Population Question

[Rainbow Six]

Hi Arclight,

If it's any help. this is taken from the V1 Survivor's Guide to the United Kingdom (pg 14)

Cheers

The war produced some dramatic changes to the country. Some
25 million people were killed in the nuclear exchanges, while
another 10 million died during the fighting, disease and starvation
caused by the harsh winter of 1997-1 998, as well as the lack of
medical care after the nuclear exchange. At the turn of the century,
approximately 20 million people were left in Britain.

[Arclight]

Thank you that helps a lot.

[James Langham]

Originally Posted by Rainbow Six

Hi Arclight,

If it's any help. this is taken from the V1 Survivor's Guide to the United Kingdom (pg 14)

Cheers

I would suggest the 25 million is not just instant but by 2000 from strike caused sickness, etc.

The UK is still fairly well off in TW2000 terms (although I'm sat right on a marauder group area!).

Where are you looking at basing the game and I'll see what bits I have written up for there.

[Raellus]

IIRC, the average population of Europe (including Russia) is down about 50%, c.2000. Some areas, like Poland, might be down a lot more, while others, like France, would be down much less.

Sounds like the UK was hit particularly hard.

[RN7]

Urban and strategicaly important centres in most European countries, North America and the Soviet Union got the worst of the nuclear strikes, although China seems to have also got a battering from Soviet tactical nukes and Korea, Israel and some Middle Eastern sites are also targeted. India and Pakistan are also likely to have gone nuclear and I think its mentioned somewhere. 2300AD would also include Australia and Japan.

Latin America, Africa and some parts of Asia get off lightly, although conventional warfare, famine and disease are likely to be rampant.

In Europe the best places to be are France, Switzerland and Sweden.

[Legbreaker]

As an example (V1.0) of just how much difference between areas there is, Selesia in southern Poland suffered 97% casualties while the US was something like 50%.
Countries not directly involved it the war and far from any fighting are likely to have been only lightly touched - maybe 10% losses due to famine and disease.
As the warring countries are also the most populated on the whole, the global reduction might run at about 50-60% (wild guess on my part) possibly more depending on just how badly China with it's billions of people was hit.

[atiff]

A few references relating to all this

- Eastern European Sourcebook (IIRC) says Poland went from 36 million population to 9 million (25%)
- Leg's note of only 3% left in Silesia is from Black Madonna, I think?

From Wikipedia: Fertilizer
Inorganic fertilizer use has also significantly supported global population growth — it has been estimated that almost half the people on the Earth are currently fed as a result of synthetic nitrogen fertilizer use.
^ Erisman, Jan Willem; MA Sutton, J Galloway, Z Klimont, W Winiwarter (October 2008). "How a century of ammonia synthesis changed the world". Nature Geoscience 1 (10): 636. doi:10.1038/ngeo325. http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~w...eo325.pdf.xpdf. Retrieved 22 October 2010.

90%? That seems a bit much. Does T2013 have an all out nuke-fest?

The T2013 book (p59) has the breakdown on how they removed 90% of people from planet Earth. Most were not due to nuclear effects. Paraphrasing from the book:
- 1/3: starvation, dehydration, exposure (i.e., lack of sustenance and shelter)
- 1/3: disease (e.g., cholera) and lack of health services; plus influenza epidemic
- 1/10: combinatoin of: self-inflicted; existing medical conditions; and misadventure/accident
- 1/20: civil disorder and violence
- 1/20: direct and secondary nuclear effects
- 1/40: conventional warfare