if the military is fully capable of operation then society has not collapsed and you don't want to be looting anything - just do as directed. If you start looting weapons and equipment from shops while the military is operating you're going to get shot
Society has collapsed, that's inevitable after a nuclear war, even one of limited scale (because even a "limited" nuclear war would be incredibly devastating). The question is for how long. Things won't be back up and running again only 3 days later. The military has to 1) pull themselves together and do damage assessment, 2) deploy nationwide (which takes a while), 3) begin efforts on their own recovery, 4) begin efforts in affected civilian areas, and then 5) begin efforts in other areas. It'll be several days, possibly even a few weeks before there's any semblance of society again. Order will be restored relatively quickly, but it won't happen overnight. Day 3 is the first day people are allowed to move safely outside without fear of lethal radiation sickness from the fallout, it'll be absolute chaos as millions of Americans experience the post-nuclear world for the first time. Stores won't be open, that's for sure, and the US Army isn't going to be providing armed security for a Walmart of all places. They've got much bigger fish to fry right now.
As someone from California—we sell guns at our Walmarts. And our sports shops. And our camping stores. And yeah, I can think of various shops in popular plazas at which you can pick up various types of guns. Just because Walmart & other stores sell the guns does not mean just anyone can walk up & buy said guns, however. Even after my mom went through a whole slew of paperwork & procedures & arbitrary evaluations & lengthy waiting periods to get a gun permit, it was never quite so simple as walking up, handing over cash, and leaving with guns & ammo. I think you've got to show a whole bunch of IDs, proof of where you live, some certificate, and demonstration of safe competency with the gun as well as something like a ten day waiting period before the firearm is released to the buyer. But maybe that's all just because my mom looks so suspicious. . .
1/ I'm not at all sure that the military has to pull themselves together. They've known for several weeks that the button's gonna get pressed, they'll be just waiting for when to scramble. They'll have a contingency plan set up, who's giving the order, who's giving the order if the first order-giver gets nuked, etc. 2/ They'll already be deployed, even if it's only to some sort of holding area; the mobilisation of armies has, historically, been the clue that you're about to get invaded. 3/ What recovery do they need? Unless they've actually been the subject of a strike (in which case, talk of recovery is over-optimistic) they're as good to go as ever. 4/ I assume you mean relief efforts? Law and order is going to be one of the prime things that they can provide. Maslow's hierarchy places safety and security as a slightly lower priority of basic needs compared to food, water, shelter; I'd suggest that not getting killed is a more basic need than not dying of thirst or hunger. ETA: If 30 seconds to Midnight is a reference to the Doomsday clock, then once the bomb has been dropped is surely a few seconds AFTER midnight?
End of the day its jades story so us thinking its completely unrealistic/plausible isn't really germane (until it gets published) - the idea that people can go wandering around 3 days after a nuclear strike is nuts in itself so on that stage small things like why society has collapsed outside the effected zone are almost not worth worrying about. People within the fall out zone will have much larger problems and won't be going looting on account of everything being covered in fall out and/or irradiated ... a state of emergency will be declared and the army will be moving into the effected zone to bring people out to decontamination points. They'll also be providing martial law in the streets and shooting looters
Actually, in this scenario, they didn't - it was an accident. Well yes, of course they were hit, the military was the main target, as it would normally be. Aaaaaand there's all the excuse I needed to not even bother. Honestly I was looking for that, just any excuse to fucking stop already, it's been a year and a half and I'm only 4 chapters in, it'll never get finished at this rate anyway. Guess I'm done here. Nevermind that I actually know what I'm talking about based on several years of very in-depth and thorough research including very detailed academic sources from everyone from the US military to FEMA to DHS, if a layman thinks it's ridiculous then nobody will read it, simple as that. (PS: Fallout doesn't fall indoors. It's radioactive dust/ash/rain that falls from the sky. Just wanted to point that out before I go.) Don't bother replying, I'm done here. Mods, lock. Story's done, I'm gone. Bye. Sorry to bother everyone and create as much drama as I have here. Y'all can have your forum back now.
