Talk:1983: Doomsday

Before you start editing, please read the Editorial Guidelines.

Discussion Archives: Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

Former Proposals: Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12

Useful Resources:

A website showing potential nuclear strikes within the US can be found here. A map showing likely fallout patterns across the USA.

=GENERAL DISCUSSION= The following is for general discussion to improve the TL that does not involve article proposals Structured into rough sections for easier navigation.

Countries/Regions/Politics
Archives: Page 1 Page 2 Page 3

Borders of Utah and Sierra Nevada
There is dispute between Louis and Fx over the borders of Utah (a canon article) and Sierra Nevada (a proposal). I believe the jist of the argument can be found here. Mediation has been requested, so please review both articles and the discussion between the two editors and help them come to a resolution. I would also ask that Louis and Fx please leave a short summary of their position here as well. Mitro 16:58, May 15, 2010 (UTC)

First I would like to thank Mitro for setting this up and to reiterate what I have said already in that I am open to discussion. I have tried to lay out my arguments on the SNU discussion page, which I would suggest should be read as well as those on the Cascadia discussion page, where part of this discussion took place, as reference. This said, if I understand Louisianan's point accurately, its that some part of northeastern NV joined with UT at some point for some reason sometime in the post-war world. The problem is though there is nothing written in either UT or its history regarding this. I should note that if you enlarge and study the map of UT, it shows the inclusion of a small part of the state. Since a map in not necessarily canon without something written to support it, I took this to mean it was theoretical. I carefully did my research before writing my article on NV to ground it in reality and especially paid close attention to articles about the surrounding area. Understandably, since I could find nothing if anything, I set my boundaries for the eastern SNU by using the old state borders. Since our discussions began, Louisianan has now informed me of several other NV cities/towns which are part of UT which were not even referenced in his map. I am baffled and confused by the situation. How can one violate something not written? The only changes I can discern which would be made to accept my borders would be for a change to the UT and Cascadia maps. Suffice it to say I feel I have put forth a number of logical points supporting my thoughts and rationale in how I have written my article. I have gotten the distinct impression there is less of a desire to logically discuss the matter with me and more of a "because I told you so, you should do it" approach. I apologize for getting so lengthy is trying to lay out my thoughts.--Fxgentleman 01:34, May 16, 2010 (UTC)

Fx, I request that you may change the borders to the Californian part of the nation, because it is encompassing a large portion of my article Commonwealth of California Arstarpool 03:02, May 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hold your horses their Arstarpool. We first need to work out the Borders of Utah and Sierra Nevada. The we'll deal with the boarders of Nevada and California. --GOPZACK 15:34, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

New London Review
During the New Rome discusion thier was talk and general agreement about the New London part of the celtic alliance being unrealistic, If the comunity agrees i sugest that this paticular part of the celtic alliance be removed from cannonVegas adict 20:25, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

I am all for communities popping up in some of the nuked cities, but it's been established that London was hit by 12 missiles. While I could believe a small community could take roots here, I do not see that more than 3 nations have claims to new cities popping up from the ashes of the old ones. Arstarpool 04:15, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

The reason i oppose New London is the same reason i oppose New Rome: bith cities would have been too heavily nuked. I expect resettlement by 2020, at the earliest for Rome and 2030 for London. Also, 12 missiles does not equal 12 impact events. 12 missiles could, due to MIRV technology mean 120 nuclear explosions, each of the 100KT yield. Thats alot. --HAD 14:36, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

I suppose there could be small communities on the outskirts of Greater London Verence71 14:57, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't you simply have a "New London" somewhere other than where old London was? BrianD 14:58, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Presumably the outskirts of West London would be where this 'New London' is designated. I was actually planning to write up an article on London and the fates of the scant survivors of Doomsday; would anyone like me to post up what I saw New London as being? I suppose, depending on the scale of the damage, various survivor communities could exist further in, but logically the further into the city you go the smaller the population, the greater the deformities, and the more they rely on cannibalism to survive. Any survivor states would have to exist on the more fertile outer perimeter, straddling the M25 (New London), or be heavily reliant on external supplies (Essex's communities in East London). I assumed that London was mostly hit by airbursts, but at Westminster (possibly the Docklands) there were groundbursts to scour out and ensure the destruction of the facilities there. The rest of the city would have been engulfed by a firestorm that would last for days, not dying down until perhaps a week after Doomsday, killing off nearly all the city's roughly 7 million inhabitants (as of 1983). The survivors would either have run for the country or have been forced to scrape a living in the ruins. Fegaxeyl 15:39, May 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the M25 as such did not exist in 1983 ( although a majority of sections did...)

It might be better to consider London as the GLC area ( which as such would have existsed in 1983 ) - Of course the GLC itself had it's own Bunker

under County Hall but it's proximity to major strikes in Westminster may rule it out as an effective base of operations for the GLC post Doomesday,

In the run up to the events of this timeline, I also recall the GLC being rathe pro-CND and left-wing...

Elsewhere in the notes for the UK an estimated yield of 8 MT is given for all strikes... this I think may be an underestimate. but is presumably an in-timeline

figure given that accurate records might not exist...

In terms of London, likely targeting may have included : -

- Northwood and/or Bentley Priory ( This depends on whwn Strike Command Relocated...)

- White City (BBC) or Old Oak Common (Major Railway Yards)

- Battersea - (When did the power station close? and also a LOT of railway infrastructure...

- Westminster/Whitehall

- Lea Valley ( Water Storage) - Shepperton area ( Water Storage)

- Heathrow ( Major Airport)

Docklands even by 1983 was in decline, and as such the primary port facilites had already started to move Down river... However that might not have been factored into Soviet targeting...

Kent-

No Dartford Tunnel? - (Which means you have a major headache crossing the Thames, given the inaccessability of crossing points upstream of Dartford),

also possibly no Thames Barrier, which means parts of London are much more vunerbale to a major flood...

- Chatam Naval Dockyard was until the Mid 1980's I think still an active military facility, and may have dealt with subs at some point..

- Dover - Although there would at this date have been a bunker under Dover Castle, it's proximity to any strike on Dover docks would have rendered it useless.)

Bucks - I would call into the question the plausibility of Milton Keynes still being around give Beltchley and Wolverton being major rail centres. However, assuming Milton Keynes exists than I would perhaps consider that the concrete cows are in fact real cows in the Doomesday Timeline... Aylsebury Vale/ North Bucks are probably not affected by events in London but maybe depending on the size of waeopns used will be in respect of

what happened in respect of the Chilterns and South of the county.... High Wycombe is almost certainly affected badly, although this not due to a direct strike

but it's proximity to an RAF Bunker ( hit by a 'massive' ground strike).

None of the scenario notes so far make any mention of what happens to the Buncefield Oil Depot? ( Was this Targetted at all?)

Assuming the 'survival' of Buncefield, there is the possibility that in 2010, following a lack of mantinence for nearly 22 years, there is a minor explosion

close to the site that sets the entire complex ablaze, leading to the rediscovery of the Hundreds...

Prior to the rediscovery there may have been periodic reports of 'willo-the wisp' in certain fringes of Essex/Woodbridge...(Pipelines?)

The southern fringe of The Hundreds (OTL: South Bucks ) is presuambly lawless,

Does anyone here a rough idea what the targetting pattern for NW London was on Doomesday, because it affects how things develop?

If Little Chalfont and Chalnfot St Giles survive then it's possible thet athe Hundreds have at least 18 the century conditions,

(One key issue being a College Campus above one of the Chalfonts... ),

Greenham Common - presumably a major target.... 212.225.120.224 20:34, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Old London would have been obilterated, as would much of Greater London. A survivor state on the very outskirts of Greater London is plausible, i suppose.HAD 16:42, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

What does this mean for New Rome? I would not see it becoming obliterated, seeing that it was not as active in NATO as Britian and France were, but problaby hit by 3 to 6 100 KT Missiles. All post-Doomsday nuked cities have shown to have some sort of population, as the extreme survivalists near D.C., the communities around San Diego, and several others. I suppose though that New London would be smiliar to Mainland Portugal; extremely improvised.Arstarpool 21:48, May 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the capitals would be the targets of the higher yield weapons. If Vienna was targeted with a 1 MT bomb, I would think Rome would be targeted with something bigger than a few 100kt ones. Rome was a much higher priority than Vienna, with almost twice the population, so I would see probably 3 1MT strikes. Oerwinde 20:40, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

I suppose tiny communities on the outskirts of cities that were hit are possible. However, what about the fires that were caused by the strikes. Surely they would have destroyed a large part of whatever was left standing. And we must bear in mind conditions such avaliability of food, water and such and such. HAD 10:41, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Such a strike would probably not be three 1MT warheads, but 30 100KT warheads. Same overall yield, more damage.HAD 21:41, May 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * By that logic the USSR would be out of missiles pretty damn fast. They had plenty of warheads, not so many delivery systems. A single 1MT nuke wouldn't cover as much area as 10 100KT nukes, but when the city is burning, people are fleeing, and electronics are wiped out... does it really matter? K.I.S.S. Keep it simple stupid. Why waste those extra 27 missiles when 3 can get the same jobs done? Oerwinde 08:18, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * What about MIRVs? A single missile can carry ten warheads.HAD 08:28, May 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hrmm, interesting, quick look at MIRVs, seems that smaller warheads produce less radiation, what I mean is 10 100kt nukes produce less radiation than a 1 MT one. So if a MIRV is used, the fallout would be less and th eresidual radiation would die down sooner. Meaning if parts of the city do survive, they can be resettled earlier than if a larger yield missile is used.Oerwinde 02:38, June 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * As the official caretaker for the Celtic Alliance, I myself do not agree with the bogus of a community on London, but I'll consult the community first to see if people say otherwise. Arstarpool 01:27, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * As the official caretaker for the Celtic Alliance, I myself do not agree with the bogus of a community on London, but I'll consult the community first to see if people say otherwise. Arstarpool 01:27, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Should New London be kept in canon? Yes No New London should be further away from Old London

