People ignoring the sirens on 10-23-2077

[TomJ]

This always bugged me, as someone who lives near a refinery, we have shelter in place drills that are preceded by the old nuke sirens. We know that the first week of a month around noon there will be a drill. and its always on a week day. I was wondering why so few people would have taken shelter. If there was a parallel to how we conduct drills, there would have been some predictable time when the drills would occur. Lets say the first full week of the month, there is a drill between 11 and 1. So, unless the country did its drills on the third weekend of the month in the Fallout universe, it stands to reason that most people would have realized that the sirens weren't a drill that day. The other alternative is drills were held at random times, which opens up the idea of was this intentional to get people to not survive the war when it came?

As a side question, watching 50's PSAs, they said there would be some coordinated response to a nuclear attack. I'd assume that in the Fallout world, either the attack was too big to do anything afterwards or the government intentionally pulled its resources.

 

[DarkCorp]

Well, in FNV, House mentions how vegas was targetted by 11 nukes. His defenses killed 8. So I assume those not already pre-selected for vaults were screwed.

 

[TomJ]

People aren't going to assume they're screwed and just wait to die. People in the 50's built fallout shelters to ride out the possibility of a nuclear war. There were also public bomb shelters in US cities back then. Hell, the university I went to even had a Fallout Shelter sign on a entrance into a building built in the early 60's. So people could have survived if they took shelter, the reason is why didn't they? My question is there a reason in the lore that people didn't, or are most people too far removed from regular drills to know that they come at relatively predictable times?

 

[Hardboiled Android]

Well, in FNV, House mentions how vegas was targetted by 11 nukes. His defenses killed 8. So I assume those not already pre-selected for vaults were screwed.

Wasn't it 77?

 

[Yamu]

People aren't going to assume they're screwed and just wait to die. People in the 50's built fallout shelters to ride out the possibility of a nuclear war. There were also public bomb shelters in US cities back then. Hell, the university I went to even had a Fallout Shelter sign on a entrance into a building built in the early 60's. So people could have survived if they took shelter, the reason is why didn't they? My question is there a reason in the lore that people didn't, or are most people too far removed from regular drills to know that they come at relatively predictable times?

The assumption that the drills were regularly scheduled doesn't necessarily hold just because it's been known to happen that way in real life, though-- they could have been randomized to keep people on their toes, which ultimately would have ended up backfiring. There's also the aspect of deep psychological habituation that comes with long-term looming threats; even if the drills were on a schedule, many people were probably simply too jaded to take them seriously, and between that, confusion, and denial, the holdouts could be accounted for.

 

[Vault Maker]

In the 50s Herman Kahn suggested that we might need to evacuate cities every few years. (Pre-H-bomb civil defense planning often empahsized relocating people to rural areas...once the bombs were larger and there was more...wait for it...fallout, that approach was less attractive.)

It was acknowledged that this would have a large direct cost to the economy, besides being stressful to the population. However, one of the chief benefits was supposed to be that in a tense situation it would "demonstrate resolve" to the Soviets, thus making an actual nuclear war less likely.

Later theories acknowledged that having people evacuate or head to shelters might show you were really planning to fight with nukes, and could end up destabilizing a tense situation.

In the Fallout timeline, if the people had been sent off to their shelters repeatedly over the very long course of actual, if conventional, hostilities with China, they could at some point adopt the "crying wolf" reaction. Maybe some people would feel a sense of hopelessness.

Others might decide not to head for the shelters during drills, to show they didn't support continuing the war, or out of fear that they were helping make the Chinese more likely to press the button. In effect, they would be "voting with their feet". It might be the only way to vote on the issue.

 

[Askorti]

Remember, that just before the Great war the population of US was practically rioting, demanding food and resources. There were open fights with the army in the streets of big cities, also lets not forget the new plague. We imagine the pre-war US as an idyllic place, while in reality it was not that much better than what we have in civilized communities post-war. Taking this into consideration, I'm not surprised that a big chunk of the population didn't heed the warning because they were angry at the government and because of the cry wolf effect.

