WW3 went nuclear. 99% of Humanity has been wiped out. Most world governments have collapsed into warring factions and local militias.
What would warfare look like in a post-apocalyptic scenario? And how feasible would it be for various nation states to field armies if they’ve lost 90-99% of their population from disease and famine years ago?
Post apocalyptic warfare would look like PUBG
Most correct and useful resources for you:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken-backed_war_theory
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight:_2000
Maybe release pubg, not current year pubg. Release pubg was a semirealistic post apocalyptic survivalish game where good equipment was rare so everyone made do with kind of shitty and outdated stuff. Current pubg is a semirealistic squad level tactical shooter game where everyone has military equipment and no one doesn't.
I haven’t played in a few years. Damn I miss PUBG lol
IDK man it's kind of a meme. On a technical level it's in fantastic shape, probably for the first time in its history (good performance, no crashes, servers are ok, no serious bugs). On a creative level the devs have been absolutely lost for years, adding meme guns and stupid skins to pander to nogunz asian whales, not knowing what tone, aesthetic or style they're going for at all. On a gameplay level it's been leaning harder and harder into unrealistic noob friendly shit to try to make shitters feel useful instead of just being farmed by 10k hour esports sweats, and all of it is frustrating as fuck to die to; occasional literally bullshit unavoidable 0 skill deaths to make some shitter not quit the game and give the devs skin money. Also the devs are totally and utterly unable to deal with the cheating issue but you will not have a problem with it unless you play Asia or ranked (or both lmao) or put thousands of hours in and start to <<notice>> things.
Shit's free so anyone into that sort of stuff should try it, but fuck man idk if I'd call it a good game rn. It's a confused mess about what it wants to be.
>Current pubg is a semirealistic squad level tactical shooter game where everyone has military equipment and no one doesn't.
Current pubg is trash.
Fucking game started going downhill when they got rid of clothing drops, lobby chat, and refused to segregate China to mainland only servers as it's own cheating wasteland.
I live in Australia so for me it looks like running around the desert with my SMLE larping as the great white colonial hunter until I can snag an AR or an Austeyr off a cop or a soldier respectively.
>Post apocalyptic warfare would look like Twilight 2000
FTFY
most /k/ino tabletop
At best 20% would be wiped out in the initial exchange, and that's if the major cities in China and India get nuked. The real killer would be the economic disruption that followed, with many countries suddenly unable to feed their populations and people fleeing undamaged cities in panic. A billion or two people could easily die in the aftermath.
Warfare would be eclectic. It all depends on what nations retain their MICs, and to what extent. In large chunks of the world, small arms and light artillery would reign supreme. In others, you might or might not see intervention from a surviving first-world power with modern equipment. It all depends on the circumstances; there isn't a single "average" scenario, just like there isn't an "average" conflict going on right now.
Most of the survivors will be in South America and Africa, so you will probably see the formation of clans around surviving military units and an exodus for remaining arable lands as close as possible to the equator and unspoiled by nuclear fallout, eventually after a few centuries these clans may evolve into feuds and cities alternatively waging war and trading until a regional faction is strong enough to unify all of them, I suspect these cultures will lose all of their electronics but keep a bit of their electric knowledge and most of their understanding of civil engineering, engines and metalworking along with sanitation, basic chemistry and so on, on that sense given the presure to keep tsbs eith their rivals they will make an effort to keep cadres of specialists.
Warfare will be mostly infantry based and develop around skirmishes and raids, often using technicals and the occasional lostech, after a few decades they may also complement for a time with horse cavalry until industry is in full swing omce again.
Tanks, planes and ships may come back once both continents populations evolve into countries large enough and even continental blocs once again, and with radiation going away there may be a chance to start reclaiming new territories and see a population boom until electronics become available once again.
>Most of the survivors will be in South America and Africa,
In Africa? Really? And wahy will they be eating? each other? The EU and USA are the worlds biggest food exporters by far. Anything happens and Africa and India and China starve to death within six months.
Say it out loud your stupid video game have nothing to do with real guns or reality at all. because you can ride a horse in skyrim does not mean you can ride a horse in reality or in fact know anything about riding or caring for hoses. Do you understand? Vidya has absolutely nothing to do with reality, now or ever.
