Refugee vs rural community (split from Cavalry in T2K)

[Legbreaker]

(drifted far enough from the Cavalry thread to merit a new thread, good call jester - kato13)

Ok, so how long do you expect those urban people to remain starving in their cities and towns after the first rumour of food in the country is heard?
Days, weeks, years?

Just because people live in certain areas today, doesn't mean there wouldn't be a radical population shift over the course of a few days and weeks. Famine is just one cause, fear of radiation is another.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Just because people live in certain areas today, doesn't mean there wouldn't be a radical population shift over the course of a few days and weeks. Famine is just one cause, fear of radiation is another.

Add to that large scale maurauder activity, disease and too much little or too much water.

[jester]

Of course some would make the shift, but how? The areas I am thinking are a hundred plus miles away from most urban centers. That is a hell of a hump for a trained infantryman who is supplied. How hard would it be for an untrained, unconditioned unsupplied half starving civilian who really has no idea what to bring, or exactly where he is going? Not to mention their having to travel through several communities that most likely will be less than freindly to them. Remember, most horse people have gun and can use them quite well especialy in the defense of their anmals and family.

Think, comming after a farmers stock is an attack on his livelyhood and family. As a result, I can see several communities turning out with guns in hand telling the masses of refugees to turn around and go back where they came from, or to just keep on moving and don't even look back.

As for other areas, well who was it who posted a picture of the desert and many of us here in the states said it looked like areas we live in. There are alot of desert and badlands in areas where horses are still used as working animals and alot of distance. I know in my area, the Interstate 15 would be littered with bones of the dead until you hit the top of the Cajone <Ka-hone> pass, and when they hit the top of that steep grade they will be in the high desert. In the winter it snows at the top of the pass and in the summer 110 is not unusual. I know the Mojave River flows above ground in a few places forming several oasises, but they are about an hour of drive time which is about 60 miles.

As I said, alot of it is terrain and climate that will save alot of the animals. And the wild horses and burros in the South West, try to find them, you can see them at distance in California and Arizona and Nevada but again they are in the middle of nowhere in the desert again. Death Valley has a nice population as well but they don't call it Death Valley for nothing.

Alot of the U.S. is sparsely populated with small towns far from urban population centers, and it is these towns that alot of the farming and ranching takes place.

[jester]

I am not saying it won't affect the numbers, but alot of areas will just be isolated again the rural communities who are for the most part self sufficient.

Marauder activity; heaven help them if they take on the inner cities of some US cities, and they have no chance if they take on any small town community in the country. They will be outgunned and out fought.

As for the water issue. People with livestock don't just sit there, they usualy move them to where the water is or isn't. I mean if you were a farmer with a dozen head of cattle and half that many horses. And the twilight war has been raging, you know what conditions are. Flooding is starting would you not move your livestock which are your livelyhood to a safer place? If there was no water, would you not drill a second well, or move your livestock to a place where they can water? Again, alot of the rural farms and ranches are already on well water. So, if you have hundreds of head you may have a problem, if you have a few dozen, its not that big an issue.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by jester

Marauder activity; heaven help them if they take on the inner cities of some US cities, and they have no chance if they take on any small town community in the country. They will be outgunned and out fought.

I was thinking of that Twilight module (Allegeheny Uprising maybe?) in which "The White Death" and his maurauder army's activities resulted in some pretty large scale population movements. There is also the Challenge module Rifle River in which a quasi-religious cannibal maurauder army sweep up the east coast from NYC and cause populations to flee ahead of them.

But I do take your point, it would want to be a pretty large and well armed maurauder band to try moving into a US inner city area.

[Fusilier]

Originally Posted by jester

Marauder activity; heaven help them if they take on the inner cities of some US cities, and they have no chance if they take on any small town community in the country. They will be outgunned and out fought.

Thats not exactly how it goes in the books though. If US military units are getting overrun by mobs of desperate people - old farmers will too, regardless of how many shotguns and horses they own. There's so many other problems that rural communities may face (including them killing each other) they'd be weakened already.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Ok, so how long do you expect those urban people to remain starving in their cities and towns after the first rumour of food in the country is heard?
Days, weeks, years?

Just because people live in certain areas today, doesn't mean there wouldn't be a radical population shift over the course of a few days and weeks. Famine is just one cause, fear of radiation is another.

Of course, no! However, on the bright side, we have guns, plenty of ammunitions, knifes, spears, forks, big hunting dogs... They don't.

Moreover, we would be more than willing to feed the few who have weapons or some kind of usefull knowledge (former doctors or policemen for exemple). For the others, I have a major doubt except for the first time. Anyway, that's what mass grave are made for. Someone, elsewhere, talked about the countryside taking in the family (and I'm not thinking about extended familiy) and, then, closing the gates. I think he is right.

