The alternate US of the Great Nebraska Sea.

[IanBertram]

There is another novel which deals with similar themes, although from memory it doesn't lead to anything like the Nebraska Sea. That is 'The Rift' by Walter Jon Williams, published in 1998. This is based on an earthquake on the New Madrid fault. Worth reading.

On a wider issue I can't imagine that an event like this would not have much wider climatic consequences, well beyond the US. I seem to recall a discussion here about the creation of a lake in the Sahara. From memory, studies into that suggested greening the Sahara would lead to desertification of the Amazon. In the Northern Hemisphere, the consequences for Europe and Asia could be severe.

As someone else has pointed out, this would split the US in two. Could it survive if the only contact between East and West is via Canada or by sea? All communications will have gone - phones, roads, railways, Air travel will be possible, but that wouldn't, certainly in 1973, have the capacity to replace the carrying capacity of road and rail.

A seismic event of this size would also presumably have effects beyond the flooded zone. What level of damage would result in Canada especially. How far would the effects reach to east and west?

 

[ETGalaxy]

In all honesty, I think a lot of of people in this thread are really underestimating just how absolutely devastating the formation of the Great Nebraska Sea would be. You're dealing with a huge refugee crisis encompassing people both within and surrounding the sunken territory, the destruction of the US' transcontinental infrastructure (including a good chunk of its ICBM capacity, so have fun swimming in a sea with a bunch of nuclear warheads with only decaying mid-20th Century technology stopping them from creating Chernobyl on steroids lying at the bottom!), and the submergence of one of the world's top agricultural producers, not to mention huge consequences for the climate. The United States won't come out of the crisis more or less intact, just with a nice sea in the middle, it'll be thrown into an unprecedented crisis that the country will be lucky to survive with the same government structure and remaining territory in the end. In all likelihood, I wouldn't be surprised if the US gradually succumbs to a civil war of some kind, with remaining states on the West Coast being especially vulnerable for secession. And good luck using the Great Nebraska Sea for anything productive, given that the amount of pesticides, toxic waste, fertilizer, and other pollutants sinking into the water will presumably make much of the body of water a giant dead zone.

In terms of the international impact, a United States that can't keep itself intact definitely isn't gonna be projecting itself onto the world stage, so say goodbye to competition with the Soviet Union. The entire planet will probably be pretty negatively hit by the loss of much of the US' farmland, however, Soviet wheat production might actually put the USSR in a decent position internationally, or at least as good of a position as a country can be in a world hit by a global famine, an almost inevitable economic downturn, and messed up ocean currents. While the West is trying to recover from the effective collapse of the United States and the ripple effects, the USSR could swoop in and become the sole global superpower that provides relief to countries hit worst by the crisis if it plays its cards right.

 

[MaxGerke01]

Some good points about this becoming a dystopia for the USA.Assuming steps are taken to neutralize or remove the buried nukes and oil rigs and the sea doesnt become a dead zone it really has the potential to transform the US and Canada.If the sea becomes a bounty it might help hold the US together rather than split it in 2 as the sections that remain have alot in common with each other. If the formation of the Sea does foment climate change elsewhere I think there is a really good chance that ittl much more is done early to help mitigate climate change with the US taking a lead role.The damage that the formation of the Sea causes doesnt ave to be a self fulfilling prophecy of destruction.The fact that many Americans who are inclined to believe such things perished in the formation of the Sea would also alter the social fabric of the US making it less religious and more open to scientific pursuits. Maybe no space travel for a while but clean energy.I could see the Soviets benefiting for this in the short term but even in the long run.If they are smart enough to reform the way China has OTL thy and som of their empire could be a going concern in 2073.This could also lead to a cleaner and more developed and peaceful world than we are on track for OTL.

 

[tom]

How much will world sea level drop from all that water flowing into the middle of North America? Won't the world's seaports be left high and dry, not to mention the Suez and Panama Canals?

 

[IanBertram]

Assuming steps are taken to neutralize or remove the buried nukes and oil rigs and the sea doesnt become a dead zone it really has the potential to transform the US and Canada.

How? ICBMs are not designed to be watertight. Radiation will be leaking into the water from day 1. How many nuclear power stations were in this area then? How many chemical plants, how much chemical and petrochemical storage along the banks of the Mississippi and other rivers like the Ohio?

The more I think about it, the more I think this would be both an economic and an ecological disaster on a world scale.

 

[MaxGerke01]

How? ICBMs are not designed to be watertight. Radiation will be leaking into the water from day 1

Once it was realized what was happening could the ICBMS have been fired and detonated in space ? If so that would eliminate alot of potential damage ?

