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 | 13 | 14

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 Page 4

Thunder Bay referendum
Thunder Bay was supposed to hold a referendum on joining Canda, Superior or staying independent a few months ago. 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)

Seeing as none of the options reached a 50% threshold shall we move the top two vote getters to a runoff? --GOPZACK 01:45, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. --Lordganon 10:12, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

What should happen to Thunder Bay? Merge with Canada Stay Independent

Resetting the runoff poll because the "merge with Superior" option officially lost. It had seven votes, the other two had eleven. Yankovic270 15:12, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

How the hell is Thunder Bay supposed to "Merge With Canada"? Most of Ontario is still outside of Canadian control. For God's sake the Canadians have yet to reclaim southern Quebec, let alone Ontario. I think that Thunder Bay should stay independent until at least 2020, when the Canadian province of Ontario is officially restored.

Yankovic270 22:58, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

So it's a problem with Canada when they are to "merge" with Thunder Bay, but not a problem when the Virginians control eastern Virginia which was ripped to shreds by nukes. I sense hypocrisy...Arstarpool 02:48, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Thunder Bay merging with Canada....'''eventually. '''Let's be rational here. It would be much more convenient for both parties if they held off the merging until Canada reclaims the territory between itself and Thunder Bay. Which, at this rate of expansion, is around '''2020. '''And et tu Arstarpool? I defend the Commonwealth of California/Californian Republic and this is the thanks you give me? I try to be rational and you snap at me. All I'm saying is wait until its plausible. Which at the earliest is still ten years from now.

Yankovic270 02:57, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

How about we bring back the more plausible possibility of them merging with Superior? Arstarpool 03:09, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

I had that on the original runoff poll but Yank cleared it off, in defense of Yank it varies region to region as to who joins who & such. Thunder Bay is different then Virginia & such. GOPZACK 03:12, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

You guys need to remember that while dormant, a debate is still going on as to the actual condition of Ontario after Doomsday, and how it was originally made much, much worse sounding than it actually would have been.

Also, Canada does control the Ontario coast of Hudson's Bay - and Thunder Bay is not all THAT far from there.

While it is more plausible for them to join with Superior, it would still make some sense for them to join Canada.

On another note, whoever came up with that date for Ontario in the first place was likely wrong in some regard - sure, southern would be out, but Northern Ontario, except for North Bay, would be fine to establish a minimal territory/province, on the same level as Quebec.

Lordganon 12:30, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

While they are "not all THAT far" there are no roads to create a viable connection between the two. GOPZACK 04:26, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. I think we should delay the vote until Canada actually controls the area in between itself and Thunder Bay. Until then, more practical voices will prevail over the blindly patriotic. Thunder Bay should remain independant, at least for now. I'm basically the practical person of the discussion, who noone listens to because the truth hurts. Thunder Bay can't and shouldn't rejoin Canada now. How many times to I have to say that it isn't practical at the moment?

Yankovic270 03:36, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be a tie, chaps.HAD 08:11, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

It is? I'm seeing 13-12 in favor of Canada (and I just voted in favor of Canada - however, the vote tally didn't change to reflect that). BrianD 15:23, August 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Never mind...the tally just changed. When are we cutting off the voting? BrianD 15:24, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea, but the vote is too close for this to be called a consensus. Also we must debate which is plausible. Yank makes a very valid point that there are no roads of use that would connect Canada's holdings along Hudson's bay with Thunder Bay. GOPZACK 06:11, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Well, way I figure it there's gotta be a way we can combine the two - without it being something that happens in 2020.

Something along the lines of what the deal was with B.C. and the railroad when it joined Confederation?

Lordganon 07:08, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Any thoughts about what I said? Sheesh.

Lordganon 13:00, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

We've been busy. We'll get to it soon. --GOPZACK 23:26, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Two points of interest: why is it that the 1st poll putting merging with Canada in the lead and the 2nd puts Independence in the lead. And how is it that 34 people have voted! With regards to communications, surely it would be possible to establish a radio link between Thunder Bay and the rest of Canada? HAD 16:25, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Up until basically today the numbers on the second one were reversed.

Lordganon 23:05, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Ontario should already be a part of Canada. It was hit by 2 nukes, one to the south and one to the east along the Quebec border. All of North West Ontario would have survived. Heck, most or North Ontario would have too. Canada should control it, along with parts of Manitoba, by now.Michael Douglas 01:08, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

It's actually 3 - the Norad base at North Bay was hit too. The area was also effected by radiation from strikes in Minnesota, Michigan, and the strike on Winnipeg.

Canada actually controls the coast of Hudson's Bay, and once controlled parts of Southern Ontario, before bandits in southern Quebec cut their supply lines.

The thing is, that area of Ontario has no roads going south from the Bay. Mostly that holds the same for Manitoba as well. While they could control the area, there's just no real way to get there.

Lordganon 02:43, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

So what are we going to do, keeping all this information in mind? And I really think we need to come up with a poll that really is "one person, one vote." HAD 15:37, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Or at least reset this thing - I've seen the results switch 5 votes between the two choices a couple of times, now.

Lordganon 18:39, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Evolving the Alpine Confederation
Hey guys. I was wondering if you could help me with the Alpine Confederation and something I plan to do with it. I saw what was recently done with the Greek Confederation and I would like to do the same with Alpine, making individual articles for the member states and such. If anybody would like to help me with this please comment. Arstarpool 20:24, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

I would really like to help! VENEZUELA 05:00, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

What part would you like to work on? Switzerland, Liechenstein, Austria, or the German, French, and Italy ones? Arstarpool 05:17, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe doing first a list of the states. VENEZUELA 05:20, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Bear in mind that the Confederation doesn't have "member states". The country is divided into cantons.HAD 09:30, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Graphics / Visualization /Cartography
Section Archives: Page 1 Be sure to update the map for every 10 new nations or major territorial changes

Duchy of Lancaster flag
Okay, I've done my research and there's two possibilities. The first is the flag of Lancashire, while the second is the flag of the real life duchy. Personally I'm leaning towards the former (the latter seems rather gaudy) but I thought I'd get a second opinion.Tessitore 17:14, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with you.

Lordganon 19:48, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Lancashire flag is definitely a better choice I think. May I also submit one of my own?Oerwinde 07:29, September 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I like the shield but I'm not keen on the background. Firstly it just doesn't look quite right and secondly it's a vertical triband, something associated with republics and more specifically the French. Lancaster isn't a republic and since they're still English in a manner of speaking I doubt that they'd go near anything associated with France. *shrugs* Plus I'm in two minds about the Duchy flag given that I've just found out that it's based on the Royal Standard of England (from wikipedia: "The Royal Standard of England, with a three point label, each containing three fleurs-de-lis") so now I'm wondering if it's use would be appropriate under the circumstances. I think I'll leave deciding on that one until I make up my mind about the political side of things.*sigh*Tessitore 12:48, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

The French flag is three bars of red, white and blue that are of equal width. The third flag reminds me of the modern flag of Canada, which was a loyal member of the Commonwealth. I see no problems with using such a flag.

Yankovic270 15:43, September 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see what you mean. I stand corrected. Still doesn't look quite right to me though, although I can't quite put my finger on why.Tessitore 18:11, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason I chose the colors I did was because I didn't want the seal to be surrounded by yellow or red. The only other major color in the shield was blue. I made a blue ensign alternate if you like, to emphasize its britishness.Oerwinde 03:30, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had another trawl of google and come up with a couple more real life flags. By the by, is it just me or does the north of England seem to have a red-and-yellow fixation when it comes to flags?Tessitore 16:41, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I've had another trawl of google and come up with a couple more real life flags. By the by, is it just me or does the north of England seem to have a red-and-yellow fixation when it comes to flags?Tessitore 16:41, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Have to admit, the first one is still the best-looking.

Lordganon 18:03, September 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * The red rose on a yellow background one? Yeah, I like that one myself. As it turns out they only changed from the old version to that one a couple of years ago in OTL but I don't suppose that that really matters. I like the new suggested flag too. Decisions, decisions.Tessitore 00:18, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

I planned on giving the poll until the end of the week when I made it and since I'm sticking to it the poll is now closed. Democracy has spoken, option 1 it is. Thank you all for voting and special thanks to Oerwinde for all his hard work.Tessitore 11:05, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Duchy of Lancaster Coat of Arms
When I googled 'Lancashire coat of arms' I got two slightly different options. Since I can't decide which one to go with I'm putting it to a vote.

Which coat of arms do you prefer? Option 1 Option 2

Wiki/Timeline/Article Technicals
Section archives: Page 1

Culture / Society
Archives: Page 1 • Page 2;

National Stereotypes
Just something I thought might be fun to think about and lets face it, they're going to happen sooner or later. We've already got a bit of a meta version going on, i.e. the 'all Virginians wear uniforms all the time' thing. It's not true but it's what people think, in other words a classic stereotype.Tessitore 12:18, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

How about "Woodbridge is full of in-breds"?? Verence71 20:42, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

What about "All Texans are cowboys"? Yankovic270 21:05, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

I think all the English survivor states aren't particularly proud of how the New British couldn't take the heat and ran away. I'm pretty sure all the OBNers would call the New British soft - or something rather more offensive instead. I'm not sure if the idea of an Essex Girl would have survived after Doomsday, but it's possible. And Verence, why would the idea of Woodbridgers being inbred come from? Fegaxeyl 21:09, September 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah I'm wondering about that myself. I'd have thought it'd be more like 'full of Yanks'.

Tessitore 22:20, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * That could lead to the idea of renaming what we know as the mid-Atlantic accent as the Woodbridge accent. Fegaxeyl 11:00, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Like "All Sicilians are mobsters", or the Australians are "American Wannabes"? Arstarpool 21:13, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Regarding my personal theories on the stereotypes of the British sucessor states:

Cleveland - Somewhat incomprehensible, footie obcessed, working-class types who love the Queen and drink too much (Poi chin has a reputation after all)

Northumbria - Stuck in the Middle Ages

Rheged - Country bumpkins (or in Cleveish, farm yakkers). Plus, sheep jokes.

Matlock - Scummy, untrustworthy, drug-addled gits who'd do anything for money.

Celtic Alliance - Probably mostly the same as pre-Doomsday Irish stereotypes.

Scotish New State - Scotish Nazis

So far nothings sprung to mind for East Britain, Essex, Woodbridge, Southern England or Lancaster.Tessitore 22:20, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

East Britain - Similar to Rheged as foes the country bumpkin farmer, with an incomprehensible accent and a fierce pride in his nation.

Woodbridge - A mass of Norfolk in breds ruled over by an elite clique of Americans.

Lancaster - Lots of trams. OTL northern stereotypes

Essex - War is a recreational hobby. Lots of casual violence.

Bob 15:14, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Though I can't quite fathom where the warmongering comes from, I simply love this idea of casual violence! Perhaps if I throw in a reference in the military section, about semi-customised armour with Viking-style horns on the helmets... And Essaxons are major producers of mead... Fegaxeyl 20:57, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

You know that the idea that the Vikings wore helmets with horns is a fallacy, right? Oh, and how about "Siberians are cold-hearted sociopaths who follow orders with out the slightest bit of free will".

Yankovic270 21:57, September 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah that sounds about right. The Siberians are probably going to be on the recieving end of a lot of flak for the next couple of centuries at least.Tessitore 23:44, September 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I can see it now...


 * Siberian guy: Hey us Siberians just figured out a way to evolve into beings made of pure energy!


 * Other guy: Yeah but didn't you guys start a nuclear war that killed billions of people?


