Worldbuilding Realism Consultation Thread Mk. 4

[Danternoust]

What would happen if fifth generation fighter aircraft failed to take flight in The Day The Earth Stood Still moment?

[The Brytish Isles]

-

[Bears Armed]

Ok, I'll have to do some research as to what areas were explored and when.

Allow for natural climate change, as well: Iceland & named was discovered at the end of a colder spell, and Greenland at the beginning of the following warmer spell, but several centuries later Iceland was noticeably greener than Greenland and Greenland was noticeably icier than Iceland...

[Iltica]

What would happen if fifth generation fighter aircraft failed to take flight in The Day The Earth Stood Still moment?

... Klaatu turned off everything iirc. So... the same as what happened in the rest of the movie I guess?

[The Brytish Isles]

A few questions:
1. What would be the outcome of a solar flare hitting Earth?
2. How might society function 20-50 years after the solar flare?
3. Would the United States, Canada and similar countries survive such an event?

I’m attempting to think up a society situated in post-apocalyptic Maine and New Brunswick. At the moment, it’s an authoritarian society ruled by an Archon and their oligarchic council where civil liberties are respected so long basic tenets of law akin to the Ten Commandments are abided by. However, the society is secular and power rests with the people with guns.

[Kazarogkai]

A few questions:
1. What would be the outcome of a solar flare hitting Earth?
2. How might society function 20-50 years after the solar flare?
3. Would the United States, Canada and similar countries survive such an event?

I’m attempting to think up a society situated in post-apocalyptic Maine and New Brunswick. At the moment, it’s an authoritarian society ruled by an Archon and their oligarchic council where civil liberties are respected so long basic tenets of law akin to the Ten Commandments are abided by. However, the society is secular and power rests with the people with guns.

Depends on the size in part, the largest of those caused auroras/electrical disturbances all the way down in Cuba and effectively caused a massive number of telegrams to go boom and short circuit. Such a thing occurring today considering the far greater dependence on electricity for modern societal function would be absolutely devastating causing mass civil disruption across the first world and a general free fall for the economy so long as said solar flare is in effect. Despite this a thing to keep in mind is most of the aforementioned especially the american government tend to have rather hardened electrical systems specifically to deal with EMPs but they could handle solar flares fine. Civilian electronics would be screwed but the government would be fine to put it simply. Once "the event" in question is over it wouldn't be a matter of a weak or two before the main central governments within said countries to regain power and restore order. Sure the economy would be in a recession or maybe a depression but they would live.

20 years after the event they would have long since recovered, it might have set back certain things like mass automation of the economy and the like and destroyed some research but otherwise they would be okay. You would need a little more than that to truly bring about societal collapse like the way you wish for it. The societies you mentioned would be otherwise quite fine though I imagine in part it might partially cause india and china to continue their accent to premier world powers and might pull back the aforementioned causing them to lose their mandate in heaven so to speak. This in part could lead to further civil unrest and maybe even a bit of a civil war in the US of A though I doubt it. Even if that did occur it wouldn't result in society collapsing, only societal disruption.

The reality is contrary to popular opinion the societies of today are actually extremely resistant to such shocks to their system with various layers of control and safety locks so to speak designed to survive various large, medium, and especially small shocks that would wreck lesser societies. Like that of the civilizations on the eave of the bronze age collapse in order to bring about their fall and with it general societal collapse your going to need a combination of events or some type of death spiral of sorts of events which feed off one another on a global scale to bring the aforementioned. Otherwise they'll just come back and recover. In the case of the late bronze age civilizations it was a combination of crop failure, loss of overseas trade contacts, a bit of natural disaster, the weakening of central authority caused by the aforementioned, mixed in with foreign invasions(sea peoples) and finally but not least civil unrest in no small part due to all the aforementioned ultimately lead to their collapse. Your going to need something like that but global to cause societal collapse in the modern world for a single solar flare just ain't gonna cut it.

Something like: A global pandemic caused by bio terrorism, followed by multiple super volcano eruptions(Yellowstone, Lake Toba, etc), a massive solar flare preventing said governments from properly responding to the aforementioned and collapsing global trade and by extension the economy, and finally but not least mass civil disruption caused by all the aforementioned leading to society collapsing. Might work.

Some material to help you out my friend:

https://www.ted.com/talks/jared_diamond ... s_collapse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkMP328eU5Q
https://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Societi ... 0143117009

[The Brytish Isles]

A few questions:
1. What would be the outcome of a solar flare hitting Earth?
2. How might society function 20-50 years after the solar flare?
3. Would the United States, Canada and similar countries survive such an event?