>An actual nuclear exchange would not end in a collapse
This, it would be a covid tier disruption for the vast majority in the west, a few hundred million brown people would starve and a few cities would get hit and reconstruction would start on them within 5 years at which point even ground zero has radiation levels that have dropped to manageable.
>South America and Africa
>, I suspect these cultures will lose all of their electronics but keep a bit of their electric knowledge and most of their understanding of civil engineering, engines and metalworking along with sanitation, basic chemistry and so on
They don;t have any widespread knowledge of engineering or sanitation now. Go home brown man, nuclear was will not make brown shitholes any more relevant or less shit(unless they actually are incinerated killing all the browns and making them fit for colonization by upper civilisation).
>Anything happens and Africa and India and China starve to death within six months.
Africa maybe, not so much China and India.
For China specifically, my understanding is that they have made a concerted effort to maintain food security at least when it comes to pure calories, producing enough grain (mostly rice) for example to supply their entire population. Yes, they're a food importer but that's primarily to feed their growing middle class's appetite for meat and non-staple foodstuffs, also due to the Chinese public's (warranted) concern that locally produced food will be contaminated with gutter oil or melamine.
Their population would lose weight if forced to switch back to more traditional diets and cancer rates would skyrocket as they're forced to begin farming polluted land but actual wouldn't be anything close to what you'd see in truly import-dependant countries.
They'd revert to mass cannibalism within a month's time.
That's not hyperbole. That's just what China does, throughout it's history.
China even in the 70s had pockets of populations that would engage in "flesh banquets" where they would kill and consume dozens of local schoolteachers, landlords, the wealthy, etc., not out of want, but because of political fervor.
I believe the most well known one was The Guangxi Massacre.
421 individuals that could be named and identified were killed and eaten.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guangxi_Massacre
>In certain areas including Wuxuan County and Wuming District, massive human cannibalism occurred even though no famine existed.[1][3][4][8] According to public records available, at least 137 people—perhaps hundreds more—were eaten by others and at least thousands of people participated in the cannibalism.[5][9]
>Other researchers have pointed out that 421 victims who could be identified by name were eaten, and there were reports of cannibalism across dozens of counties in Guangxi.[6][9][10]
>Although the cannibalism was sponsored by local offices of the Communist Party and militia, no direct evidence suggests that anyone in the national Communist Party leadership including Mao Zedong endorsed the cannibalism or even knew of it.[5][9][11]
, some scholars have pointed out that Wuxuan County, through internal channels, had notified the central leadership about the cannibalism in 1968.[10]
What the fuck is the Chinks actual problem?
It's just China being China.
In the west you have a culture of glorifying altruism and sacrifice, and your heros gain power and fame with their honesty and strength of will.
In China it's not the same. Or rather, it is publicly, where every one can see your face, but j it quietly, in your own home. No body will outright say it of course, but the ones recognized the most are those who use wits and cunning to undermine opponents using the least effort possible.
This is pervasive throughout society in mainland China. It should be obvious what this mentality does to national psyche in general - it leads to a population that will do anything to prevent their own ills at any cost, where killing and eating another human can be justified internally quite easily.
Here's one that will really bake your noodle -at least in this case the cannibalism was necessary as a result of lack of food:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Suiyang
>Xun fetched his concubine, killed her in front of the army and presented her to the soldiers saying: "Brothers, for the sake of your country you have defended this city with united efforts.... I am not able to cut my own flesh to feed you, but how can I take pity on this woman and just sit by and watch the dangers?" As tears rolled down their faces the soldiers were unable to eat. Xun forcefully ordered them to eat her.
I'm a little rusty on Chinese history. Was that before or after Chao Ling took power?
Nuclear fall out and cosmic / uv radiotiin due to loss of the ozone layer following a massive nuclear exchange would affect the territories closed to the equator the hardest. Expect every one there to starve to death.
An actual nuclear exchange would not end in a collapse, but with whoever has operational nukes left at the end coming out on top and genociding the losing side before slowly rebuilding society. Unaffected neutral nations would likely build their own trade blocks and rise significantly in the power vacuum
>An actual nuclear exchange would not end in a collapse,
Honestly this. The best we get is a bunch of people dead in the major cities/capital cities, serious economic damage, crisis of people moving to new location for food and work, but overall. The nations of the world will be fine and it will be a good 5 to 10 years before things get back to something somewhat normal.