 * Mitro 00:04, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

I have a good one what if everybody in the Duchy of Lancaster wears flat caps --Owen1983 22:38, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do know about the helmets, I just couldn't find a way to fit it into the sentence and make sense. But in Essex it's likely that if memory of the Vikings survived in any way at all, it would have been the image of Vikings with horned helmets. Fegaxeyl 06:58, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether to be happy or depressed that no ones come up with a stereotype for southern england. The only one i came up with could be to do with them all being sailors or with them being inbred islandersVegas adict 18:22, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

I f we run with the sailors, then well you know what they say about sailors. All that time at sea....Bob 18:22, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Bush's kids are probably going gonna get beat up for a while in school:

Descendent of Bush: I would do anything for my country. My forefathers died to free America from the Redcoats.

Another Guy: Ok but are those the same people that pussied out on America and chilled with the Aussies and the Hawaiians while the rest of us starved?

Or how about this one:

American: Hey.

Siberian: Hello.

American: So whats up?

Siberian: Nothing. You?

American: Nothing.

Siberian: Thats cool.

American: Ok.

Siberian: Look, about that whole nuclear holocaust and taking over Alaska...no hard feelings, okay?

Arstarpool 01:54, September 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the "All Australians are Americans" stereotype. It's one we ourselves have struggled with! Hand in hand with that might be "All New Zealanders are Australians" :D. I'm sure that plenty of jokes are still lobbed across the Tasman. Besides being sheep-oriented fush-n-chups-eaters, Kiwis might be seen by Aussies as child-of-the-earth Polynesians on account of the success of Greenism. Besides being loudmouthed crocodile wrestlers, Aussies might be seen by Kiwis as... Americans :D.
 * Within Korea, I can only imagine the persistent North-South stereotypes that probably come up every day. Not to mention those Yankees of Jeju! Taiwanese people probably have their opinions about the Mainlanders in their midst. In the Republic of Venice, there are probably jokes about the Slovene, the Croat, and the Italian who walk into a bar in Trieste... Benkarnell 02:40, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed there would be. I can also state that there are numerous jokes regarding people from Montenegro, as they are perceived as being lazy, the Bosnians are perceived as being dense, the Slovenians are made fun of due to the small size of their country, and so on. And the Siberian thing would be the main cause of hard feelings, of course, I don't see a lot of Siberian tourists going out and having a blast in the old US in the next century or so. Oh, and how about we create a page on humour, and/or jokes post-Doomsday. That could be amusing.--Vladivostok 07:54, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * The idea of a page on post-Doomsday humour sounds good. Since humour is a time honoured method of staying sane when everything goes to hell, I'd imagine that there would be quite a lot of it, although some of it would probably be quite dark and/or gallows humour.Tessitore 17:31, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * "I don't see a lot of Siberian tourists going out and having a blast in the old US" - please don't tell me that was a deliberate joke. Fegaxeyl 15:01, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why, whatever do you mean Fegaxeyl?:)--Vladivostok 15:45, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

I got the warmongering Essaxons idea from the prevelance of conflict in Essaxon history a oppossed to say East Britain where technological underdevelopment prevented much war, or Woodbridge where sheer firepower prevented conflict. Bob 18:26, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

I'v created a page called, hopefully this can be a page the whole comunity gets involved inVegas adict 18:33, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking that many British jokes about the French - specifically, the surrender jokes - could be passed to the New British by the English survivor states. Fegaxeyl 19:42, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

In Venezuelan the most famous jokes are about Galicians and they are stupids in the jokes, I think that joke still would exist. VENEZUELA 22:59, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

The reason I mentioned in-breeding in conjunction with Woodbridge is that that is a stereotype that is sometimes applied to people from Norfolk and Suffolk in OTL. If we add that to the assumption that during the time that Woodbridge was controlled by the American military a lot of American words and phrases would have seeped into the language perhaps the stereotype of Woodbridgers could be this:

"A bunch of carrot-crunching inbred who speak like hillbillies" Verence71 15:08, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Same-Sex Marriage
Recently a post to Cleveland makes reference to the legal age for marriage being raised from 16 (with parent's permission) to 18, to be between two adults without regards to sex (or gender, if you prefer). At least one other law concerning "same-sex" marriage is known in this universe - in Yank's Republic of Lincoln. There it is based on the marriage being religious rather than civil (and thus being out of the government's hands).

What I was wondering is this: Would the social mores in a post-apocalyptic world be open to such an innovation? It may well have happened that way in these isolated societies, and I am not here to argue politics or religion (In fact, I am here to prevent it!), but I was wondering about the feasibility of the concept even being an issue. SouthWriter 18:47, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

The idea I had when making same-sex marriage legal in Lincoln was that the Lincolnites have many more issues on their plate, and that many of these required immediate attention. You tend to not focus so much attention on such a trivial issue such as same-sex marriage when you are dealing with more important issues such as food, fuel or jobs. They Lincolnites placed that ammendment in their constitution so that they could focus on the essential issues of the post-Doomsday world.

Yankovic270 19:00, September 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Isolated societies tend to be more conservative, as a general rule. Fewer different viewpoints to accomodate, a perceived need for solidarity, and all that. If you're the only gay person in your village, and becoming an outcast would mean losing your livelihood and possibly your life, you might be too intimidated to be open about your sexuality.
 * In a few places, we know that the breakdown of society led to an awful lot of social innovation. Nebraska was certainly one of those places. A place I helped to develop (Keene) was another. If conditions are right, there may be some places that would change their mores and be more accepting of gay marriage than they are in OTL. I would think here would have to be certain conditions met for it to be realistic; they would include an organized political structure, a significant gay community, a culture of human rights, and a high tolerance of social/cultural/religious differences. I'd guess that Keene, which was specifically founded to be a radical place where individuals are sovereign, almost definitely allows gay marriage. Azuero, Panama - traditionalist, isolationist, with a rather restrictive system of laws - almost definitely does not. The Yukon, which is more-or-less open and free but is very loose-knit and traditional, seems somewhat unlikely to have gay marriage but that may be because the issue "doesn't ever come up".
 * @Yank - if you are too busy to focus on an issue, you usually won't put the amendment in your constitution ... you ignore it! An amendment takes effort! Benkarnell 20:56, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think Latin America would accept it, because the people is very conservatives and traditionalists, and very loyal to the catholic church, apart that the gays are seen as tabu in Latin America. VENEZUELA 21:31, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I swear there is a transgender mayor in Brazil, OTL.HAD 21:51, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Vene, the maricas, or maricones (Spanish for homosexual) are common in Colombia, Mexico, ARGENTINA, and Spain. If they are not big in Latin America why did the Argentinians just approve gay marriage? Arstarpool 23:03, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Well the Chumash Republic is mainly a liberal country so same sex marriage would be legal there. Although if you look up San Luis Obispo you'll see it me be primarily Republican but most of the people who live here are pro-gay. Riley.Konner 20:13 September 20 2010 In OTL the polls say 52% of Americans support gay marriage but as I discussed before American survivor nations will be by and large more conservative with the larger liberal population centers nuked. Then again Yank is right I don't think people would really care except for some fringe fundamentalist tribes or city-states. GOPZACK 23:32, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Victoria is likely open to the idea, being made up of parts of some of the most liberal regions in the US and Canada. Though I think I would prefer to just take the government out of marriage. There are civil unions, which are the legal union of two people and are open to both same-sex and heterosexual couples, and there are marriages, which are religious unions with no legal recognition. This ensures both equal rights, as both gays and straights have the same rights of union, and keeps the government out of religious matters.Oerwinde 09:11, September 21, 2010 (UTC) this gives me something to think about with the kingdom of Shropshire the country does not have a problem so it would be allowed --Owen1983 13:10, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Miscellaneous discussion
Archives: Page 1 | Page 2

Modern 'Knights'
Okay now this is probably one of my stranger ideas and I'm not sure what to do with it but it just won't leave me alone so I thought that rather then creating yet another proposal, I'd see what you made of it first. Basically it occurred to me that something like Doomsday is going to lead to some 'interesting' coping strategies. Given the general lawlessness of large areas of the world, I had an idea that someone (or several someones) who was a serious fan of chivalric ideas and imagery before Doomsday gets it into their heads that they have a calling to defend the innocent and for one reason or another (maybe the line between reality and their idea of the age of chivalry gets a bit blurry) establishes a military order to do so. Under 'normal' circumstances that sort of thing would quickly fizzle out but post-Doomsday there are a lot of people desperate for something to believe in and give their lives meaning, and anyone who seems to know what they're doing is going to attract followers, particuarly if they have a decent amount of charisma, so the order starts accumulating members (I see it starting out small, a few armed individuals protecting an isolated community or a travelling group of refugees, and then gradually snowballing) and one way or another it actually works. As I said, it's one of my stranger ideas.Tessitore 15:18, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Interesting idea. Sounds sort of like the "New York Rangers" militia in Central New York State.

Lordganon 15:31, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

(had to look up the Rangers) Yes, I suppose it's along similar lines. There would be a number of differences though, the first being their motivation. The Rangers are in it to protect their homes, my knights do what they do because they see it as their calling/duty to 'smite the evil doers and defend the innocent'. Plus I see them as being European rather then American. I just need to think of a decent name for them.Tessitore 18:44, September 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a good idea. How about "The Defenders Of The Right" as a name?HAD 18:48, September 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think before you think of a name you should think of where they're based. Once you have that you can look at historical groups in that area. Perhaps a resurgence of the Livonian Order in Lithuania/Latvia/Estonia.Oerwinde 19:11, September 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's not a bad idea. I'd never have thought of the Baltics being where they're based but now that you've mentioned it it's a definite possibility. After all, Latvia and Lithuania are pretty much blank slates at the moment, since no one's done anything with them yet. Only problem that springs to mind is that they were under the USSR's thumb for years which probably wouldn't be conductive for someone to develop a fixation with the age of chivelry.Tessitore 00:02, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * On the other hand being under the USSR's thumb and then having that thumb suddenly taken away could lead to a situation where some people look at the past for a direction on where to go now.Oerwinde 10:18, September 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. Either way it'll probably be a while before I do anything as I've got a lot on my plate at the moment and want to finish Lancaster and a couple of other articles before I start anything else.Tessitore 16:55, September 15, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sort-of back
I've been thinking about DD a lot lately and have definitely felt like doing a little writing. I'll mostly be tinkering at my Latin American pages. I promise to stay out of los Estados Unidos entirely, because I don't think I'd have a lot of constructive things to say in that area... I may do a bit with the Yukon, though. But hello again, is what I'm really trying to say. Benkarnell 16:15, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome back Ben. Mitro 16:22, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I don't know why you left, but welcome back Ben. By the way, I've become Brazil's caretaker. HAD 18:52, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome back, Ben!BrianD 18:56, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Idealism vs. Cynicism
I was thinking we could construct a scale of the degree of optimism in each of our articles. This does not necessarily equal realism, but it would be an interesting way of seeing what our articles are like. Basically, the most idealistic and optimistic articles, where the best stuff happens, are at the top, and the most cynical and dreary are at the bottom. Fegaxeyl 20:52, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

IDEALISTIC CYNICAL
 * Celtic Alliance
 * Municipal States of the Pacific
 * Celtic Alliance
 * Municipal States of the Pacific
 * Municipal States of the Pacific

Just add them in as necessary.


