What would Fallout mean for your home town ?

By the time bombs dropped in fallout they would have been MUCH stronger than they would be in 2005. I doubt anyone in america would survive without some sort of isolated valley between mountain ranges or a Vault complex.
 
No they wouldn't. This is 1950s science fiction, not the way science has evolved from the 50s onward. This changes a lot of things, and it seems a lot of people forget this.
 
It has 1950's artistic stylings but it does take place in the future. Looking at the worldmap I was always annoyed by the craters that were miles across. Realistically if anything were that powerful it would only take a few for the world. I still have the feeling that they were much more powerful than current bombs and that fev saved the human population for destruction not lucky placement, but who's to say.

Your right though the way the bombs would function would be 1950's duck and cover deals though. People in the 50's were alot tougher :wink: .
 
DirtyDreamDesigner said:
The craters are miles wide because they are what's left of major cities which were hit by multiple nukes.
Click to expand...

Still wouldn't make a crater miles wide, especially not one visible after hundreds of years. Air burst nukes don't really even make craters and land burst ones only make small ones. Some of the craters in the worldmap are more than 20 miles wide those are the kinds of craters meteors leave.
 
Good point. First I wanted to say that maybe they are not craters at all but that the darker ruins in a desert background make it look like a crater but then I remembered that they are round. Hmm... Maybe they were multiple nukes released from a single rocket in a circular pattern. *shrug*
 
FOT doesn't count, neither does FO2, not really and FO2 only had two faint craters, the larger of which might not be a crater at all. That just leaves two areas on the Fallout World Map. The Glow and between southern LA to San Diego. We know that the Glow was hit by mutliple nukes but look at the artwork it's a totally different sort of affair to the LA crater.

Given that the coast line has changed, the islands have mostly dissapeared and the area is sitting on the San Andreas Fault isn't it likely that the extremely large crater is due to tectonic movement. The bombings set off earthquakes, some of the coast line fell into the sea, possibly there was even a new volcano for a short time. That crater certainly looks more volcanic to me.

Surely dropping all those bombs would cause such changes to the landscape?
 
Surely dropping all those bombs would cause such changes to the landscape?
Click to expand...

Not really, the actual kinetic energy being placed into the earth isn't all that much. Very deadly for us, the earth doesn't even notice.

Theres actually an enourmas crater to the right of the cathedral as well as several huge ones right above junktown. F2 is MUCH more accurate in this reguard as while the landscape has partially changed that could be as much due to simple earthquakes as anything else. F2 has no huge craters.
 
Any use of bunker busters would have some effect on the geological stability of the area, and what became the Glow was hit by at least one. The crater to the right of the Cathedral was the one I was talking about, I see no crater above junktown.

There must of been some tectonic activity for most of the islands off the coast to disappear. If it was just down to rising sea levels, due to nukes melting the ice caps, the coast line would of changed a lot more.

The huge crater to the right of the Cathedral looks more like an old volcano than a bomb crater. Such a change to the landscape would be much more reasonable than having such a large bomb crater.

FO2 has two craters, which do look like they've been added on as an afterthought. But then FO2's world map is a simple topographical map that's not in the same league as Fallout's world map and introduces a big discrepancy about what method the PIP Boy uses to produce the maps.
 
Any use of bunker busters would have some effect on the geological stability of the area, and what became the Glow was hit by at least one.
Click to expand...

No. they seriously would not. A nuke that burrows 30 feet under ground will have no effect on plate movement what so ever. Even a mile under ground would have little effect on anything but it's immediate vicinity. If you put 10 or 20 nukes several miles under ground at a fault line you MAY cause an earthquake. But nothing too large. Then again sci fi world, so who knows. Noone ever said there weren't quake bombs.

The huge crater to the right of the Cathedral looks more like an old volcano than a bomb crater. Such a change to the landscape would be much more reasonable than having such a large bomb crater.
Click to expand...

Not really, it even has scorch marks.
 
IFoundMyHouseInFallout said:
No. they seriously would not. A nuke that burrows 30 feet under ground will have no effect on plate movement what so ever. Even a mile under ground would have little effect on anything but it's immediate vicinity. If you put 10 or 20 nukes several miles under ground at a fault line you MAY cause an earthquake.
Click to expand...
Wasn't the same technology that is used to detect/predict earthquakes also used to detect underground nuclear testing during the cold war? The glow was hit repeatedly it's not that far from the fault line, remember it's 'Science!' not science.

IFoundMyHouseInFallout said:
But nothing too large.
Click to expand...
Which would be why there was only a new volcano and not the big earthquake spliting LA off into the ocean.

IFoundMyHouseInFallout said:
Then again sci fi world, so who knows.
Click to expand...
Yeah keep bearing that in mind.

IFoundMyHouseInFallout said:
Not really, it even has scorch marks.
Click to expand...
Funny don't you think lava isn't hot?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top