One more thing, for public record before the mods lock this thread as I've now requested: My sources. What you all have been arguing with the entire time I've been on this forum. Tell me how "unrealistic" these are: https://ia601409.us.archive.org/23/items/falloutprotectio00unitrich/falloutprotectio00unitrich.pdf https://www.defconwarningsystem.com/documents/medplanresmannucdet-guide-final.pdf http://hpschapters.org/sections/homeland/documents/Planning_Guidance_for_Response_to_a_Nuclear_Detonation-2nd_Edition_FINAL.pdf https://www.defconwarningsystem.com/documents/recovery_from_nuclear_attack.pdf https://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk3/1979/7906/7906.PDF https://ia700606.us.archive.org/4/items/survivalunderato00bost/survivalunderato00bost.pdf https://ia601409.us.archive.org/23/items/falloutprotectio00unitrich/falloutprotectio00unitrich.pdf https://ia601406.us.archive.org/28/items/tenforsurvivalsu00unitrich/tenforsurvivalsu00unitrich.pdf ...and that's only a few of them, by the way. You're really going to argue with FEMA? Princeton University? The Department of Homeland Security? The Department of Defense? The Office of Civil Defense? The Office of Technology Assessment? NASA? The Red Cross? The Department of Agriculture? The EPA? The Department of Energy? The Department of Health and Human Services? The Nuclear Regulatory Commission? Really? You really know more than them? Then go ahead, feel free, write a better story. I've got literally the best sources in the entire world supporting every detail and fact I include. I don't say a single word that can't be backed up with official sources. But go ahead. Tell me I'm wrong. See, this is what I can't stand about you people. You argue with literal facts. And you use that as a reason why I shouldn't write what I'm writing. It's ridiculous. But whatever, if you guys say it's unrealistic, then I guess every scientist who's ever looked into the subject is totally wrong, and you mighty keyboard warriors must be right. Pathetic. How do you ever learn anything, if this is how you treat facts?
@JadeX , I'm not sure what's going on here. This thread looks to me like a pretty normal quibbling about the strategy for someone's novel. I'm not sure why you're finding it this upsetting. But the thread is zero reason to abandon a project that you want to do.
Yep. They can't even attend to a hurricane in a localized area with a week's notice and decades of practice. Never mind an impromptu nuclear strike in dozens of dispersed locations after having zero experience in doing so. Princeton's cool. But I wouldn't put any stock in any academic theory that hasn't had a chance to be tested yet. They don't even have a director at the moment. They'll be decimated. You said Russians, right? Their first strike targets will take out most of the Naval bases. And their boomer subs can land a dozen nukes on the Pentagon in roughly two minutes. Cut of the head and the body is fucked. They don't have enough funding to handle even a small humanitarian crisis. If Trump has his way these departments won't even exist in a few years. You live in America, right? How good a job are they doing with the health and welfare of the American people under even the most salubrious conditions? Right, because no government agency ever produced an incorrect or politically motivated study. Or fought among themselves for a bigger piece of the proverbial federal pie.
I'm talking about the sources for my research, why are you mentioning what their status is currently and/or in the story? That's irrelevant, they're the authors of the material which I used as sources for the dynamics and effects of nuclear weapons and nuclear warfare, the basic facts being disputed here, when these agencies have put decades of independent first-hand research of their own from the 1940s all the way to the 2010s. I'm pretty sure that if anybody knows what they're talking about, it's the agencies and organizations who wrote that very material. That's what I'm saying here. I've been browbeat and criticized the whole time I've been here, had my work slammed as "unrealistic" and "ludicrous" and "insane" when the war and its effects as depicted in the story is essentially a collective reflection of 60+ years of real-life research and facts. Yeah, I've got good reason to be a bit pissed at how I've been treated for actually striving to be factually accurate and treated as if I'm doing the opposite. And @ChickenFreak, it's not just this thread, this is just a straw-that-broke-the-camel's-back scenario, the culmination of a year of exactly the type of treatment I describe here. It's ridiculous how you all dismiss me without stopping to think that maybe I actually did put a fair amount of research behind this and that it's you lot that are misinformed? What is it about me that you all just collectively decided that there's no way that I even tried to look into the subject I'm writing about before I decided to do it? Is that the assumption you all make about everybody?
Because I would have zero confidence in their ability to deal with any sort of crisis given their track record. How does one research something that's never happened?