 

[Lexx]

Remember, that just before the Great war the population of US was practically rioting, demanding food and resources. There were open fights with the army in the streets of big cities, also lets not forget the new plague. We imagine the pre-war US as an idyllic place, while in reality it was not that much better than what we have in civilized communities post-war. Taking this into consideration, I'm not surprised that a big chunk of the population didn't heed the warning because they were angry at the government and because of the cry wolf effect.

This seems to be forgotten most of the time. I find this concerning, especially considering in what direction the pre-war scenes in Fallout 4 are going (happy world, no problems, etc). It was not a happy world. People weren't living like in a 50s dream.

 

[TorontoReign]

Remember, that just before the Great war the population of US was practically rioting, demanding food and resources. There were open fights with the army in the streets of big cities, also lets not forget the new plague. We imagine the pre-war US as an idyllic place, while in reality it was not that much better than what we have in civilized communities post-war. Taking this into consideration, I'm not surprised that a big chunk of the population didn't heed the warning because they were angry at the government and because of the cry wolf effect.

This seems to be forgotten most of the time. I find this concerning, especially considering in what direction the pre-war scenes in Fallout 4 are going (happy world, no problems, etc). It was not a happy world. People weren't living like in a 50s dream.

I've wondered this myself. They acted as if nothing was wrong, just another day in the good old USA, when in fact, it should have been very tense, bordering on panic stricken. The annexation of Canada was a big deal..

 

[haeerhum]

I bet it pays well to be a loyal soldier at a time when everyone's howling at the government. And, you know, lawyers, if that stuff about your spouse being a lawyer is true.

The sole survivor's family isn't representative of the average American in my mind. These are the people benefiting from the system.

 

[Oppen]

First, that kind of "we might all die tomorrow" tension doesn't escape the ones who benefit from the system. Specially considering the riots are partly against them.
Secondly, in times of war, being a loyal soldier pays the least, specially in a culture where being a loyal soldier is enough to be considered a god among men. Why? Because that's precisely when you are likely to end up dying, and far apart from your family. Soldiers are pawns. A general will probably gracefully reap the benefits, not a soldier.

 

[haeerhum]

First, that kind of "we might all die tomorrow" tension doesn't escape the ones who benefit from the system. Specially considering the riots are partly against them.

That's true.

in a culture where being a loyal soldier is enough to be considered a god among men.

Is it though? It tends not to be the case in wars that are considered unjust. A lot of Vietnam vets, as I understand it, came back home feeling like shit because no one would thank them for what they did. Iraq, too, though not to the same extent. If the majority of America thinks the government's doing wrong by them, I doubt every Tom, Dick and Harry on the street would tip his hat and thank you for your service.

 

[Oppen]

in a culture where being a loyal soldier is enough to be considered a god among men.

Is it though? It tends not to be the case in wars that are considered unjust. A lot of Vietnam vets, as I understand it, came back home feeling like shit because no one would thank them for what they did. Iraq, too, though not to the same extent. If the majority of America thinks the government's doing wrong by them, I doubt every Tom, Dick and Harry on the street would tip his hat and thank you for your service.

Not necessarily like I depicted it, just let myself go with the flow of my thoughts and didn't fully analyze it. I don't live there, so I don't know how USA really is, but how their own movies depict it, it sure looks like it. And since the pre-war world is usually painted like such, I thought of it being a valid assumption.
Still, one thing is the government doing wrong and another thing is not recognizing the people who risked their lives for believing it was the right thing to do.
Anyway, I'll continue, again, with the picture that comes to my country. Maybe not right afterwards the wars, but soldiers always become idolatrized later. Just watch how many movies about the soldiers who went to Vietnam or any other war (maybe with the exception of the most recent ones) where the USA participated are heroes are there. It's like the default go-to theme for a movie. So, if they reap the benefits while NOT at war, being at war is probably just as shitty as for everyone else, or probably even worse, since they are the ones to be sent to die there if needed, and moreover, if it's thought to be an unjust war, they'll be despised from what you said.