 * Really the MSP? What is idealistic about it? I tried to write it as a survivor state led by a group of brigands turned statesmen where little gets done because they are too busy fighting the growing return to democracy movement. Mitro 21:47, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's cynical, so I put it next to 'cynical' on the scale. That might not be clear due to the fewer bulletpoints - didn't put particularly many because it would be wasting space. Fegaxeyl 06:58, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Fans of ours?
look what i just found online.Wingman1 22:17, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=166579


 * Sword of the South? Southwriter, is that you? Mitro 22:39, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * sorry about that, i had a computer breakdown as i posted 1'st time i just thougt the 1983 Doomsday club would just love to see that.Wingman1 23:36, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * At least a reader of ours. The suggestion that the shattered and scattered nations of TTL would somehow be incorparated into OTL seems more like a criticism than a compliment.  And no, I am not "Sword of the South."  That guy is at Appalachian Hall - wherever that is. SouthWriter 15:25, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * At least a reader of ours. The suggestion that the shattered and scattered nations of TTL would somehow be incorparated into OTL seems more like a criticism than a compliment.  And no, I am not "Sword of the South."  That guy is at Appalachian Hall - wherever that is. SouthWriter 15:25, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Read More???
I had a look at my article on Woodbridge a few minutes and I I found a new section with the aforementioned title. I hadn't put it there and I can find no notification of who did put it there. Furthermore I am, for some reason unable to remove it or edit it in any way. Verence71 11:28, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Same for Essex. Might be part of the same Wikia screw-over improvements that mean I now have to view this wiki in green, rather than my customary yellow. Fegaxeyl 14:54, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Another improvement the larger wikia community has thrown in for visitors -- better than advertizements, but just as poorly placed. This should be in a banner, preferably at the bottom of the page. SouthWriter 15:28, September 22, 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).

Due to size this discussion is being moved to Talk:Sultanate of Turkey (1983: Doomsday). Mitro 00:59, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Kingdom of Macedonia
I moved the old discussion to the Macedonia talk page archive. Arstarpool 01:39, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Are there any other things needed to be fixed before we graduate this? Arstarpool 01:39, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the objection I had about the bunker. It is based on to many assumptions with zero facts. South has already pointed out the prince would survive without it. Any reference to a fictional bunker should be removed. Mitro 01:55, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Mitro, if you'd look at the page, all references have been removed regarding the bunker. Ownerzmcown 02:56, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Huh, your right, my bad. On another note, the map posted seems to conflict with the map posted on the Greece article. What is the deal on that? Mitro 03:19, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Owner, just fix it quick. Mitro, when he's done lets try to get this graduated quick. Owner's put a lot of work into it, and I think its time he gets his pay. Arstarpool 03:48, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

The Turkey contact dates will have to be adjusted due to issues involving their contact with Greece that would preclude contact with Macedonia.

Lordganon 20:30, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

When should the contact date be, it need to precede the Civil War? Ownerzmcown 21:09, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Just make your story match the 1994 given in the Turkey article for contact (the voyage), though give 1995 for the trip of the king.

Lordganon 21:43, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Also needs a map that removes the Serbian parts, or it needs to explain in the article how Macedonia managed to get a big chunk of Serbia from a nation that is far larger and more populous and experienced in warfare. And that needs to happen after 1989.Oerwinde 00:17, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

The understanding at the time was that in the aftermath of 1985, much of Serbia was in chaos. As of yet, the Serbia article doesn't say this, though they should, in part. Heck, my Bulgaria articles have even said that from early on.

Lordganon 17:45, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

The Bulgaria articles mention the collapse of Yugoslavia but not much more than that. The Slovenia, Bosnia, and Croatia articles are better to work from in regards to the status of Serbia.Oerwinde 17:08, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Is my article ever gonna get graduated or what? Ownerzmcown 17:02, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

I offered you some help but you respectfully declined, however my deal is still out to make it slightly smaller and more realistic. It's your choice. Arstarpool 20:03, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have gone for that deal myself, Arstar, especially with how it sounded.

Owner, you have to account for the existence of Serbia somehow. Maybe say something like Serbia left their southern areas undefended while attacking into Bosnia, and Macedonia took some areas over, and having the border fairly fluid today?

Lordganon 00:11, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Serbia would crush Macedonia. I think it more likely they have their OTL borders.Oerwinde 17:09, September 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Belgrade was nuked, refugees were pouring across the border, and Serbia was fighting wars to the north. Assuming Macedonia was stable at the time, they could have fairly easily seized areas of southern Serbia, such as southern Kosovo and surrounding areas. But, once the Serbia situation is clarified, this should be graduated. Caeruleus 03:10, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

I am going to revamp the article when I have access to a computer on a regular basis, so please refrain from editing until I do so. Arstarpool 05:11, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Hows it looking? Better than before? Please do not leave a long comment because it is hard for me to view on the current device I am using but just tell me if you may. Arstarpool 22:27, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Better, I think, but Erie is still listed as the capital, which is a problem.

Lordganon 23:31, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

How about now? Any objections to graduation? If it is something regarding Erie please don't take it into account because when I have the time I will revamp the Erie part of the article. Arstarpool 23:38, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * We take everything into account when graduating. As for Erie, the part of rebuilidng it makes as much sense as Richmond being rebuilt by Virginia. WP is a small survivor state. They do not have the time or resources to commit to rebuilding a city destroyed by a nuclear bomb. Such energy could be spent doing a number of other more important projects. Mitro 18:32, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

With the destruction of Erie, why would WP still be reaching out to Norfolk County across Lake Erie. Also there are still a TON of references that need to be removed. --GOPZACK 18:38, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

You are acting strange, Zack. First you posted a map that supported my claim that eastern Erie would survive, and then you speak against it.

As for Norfolk County, I will have that still happen, but instead it will happen a couple years later. Arstarpool 23:24, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

I said that some of the outskirts are viable for resettlement in the future because they were not blown away to smithereens.As for Norfolk, if it happens a few years later London will have gotten there first. --GOPZACK 04:38, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed most of the objections, the exception being Norfolk County. Are there any other objections so that I can get this graduated? Arstarpool 20:23, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

See the talk page, you have a few more objections on your hands. GOPZACK 22:43, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

I answered all of them and fixed the ones that needed to be fixed. Arstarpool 23:13, September 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * I graduated the article as per your request, Arstar . SouthWriter 15:45, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I got trumped by Mitro. I jumped the gun, for the issue of the extent of the survival of Erie remains in doubt. I agreed with his objection, and he replaced the template. As I said at another place, Arstarpool is going to have deal with a major blow to the steel industry. SouthWriter 18:01, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed the Erie issue, and pretty much all the other issues, so are there any other objections to graduation? Arstarpool 20:55, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed the Erie issue, and pretty much all the other issues, so are there any other objections to graduation? Arstarpool 20:55, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Me and JackOfSpades' proposal for a international organization in the Great Lakes region. Arstarpool 01:34, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to passing as a stub? Arstarpool 00:13, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we get a list of members, that way people don't have to consult the map. Mitro 15:02, August 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Also London, Pennsylvania and Toledo should become canon first before this is graduated. --GOPZACK 19:00, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this proposal might actually conflict with this article: League of the United American States (1983: Doomsday). Mitro 16:03, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it does. The League of the United American States (1983: Doomsday) was a proposed idea as I recall and hadn't even been foramlly voted on by Superior's Congress. --GOPZACK 16:26, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * But that is my point though. The LUAS is a canon article and pretty much seems similar to this current proposal. If the proposal is graduated, than why would this organization even be proposed if Superior was already a member of the UC in 2007? Mitro 21:28, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * yeah but, LUAS does not even exist yet its a bill purposed by Harold Duke some right-winger in the Congress of Superior. With that said, I really don't know Superior would be a member now that I think about it. In fact I don't know why the other members would want Superior in it. Superior would dominate all decisions made in the UC. --GOPZACK 03:17, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Arstar became caretaker of Superior, but he may not have been aware of the LUAS (which if I recall correctly was Lahbas' proposal). BrianD 03:49, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Are their any articles he's not a caretaker of? ;) I think your right Lahbas did write that article. --GOPZACK 03:55, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

How does one become a "caretaker" of an article he has not edited? Arstar was appointed to look out for vandalism and "trolls" (which I assume are obnoxious articles offensive and totally irrelevant). I am hard-pressed to keep my own articles updated, much less hop around fixing elements of other folks' articles.

Apart from that, the UC seems workable. It is not the grand scheme to bring the USA back under a new umbrella (an idea I like, by the way). The UC is a locally based organization, and probably would have been founded some time before anyone knew of the LoN. --SouthWriter 04:36, August 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * He asked Lahbas for permission to adopt Superior (and Wisconsin). BrianD 14:57, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Did Lahbas grant him permission? GOPZACK 01:19, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Zack, yes on Wisconsin, no on Superior. The latter was my misunderstanding. I got Lahbas and Superior mixed up with Mjdoch and Celtic Alliance. Lahbas did give Arstar permission to be caretaker of Wisconsin (with a couple of conditions), and Arstar did in fact ask him for Superior. According to their talk pages Lahbas never responded back in regards to Superior. So as far as I can tell, Lahbas is still caretaker for Superior.

Ah, I don't see any radical edits by Arstar on the Superior article so we need not worry about that for now. I still think this alliance can't work with Superior in it. Pennsylvania (if graduated) will be weaker then Arstar's original article, Toledo is in decent shape, Niagara Falls is small and London doesn't have much of an army so Superior would basically run that show with an iron fist. GOPZACK 01:22, August 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Waitasecond. Oerwinde makes reference to Arstar being caretaker of Superior. http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Arstarpool#Superior.2FOntario.2FCanada.2FSaguenay_War BrianD 18:03, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the adoption rules somebody must ask somebody who hasn't edited in three months or more to adopt a page. If the editor does not respond in a week the article is theirs. Other than a few talk page related edits within the three months Lahbas did not edit, meaning that I am the current caretaker of Superior. However I will return it to Lahbas should he request for it to be returned. Arstarpool 03:37, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you plan to do with Superior? BrianD 20:55, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * While it is true that someone can adopt an unedited article the article cannot be changed based on QSS. However, it can be continued in a different direction from the last chronological reference (new item in "real time" in most cases). It will have to confirm with the histories of other related articles in order to stay viable as well. I suspect that Arstar has no real drastic changes in mind, though. SouthWriter 15:39, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * While it is true that someone can adopt an unedited article the article cannot be changed based on QSS. However, it can be continued in a different direction from the last chronological reference (new item in "real time" in most cases). It will have to confirm with the histories of other related articles in order to stay viable as well. I suspect that Arstar has no real drastic changes in mind, though. SouthWriter 15:39, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Rhodope-Vidin War
Call it the Bulgarian finale. Will be ongoing through the month.

Lordganon 02:20, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Objections? Arstarpool 00:36, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

It's not done yet.

Lordganon 10:15, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Would any of the American survivor states be interested in putting an American member of the Bulgarian - and Vidinite - Communist Parties on trial?

Lordganon 22:14, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Yank and expanded by Ven. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to graduating this now? Arstarpool 00:36, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems a little optimistic. Many of these countries have fought wars with each other in recent history. For some many to cooperate so quickly seems unlikely. Mitro 01:39, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Yank. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Jnjaycpa. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2jec010 (UTC)

Article created by Yank. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Adopted and will resume work on it soon. --XterrorX 10:44, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Caeruleus. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Oer. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections? Arstarpool 23:21, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Lianyungang, a city of 4 million, appears to be a pretty important city to China. Wouldn't it been destroyed on Doomsday? Mitro 00:50, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally am surprised China got hit as bad as it did.Oerwinde 09:40, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the Soviets probably wanted to knock out China from being able to attack them if they got into a war with the US. Exactly what targets that plan would entail is still guess work. Mitro 01:01, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Yank. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Yank. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

List articles


I have a concern regarding the article dealing with National Historic Landmarks in Virginia. Several of those listed were located in Richmond, VA and likely destroyed along with the city on Doomsday. I mentioned it previously, but I noted they are still there. When this article is canonized, I believe this part should be accordingly adjusted. --Fxgentleman 04:46, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

So do I. I like Yank, but his insistence on Richmond having survived is almost as bad as Owen's perpetual attempts to retroactively save Manchester, England. BrianD 01:36, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

I adjusted it so that Richmond was struck, but with a non-nuclear ICBM. I altered the page to make the landmarks in Richmond reconstructions of the originals.