 

[GDIS Pathe]

(including a good chunk of its ICBM capacity, so have fun swimming in a sea with a bunch of nuclear warheads with only decaying mid-20th Century technology stopping them from creating Chernobyl on steroids lying at the bottom!),

Far less than you'd think, Missile Fields in Missouri, Montana, and Most of North Dakota are mostly untouched. The real losses would mostly be a chunk of the missile fields around Warren and Ellsworth AFBs ~250 or so Minute Men II/IIIs, 18 Titan IIs at Little Rock and Offut AFB in Omaha. And it's not like SAC has no time to evacuate everything either, there's nearly a month between the sinking of the plains and the sea reaching the Dakota's/sinking of Kansas.

I wouldn't be surprised if the US gradually succumbs to a civil war of some kind

A Civil War with who? Washington and the Federal government are utterly untouched and as wacky as Jerry Brown might be he's not going to consider *secession*

While the West is trying to recover from the effective collapse of the United States and the ripple effects, the USSR could swoop in and become the sole global superpower that provides relief to countries hit worst by the crisis if it plays its cards right.

The USSR would be too busy avoiding starvation without access to American grain to provide much relief elsewhere. Moscow and its clients may try and press their advantage against the West, but the US still has a massive military presence left globally, as battered as it is from Vietnam and I don't doubt Nixon and Kissinger would be willing to break out the nukes to draw a line in the sand.

How? ICBMs are not designed to be watertight. Radiation will be leaking into the water from day 1. How many nuclear power stations were in this area then? How many chemical plants, how much chemical and petrochemical storage along the banks of the Mississippi and other rivers like the Ohio?

The more I think about it, the more I think this would be both an economic and an ecological disaster on a world scale.

For one Nuclear warheads are inert until they're armed, without the PAL codes they're glorified paperweights.

For two literally have examples of nuclear reactors on submarines being sunk, we have eight of them in fact, and most of the time it takes more work and risk to dig them out than to just leave them as is. The Ocean is incredibly good at dispersing radiation since it already contains billions of tons of dissolved natural radioactive material.

For three, well the Ohio river is fine since the sea stopped around Missouri/Iowa/North Dakota/Minnesota. Chemicals and petrochemicals OTOH will cause issues sure, but the Nebraska Sea is literally 2/3rds the size of the Mediterranean. They'll be lasting environmental damage, but nothing that'll turn the entire area into a dead zone, especially since the sea will have no natural wildlife for a generation or two.

 

[IanBertram]

For one Nuclear warheads are inert until they're armed, without the PAL codes they're glorified paperweights.

I wasn't suggesting they would explode, but on your count there would be 250 nuclear warheads in the new sea. That radiation leaking out is going to be significant, especially since it would have a narrow mouth which would limit the outflow.

the Ohio river is fine since the sea stopped around Missouri/Iowa/North Dakota/Minnesota.

The 1811 earthquakes caused a tsunami on the Ohio. The damage caused by an earthquake of the magnitude we are talking about here (1811 is reckoned to have been 8.3, so this one will be that or worse, so already one of the biggest in history) would extend well beyond the limits of the Sea. Again, the 1811 quakes were felt in Boston, 1000 miles away. In 1973 even areas not flooded would suffer great damage. Phones, water pipes but also pipelines, gas lines and power lines. There would be major fires, releasing clouds of toxic material into the atmosphere. Some of those will be extinguished by the flooding, but that means the pollutants would go into the water instead. Think of something ten to 100 times the Kobe earthquake of 1995 coupled with multiple disasters like Texas City 1947, Bhopal, Seveso, Flixborough and the recent explosion in Beirut. The unplanned mixture of chemicals directly or through fires would also add to problems, since no one would know how to respond.

 

[GDIS Pathe]

I wasn't suggesting they would explode, but on your count there would be 250 nuclear warheads in the new sea. That radiation leaking out is going to be significant, especially since it would have a narrow mouth which would limit the outflow.

Not really, if the area sunk into is deep enough that the warheads crack under the pressure they'll just spread some radioactive material on the seafloor, otherwise they'll just be buried within their silos and missile heads and left to rust in the middle of a sea 2/3rds the size of the Med. The Soviets literally lost a SSBN with 16 Missiles and 32 nukes off of the Bermuda Coast but I don't think anyone is crowing about radiation exposure.