Definitely, I share Jester's position. Also, he is more serious about it but he explained it so well that I didn't need to be .

[Legbreaker]

So Jester, from what I read of your last few posts, you seem to be implying that the countryside would have suffered very little post nuke?
Well, what about the large scale population movements carried out pre nuke by the government? What about the government efforts to "redistribute" food supplies aka seizing the lot?

Just how many people do you think are out there in the country, fending off the hordes of city folk? Do you really think the farmers are going to be able to defend their property all that long when the starving just keep coming? Do you really think the masses wouldn't be armed too leaving the farmers outgunned as well as outnumbered?

Sure, there will always be remote, isolated communities, but they'll just take longer to reach, but you can be sure those groups that do reach them will be all the tougher and determined for it.

As for wild horses, sure there might be a higher percentage of them survive in the back country, but they'll be a very difficult resource to tap for the very same reason they survived. I find it far more likely that they'd be shot from range for food than captured close up for use as beasts of burden.

[jester]

Yes, I am saying that be virtue of rural peoples location and ties to the land they will be better off and more self sufficient. So, they will not be refugees.

They will be better fed as they have gardens, fields of crops and livestock to live off of.

They still tend to have larger families and usualy work with their neighbors in preward times taking in the hay and often loaning or working on one anothers vehicles or other projects. Small towns tend to be more close than cities.

And they tend to own more firearms than most city dwellers, as stated, they also tend to know how to use them much better.


And then you toss in the home town advantage, they will be fighting on familiar ground.


Can a town of rural folks defend against a mob of unarmed city dweller masses.


Which is it? A mob of refugees that the military couldn't hold? If they are in a refugee camp, they will not be armed. So that makes it all the easier.

If they are refugees from the city who have not been in a refugee camp then they will be on foot and will have traveled 100 or more miles on foot, over wilderness, if they were already starving how would they survive such a jouney on foot? And then how would they be able to fight with a group of farmers? How would they be able to have or carry the arms needed to fight? And if they took their families with them again how would they survive without food carrying some meager items and their women and children? If its summer we are talking 100 degree temperatures, if its winter it would be freezing add those factors to the mix.

Keep in mind, there are major differences between urbanites and rural people in the US. And in many rural areas, they are not overly fond of urbanites. People from the inner city, they are not to smart when it comes to being out of their enviroment the city. If you are talking the gang banger types, these would have some arms but they would turn marauder fighting other gangs, the remaining police or military on a small scale and of course terrorizing the civilian populance.

As I have already said and as Mo just said. People with horses have a valuable tool since gasoline and diesel would be no longer available. Another eason for rural people to defend their animals. Since machines are measured in "HORSE POWER" a farmer with a horse or a team of horses or even mules is ALOT more productive than a farmer without they would be well guarded. And I can see people knowing the difference would go with rat. <Again in the rural areas, rat would not be an option as there are other more criters available.> Remember in the US around farms deer are considered a pest they are that common.

Two last things,

A military commander would understand that without fuel which powers modern farm machinery being no longer available their productivity will drop. I would think they would do what they can to maintain productivity, and that would mean leaving them their horses to keep them the most productive they are able. After all it does no one benefit to turn a farm into something that barely supports the people that live there when with just a couple animals the place is able to support many more people. Thus, knowing this they would do their best to protect those regions, and gain some of the harvest of the area, yeah the old working together routine, local military commander "we protect you and you provide my troops with food." deal.

How many people would kill the goose that layed the golden egg? Foresight would say you get more food keeping your animals to work, rather than turning them into table fare.

Okay a couple more things,

The rural folks would be in better shape since they for the most part would be removed from prime targets than civilian centers and as stated, they are alot more self sufficient than most urbanite.

And then we have the urbanites who are the welfare types who are on the dole, like many of the refugees durring the Katrina event, they are universaly dispised by most other aspects of society. It is they who sit and wait and want government to take care of them. These folks will die in droves when aid does not come after a few weeks and they of course will turn to looting and fighting among themselves. I doubt few will survive a move via foot to a rural area.

Also, moving where the food is. How would refugees know where the food was or the animals were? It would be rumor and not concrete information. And even if someone knew of an area prewar. How would they know it was still there? Would you move on foot with your family 150 km across desert <I am using desert as an example as it is the norm here in Cali> for the off chance of finding a horse or two to eat on some farm? That is a pretty long gamble.

The odds are pretty long for refugees to even make it to the location of the rural farming areas is what I am saying. Their numbers would be cut down, and those who did would be in poor condition.

They would not be armed.