Spoiler: In Which I Derail Thread in Giving Reception of Dissent/Criticism Advise Just my two cents, but when people offer advise or criticism of which I didn't ask or don't personally agree: I thank them civilly and move on. There's no rule you have to engage or defend your stance. But when you do respond with a counter, you're signaling you're open for discussion or debate. Most likely no one consciously is trying to target you but they felt your responses was opening for a conversation with various views. Sometimes people don't understand context or know as much as you do about the particular area or your direction for the story. When it happens to me, I just civilly go "Thanks for your input" and move on. At best they're trying to help you & merely misinformed. At worse they're trolls & engaging in an argument profits nothing. For instance, there have been times when I've disagreed with members on this forum. Sometimes I just don't post or respond because I know it's silly. When I do post/respond I know I'm opening up a discussion and am welcoming dissent & disagreement to my stances. And they've mostly been civil & patient with me and I've been respectful of them & their viewpoints. Sometimes we reach an understanding. Sometimes it's as simple as agreeing to disagree. I know sometimes opposing views can feel like personal attacks when it's towards something for which we feel strongly. But you just got to take a deep breath, check your emotional reaction, and keep a civil tongue & know when to bow-out. Trust me—I'm hyper emotional & am prone to irrational feelings. But I know I need to put a lid on my responses. (Not saying you're a hyper emotional, by the way; just sharing about myself.) Anyway, this is just my personal process and how I handle situations. So you're free to go "thanks for your input" and continue to completely disregard me~ ☆〜（ゝ。∂） Edit: I'd probably be too afraid to leave, even if curfew or restrictions were lifted. But following the premise I do leave & am going to loot a Walmart~ I'd probably go for water and various water filtration & purification products. I personally wouldn't know anything about radiation & fallout lengths, so I'd personally only grab canned goods—but then I'd probably snag myriads of ziplock baggies of various sizes. The malleable nature makes storage of various things easier. I already have plenty of backpacks & luggage carriers & bags at home, but if they have camping/hiking based bags I'd not hesitate to snag one or few. I also currently live on a ranch, so I already have a lot of tools & equipment that I wouldn't need to loot. But I wouldn't snub my nose at various knives & appropriate ammo for the different firearms we have back home. That's all that comes to mind. But I'm not a looter by nature. I'm just as likely to grab the stuff (and maybe a shopping cart) and guiltily leave whatever cash I have on me near the register on my way out. Sorry, @KaTrian (＞_＜)
That's just the thing, the facts are still true whether you agree with them or not. That's all I'm saying here. That's all I've ever said when pressed on the matter. The same way we can project theoretical projections on the effects of climate change - compare to most similar historical events, add many years of research on the specific subject at hand, and coordinate with other organizations with their own research and form conclusions based on the projections. Nuclear weapons, other than their radioactivity, do not produce any particularly unique effects from conventional weapons, they just happen on a larger scale - but even so, we also have decades of research conducted during several thousand nuclear tests from numerous countries, so it's not like the information isn't readily available - it just has to be put together, like a puzzle, and that's how one would form projections as to a theoretical nuclear war scenario. Actually, sincerely, thanks for providing this. Good advice, thank you for providing this. EDIT: Whoops, I repeated myself. I repeated myself. (thought I'd changed one of them, but didn't, now I forget what it was)
Just a quick reminder... This thread should not descend to discussing how the OP should or should not handle replies. Let's not forget, these threads (in Research as well as other rooms under Creative Writing) exist also to benefit others who might be asking similar questions, so it'd be best to keep the focus on that. I know you guys mean well, but derails can become problematic as well. If you want to discuss a topic such as handling criticism or advice, The Art of Critique sub forum or the Lounge might be better suited for that.
Thanks, but I think we've covered all that needs to be, Ka. But, as I explained to you in PMs, the experience here has shown me that most people unversed in this subject often believe common misconceptions to be true, to the point of dismissing something fairly accurate and well-researched because they think it's ridiculous, based on what they think they know about the topic. It's just not the type of story that readers will enjoy, they'll become distracted arguing with background details. I'd have to incorporate inaccuracies into the story in order for the average reader to enjoy it, and I just can't knowingly publish fundamental factual errors in a story I intend for readers. If anything, I'd like to educate in the background of entertaining, not purely entertain and perpetuate myths in the process. It's just not something I can do, I have a sort of moral objection to that sort of intentional misinformation, no matter how much or on what matters. But that's not what people would want. That's what I've learned here - and I value that revelation, it's better to know that now than have to do this sort of explaining on a mass scale later on. (that's not anything against anyone here either, in this case I'm referring to the average reader most likely) Maybe I'll do something else, probably just stick to short stories if I end up with another idea, but I don't see the point in pursuing a novel that appears to be a dead end.
I've replied to the PM you sent me about this, but in essence I don't dispute the authorities, I'm merely suggesting that you might not be interpreting them correctly - Plutonium 241 has a halflife of 14.4 years (239 is on the order of 20k years) , strontium 90 is 28.8 years, and cesium 137 is 30 years... none of them will become safe in three days. Fall out falling to the ground (even assuming it doesn't get thrown into the high atmosphere) does not render it inert ... okay you won't breathe it in (unless you kick up dust by walking through it) but getting nucleotides on your skin will still kill you or cause long term health effects. Most models from Lawrence Livermore indicate that you are looking at a minimum of 1-5 years before fallout is sufficiently dispersed for people to be able to move through the fall out zone without NBC protection, although it may be sooner if you have a Geiger counter and can avoid hot spots Which means that returning to the original question - I'm not sure Walmart sell Geiger counters but acquiring one would be a priority (assuming I wasn't waiting for the army to come rescue me), I'd also take some spraying overalls and gloves/mask which i could discard after moving in order not to bring contaminated dust into whatever shelter I eventually found (editted in the light of Kats post) Neither I nor anyone else here posted with the intention of upsetting you, but instead of helping. I wish you luck with your story (although I am now putting you on ignore so you cannot Pm me again)
Uh...all? Every single one of the hundreds of posters here? Including me? Apparently I must have been criticizing your research in my sleep, because I don't remember doing so.
