• Hi Guest!

    The costs of running this forum are covered by Sea Lion Press. If you'd like to help support the company and the forum, visit patreon.com/sealionpress

  • Thank you to everyone who reached out with concern about the upcoming UK legislation which requires online communities to be compliant regarding illegal content. As a result of hard work and research by members of this community (chiefly iainbhx) and other members of communities UK-wide, the decision has been taken that the Sea Lion Press Forum will continue to operate. For more information, please see this thread.

'Resurrection Day' review

The only other country that plays a role in the plot is the United Kingdom, which does so in a manner I find to be implausible. Britain here is shown to be mostly intact
Click to expand...
"Britain is actually an ocean away from mainland Europe" is one of the tired tropes of political fiction. Even in the worst dystopias, Britain somehow seems to escape the unspeakable horror of being in the same boat as the Continent. See 1984, V for Vendetta, Children of Men, etc. Threads, which you mention, is the one exception that I am aware of.
 
In rivet counting technical terms, the Soviets have an overwhelmingly greater ability to hit Western Europe with nukes than they do the US at this time.

Britain could do somewhat better (wouldn't be overrun on the ground and there are range issues even there) but it would still get hit hard.
 
I read this a few years ago, mostly because my flight back from the Gulf was delayed by 24hrs and this was the best choice of the books in the waiting area. I can't remember a great many details but three things that stuck in my mind were: it was an alright but not great thriller/detective sort of story; it was ruined by the completely unrealistic portrayal of the UK and the author seemed to be a paid-up member of the JFK fan club. Would I recommend it to anyone? Probably not, except for someone in the same sort of situation as I was - something to kill time but definitely not take seriously.
 
I found this an interesting article about a book I hadn't previously heard of, but wanted to query this bit:

in a nuclear war in the time period, Britain would most certainly have met the fate depicted in the haunting BBC film Threads
Click to expand...

This seems unlikely to me, though I can't claim to be wholly in charge of facts, which makes anything I say dubious.
  1. Threads itself, while one of my all time favourites, is not entirely accurate in its depiction of nuclear war, partly because Barry Hines has an axe to grind (and I will never not be on the side of 'nuclear war is bad', especially when government propaganda of the time was trying to portray nuclear war as survivable), and partly because the science wasn't there. So the nuclear winter is over-egged, because they didn't have the data from the Iraqi oil field fires to help modelling that they did by the 90s, and the EMP is over-egged because bad science I think?
  2. A 1960s exchange would feature fewer warheads with lower megatonnages, delivered using less accurate means, though admittedly a higher proportion targeted at Britain. The Strath Report (1955) expected 'utter devastation', but their estimation saw 40 million survivors, albeit in 'siege conditions' - Threads' scenario has 25-40 million survivors of the initial attack, with the population ultimately dropping to 4-11 million by a decade later.

A 1962 nuclear war will not be a picnic (though probably would feature an amount of eating outside in the aftermath), but I don't see it being a 1984 Threads apocalypse either.
 
Last edited:
Stateless said:
A 1962 nuclear war will not be a picnic (though probably would feature an amount of eating outside in the aftermath), but I don't see it being a 1984 Threads apocalypse either.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough, considering the likelyhood that the Soviets would have lobbed a nuke at Dublin (and possibly Waterford and Limerick as well), I actually can see the UK and Ireland emerging as some sort of federal/confederal state. Especially if there aren't any senior royals left alive.
 
I believe that the US would have recovered more quickly from losing New York, Washington, Miami Omaha and San Diego. Was pointed out that all NATO members had quit as soon as the war started- maybe the Russians destroyed before had opportunity to use more nukes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top