Protect and Survive: A Timeline

[Sir Chaos]

Originally Posted by Macragge1

The problem with working out whether they really have surrendered is thus: a) the USSR's been hit so hard that it doesn't really exist as a single entity - the lieutenant-colonel sending the surrender message from his bunker only really speaks for a very small part of the former state. B) we're getting this information from the Officer, who is, at best, extremely damaged goods.

My take on that was that it was simply a lie some authority had come up with to improve morale, figuring that (A) hearing that no follow-up strikes or invasion or anything was to be feared would lift spirits, and that (B) it was exceedingly unlikely that any surviving Soviet leadership would be in any sort of hurry to say it ain´t so - both because they´d be unlikely to still be in power, because they´d be unlikely to care if they were indeed in power, and that they´d be unlikely to announce their presence to a still nuclear-armed Britain if they did indeed care.

[The Red]

I wonder if the Soviets have received an American surrender?

That's if there's anyone left.

[Baron Bizarre]

Originally Posted by Nekromans

A regime that refuses to feed babies will not be inclined to set up a football tournament.

Is that from Sun-Tzu?

[Philadelphus]

Originally Posted by JimmyRibbitt

We also came close in the early 1970s when Israel and Syria nearly went to war. There were fears that the Soviets might come in on the Syrian side and we might have to go into combat against Russian soliders. That nuclear alert was kept secret, because they did not want to kind of panic they had with the 1962 Cuban Missible Crisis. From what I saw on a TV show once, the United States was at Defon 2 at one point in the early 1970s.

I actually have a dim memory of reading civil-defense brochures in my Dad's car on the way home from our town hall - had he just gone down there to pick them up? - on a fall day when I was about old enough for it to have been 1973.... (But my memory could have fabricated part of this, particularly the fall weather.)

[BrianD]

Originally Posted by Karogas

i'm not so sure, if its still standing and in good repair you could see them being recommisioned fairly quickly and even seeing games played again (obviously not the old teams but whoever they could scrape together) for the simple moral boost it would give people to go to games and escape reality for a little while.

I'm guessing that resumption of any formal athletic competition, including the Football League, is many, many years down the road. Right now people are trying to survive. Only when civilization has settled down to the extent where you have people who have the time to compete, and support, such events would organized football, cricket, rugby, et al return.

[Philadelphus]

Originally Posted by BrianD

I'm guessing that resumption of any formal athletic competition, including the Football League, is many, many years down the road. Right now people are trying to survive. Only when civilization has settled down to the extent where you have people who have the time to compete, and support, such events would organized football, cricket, rugby, et al return.

And people would hardly be in shape to play, at least to play well.

[Lord Brisbane]

I really hanging out to see what happens to the Controller.

Even after the destruction of nuclear war, the Australian destroyer crew could make up a scratch sporting team against the RN.. Might do something for morale (although getting a draw would probably be poetic justice in this situation).

[modelcitizen]

Originally Posted by NCW

Apart from the obvious moral points, there is something else to consider. Even (or maybe even especially) in difficult times, parents do tend to make sacrifices for their children. Under such a policy there are going to be a number of people who give part of their rations to their children. Given the marginal nature of the rations, that is going to result in the adults starving.

Cheers,
Nigel.

in the aftermath of WW2, my paternal grandparents were among the number of Jewish refugees making their way towards what would become Israel, British-administered Palestine. (Both were from Poland. They had each survived the war by going east. How east? They met in Uzbekistan.) En route from east Europe to Palestine/Israel-to-be, my father was born in December, 1946 in Milan, Italy.
The following year, on their first attempt to get to their destination, the boat they were on was halted by the British Navy. The passengers were detained and taken to a facility on Cyprus. My father's parents were told to give the child over for care and feeding. My father's parents were in absolutely no condition to consider separating from their child, in light of losing most of their respective families in the context of the preceding military conflict. In response, the authorities there said, well, we aren't going to be giving you extra food rations for the child. My father's parents improvised, re-apportioning the rations to include my father's needs. Baby-food included pre-chewed bread, and my father's mother fondly remembers taking water in her mouth and then spraying the child with the water to approximate a shower. Anyhow, it worked out. They did make it to Israel, my parents met in Netanya (Israeli town on Med coast), they moved to the United States after they got married, I was born in New Jersey, et cetera.

[modelcitizen]

Originally Posted by The Red

I wonder if the Soviets have received an American surrender?

That's if there's anyone left.