The power that nuked first will also be isolated from the rest of the world's nations for being the shitter. Millions, up to hundreds of millions will die. But the world, nations, and humanity will continue on. I wish we would stop with the propaganda of nukes will kill everything.
Isolated? The piddly Ukraine shit has Russia isolated. In that scenario they would be exterminated, dug up by the roots and culled, their territories split like postwar Germany only permanent. Not even China would touch that shit, especially because they'd probably gain the East as their administration zone. Zero win scenario if they even try.
By the way, it wpuld be interesting to see how Argentina, Brasil and South Africa industries factor into this scenario, while currently diminished and often dependant on western imports there is still a great deal of technical knowledge in these countries which may allow at least WW2 military technologies.
ITT: anons thinking a nuclear exchange kills everyone
You'd be hard pressed to reach even 150m total deaths if it were US vs. Russia for an initial exchange using cold war nuke numbers. Nukes don't target population centers specifically. Primary shit you're slinging at is the enemies nukes, strategic sites, C2 etc. Any spare warheads go for production/industrial shit but tbh with treaties limiting to 1500 deployed there really won't be spares beyond the primary counterforce targets and list of secondary strategic targets. Global markets get absolutely shit on, supply chains need decades to readjust but within 50 years the US is back to status quo, Russia would be glass and China would have already demographically killed itself so I doubt you get your vidya experience from nukes. Now a gamma ray burst hitting earth on the other hand..
There is such thing as a counter-value strike, but as far as I'm aware no first-strike doctrine targets specifically civilians, at least not for effect of most kills. It would take a seriously insane and delusional set of leaders, and a whole incompetent chain of yes-men behind them, to allow for that kind of decision. Then again, see who our adversaries choose as leaders. I'm just hoping Russian generals have been selling off warheads and missile components for bribes all this time. Chinks have a limited arsenal, and probably reserve those for military targets like carrier groups.
israelites will Samson option the Middle East shortly. They've been buying from the Russians. Third temple soon.
>Sampson option in ME
please god I can't stand anyone governments from that shithole.
Yeah countervalue was more realistic back when the arsenals were much much bigger, still I think some old glowie PDFs on the matter calculated that it would still be very difficult to completely destroy the US/Russia. I believe American agriculture suffered surprisingly little compared to what I thought, specifically cattle I wanna say but might be remembering wrong. America kind got the shit end of the stick with total casualties being around 20m higher than Russia due to the way they make cities. Typically the population centers are bigger and also closer to sensitive targets but other than that I think the like 10k plus warhead exchange couldn't even hit half a billion. If you did a new sim with china it probably could however.
Basically, like warlord China: ramshackle militaries battling to reunite their countries, scrounging whatever weapons they could find, and eliminating contending parties within their borders.
Like in other ages of darkness,. Chaos, lawlessness, and instability will wash away democratic ideals or the primacy of the civilian government. The Military or whoever has potent military forces will dominate politics, with
>big sword corps
your pic related looks like a cool book:
https://archive.org/details/osprey-maa-chinese-warlord-armies-1911-30/
>Chaos, lawlessness, and instability will wash away democratic ideals
what makes you so certain that there won't be people or groups fighting for democracy amidst the chaos? History has proven over and over again that it is not an idea that dies easily
Democracy is barely 200 years old as a norm, and its not even practiced properly in many parts of the world.
In a period of unrelenting darkness, it will be placed in the backburner as brutality and strength become virtues to restore order in the land.
That would be absolutely catastrophic to civilization. We can't really know what warfare would look like. I feel like rather than warfare, most survivors would be focused on subsistence living until some degree of social organization can begin again. I couldn't, for instance, imagine any kind of sizable professional army anywhere. There's lots of weapons and tech to scrap, of course. It's almost more plausible if you think of a scenario where some nations didn't take too much damage and were able to reorganize to some degree.