Yankovic270 14:52, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Richmond is too important of a target to not be nuked. We have been over this almost as much as Manchester with Owen. Mitro 04:03, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * At least Owen's proposals are amusing. Can we by any chance add that Richmond VA & Manchester UK were hit by nukes to the QSS and QAA and the . --GOPZACK 04:08, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Caeruleus. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Former obsolete article revived by Yank. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections? Arstarpool 00:36, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * There is still a lot of discussion going on in this region. What do Vlad, Lordganon, Caer and Owner have to say on this article? Mitro 01:41, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn`t mesh with canon. The Croatia article doesn`t have Serbia declaring independence from Yugoslavia, and it has it annex Kosovo and Montenegro prior to the dates in the article. Since Vlad seems to be dealing with most of former Yugoslavia aside from Macedonia, I say let him have a go at fleshing it out first.Oerwinde 08:03, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it makes no sense for them to be declaring independence.

The region should also be made more chaotic, especially in the areas near Bulgaria.

Going to have to make the Macedonian expansion northward plausible somehow too.

Would make Macedonian interference in the Sicily War much less likely too.

Lordganon 23:10, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Former stub expanded on by Yank. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections? Arstarpool 00:36, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * What about the Sri Lankan Civil War? What happened to the Tigers? Doomsday probably would have made things go better for them. We could see a divided Sri Lanka. Mitro 01:45, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by BSE. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Bob. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

I did my research, and this is actually Bob's grandfather who died in OTL, but somehow managed to survive irridation and starvation. Arstarpool 23:39, August 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Admit it, Arstarpool, the "research" was the talk page where Bob revealed to Mitro who William had been. As long as William was alive on Doomsday, his life could have gone any number of ways. This could include escaping whatever it was that killed him in OTL. If William died of heart disease, then the more austere life after DD may have improved his diet and excercise. If he died of cancer, life style changes might have prevented the cancer from developing as well. The fact that anyone escaped destruction means that it could be just that, ANY ONE


 * I say develop it, Bob. You've got the start of it on the East Britain page. SouthWriter 01:25, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Because this man is my grandfather, I know the intimacies of the causes of his death. He was a farmer and a successful one at that. He died because of a combination of a tumour which developed in his face because of long term chemical use and a small stroke. My idea was that due to Doomsday, he continued to farm, providing for his community. As East Britain expanded, it took control of farms and made them state controlled. At this point my Grandad stood up for farmer's rights and moved from the agricultural field to the political one, all the time calling out for farmers rights. He grew to be a prominent politician and helped form the Agricultural Party. Because of this move from the fields to the political battlefield, the exposure to chemicals that would one day kill him is dramatically reduced, though small cancers would trouble him for the rest of his life. I know that toward the end he may have appeared pathetic but this was just the drugs. He was a strong man with a strong will to fight. Also as you say South, the more austere life leads to his heart being healthier, rendering the stroke that would be the slippery slope to death null. This means he still a fit and strong man now, in fact even more so. Though not leader of the Agricultural Party, he was a strong voice on the National Council and his political ideas about agricultural redistribution lead to a proliferation of jobs as young mean and women served their 'National Service' not in the Guardsmen but in the fields. His popularity as food became an exportable product and wealth flowed into East Britains coffers ultimately lead to his election as King of East Britain. Bob 11:01, August 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * With all that information, you need only move it to the article in an organized fashion and the article can be on its way to graduation. --SouthWriter 15:58, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I just think making your grandfather king and you a prince is not the right choice. How about making him a chancellor of East Britain? But a king? And you a prince? I am sorry but not only is it not plausible, but unfair. If I said I wanted my cousin the new Queen of Spain, or my aunt the Eternal President of Singapore, or my dad the King of Kentucky, or my great-uncle the new Dictator of Cuba, it would be shouted down, but making him have a temporary seat of power as a prime minister would be much more plausible. Arstarpool 22:46, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can find a plausible reason why your cousin should be the new Queen of Spain, or your aunt the Eternal President of Singapore, or your father the King of Kentucky, or your great-uncle the new Dictator of Cuba I'll support it. --GOPZACK 01:04, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do Zack. Arstarpool 01:32, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * But anyways does anybody else think it is implausible to make your grandfather king? At best I think he could be chancellor or some other seat of power but I doubt they would make him king. Arstarpool 01:32, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * The English love the monarchy Arstar. GOPZACK 02:05, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Though it is odd that a farmer would be elected t head the new nation, and then to be proclaimed king, it is not without precedent. After the American revolution, before the constitution, there were those who wanted to make George Washington king. It could have worked, and a decendant of Robert E. Lee might be king of America. Let Bob's grandad have his day. It does not hurt the time line and it is a possible scenario. SouthWriter 04:21, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * The English love the monarchy Arstar. GOPZACK 02:05, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Though it is odd that a farmer would be elected t head the new nation, and then to be proclaimed king, it is not without precedent. After the American revolution, before the constitution, there were those who wanted to make George Washington king. It could have worked, and a decendant of Robert E. Lee might be king of America. Let Bob's grandad have his day. It does not hurt the time line and it is a possible scenario. SouthWriter 04:21, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Though it is odd that a farmer would be elected t head the new nation, and then to be proclaimed king, it is not without precedent. After the American revolution, before the constitution, there were those who wanted to make George Washington king. It could have worked, and a decendant of Robert E. Lee might be king of America. Let Bob's grandad have his day. It does not hurt the time line and it is a possible scenario. SouthWriter 04:21, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Besides, Bermuda has pretty much the same thing. An elected official who beocmes popular enough to be selected as king.

Yankovic270 00:47, September 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm with Arstar... something doesn't sit right about doing this with a relative. Benkarnell 04:26, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Well, at the moment we Brits are at an especially low point in popularity for the monarchy, but under a quarter of us are republicans. Because of that, I should think the Windsor monarchy is unpopular due to the flight to New Britain but a homegrown monarch would be popular. Bob 15:17, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Guys, really, get your head out of the toilet and think about this. This is basically making the timeline one big tribute to a relative. What I always thought a monarchy is is that it represents the power and spirit of your nation. But no offense, electing an old guy to become king wouldn't really be plausible, much less somebody with leadership capabilities. Some people say "Oh, we tried to do it with Washington!" but thats actually an urban legend. Electing your grandfather to become a king is like one big middle finger at plausibility and NCNC. Arstarpool 19:06, September 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't be so dramatic Arstar. Its perfectly reasonable for an elder statesman who has fought for farmers rights in to post Doomsday world. Plus I doubt your character assassination of Bob's grandfather will sit well with anyone.
 * How is this a violation of NCNC? The NCNC page reads, "Adapted to alternate history, the rule can be summed up like this: discussions on religion and politics should center on our fictional timelines and not devolve into debates on politics and religion in real life (OTL)" --GOPZACK 20:27, September 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * If you read the proposal, Astar, you'd see that Bob's grandfather does represent the "spirit of [his] nation. Personally, I think he probably would be elected far sooner than 2010. If he had been in power a little longer, I think it would be more plausible, but overall there's nothing implausible about it. And far as "we tried, etc.," my exact words above were "there were those who wanted to make George Washington king." The myth was that Washington considered it. He opposed it vehemently, but admitted that the letter from Col. Nicola was not the only attempt of someone to suggest a monarchy with him as king. The whole story is found at |Top Ten George Washington Legends (number 4). SouthWriter 21:25, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by BSE. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Should we pass it as a stub? Arstarpool 04:05, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Article by me and Sunkist and Zack. It will be the result of a unification between First Coast, South Florida and Gainesville. Arstarpool 20:45, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to stubby-ness? Arstarpool 20:45, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty much I'm restating the same reasons that I had above. Mitro 21:18, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * The nation-state of First Coast (East Florida) is itself still a proposal, not having proven its own viability. The date you give for South Florida joining up is in 1996. I am pretty sure you mean 2010. Before you run headlong into this reunification, let's see if you can make First Coast work first. Meanwhile, let's change "Gainseville" back to "North Florida" (Sunkist - formerly known as Perryz - is back and he's the reason Zack changed the name).
 * I haven't researched East Florida, though it looks okay in concept. A balkanized Florida, like a balkanized Texas, does not make sense. Therefore, once we have established "East Florida," we can work on pulling them together, but I think the capital should be in Gainesville (a split capital really isn't necessary). SouthWriter 02:04, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am of the opinion that a balkanized Texas does make sense, at least in the aftermath of Doomsday. The size of Texas, combined with the number of nuclear strikes on State, makes it likely that Texas would split.HAD 18:33, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well any objections now? All three member states are canon now. Arstarpool 02:55, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well any objections now? All three member states are canon now. Arstarpool 02:55, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

All three are canon indeed but this is rushing unification of the Florida states. They need to have more stable roadways to interconnect the three nations. I support unification but this is all happening way too fast. Maybe sometime around 2015. --GOPZACK 03:14, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

That is way to late and all of us will most likely be gone by then. I chose 2011 because it is far enough away and unification has been a planned thing since the 90's. And actually, couldn't they be an "exclave nation", a nation with no access by land but all share sea access? Nevertheless I will make a couple of modifications to the date so that they all unify at the same time. Arstarpool 03:19, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * We must stick to plausibility we may not be here in five years but he have to keep this timeline in good shape for the next "generation" of contributors. An exclave nation would not work in this environment. In Texas reunification works because the nations are almost beside each other, the three Florida's are spread out and in three separate corners. Maybe a partial reunification could work. --GOPZACK 03:35, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Was thinking about Ocala, 93 Highway, would of Gainesville visted them?, in fact its quite large, wouldent it become some type of city state?--Sunkist- 03:42, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ocala is only 30 miles south on Fla. 93 ( I - 75 ), so there is no reason why the two cities could not have not only known of each other, but Ocala could have been a city of North Florida. If so it would probably be the southernmost town or city of North Florida. Highway 93 Conecting_Florida.png/or I-75 take turns toward bombed areas somewhere south of Ocala, though. The roads east out of Gainesville sneak between bombed out areas to conect to both St. Augustine and Daytona Beach. If we wanted to put the capital in a centrally located city, Lakeland, a small town which had to deal with refugees from both Tampa and Orlando, would be the best choice. It is about equidistant between Gainevile, Daytona and Ft. Myers (junction of state highway 35 and I-4), but may have suffered as being isolated and overwhelmed. It's survivors probably ended up in South Florida, but some would have certainly gone north towards Ocala.
 * To the right is a map showing the probable roads used between the states. (SouthWriter)
 * Guys are there any objections to graduating this page? Arstarpool 04:01, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Guys are there any objections to graduating this page? Arstarpool 04:01, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Guys are there any objections to graduating this page? Arstarpool 04:01, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Duchy of Lancaster
An English survivor nation in the county of Lancashire. Just an introduction so far, I'll add more once I'm sure I'm not stepping on anyone's toes.Tessitore 17:48, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I am glad to see another survivor community in Lancashire in my article it was originally thought Manchester was hit by 2 nukes but the nukes malfunctioned saving the city--Owen1983 23:07, August 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Owen, I believe that you've already been informed on a number of occasions that Manchester is toast in this timeline. Learn to take a hint will you. Tessitore 23:16, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Owen, Manchester is gone. G.O.N.E. H-Bombs tend to do that to cities. HAD 08:20, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, I'd really appreciate getting some feedback on what I've done so far. I've been careful but I'm pretty sure I've made some sort of mistake and if I have I'd prefer to correct it as early as possible.Tessitore 16:57, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, I'd really appreciate getting some feedback on what I've done so far. I've been careful but I'm pretty sure I've made some sort of mistake and if I have I'd prefer to correct it as early as possible.Tessitore 16:57, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

I've gone over it for you, and corrected what spelling, grammar, etc. errors I could find.