Not necessarily. If you draw attention deliberately to the things which are common misconceptions and then explain the facts of those matters, then you can make it viable. The narrative style of The Martian is a good example of this; Mark Watney explains things which the “average reader” wouldn’t know or understand, or might believe would be impossible, but does so in a way which is not condescending and allows the reader to gain the knowledge they need to understand the story as they go along. Of course, if you’re going to do this then you have to be absolutely certain that you have all the facts straight.
Or be sufficiently convincing that the reader doesn't care - Tom Clancy was a good example of this , he went into painstaking detail on all sorts of stuff, some of which was true and some of which was the product of his imagination based on what if research, Ditto for Heinlien, Coonts, Bova, Scalzi, all sorts of sci fi or techno thriller authors - the key thing there though is being able to identify where the reader will see holes and explaining them so that the reade doesnt perceive a hand wave. In the context of this story, the reader might perceive the things I picked up above (in regard to it not being safe to move on day three) however if its credibly explained why this is so the reader will accept it, regardless of whether its true in real life because all fiction involves some suspension of disbelief. However they are less likely to accept it simply being stated that its true without supporting 'evidence' being given/created
+ @big soft moose 's reply But wouldn't that come off as a bit info-dumpy? I'm not sure how I would convey this info when my MC is himself an average person who wouldn't automatically know these things. Now, later on he will learn a great deal as he joins a FEMA recovery team, and his uncle knows a tiny bit on the subject (from his USAF WMDs training during the Gulf War) but not really enough to explain a whole lot. I dunno. Maybe there's some way to do that, but it's not really coming to me right now...
It depends on the style - Clancy used to throw in enormous info dumps and his fans never really worried about it. That aside if your MC's not aware of these facts why is he wandering about on day 3 .... you'd expect him to follow what you refer to has common misconceptions ? ( I'm putting aside our disagreement and working from the premise that your facts are correct in your universe regardless of whether i agree with them in the real world). May be he could have some literature distributed via the net or in the media just prior to the strike ? (if you look at IFLscience they are debating this sort of thing in the light of the NK threat - with a more serious Russian threat on the cards there'd be all sorts of info floating about), then he could have a discussion/arguement with other survivors based on it which wouldn't be too info dumpy so long as you didn't over do it.
Well, to address this point by itself, it's because his community's local area National Guard units have already established some form of control, at least enough to minimally staff public shelters and broadcast info on the radio, but not much capable manpower beyond that at this point. So the answer to this would be that he's just doing what the authorities tell him to do. That's a fair point - while the war itself may have been sparked by accident, the circumstances leading to it come against the backdrop of a "Second Cold War" of sorts. It's possible that certain developments in weapons tech made in this time could spark public interest in the form of news media publishing "what does it mean"-type articles (Time Magazine especially seems to like doing this). So that's possible, yeah, totally. (btw, worth noting as a side-bar thing since Homer mentioned Trump - this takes place in a parallel, yet fictional, timeline; historical events up until 2014 or so remain the same, but no real people will be mentioned by name, the president from 2017 onward is someone entirely different, so I'm not blaming anyone real for the circumstances that lead to the war) As far as reader believability goes, I can stretch a few things to be closer to reader expectations while still remaining within the bounds of reality. For example, the issue which sparked the debate in this thread, how long they'd have to continuously shelter for the deadly fallout to pass. Some people believe it'll be years, but really it's anywhere from 2 days to 2 weeks, depending on blast yield and distance from. The 3 days figure I'm working with is just over the bare minimum. I could stretch that to, say, 5 or 6 days, maybe even a week - still well within the bounds commonly cited, but more than 3 days (which I understand sounds almost immediate, and admittedly it probably was an optimistic estimate anyway). (I've kinda already did that with the "nuclear winter" idea - from what I've read it seems the jury's still out on that one, it's either total fact or total crap or somewhere in between (what they call a "nuclear autumn") - so that's where I went, I don't know what the hell to really think about nuclear winter)
Having fully read the LL paper now that's a far assessment except for the creation of hotspots where long lived nucleotide particles like strontium 90 and Cesium 137 are deposited, those hotspots will remain lethal for years - so its pretty essential that anyone moving around in the fall out zone acquires either a Gieger counter or radiation badges or both. LL also suggest that hotspots are most likely to occur on the upwind side of obstacles (buildings, hills whatever) where heavier particles collect as the wind swirls upwards. I'd highly recommend a read of the various papers on the lawrence livermore website, although you need to have your science head on as they aren't written with non scientists in mind - the Dillon paper on finding shelter and when you should move depending on the shelter type is also an interesting read