I can imagine an exchange between a mid-level Soviet military officer and the American equivalent. If for some reason the Soviet officer insists on asking if the Americans are surrendering, the American could reply, "Come over and help yourself to it, mother*&^%er," and hang up.

(It would probably be more civil than that...)

[BlahBlahBlah]

I suppose the reverse would be quite similar.

[butch4343]

I reckon the controller is a reasonable guy in reasonable times, bearing in mind that he might not have even been aware of his role until very late in the day , the pressures and responsibilities I think would be enough to drive any person to make rash decisions that in the cold light of day were plain wrong, ie the baby decision, wrong decision yes, bad person no.

As for the constable I actually twigged it as it was written by mcragge1, but I was left with the impression that maybe the shop keeper was telling the truth that they had died through natural causes, not that we or the constable would ever know but it would be a nice twist.

There was a bit of talk about the film threads a few pages back, I'm so glad that I wasn't the only one that was disturbed by that film. Whenever I read what I term post-apocalyptic fiction I try and work out where I would have been and if I would have survived, I was between Edinburgh and Glasgow so would have survived the exchange , but I was 3 so the chances were radiation sickness or disease would have killed me.

mcragge1

Again I will say that I am absolutely hooked on this time line, I especially like the way that you take on other posters ideas and weave them in to the story (ie the scavenger groups looking for food). I was going to mention though have you considered putting the story into a text file and adding it as a attachment, its been done in the Cuban missile crisis timeline, it would help new comers catch up with the story without having to pick their way through the rest of the posts, my mate is trying to do this at the minute.

P.S

Is the next parts of the updates of the prosspero mission and the controllers plight far off? and will we get to meet the destroyer crew from Austrilia, I bet they have had some adventures.

[Astrodragon]

Thinking of the long(er) term...

Britain actualy has a good card to play that most of the other heavily hit countries dont have - Ireland.

IIRC, Dublin got hit but that was about it. Prevailing winds take the fallout over the sea, so thats good.
Ireland can feed itself. Indeed, with more workers and effort, it can probably run a noticeable agricultural surplus (the thing I'm not sure about is fertiliser - how much they need and sources). Irinically the loss of people in the city of Dublin helps this.
While Ireland isnt a high tech manufacturing country in 1983, it does have a considerable, if modestly medium tech, tech and manufacturing base.

So all in all, Ireland can feed itself, probably have a surplus, and also supply the goods needed to at least keep it at a level probably corresponding to the 30's at least. The problem they are going to run into immediately is fuel. No coal, no oil. Now, once they get the immediate damage fixed, Britain has ample supplies of both.

So its very much in the long term interests of Ireland (even ignoring the humanitarian aspects, which WILL come up as soon as Irish news teams start showing what the mainland UK is like..) to help the UK to survive and recover. Swapping food, basic medicines, basic tech and help with recovering the UK industrial base in exchange for oil and coal (and later on possibly some higher tech stuff, depending which bits have survived in the UK).

This will all be a very big help to the uK recovering. Both sides win here. Granted, its not going to happen immediately, the British have to repair the mining and oil terminals, and Ireland will probably be looking at what it needs to do for itself first off, but in a few months I'd expect some sort of effort from both sides to see how they can help each other.

The USA doesnt have the same advantage, although its likely Canada can play some of the same role - I would expect lots of surviving Americans moving north. The joker here is where all that radiation from the US midwest ends up. If it stays clear of the Canadian wheat belt things wont be too bad. Did the Canadian oilfields get hit? Canada's big problem is that there isnt much industrial production outside of the city areas which have presumably ceased to exist (teh areas are spread out, but while the facilities may have survived with some damage, I'm not sure about the survival of the workforce...), but there will be plenty of low tech and farming facilities in full operation.

The USSR is screwed. There are no countries adjacent who can or would provide this sort of help.

[hsthompson]

Originally Posted by Astrodragon

The problem they are going to run into immediately is fuel. No coal, no oil.

Surely peat is plentiful in Ireland. It doesn't solve the oil problem, but it is an alternative for power generation and the like.

[Sir Chaos]

Originally Posted by Astrodragon

Thinking of the long(er) term...

Britain actualy has a good card to play that most of the other heavily hit countries dont have - Ireland.

IIRC, Dublin got hit but that was about it. Prevailing winds take the fallout over the sea, so thats good.
Ireland can feed itself. Indeed, with more workers and effort, it can probably run a noticeable agricultural surplus (the thing I'm not sure about is fertiliser - how much they need and sources). Irinically the loss of people in the city of Dublin helps this.
While Ireland isnt a high tech manufacturing country in 1983, it does have a considerable, if modestly medium tech, tech and manufacturing base.