ADC membership
I have noticed that the CSTO is expanding alot faster then the ADC. Perhaps it is time for the ADC to expand more? I have the following nations in mind for full membership: 1)Luxembourg 2) North Germany 3) The Commonwealth of East Poland (worried about West Poland/PRP expansion) 4) Bermuda 5) Essex, Woodbridge, Southern England and East Britian I only ask because CSTO now streches from Central America to Asia, which seems a bit much.--HAD 11:03, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * But you have to remember that the CSTO isn't a strong organization. It's mostly Siberia's own personal club of allies. The ADC is much more cohesive in its approach, at least that's what I think. That being said, I think the author of Bermuda expressed his desire for it to enter the alliance. The English states are also fine in by book, but Poland is too far away for such a thing to really matter. It could have a token membership, though.--Vladivostok 11:38, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, besides unlike the ADC, CSTO did not expand. It was just recently formed. All current members are also funding members, while the ADC continued to expand (Rif, Corsica, Luxembourg as a partner). I do not think that any states in Continental Europe will join the ADC in the near future.--Grand Prince Paul II. 15:33, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I can easily see Woodbridge applying for membership Verence71 17:43, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, with it's airstrip, it would be a valuable member of the ADC.HAD 18:08, June 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * We'll probably put in an application after we've sorted out the trouble in West Suffolk Verence71 09:55, June 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Are there any objections to North Germany joining? It's automobile plants could be put to good use. Arstarpool 18:16, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no objections. I believe it would in fact be a likely occurance, considering North Germany's proximaty to Norway/Denmark.HAD 18:31, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Same here. --GOPZACK 18:40, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Are there any objections to North Germany joining? It's automobile plants could be put to good use. Arstarpool 18:16, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no objections. I believe it would in fact be a likely occurance, considering North Germany's proximaty to Norway/Denmark.HAD 18:31, June 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Same here. --GOPZACK 18:40, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

Thunder Bay referendum
Thunjnder Bay was supposed to hold a referendujm on joining Canda, Superior or staying independent a few mountsh a go. what would be the result of this?--HAD 18:38, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously this has been forgotten, just like the war in Saguenay and the war in Europe, just one of many problems I guess. And I think no one can speculate on the outcome other than the author, although I think that the referendum would be directly connected to the outcome of the war--Vladivostok 19:48, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's take a poll so we can get it updated.
 * Let's take a poll so we can get it updated.

What should happen to Thunder Bay? Merge with Canada Become a protectorate of Canada Merge with Superior Stay Independent

Note:My browser had a spasm and marked "Stay Independent" when I meant to mark "Merge With Canada". Arstarpool 19:04, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Status of Cyprus
So, what is the status of Cyprus as of now? In my addition, the Sultanate of Turkey, I had Cyprus as surivivng Doomsday with minimal damage. The British bases on the island were nuked with low-yield weapons and the fallout went into the Meditterrean. Northern Cyprus remained under Turkish control thanks to the military contigent from the Republic of Turkey stationed there. Southern Cyprus remained under Greece control and eventually joined the Confederation of Greece. Later, the Sultanate of Turkey annexes the northern half of the island, hightening tensions with Greece.

From what I can tell, there's been nothing accepted into the canon so far about Cyprus, but can someone clarify its status? Is what I have so far okay?

Caeruleus 22:45, June 3, 2010 (UTC)

I think it likely that with Turkey being nuked and out of commission for a while, the Republic of Cyprus would regain control of the whole island, and with no turkish settlement after 83, northern cyprus might remain majority greek, so when it joins the Confederation of Greece, it would be the whole island joining. So with Turkey annexing Northern Cyprus, this would be an act of war against the confederation of Greece.174.1.100.195 17:41, June 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Not really. Turkey was a powerful regional country at the time and only received two nuclear attacks. One in the largest city, Istanbul, and another in the capital Ankara. This is much less than other countries. Also due to wind patterns and such, most of the fallout would move north and east, leaving the southern half of the country relatively untouched. Additionally, the Turkish military was powerful and spread throughout the country. They would have most likely been able to establish control in many areas. Many would have come together to create a new government, while some others would have established independent realms.


 * As for Cyprus, there was a significant Turkish population on Cyprus and the Turkish military invaded the island in 1982. A strong military contingent stayed on the island after the invasion too. That military contingent was also much more powerful than anything the Greek Cypriots had, so powerful that it caused the collapse of the Greek Cypriot regime a year earlier. They probably would have been able to retain their indepedence. The Confederation of Greece may have incorporated southern Cyrus, but northern Cyprus could have been annexed by Turkey. Even if a war started, Turkey was stronger than Greece before Doomsday and would retain much of their same equipment and have superior numbers. Greece wouldn't have been able to invade mainland Turkey or conquer southern Cyprus. Caeruleus 18:22, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

I re-read the situation in Cyprus, seems the Greek cypriots were displaced much earlier than I thought. Either way maybe the Republic of Cyprus took the initiative to unify Cyprus in the confusion, what with Greek cyprus having like 6x the population of Turkish Cyprus, and the partition not being legal. Apparently over 100 thousand greek cypriots were displaced by the invasion, maybe they decide to take their homes back. I'm thinking maybe the Greek controlled south retakes much of the Turkish controlled north, reducing North Cyprus from 38% of the island to more like 18%, displacing the Turkish population.Oerwinde 09:58, June 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * A Turkish military contingent was in Northern Cyprus to secure the island. Only a year earlier, Cyprus had been invaded and totally defeated by the Turkish military. With the chaos of Doomsday and the inability to import weapons, the Greek Cypriots would have been unable to reconquer the north, which would leave it open to Turkish annexation down the road. Caeruleus 18:22, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

The Turkish invaded in 1984, not 1982. But what do you care? You fight every time someone argues your Sultanate is too big. Mr.Xeight 01:53, June 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course I did, just as you fight every time someone disrupts your Greece article. However, I have shrunk the nation's borders accordingly and removed the more outlandish war portions. For the moment, the Cyprus portion remains because Greece apparently hasn't touched it, yet, and the nuclear damage would be minimal. Only the two British bases on the island would be nuked, and it is likely that most of the fallout would quickly blow out into the sea. I'm still looking into the pre-Doomsday Turkish military strength on the island though. Haven't had time to do the appropriate research unfortunately. Caeruleus 04:29, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

International Drug Trade
What would happen to the trade of illegal drugs after Doomsday? Better yet, what would happen to the lucky few of the drug dealers who managed to survive within or en route to the nuked cities with some of thier "merchandise"? Arstarpool 21:03, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

I had been thinking about this for a small community in Derbyshire, UK. It involves a crafty entrepeneur who, amongst other things, uses his monopoly on drugs such as cannabis to maintain his fortified business enclave. Of course for something like this to be plausible there would need to be a supply of the drugs nearby and the right growing conditions available (I'm no expert on the growth of illegal drugs), both of which would be removed within months of Doomsday as their areas are abandoned, pillaged, or otherwise. Drugs in pill form would probably be hoarded, but most likely exhausted within a few years of Doomsday (again I've little idea how these things work). Fegaxeyl 17:12, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming that somewhere in the Doomsday world, there would be one cocoa plant and one cannabis plant. While I think illegal drugs for the most part would be gone, some local communities might have their own little "stashes". Arstarpool 19:27, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

F, your idea puts me mind of this episode of the original version of Survivors, at least the idea of a settlement manufacturing drug Verence71 20:32, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

Sagenuy what do ya call it and st lawrence and all that
SO what was the end result of the recent war, in plain english. Also, what is up with St Lawrence? Does it still exsist? Has it been returned to Canada, or what?--HAD 21:36, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

End result of the war was status quo + Saguenay recognized. Needs to be revamped though due to the revelation that Ontario would have a lot more people, which would change Superior's status, as well as Canada having a presense within Ontario.Oerwinde 05:49, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Southern England Review
There is currently a small dispute on the Southern England talk page that the Isle of Wright would have belonged to New Britain. I personally agree, since that was the place that the British government was stationed, New Britain would have had contact with whoever remained on the Island. Arstarpool 00:56, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I think the difficulties in communicating between New Britan and the Isle of Wight would have led to "de facto" independence for the Isle.HAD 16:28, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

The New Britain page also says that the nation has 'renounced all claims to the British Isles' (or 'mainland Britain'; I can't remember exactly). That would seem to imply that they have nor claim any territory such as the Isle of Wight, meaning that Southern England is independent. Fegaxeyl 17:31, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

PUSA Constitutional Convention
Wasn't the P.U.S.A supposed to hold a constitutional convention in which it may or may not have declared itself the successor to the United States of America back in Febuary? Arstarpool 15:13, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

We have been a bit busy, I'm afraid. HAD 09:54, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Currency
Everywhere I look I see little micro-states with the "Ithacan Dollar" or the "Pasco Dollar" or even a city-state having the "Cape Rand". While I created a different currency for my American survivor nation, the Floridian Conch, I had imagined it being a coin thats value went by weight, not something mass produced in factories that would be housed God-knows-where. And even then, the several articles I adopted all use the American dollar, as does South Florida, who continues to use it. How would small city-states and other atrocities be able to manufacture their own currency? Zacks' "Kentucky" article is the perfect image of what Post-Doomsday currencies should be, at least in the former U.S. Arstarpool 14:43, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

DD needs new pages, like one named Currency. Currency is a vital aspect of economy and is important in almost every nation, why isn't there a page that discusses the issues with Post-Doomsday currency? ProfessorMcG 21:51, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

There's a similar page to what you suggested ProfessorMcG. What I think is that alot of the American nations should tone down their local currencies and continue to rely on the "U.S. Buck". I doubt that some little nation like the Pasco Free State would have their own currency. Arstarpool 00:34, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

If they're all using the old currency there's nothing stopping a bunch of adventurous characters walking through an abandoned town and picking up every scrap of the old currency they could find. They would become overnight millionaires and easily gain vast amounts of power for not-that-much effort. Any states would probably want to avoid large amounts of their citizenry gaining this level of unbalanced economic power through mere scavenging, so it would make sense to render the old currency useless. However that idea does posit interesting ways of forming states and an entirely new way of life post-DD. Fegaxeyl 07:09, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe currency could be recalled, re-minted, and sent back into public use. I just doubt that these little city-states would have the "Pasco" or "Ithacan" dollar. Arstarpool 16:27, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Quad Cities
This is canon, but I have issues with it. Why does the author say it has control over cities like Iowa City and Dubuque when the map of the country clearly doesn't show those cities under it's control? And I say Cedar Rapids would not have been nuked. There would be no need to nuke it, what do the Russians care about the second largest city in IOWA. They might as well send 70 nukes for New York if they're willing to nuke Cedar Rapids. ProfessorMcG 03:57, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad someone did their homework. Arstarpool 01:45, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

What does that mean? And really, if Quad Cities survived Cedar Rapids would've definitely survived too. ProfessorMcG 02:38, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

That means that you realized something nobody else has, haha. Dismiss that crap. They are QUAD cities, which means that they are 4. So anything above 4 are definitley not under thier control. Arstarpool 04:39, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Strikes
I've noticed a trend lately - several new articles of late have been ignoring the note at the top of the list of nuclear strikes, and have not been adding them where needed. Maybe this needs to be put somewhere else as well? Or it should be revised?