I shortened the Pre-DD history for you, it contained much that didn't seem relevant, though I'll leave it up to you if you want that kept.

Also added a nation-box, have fun with it.

Really, about the only thing is that it's full of bullets. Those should be made into paragraphs.

Lordganon 08:17, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

I've added sections on contact with other nations, the name change, and politics. The last is currently rather boring (not to mention that the current ruling party is Labour *pulls a face*, although I suppose that they could be less of a disaster in TTL) so if anyone has any suggestions in that department share away. More importantly, is it ready for graduation yet and if not then what needs adding?Tessitore 19:31, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

Is this still ungraduated? Fegaxeyl 07:30, September 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep. I have asked about it repeatedly but no one's given me an answer. People seem to be treating it as canon though.Tessitore 16:15, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Has the nuclear situation been settled yet? If so, a Coat of Arms and map would be highly recommended. Find me a map of Lancashire, along with giving me some cities, etc. within its borders, and I'll see about making one for ya.

It looks fine - unlike others around here you have worked with the criticisms, etc. given. Heck, you even shrank the pre-doomsday stuff like I wanted.

Lordganon 22:56, September 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * I did Creative Writing and have done a fair bit of RPing. I've long since learnt the importance of feedback and using it to improve my work. I think someone else edited the Pre-Doomsday stuff though. Regarding the nuke situation, I'm getting there. I've just got to double check a few things before I'm happy with it. Tessitore 23:10, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear. It should graduate as soon as you go fill out the nuclear part to your satisfaction.

Like I said, I'll do up a map for you if you get me the specs I'd need for the borders.

Fixed ya poll for you, fyi.

Lordganon 23:27, September 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Isn't time this article was graduated to canon? it has been referenced in several other articles--Smoggy80 15:38, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * References mean nothing, those can be removed. Generally its not good form to start writing references of a proposal in other articles since there is a chance the article will be marked as obsolete. That being said, you guys do know that anyone can graduate an article as long as the are followed. You were waiting on me were you? Mitro 21:51, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've sorted out the nuke situation (unless something comes along to throw a spanner in the works anyway), let me know what you think.Tessitore 11:47, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've sorted out the nuke situation (unless something comes along to throw a spanner in the works anyway), let me know what you think.Tessitore 11:47, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

I plan it to be a sort of rump state comprised of the remnants of the US Military and initially the US's Atlantic territories until eventually it begins to deteriorate until it is comprised of two or three small islands in the present day. It will be kind of a mix between the APA and the CRUSA. Arstarpool 02:08, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I left my comments on the talk page. Mitro 04:18, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I must be high if I'm asking this but are there any objections? Arstarpool 01:41, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Um...yeah. There is still no way there would be an American presence in Guantanamo. It would either fall to the Cubans, or be abandoned and then fall to the Cubans. The idea that they would be bailed out by the ECF makes little sense. Even I doubt the ECF nations have that large of a navy to provide proper support. Furthermore Guantanamo would mean nothing for the Confederation. Mitro 01:51, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought my email picked up all these notes. It's been 5 days and I did not get a notice of this. Anyway, our discussions on the USAR talk page make it clear that the consensus is against this idea as is. The main beef is the holding of the base at Guantanamo. Originally, Gitmo was to be a territory of South Florida, but that got shot down. So then it became the fortified capital of America in a hostile land at war with them (America having bombed them with two Nukes!) I am sure the command would have come to get out of there soon after the accidental firing of the missiles. The idea of the Remnant, though, need not die. Such military support in the Caribbean would be a blessing to the American diaspora. SouthWriter 23:41, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Food
I've started a page on this, since if there's a page on what people are drinking then there should really be one on what they're eating.Tessitore 20:35, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections?
 * So much of it is not even finished. Give Tess some time to work. Mitro 01:52, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Neonotia (New South)
SouthWriter's proposal for a nation-state in OTL southern Alabama and Georgia, with former President Carter involved. BrianD 17:41, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

The name is kind of wierd, kind of something you would see in the original Map Games, but the details are okay I guess. Arstarpool 23:19, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Wales
A survivor republic based in southeast Wales. Jnjaycpa 17:53, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I think that they would end up joining their fellow Celts in the Celtic Alliance. Besides that the Celtic Alliance article pretty much states what isn't theres of Wales and Scotland is mostly wasteland. Keep that in mind. Arstarpool 19:58, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Second Empire of Trabzon
I have just completed an article on the Second Empire of Trabzon, a now-extinct monarchy in post-Doomsday Turkey that was extinguished by the Sultanate of Turkey in 2009. It claims to be the (nominal) successor to the original Greek Empire of Trebizond based in modern Trabzon, Turkey. --Emperor of Trebizond 19:44, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine, but graduation will have to wait until the Sultanate is graduated.

Lordganon 00:55, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Greek Revival

 * Agion Oros (1983: Doomsday)
 * Cyprus (1983: Doomsday)
 * Dodecanese Republic (1983: Doomsday)
 * Morea (1983: Doomsday)
 * Cyrenaica (1983: Doomsday)
 * Delian League (1983: Doomsday)
 * Thrace Reclamation Zone (1983: Doomsday)
 * Kemet (1983: Doomsday)

The Republic of Indiana
Nation located in the former state of Indiana. Thanks to all who helped .--Sunkist- 04:39, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Could we maybe pass this now, or is there anymore things to talk over to get this moved along?--Sunkist- 18:40, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Just remove more of the south of the state and it'll be good.

Why?, clearly it talks about how Indiana refuses to expand outside of the state, Terre Haute and Richmond also control the counties south of them.--Sunkist- 00:58, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Anything else?--Sunkist- 01:52, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Could we pass this now, or is there anything else I need to explain :D?--Sunkist- 16:38, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * It still just seems to optimistically large. One of the reasons the original version of this article wasn't graduated was because of its size, now nothing seems to have changed. Mitro 17:22, September 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I could always get a bigger map, show all of Kentucky and Virginian Republic. Indiana has been growing for the last 14 years, and if you look at the history, you would see that Terre Haute, Fort Waye, Anderson, Richmond, Lafayette kept order in the nearby counties.--Sunkist- 19:35, September 6, 2010 (UTC) I agree with Mitro and the south of the stater is claimed by the

Commonwealth of Kentucky (1983: Doomsday) --Owen1983 20:00, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Owen, The Republic Indiana doesen't claim Southern Indiana. Let me explain this, we are in 2010, this happend in 1983....Indiana has been doing the same as Kentucky, expanding.--Sunkist- 20:41, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Anything else?--Sunkist- 00:50, September 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * First off Sunkist, you list Fort Wayne as a city of this Republic, and yet it is already canon that it is destroyed. Furthermore, the argument that "other states are large as well" is a poor one. Just because there might be some survivor states larger than others does not mean proposals have a pass to be overly large.
 * Furthermore the history section could be expanded. It stops in 1987, what happens in the next 23 years? Also I just think with the devestation visited to the Chicago metro area, the Republic would have even less land in northwest Indiana than what you gave them originally.
 * Finally this whole article seems to contradict the article. In that article we see a Superior expedition in 1991 arriving in Indiana and here is what was said about their visit: "In former Indiana, the expedition came across several nomadic clans that traveled over most of the Midwest, and were told that there were many such groups both South and West of their current location." How does your article make sense if another older canon article stated that Indiana had nomadic clans but no mention of a large state covering its northern half?
 * IMO, this article just does not work. I think we have reached the tipping point of large organized states in the former US. Maybe some of the communities that make up the Republic can work as individual communities who might in the present be trying to form a united state to prevent Kentucky expansion, but as is now this article does not work. Mitro 01:06, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well clearly, if you look at the Indiana page you would see that the downtown area was destroyed, this image is of a building in the far reaches of Fort Wayne, If you look at the map you will see I've cut off the Gary Metro area, Also over the Superior, Where in Indiana is this, indeed South Bend became nomadic people, and if you also look Toledo also has a part of Northern Indiana, how far did Superior go into Indiana?.--Sunkist- 01:25, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * If downtown Fort Wayne was destroyed, I doubt the people of the people surrounding it would stick around a nuked crater. The town would be abandoned. Furthermore, the nomads would have no doubt traveled widely. They should have heard of a large survivor state that took up half of the former state and mention that to the Superiorins. I also did see that you cut off the Gary Metro area, but I don't think you cut enough. The fallout and refugees from Chicago would wipe out most of the area, especially when you can jump on I-90 and I-80. Mitro 01:33, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Here's a map I made that corrects the border/territorial claims of Kentucky and reduces the size of Indiana. --GOPZACK 01:31, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Bloomington was destroyed Zack, I would think Bloomington would of been the leading out point for Kentucky's expodition forces into Northern Indiana, And I'll cut more off from gary. Also about the Nomads, why haven't they been to Toledo, this entire thing about the nomads is alittle bit flipsy. And about Fort Wayne the Indiana page talks about a small low-yeild impact, which would of made a very small crater which would of been rushed in by the nearby rivers water.


 * Ah Bloomington was not destroyed, It was a city state until it was annexed by Kentucky. --GOPZACK 01:56, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * "along with the Crane Army Ammunition Activity plant in Crane (about 20 miles southwest of Bloomington)" from the Indiana page, it indeed was destroyed, according to the Indiana page.[Edit[ Your right Zack, pardon me.--Sunkist- 01:58, September 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. --GOPZACK 02:10, September 7, 2010 (UTC)



The Dump was destroyed but Bloomington survived as a city state. --GOPZACK 02:07, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Second map, was really hoping that Terre Haute could be kept by Indiana and same with Richmond, Ive cut off the top of Northern Indiana.--Sunkist- 02:21, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

What are we going to do with this page? Arstarpool 23:26, September 21, 2010 (UTC)



Auburn, Alabama
So what happened in the Alabama college town, and site of a provisional state government post-DD? An article to expand on what has been written as canon in the New Montgomery and 2009 WCRB report on the southern United States articles (I'm giving Charles Barkley to South if he wants him for the Neonotia article) --BrianD 03:17, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Article mentioned in the New York State page. Also mentions a whole bunch of other small lake communities too. Arstarpool 04:40, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections? Arstarpool 04:40, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why so soon, you just created it. Give people a chance to read it first. Mitro 14:50, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why are you using the Keene flag? Mitro 20:43, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a hole filler until I can make/get a better flag. Well, Arstarpool 22:45, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well are there any objections to passing it as a stub? Arstarpool 01:33, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * None. BrianD 19:59, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Article I made and Zack wanted to work on it. Arstarpool 04:40, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Article by Trebizond. Arstarpool 04:40, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

An article by Oerwinde. Don't dismiss it by the title, its actually rather plausible. --GOPZACK 17:08, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

Its a joke right? Arstarpool 08:02, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Originally yes, but I might try to develop it a bit more. Up the pop a bit, no more than a hundred or so though in a small walled commune.Oerwinde 08:04, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

But just to clarify it, this is not a page we are going to be seeing on the World Country Profiles riiiite? Besides that its pretty halarious but I think some people are taking it a tad seriously as evidenced on its talk page. Arstarpool 08:37, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Well if its plausible, why the hell not? It is unrecognized though, and would likely be annexed if some sort of actual state entered the picture.Oerwinde 08:53, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

It is a pretty plausible idea, as a matter of fact.HAD 18:38, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

I am looking forward to New York been mentioned in 1983DD --Owen1983 19:27, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Private Response and Military Defense Services
A private mercenary organization in the military field formed after Doomsday.--Emperor of Trebizond 01:24, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