Government relocation, that could pose a problem but as stated, the military commander should realize he had better help protect the farm communities in his area or he and his men will not eat either. Refugees revolting in a refugee camp, and turning on the guards is a scenario but the communities should have some heads up and in that case the local town folk would probably attempt to stop the mob <a mob is usualy unorganized> before they came to town, if they were unsuccessful then they would probably be shot, after all it would then be an us of them, and the mob would have little reguard for horses, private property and they would be like locusts which would leave the town without supplies, so they would have the motivation to stop them.

As for farmer with shotguns. Yes, they have shotguns, they also have 30-30s and .303 enfeilds that have been turned into sporting rifles and lots and lots of 30-06s and .270s and 7mm Magnums and .308s, and alot of the rural areas also are in "free states" whhere you can own and carry a concealed weapon and own and use fully automatic weapons and they are not uncommon.

I would also say that traditionaly the US, more counyty people have military service than city people, so that would also be an advantage.

And again the rural folks would be much better fed and they would be more mobile since they would know the country, they would also have the HORSES to ride.

Those are alot of the aspects I see affecting the ability of this discussion.

And as for the government comming in and siezing peoples property. That was a part of why we broke with the whole colony thing with Britian and started the Revolution. We Americans don't take kindly to that sort of thing, so much so that it is even in our Constitution. The government can not come in a sieze your property. Do that in small rural town America and the soldiers will have people shooting at them. It will be just like the British retreat from Concord and Lexington, farmers from all around will be shooting at the troops from every tree and rock. And as stated you would be hard pressed to find a farm that doesn't have a heavy rifle in the 30 caliber range with a scope on it. A far more effective weapon than an M16. And alot of rural folk also have archery for the archery deer season, which would be well used for night operations against sentries.

Couple that with the fact that would American soldiers turn their guns on their own people who are doing nothing wrong but living their lives? And even more importantly, the troops in the immediate area would most likely be the rear party of the local National Guard unit. That would not happen, how on earth would those soldiers ever be able to show their faces to their neighbors again? And if they did, how safe would they and their families be?

I mean there are alot of factors and dynamics that affect this whole idea.

[kalos72]

I think the problem with a rural farming community defending itself from a horde of refugees isnt weapons or skill, but numbers.

Some of the numbers published show thousands of refugees moving through areas.

Unless the farming community has built defenses like an old school castle or something those farmers couldnt hope to keep the 1000 hungry, angry refugees from over taking them.

Even with machine guns or more advanced weapons it would be very hard to do. And what bout ammo? How many rounds of 7.62, or even .308, can a small rural community have on hand? And how many waves of refugees can they make it last through?

When the swarm comes, not much will be able to stand in their way.

As back on topic: Cavalry

I say its possible on small scales, but remember it takes 2.4 hectares per horse of grazing land to feed Or feed 10-15 people another year. :/

[Legbreaker]

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?

[Mohoender]

Leg

I think you can be perfectly right but that would depend on the area and even more on the region of the world you are in.

In the USA, city dwellers have weapons and they would represent more of a match. Moreover, from what I know of rural communities there, they are very open and hard to defend. Therefore, I have no doubt that your comparison with locust is quite accurate. However, I guess that things will be very different in mountainous regions and deserts (as described in the game by the way).

I don't know for Australia, however. Also, that won't be an issue as, in my game, Australia remains pretty much in shape and becomes one of the world leading power.

I would expect what you describe to occur also in Russia but in that country the main defenses would be distances. In most of Russia people leaving the cities would never reached the rural villages. Moreover, people coming out of the cities might not have much in term of weapons. The rural areas in western Russia could be more vulnerable but these in eastern Russia would be pretty much unspoiled (however, they are fairly poor).

No clue for Asia, at all.

Things would be very different for Europe, however, IMO. Many of our villages (and small towns) are much easier to defend, they could easily be fortified (when they don't retain some kind of fortification already), and most people coming out of the cities won't have much in term of weapons. Of course, we can also often count on an old fortified or partially fortified castle (14.000 in France Only) from the middle ages. Taking such a castle without heavy weapon is nearly impossible and very few people can stand in front of thousands. Don't forget, that these places usually include several wells.

As a result, I can see several situation that can arise.

First, the most modern village would be wiped out much as what you think.

Second, the vulnerable old village still holding a castle (or a fortified church) will rely on these structures for defense. Life will be harsher there but they could resist. They are politicaly interesting as many could soon be ruled by petty dictators.

Third, the old villages that have been built on a defensive position will be quickly fortified again and they will resist most invasions.

The villages and Towns still having some kind of fortification (and I know hundreds of them in Belgium, France, Portugal and Spain alone) will see them rebuilt. They will not have to fear much outside of military units. Like in the middle ages, marauders will simply avoid them.