So all in all, Ireland can feed itself, probably have a surplus, and also supply the goods needed to at least keep it at a level probably corresponding to the 30's at least. The problem they are going to run into immediately is fuel. No coal, no oil. Now, once they get the immediate damage fixed, Britain has ample supplies of both.

So its very much in the long term interests of Ireland (even ignoring the humanitarian aspects, which WILL come up as soon as Irish news teams start showing what the mainland UK is like..) to help the UK to survive and recover. Swapping food, basic medicines, basic tech and help with recovering the UK industrial base in exchange for oil and coal (and later on possibly some higher tech stuff, depending which bits have survived in the UK).

This will all be a very big help to the uK recovering. Both sides win here. Granted, its not going to happen immediately, the British have to repair the mining and oil terminals, and Ireland will probably be looking at what it needs to do for itself first off, but in a few months I'd expect some sort of effort from both sides to see how they can help each other.

The USA doesnt have the same advantage, although its likely Canada can play some of the same role - I would expect lots of surviving Americans moving north. The joker here is where all that radiation from the US midwest ends up. If it stays clear of the Canadian wheat belt things wont be too bad. Did the Canadian oilfields get hit? Canada's big problem is that there isnt much industrial production outside of the city areas which have presumably ceased to exist (teh areas are spread out, but while the facilities may have survived with some damage, I'm not sure about the survival of the workforce...), but there will be plenty of low tech and farming facilities in full operation.

The USSR is screwed. There are no countries adjacent who can or would provide this sort of help.

The question is: will they want to help? Keeping the Brits fed will also keep some of those people in power that helped **** up the world already. Plus I´m not sure if Britain and Ireland had been on good terms at the time; and the circumstances of the time could well help get extreme anti-British types into a position of power in Ireland, especially if the elected government is killed in the nuclear attack.

[The Red]

Originally Posted by modelcitizen

I can imagine an exchange between a mid-level Soviet military officer and the American equivalent. If for some reason the Soviet officer insists on asking if the Americans are surrendering, the American could reply, "Come over and help yourself to it, mother*&^%er," and hang up.

(It would probably be more civil than that...)

That would make a good short story or possibly a part of this excellent TL.

But yeah, I doubt the Soviet unconditional surrender actually happened, or was taken out of context (maybe a dark joke on the Soviet officers part). Realistically what's left of the Soviet Union be willing to surrender to the nations that have done this to them. It might be propaganda on Whitelaw's part or probably just a rumour although personally if I wanted to raise morale I'd tell the British people that there have been no signs of life from the Soviet Union whatsoever, that the people who've killed their relatives and destroyed their lives have been wiped out completely, although maybe that wouldn't be plausible.

[Astrodragon]

Originally Posted by Sir Chaos

The question is: will they want to help? Keeping the Brits fed will also keep some of those people in power that helped **** up the world already. Plus I´m not sure if Britain and Ireland had been on good terms at the time; and the circumstances of the time could well help get extreme anti-British types into a position of power in Ireland, especially if the elected government is killed in the nuclear attack.

The feral anti-british element in Ireland is actually very small. Cooperation between the two countries has actually been very close for very many years (the idea that the Irish are fervently anti-British is mainly a fiction invented by the IRA and their American supporters). The very large majority are happy to peacefully coexist.

Once the reports and movies start coming into Ireland - and they will, its such an easy trip for reporters), the vast majority will want to do somthing to help - yes, charity begins at home, but even so they are people too.

As to peat - yes, I believe the Irish burn peat in at least one power station. But you have to build for it - you cant convert an oil station to peat. And you cant run vehicles on it. So if the British offer oil and petrol in exchange for food, basic medical supplies and equipment (obviously only the things Ireland can make itself), the Irish would be fools not to accept the deal. Where else will they get oil from, after all?

[Mario Rossi]

I'm really curious to know what has to tell us the crew of Perth and what will be the first moves of the new King (I assumed that he is Charles, I said right?)

PS: Macragge, if you like, let me know what you think about those informazioni

[Macragge1]

Before I let this all get on top of me

Originally Posted by Astrodragon

I wasnt thinking of looting so much as organised squads - people with no |(currently) useful skills, for example. Goods put in common storage. One or two people in charge to run each team. Better than having them sit on their hands, gives them something to do while helping the food supply. Actually, there are some other things that might be worth recovering - electronics, for example, so they can be used or cannabalised later. Things that are light and valuable (or will be valuable in a year or so)

Actually, once the immediate disaster is handled, I'd see such teams as a vital part of the economy, recovering all sorts of stuff for use now or later. After all, even with a lot more labour-intensive farming that prewar, there are going to be a lot of people without anything really to do.