Lordganon 21:10 June 27, 2010 (UTC)

This is important because I didn't even know about that. Ha! Silly me. ProfessorMcG 21:21, June 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * I have put together a map onto which "known" nuked sites are posted. It is on the general information article called "Doomsday (1983: Doomsday)." I took all the sites listed there so far and posted them as dots on the US map. Strikes elsewhere will have to wait for a visual aid, but they too are listed. The list of sites is incomplete and always being adjusted as articles get written. I put a note that the map should be updated as entries are added, but I don't know how many changes (if any) have been made. SouthWriter 21:39, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

I guess what I'm saying is that people are completely ignoring the big warning at the top of the page. Take the Macedonia guy for example, he's assuming that Seville was not hit simply because it is not listed there - yet, it would have been.

We should have it somewhere else prominent as well.

Lordganon 3:29, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that in order to create new articles/nations, an area would have to escaped destruction in order to flourish. As such, folks are looking the other way regarding this. Its logical to presume more than those sites which were listed were struck. This is where we as the writers need to step in and do research to see what would have likely to have been a target. With the US we can at least use the FEMA list where as we have to apply logic elsewhere based on research. This is what I have tried to do with my articles on the Middle East. With any NATO nation, logic would indicate NATO bases, major military airfields/ports, and large/prominent cities would be hit.--Fxgentleman 04:06, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Graphics / Visualization /Cartography
Section Archives: Page 1

New Map Time!
Its about time we got ourselves a new world map. We really need to start replacing our maps on a regular basis.Yankovic270 23:39, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

I have started work on a new map, while pretty much the same base map of the old one, but I have created a more organized Key and removed the colors that show 'powerful' countries (Union Interim Parliament, Cuba, Superior) and added some (MSP, Dixie Alliance, Taiwan). Tell me if I should continue work on this, or should I scrap the entire project in favor of a completely new map. Arstarpool 21:55, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just be sure when your making the Dixie Alliance not to make Kentucky, Cape Girardeau, & Virginia look like they are all apart of the same country. --GOPZACK 15:53, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * A new map is needed, because there is no Hainan, Georgia, Ossetia, Azerbaijan, Crimea, Kuban, Don, Armenia, and the nations mentioned and seen in Georgia article, remember that the map was changed not so many time ago, when the republic of Kabylie was added, also some new added nations (which some don't appear in the 1983DD main page like Gainsville).VENEZUELA 02:32, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

And it ignores the existance of basically every other country in Indochina besides Vietnam. Is it really so hard to add these countries and Myanmar (Burma)? All you have to do is follow the OTL borders.

Yankovic270 02:43, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Updating Maps
Yank raised an interesting point that we should update our maps on a regular basis. Should we have a protocol for replacing them every month of what? --GOPZACK 15:54, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

How about we update it every 15 new nations?HAD 20:04, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan HAD. I would just amend it slightly so we update it every 15 new nations or major territorial changes. --GOPZACK 01:19, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

So long as no one objects we ought to make this the new rule. --GOPZACK 18:42, June 19, 2010 (UTC)

Flooding
I think we should establish a list of areas that were flooded after Doomsday, so that the community can ensure that when they are creating a new survivor nation they aren't accidentally placing it underwater, as well as to aid in future map-making. This could of course extend into a discussion over how nature will have reclaimed abandoned areas of the world after Doomsday, but I'd just like to start of considering areas that would be flooded. I get the ball rolling with areas that have been flooded in the UK: And globally a few more come to mind: Any more suggestions? Fegaxeyl 09:26, May 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Somerset Levels, located in the Celtic Alliance
 * The Fens, in/near East Britain
 * London, specifically around the River Lea and River Thames
 * The Eonile in Egypt
 * The Dutch Wastelands

Coastal Lousiana and parts of Florida spring to mind.--HAD 14:37, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

The Norfolk Broads?? Verence71 14:42, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Southern Manitoba along the Red River, the area around Leningrad in Russia, Venice, Sacramento river Valley in Northern California, Paris, the Adige in Northern Italy (an underground canal used to drain off floods, used in 2000), Northern Ireland, along the Daunbe in Europe, Rivers through the Dakotas (floods every year).

Also, a case can be made for many of the rivers in the US to have flooded somewhat, as many have levees of one sort or another.

Areas around some hydroelectric dams are also a possibility - dams may fail, or the water ends up backed up because the dam is closed and floods more areas. --Lordganon 22:58, May 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Canon is that the sea-level hasn't actually risen more than here. Louisiannan 17:19, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I know, but lots of areas we take for granted as high and dry today are built on easily floodable areas; with the pumps abandoned large areas will be submerged to varying degrees regardless of sea level rise. Fegaxeyl 18:24, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Feg's point. We've seen it with The Neatherlands.HAD 20:04, May 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * In regard to dams, Where any directlr targeted ( Hoover Dam for example might have been a major target...)?212.225.120.224 20:26, May 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt the Hoover Dam would be a target, it would be disabled by the EMP from the strike on the air base in Vegas. A strike would be redundant.Oerwinde 20:30, May 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I doubt the Hoover Dam would be a target, it would be disabled by the EMP from the strike on the air base in Vegas. A strike would be redundant.Oerwinde 20:30, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Map-Making
Curious, but is there some sort of map-making program or something that you guys have been making the nicer maps with? Can't remember the name of the one I've used before, so....

Lordganon 0:25 June 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * I use photoshop with the lasso tool. Allows me to make decent looking borders.Oerwinde 06:55, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Wiki/Timeline/Article Technicals
Section archives: Page 1

Culture / Society
Archives: Page 1 • Page 2

Miscellaneous discussion
Archives: Page 1

Extended Wikibreak
Well guys, this is goodbye. I am going on an extended wiki-break and won’t be back until sometime in August. The reason for my leave of absence is because I will be taking the Illinois State Bar on July 27 and the 28. Since 1 out of 10 people fail this test, I am going to have to study hard and will not be able to spend much time here. To prove how serious I am, my fiancé will be changing my password so I cannot log in under my user name if I get tempted. So if I ever do lose control, I will be on only as a faceless anon, unable to access my watchlist or my admin abilities.

There are a few things I would like to say though now that I have the chance:
 * Except for those articles that I have officially opened up to adoption, I delegate the caretaking duties to Ben and Louis for all of my articles until my triumphant return. Any questions or decisions about said articles should be directed to them, unless it is something so important that my input is required. If that is the case you may contact me at mitro85@yahoo.com.
 * I said it before, but remember I am not the official graduator of the timeline. Anyone can graduate an article as long as they follow the . Please, however, follow through on your graduation. There is more to graduating an article than just removing the proposal template. Here is a suggested checklist:
 * Request the article to be graduated on the main talk page.
 * Allow time for people to insert any objections. In fact I would suggest waiting 1 to 3 days before graduating an article. I think we have been graduating articles too quickly, which is partly my fault, and is one of the factors that have led to some of our current issues. Also treat nation articles with a fine tooth comb.
 * If there are no objections or any objections have been satisfied, you can graduate the article. Start by archiving the article’s proposal in the Former Proposal archives.
 * Go to the article’s page and remove the proposal template. Also take the time to add the template and any categories that are needed.
 * Add article’s link at the top of the new content list on the portal page. Also remove the last item on the list.
 * Be respectful to each other. Just because you do not agree with someone does not mean you have to be an ass about it. Also don't fly off the handle because someone is disagreeing with you. A disagreement does not equal a personal attack.
 * There has been a lot of good discussion involving the issues of this TL. Keep it up. Discussion is good.

Finally I just want everyone to know how proud I am of everything that we created. This TL has evolved from its original 2 pages to one of the largest and most active communities on this wiki. I'm going to miss working on this TL with all of you, but my exile is not going to last forever. I'm looking forward to seeing what has been created in my absence. Mitro 17:04, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Good luck!! Verence71 18:54, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

I hope you pass the Bar, my American Comrade. Good luck!HAD 19:38, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Best wishes, Mitro. Here's to excellent results!BrianD 22:38, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

All the best sir! GOPZACK 22:41, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Wish you the best of luck! Arstarpool 00:36, May 23, 2010 (UTC)

Deeply sorry I missed your (temporary) goodbye Mitro (like so many things)... All the best to you..!! Cheers Xi&#39;Reney 21:54, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

RV/Trailer Parks & Camp Grounds
How do small communities based in the various recreation parks around the world sound?

Yankovic270 23:12, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * They would be hard-pressed to find/make the necessary food and supplies for themselves. Most people in these parks are retirees, and more likely targets of aggression than survivors. Moreover, this is a very "consumptive" lifestyle. If you don't have a society supporting you, you cannot survive long-term. (I work in the RV industry.) Louisiannan 21:30, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Then what about the national and state parks, at least the parks that can support vegetation? There are a couple of states created in these parks (New Montgomery, Everglades). I would think that there would be more of these small states in the former US of A.

Yankovic270 20:19, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

It would be cool for some of these RV parks populations to become roving nomadic communities, travelling from place to place.174.1.100.195 17:48, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

National Anthems Page
I was seeing if I could get some help on a page I have started on, if I've messed up on some ones nation, please forgive me and edit it. Also this is a public thing, anyone can put they're nations anthem on here, just if its canon.--Sunkist- 02:38, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

=CURRENT ARTICLE PROPOSALS= Please list any and all current article proposals and their discussion here. If the proposals only involves a specific section of the article, please state that. Also remember to use  when reviewing new articles. To graduate an article, move to have the article graduated and if no one objects the article will be considered canon (see the for more information on this process).