I have put a picture of a village located 10 miles away from my place. That village has a population of 700 (when all the population around would have been assembled behind the walls). It is not entirely obvious from the picture but it is only vulnerable from the back. Then, you'll only have to defend a fairly small area (about 30 meters wide) while the other sides would be much easier to defend. Of course, it would need some work to be battle ready but not that much. You'll need to clear the forest and to destroy a few houses in order to increase the efficiency of your defensive walls (then, you'll have to raise them again asap). Antoher, thing, in my region, such village type is not an exception it is the rule. IMO, with the chaos following the first nukes such village could stand even a few thousand people (In Europe and in such village, you'll find at least one firearm in every house while the citydwellers can count on 1 for 100). However, work must be done if they intend to last but I have no doubt that this will be the case almost immediatly.

Of course, I'm not saying that the European countryside would be unspoiled, but several communties would be capable of resisting in a better way. Another thing is that over the past 50 years several of the old time machinery have been restored by historical associations (these would be quickly turned to use again). Most old village can count on a well, on a mill, and on an old oven (not to forget a few generator: 4-5 in my village alone).

Another thing to consider is that after the first incident, country people will shoot almost on sight. Of course, you'll have several thousand refugees but they will be weakened, most will be fighting among themselves and it will take some times before they organize. Yes, a thousand might be threatening you but they will most certainly attack as isolated, disorganized groups. Marauder bands would certainly appear later as a result of villagers organizing their defense.

[Legbreaker]

Europe I would think, especially the more rugged areas, would certainly fair better long term against mauraders, etc than almost anywhere else I can think of, mainly due to the centries long history of warfare and construction of defences. Elsewhere in the world such as the US and of course here in Australia, ancient village walls, castles etc are in extremely short supply.

Short term however, Europe is bound to have suffered some pretty extreme population shifts early on. The village you've refered to I think would have a chance of staying in one peice however, as you've mentioned, it would take time to prepare, time probably wasted in the first few days, possibly even weeks while the inhabitants realised exactly what's about to come down on them.

I believe that before the first nukes in Europe, the vast majority of refugees would be from those areas the fighting was actually taking place in - predominately Poland. Where these people go is anyone's guess but I'd think the German speaking Poles would head west, those in southern Poland are likely to go into the mountains and Czecholslovakia, and in the east, the majority might be fleeing before the advancing Nato armies - just conjecture though....

Once nukes began to be used, and targets outside of the immediate areas fighting was taking place, almost everyone with even the slightest fear of a bomb dropping nearby would be looking for somewhere else to be.

With that in mind, I think there'd be little reason for any but the most paranoid of villages and towns to prepare defences before late 1997. I'm guessing that even though the Soviets threw the first tactical nuke on the 9th of July 1997 at the Chinese, real panic in the west wouldn't set in until after the Siege of Warsaw was lifted and deep strategic strikes began in October 1997.

With the effects of EMP hitting civilian transportation hard, everyone would be looking for anything capable of moving to transport them - horses probably being prized above all else (had to get the thread back on track somehow ). Then, a month or so later when the horseborne had found relative safety and food shortages really started to bite (and winter had well and truely set in) those horses would begin to look like very tempting food sources.

So, by the time the various militaries seriously began considering horses and cavalry, most would have died from the direct effects of the bombs, disease, starvation, exposure (winter 97-98 was harsh), radiation and of course hungry people. Whatever animals made it through that first dread winter would have to be few and far between.

[Legbreaker]

Since this thread is now more about group versus group, I think a discussion of the various tactics and options (both offensive and defensive) might be in order.

Many areas of the world simply don't have the private weapon saturation of the US so what else could be used? To start with there's the obvious such as bows, spears, museum relics and such, but has anyone thought about chemical weapons?

Any school science teacher can create a multitude of nasty options from basic, everyday ingredients - pool chlorine and brake fluid for example makes chlorine gas. Just run a line of chlorine out upwind of your targetted area then another line of the brake fluid over the top of it (being careful to stay upwind). Then, sit back and wait for the wind to do the work for you, rooting out dug in defenders, breaking up assaults, etc. Doesn't work too well if the other side has gas masks, but how many civilian forces (ormo, militia, etc) have them?

Oversized crossbows are a great idea for defenders. Mounted on walls overlooking the main gate of the village, they're powerful enough to damage even some lighty armoured AFVs. Range might not be as good as the average LAW, but tipped with some type of explosive they're going to mess up whatever they hit.

Mines (homemade mainly), dragons teeth, log cribs (boxes made of logs filled with earth and stone), and ditches amongst others are all going to see use. Backyard mortars, zip guns, possibly even a few types of medieval siege engines are all going to be useful once more.