 

[Askorti]

Lets not forget that soldiers were sent to pacify protests. I think this fact alone completely puts the "glorified soldier" to rest. What Beth should have done was to show some poor citizen harass the PC for being an ex soldier, call him a murderer, things like that. It would convey this sense of despair that regular American citizens were bound to feel right before the great war. Instead we get a paradise suburb with a safe vault right around the corner...

 

[Oppen]

Lets not forget that soldiers were sent to pacify protests. I think this fact alone completely puts the "glorified soldier" to rest.

True.

 

[SnapSlav]

in a culture where being a loyal soldier is enough to be considered a god among men.

Is it though? It tends not to be the case in wars that are considered unjust. A lot of Vietnam vets, as I understand it, came back home feeling like shit because no one would thank them for what they did. Iraq, too, though not to the same extent. If the majority of America thinks the government's doing wrong by them, I doubt every Tom, Dick and Harry on the street would tip his hat and thank you for your service.

Not necessarily like I depicted it, just let myself go with the flow of my thoughts and didn't fully analyze it. I don't live there, so I don't know how USA really is, but how their own movies depict it, it sure looks like it.

Let me, an American living in the States, tell you how it actually is:

Yes, they're treated like Gods.

How soldiers were regarded in Vietnam was VIETNAM. That was almost 50 years ago, now. Things have changed considerably. The country was stirred with major protests and the time and scandals made your average citizen feel like their government was truly corrupt to the core and that the soldiers were evil baby killers. Also, this was the beginning of televised wars, so a populace TOTALLY unaccustomed to witnessing the gruesomeness of combat was suddenly exposed to the brutal reality, and rightfully so they reviled at it in disgust. So yes, back then, soldiers coming home were treated like scum. But the fact that this was not entirely deserved was hammered home over the years.

More and more VA's and more celebrations of soldiers and veterans venerated them. More propaganda playing that directly likens soldiers with your average neighbor and your local veterinarian, smiles all round. Careers as a soldier pay for your college tuition, so it's a very alluring path to choose for the economically stricken. Lines the likes of "God bless America" have been supplemented with more self-congratulating slogans like "Be all that you can be" and "Fighting for democracy" and "Protecting America's freedoms" when referring to soldiers. All the time, just as an INSTINCTUAL reaction, when the subject of armed service is broached, people's knee-jerk reaction is to blurt out those lines, say, "He's fighting for his country" or "He's protecting our rights".

Soldiers ARE deified over here, in the States. It's not hyperbole or exaggeration at all to say that soldiers here enjoy a pseudo-Godlike status as citizens. Successful entrepreneurs are treated as evil scum while paid killers are elevated to the position of idolization. Those who have been through the grinder and have come back with some serious injuries or considerable psychological traumas may have discovered good reason to feel disillusioned by the system and the treatment that soldiers receive. But in a longstanding time of peace like we've been enjoying (let's be clear about this, bombing OTHER countries and most citizens not even knowing that because it isn't on the news is not the same thing as being engaged in bombings and invasions at home), most soldiers are just pampered kids who see no combat and get treated with all this ego-stroking undeserved congratulation, and they don't even realize it. They were raised to believe that this was the right thing to do, the only moral thing to do, and they believe it, and so does the vast majority.

 

[Vault Maker]

Let me, an American living in the States, tell you how it actually is: Yes, they're treated like Gods.

That might be true in some places, but not everywhere. And there are reasons to think that wouldn't be uniformly true in 2077.

After years of fighting in a seemingly endless war with China, many people will lose their stomach for fighting, even in a fifties-inspired society. Part of the dynamic that led to antiwar sentiment in the 60s was that veterans of WW2 came home, started families, conveyed (by one means or another) to their kids some hint of the horrors of war, and thekids grew up with a pretty strong feeling they didn't want to see that for themselves. (The war with China only lasted 11 years, so obviously not long enough for veterans to have adult kids, but the sentiments of those veterans would still be formed.)

