# The Gaming Den

Welcome to the Gaming Den.

Skip to content

## Sustainability of the 1984-verse.

Mundane & Pointless Stuff I Must Share: The Off Topic Forum

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply

- Print view

3 posts • Page 1 of 1

Lago PARANOIA
  Invincible Overlord
  Posts: 10555
  Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 3:00 am

### Sustainability of the 1984-verse.

- Quote

Post by Lago PARANOIA » Thu May 28, 2009 12:15 am

It's a pretty bleak, unbreakable future to be sure, but I do wonder just how long the Party could've kept their grip on the populace. I think the biggest chink in the armor would be the issue of natural resources; war burns through them like crazy even if you're legitimately using them then, let alone the intentional waste the governments were involved with. Floating fortresses and all.
If they ran of out, say, oil then the governments would be double-fucked. Worse, it's very unlikely that East/Eurasia and Oceania would run out at the same time (Eurasia would probably hold out longer than their rivals) so that leaves one power at an advantage relative to the others--which would break the balance of power and probably either lead to a nuclear exchange or a death spiral as the countries collapsed.
Top

Akula
  Knight-Baron
  Posts: 960
  Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:06 am
  Location: Oakland CA

###

- Quote

Post by Akula » Thu May 28, 2009 2:25 am

East Asia has proximity to the middle east for oil, and Oceania has reserves of natural gas and coal. Plus, conquering the world takes time, and the government of any of the countries would be happy to use human waves to slow the advance of the enemy. With every city a potential Stalingrad it seems unlikely that any of them can conquer the world. They stopped their technological development at WWII level stuff, they don't have anything beyond nuclear weapons that can break a deadlock.
A big part of the eternal dominion of the party is that all three countries have a tacit agreement to continue the "war" for as long as possible. None of the countries would actually benefit from conquering the world, they would lose the "outside enemy" that they use to keep the populace in line.
I also have to ask. How much fuel are those floating fortresses using? They have to be installed which I assume means they cannot move under their own power, they may not use any fuel. The rest of the fighting is supposed to be low scale conflict using small units to capture resources and people. The war isn't a conventional war, it is kinda like the wars by proxy that were all the rage in the cold war, except everyone is always fighting by proxy. Also, the army needed to fight this war is very different from the one needed to conquer Asia or Russia or the Americas. I don't think they have what they would need to position and supply such an army.
Top

cthulhu
  Duke
  Posts: 2162
  Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm

###

- Quote

Post by cthulhu » Thu May 28, 2009 9:22 am

The thing is, you don't even know if the floating fortress exists.
But anyway, the nations in the book seem long term unsustainable. If one could navigate to democratic reforms, it would function much more effectively.
Top
Post Reply

- Print view

Display:
Sort by:
Direction:

3 posts • Page 1 of 1

Return to “MPSIMS”

Jump to

- Main
- ↳ About the Gaming Den
- ↳ In My Humble Opinion...
- ↳ I Gave the Mouse a Cookie...
- ↳ In The Trenches
- ↳ It's My Own Invention...
- ↳ MPSIMS