I’m attempting to think up a society situated in post-apocalyptic Maine and New Brunswick. At the moment, it’s an authoritarian society ruled by an Archon and their oligarchic council where civil liberties are respected so long basic tenets of law akin to the Ten Commandments are abided by. However, the society is secular and power rests with the people with guns.

Something like: A global pandemic caused by bio terrorism, followed by multiple super volcano eruptions(Yellowstone, Lake Toba, etc), a massive solar flare preventing said governments from properly responding to the aforementioned and collapsing global trade and by extension the economy, and finally but not least mass civil disruption caused by all the aforementioned leading to society collapsing. Might work.

Some material to help you out my friend:

https://www.ted.com/talks/jared_diamond ... s_collapse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkMP328eU5Q
https://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Societi ... 0143117009

Thank you. I’ll make sure to take a look at those materials.

[Austrasien]

A few questions:
1. What would be the outcome of a solar flare hitting Earth?
2. How might society function 20-50 years after the solar flare?
3. Would the United States, Canada and similar countries survive such an event?

1. It happens all the time. A very big solar flare could do significant damage to the power grid.
2. Pretty much the way it does now. While there would be a short term bottleneck in replacing certain electrical infrastructure this would probably be resolved within 1-2 years as factories ramp up production to meet the overwhelming demand. 20-50 years on it would just be a story people tell their children like "the war".
3. Yes.

The most plausible plots for a post-apocalyptic world are arguably "giant meteor" and "supervolcano".

[South Aurora]

This might be a bit complicated, but consider the following country (aka South Aurora):

• Territory consists of a mainland and an archipelago, a bit like Denmark in the sense that the territory is overall small, the archipelago is relatively big compared to the mainland, and the capital is located there (if that matters)
• Small population (<1,000,000)
• Temperate to cold climate, but not extremely harsh
• Postcolonial state, independence around the 1950s, civil war-like communist rebellion in the mid 1960s (lasts for two weeks, unsuccesful)
• Democratic government, if at first a bit inexperienced
• Average levels of corruption
• Capitalist economy, but state dominated
• Starting point: low to middle income
• Starting point: economy based on mining, agriculture and tourism

Then, say around 1970, this country discovers vast oil reserves in its territory. How long (in years, approximately) would it take for the country to reach life standards comparable to, at least, Central Europe, considering an adequate fiscal policy? As time goes on, the economy would be progressively diversified and corruption futher reduced.

Technology levels are those of Earth in every time period.

[Gallia-]

A few questions:
1. What would be the outcome of a solar flare hitting Earth?
2. How might society function 20-50 years after the solar flare?
3. Would the United States, Canada and similar countries survive such an event?

1. It happens all the time. A very big solar flare could do significant damage to the power grid.
2. Pretty much the way it does now. While there would be a short term bottleneck in replacing certain electrical infrastructure this would probably be resolved within 1-2 years as factories ramp up production to meet the overwhelming demand. 20-50 years on it would just be a story people tell their children like "the war".
3. Yes.

The most plausible plots for a post-apocalyptic world are arguably "giant meteor" and "supervolcano".

Pfft.

The USSR had "economic collapse" as its post-apocalyptic world.

Goldbug fiction is best genre.

Yellowstone just obliterates the best place setting for post-apocalyptic fiction i.e. the U.S. Midwest anyway.

[Bruke]

This question is about coffee, specifically how far north it can grow outside the coffee belt.

My nation, which is not in a ideal coffee-growing climate, was founded by settlers from a country which has a great coffee-growing climate who brought coffee plants and the knowledge of coffee production with them. Time is not an issue here, canon-wise they ought to have more than enough time to grow coffee suited to local conditions.

The not-ideal climate I’m speaking of is Northern California- at best, I’ve found out that coffee is only recently being grown in Southern California, as far north as San Luis Opisbo County (about midway between SF and LA).

Looking outside California, the farthest north I’ve found coffee being grown is Nepal, but I’m inclined to discount that as positive news because Nepal is close enough to the coffee belt to have a just-as-well climate.

I’m willing to (because I’ve been strategically ambiguous IC about where my nation is located) move it further south to make this possible, and if it’s not possible I’ll scrap the coffee stuff from canon altogether.

With all that out of the way.... any answers, advice or knowledge to share?

[Crookfur]

This question is about coffee, specifically how far north it can grow outside the coffee belt.

My nation, which is not in a ideal coffee-growing climate, was founded by settlers from a country which has a great coffee-growing climate who brought coffee plants and the knowledge of coffee production with them. Time is not an issue here, canon-wise they ought to have more than enough time to grow coffee suited to local conditions.

The not-ideal climate I’m speaking of is Northern California- at best, I’ve found out that coffee is only recently being grown in Southern California, as far north as San Luis Opisbo County (about midway between SF and LA).

