> or military action (other countries probably have more pressing concerns in this scenario)
I'm starting to think that getting nuked would be preferable to a conventional attack disabling the national grid for prolonged duration. At least for those close to one of the impact sites it would be a faster and more pleasant way to go.
But would it be worse than starvation? I imagine that the two combined would hasten a victim's demise, too, which in this scenario might be desirable to the victim.