Proposal Overflow
Right now we have a lot of 37 proposals and not a lot of people to graduate them. If you see something that is worth graduating then ask if there are any objections and if there aren't any, feel free to graduate it. If you see something that is not worth graduating, ask if anyone disagrees and then mark it up for obsolete/deletion. Arstarpool 01:38, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Per the scenario I listed earlier on the New Vegas discussion page, this is a nation consisting of parts of Nevada and adjacent California which I have been working on. I hope to proivde a map soon. However, I don't want to accidently encroach on New Vegas in regards to borders. When I originally envisioned this, I had loosely used Route Six to define the southern border, imagining everything south of there was of little concern to this nation. I welcome comments on this article, which I will add more to as time allows. Thanks..Fxgentleman 05:21, February 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you link to the page? Benkarnell 16:25, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to graduation? I, for one, have none. Yankovic270 03:48, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

If you could remove the claims to Californian part of the nation, I will have no problems, but as of now the land you claimed in California is encroaching on my proposal Commonwealth of California. Arstarpool 05:41, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Arstarpool this article came well before yours. The creator of Sierra Nevada has first dibs on the boarder. --GOPZACK 15:56, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

He's right if you want this to work you must remove the counties of Pulmas, Sierra, Nevada county, Placer, El Dorado, and Alpine from the borders of the California Commonwealth Riley.Konner 14:49, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the raised question over the western border of the SNU, only those portions of El Dorado, Placer, Alpine, and Mono Counties, CA east of the Sierra Nevada Mountains are actually part of the nation. The SNU has no claim or reason to claim any part of these counties west of the mountains, especially since the mountains act as a barricade to the chaos of CA. In that the Sierras are an extremely rugged and formidable natural barrier even in this day and given the overall existence of affairs post-Doomsday (no phones, electricity, etc.), communities east of the mountains might as well be on the moon in relation to those west. With the loss of the CA state government and the closer ties to Nevada (especially the Lake Tahoe region), it would be logical they would accept the offer to work with and join Nevada in the establishment of the SNU. Given the enormous logistical problems such a nation as the COC would have to overcome: the nuclear strikes and heavy fallout of Doomsday; the failure of infrastructure; refugees; and violence (such as illustrated in the nearby MSP) to name a few, any existing government would be more focused on basic survival and not be able to reasonably extend its authority east of the mountains. I should also note in passing, my article does in fact predate the COC. As to graduating my article, as much as I would like to do so, I feel it would not be fair to do this until the disagreement is resolved over the eastern borders with Louisianan. Thanks. --Fxgentleman 17:40, May 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * I still question how a fully developed nation-state could take shape in one of the USA's most inhospitable areas. The New Zealand flyover in the 1990s found absolutely nothing - why is it so difficult for us to respect what's already been written? Benkarnell 21:17, May 27, 2010 (UTC)

Ben, let me begin by saying when I originally wrote this article it was not my intent in any way shape or form to disrespect anything previously written. In fact, I have always tried to go out of my way to be respectful to others here. I had in fact read the section you reference and did take note of it. It surprised me to some extent given my personal knowledge of the region, having visited it a number of times and developed a feeling for it. When I first started thinking about this idea back in January I decided to do my customary lengthy analysis to see if my idea had any merit. I focused on two thoughts, was there any evidence to support the supposition the region could have become a wasteland/vast desert and that aside, could NV logically survive and exist as a nation. The more I read and researched, I could find nothing to logically support the idea it was a wasteland. I also found substantial evidence supporting the premise of the state surviving and the viability of becoming a survivor nation. I took note for example there was only one primary and one secondary target site in the state. This in turn reflected a northern and central area (with one exception) being free of the same damage we have seen elsewhere. Thus intact roads, rails, etc. The bulk of the fallout would more likely be to the south, with that reaching the north having to make it over the Sierras and the rest coming from Oregon, Washington, or Idaho, which did not strike me as being as severe as that of say, southern CA. Further, Carson City, the state capital, would more than likely have survived since it was not on the strike list (in fact nearby Reno was a third place target). Given this, I felt it was very realistic the governor survived along with the bulk of the state government and as such, there would be an existing framework on which to build on where as most states did not have. I also noted the existence of many farms and ranches throughout the region to help with food production; the existence of water supplies; and even energy deposits. Lastly, given the altered weather patterns, this would have assured rainfall far and above that of the pre-DD period as seen elsewhere and would assured the blooming of plant life and aid the growing of agriculture.

I realize given what the general perception of NV tends to be by most folks, i.e. desert, I can understand the immediate thought would be to simply write it off as being some inhospitable region. But as I have said, I found to much evidence in my research which contradicted this assumption and gave every indication it had more than a better fighting chance at survival. In fact, I would have given NV far better odds than some other nations which have arisen in areas which just seemed...downright odd to me on the survivability scale. The insight I have developed through my own work and everything I have read thus far was when this story first originated, it was a blank slate so to speak and was filled in sporadically at first. With time, many of the grey areas have little by little been filled in and some earlier assumptions have been changed, sometimes in small ways and some big. Last fall for example, I put forward a lengthy examination as to why Israel should be removed from the defunct list. As a result, this was changed and I went on to write the article. It had been my hope from the beginning my article and what I stated would speak for itself as to why the SNU logically could exist without having to go into lengthy dialogues that I seem to have to continually do. Perhaps if I had set aside my zeal in writing this and extensively laid out all these thoughts earlier, these issues could have been avoided. I have observed with some considerable perplexity, no major issues were raised with me regarding my article as to it being unfeasible or its borders until the current disagreement arose.

Lastly, I should point out I did in fact read all the articles dealing with the surrounding areas before I wrote my piece. For example, I did note and include that LV was destroyed, which appeared in the UT article. The reason the problem arose over the border issue was because next to nothing was in fact ever written in any existing articles concerning NV or part of it joining another state/nation. Additionally, the sentence in the Benjamin Franklin article seems confusing. If you read it, it states a pilot flew inland from Tillamook, OR and "reports reaching a vast desert as he approached the old Idaho/Nevada border. Radiation levels were minimal, but the area seemed devoid of plant and animal life." Where did this desert exist, NV or ID? What would have concievability existed in this region to have received such catastropic damage to transform the entire region into a deadzone, especially we have since ascertained there were few major hits in this region. Given the altered weather patterns, where is the presence of the heavy rains and why is the desert not blooming due to them? Even if no one was alive for some reason, water would already begun filling up the ancient endorheic lake flooding the northwestern part of the state. It has alreday been stated people are farming in southern ID and the region was cultivated.

As I have said, I am open to discussion. If my conclusions are so skewed, please show me where my logic is faulty and I would gladly discuss making revisions. Thanks for your time.--Fxgentleman 02:07, May 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not questioning your research or your conclusions. But I really do not think that North America, particularly the western third of the continent, has room for another large state. There are already four big ones, five if you count the pUSA and pCanada as separate, which they are. Another big one simply pushes the region well beyond the letter and spirit of our established material.
 * Could it be shrunk down? Rather than all of Nevada, could it encompass just the western mountainous area? That would be all the state government would be interested in protecting anyway, during the 80s and 90s and most of the 00s. The desert would be moister by now, but for the first decade it would definitely still be a desert, and those who could would leave for places that could support them. Nowadays, maybe the former desert is starting to be re-peopled by subsistence farmers, and the Nevada republic is doing what it can to bring/keep them under its jurisdiction. That would incidentally solve the Utah border issue.
 * The bottom line, though, is that we no longer have a picture of a society wiped out. It's more of a society where everybody is OK, but they inexplicably split up into little micro-republics. SouthWriter has posed the question before: if so many people and places survived so well, why did they stop caring about the national government? The old answer was that everything was just too devastated for any thought of national institutions. Now, the answer seems to be that everyone spontaneously created local republics and didn't bother communicating with anyone outside their new borders.
 * So I think S.N. would be a perfect addition if we still had a blank slate - to me it's an excellently written and researched page, and it makes more sense than a lot of what we've got - but it's not a blank slate anymore. Another large survivor, large enough to rub against other large survivors, raises new questions of "why didn't they just stick together as the USA". There is literally no way to explain the overall picture in the context of our Doomsday scenario. Benkarnell 16:16, May 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the problem was that interstate communications and transportation was absolutely devestated. And the USA is a big, huge country. I think that even if the various States had tried to hold the USA together, a combination of the distances involved, the devastated communications (Vermont is across the other side of the country form Alaska), the differing needs of each State, as well as their differing infastructures and econimies would have made it impossible for the USA to be held together. Most of the states declared independence around 1984/85, right. I bet that even one or two years after doomsday, it would be impossible to travel from, lets say Odessa to Broken Bow without being killed to death.HAD 20:39, June 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the problem was that interstate communications and transportation was absolutely devestated. And the USA is a big, huge country. I think that even if the various States had tried to hold the USA together, a combination of the distances involved, the devastated communications (Vermont is across the other side of the country form Alaska), the differing needs of each State, as well as their differing infastructures and econimies would have made it impossible for the USA to be held together. Most of the states declared independence around 1984/85, right. I bet that even one or two years after doomsday, it would be impossible to travel from, lets say Odessa to Broken Bow without being killed to death.HAD 20:39, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Ben, my apologies for not responding sooner. Rather than take up space here, I have opened a new section in the SNU discussion page about rewriting my article. You can find my response to your thoughts there. Thanks.--Fxgentleman 02:59, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

No offense, but MULTIPLE canon articles have proven what a wasteland much of the West is. And while I agree the deserts would be moister, the SNU would starve to death before any crops could be planted. Arstarpool 17:28, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

My understanding as to the connotation of the word wasteland has been one which implied an area devoid of life or one which is completely devastated. In the context of this ATL, it has been my impression the use of this word would be used to describe an area devastated directly by a nuclear strike(s) or heavy fallout (i.e. DC, NYC, LA); one affected by an extreme natural catastrophe; or a combination of the two (i.e. Holland Wasteland). When I first read this description alluding to NV (and I am only aware of two articles, although I might have missed one) it puzzled me in that I could not figure what could have caused this wasteland to come about. This was something I actively investigated when looking into the feasibility of NV surviving to become a possible nation. Despite my research, I never found any information whatsoever to substantiate the region becoming a wasteland along the lines of the three scenarios I mentioned. To refer to this area as such is a misnomer and contrary to available evidence. A more logical description would have been to say the pilot flew over and saw abandoned towns and limited people, which would make sense if folks moved away from the NV-ID border and closer to larger centers for protection. While I am all in favor in following canon, I have to say in all honesty this business about the wasteland makes no sense at all since all the evidence points to it being illogical.

