have issues with large amounts of background radiation, and the lack of a worldwide trade system (some countries actually import most of their food.)

» Mon Dec 28, 2009 11:18 am

In a U.N Nuclear warfare emergency book it did say this:

Brazil

New Zealand

Norway

Australia

Argentina

Would become super-powers in the event of a nuclear war. New Zealand and Australia would have the least fallout and background radiation and would have a thriving society during nuclear war.

Argentina and Brazil would not become major targets of Nuclear warfare, so the population could then re-locate to a un-touched area (Hence Australia)

Norway because of its proximity to Europe. It isn't too close, and no one cares about Norway (Warfare terms) so they would have it very good. ( Remnants of advanced Euro technology and society) So I guess the world wouldn't be SO screwed as depicted in most movies.

But its the fallout world and this theory could be applied into it.

» Mon Dec 28, 2009 1:47 pm

New Zealand and Australia would have the least fallout and background radiation and would have a thriving society during nuclear war.

Yeah, and we all know what this thriving society in Australia would look like :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bmf-HCCZYOg

Of course, the whole world would be affected.

Radiation, extreme climate change with mass starvation as result , not just a crisis but the total breakdown of the global economy, fuel shortage , multiple resource shortages.

Just think what would happen with all the import Australia is depended on. No import, no export anymore from one day to the other. The economy would collapse in days.
Money would become worthless within weeks. Stores empty within months.

The surving countries would change drastically within months : Mass unrest, mass unemployment , riots, breakdown of governmental and economical structures, food shortages result in looting before you can say "my kid is hungry". Looting results in martial law before you can say "It wasnt me !"

Mad Max comes pretty close !
People in countries like Australia would survive (of course they would suffer mass deaths too, radiation, starvation,unrest, maybe even civil war in some cases)
But the countries themselves (government, laws , social structure etc.) would completely change forever. And not to the positive, be assured of that.

The "surviving" countries would develop backwards. Partially back to pre-industrial times. Some maybe even to almost medieval levels.

In case of the Fallout universe you also have to remember how close Australia is to China. For massive radioactive Fallout this is just a small journey.

» Mon Dec 28, 2009 12:11 pm

Whose to say these countries weren't bombed also. I believe each of the governments before the Great War believed they could quickly defeat the other and take their resources. Most countries would arm themselves with nuclear arms if only too deter their neighbors. It would take very little for just a few opportunistic nations to start a powder keg that would leave most countries fried. Overall I think very little was spared the heat of atomic bombs.

» Mon Dec 28, 2009 4:27 pm

Switzerland: Why?

Because this country is always neutral.

» Mon Dec 28, 2009 11:24 am

In a U.N Nuclear warfare emergency book it did say this:

Brazil

New Zealand

Norway

Australia

Argentina

Would become super-powers in the event of a nuclear war. New Zealand and Australia would have the least fallout and background radiation and would have a thriving society during nuclear war.

Argentina and Brazil would not become major targets of Nuclear warfare, so the population could then re-locate to a un-touched area (Hence Australia)

Norway because of its proximity to Europe. It isn't too close, and no one cares about Norway (Warfare terms) so they would have it very good. ( Remnants of advanced Euro technology and society) So I guess the world wouldn't be SO screwed as depicted in most movies.

But its the fallout world and this theory could be applied into it.

Can you site which book says this?

» Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:59 am

Sweden survived!!!

» Mon Dec 28, 2009 4:45 am

Yeah, Sealand and Waknuk...

(anyone get the reference?no?

)

» Mon Dec 28, 2009 2:35 pm

Can you site which book says this?

It was on a website called Johnstons Archive

It wasn't a book, more like an article based on the speculation of what would happen in the event of nuclear warfare.

Tell me if its biased, but it came close, and the people who worked on it were leading scientists in nuclear warfare so i doubt they would have failed miserably on the speculation part.......

You check for yourself.

www.johnstonsarchive.com

» Mon Dec 28, 2009 4:43 am

I could already imagine Australia as a global superpower. It'd be hilarious (and quite fitting with Fallout's theme). Oh, and Norway survived? Woohoo! I guess my cousins are going to make it after all.

» Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:25 pm

South America (broken economy and civil war), Mexico (broken economy), part of Europe (resource wars), Middle-East (resource wars), part of Asia (unknown fate), Africa (unknown fate) and Oceania (unknown fate).

» Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:12 am

Yes, there would be plenty of places. There aren't nearly enough nuclear weapons to cover even a fraction of the land area of the world.

Yeah, and we all know what this thriving society in Australia would look like :lol:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bmf-HCCZYOg

Of course, the whole world would be affected.

Radiation, extreme climate change with mass starvation as result , not just a crisis but the total breakdown of the global economy, fuel shortage , multiple resource shortages.

Just think what would happen with all the import Australia is depended on. No import, no export anymore from one day to the other. The economy would collapse in days.
Money would become worthless within weeks. Stores empty within months.

The surving countries would change drastically within months : Mass unrest, mass unemployment , riots, breakdown of governmental and economical structures, food shortages result in looting before you can say "my kid is hungry". Looting results in martial law before you can say "It wasnt me !"

Mad Max comes pretty close !
People in countries like Australia would survive (of course they would suffer mass deaths too, radiation, starvation,unrest, maybe even civil war in some cases)
But the countries themselves (government, laws , social structure etc.) would completely change forever. And not to the positive, be assured of that.

The "surviving" countries would develop backwards. Partially back to pre-industrial times. Some maybe even to almost medieval levels.

In case of the Fallout universe you also have to remember how close Australia is to China. For massive radioactive Fallout this is just a small journey.

I always figured the post-apocalyptic superpower of Australia would be more like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f_p0CgPeyA

» Mon Dec 28, 2009 2:18 pm

If what you say about Brazil and Argentina relocating, Australia would be screwed. They wouldn't be able to grow enough food for their new, super-population and without imports from other countries, people would drop like flies, then disease would rear its ugly head, then the Aussies would be in deep kangaroo poo. Besides, Australia would be lost without the UK

» Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:57 am

The whole world was nuked.

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_intro:

In 2077, the storm of world war had come again. In two brief hours, most of the planet was reduced to cinders. And from the ashes of nuclear devastation, a new civilization would struggle to arise.

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout_2_intro:

The earth was nearly wiped clean of life. A great cleansing, an atomic spark struck by human hands, quickly raged out of control. Spears of nuclear fire rained from the skies. Continents were swallowed in flames and fell beneath the boiling oceans. Humanity was almost extinguished, their spirits becoming part of the background radiation that blanketed the earth.

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Jesse_Heinig, one of the FO1 designers:

One of the recurring themes of Fallout is that life will find a way to continue, albeit often under great struggles and with violence and suffering. It's not unreasonable, given this notion, to presume that U.S. remnant forces remain in parts of China, just as remnant Chinese elements are in the U.S.; and that other countries are similarly ravaged and war-torn, with survivors crawling out of the rubble. If Australia was untouched by the war, for instance, then presumably after 200 years they would have projected their powerful industrial presence and comparatively high population all around the globe to take control of any remaining resources, and the Enclave would find itself locked in a war with the Aussies. It's likely that some underpopulated parts of the third world escaped the full brunt of nuclear devastation, but since these would have been low-population unindustrialized areas anyway, they are not exactly in a position to take advantage of their "good fortune," such as it is. (I don't imagine that many nukes were wasted on the Sahara.)

The http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Vault_13:_A_GURPS_Post-Nuclear_Adventure_timeline by Scott Campbell and Brian Freyermuth (from which all other Fallout timelines in existence are derived):

Other countries, seeing the US's missiles on their way, fire their warheads as well. What ensues is two hours of nuclear bombardment upon the earth's surface.

