Need help for Fallout style game

[Death Knight of Doom]

I'm goin' to make a post apocalyptic campaign and I have several questions:
1. It's nealry 200 years after the nucler war, what will be radioactive and what will be safe to use/eat/drink/wear
2. If a nuclear bomb hits New York, will it destroy a whole city?
3. Is there any way for a group of people to survive without getting any rads during this 200 years?
4. What types of food can exist in post apocalyptic USA?

[fredtheobviouspseudonym]

1.) First, you need to define how the big whoops! happened.

There'll be a major difference between a nuclear attack involving the current arsenal of the People's Republic of China (38 nukes that can reach the USA last I heard) or Russia (about 3,000 nuclear weapons). The former might well bring about a collapse of government and economy but would not radiate most of the US. Hard to say about the latter.

2.) There are ways to make an N-bomb that produce very long-lasting radioactive isotopes. (No, I don't know them.) If the attacker used such, many areas of the US would have lethal remnants of such isotopes. It's not likely that this lethality will be in the form of "You set foot in this area -- whoops! you're dead!" but in the form of "Gee, you came down with thyroid cancer -- musta been in one of the Dead Zones a couple of years ago." If the attacker does not use these "dirty" bombs by 200 years most damaging radiation, except possibly in the actual impact crater, should be negligible.

If a nuclear bomb hits New York . . .

3.) Most modern Russian warheads can carry MIRVs -- multiple warheads on a single missile. However, according to the START II treaty, they are only supposed to carry one big warhead. (Check fas.org for specs on most current loads, http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/index.html for details on Russia.) There was a BBC site that would superimpose circles of total destruction & lesser damages on various cities -- I don't know if it is still up. But 2-3 missiles with c. 1 megaton warheads should destroy most of the Five Boroughs and lots of 'burbs. If you want NYC to be a glowing wasteland, let it. If not, assume one big nuke took out most of Manhattan and nearby areas of Brooklyn, the Bronx, and New Jersey, but that the rest is a wasteland due to collapse of civil authority, looting, panic, etc.

More specifically, the Russian late-model SS-19, according to FAS, has a single 2.5 to 5 megaton bang! As such, given the 2/3 rule (the area of destruction of warhead B compared to the area destroyed by warhead A is roughly equal to the cube root (of the ratio of explosive power) squared, or to the 2/3 power of said ratio. So, as Hiroshima was .02 megaton, and if the SS-19 has a 2.5 MT warhead, the SS-19 will destroy {I'm doing this in my head as the fool computer I'm working on has no calculator function} about 24-25 times as much land surface area as Hiroshima's Little Boy. I'm sure someone can produce a more accurate estimate.

4.) Survival without rads? Well . . . it depends on how many N-weapons were used, how far the radiation went, and where the people were. Given the prevailing winds and likely target locations you probably would do better in NW Canada, north of Vancouver. It should be south of the fallout patterns from Alaskan targets but north of those from Seattle & Vancouver & points south. There's also a lower population density (less competition for food & other resources) and people tend to be more self-reliant.

The north-eastern US has the problem that it is downwind of most US land-based missile fields which WILL be Russian and perhaps Chinese targets. There will almost certainly be a pall of radioactive dust coming down the prevailing winds (usually from WNW to ESE) that will make survival problematic. If the attack is Chinese, there will be fewer blasts and the radioactive clouds will be much smaller and less persistent (IMHO.)

5.) Food left in post whoops! USA? Well, almost all plants are, IIRC, more resistant to radiation than most animals. So wild plant foods will survive and by 200 years later probably safe to eat. Canned goods will keep for some years (in emergency situations people have eaten food canned over 20 or 30 years. However, due to the risk of botulism or other forms of food poisoning, do NOT eat canned food after its expiration date.) I don't know about after that. The higher up the food chain you go the more concentrated would be any radioactive contamination. Vegetarians rule.

You may wish to consult the old Morrow Project and Twilight 2000 games, as well as the GURPS Y2K book.

[Opellulo]

There's a lot of material about Fallout in the net; if i can find again the site there was a very interesting forum with Chris Avellone that detailed all the background used in the first two games.