\

Exactly - you've basically outlined with more clarity what I was trying to get at with the idea of the volunteer 'looters' - they're effectively doing the same work as regular looters, but in teams and under armed supervision; the other difference, of course, is that it's all stockpiled rather than finders-keepers.

Originally Posted by Karogas

i'm not so sure, if its still standing and in good repair you could see them being recommisioned fairly quickly and even seeing games played again (obviously not the old teams but whoever they could scrape together) for the simple moral boost it would give people to go to games and escape reality for a little while.

It's a noble idea, but the authorities these days aren't willing to let people sit doing nothing for 90 minutes - besides this, it'd be hard to find 22 guys (who aren't soldiers or policemen or w/e) well-fed and healthy enough to play a decent game for a prolonged period of time.

Originally Posted by Sir Chaos

My take on that was that it was simply a lie some authority had come up with to improve morale, figuring that (A) hearing that no follow-up strikes or invasion or anything was to be feared would lift spirits, and that (B) it was exceedingly unlikely that any surviving Soviet leadership would be in any sort of hurry to say it ain´t so - both because they´d be unlikely to still be in power, because they´d be unlikely to care if they were indeed in power, and that they´d be unlikely to announce their presence to a still nuclear-armed Britain if they did indeed care.

Such is the problem with trusting the word of mouth parts of the story - you've got the Officer, who could just be lying. He could be repeating something he's heard from CHANTICLEER, which is a lie. CHANTICLEER could be repeating something they've heard from some rogue minor Soviet soldier - this again could be a lie.

Originally Posted by The Red

I wonder if the Soviets have received an American surrender?

That's if there's anyone left.

We'll be finding out much more about the States soon enough

Originally Posted by butch4343

I reckon the controller is a reasonable guy in reasonable times, bearing in mind that he might not have even been aware of his role until very late in the day , the pressures and responsibilities I think would be enough to drive any person to make rash decisions that in the cold light of day were plain wrong, ie the baby decision, wrong decision yes, bad person no.

As for the constable I actually twigged it as it was written by mcragge1, but I was left with the impression that maybe the shop keeper was telling the truth that they had died through natural causes, not that we or the constable would ever know but it would be a nice twist.

There was a bit of talk about the film threads a few pages back, I'm so glad that I wasn't the only one that was disturbed by that film. Whenever I read what I term post-apocalyptic fiction I try and work out where I would have been and if I would have survived, I was between Edinburgh and Glasgow so would have survived the exchange , but I was 3 so the chances were radiation sickness or disease would have killed me.

mcragge1

Again I will say that I am absolutely hooked on this time line, I especially like the way that you take on other posters ideas and weave them in to the story (ie the scavenger groups looking for food). I was going to mention though have you considered putting the story into a text file and adding it as a attachment, its been done in the Cuban missile crisis timeline, it would help new comers catch up with the story without having to pick their way through the rest of the posts, my mate is trying to do this at the minute.

P.S

Is the next parts of the updates of the prosspero mission and the controllers plight far off? and will we get to meet the destroyer crew from Austrilia, I bet they have had some adventures.

More or less my view of the Controller - a decent man making bad mistakes in the face of true desperation.

I'll get a word document up at some point in the near future.

Originally Posted by Astrodragon

Thinking of the long(er) term...

Britain actualy has a good card to play that most of the other heavily hit countries dont have - Ireland.

IIRC, Dublin got hit but that was about it. Prevailing winds take the fallout over the sea, so thats good.
Ireland can feed itself. Indeed, with more workers and effort, it can probably run a noticeable agricultural surplus (the thing I'm not sure about is fertiliser - how much they need and sources). Irinically the loss of people in the city of Dublin helps this.
While Ireland isnt a high tech manufacturing country in 1983, it does have a considerable, if modestly medium tech, tech and manufacturing base.

So all in all, Ireland can feed itself, probably have a surplus, and also supply the goods needed to at least keep it at a level probably corresponding to the 30's at least. The problem they are going to run into immediately is fuel. No coal, no oil. Now, once they get the immediate damage fixed, Britain has ample supplies of both.

So its very much in the long term interests of Ireland (even ignoring the humanitarian aspects, which WILL come up as soon as Irish news teams start showing what the mainland UK is like..) to help the UK to survive and recover. Swapping food, basic medicines, basic tech and help with recovering the UK industrial base in exchange for oil and coal (and later on possibly some higher tech stuff, depending which bits have survived in the UK).