Armies that have actual external enemies tend to avoid being used as a domestic policing force. When troops are called in to shoot civillians, it erodes morale of soldiers and civillians alike. Late 70s and early 80s Poland (the early Solidarity period) saw a profusion of internal security forces who looked like soldiers, but were pointedly not part of the Army, for exactly this reason. There are other examples, including (I believe) Egypt a few years ago when the military overthrew Mubarak, when they refused to shoot at demonstrators.

The US has the Posse Comitatus Act, dating from the post-Civil War period, which prevents the use of the military for domestic policing in all but the most extreme situations. Aftermath of a nuclear war would, of course, qualify as extreme. For riots, the Act would have to be repealed, or risk a constitutional crisis, unless a cowardly Congress refused to challenge orders to use troops for riot duty.

In the fifties, under former Army General Eisenhower, the Air Force and Navy were competing for strategic nuclear delivery missions. The Army couldn't do much of that, so for a while their primary missions were air defense (Nike anti-aircraft missiles were part of the Army), managing emergency facilities and communications, civil defense, and "recovery". The first part of recovery was essentially policing ruined cities. TheArmy brass found this distateful, demeaning, and nearly pointless. The policy was changed after a short time.

There is one prewar military unit we do know quite a lot about, an Army Military Police outfit assigned to guard duty at a certain research facility. It seems that it didn't take much to push them over the edge into full-fledged mutiny, within the Continental US. It's quite an extraordinary thing, and larger issues with morale would likely be a contributing factor.

 

[Mohamed2001]

Let me, an American living in the States, tell you how it actually is: Yes, they're treated like Gods.

That might be true in some places, but not everywhere. And there are reasons to think that wouldn't be uniformly true in 2077.

After years of fighting in a seemingly endless war with China, many people will lose their stomach for fighting, even in a fifties-inspired society. Part of the dynamic that led to antiwar sentiment in the 60s was that veterans of WW2 came home, started families, conveyed (by one means or another) to their kids some hint of the horrors of war, and thekids grew up with a pretty strong feeling they didn't want to see that for themselves. (The war with China only lasted 11 years, so obviously not long enough for veterans to have adult kids, but the sentiments of those veterans would still be formed.)

Armies that have actual external enemies tend to avoid being used as a domestic policing force. When troops are called in to shoot civillians, it erodes morale of soldiers and civillians alike. Late 70s and early 80s Poland (the early Solidarity period) saw a profusion of internal security forces who looked like soldiers, but were pointedly not part of the Army, for exactly this reason. There are other examples, including (I believe) Egypt a few years ago when the military overthrew Mubarak, when they refused to shoot at demonstrators.

The US has the Posse Comitatus Act, dating from the post-Civil War period, which prevents the use of the military for domestic policing in all but the most extreme situations. Aftermath of a nuclear war would, of course, qualify as extreme. For riots, the Act would have to be repealed, or risk a constitutional crisis, unless a cowardly Congress refused to challenge orders to use troops for riot duty.

In the fifties, under former Army General Eisenhower, the Air Force and Navy were competing for strategic nuclear delivery missions. The Army couldn't do much of that, so for a while their primary missions were air defense (Nike anti-aircraft missiles were part of the Army), managing emergency facilities and communications, civil defense, and "recovery". The first part of recovery was essentially policing ruined cities. TheArmy brass found this distateful, demeaning, and nearly pointless. The policy was changed after a short time.

There is one prewar military unit we do know quite a lot about, an Army Military Police outfit assigned to guard duty at a certain research facility. It seems that it didn't take much to push them over the edge into full-fledged mutiny, within the Continental US. It's quite an extraordinary thing, and larger issues with morale would likely be a contributing factor.

The last line, you mean the BoS, right?