Welcome to the AbsoluteWrite Water Cooler! Please read The Newbie Guide To Absolute Write

Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: What event would be too much?

  1. #1
    Mr Mojo Risin... DWSTXS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Carrollton, TX

    What event would be too much?

    I just read an article about Haiti, and now there is fear that an epidemic of disease will take place once the rains come in March-April.

    I started wondering this: what event would have to take place before it was too much to handle?

    For instance: What if some country were to attack another country in a heavily populated area, with nukes? And, instead of 1-2 million affected (like Haiti and the earthquake) what if there were 10-12 million?
    or, what if that happened and the attacked country retaliated and used nukes and there are suddenly 30-40 million people affected?

    Would that be too much for any one country to provide aid for?

    Also, what type of event could occur where the affected area would be written off? As in, we can't provide enough aid, we don't have the resources? Sorry, but you're on your own?

    Finally, is there any scenario in which there could be some event, such as nukes, severe widespread economic collapse, disease. . . in which the affected country/region would cause such a severe strain on another country (the country trying to provide aid) that it could cause that country to falter and either collapse itself, or at least deny aid because it would provide too much hardship?

    I know these are maudlin questions, but reading about Haiti, looking forward to more problems, just got me thinking about apocolyptic-type scenarios. and I know there must be others out there who have thought this through in much more detail thatn I have.
    Last edited by DWSTXS; 01-27-2010 at 03:23 AM.
    Doyle W. Sinclair

    'I'm in the kitchen. . .with the tombstone blues.'


    Blue-Eyed Son -available on Amazon.com in print and Kindle versions - 119k

    Untitled sci-fi work. currently at 40k

  2. #2
    Likes metaphors mixed, not stirred Chris P's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Marquette, MI.
    The closest I can think of is the First World War, which is cited by some as the closest the world has come to the Four Horsemen: War, disease (Spanish flu), famine (caused by the war), and death (caused by war, disease and famine). It took some countries decades to recover economically and population-wise. Lesser examples might be the South after the Civil War.

    Not *quite* what you were asking, but was the only thing that came to mind.
    Short Fiction in the AW Library

    Click here to see a video of my two years in Uganda with the Peace Corps

    Resingled Needs another round of betas. Interested?
    Nyasaland Undergoing major repairs.
    WIP: Cloak of Iron. WWI Sci-fi. It's got tanks. And holograms. 43,000 words.

  3. #3
    Legal Authority/Public Intellectual robeiae's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Down by the river...
    The Taiping Rebellion in China led to something like 20 million deaths, most of them civilians. That was in the 19th century. Not studied much, these days, but it was--imo--far more devastating than the US Civil War.

    But there wasn't any large international humanitarian response, of course. China petered on.
    I put for the general inclination of all mankind, a perpetual and restless desire of power after power, that ceaseth only in death. --Thomas Hobbes

    Quote Originally Posted by CassandraW
    You're a smug, sneering, ranting asshole, and yet even when I despise your position, I like you.
    Learning to run, T'ai Chi style--blogging about running and Eastern philosophy
    Ponds of Happenstance--blogging about politics, economics, and history
    Sailor on the Ponds--tweeting about everything

    Nader man-splains, Yellen idiot-responds

    Shackles of terminolgy: Clinton hoist with her own petard

  4. #4
    Lost in School Work icerose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Middle of Nowhere, Utah
    I think it would take more than any one single disaster. It would take a slam. And then it would be a pick and choose who to help. Or if the country who usually does the aiding was slammed theirselves along with another country, they wouldn't have the resources to help both.

    I don't see anyone just throwing up their hands and saying "Oh well, they're too damaged to help" over a single disaster. I mean look at how many countries were affected by the tsunami.

    However, if you take the countries that do the aiding and slam them, I somehow don't see the countries that don't usually get involved in these other disasters suddenly jumping in the role.
    "Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid."
    Albert Einstein

    I helped write this!!!!http://www.ibnbattuta.tv/


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Custom Search