[Mohoender]

Leg

Your proposal of chemical is effectively an option especially when you know the amount of chemicals you'll find in most farms. I'm not a specialist but from what I recall most (if not all) combat gas were derived from farm chemicals? However, the farmers might want to keep it for later growing season.

Another problem will be the use of these products. A year ago someone came to my house in order to treat an infestation (full NBC suit; I was laughing my ass off). When he finished he took out the suit, open the staircase door and overlooked the fact that a good part of the product would rush into that staircase. I started to smell it (I was staying one floor under him) and about a minute later you had two green guys trying to catch their breath at the front door .

It's a good idea but you might kill many of the defenders along with the assaulters. Actually, that could be interesting in term of game managing.

[Legbreaker]

So why were they used so much in WWI?
Yes, they can be a two edged sword, but that's why care is taken to place it upwind of the intended target (at which time you start praying the wind doesn't shift).

Improvised explosives, weapons, and boobytraps can be fabricated from just about anything your imagination can come up with. If a defender has nothing but time and an axe, you've no idea just how much they can achieve - use the axe to cut down a tree, part of which is shaped into wooden shovels. Pits and ditches can then be dug, stakes emplaced both in the pits and on the surface, walls contructed, etc, etc. Only takes time and imagination....

The most commonly known explosive created from farm chemicals is ANFO aka nitrofil. It's a mix of nitrogen fertiliser (which as of that nastiness with the twin towers a few years back is largely a prohibited, or at least controlled substance), and diesel fuel. Mixed in the right proportion, it makes a very good explosive and has been used in mining operations for decades.

Other commonly available materials such as some toilet cleaners, moth balls, and polyurethane are all ingrediants in improvised charges or incendiaries (obviously I'm not about to post the actual recipes), and many of these recipes would be known to the average science teacher let alone chemist.

In the world of the average T2K civilian, improvisation is the key. Modern military weapons are likely to be few and far between, at least up until around early 1998 IMHO.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

So why were they used so much in WWI?
Yes, they can be a two edged sword, but that's why care is taken to place it upwind of the intended target (at which time you start praying the wind doesn't shift).

May be I misunderstood you. I didn't want to imply that you were wrong. However, I thought about chemical gases used by farmers and civilians with little knowledge on their military application. People for whom everything would have to be invented.

Still, in that case I'm not saying they wouldn't be used but simply that they would not be systematically used and that they could often result in casualties on both sides (same thing if it is used by the assaulters).

For everything else, I think that we agree entirely. I might not be right about that but I think that wheat would easily become a fairly common explosive. From what I have read on that subject it is fairly easy to make it blow. Actually, Australia had at least one silo explosion in 2007 (France already had several over time). A few years back when the "Mont Blanc Tunnel" was closed it was because of a belgian truck transporting wheat.

Another thing that can be easily made out of what you'll find in a farm (and even in a household) is a flamethrower.

Were you thinking of military or former military? If that's the case, you can expect some extensive use.

[Legbreaker]

I was thinking anyone who'd ever read a history book or spent more than two minutes thinking about it.

Chemical "weapons" are used in non-military situations today. As you've already indicated, gas is used in some areas of the world to fumigate homes and other buildings, some farmers use gas to kill burrowing pests, and I'm sure there's plenty more examples. These people I think would soon see the use of these chemicals (amongst others) for defence or attack.

Fire could be used to good effect also. In the heat of summer when the countryside is dried out, setting the surrounding fields or forests alight could cause massive damage (again, depending on wind direciton, etc). Setting fire to fields could draw out a village's defenders - they're forced to attack in an effort to drive away the enemy and save their crops. Nasty tactic, but it's a dog eat dog world.

[Mohoender]

LOL we have been writing at the same time. I think we entirely agree in fact.

[Legbreaker]

Anybody else got some ideas to throw out there?

[Graebarde]

There is not one but three periods of 'panic' evacuations in the time line I think. The first occurs in the winter of '96 when the war starts in Europe, acutally intensifies as the US enters the fray and engages Soviet forces for the first time. IMO there would be 'volunteer' evacuations from large 'target' cities. Perhaps 20% of the urban population would head for rural areas. There would be runs on the groceries and fuel at this time, causing shortages and violence to one degree or another. It would take about two months for the panic to really subside. Over that time I would see about 5-10% of the evacutees remaining in the rural areas, possibly because of ties to the area (children of farmers, cousins, etc).