This will all be a very big help to the uK recovering. Both sides win here. Granted, its not going to happen immediately, the British have to repair the mining and oil terminals, and Ireland will probably be looking at what it needs to do for itself first off, but in a few months I'd expect some sort of effort from both sides to see how they can help each other.

The USA doesnt have the same advantage, although its likely Canada can play some of the same role - I would expect lots of surviving Americans moving north. The joker here is where all that radiation from the US midwest ends up. If it stays clear of the Canadian wheat belt things wont be too bad. Did the Canadian oilfields get hit? Canada's big problem is that there isnt much industrial production outside of the city areas which have presumably ceased to exist (teh areas are spread out, but while the facilities may have survived with some damage, I'm not sure about the survival of the workforce...), but there will be plenty of low tech and farming facilities in full operation.

The USSR is screwed. There are no countries adjacent who can or would provide this sort of help.

Good point about UK/ROI and CAN/US trade - these countries will be forced to exploit each others' comparative advantages in certain areas if they want to start getting back on their feet again.

Originally Posted by Sir Chaos

The question is: will they want to help? Keeping the Brits fed will also keep some of those people in power that helped **** up the world already. Plus I´m not sure if Britain and Ireland had been on good terms at the time; and the circumstances of the time could well help get extreme anti-British types into a position of power in Ireland, especially if the elected government is killed in the nuclear attack.

Luckily the ROI govt. survived the attack (they left Dublin) - any virulently anti-British people would probably have been locked up during Eire's version of the TTW - the two countries are going to have to balance between protecting themselves and trading.

Originally Posted by Astrodragon

The feral anti-british element in Ireland is actually very small. Cooperation between the two countries has actually been very close for very many years (the idea that the Irish are fervently anti-British is mainly a fiction invented by the IRA and their American supporters). The very large majority are happy to peacefully coexist.

Once the reports and movies start coming into Ireland - and they will, its such an easy trip for reporters), the vast majority will want to do somthing to help - yes, charity begins at home, but even so they are people too.

As to peat - yes, I believe the Irish burn peat in at least one power station. But you have to build for it - you cant convert an oil station to peat. And you cant run vehicles on it. So if the British offer oil and petrol in exchange for food, basic medical supplies and equipment (obviously only the things Ireland can make itself), the Irish would be fools not to accept the deal. Where else will they get oil from, after all?

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Mario Rossi

I'm really curious to know what has to tell us the crew of Perth and what will be the first moves of the new King (I assumed that he is Charles, I said right?)

PS: Macragge, if you like, let me know what you think about those informazioni

We'll find out soon enough - (the information's great!)

Next update's tomorrow.

[Koenig von Poposia]

Originally Posted by modelcitizen

in the aftermath of WW2, my paternal grandparents were among the number of Jewish refugees making their way towards what would become Israel, British-administered Palestine. (Both were from Poland. They had each survived the war by going east. How east? They met in Uzbekistan.) En route from east Europe to Palestine/Israel-to-be, my father was born in December, 1946 in Milan, Italy.
The following year, on their first attempt to get to their destination, the boat they were on was halted by the British Navy. The passengers were detained and taken to a facility on Cyprus. My father's parents were told to give the child over for care and feeding. My father's parents were in absolutely no condition to consider separating from their child, in light of losing most of their respective families in the context of the preceding military conflict. In response, the authorities there said, well, we aren't going to be giving you extra food rations for the child. My father's parents improvised, re-apportioning the rations to include my father's needs. Baby-food included pre-chewed bread, and my father's mother fondly remembers taking water in her mouth and then spraying the child with the water to approximate a shower. Anyhow, it worked out. They did make it to Israel, my parents met in Netanya (Israeli town on Med coast), they moved to the United States after they got married, I was born in New Jersey, et cetera.

Wow..what a story! Your family history is fascinating...funny how real life can be more bizarre than some of the stuff that shows up on this forum. Have you ever thought of writing it up? It would make a great book.

[Mario Rossi]

I entirely agree with the considerations of KVP: Real life can be stranger than fiction, and not even need a reason, hehe

Speaking of refugees, in other TL post-armageddon, is a recurring theme of Europeans or Americans who try their luck in moving to Africa. (Usually, the cliche has white people in South Africa with blacks in Ethiopia, Liberia, or things like that).

No news of military units that have chosen to "desert" in some safe corner (if it ever had been) in the world?