I hate to say it but it's not really plausible for this sort of community project. An army fleeing to a small island and turning it into a fortress with spotlights and such? Defending from who? Being hired by who? For what purpose? I'm sorry but its a tad, um, unfit for this sort of thing. Arstarpool 08:34, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

There are such real organizations in the world. Who? For What Purpose? Defending it from who? The small island you described is just barely large enough it can be used for this. Besides, it's not one army, but ex-soldier survivors looking for a job that were brought together by someone whose fortune was generally unaffected by Doomsday. See the talk page for more. --Emperor of Trebizond 12:10, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

You don't understand. There is nobody except the Australians and the South Americans that had fortunes after Doomsday. Trade collapsed, and with it order, so there would be no jobs for a long, long time. You can't just keep things vague like "they meet under the table" in this sort of thing. Everything needs reason. And there are not such"real organizations" in the world. Sure, there are the New York Rangers, but they were founded on practicality Arstarpool 19:11, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

How do you contact the most prestigious and the best law firms and banks on the planet? Does that have a reason? No, it's awfully vague. You have to have a lot of money, and many important people contact such organizations "under the table". Investors in Australia and South America could have private reasons for funding the PRMDS.--Emperor of Trebizond 16:30, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Arstarpool, you're comparing two very different things. The SAC and ANZC are nations. The PRMDS is a corporation. Corporations are a dimension we've failed to explore thus far on this timeline. Just because nations collapse doesn't mean corporations would also collapse, and the same goes with how prosperous they are. Many corporations, pre-Doomsday, were well equipped, wealthy, and highly connected. It's very possible that several large, multinational corporations would survive Doomsday relatively intact and be able to reorganize post-Doomsday. Or, another way to look at this is that the post-Doomsday world is a survival of the fittest world. The stronger you are, the wealthier you are. The PRMDS would be formed from various military groups that survived Doomsday, were well trained, and kept their equipment. At first, they would be glorified raiders, but later on, once the states of the Black Sea became interconnected with the rest of the world, they would become a legitimate mercenary force with global reach. Caeruleus 16:39, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

I'm really impressed. That sums up my concept of the PRMDS flawlessly.--Emperor of Trebizond 17:35, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

The SAC is not a nation for one, and neither of you have read enough and don't fully understand how everything works. There aren't investors in the northern hemisphere, where buisness is still at a very basic. Exceptions would be the Celts or the Alpines or the Siberians or maybe even the Nordics but they aren't going to be funding a private militia because they need dirty work done or something. World travel as you portray it is not how it really is, so they would not be launching missions across the world. This "world" isn't how ours is minus the US and Europe and the Soviets, its a world where you can find a degree of normalcy in the Pacific and South America and pretty much everywhere else is struggling at the moment including places like the Alpine Confederation and the Celtic Alliance and Canada and Siberia. If this was reorganized and renamed into something of a local militia it would be more plausible.

The worst part is is that you speak of nations that aren't part of the timeline yet, the Turkey page is still a proposal and isn't going anywhere for a looong time...so this page would remain a proposal until Elazig and Turkey are graduated. Arstarpool 19:11, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

What does it matter that your opinion that this would remain a proposal until Elazig and Turkey are graduated? I haven't a problem with that. The PRMDS could've been planned before Doomsday but significantly affected by the results of Doomsday, which made it by far a more possible, attractive, and plausible venture by whoever planned it. They can travel locally to the East or to the West (Furthest to Africa and furthest west to Central Asia). Limited range, but more than enough within that to keep them busy.--Emperor of Trebizond 19:46, September 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * I know the SAC is a collection of nations, but it fits into the same category. You're also misinterpreting what this is. This isn't a typical pre-Doomsday corporation that you just go and "invest" in. A more apt comparison would be to the Knights Templar or Knights of Rhodes. These were wealthy, independent, private mercenary organizations that had large amounts of capital and small amounts of territory in which they are based, similar to the PRMDS. They don't need people to invest in them. They acquire their own funds, or, in a post-Doomsday world, simply obtain success in survival which essential means they pay for themselves because in eastern Europe, financial systems broke down post-Doomsday so the typical dynamics of a money-based economy would not apply to as great of an extent.


 * Also, you vastly overestimate the necessary level of stability for this to be plausible. The Alpines, ANZC, SAC, Nordics, Celts, Siberians, Koreans and Japanese are all stable enough. They don't need to be prosperous to be able to pay for mercenaries. African warlords OTL are able to pay for mercenaries, and we all know how poor and unstable they are. The chaos of eastern Europe actually provides a ripe enviroment for them to develop because, like I said, they could start off as glorified bandits, grow wealthy through pillaging, and establish a semi-legitimate international operation by the late 2000s. This article is plausible, though they may not be deploying to Africa until the late 2000s. Caeruleus 19:52, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Arstarpool has a thing about rushing articles through quickly so don't feel like you have to hurry. I defiantly think this article can work. After Doomsday there would be a lot of "guns for hire" popping up around the world. Also in the anarchy who says they need money? they could raid an armory get all the weapons they need. I'll try not get too philosophical here but money in the post Doomsday world is just pieces of paper. Major currencies would collapse on the commodities market (or whats left of it) and food, water and other necessities would become the new currency. Perhaps now that the situation has stabilized the ANZC Dollar or the currency of South America might appeal to them but initially its the necessities of life that ruled the day. GOPZACK 19:54, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Why don't they use the already existing ruins and temples as bases? That would be more practical then demolishing them (which would be pretty hard post-Doomsday) and building new bases when materials would be scarse. Or they could build using ruins as foundations into new structures. Arstarpool 03:36, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

I suppose those temples would be small, ruined, and in their way, probably too unstable to use for much. They seem to be in pretty bad shape--the product of thousands of years..But I've seen remote ruins turned into secure monasteries before, so it wouldn't surprise me. It could also be a waste of explosive. I think I will probably consider this idea.--Emperor of Trebizond 09:35, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Took Arstarpool's idea into effect. I agree that the PRMDS could probably use the foundations of the ruins for their current buildings.--Emperor of Trebizond 02:55, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Page created by Michael Douglas 03:22, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about this one, guys what do you think? I really doubt they would decide to stay in Antarctica and anybody there probably starve or search refuge elsewhere. Arstarpool 04:09, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

Really sounds kinda implausible.

Lordganon 18:10, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

No offense but there is pretty much no way this can work in this timeline. So should we mark it obsolete? Arstarpool 22:43, September 6, 2010 (UTC)

A few leaders could convince people to stay there, seeing as they just found out there had been a nuclear war. Plus, many people thought and still think that the entire world wouldn't survive a nuclear war. Antartica may be the only survivor if we have a nuclear war. I think that they could survive. Its possible that a small number would at least. I mean, they can fish, they have snow for water, they have rations to prevent scurvy until they get enough soil for a small crop in the summer. Nuclear summer happened, so it got a little warmer, and they had the seeds from the ships rations. Still, I can see your objections, and people would have to be exceptionally resourceful.Michael Douglas 00:53, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

But by warmer, it means like 10-25 degrees, which, no offense, would not change anything. I guess the article could be something like a temporary hideout until maybe the late 80's when explorers confirmed that South America or Australia survived. If Soviet Cosmonauts managed to return to Earth I think these guys could easily travel to South America. But a nation, or even a present-day territory would not work. New Britain, a nation in this timeline maintains a small town of 150 permanent residents in Antartica, but it is the result of re-settlement of British Antarctica and needing constant resupply. Or maybe it can be the result of a nation attempting to reestablish its presence in Antartica by at least 2011 or 2012, but you'll have to consult the authors of the articles. Arstarpool 02:12, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

True enough. I don't think it would work with the naming of the article (I don't see any Russian survivor nation being received to friendly by the international community, especially if they are colonizing a previously unclaimable territory which is already rather contested). I think that the main idea behind Keslov, which is people taking to the sea to survive and what happens to those already at sea when the nukes hit, may have to be moved. Hudson Bay is the only other place it MIGHT work, maybe Nunavut...anyway, I think it would be fair to consider Keslov obsolete, so ya, I second the Obsolete motion.Michael Douglas 01:03, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

If you want I can make it work for you. Arstarpool 01:08, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

New Haven
By Jnjaycpa. I'm pretty convinced that it won't work because Connecticuts small size plus assloads of fallout from Hartford and such. Plus the Vermont article states almost the entire state is a wasteland. Arstarpool 04:57, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Renamed from Republic of Connecticut. I'm skeptical about the article as well, but let's give Jay a chance to make his case. We also need to consider the effect it would have on the New England region and on the Vermont, Plymouth and Outer Lands articles if Jay can prove to everyone's satisfaction that New Haven/Bridgeport would have survived. I've alerted all of the relevant editors on the three articles, plus Zack, about the article. BrianD 19:12, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

I decided to restore the original name. --Jnjaycpa 23:16, September 7, 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Jay. Thank you for your interest in the time line, but a survirvor community on the Connecticut coast is not a promising idea. Though we don't always go by the FEMA maps, we usually have a very good reason to stray from them. It has pretty much been decided that much of Connecticut was decimated. To the right is a map based on the one | found here You will note the center and bottom of the state are practically "carpet bombed" with nukes! Lower Middlesex county (Clinton) sits between three field days of nukes. Some of these could be tertiary targets, but it doesn't look good for the chosen home for this survivor "nation." SouthWriter 02:11, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

We need to figure out which of these targets are the primary and secondary targets, as the tertiary targets wer likely not hit at all.

Yankovic270 02:21, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

I got this from this web site.

CONNECTICUT Primary:  Groten-New London. Secondary: none Tertiary:  Bristol, Bridgeport, Danbury, Hartford, New Haven, Norwalk, Stamford.

I assumed that Hartford was nuked. I also nuked Stamford and Danbury. These strikes (along with the fallout from NYC) would devastate the western part of Fairfield County but leave New Haven county relativley unscathed. Jnjaycpa 03:15, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know exactly where this Bruce Beach guy is today, but back in May of 2001 he gave this analysis He theorizes as few 100 or as many as 2000 nukes would probably be used against North America in WW3. That would be in a planned attack of strategic targets. He defines what would be primary, secondary and tertiary targets in 2001. He says, though that targets are always changing. If we go with a certainty of primary, a high probability of secondary, and a rarity on tertiary sites, we will probably come out with a respectable patchwork of survivor states like we have now.

We cannot go back and rewrite the story though. I have to agree with Arstar on the tendency to optimism has prevailed most of the time. Nevertheless, as we rethink the size and number of strikes we acknowledge, it does look a lot better for people not living in the urban population centers. We see a lot of more surviving than originally imagined. We need a comprehensive map to see how well we're doing in our visualization of the USA and other sites around the northern hemisphere. SouthWriter 03:58, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with the two cities, though you may want to add the city of Norwalk to that list - there's a lot of companies based there. And don't forget about the Submarine base at New London. Having a pair of strikes on Hartford may be best, to take out the city of New Britain, which is nearby, as well.

Though, you are right in one thing - New Haven wouldn't be hit unless someone really wanted to whack Yale or John Hopkins.

But, the fallout from New York and the surrounding strikes would have been dangerous. Fallout in the northeast US tends to drift slightly east, and then north. http://www.millennium-ark.net/News_Files/UN_Images/FEMA.fallout.map.jpg shows this, though you'd need to at least triple the width of the new york fallout.

Maybe it would be best to have it be New Haven, but not much else, and only kept together by Yale and Hopkins? Keep the name, though. Bunch of intellectuals would be more apt to do that instead of a "Republic of Yale", for sure.

Lordganon 04:15, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Guys, canon points to the entire state being a wasteland. Would anyone have any objections to making this obsolete? Arstarpool 04:11, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

A west-Ukraine state.