The second and more serious IMO 'panic' occures in July when the nuclear genie is released in Euirope. With the summer warm, verse cold of winter, there would be the same run on food, fuel, and supplies seen in the winter, though during this time, many people would, if possible, prepared for the future by laying in some food, etc. The swarm of locust into the country would overwhelm the infastructure, and yes there would be problems between the urbanite and rural folks as towns filled up. One significant problem at this time is the lack of the national guard units to help the LEO, as they are deployed or being deployed. State guard units would not be able to handle the problem. As for the masses in the country rioting, there would be some, but at this time there is food available. Innercities I could see going up in flames with looting and riots however over frustrations of the government not evacuating them and taking care of them like they feel they deserve. It would drive more people to flee to the country, and increase tensions. It would probably be four months before those that chose to go back to the cities all returned. I project perhaps 50% of the urbanites leave the city and perhaps 30% of the refugees remain in the rural communities or camps as the case may be. There will be a major effort to get people back to work as there is a war on and the war-industry is in the city, not the country.

During both these evacuations vehicles are availabe for the relocations though fuel would be a problem in spots.

The next big exodus would be TDM. Those cities not hit on the first strike would surely empty into the rural areas again, probably to the same community they did once or twice before. Those without connections in place would not fare as well as the 'established' faces, and that even depends on how they acted when they were there before. It is now the start of winter. It is cold and snow in the northern tier. As the ripple strikes occur, and if there is a HEMP strike, those folks will be on foot, no food, in the cold.

Sympathy will help some, but many will perish.

As for facing down MASSIVE HORDES OF STARVING? Organization is required to mount an attack. There are children that parents are concerned for. There are wifes men are concerned for. There are sheeple that have resisted being violent. Yes starvation and survival insitinct will affect their thinking, but I don't see the 1000's as a group, rather groups of 3, 5, 10, 20, 30, 50 or perhaps 100. Few of those groups will be violent initally, thinking that people, or the government, will help them. By the time they find there is no help forthcoming, they will be too weak, cold, and sick to really do much.

And the defense is in question too. How well is the leadership and organization? I see militas forming around the county sheriff's office in many/most rural counties. The sheriff is an elected official. He/she is THE word of the law in the county. They can deputize the whold population should they choose to and cover any questions about people facing armed vigilantees keeping the starving out.

I'm still working on this train of thought, but that's how I initally perceive it.

[Mohoender]

Good thinking Grae

About the defensive organization two things can be a positive asset: town council and local police.

Moreover, it will be easier to organize for the smallest villages (I would say less than 1000 people) and for the well defined towns (with walls or no extended suburbs). As soon as you get suburb-like areas you can expect riots and tensions.

Actually, internal tensions can be a problem. The level of organization might depend on how respected the mayor is.

[Legbreaker]

Does a mayor, sherriff, etc actually have any real power to organise anything? I know we see it in US movies all the time, but the rest of the world operates on a different model.

As Mo touched on, defending towns and villages are definately going to be split if not fractured into groups. Some of these groups will be dead set against assisting refugees to the point of violence (these are likely to be the ones who survive the next few years), others will be the opposite and give everything they have, and of course there's many shades in between.

Setting up a defence force/militia is going to be difficult because of these divisions and what about the local law and government? It's illegal in most parts of the world to create "private armies" and so those few law enforcement and military unit left on disaster relief, peace keeping and civil order missions behind the lines would be cracking down hard - who's to say if those "private armies" aren't a cover for a 5th collumn to attack allied forced from the rear or sabotage production?

Naturally, not all efforts for rural inhabitants to organise a defence are bound for failure, just any located near military units, cites (where sheer numbers of refugees will overwhelm), and in politically fragmented areas.

NOTE! Only tactical nuclear weapons where used in the west before October 1997 and these were limited initially to within 50km of the Soviet border.
It wasn't until NATO began strategic nuclear attacks "against communication hubs in Czechoslovakia and Byelorussia" that the Pact responded to the escalation.

To many, the Soviet border might as well have been China, especially those in the more western parts of Europe. Panic would definately have been a factor, however I feel the strategic strikes against "German industrial targets and major port cities" would still come as a huge (and rather unwelcome) suprise to most.

From July 1997, transportation would become increasingly difficult, even compared to the fuel rationing and movement restricted previous 12 months (like fuel wouldn't be rationed, etc when there's a global war on...). This would be for several reasons not the least of which would be roads choked with refugees, military and police units would set up roadblocks in an attempt to retain some control, and of course we can't forget the devastating effects of EMP on civilian vehicles, power generation and distribution, public transportation, and just about anything else you can think of with an electrical curcuit in it somewhere.

[Mohoender]

I can't talk for every european country of course but, in the one I know, yes mayors... really have the power to organize something.