While it is indeed true NV is a semi-arid climate with a reduced rainfall and contains regions which are inhospitable to most life, the state's geography includes deserts, mountains, plains, valleys, rivers, and such. Some areas, such as the north, are milder than say the south where Las Vegas Valley is located. As to the issue of food, it is a misconception people as a whole would starve. There obviously would have to be rationing as to such a time when the local food base had been reconfigured and expanded to serve the needs of the population. Keep in mind the following facts: As of 2002, there were 2989 farms in NV. At lest 560 grew wheat, corn, barley, potatoes, onions, fruits and vegetables. There is also extensive raising of livestock in the state, more than half being cattle and sheep. In fact Elko County is the second highest producing counties for cattle nationwide. There is also a dairy industry. Granted this is not as widespread as say other states and some of my figures are representative of the last ten years, I think it gives a reasonable portrait of the state which I am sure is not to far off from 1983. Lastly, since at least 60% of the state died in 1983, including the population center of Las Vegas, there would be about 300,000 folks left, with the bulk around Reno-Carson and the rest scattered. Given this reduced population, I could see them surviving. At to the issue of rainfall, examine what is laid out in the UT article. As Salt Lake is not to far away it is reasonable to assume if it is filling up from rains, then the same rains must be falling in NV and affecting the environment there as well.--Fxgentleman 03:30, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

A small article associated with the article. --GOPZACK 20:08, May 2, 2010 (UTC)

Zach, I clearly said on the Activity Feed page that I claimed the Muscle Shoals CSA:

Confederate States of America (1983: Doomsday) created by BrianD 20 hours ago Waynesboro is in the Muscle Shoals CSA. That said, if you can come up with a proposal for Waynesboro that works with what I come up with for this version of the CSA, I'll work it in...please keep in mind I came up with the proposal for these towns, and I've already made a claim on them for subsequent articles. BrianD 20:23, May 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm terribly sorry about that, I did not see the original post when it was created. I hope you don't take this article as a slap in the face but rather me failing to read the fine print. In any event I hope it can be incorporated somehow. --GOPZACK 20:34, May 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * De nada. Take a look at the Muscle SHoals CSA article below.BrianD 00:32, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

I'm temporarily suspending work on this article until the framework for the "new" CSA is formed then me & Brain will work to make articles for the now independent city states of the CSA. --GOPZACK 19:43, May 4, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, the framework was completed. I'm assuming you forgot about this article as well? Arstarpool 01:25, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

No, when Brian has the time we'll work on these articles. GOPZACK 19:46, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Arstarpool. Mitro 20:06, May 3, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to graduation to a stub? Arstarpool 06:03, May 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the details of strikes in the area needs to get ironed out first. We need to come to a consensus on whether Florence was hit and what the strikes on Camp Darby, Livorno, and La Spezia would do to the region.Oerwinde 09:48, May 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * We've already settled out Livorno and La Spezia. As for Camp Darby, I'm going to let it pass. After all, not every U.S. Military base was nuked, as this would certainly effect the Commonwealth of Kentucky and Virginia. Arstarpool 05:51, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not every base was nuked, but the largest US base in Italy most likely would be. Anyway, with La Spezia and Livorno nuked, this would heavily effect outside contact with the major nearby ports destroyed.Oerwinde 07:25, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * La Spezia is not in the Tuscan province, although I'm assuming that there would have been minor radiation traces lingering at the border of Massa-Carrara. weather chart that was posted shows that most of the fallout would go into the Mediterranian. As for Livorno, there's not much to say. The destruction of Camp Darby has been written in, causing minor damage to Pisa. Arstarpool 16:08, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * La Spezia isn't part of Tuscany but its pretty much right on the border. And being a major naval base as well as port, industrial center and the location of Italy's largest military contractor, I think it would warrant a pretty large strike, which would blanket northwestern Tuscany in fallout. Anyway, I think its looking good now.16:46, June 8, 2010 (UTC)Oerwinde
 * What about Florence? Was it hit? --GOPZACK 20:02, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Florence, despite being the capital of the reigon, houses no military or NATO installations. So no, it was not hit. Arstarpool 23:47, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Florence, despite being the capital of the reigon, houses no military or NATO installations. So no, it was not hit. Arstarpool 23:47, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

The problem with saying it on that basis is that the amount of heavy industry in Florence would make it a target, irregardless of the lack of military bases. Lordganon 3:34, June 9, 2010

I doubt the Soviets would have the time or the missiles to nuke every city with some significant commercial buisness. Arstarpool 18:21, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

If Regina, Winnipeg, and Calgary were nuked... Florence is just as important, if not more than those.Oerwinde 18:27, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

Both me and Fedelede are showing no interest for the destruction of Florence. We made all the aforementioned changes, but the destruction of Florence will make the entire article implausible. Arstarpool 18:42, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

No one is "interested" in seeing Florence nuked were just arguing that it may in fact be implausible for it not to be hit. --GOPZACK 20:22, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

Right. The point you're putting as Florence to have heavy industry is also nonesense because, frankly, the New Venice is also a heavy industry center. If that wasn't hit, Florence wouldn't be hit. Plus, do you think the USSR had enough nukes to nuke EVERY SINGLE LITTLE CITY AND LITTLE MILITARY CAMP OF EUROPE? Europe, ALL OF IT, would be an uninhabitable wasteland. Fedelede 19:56, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

He has a point. As I stated in my argument for "New Rome", when It comes to ones advantage, a city is saved, in the case of Venice. Is it a miracle that almost every Australian city was nuked except for the capital? And as for New Zealand, which was involved in the ANZUS pact, is it also a miracle that Wellington was not nuked? Was it a miracle that so many cities in Israel evaded destruction? As Fedele said, the USSR, or even NATO, did not have enough nuclear missiles, or enough time to plan and destroy every city of significance. If that had been the case, Japan, Australia, and even the USSR would be the radiated trash heaps that so many other nations became. Arstarpool 20:10, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

Calm down Fedelede. Seriously.

Now, Venice has not been a center of industry or even a major naval base for at least a hundred years by 1983. Quite frankly, to make a comparison like that is frivolous. Venice is a city with a small population compared to Florence, and is a city of tourists. It fact, NOT hitting it would make things worse for Italy, since it does not generate much of anything and any surviving government would have to feed all those useless people. Florence, however, is a center of industry, which in a war would end up producing things like tanks or guns, the destruction of which would hurt more than not destroying it.

The goal in a counter strike as was first launched would be to both eliminate places from which further retaliation could come, as many places as possible to prevent the launching of a ground assault, and to hurt the war-making capabilities of the enemy.

Now, I know the Doomsday target page is not accurate at all, but comparing Spain and Italy - two countries of roughly the same power - the difference in the amount of targets is large, and Italy was a more active member of NATO!

Looking for Italian targets on the internet, I find that while not a primary target, it looks like it would be a secondary one. On the same token, Venice is not on the map with any kind of indicator like the rest of the strikes.

Taking out Florence would not make the article implausible. You just have to make another city the capital and lower the population, adjusting a few words of the history in the process. The radiation from such a blast would go more northeast than anything, so that's not even really too much a problem.

Make a poll of it or something, maybe. But, you're just dismissing it out of hand. Lordganon 11:57, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

The entire nation was centered around Florence. If that city is lost, then I will have to scrap the idea. Arstarpool 19:30, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Don't be so negative! The cities of Lucca and Siena, at the very least, have equally long histories and culture, and were at some point capitals - they'd work as new ones. Just call it the tuscany head government officals getting out of florence in time, having got a little warning.

Lordganon 00:25 June 11, 2010 (UTC)

How about a non-nuclear option? It's already been shown in multiple articles that the Soviets eventually resorted to using missiles with non-nuclear warheads. Arstarpool 01:21, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

That sounds better already, though a low-yield ground-burst in the industrial district would prolly be more likely, to me anyway. Even a regular strike would likely make Florence a bad capital choice, however, and require editing of the article, though it would mean more people live. Lordganon 21:12, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

I'm just going to stick with Florence not being hit. Any other objections? Arstarpool 00:38, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

I'm ok with Florence's industrial capacity just being hit by conventional weapons.Oerwinde 16:59, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Any other objections? Arstarpool 01:17, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Much better, though I still say those strikes would mean the capital was moved elsewhere. But no objections.

Lordganon 3:33, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

An article to document the Somali Civil WarVegas adict 21:02, May 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * The vote from the poll above resulted in the war still being ongoing. Mitro 23:11, May 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * That makes sense as the real Somali Civil War has been going on for nearly 20 years Verence71 14:48, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to graduation?Vegas adict 07:45, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * None.--Vladivostok 08:24, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Malaysia
Another nation I wrote about in Southeast Asia. Post-DD history is for anyone to fill in, because I don't want to contradict anyone's plan for the nation. --Yankovic270 23:55, May 19, 2010 (UTC)

Sultanate of Turkey
The Sultanate of Turkey is the successor state of the now defunct Republic of Turkey. I've started to write the article. Commentary and ideas are welcome. Most of the pre-Doomsday history is straight off Wikipedia. And I hope this doesn't conflict with any already accepted nations in this althist. I've accounted for the existence of Kurdistan, the Greek control of Rhodes and the (formerly) Turkish Straits, and the possiblity of an enlarged Armenia in eastern Turkey, though I'm not sure there's an accepted article about Armenia.

Caeruleus 22:17, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

In fact, its pretty awesome. Any objections? Arstarpool 17:24, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

Heh. That Caucasian war bit is impossible, realistically, and the state is still too large.

Lordganon 03:03 June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if it included only southern Turkey, and shared little/no borders with Greece, then it would be acceptable. The Causcausian War crap should be taken out. Sorry, but I didn't read through the whole article, heh. Arstarpool 16:31, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

You have to erase the Georgian and Armenian things. There is a state on Georgia since much before you wrote this article. Fedelede 16:48, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Bye bye Turkish Empire I guess. Caucasian War portion removed. Caeruleus 18:29, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Still way too big as well as expanding too fast, and he's right about the strikes - dont know why I didn't notice before. You have to remember, the list is only a guideline, not anything definite. Some research is involved in this project, remember.

