Quote:
Originally Posted by Olefin
The line in HW that my GM at the time said was the one that really turned him off when he read HW was that there was only going to be, at best, food for one quarter of the remaining population - meaning that the US, which had already lost half of its population was now going to lose 75% of the remainder - and thus be reduced to 12% or less of the pre-war population - we talked about it and our group agreed that it was completely at odds with the idea of a war that had a limited nuclear exchange - let alone the fact that having that many of the remaining people die in such a short time would have basically lead to a spread of disease that would have most likely wiped out the remaining 12% of the population that could be fed - that is if they were even still alive after the desperate fights there would have been over any remaining food at all -
|
f
As Nationalistic ( even Jingoistic, admitted to a degree) I am still inclined to agree with canon.
Those nuclear weapons didn't just hit military bases and few downtown shopping districts.
Those nuclear weapons destroyed infrastructure. Most specifically hydroelectric power infrastructure that the U.S. would find very difficult to repair if nothing else was destroyed.
Bonneville dam and Boulder dam are destroyed. There is little pockets of power west of the Rocky Mountains. This affects even Western Canada and Northern Mexico.
The water backed up in Lake Mead (and further upstream Lake Powell) is desperately needed to irrigate crops in Arizona and California.
Without that power even deep rock water wells are untouchable.
The nuclear power, LP power, and coal power plants are not enough except very regionally.
On the east coast, that means the Tennessee Valley District and more.
I don't think, personally, that Loren was really off much at all.