Lordganon 12:30, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem graduating this page if only you filled in the military and economy section. Arstarpool 04:13, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

It's not even close to being done. I'll ask for objections for graduation when I'm good and ready.

Lordganon 04:20, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

A west-Ukraine state.

Lordganon 12:30, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

A west-Ukraine state.

Lordganon 12:30, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

A west-Ukraine state.

Lordganon 12:30, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Western Ukraine Organization.

Lordganon 12:30, September 8, 2010 (UTC)

Imperial Airways (1983: Doomsday)
article by me (under construction)--Owen1983 14:22, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

You should probably have the approval of the caretaker of New Britain before continuing with this.

Lordganon 00:30, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Doomsday in the United Kingdom (1983:Doomsday)
article by Smoggy80 I like it --Owen1983 16:02, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

Article I made right before Zack made Antlers. Mentioned in the Oaklahoma article, I would appreciate if Zack or Brian or someone else could help me out with this one. Arstarpool 18:37, September 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to help out, let me know how I can do so. BrianD 02:14, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Me & South's proposal for the American Shadow Government post-Doomsday. --GOPZACK 02:12, September 14, 2010 (UTC)

Buganda
An article created by me about the most important OTL kingdom on Uganda, which got independence during the Uganda Bush War. Fedelede 00:47, September 17, 2010 (UTC)

Looks good so far but I don't think there would be such a rapid growth of Ganda religion and culture by 2005. Maybe 2015 would be a better target date. Arstarpool 00:37, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Another article by Owen. I don't know what the devil this is about... --GOPZACK 01:05, September 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems to be a small rural county that was far enough away from the population centers to actually survive. However, Owens total disregard for punctuation in that paragraph is quite disconcerting. It's almost like a poor-quality voice recognition software took his words as he spoke them. Ancient Greek was written that way, but English doesn't work that way! SouthWriter 01:23, September 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * At least it's in an area that had the chance of surviving relatively intact, and it's not Manchester!, if it's developed well it could be a good article--Smoggy80 16:17, September 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm...do you guys think we've reach plausibility singluarity for England? Arstarpool 20:19, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * For large organized states, yes. For small city-states like this, no. --GOPZACK 20:24, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * England or Britain? There's a distinction. For England, probably yes. For Wales and Scotland, there could still be some room. Fegaxeyl 20:35, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally I'm working on the principle that there was seven big kingdoms and a few little ones making up what's now England in the Dark Ages, so about the same number of post-Doomsday nations should be okay, especially if they're seperated by geography, distance and/or radioactive areas. Of course, that's very rough guide.Tessitore 22:37, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * For once he used proper grammar. Arstarpool 21:00, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I went in and corrected it all.Oerwinde 11:10, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I went in and corrected it all.Oerwinde 11:10, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Article by me. Subject to drastic changes soon but tell me what do you think so far? Arstarpool 20:19, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

I like it so far. Placing it manchuria and having the heir's son restore the empire was fantastic. I think we have whats going to keep the PRC from completely reclaiming northern China.Oerwinde 23:11, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Not like I'm graduating it soon but are there any objections so far? Arstarpool 18:49, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

I think its military power is a bit much, thats all for now.Oerwinde 21:46, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

A Transylvanian-supported Hungarian survivor state.

Lordganon 09:58, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Article by me and Yank. We made it a few weeks ago, but I guess that neither of us posted it here. Arstarpool 01:37, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Would there be any objections to passing as a stub? Arstarpool 23:18, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

History of Venezuela
Any objections to graduation? VENEZUELA 18:38, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

None at all. Arstarpool 04:14, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

Roman Catholic archdioceses in North America
My proposal for a list of Roman Catholic archdioceses and dioceses in North America. Intended to be a community project. BrianD 19:57, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind if I wrote about my "home" state of Florida and the Catholic institutions in Naples, FL? Arstarpool 21:57, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. Go for it! I put them under the San Juan Archdiocese, as from reading the Florida articles it seems that those towns have closer ties to the Caribbean nations than any of the other regional nations and survivor states. BrianD 22:43, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...while Florida is a heavily Hispanic state the area of the, or more specifically South Florida is mostly White and most of which might not follow the heavily Church influenced lifestyle of the Hispanic churches. Most of the people in FL, or at least North Florida would probably go it alone or with another state in the South, in my humble opinion. But it's your call. Arstarpool 22:52, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

The closest archdiocese north of Florida TTL is in East Tennessee. How much contact have the Florida survivor states had with the other Southern survivor states, versus Puerto Rico, Cuba and the East Caribbean Federation?BrianD 22:59, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Article about the state of New Zealand. Arstarpool 23:03, September 21, 2010 (UTC)

Article on Australia, State of the Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand. Arstarpool 23:03, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know, why is this necessary? It will just repeat the info on the ANZC page. --GOPZACK 00:06, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm also of the opinion that both proposals, however well-intentioned, are redundant and unnecessary because they would already be covered under the Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand article. Australia and New Zealand, as established in this timeline, are one country, not two. Also, FYI I'm a caretaker of the ANZC. BrianD 00:11, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify I agree that both are redundant, not just this one. Any objections to marking both as obsolete? --GOPZACK 00:17, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have none. Also, I'll get to work on updating the ANZC article this week. Surprisingly, it's one of those articles that is important to the timeline but no one after Xi'Reney really jumped on it. I went ahead and updated it a while back, and again recently with some minor edits. BrianD 00:22, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Really Zack? This is just depicting the states of Australia and New Zealand within the Commonwealth, and depicting the former nations before they unified. Brian I know you are a caretaker of the ANZC. There are three pages on the US now, one depicting the former, the in-exile government, and the new, so why can't there just be two on the states Aussie and New Zealand? Arstarpool 02:26, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Really Zack? This is just depicting the states of Australia and New Zealand within the Commonwealth, and depicting the former nations before they unified. Brian I know you are a caretaker of the ANZC. There are three pages on the US now, one depicting the former, the in-exile government, and the new, so why can't there just be two on the states Aussie and New Zealand? Arstarpool 02:26, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

If you want to work on both articles, here's one idea: Both articles would be good in regards to detailing the history of both Australia and New Zealand pre-Doomsday, and perhaps in clarifying differences between the two post-Doomsday. The differences would be primarily cultural, and also political. Australia and New Zealand are generally one country, as that is what Hawke and Muldoon were working towards after DD hit. Their militaries certainly are unified. But how much sovereignty does Australia have over itself, and New Zealand over itself? I'm wondering if the Australian and New Zealand governments are really a thin layer politically between the ANZC and the Australian states and New Zealand local municipalities. This would be good to explore, and could be touched on in the ANZC article and expanded on in Australia and New Zealand - by both of us, and anyone else who is interested in contributing to one of the most important countries in this timeline. BrianD 02:43, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Arstar, to compare the US to the ANZC in terms of the number of articles is absurd, they are two very different nations with very different histories post-Doomsday. Now Brian raises a very interesting & good point regarding the government, but couldn't that just go in a sub article to the ANZC page called "Government of the ANZC" or something like that?
 * Finally Arstar your not helping things when your description is, "Do I really need to explain this?" GOPZACK 02:53, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, because this page is about the blasted islands of Australia and New Zealand! If you made a couple of pages about the states of Kentucky would I fly off the wall? No! So just let me flesh this proposal out before you fly off the wall! Arstarpool 02:59, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Relax, why such anger? I'm just asking you some questions regarding the article and whether it is needed or not. --GOPZACK 03:06, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Zack, I thought it was redundant at first, but the more I think about it, the more I see the potential. If it doesn't rewrite canon and contradict what the ANZC has been established to be, then Arstar should have a chance to flesh out his proposals. He will have help, of course :) But there's nothing in principle that prevents anyone from writing an Australia article no more than one on Kootenai. The Australia article could be used to expand on concepts introduced in the ANZC article. This may be something that other editors, like Mitro, BenKarnell and Xi'Reney, who have previously worked on the ANZC, would want to help with as well. BrianD 03:08, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * If you think it has merit Brian I don't mind taking a wait and see approach. I'm the caretaker of many of the islands chains affiliated with the ANZC so if you need any help in that regard let me know. --GOPZACK 03:14, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's one. Do you have any thoughts on how the islands relate to the central government, or to the nation itself, that need to be addressed in the main ANZC article? BrianD 03:18, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well its not doubt that Australia is the main member of the Commonwealth, like England in the UK or Russia in the former Soviet Union. So it should be mentioned that Australia is the backbone and core of politics of the CANZ. Also, even though several of the islands may share the same political parties those political parties beliefs may differ from island to island. Arstarpool 03:28, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a graphic in the ANZC article addressing the main political parties for Australia, New Zealand and Samoa. It's never been expanded on, and how politics differ from region to region, and in regards to the Commonwealth in general, would be worth exploring. BrianD 03:32, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * The way I thought of it, both Australia and New Zealand have ceased to exsist on a Federal level. The country is a Federatioon of States (Queensland as one of them for example). The regions of New Zealand have been be amalgamated to form larger States. HAD 08:23, September 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * This is something I've wondered about a lot, and I'm glad somebody has stepped forward to try this. Some important points to consider: (1) Australia is a federal country; New Zealand is not.  (2) Both Australia and New Zealand have been around for a while.  (3) While Australia may look like the powerhouse, it suffered nuclear attacks on three of its main cities.  It's possible that Aukland is the ANZC's largest city.
 * In my own mind, I at first had thought that HAD's suggestion was the most likely: that the government of Australia had ceased to exist, though I figured that NZ as a unitary country would exist as a single state. Now though, I tend to lean toward both governments still existing, with Australia being "sub-federalized".  Micronesia already has such a system.
 * Reasons I support such a system: (1) Culturally, Australians would want to maintain a separate political identity; (2) In terms of logistics, diszsolving an entire government would be difficult; (3) Dissolving New Zealand makes even less sense than Australia. If the ANZC were a union of nine states, most of which are Australian, it might give the Aussies undue political weight; (4) Keeping the Australian government emphasizes the ANZC as a union of equals; (5) Even in the ANZC, communication is not what it once was, and I like the idea of the ANZC as a rather loose federation that handles the military and the trade and leaves the four states to fend for themselves on most other issues.
 * Possible objections: The only one I can think of is that three levels of government might result in bureaucratic overlap. If you've got parliaments in Jervis Bay, Canberra, and Brisbane, the potential for waste is obvious.
 * Marc Pasquin, the only contributor AFAIK who actually is Australian, suggested long ago that Australia's state governments were dissolved. While the idea is interesting, I think that the postwar communication slowdown would make the state governments more important than ever. Benkarnell 12:05, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

=CURRENT REVIEWS=

Review Archive

Sometimes articles are graduated into canon even though they contradict current canon or are so improbable that they are damaging to the timeline. If you feel an article should not be in canon, mark it with the   template and give your reasons why on the article's talk page and here. If consensus is that you are correct, the article will need to be changed in order to remain in canon. If it is changed the proposal template is removed once someone moves to graduate it back into canon. If the article is not changed in 30 days, the article will be mared as obsolete. If consensus is that you are wrong, however, the proposal template will be removed without having to change the article.

Plymouth
After due consideration, I have decided that this article needs a review. It was graduated with remaining problems with previous article named "Outer Lands " (a geographical location in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and New York. I suggested earlier that Outer Lands might readily join with the new state, given their loose confedation anyway, but that has not been incorporated in the new article or the old. Since both are "under control" of one editor right now, I think this should be easily resolved by that editor. But until it has been, it needs to be "under review." (unsigned by SouthWriter)

Who is the anonymous editor who suggested it to be under review? Arstarpool 22:57, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Basically since I haven't incorporated one into the other you can tell me to do so?