You need to take the criticism and work with it, not ignore it.

Lordganon 10:50, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Thank You for erasing the Caucasus War! please don't make a future invasion to it!

An article by Yank. --GOPZACK 18:55, May 24, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to graduation?

Yankovic270 20:44, May 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said on the talk page, I'd like to know if this Estonia is the same as Estland, which is mentioned in the Nordic Union page. If it is, then the name should be changed.--Vladivostok 14:48, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't. Estland is another state in OTL Estonia. The flags are different, and it declared independance about a year before the Estonians did. If you want to create an article on it, you could place it in the northeastern part of the country (the part closest to the Karelia region).

Yankovic270 01:06, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

An article created by Yank but up for adoption. --GOPZACK 03:56, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

A proposal of a Post-DD Bavaria. --Jnjaycpa 20:46, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Croatia
Article created by me.

Yankovic270 20:56, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Republic of Somalia
Just a little idea I had for something arising out of the ongoing Somali Civil War Verence71 19:01, May 28, 2010 (UTC)

Invasion of West Suffolk
A live segment of 1983DD, which will be worked on by me and Verence71. If he agrees. Fegaxeyl 20:32, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Fine by me :) Verence71 21:11, June 1, 2010 (UTC)

Bohemia
A proposal of a survivor nation in former Czechoslovakia. Jnjaycpa 01:54, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

A survivor state in the German state of Hessen. Thoughts? Lordganon 10:09, June 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * I really like this article. :-) --GOPZACK 19:35, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

Glad to hear it.Lordganon 10:53, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

Could you post a map? I'm curious to where it is located, and recently we've have alot of German states popping up. Arstarpool 17:09, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Thought I'd made it roughly clear by the cities named. Meh. Was working on a map anyway, lol. So, here ya go. Lightest is claimed, somewhat occupied but not really, red is strikes, dark orange claimed but not occupied at all, and orange is fully controlled.

How's it look for graduation?

Lordganon 10:47, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

A coalition of several nations and city states in the area surounding the Rhein in former west germanyVegas adict 16:52, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to graduation?Vegas adict 17:25, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... The name should be in English. I'm believe that our titles should all be in English, unless the author writes it in a different language. The map needs to be worked out. as well.Arstarpool 20:53, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing alot of nuclear strikes in the area. According to the Luxembourg article, many of these areas were in chaos. Arstarpool 17:07, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Definetly, most of the northern Rhine area would have been totaly destroyed but the south was less industialised so that allows for the creation of a group of states over ten years laterVegas adict 17:09, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Most of the population of the Rhineland is actually Catholic, the map in the army renegade conflict should be clarified so that it matches the map in the info box, and I doubt that the factories would be in shape enough to export that far - maybe to Luxembourg or the alps, but any further is a bit of a stretch.

Lordganon 10:44, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Russian Republics
Some proposals for Ex-USSR countries in Europe (if you propose one put your signature) and please NO communist states.

All of above: VENEZUELA 23:56, June 8, 2010 (UTC)

You can't dictate if a state were to be communist or not. This is a collabritive effort.HAD 19:45, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

Also, Karelia and Ossetia are already done.Oerwinde 09:11, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

While a lot would be democratic or whatnot, there would definitely be some communist ones not part of Siberia due to distance. Implausible for that not to be the case.

Heck, there's probably even a claimant to the Russian Empire running around somewhere.

Also, a couple of those are included in the Ural territory or could be. Komi for sure, maybe Bashkortostan, Tartarstan, Udmurtia, and Chuvashia too, though if not they would have been conquered by now for sure, given the ability of Siberia to project force as seen by their conquest and control of Aralia.

Lordganon 18:15, June 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, as you said, Komi for sure, at least parts of it, but the rest are a bit out of reach. The attack of Aralia was a show of force, but I'm not quite sure they would be able to attack more nations, at least not this year.--Vladivostok 21:04, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Bashkortostan and Udmurtia are located in the urals themsleves, and the capital of Tartarstan is Kazan, which would be right next to it, if not part of it. I'll give you Chuvashia, though it's the province west of Tartarstan, about as hard to strike as Aralia.

Lordganon 00:25 June 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what I meant to say is that they are overstretched militarily, range has nothing to do with this. Perhaps air strikes could do some damage, but military obligations in the Caribbean and elsewhere would leave their armies out of supplies in these areas. But, as I said, there's always next year.--Vladivostok 09:43, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

Not what I meant - the Ural territory has been in existence since the early 90s, any of those in the urals would be part of Siberia alreadly and at least Tartarstan would have long been annexed, being right against the border.

But anything further away would be safe, due to the overstretching.

Lordganon 21:12, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

I already make Kalmykia. VENEZUELA 03:47, June 12, 2010 (UTC)\

I claim Chechnya.

Yankovic270 19:17, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

A survivor state in the mountains of Southern Bulgaria which claims to be its successor. Will be fleshed out over the next while. Lordganon 10:53, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

Dagestan
Republic in the caucasus. VENEZUELA 22:29, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections? Arstarpool 17:30, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * The entire Post-Doomsday heading is a direct copy from Wikipedia. Now I wouldn't mind history repeating itself even after a nuclear war, but that still doesn't explain a few things. Namely, why would Chechnya still stage an abortive insurrection on Dagestan? That happened OTL as a direct response to them still being a part of Russia. This article, like the rest of V's work, follows a path that is somewhat odd as it is exactly the same as in OTL. Now it could happen the same way, but I personally don't find that rather interesting.--Vladivostok 06:44, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Swabia-Württemberg
A proposal of a survivor nation in Southern Germany. Jnjaycpa 04:44, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections? Arstarpool 17:30, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

Should prolly be finished first.

Lordganon 03:03 June 23, 2010 (UTC)

A city state in Germany, mentioned in the Northeim article.Oerwinde 08:55, June 11, 2010 (UTC)

Armenia
Armenia. VENEZUELA 03:07, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

Kalmykia
Kalmykia in OTL Russia. VENEZUELA 03:48, June 12, 2010 (UTC)

My proposal for the talked-about economic alliance in New England. Arstarpool 03:18, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Science of Radioactive Survivors
Not really a nation proposal, just a thought on a new topic. ProfessorMcG 03:01, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

Vandalia & Rockford
Two city-states in Illinois.

Yankovic270 16:57, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Peace World
An alternate history comic in which the USSR divide in 1980, there was no Doomsday, and a cold war between Europe and USA start. VENEZUELA 16:59, June 25, 2010 (UTC)

Dubuque
A city state in Iowa. ProfessorMcG 17:45, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

If I add more information will anyone object to graduating this article? There isn't much to object to. ProfessorMcG 16:22, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

It's not complete but we can graduate it to a stub. You have to fill in things like the economy and things like that before it will be ready for full graduation.Arstarpool 01:52, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Well, yea. It's far from done. ProfessorMcG 02:31, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to graduating it to a stub? Arstarpool 04:27, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan Republic, any objection to graduation? VENEZUELA 01:34, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Crimea
A Socialist Republic in Crimea, right next to the Don Republic. 01:39, June 8, 2010 (UTC)BlackSkyEmpire

Georgia
I just maDon Republice a proposal about the Republic of Georgia, a breakaway Georgia that got independence from the Soviet Union on Doomesday. Fedelede 19:41, April 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * I would rename it to distinguish it from the former U.S. state of Georgia TTL. Georgia (Europe) (1983: Doomsday)?BrianD 02:16, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Or when someone creates an article on the state of Georgia they could title in Georgia (U.S. state) (1983: Doomsday). We can also put a little blurb on the top of both pages telling people that there is also another Georgia in case they are confused. Mitro 14:19, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

OK, I did a blurb as I don't know how to rename a page. Fedelede 21:22, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * You make vague mention of military bases in Georgia being hit. Can you be more specific? I think Batumi would be hit. Mitro 16:05, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Any objections to graduation? Arstarpool 16:21, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not yet its still very vague. --GOPZACK 19:29, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * The Sulnate of Turkey, which claims most of Georgia, has much more merit. I think this one and Ossetia have to go. Arstarpool 19:29, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * This Article exist before Turkey's one and if you read the article of Turkey, you can see that he deleted that part, and the article has been changed is now more complete.

Don Republic
Article by VENEZUELA, was obsolete but he's apparently made some changes.Oerwinde 04:00, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Has not actually improved in any great detail. Still looks like advice has been refused as well. Lordganon 05:45, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

I already ask Lordganon to change what he thinks must be changed.VENEZUELA 21:49, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to making it obsolete again? Arstarpool 04:24, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Republic of Both Ossetias
This is a proposal about the Republic of Both Ossetias, a republic that comprises all of Ossetia and got independence from Georgia in 1998. Fedelede 20:07, April 4, 2010 (UTC) Wouldn't they simply call themselves the Republic of Ossetia? Is there really a need to stress that it includes both South and Nort Ossetia?--Vladivostok 16:37, April 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * A few things need to be taken into account. First off although I can’t pinpoint its location I believe that there was a nuclear bomber airbase somewhere in North Ossetia. Secondly I think it’s quite likely that more of the caucuses was hit as there were a few big cities and bases in the region.--ShutUpNavi 17:21, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * I already change the article (which I din't created) VENEZUELA 02:15, June 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * This article conflicts with the Sulnate of Turkey. Arstarpool 19:27, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * It conflicts because it was written like 2 months before the Sultanate of Turkey article.Oerwinde 08:05, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Mmkay. Turkey is still waaay more plausible. Also, there would have been several military bases there. And a Republic called "Both" Ossetias? I don't think so. Arstarpool 16:24, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Article has been changed, any objections to graduation? VENEZUELA 04:04, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I object. The causcauses were obliterated on Doomsday. They were covered in fallout and suffered from starvation. I highly doubt any stable civilization would come up in this or any area of the causcaus. Arstarpool 04:24, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

What article? Nothing here worth graduating yet - not even close. Good for changing the name though.