Of course everything you said leg is right but there are differences depending on the country and in Europe (IMO) the law is not that easily enforced in the countryside. If central power start to weaken, local custom will quickly replace it. I think that this kind of local rule would be in place faster in the most remote areas. In less remote area you might have tension between the true locals and the people coming from cities.

About Scotland, I have a question, wouldn't you still have some kind of clanic behavior?

In Belgium, the local "Bourgmestre" can be quite powerful and that may be true even in cities. In Liege, for exemple, people would certainly obey the Prince and the city governor could very well do something.

In France (assuming it is not as organized as described per cannon), it could depend. Forget about cities and suburbs-like areas. Small towns can survive, however, but they would not escape some kind of riots. Villages, on the other hand, have a good chance to organize. The mayor is officer of justice and people still are very much aware of that.

Even today, every year, mayors are taking decisions that are entirely against the law. When they have the support of their population, it is not that easily broken. Last year several villages have started using illegal engine fuels because of the oil price. They did openly and went away with it. During the same period, some villages reduced there consumption of oil to a tremendous level in a matter of weeks. They simply turned to local type of fuel.

A few years ago, a village refused that an old ww2 senegalese soldiers was taken out of the country. The gendarmerie soon find out that if it was to carry out its orders, it would have to fight the entire population. Moreover, in protest, that village stopped paying state taxes during a short period.

In fact, in regard to the law, the mayors power are not that important but he can benefit from a tremendous amount of respect among a village population (it will entirely depend on the person). In the last election, in my village, the mayor was reelected with 80% of the votes. It was because of his achievement not because of his political party.

Moreover, local associations may help organize.

In Portugal, I would expect the organization to be almost authomatic in some region. My mother used to live there and we had witnessed some interesting facts in that country.

Once, we saw a custom police car coming into our place. It had been hit by no less than 50 bullets. The custom officers tried to intercept a truck. That truck turned around and chased them for miles.

During the huge forest fire that occured there a few years ago, one of the incendiary was burned to death, tied up to a tree. The investigation found nothing. Villagers collectively killed the guy and no one ever said anything.

A girl was raped. The guy who comited the rape was found hung to a tree. Again the investigation found nothing for the same reason.

The level of organization will depend on the place, on the leader charisma and on the internal tension. Moreover, don't forget that, in areas, the priest or the religious leader can also be of some weight.

One thing about EMP. In a previous thread one of us argued that EMP would not affect cars that much as they are faraday cage. I think he was right. However, the general electrical infrastructures will be affected.

[Legbreaker]

Ok, assuming for a moment cars would be exempt from EMP (though personally I just don't see it), where is the fuel coming from? By mid 97, I'm fairly certain the war would really be hurting the civilian populace with fuel imports seriously limited and what is getting in either diverted to the military and essential services or heavily rationed.

Much of the world's shipping is likely to be on the bottom of the ocean by that time I would think and we can be fairly certain the gas pipelines from the east aren't going to be supplying very much to Europe...

The black market might be a good place to look, but as Nato is forced back westward and there's more and more reports of nukes being used by both sides, that supply is going to get [i]expensive[/]!

Something else to keep in mind is censorship of information, specifically what's happening at the front. This could result in most people not knowing that more than a handful of small tactical nukes had been used (even as late as October 97 this could be still true), or the lack of information might have an opposite effect with rumour running rampant and riots in the streets as panic sets in.

The cause of this censorship could be as simple as the EMP effects knocking out any method of communication more reliable than carrier pigeons, so it's not unlikely that even government officials and politicians would be in the dark (the military, who are likely to have the only working comms networks, might keep negative information to themselves for a variety of reasons).

Of course there's also propaganda to think about. Would a government really sit on their hands as the world slid down the slippery slope of destruction without trying to tell it's people "everything is alright, the situation is under control"? Just look at WWII for some prime examples of positive propaganda, especially the Germans later in the war.

[Mohoender]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Ok, assuming for a moment cars would be exempt from EMP (though personally I just don't see it), where is the fuel coming from? By mid 97, I'm fairly certain the war would really be hurting the civilian populace with fuel imports seriously limited and what is getting in either diverted to the military and essential services or heavily rationed.

You are perfectly right. Again you'll have a huge difference between cities and countryside. In cities you can exepct that fuel availabality would be close to zero.

In the countrysides, things will be different (especially if fuel shortage had existed for some times already). You'll find some gazogene adapted on older car models. Diesel will be run on vegetable oil (50/50)... In many houses, people will burn wood for heating, saving the domestic fuel for their vehicles.
I'm not saying that there will be plenty but that will be developped.