99 percent of humanity would not be wiped out. At worst there would be critical infrastructure being destroyed, and civilian populations being temporarily cut off from authority. In that case, local law enforcement and emergency resources would try to keep the peace and form rationing protocols of local stocks until central authority is effective again. Other more corrupt and less stable nations might see breakaway states, like Chechnya seizing the opportunity, or various nothing-nations in the Middle East and Africa forming new boundaries, but most cohesive nations would maintain themselves, and the central authority would be swift to keep order. It would be less "gangs of raiders roaming the wastes and highwaymen re-emerging" and more FEMA camps, more refugees, and likely a major military draft forming both forces to fight a conventional war with belligerent states and a home force to defend the borders, maintain law and order, and manage emergency care for the effected. If anything, central authorities like the Federal government would grow in scope to overcome the crisis. I would imagine WW3 to look like a bunch of disaster-zones spread about, a lot of blown dams and power plants, millions of displaced (and vindictive) people, and a subsequent mobilization and destruction of our enemies that would make WW2 seem like we were taking it easy on them. We are well aware of the effects of nukes, and have spent decades planning and researching with them in mind. It would be an unprecedented disaster, but it wouldn't be the end of all we know. Short of serious biological or chemical attacks, we would see the other side of it. Now if you're talking some insane rogue faction getting ahold of a designer germ and spreading it around, or spreading lethal amounts of aerosolized fentanyl, we're probably fucked from the effects of the panic alone.
You guys need to read the 4 books of the One Second After series.
It used to be basic /k/ literature a decade ago but has faded a little from this board.
What would happen would be close to this book but in a more global scale
>Single towns and towns collaborating with each other
>Large groups of looters, marauders fighting each other and trying to overcome towns who got a somewhat functioning supply chain.
>Tons of cults and groups who want to craft new nations on the ashes
>Ramshackle military units fighting for dozens of reasons
>Some remains of the former governments who try to keep and gain control
Basically the world would break up into billions of tiny little fractions which would either just try to survive and restore public order on a local scale or fight each other for their own personal gain.
Main takeaways:
1) In your scenario most pre-war stockpiles would be depleted after few years max.
2) Most warfare and living in general would revert to mid-19th century style.
3) Even low key stuff like, for example, a single scoped rifle, would become a very valuable key element
4) Long term speaking only those would prevail who manage to build something sustainable. That means food, water, medical stuff, politics and a functioning society.
After such a war many more would die until only the fittest, most hardened and clever groups would survive. They would be the very core to repopulate the planet.
That's why I only smile at those who write they would be scavengers in such a world. That would only work for a few years max until all the supplies are depleted, all the woods and rivers and lakes are devoid of game and local communities have organized to fight off such marauders.
Based informed poster. The first year or so of post apocalypse would fit the normal image of “muh walking dead/mad max” anarchy like state. But after a year or 2 any scavengers and shitters would die off from infection or starvation. Only those who can come together to farm and get along will make, but still only barely.
>And how feasible would it be for various nation states to field armies if they’ve lost 90-99% of their population from disease and famine years ago?
They wouldn't BE nations any more, except maybe on paper.
like ww1, except the trench are underground bunker and everything is radioactive. pretty epic.
>99% of Humanity has been wiped out.
There would be no warfare then. The remaining 1% would likely die out in a couple years also.
It is funny how you think nation states or any political organisation would be relevant to the survivors of a nuclear exchange. Societies would disappear completely. Everything will become meaningless apart from finding food.
>my family was in Kaliningrad when the bomb fell
>they were not eligible for a place in the bunkers
Kino
?si=3JHwVx7vR_NytNGF
Every post-apocalypz scenario the sword-weebs start dreaming the world goes back to pre-gunz
Never going to happen.
On WW# Day+1 if I somehow magically all my guns dissolve in the magic-radiation, I'm building a pipe-shotgun not taping a kitchen-knife to a broomstick.
Then, I know how to build a SMG from random metal pipes etc with a dremel drill-press and a welder - I have no idea how to make thousandfolded weebsword and apparently it takes a lifetime of Zen and tea-ceremonies to master it anyway, when I can go through a few developmental prototypes in a couple of weeks and a few beers to get a workable product.
>I'm building a pipe-shotgun
Put a bayonet on it.
Something like Skaro's Thousand Year War. Degradation of tech, lack of reliable logistics, offensives consisting of little more than light infantry and *maybe* artillery support.
Would there even be a state left to administer war in a devastating nuclear exchange like that? I suspect you'd just get pockets of surviving military taking charge of local regions and acting like feudal lords.
>Post apocalypse slavic warlord armies are better equipped than ziggers in 2023
Mixed survivors banding together as small units in Europe after WW3 in 1983 would be /k/ino. Political boundaries would be crossed and old loyalities forgotten.