Lordganon 05:47, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Lordganon here. VENEZUELA has been creating a lot of articles in and around the region and I'm all for it, but I think he might have gone over the top. Most of the articles are either copied directly from Wikipedia or have poor grammer. The later can be changed easily, but the former means he'd need to scrap entire articles. Furthermore, do we really need to know about the flora and fauna of these countries? Especially since it seems that that was yet again copied from Wikipedia. Perhaps adding something like an Economy or Military section would make more sense.--Vladivostok 07:01, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oerwinde deleted the article and turn it poor, I already change it, and Vladivostok if you want you might add the economy and military. VENEZUELA 17:11, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my bad on that, I hit rollback to revert you graduating it and it reverted all your edits. I should have hit undo.Oerwinde 01:05, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Audrey Hepburn
High guys, VENEZUELA has put up a site in honor of Audrey Hepburn. He has mostly cut and pasted and is having trouble trimming it to standard 1983DD specs. How about commenting over at that talk page to give him some help. SouthWriter 20:25, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

I would like help, maybe if someone can summarize the article and make a better post-doomsday part. VENEZUELA 21:45, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Mingrelian Independence War
About a war in the Caucasus in 2007. VENEZUELA 21:47, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

Mingrelia
a country formed after the above war. VENEZUELA 01:48, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

San Marino
Idea I had for this small micronation in Italy.--Sunkist- 00:28, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Kingdom of Macedonia
Its a small nation in the southern Balkan peninsula, its a constitutional monarchy, based off mostly of the real Macedonia and headed by a real Yugoslav prince, living in Seville in 1983 which wasn't nuked (I checked). Ownerzmcown 02:31, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

You still dont get it - The list of targets is NOT COMPLETE. Seville is a major port and industrial center and as a result would have been clobbered. Also, you do not state how on earth he could have gotten all the way from there to Yugoslavia in the first place, or gotten all those men. And that's besides the fact that Yugoslavia was not hit at all and survived as a state until 1985.

The state is too large besides, and interferes with too much. Make it the size of modern Macedonia at MOST.

Lordganon 3:41, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Look, I know you're pissed about me saying Macedonia contacted Greece without talking to you, but I apoligized on the talk page. Plus, you operate a lot of countries who are large than Macedonia, and were established later than it. Ownerzmcown 3:47, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Ganon, please STAY OUT OF THIS. You are out of place here. Coming from someone who just started, his article is pretty good. Yugoslavia was NOT HIT WHATSOEVER. While I agree the borders should be like modern Macedonia, you cannot diss him and saying that Seville was hit is totally false. Yugoslavia was NON ALIGNED. It would not be destroyed. Arstarpool 05:17, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

=FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES= Archive 1

''This subsection is for decisive and vital issues concerning the 1983: Doomsday Timeline. Due to the complexity level we have reached with 1983: Doomsday now, each of these issues might have world-spanning consequences that affect dozens of articles. Please treat this section with the necessary respect and do not place discussions that do not belong here.''



Oregon
According to the Survivalring site listing the primary/secondary/tertiary strikes and such, the only Primary/secondary strike sites are Portland, and two decomissioned air force stations(Mt Hebo was closed in 72, Adair was closed in 69). With only a single strike that would have done any damage, and the state government safe in Salem, I don't see why Oregon would have crumbled. Just bringing it up because the existence of the state of Oregon would likely affect the history of several nearby nations such as the MCP, Utah, Victoria, Pasco, etc.Oerwinde 18:18, June 13, 2010 (UTC)

Damm, I was hoping that the two other cities would have been hit, as I was planning for Portland to become (eventually) the NAU's major naval base on the West Coast. But it is not to be. Consulting my atlas, I think that East Oregon would have become independent, then joining the PUSA, while West Oregon (with the exception of those cities that join the MSP) becomes part of the APA for a while (in the space of time they knew of the MSP) before becoming the "Republic of Pacifica" or something. What do you think?HAD 06:24, June 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * I personally question why it would split at all. Hence why I brought it up in this section. With the state government surviving, and with the national guard surviving in the state, Oregon would pretty much be the most stable area in all of the continental US. Southern Oregon wouldn't be in the state it was to form the MSP. The MSP likely wouldn't exist, northern California would just be part of Oregon now. They would have easily fought off any Spokane forces with an actual trained military force, which would have affected developments in Utah. Its a pretty big issue.Oerwinde 10:18, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the MSP could just exist as a stronger union than what it currently is. I'm going to write up a proposal for this "stronger" union between Oregon and Utah, although no names come to mind. Any ideas? Arstarpool 21:09, June 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oregon and Utah? You mean Oregon and California? I would expect that the authors of Utah would be non to pleased with that, just sayin'. GOPZACK 00:56, June 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Your assuming that just because Salem was not hit that the state government would be able to survive amid massive famine, spreading diseases, refugee hordes, fallout, no contact with the federal government and the collapse of the global economy. Furthermore the history of the MSP has been part of canon since the beginning. Why is it so hard to believe that people would make the wrong decisions after Doomsday and fail? Also consider the fact that Portland is less than 50 miles from Salem. Is it possible that Salem fell apart due to violence like so many other cities that have been written into canon. Why suddenly must canon change now? Is it really that fundamental an issue that dozens of article must change? -Mitro
 * Yes, it is "Mitro". Wyoming managed to escape disaster even when its' capital was nuked. Other states have managed to do the same. But with Oregon, an area which was only lightly attacked with only one metro area destroyed, it is possible that such said area would become host to the opposite of what happened with the APA attempt in the area. This is, in fact, a MAJOR ISSUE. If already at least 3 states managed to survive with their capitals, then a fourth one may change much of which is established as canon. Arstarpool 04:00, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is "Mitro". Wyoming managed to escape disaster even when its' capital was nuked. Other states have managed to do the same. But with Oregon, an area which was only lightly attacked with only one metro area destroyed, it is possible that such said area would become host to the opposite of what happened with the APA attempt in the area. This is, in fact, a MAJOR ISSUE. If already at least 3 states managed to survive with their capitals, then a fourth one may change much of which is established as canon. Arstarpool 04:00, June 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * I just figure, if other states survive being nuked into oblivion, why wouldn't Oregon, with only the northernmost point hit with anything thats going to do any real damage, and with a fully functional government and national guard unit, in other words likely the best equipped state to deal with the crisis afterwards, be able to survive? And with the Portland metro area having 2/3rds of the state's population, and the rest of the state being mostly rural, famine shouldn't be much of a problem. I'm not saying its not possible for the state to collapse, its just not as likely as Hawaii or Alaska. Oerwinde 08:18, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * As of now, the states that "survived being nuked to oblivion" are: Vermont, Maine, Wyoming, Alaska, Hawaii, West Virginia, Virginia (disputed), and now Oregon. If you look at where these states are on a map, you will see that all except for Wyoming are near another state, or West Virginia if you don't believe the crap Yank said about Richmond surviving. It is likely that these states would have formed bi-state unions than just collapsing. As for Oregon, the nuking of Portland would problably save the entire state from starvation, since the population drop would leave enough food for almost the entire state. I know that the question has been raised before: "Why didn't they just stay together as the US?" With Oregon relatively near Wyoming, Alaska, and in a way Hawaii, and with Vermont and Maine being only a state apart, that may very well be possible. Arstarpool 17:44, June 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * As of now, the states that "survived being nuked to oblivion" are: Vermont, Maine, Wyoming, Alaska, Hawaii, West Virginia, Virginia (disputed), and now Oregon. If you look at where these states are on a map, you will see that all except for Wyoming are near another state, or West Virginia if you don't believe the crap Yank said about Richmond surviving. It is likely that these states would have formed bi-state unions than just collapsing. As for Oregon, the nuking of Portland would problably save the entire state from starvation, since the population drop would leave enough food for almost the entire state. I know that the question has been raised before: "Why didn't they just stay together as the US?" With Oregon relatively near Wyoming, Alaska, and in a way Hawaii, and with Vermont and Maine being only a state apart, that may very well be possible. Arstarpool 17:44, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

The government of Virginia mentioned in the Jerry Farwell wasn't the pre-DD state government, but a rather weak confederation of city-states in the western part of the state. And as far as I'm concerned, wether Richmond survives or not doesn't affect canon at all. It's a non-issue.

Yankovic270 18:09, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that Yank. Arstarpool 19:09, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

How about more of the State being hit? I mean, perhaps a few Soviet bombers got through and realising their intented targets had been destroyed, they destroyed other cities instead.HAD 19:26, June 16, 2010 (UTC)

Was reading on the survialring site last night that decommissioned bases like this would be plausible targets in a nuclear war, because when forces spread out to escape destruction, such bases would make logical points to establish themsleves. Maybe nuke the two old bases on this logic?Lordganon 03:03 June 23, 2010 (UTC)

I was assuming they were hit, but they were remote bases and the strikes likely wouldn't have done a lot to the region except take out a couple rural villages.Oerwinde 09:22, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

I asked my dad about this (he grew up in Nyssa, OR) and he said that, in the absence of any refugees from Boise (as it got nuked), eastern Oregon as far west as John Day would probably band together with the entire Snake River Valley in Idaho, and create some sort of confederation. I can write the article on it if you want.

Now that I think about it, everything up to Kooskia and Lewiston would probably be in it as well, they share the same cultural, economic,and political views.

BoredMatt 18:20, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's a major chemical weapons facility a Umbilla, Oregon, which would have been a target. Make it hit, but not enough to destroy all the weapons - have some of them turn into fallout. Maybe nuke a dam or two along the Columbia as well? I seem to recall those would be targets, though teritary.

Lordganon 20:33 June 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * This section should be for "fundamental issues," and I don't think possible survivors in Oregon is among the pressing matters of this time line. Perhpas this should be moved or at least labeled different under the general main talk page.


 * As far a tertiary targets go, LG, this whole scenario rules out tertiary targets as being bombarded by nukes. In fact, they most likely would not be hit at all. The targets hit would all be primary targets, for this is a first strike scenario. Even the bombardment of missile silos, which is assumed, may actually be considered secondary. SouthWriter 20:54, June 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Its a fundamental issue because the survival of Oregon, which is the most likely scenario here, would change the history of several of the oldest most entrenched articles on here. The MCP wouldn't even exist. In order for Oregon to be in a situation where the timeline can go the way it has, everyone has to make the worst possible decisions they can make across the entire state of Oregon.Oerwinde 00:59, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm well aware of that - but without modifying canon it may be the only way to really go on the subject. The chemical weapons depot would definitely have been targeted, however - not only were those there but at the time is was also a general US military storehouse containing everything under the sun.

