Dear Mr. Rawles,
I just finished your novel novel “Survivors” [1]. It was a good book and it spells out a lot of things that might happen. I have been an avid reader of your books and materials for some time. I would like to point out that Alaska is a better survivor island than many of the other Western States.
First: Alaska does rely on products being imported but it has the capacity to manufacture its own fuel. Presently we have three refineries within our state but they concentrate on the manufacture of Aviation Gas because it has the highest profit. We could seek to change our production to diesel and to automobile gasoline if we were cut off. We also have geothermal heat sources and large deposit of coal that we would be able to use as fuels. We have active wood resource use and technology involving wood boilers.
Second: Anchorage would be toast. It is kind of known as Los Anchorage. It has a high Asian/Pacific Islander/Filipino population mixed with greenies (emigres from California) that would wipe themselves out quickly. The rest of the state would have increased resources with that group roughly taking itself out. Those that would be left would be roving gangs but for the most part would not leave their central location. People would probably seek to cut the roads out in and out of anchorage and this would be easy with the destruction of a couple of bridges. Anchorage would be isolated and would be a death trap.
Third: In a “Crunch” type scenario things that have restricted Alaska for a long time like the Jones Act would be null. Alaska presently can not direct export its resources to other foreign powers. Alaska has a significant war chest in its constitutional reserve that is largely composed of stocks, and real estate. Alaska could possibly pull some very quick trade deals with other PacRim countries for import/exports.
Fourth: Military in Alaska. We have a large military presence here and those people would follow military procedures. Many would be called back to the states or would move back with their families. Once that happened our population would be more sustainable. Many military folks would stay. Alaska would be the home to the stryker divisions, airborne and quick response divisions that could easily protect its borders. We have tactical bombers, missile defense and F22 Raptor fighters that would provide for supports.
Fifth: Long term Alaskans- Would easily slowly retract from the rest of the US. We produce a lot of gold and precious metals and would be able to produce a lot more if Federal Restrictions ended. 66% of the state[land area] is Federally controlled. The lack of an operating over the shoulder Uncle Sugar would produce a lot of mom and pop gold mining that would be highly profitable in the crunch.
Sixth: The amount of salmon and other basic food stuffs could be concentrated on. Delta and the Matsu valley have the capabilities to produce enough potatoes, barley and vegetables that with the new[ly-reduced] population and regular dynamics we would be okay. We actually built storage facilities for these products that are not in use. Global Warming is a reality and Alaska has longer growing seasons with capabilities that would allow it survive. We would not face starvation as mentioned in the book. Many in Alaska are preppers and I believe that the average household in Alaska has between two and four months worth of food. Things like Sailor Boy pilot bread and other products that last for long without refrigeration are found in greater quantities up here.
Seventh: There are some Alaskans who would die quickly in the aftermath of TEOTWAWKI but if Alaska was not completely nuked it would have circles of influence that would try to keep things in check. There are several very active groups of people who would seek to take quick steps if it happened. They are here and are prepared. Alaska’s constitution is different from US constitution and it is much more connected with the original constitution and not all of the interpretation and missteps that our Framing document has taken.
I liked your novel very much. I think that you should investigate the capabilities of modern compound bow technology. Bows are much more accurate and deadly than they have ever been. They have the ability to engage targets at ranges greater than 100 yards. Sincerely, – Thomas K.