Something else to keep in mind is censorship of information, specifically what's happening at the front. This could result in most people not knowing that more than a handful of small tactical nukes had been used (even as late as October 97 this could be still true), or the lack of information might have an opposite effect with rumour running rampant and riots in the streets as panic sets in.

I didn't thought of that and you are perfectly right. However, if it goes to rumors running rampant, then, the differences we pointed out will really exist. I don't expect the countryside people to panic that much and they might organize as independent communties even faster.

The cause of this censorship could be as simple as the EMP effects knocking out any method of communication more reliable than carrier pigeons, so it's not unlikely that even government officials and politicians would be in the dark (the military, who are likely to have the only working comms networks, might keep negative information to themselves for a variety of reasons).

With EMP the differences between the countryside and the cities has a very good chance to exist.

Of course there's also propaganda to think about. Would a government really sit on their hands as the world slid down the slippery slope of destruction without trying to tell it's people "everything is alright, the situation is under control"? Just look at WWII for some prime examples of positive propaganda, especially the Germans later in the war.

You are right again but, with the population already in the dark for weeks, you can't expect your propaganda to be working at all. Anyway, you'll have no way of using it outside the local scale.

[Legbreaker]

Propaganda doesn't have to involve electronics, radios, television, or even transportation!

A few posters stuck up here and there such as a weekly "news poster" printed on an old mechanical press by government representatives would work very well. Where transport was available, old style newsreels could come back into use.

Government agents could be sent out into the community to spread rumour, perhaps backed up with some type of evidence such as a newspaper from the other side of the country dated a week or so before with nothing but good news. The options are endless!

Just think of the opportunities for advertising and public relations experts. A whole new division of the government or even military could, would be created just to keep the populace under control.

[Mohoender]

You get a point there.

However, such propaganda won't hold for very long unless it is backed by the local administration. Again, situation will vary from place to place. On that matter I think that T2K provide us with a fair analysis of what the situation could become.

[Raellus]

I think a lot of these projections are a little pessimistic. Sure, there would be chaos and some isolated incidents of urban vs. rural violence but I am hopeful that most people would try to come together and help one another.

The evacuation of East Prussia during the twilight of WWII was relatively orderly (perhaps that was a symptom of living in a fascist police state). Also, German evacuees from its bombed out cities routinely moved to the surrounding countryside to live/work with farm families. Many others camped out in woods and traded their few salvaged valuables for farm produce. I've not read of any skirmishes between city and country folk.

[Mohoender]

They are not at all pessimistic, they are inspired by T2K. Anyway, as nothing occured on that scale during our lifetime you can do as you like.

Effectively, several past events can prove you right. The children of London found refuge in the countryside during the Blitz. In France, if 10.000 jewish children were sent to concentration camps, 40.000 had been saved by anonimous people from all over the country. In Germany, during WW2, as early as 1939, 1 million Germans had already been sent in concentration camps because they resisted the nazis. Despite its loss ,the German resistance remained active until the end.

Saddly, other can prove you wrong. I have never heard of much solidarity in Cambodge during the reign of terror by the Khmers (I might very well be wrong). That event would be the only one in recent history that could compare to the situation in Twilight (still without the same type of chaos). In Ukraine, between 1920-1921, people had been thrown alive in furnaces.

The great plague of the late middle ages and the hundred years war (between England and France) resulted in the massacre of entire communities (people who were not like the locals). Wide bands of marauders were running the land burning and killing on sight. A specific type of marauders were known as the "Ecorcheurs". They were former soldiers raiding the countryside and taking the skin off their breathing victims.

US cavalry massacred women and children during the various wars against natives. Natives were or had been doing the same (By the way, do you know that the custom of taking scalps out had been a french knight tradition?).

During WW2, resistance groups were often fighting among themselves instead of fighting the ennemy (In France and Yugoslavia for exemple). Stalin ordered the red army to stop in front of Warsaw and they simply let the SS destroy the jewish freedom fighter in Warsaw...

About the french war over Algeria I gathered witnesses of massacre from both sides.

After the first Gulf War, Saddam was allowed to send his helicopters against the shii revolt (Shii who had allied with US during the war) with a blank check from the US and UN.

I still refuse to ask my cousin's wife about what had occured in Africa under the Mobutu's regime (backed by the west). The little I already know is enough to disturb my sleep. If you can find the Belgian movie "Lumumba", it is interesting.

Strangely I have the feeling that we can continue over and over. Individuals have a tendency to show mercy but this ends when people start to form into mob. Take me right I'm not condemning anyone. I think that it depends on the situation,on the people, and on events. With chaos, someone can do the worse one day and save a complete stranger the next day; it just happens. In my opinion of course.

In game term, just do as you feel and, yes (on that matter), I might be slightly pessimistic. However, I'm optimistic about the future.