Lordganon 21:03 June 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the storehouse would be hit. But its still along the columbia, which still means the state government and national guard still survive, leaving plenty of agricultural land and a much reduced urban population. Hitting that does solve the problems with Victoria, Pasco, and Utah's history though. With two strikes along the north they likely would have stuck to keeping control of the south.Oerwinde 00:59, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * One way to solve this problem is to have the state government survive Doomsday, but fall apart in the aftermath. If the community chooses to keep the status quo, then, very simply put, chaotic conditions in the region could have led to a level of violence that ended up killing the governor and anyone else who could have helped establish the state's control over the region. Perhaps the same outlaws who ended up turning the towns of the MSP into anarchy.
 * Another way is to established the state government survived, but in a manner that allows for the existence of some government in Salem, and for the existence of the MSP...in any case, you're going to have to get Mitro into the conversation when he gets back from studying for the bar.BrianD 02:41, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to try to come up with a proposal in the next couple days that can fit.Oerwinde 03:02, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to try to come up with a proposal in the next couple days that can fit.Oerwinde 03:02, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

The (Soon to be) Death of 1983: Doomsday
Has anyone else noticed that the Map Games have driven out many, if not all of the people that used to edit 1983: Doomsday? It's getting to the point where almost nothing is being edited in relations to this timeline. Arstarpool 23:48, June 21, 2010 (UTC)

Tell me what to do and I'll help revive 1983, I've never done it before but I want to try if it's not too late.ProfessorMcG 00:36, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

It's not dead, we're just losing active contributers by the day. It peaked, like the Map Games eventually will. It used to be the number one most edited article, and then Catherine950 wrote about her control over Europe 1430 Map Game and everyone went like "Oh, Map Games!" and now it is only the third most edited article, third to the damn Map Games. Arstarpool 00:51, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

I don`t think we`re really losing that many active contributors to the Map Games. I haven`t been too active outside the discussion pages for a while because I lost my enthusiasm. I do that for everything I do. Yank has still been pretty active. The problem is a lot of the more active guys have disappeared for various reasons, like Mr X, Mitro, etc. And ProfessorMcG, like your science of radioactive survivors idea, more articles that deal with topics other than nations would be awesome.Oerwinde 07:29, June 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * With me, it has been a couple of other time lines that have taken my attention away from DD, but I still visit occasionally. Divided attention is not good for us "ADD" types! Yesterday, though, I plotted all the listed DD strikes in the USA and posted the map at Doomsday (1983: Doomsday). In OTL, primary elections are setting the stage for November's midterm election. In TTL that means some governorships will be changing in the nation-states. In my main article I made the "governor" to serve concurrent with the former US presidency, so I won't be making major changes just yet. I will, though, have to get to work on the time line leading up to the present.


 * And about the map games -- not for me! I find the scenarios waaayyy too contrived. SouthWriter 13:33, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I started one map game to see what it was like, and aparently its the most popular one out there. I originally was going to make a 1983: Doomsday map game, but that would be cheesy,so I made a Cold War one. I myself find it pretty boring. All you do is write down implausible gibberish and edit a map. Wheeee...that sounds like fun. Arstarpool 14:25, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Their are still people carrying the flame! And I bet Mitro will come back.HAD 16:14, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Flame Carriers Unite! Mitro will come back in August, but supposedly he still edits around here on an anonymous username. Arstarpool 17:23, June 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think were dead yet. There is an ebb and flow with any TL. --GOPZACK 18:37, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * If anyone wants to help me with my surivors idea that would be so cool, because honestly I am at a loss when it comes to 1983 DD. I can throw some other ideas out there to make it more interesting, instead of just constantly creating new nations and revising old nations.ProfessorMcG 18:56, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. Now I'm kinda sad that the map games are taking over. But soon 1983 DD will die map games or not. So we need to make another big community project like 1983 DD, because all the country areas are being taken up.Eastward Expansion 19:26, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

We could restart if it really does die, bu that wouldn't be that fun, as most of the nations and stuff would be the same. BoredMatt 20:22, June 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * We need something where society has to recreate itself like 1983: DD because everyone has fun with that right? But we need a new idea that makes it so it is impossible or at least implausible to have the same nations formed again. Like mass flooding or a meteor landed on Earth. Something more plausible though. ProfessorMcG 20:38, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there's always the Cuban Missile Crisis. 1962: Judgement Day, anyone? Fegaxeyl 21:17, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why don't we use one that already exists, but changed the course of history extremely, like the one I create that the Central Powers won WWI, maybe we can turn it in a community timeline, it's call Central World . VENEZUELA 21:32, June 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * You guys go right ahead but I'm not leaving just yet. GOPZACK 21:41, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * We can't go ahead until we've agreed upon and idea. No one wants 1983:DD to end, people want a new thing similar to 1983: DD but we need an idea to be agreed upon before we can do that. ProfessorMcG 21:44, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * There is SO much history left up in the air. Recently I started work on the states of the Provisional United States. This worthwhile concept (though somewhat of a stretch in the beginning) has barely been tapped. The original idea was morphed into the "North American Union" (sans Mexico), and the PUSA came as a side-bar of that. Meanwhile, failed states are looking to "regroup" in the US southeast, there is life in the northeastern US, and questions are being asked about the Americans that were living in unaffected lands. This time line is far from "dead" -- we just have to know where to look for "life." SouthWriter 23:20, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * There is SO much history left up in the air. Recently I started work on the states of the Provisional United States. This worthwhile concept (though somewhat of a stretch in the beginning) has barely been tapped. The original idea was morphed into the "North American Union" (sans Mexico), and the PUSA came as a side-bar of that. Meanwhile, failed states are looking to "regroup" in the US southeast, there is life in the northeastern US, and questions are being asked about the Americans that were living in unaffected lands. This time line is far from "dead" -- we just have to know where to look for "life." SouthWriter 23:20, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of the PUS, could I help out with that? BoredMatt 23:22, June 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, Matt, have at it. Read the "North American Union" article and then click through to the Provisional United States article. From there, you can also click through to each of the nine states to edit them as well. I look forward to your edits. Remember, though, to make incremental changes that are in accord with the whole 1983DD wiki. All changes are subject to discussion, though not all need show up on the discussion page first. SouthWriter 13:56, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

What people need to realize is that it's not dead yet. We still have room for nations in a lot of different places. We just need to "get our sh*t together", reqroup, and continue where we left off. I know I sound like someone from a cheesy movie, but seriously. This is for BoredMatt and ProfessorMcG. When this timeline was started two years ago, (none of the original members are left, you should note that down) it was edited a few times, and lost to the dust. Xi'Reney created it into what it is today. In late 2008, to very recently, we went through a "Nation Gold Rush". People were plopping down thier little empires wherever they could. I was lucky to create the last approved nation in North America: The Republic of South Florida. Once I suggested the final "powerful" nation, the Commonwealth of California, we went into what is called "Plausibility Singularity". That means that in an apocalypse it would be unlikely for so many nations to exist. Since then, people have become bored with what has been written and have since then moved onto other things. The timeline is still very active, but at it's peak it exploded. We don't need to go off to other timelines, we don't need to abandon this one. What we need to is exit "plausibility singlularity" and go through "Plausibility reactivity". This wil involve a massive change in how we do things. In order to do this, we must perfect the timeline. We must know what happened when, where, and why. Some Examples:

Where was the King of Spain when Madrid was hit?

Why did Oregon collapse, the state capital survived?

Would the Military really take control of West Virginia?

How did so many people manage to survive in the Everglades?

Would a small-city state really make it's own currency?

When we answer the unanswered, we must toss out the imperfect. We have to make room for perfection. In order to do that, we must delete all of the things that go unanswered.

Again, this is only an idea... --Arstarpool 00:13, June 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * All very good questions. And I agree, this time line is worth salvaging - even if certain articles have to be canned. However, discarding "canon" will take a lot of discussion! Any research that makes this time line worthy of actual publication as a book - or more likely a series of books - will warrent some drastic changes in places.


 * To answer the questions the best I can:


 * I have no idea on the king of Spain.


 * It may have taken more than the 101st Airborne to takeover the states of Virginia and West Virginia.


 * We pared back the population of "South Florida," with most of the survivors being on the coast.

SouthWriter 13:56, June 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Any place with a printing press can print "promisory notes" to act as currency; it takes a little more work to mint coins, but molten iron can be made into coin if anyone is able to make some molds.

I have never declared it "dead", although I did hint on it. I was trying to rejuvinate this timeline with a new concepts such as my first proposal, Science of Radiation Survivors. This is also a way we can get out of plausibility singularity and may remove the stale-ness from this topic. That's probably why most people left, it became stale. ProfessorMcG 03:12, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Like South did with the states, maybe we can look at some existing articles and expand on them. The Balkans are pretty much untouched aside from Greece, as is most of Asia. Some articles need expanding, such as the Nordic Union, some of the Spanish and French minors. The wars need to be dealt with, Canada and Superior's history needs to be fixed with the realization that there would be several million survivors in southern Ontario, and likely some sort of civilization. South Africa has only recently been worked on. I think most of the South American Confederation members have bare bones articles. There is lots to do, but I'm thinking people are starting to get more enticed by the Map games because its easier to wank nations than it is on 83DD.Oerwinde 09:31, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I am against starting a new timeline. 1983: DD is one of the best... things on this wiki and should NOT be abandoned. Who is with me? HAD 09:50, June 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm willing to concetrate on 1983DD for a while, though my efforts will be only on the US for now. SouthWriter 13:56, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

I am with you. And South? True, the 101st Airborne were the first soldiers in Virginia, but they formed the nucleus of a grater military machine.

Yankovic270 14:02, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

I never bother with the Map Games anyway :) Verence71 20:17, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

The timeline is dead only if everyone decides that it is. The lack of editors contributing to it lately doesn't mean it's dead; it does mean that many editors like myself are busy with other things in their lives, and just can't put those on pause to spend on the TL.

I also want to remind everyone that just because you can't create new countries does not mean that the timeline is therefore dead or has reached its end. This is alternate history...and there are many things happening in these various countries that have yet to be written about. What's going on right now? History isn't just about 1983, it's also about 2010. Keep that in mind when debating the end of this TL. Also keep in mind there are other veterans who have contributed heavily in the past and who have their own viewpoints on the matter. BrianD 02:36, June 28, 2010 (UTC)