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Emil_Pagliarulo, FO3 lead designer:

Tenpenny Tower was slightly inspired by Fiddler's Green, the skyscraqer in George Romero's Land of the Dead. But it was also an opportunity to introduce another character from outside the U.S. Allistair Tenpenny came to the Capital Wasteland from Great Britain to seek his fortune, so that alone tells you that the U.K. was also hit in the war. And if he came to U.S. to succeed, that says a lot about how screwed up Europe must be. So we just allude, a little bit, to the state of the rest of the world.

http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Tim_Cain, one of the main creators of Fallout:

Killzig: What ever happened to the catholic church in the FO universe?

Tim Cain: I think it was nuked - the vatican that is.

» Mon Dec 28, 2009 2:44 pm

You guys realize the US alone has enough nukes to destroy the Earth like 100 times over. If during the Great War, every country with nuclear power launched their nukes, or at least some of them, there would be so much radiation that the Earth wouldn't be liveable for god knows how long.

At least that's my theory.

EDIT: [censored], I just realized I necromanced >.<... I didn't realize this was an old topic.

» Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:32 pm

No countries would have been unaffected. The Resource Wars that went on before the Great War exhausted all countries' oil, uranium etc (except the US). It's not mentioned, but food would probably have been one of the resources fought over during the Resource Wars. Add in the nuclear bombardment of the Great War, and it is very unlikely many places made it through intact..

» Mon Dec 28, 2009 3:35 pm

Switzerland: Why?

Because this country is always neutral.

But in time of scant resources, was it?

Yeah, Sealand and Waknuk...

The gun platform run by a hokerr who thinks he's the king?

Besides, I don't see Australia surviving long enough to get nuked. There's a lot of coal waiting to be snapped up out there.

» Mon Dec 28, 2009 4:25 am

General rule of thumb: If the nukes didn't get them, the fall of civil order / international and national trade / following pandemics / etc. did.

» Mon Dec 28, 2009 12:37 pm

Here's the Johnston Archive predictions on the effects of Nuclear war. Oddly, we get this:

March 1989: Temperatures in the northern hemisphere are 4? C (2? F) below normal on average. This will shorten growing seasons and prolong agricultural disruptions. Before the war Japan was heavily dependent on food imports; now even fishing in neighboring waters is still unproductive. In Japan 30,000,000 starved to death this winter. Surviving Japanese military forces have waged attacks as far as Australia in search of food sources.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nuclearwar1.html

So basically, anyone that survives with resources to maintain themselves are going to get wasted by raiders anyway.

» Mon Dec 28, 2009 8:26 am

I think any more nukes and humanity would of been almost completely eradicated.

And radiation/civil anarchy/disease/starvation will screw over every place. From the Falklands to Sydney to Stockholm.

» Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:24 pm

Here's the Johnston Archive predictions on the effects of Nuclear war. Oddly, we get this:

March 1989: Temperatures in the northern hemisphere are 4? C (2? F) below normal on average. This will shorten growing seasons and prolong agricultural disruptions. Before the war Japan was heavily dependent on food imports; now even fishing in neighboring waters is still unproductive. In Japan 30,000,000 starved to death this winter. Surviving Japanese military forces have waged attacks as far as Australia in search of food sources.

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nuclearwar1.html

So basically, anyone that survives with resources to maintain themselves are going to get wasted by raiders anyway.

That sounds like its relying on nuclear winter to reduce the Temperature.... ITRW IIRC thats a discredited theory... In Fallout's world, it didn't happen.

» Mon Dec 28, 2009 10:45 am

of course the majoity of the planet was destroyed..
but, im sure there were other pockets like new reno that were un-effected..
like the Andes mountains or something..
youd figure even by 1950's "Science!" standards a nuke is only going to be pointed at a threat, like other nuke silos or major port cities, government installations, areas with a large populace and so on..

» Mon Dec 28, 2009 12:03 pm

Radiation and civil anarchy and poverty, my good friend.

Obviously your city not being directly hit is a blessing, but still expect life to change.

» Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:12 am

Radiation and civil anarchy and poverty, my good friend.

Obviously your city not being directly hit is a blessing, but still expect life to change.

What if you live on a self-sustaning island nation?