Keep in mind that Fallout in not the tipical post-apocaliptic setting because it is some sort of alternate reality that uses the tecnology and the stereotipe of the '50: it's more ironic than realistic.

In a realistic pattern i stick with the M.A.D. concept: very few humans would survive and only because they lived in less populated areas (absolutely not in a capitol city like N.Y. that would be a primary target). For story purposes, if the international situation escalates toward global nuclear war it's realistic to imagine that would be more common to see anti-nuke bunkers and solutions like that.

200 years it's a huge time lapse: something around 7 generations or more, any solution that foresees so much time would see the born of new generations of children that doesn't know what's happened and are used to consider the World as is. There would be a lot problems involved in this: society, education, self-government and so on. The only solution i can imagine are small community in very protected areas (reclused valleys, undeground caves, offshore platform) or the lovely concept of VAULT.

[Tectuctitlay]

Do a web search for the "Fallout Bible". It's a series of 9 documents put together by Chris Avellone as a guide to the Fallout setting. I found them on Duck and Cover! if I'm not mistaken.

[The Colonel]

Last I heard neither side in the cold war had been directly targetting population centres for years - they might well get hit by collateral from attacks on seats of government, military bases or industrial sectors, but nuclear terror bombing was written off as a waste of ammunition.
Some more modern potential users on the other hand...

The effect of the bombs? Difficult to say - airbursters, targetted to destroy electronic circuits with EMP - will cause massive disruption but less lasting radiation. Groundbursters, aimed at hard targets, will generate fallout plumes and vitrified wastelands. Neutron bombs will kill anything living but do very little damage to inanimate objects. Cobalt bombs will scatter radioactive filth everywhere and leave the land unusable for centuries.
I don't think anyone currently admits to having any of the latter two, but they can certainly be built.

[bocharuk]

I saw a documentary called Aftermath last year. The premise was about what would happen to the planet if every human simply blinked out of existence.

It was very entertaining and would be quite valuable for anyone running a post-apocalyptic campaign.

If I recall correctly, 200 years would be more than enough time to wipe almost all traces of humanity from the planet. Only the largest, most durable monuments would remain longer.

Now, this didn't factor in a nuclear war, but it did consider all of the nuclear power plants around the world being left unchecked. It amounted to a similar scenario.

Check it out if you can.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Death Knight of Doom

I'm goin' to make a post apocalyptic campaign and I have several questions:
1. It's nealry 200 years after the nucler war, what will be radioactive and what will be safe to use/eat/drink/wear
2. If a nuclear bomb hits New York, will it destroy a whole city?
3. Is there any way for a group of people to survive without getting any rads during this 200 years?
4. What types of food can exist in post apocalyptic USA?

1: Pretty much everything would be non-radioactive. People live in Hiroshima, you know. However the sites of actual nuclear reactors would be a bit iffy.
2: No. New York's big.
3: No. We are getting rads right now.
4: Same, really

[Lupo]

Originally Posted by bocharuk

If I recall correctly, 200 years would be more than enough time to wipe almost all traces of humanity from the planet. Only the largest, most durable monuments would remain longer.

I really doubt that, since the world is full with houses, churches, bridges that are several centuries old.

After 200 years most buildings would be somewhat ruined, but definitely not "wiped out". Stone and concrete are quite resilient.

[Frost]

Originally Posted by Lupo

I really doubt that, since the world is full with houses, churches, bridges that are several centuries old.

After 200 years most buildings would be somewhat ruined, but definitely not "wiped out". Stone and concrete are quite resilient.

Of course that assumes a degree of maintinence. Especialy in harsher climates I think it is safe to say that only the most robust buildings would be anything other than heaps of rubble. As I understand it modern concrete in particular isn't that resiliant over long periods of time and even stone buildings tend to be mortared together and the mortar will errode over the years.

[ronom]

MAD has been obsolete for about 25 years. Current doctrine leans towards decapitation using the minimal amount of missiles and even less ground bursts. So the date of "The Day" is critical.