A direct statement by Brian giving me control of Outer Lands clearly states in fine print "do whatever you want with the article". So rather than hog up the whole Cape Cod region for Plymouth I decided to split it only taking the areas around Barnstable. So I have also removed the review template. Besides that there are no other problems so if you have something else bring it up on the article talk page.

Okay, South, I found out it was you. To be honest I think you are suffering from Power-to-the-head Syndrome like you claimed I had moons ago. I have seen a slight change in your language and even a couple "orders" like on the US Atlantic Remnant talk page telling me to change the purpose of the organization after you recently became a leutenant. I am trying to keep my slate clean as Mitro calls it but anyways the issue was resolved, but it would have been nicer if you would have just said "Hey, you should fix this".Arstarpool 22:57, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

My sinsere apologies. I simply forgot to sign the post. It happens every once in a while. And no, I am not on a power trip. I have mentioned the needed changes on the article's talk page, and even offered solutions. I have not "ordered" anything, but only made suggestions as to make your articles more viable. All I wanted from Plymoth was consistency. With US Atlantic Remnant I have resisted the concept, offering a way around the sticking point with many editors that happen to disagree with you. Consensus means compromise, and your idea of compromise is usually that the other side bends in your direction.

You have control of the articles, and all you have to do is work out the differences. The original article about the the Outer Lands assumed that the destruction of the mainland of Massachusetts was complete. It then preceded to conclude that the wasteland of New England would keep in separated from Vermont and Aroostook until recent times. Since Plymouth survived, contact would have been made early on with the Outer Lands - say 1990 or so - and the Outer Lands would be absorbed into the new nation (which claims all of Massachusetts anyway. I see no reason why the Outer Landers would not agree.

About the "fine print" - here is the exchange as Brian got tired of dealing with the article:


 * I read the description, but its not very descriptive. Plymouth had no nearby strike zones other than Boston, as with Barnstable. So I thought that it would be logical for them to cooperate with each other. If you could just allow me to use the northern tips of the Cape, that would be good. Arstarpool 04:16, June 30, 2010 (UTC) 


 * You know...that's fine. Best wishes to the Plymouth survivor nation. BrianD 04:21, June 30, 2010 (UTC) 

You "wore him down," and he decided that you could do "whatever." But when you did not change anything on the Outer Lands, only making the changes you wanted on Plymouth, you confused matters. He asked for "control of the article back" and has now relented - giving his "blessings" on the proposed changes (merging the two articles). When you make the changes on the Outer Lands, it will become a footnote in "history," and Plymouth will be on its way to claiming all of Massachusetts (and returned to canon.) It's an odd situation in which the first article has to be changed to make the second one viable. Together they will make a great nation. --SouthWriter 00:36, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Where are we at regarding this review?BrianD 21:46, September 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * The biggest sticking point is saving Otis Field, a primary target most assuredly to be hit in nuclear war. In fact, a direct hit there would essensially cut off the peninsula and leave it a legitimate part of the Outer Lands. He wants Provincetown, at the tip of Cape Cod as well. I have tried to compromise by allowing for "first contact" by sea from Plymouth to Provincetown. The tip of the cape is closer to the city of Plymouth than to Martha's Vineyard, so I figured that would work out okay. Arstarpool wants an army, and so Otis has to survive. But if Otis survives, Cape Cod would not have joined with the islands to survive. QSS and QAA apply. I offer the solution that Otis is evacuated to Plymouth before the attack, but he has not gotten back to me on that. SouthWriter 00:43, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine. You can evacuate Otis, and the equippment? And the other military installations? Will they survive? Arstarpool 02:29, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

There has been a lot of discussion regarding the plausibility of this article on it's talk page. Please check it out. Mitro 21:55, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

I guess I should step in here, since I adopted it from Gamb. (Check his and my talk page for more info). But Mitro can you tell me what should be fixed? Arstarpool 23:00, September 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Like I said, check the talk page. South and Fx are the ones bringing the objections. Mitro 23:03, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Its not really an objection per se, I am just agreeing with South the idea of Bermuda breaking off all contact for so long seems a bit odd. Thats all.--Fxgentleman 03:49, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

=FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES= Archive 1, Archive 2

''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.''

Caucasus Emirate
My Caucasus Emirate article was turned obsolete because it have the same area of the Chechnya proposal article which doesn't have anything, while mine was finished, so why an article abandoned as his creator said can stay and one finished must be turned obsolete because it take the same area of the abandoned article? VENEZUELA 19:29, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

The "rest of the story"
Okay folks, here's the actual record of the evening of September 25, 1983, at the Waldorf-Astoria hotel in New York city. The reception was in full swing for all the dignitaries and ambassadors, and Ronald Reagan made a few remarks beginning at 7:08 pm (EST) - that 19:08 (0:08 UTC) and 03:08, Sept 26th in Moscow. Thirty minutes after making these remarks, word would come to Reagan that Soviet missiles had been launched. He was not asleep, and probably had not gone to his suite yet. Evacuation of those with him - Ambassadore Kirkpatrick, Secretary of State Schulz and Mayor Koch would have been immediate. Here is the record of his remarks and situation. I am surprized that this had not been brought out. I put in "Reagan speech Sept 26 1983 and came up with the info below, and then just looked right above it for this info (thus the time stamps switched). SouthWriter 03:59, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

The Speech not spoken
In this time line US president Ronald Reagan had to escape from New York City before making the speech that in our time line set the superpowers on the path to meaningful peace. The speech can be found hear: http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1983/92683a.htm

In that speech Reagan was to remind the 38th Assembly of the UN of US president Eisenhower's words:


 * In 1956 President Dwight Eisenhower made an observation on weaponry and deterrence in a letter to a publisher. He wrote: ``When we get to the point, as we one day will, that both sides know that in any outbreak of general hostilities, regardless of the element of surprise, destruction will be both reciprocal and complete, possibly we will have sense enough to meet at the conference table with the understanding that the era of armaments has ended and the human race must conform its actions to this truth or die. He went on to say, ``. . . we have already come to a point where safety cannot be assumed by arms alone . . . their usefulness becomes concentrated more and more in their characteristics as deterrents than in instruments with which to obtain victory. . . .'


 * Distinguished ladies and gentlemen, as we persevere in the search for a more secure world, we must do everything we can to let diplomacy triumph. Diplomacy, the most honorable of professions, can bring the most blessed of gifts, the gift of peace. If we succeed, the world will find an excitement and accomplishment in peace beyond that which could ever be imagined through violence and war.

Unfortunately for the world of TTL, a computer glitch coupled with a bigoted officer (so as to be of the mind that Reagan and the US would launch a first strike) brought the near destruction of Western civilization. SouthWriter 03:35, September 16, 2010 (UTC)

Size of Kentucky
This is something that has been on my mind for a while; Kentucky is now bigger than Virginia! Seriously Zack I think you over did it on the size. Actually the worst part is how much of Indiana you "Control". Arstarpool 21:16, September 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Relax, a lot of it is "claimed" not "controlled" or has very few people living in it. I wouldn't go so far as to say its "bigger than Virginia!" they are about the same size from what I can tell.


 * Part of me thinks you don't even much care about the size but are still bitter over the survival of Fort Knox. Besides I saw a blog you posted where you claimed Kentucky was the article that got you hooked on this timeline (Thanks for the kind words by the way) so I find myself asking, whats up with this sudden conversion? --GOPZACK 22:16, September 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I saw the map above over at the Indiana discussion and you basically control all of the southern half. I really don't care about Fort Knox and yes, Kentucky was the first nation I clicked the link to when I arrived here. Arstarpool
 * Oh, I saw the map above over at the Indiana discussion and you basically control all of the southern half. I really don't care about Fort Knox and yes, Kentucky was the first nation I clicked the link to when I arrived here. Arstarpool


 * Arstar, that was a rough map that did not differentiate "claimed" & "controlled". Besides that map above is not canon, just discussion. --GOPZACK 20:31, September 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * If I may cut in for a half second, the map on the Kentucky page shows a fair amount less than those Indiana maps do. Lordganon 23:02, September 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Wait, LG, come back!! This isn't a private discussion. :-)


 * Actually that is a good point. Perry/Sunkist was arguing for control of all of Indiana (his home state) and Zack was dealing with him for the portion that contains the Kentuckian state in southern Indiana. Perry finally agreed that he couldn't control the whole state, so a line of demarcation was drawn. He has since tried to reclaim areas that were previously destroyed, but the south is under Kentucky jurisdiction.


 * If you check my talk page, you will find the new mind set that Alex has come around to. He is growing up the more he reads, I think, and wants to carry on the vision of the "founders" of the time line. I commend him for the new attitude even though I disagree with his conclusions. --SouthWriter 20:45, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I still think Fort Knox would be destroyed...which would dramaticly change this area. My grandmother lives in Shepardsville, KY and while I was visting, my father took me to Fort Knox, saw the base and the Historical parts, and the all the displays, Tons of tanks,skilled personal, perfect place to waste a nuke.--Sunkist- 02:57, September 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, Sunkist, Fort Knox did not get hit, much to their own surprise. It's been discussed many times over, and it passed the muster of the experienced editors of the group. Even some primary targets "lucked out," adding to the randomness of these articles. If every potential target was hit, we'd have a whole different picture. However, we need to remember that this was an accidental war -- and only targets of essensial nature would have had been targeted for the first volley. The remaining missiles, in later volleys, may have targeted the very same targets, being that there was no one to re-target them. SouthWriter 18:58, September 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * ::Fort Knox wasn't hit according to canon, but Louisville was...and the two are close enough that Fort Knox is going to be affected, whether it's minor damage from the likely blast over the airport/adjacent Ford plant, or being overwhelmed with refugees from Metro Louisville's south end. BrianD 19:13, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Archives and 1983 Domesday
A topic for development: pre-event government archives (some of the UK's would have been at ) many of which were probably stored in similar places, in the expectation that 'some major negative event' might occur. Access to information = power. Anyone care to develop? Jackiespeel 18:39, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

Given its location it's possible the Celts could have salvaged it at some point. A Duchy of Lancaster expedition could be sent to the area, come up blank, and jump to the obvious conclusion. Given its relevance to the former UK, you might have the OBN up in arms against the Celts and demanding it back - along with the New British... Fegaxeyl 20:00, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

From what little I know of the subject there were deep storage official archives before 2003 often in mines and quarries: items from museums were so stored during WWII, and 'I read somewhere' about one set of documents being coated in china clay to protect them, but unfortunately the storage space got damp, with predictable consequences.
 * Just did some looking, and it turns out that the particular example you gave only began in 2003, but if it can be proved that the UK or other nations had similar deposits... Fegaxeyl 20:44, September 20, 2010 (UTC)

IIRC the British large regional divisions were set up during WWII in case there was an invasion and the government had to retreat, which would probably have been linked with local storage of essential information and documents, and the system would probably have been retained during the Cold War (and probably even now in OTL). The same would happen elsewhere: and there would probably be a skeleton staff and much automation.

To what extent did the 'permanently mobile "invisible" submarines with actions to be carried out at last resort' exist by 1983? Would the senior commander have access to information on the whereabouts of their nation's deep archives, to be accessed in such circumstances? Most people would know of 'government buildings in their localities' even if not with the details of what was going on in them.

Thus, post Doomsday 1983 there are varying groups seeking access to 'what government materials remain' - and, probably, making use of any mines/quarries, deep stores and similar places as safe/unpolluted areas.

How can this discussionbe incorporated into the timeline? As with my piece on survivalists etc the concept is likely to get passing mention on various country pages in various forms. (Would new archives be developed for states that emerge - and what happens to those of states that get decommissioned? Would a tally-stick or similar system of record be developed?) Anyone wishing to discuss/cooperate? Jackiespeel 13:08, September 21, 2010 (UTC)