It's an interesting idea. I can see it happening. I wonder, however, if it would really be necessary.
With shortages of fossil fuels, catches couldn't be transported far inland. Fish would turn into a more local/regional food source. After the nuclear strikes and the chaos that would surely follow, would coastal populations be up or down? If the latter, so would demand, and, therefore, controlling the supply wouldn't be as important- at least, not important enough to go to war over.
On the other hand, if the coastal population grew for some reason- refugees, perhaps, pulled east to find food (i.e seafood)- then supply becomes a bigger issue and controlling the fisheries would become more important.
I see a similar situation north of the border. In the former scenario, Canada's big coastal cities get hit and there's not likely going to be as much demand Canadian for fish either. Their fishing fleet, therefore, wouldn't have the need or the means to create that much competition for American fishing fleets.
As I've written this, I've pretty much convinced myself that a shooting war over fisheries wouldn't be worth it. Due to population loss and limits on fossil fuels, industrial-scale fishing would decrease, the fisheries could recover naturally, and there'd be plenty of fish for the survivors of both New England and Eastern Canada. It doesn't seem like it would be worthwhile making enemies over.
|