Yes, as stated, it's not the number of weapons involved, but the number of people.
In the autumn of 1997 when the nukes first fell on US soil, the heat of summer is no longer a factor. Farms and communities within the immediate area (hundred miles or so) of the nuclear strikes would VERY quickly be overwhelmed by the hungry and injured, some who are probably armed. These inner communities would be soon stripped bare of all resources and the locust plague of refugees (those who hadn't succumbed to injuries, burns and radiation) would move on, taking the weapons, vehicles and what little food and supplies remaining with them.
Better equipped than they were just a few short days eariler, and well aware of the horrors they left behind, the hordes would continue their movement to areas perceived as safe. Some would head to other cities and towns, running into other groups which they either joined or fought, but many, probably the majority would head for the country.
Many of these groups over the following weeks, months and years would loose weaker members but gain others as well as equipment. Those who remained on the move rather than settle into a conquered area would become those we now know and love - mauraders.
Only those communities far, far out of the way in remote valleys, mountainous regions, etc or located in areas not assosciated with plentiful supplies of food (deserts, swamps, etc) would have any real chance of resisting for very long.
I don't know the ratio for most parts of the world, but here in Australia, 80% of the population lives in urban areas. Capital cities alone accounted for 64% of the population in 2006. Here in Tasmania where I live, the population numbers approximately 490,000 with 205,000 in Hobart (the state capital) 86,000 in Launceston (next largest city) and another 45,000 combined in the next two largest towns. So, in this largely rural and wilderness state of 68,300 sq km (26,370 sq miles), 68% still live in urban areas. Most communities number less than a few thousand people with the average being just a few hundred.
Now, if for some odd reason Hobart was nuked (no idea why it would be as there's nothing I can think of there worth nuking), and the surviving population of say 10% (20,000) headed out into the countryside, just how many comunities would be able to resist even one small portion of them? How many of those small communities could muster more than a few dozen defenders once you take out the children and infirm? And as most of those population "centres" actually have the people spread out over areas of several square kilometres, how quickly could they respond to threats especially without fuel for vehicles or power for radios and telephones?
Tasmania is already largely rural. How would other, more urbanised states and territories fare with their greater proportion of refugees?
|