Looking outside California, the farthest north I’ve found coffee being grown is Nepal, but I’m inclined to discount that as positive news because Nepal is close enough to the coffee belt to have a just-as-well climate.

I’m willing to (because I’ve been strategically ambiguous IC about where my nation is located) move it further south to make this possible, and if it’s not possible I’ll scrap the coffee stuff from canon altogether.

With all that out of the way.... any answers, advice or knowledge to share?

If you can't have an average temp of 27 degrees C 90% humidity, lots of rain but good drainage and mountains to grow the coffee on you aren't going to do well.

You can grow in greenhouses and controlled environment facilities but so far that's simply not economically viable. The closest anyone has gotten is the Eden project but that's just an happy little off shoot of a tourist site.

Tea on the other hand can be grown as far north as Scotland...

[Bruke]

This question is about coffee, specifically how far north it can grow outside the coffee belt.

My nation, which is not in a ideal coffee-growing climate, was founded by settlers from a country which has a great coffee-growing climate who brought coffee plants and the knowledge of coffee production with them. Time is not an issue here, canon-wise they ought to have more than enough time to grow coffee suited to local conditions.

The not-ideal climate I’m speaking of is Northern California- at best, I’ve found out that coffee is only recently being grown in Southern California, as far north as San Luis Opisbo County (about midway between SF and LA).

Looking outside California, the farthest north I’ve found coffee being grown is Nepal, but I’m inclined to discount that as positive news because Nepal is close enough to the coffee belt to have a just-as-well climate.

I’m willing to (because I’ve been strategically ambiguous IC about where my nation is located) move it further south to make this possible, and if it’s not possible I’ll scrap the coffee stuff from canon altogether.

With all that out of the way.... any answers, advice or knowledge to share?

If you can't have an average temp of 27 degrees C 90% humidity, lots of rain but good drainage and mountains to grow the coffee on you aren't going to do well.

You can grow in greenhouses and controlled environment facilities but so far that's simply not economically viable. The closest anyone has gotten is the Eden project but that's just an happy little off shoot of a tourist site.

Tea on the other hand can be grown as far north as Scotland...

Mountains and rain aren’t an issue, at least....

EDiT: wait, I found enough substitutes for cardamom and such to make it work. I’m going with spiced tea now. That should be plausible based on what I’ve found.

[Kedri]

Should the legislature be unicameral or bicameral?

Kedri is a confederation with direct democracy. The national government exists to provide common defense, mandate a common currency and settle disputes between the member states, but that's about it.

Kedri only has a few million people, 3 million at most.

Right now it is unicameral because a bicameral legislature doesn't seem necessary to me.

[The Macabees]

Right now it is unicameral because a bicameral legislature doesn't seem necessary to me.

Under certain conditions, namely that each body's representatives are being chosen by different groups of people, a bicameral legislature allows more people to take part in the political decision-making process without increasing decision-making costs. I.e., bicameral legislatures allow for a greater degree of pluralism.

This is one of the main lessons in Buchanan's Calculus of Consent.

The chapter is available online for free.

[Bears Armed]

Should the legislature be unicameral or bicameral?

Kedri is a confederation with direct democracy. The national government exists to provide common defense, mandate a common currency and settle disputes between the member states, but that's about it.

Kedri only has a few million people, 3 million at most.

Right now it is unicameral because a bicameral legislature doesn't seem necessary to me.

Are there distinct communities within the nation that would be worried about persistently being outvoted by larger neighbours in a unicameral system, and that might actually secede if there wasn't also a second chamber in which each community has equal representation? Consider the RL USA, which also had c. 3 million people when it started out but had to adopt a bicameral legislature because otherwise some of the smaller states wouldn't have joined...
Also, how advanced are transport & communications technologies?

[The Akasha Colony]

Should the legislature be unicameral or bicameral?

Kedri is a confederation with direct democracy. The national government exists to provide common defense, mandate a common currency and settle disputes between the member states, but that's about it.

Kedri only has a few million people, 3 million at most.

Right now it is unicameral because a bicameral legislature doesn't seem necessary to me.

The bolded part would probably encourage the establishment of a bicameral legislature.

When developing the various aspects of a nation it is useful to consider from an in-universe perspective what motivations and concerns a relevant party may have, rather than think about "whether something seems necessary" to an outside observer. Absolute population size doesn't really have an impact on how many legislative chambers a nation has; at best it might loosely correlate with the number of representatives in each chamber but even this is by no means a given.