The 1811 earthquakes caused a tsunami on the Ohio. The damage caused by an earthquake of the magnitude we are talking about here (1811 is reckoned to have been 8.3, so this one will be that or worse, so already one of the biggest in history) would extend well beyond the limits of the Sea. Again, the 1811 quakes were felt in Boston, 1000 miles away. In 1973 even areas not flooded would suffer great damage. Phones, water pipes but also pipelines, gas lines and power lines. There would be major fires, releasing clouds of toxic material into the atmosphere. Some of those will be extinguished by the flooding, but that means the pollutants would go into the water instead. Think of something ten to 100 times the Kobe earthquake of 1995 coupled with multiple disasters like Texas City 1947, Bhopal, Seveso, Flixborough and the recent explosion in Beirut. The unplanned mixture of chemicals directly or through fires would also add to problems, since no one would know how to respond.

Huh the more you know, then again the damage would be concentrated in states already impacted by the ongoing refugee crisis.

 

[IanBertram]

the damage would be concentrated in states already impacted by the ongoing refugee crisis.

The economic impact would be felt across the whole country and world wide as the US repatriates investments elsewhere to pay for reconstruction.

The response to Katrina or Deepwater Horizon don't fill me with hope that something on this scale would be well managed...

The Soviets literally lost a SSBN with 16 Missiles and 32 nukes off of the Bermuda Coast but I don't think anyone is crowing about radiation exposure.

The impact of seriously contaminated water on the integrity of a sub hull might change that. The resistance of missile silos to such pollution is equally unknown.

Has anyone calculated the likely depth of this lake? Surface area is one thing, but it seems likely that large proportions of it would be shallow marsh. That alone could be another health risk with malaria and polio likely to see big increases. On top of that circulation of shallow water would be sluggish so dispersal of contaminants would be very slow.

In the early days, all vessels would need to get access from the Gulf of Mexico. Has anyone calculated the depth of that channel? Would large vessels be able to get in?

Someone earlier mentioned Denver and Kansas City becoming port cities. Not really - they may have access to water, but there would be no wharfs or other handling facilities. Constructing them would take time and money. Given the number of displaced people and the damage to infrastructure, that's likely to be low down the list of priorities. On the other hand something like Mulberry Harbours might be feasible, so long as you can get road access to them.

One final question. What proportion of US industrial capacity survives? Is that evenly distributed among all sectors. What would be the split between East and West?

 

[MaxGerke01]

Someone earlier mentioned Denver and Kansas City becoming port cities. Not really - they may have access to water, but there would be no wharfs or other handling facilities. Constructing them would take time and money. Given the number of displaced people and the damage to infrastructure, that's likely to be low down the list of priorities.

It wouldnt happen overnight but within 25-50 years after the Sea is formed why not ? It would be a big waste of a new economic opportunity for them.Neither of them is right on the coast I dont think-KC is probably closer.But its easy to see port facilites springing up and suburbs connecting the space between until the were eventually reckoned to be part of the 2 cities, There would also probably be major ferry services between the 2 cities for those looking to cross the US without flying or going through Canada.

 

[cloistered scholar]

This is going to kill the trucking industry in America, though they might reroute north through Canada

 

[GrandMaster]

One has to wonder if fishing is a major industry in the Great Nebraska Sea (and if so, what exactly is fished).

 

[Deleted member 82792]

Where would the town of Springfield be located in the Simpsons ITTL?

 

[MaxGerke01]

This is going to kill the trucking industry in America, though they might reroute north through Canada

Ironic Im watching a report on CNN right now about a trucker shortage. Could there be ferries over the Sea big enough to take trucks ? Denver and KC are about 8.5 hours apart if you drive non stop so should be a similar time on a Sea ferry ?

 

[MaxGerke01]

Where would the town of Springfield be located in the Simpsons ITTL?

Springfield by the Sea ?

 

[MaxGerke01]

One has to wonder if fishing is a major industry in the Great Nebraska Sea (and if so, what exactly is fished).

Anyone know the type of marine animal and plant life the Sea would attract ?

 

[The Gunslinger]

Anyone know the type of marine animal and plant life the Sea would attract ?

Nothing for a long while. The sea is going so polluted that it's probably a dead zone for many years after the initial event. Eventually you'll see marine life colonizing it starting with Gulf species moving northwards and marine life from Lake Winnipeg come south.

 

[MaxGerke01]

Whats is the most extreme weather on and near the Sea and what type of climatic changes does it create for North America ?

 

[MaxGerke01]

Would a road or bridge across the Great Nebraska Sea be feasible or possible or is it too large ?