In this case, the factors affecting most IRL federations would be relevant: in a unicameral legislature with representation solely on population, smaller states would feel threatened and overwhelmed, while in a legislature where every state has equal representation, larger states would feel shortchanged. This is important because in many federations it is technically the member states that hold sovereignty and which have agreed to enter into a compact to form a larger polity to represent their interests, so there needs to be some way of allowing these states to actually voice their interests. Meanwhile, it is politically difficult to deny the population a say in their highest level of government, so a separate chamber is usually created to represent them directly.

This is why bicameral legislatures using both systems are common in federations and even confederations; notice both Switzerland (possibly the closest IRL example to your concept) and the European Union both use bicameral legislatures despite their relatively limited power (and Switzerland's small size).

[Triplebaconation]

A legislature is horrible at resolving disputes.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

Thoughts on an alternative form of Blitzkrieg using light tanks and rocket artillery, along with the usual air support?

[Spirit of Hope]

Thoughts on an alternative form of Blitzkrieg using light tanks and rocket artillery, along with the usual air support?

This is the non military thread. The military thread is here.

[The World Capitalist Confederation]

Thoughts on an alternative form of Blitzkrieg using light tanks and rocket artillery, along with the usual air support?

This is the non military thread. The military thread is here.

Oh sorry, I thought it said non-military realism as in 'without military realism'

[Kedri]

Should the legislature be unicameral or bicameral?

Kedri is a confederation with direct democracy. The national government exists to provide common defense, mandate a common currency and settle disputes between the member states, but that's about it.

Kedri only has a few million people, 3 million at most.

Right now it is unicameral because a bicameral legislature doesn't seem necessary to me.

The bolded part would probably encourage the establishment of a bicameral legislature.

When developing the various aspects of a nation it is useful to consider from an in-universe perspective what motivations and concerns a relevant party may have, rather than think about "whether something seems necessary" to an outside observer. Absolute population size doesn't really have an impact on how many legislative chambers a nation has; at best it might loosely correlate with the number of representatives in each chamber but even this is by no means a given.

In this case, the factors affecting most IRL federations would be relevant: in a unicameral legislature with representation solely on population, smaller states would feel threatened and overwhelmed, while in a legislature where every state has equal representation, larger states would feel shortchanged. This is important because in many federations it is technically the member states that hold sovereignty and which have agreed to enter into a compact to form a larger polity to represent their interests, so there needs to be some way of allowing these states to actually voice their interests. Meanwhile, it is politically difficult to deny the population a say in their highest level of government, so a separate chamber is usually created to represent them directly.

This is why bicameral legislatures using both systems are common in federations and even confederations; notice both Switzerland (possibly the closest IRL example to your concept) and the European Union both use bicameral legislatures despite their relatively limited power (and Switzerland's small size).

Alright, I've decided to make it a bicameral legislature. I was originally trying to copy Switzerland's government system, but ended up settling for a Westminster system do to the country's English heritage. Kedri is an archipelago, but the majority of the population live on the largest island, and on the island, the majority live in the western part, so I can see the eastern part as well as the other islands having concerns about equal representation.

I have read that a bicameral legislature may add an extra step to the law making process as an additional check, and that may suit Kedri's structure as a confederation with a small government philosophy.

[Manokan Republic]

A legislature is horrible at resolving disputes.

But good for preventing a dictator or oligarchy from taking over; the basic idea is a system of checks and balances, to keep things from getting out of hand. It's more slow, but also more cautious. A third unit of government, often times outside of the legislative system itself, such as the executive branch, is often used to run the military, in part so it can bypass unnecessary delays and react quickly when needed. In the U.S. for example, the president is allowed to attack a country, but only for 90 days, until or if congress approves it. The main objective is that the executive branch can bypass unnecessary delays and response immediately to a threat, while also allowing a way to reign in the president if they go off the rails. The idea of an executive branch itself is that you can choose how laws are executed, but you can't write the laws yourself when in the executive branch.

Executive orders are supposed to be ways to work within existing laws rather than the creation of new laws, as the president cannot legislate. The president in the U.S. can veto certain laws as well. But a third branch of government to perform military duties makes a lot of sense, especially if they are some sort of higher ranking politician or leader, even if you don't have an executive branch per se.

[Gallia-]

A legislature is horrible at resolving disputes.

But good for preventing a dictator or oligarchy from taking over

"Taking over" means "resolving disputes".

[Manokan Republic]

But good for preventing a dictator or oligarchy from taking over

"Taking over" means "resolving disputes".

Compromise is a good way to resolve disputes in general, so one side does not necessarily need to "take over" to resolve disputes. But I did say a "dictator or oligarchy from taking over", not that we want to prevent all take overs of all things. A democracy "taking over" something is not necessarily bad, or any other entity.