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 | 15, 16

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

Lybia
I was wondering what happened to Qadaffi's Lybia. He's in the new today, but I don't see him anywhere in the time line of Africa. He would not have been bombed by the US in 1986, but he would not have been friendly with Siberia by the time the USSR regrouped. Was he overthrown, or what? SouthWriter 21:13, March 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a proposal on, but most of the canon information on the country can be found in Cyrenaica (1983: Doomsday) and Chad-Libya War (1983: Doomsday). [EDIT] More research suggests that Libya no longer exists. The country is either part of Greece, Egypt or divided among the Berber tribes. Mitro 21:42, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

Proposition
(moved from talk:SouthWriter)

Hey South! Hows it going? I stopped by to offer you a offer you a proposition you can't refuse(to coin a phrase). I was recently talking to some other people about the US in doomsday,and a idea struck us. If we could get a petition of 50 editors who want a primarily reunited US (minus those pesky micro states that now hate the US), maybe you and the other editors would do it.Give me ring when you get this, God Bless the United States of America 03:19, March 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, GB. Pretty good for a weekend. Coming off a week-long cold!


 * Anyway, concerning a petition, I don't think we have 50 editors in 83DD. Many don't care, others work on little bits and pieces. Maybe a handful of administrators are keeping the time line alive. And half of those are caretakers of micro-states and mini-nations that would not co-operate. It has been an uphill battle to just rebuild the USA to a point where it is recognized as a civilized entity. I started to put it on the road to international recognition in the time line, but even Texas and Florida have more support. Tiny northeastern states seem to be favorites of some, with little interest in working toward a bigger picture.


 * At most, I may be able to work with Brian and Zack to build an eastern coalition that is friendly to a reunification (Kentucky and various deep south states, including former CSA states). There is hope for the Dakotas and a state to arise in Oklahoma, but those are tentative. The main problem is that the creator(s) of the time line assumed too much - and then made things in the southern hemisphere move way too slowly having made those assumptions. The time line is handicapped toward a wide-spread dystopia -- especially in the plains states (hard hit with ground bursts trying to take out silos).


 * I will see if I can work on putting more life into the USA in the time line the rest of this week. After that, we will see how much resistance there is to an aggressive reunification movement across the south. I'll include a little work on the Dakotas as well. SouthWriter 03:44, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

Ick,you sound like me with the Cold,every since the cold really set in January here in VA, I keep staying sick,anywho hope you feel better!

With the petition, I meant editors from all over the site. The thing with people not caring really ticks me off, like the USSR survives but the USA cant? I have wrote and read several articles,but this one keeps bringing me back,and I don't think I will be able to get it out of my head until the Stars and Stripes fly from sea to shining sea, and all the Americans around the world can come home to the land of the free and home of the brave ,until that day I will keeping trying for the USA to be restored to its former glory God Bless the United States of America 04:03, March 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * I couldn't help but comment on this discussion. I'd like to be part of this going forward, if that's alright, and like to state my two cents worth.


 * I'm not at all opposed to the present/future existence of a United States of America in TTL, though I do believe - given what has been established as canon in this timeline - that the reunified USA won't cover the territory that ours does and TTL's USA did before Doomsday.


 * You'd have to have an extremely strong military and political entity with a limitless budget, a country that had the means to rebuild farmland and rewire the continent, in order to pull the various nations together as they were before DD. I don't see any one country, including Brazil and the ANZC, that can currently pull it off.


 * Also - and I think this is crucial, again given canon - enough time has passed that some (not all) of these balkanized states identify as their own entities, not as Americans. Especially given that everyone's finding out that Reagan and the surviving members of the government fled instead of finding safe ground in America to start the rebuilding process from. I think it's important we keep to some sort of balkanization given what's already been established as history. You can criticize 1983:DD for a number of things, but in the end, it's merely one view of how the world would have developed after a nuclear war.


 * That said, I am caretaker of a number of the southeastern-based survivor states and I do intend for them to eventually coalesce into a single entity, be it together or something led by the East American Alliance, or Piedmont.


 * There is nothing preventing a group of survivor states from combining together as the United States of America. I don't think the ANZC (canon successor to the American Provisional Administration, the successor to the U.S. government) has the means or the will to bully anyone in North America to retire the flag. How that reunification comes about, in a world where the member states don't have nearly the resources or cash that Australia/New Zealand and South America have, needs to be worked through and discussed.BrianD 04:51, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Brian for agreeing with many,and I totally agree. It will take a long time,and the US with have trouble,but I do believe it is possible for a majority reunification. I suspect CRUSA will help a lot with finances,and the USAR and ANZC probably will give aid, due to the large amount of Americans there,many still patriotic and CRUSA starting to get a large presence in many places.SAC and those pesky micro nations in the the US's land will probably a major obstacle,but if they could survive a nuclear war, I don't see any reason why we cant one day fly the Stars and Stripes again.Thanks again Brian,have a good day!God Bless the United States of America 15:22, March 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of what Brian said. I hate to pat myself on the back, but much of the current status of the former US was built on the foundation I made. When I came here the only article set in the US was the blank article. I expanded it and then went on to create the, the  and Alaska. Most of my ideas for the former US that I shared on the discussion pages have been added to the TL, and mostly by other people (Lahbas'  and , Yank's , Brian's  and Louis' ). I am not saying "everyone should listen to me", that is the last thing I want to do, but I would like to point out that I at least began the process that so many people want to complete: reunify the US.
 * Personally I am all for it. What I disagree with it is both the speed, extent and vehicle for the reunification. South, 1983: Doomsday is a dystopia and there is no getting around that. It was like this from the beginning when that anon first posted this TL (on a side note, that is the reason why I oppose immediate deletion of TLs created by anons, you never know when you will get the next 1983DD). Certainly I felt that it went to far, hence why I began expanding the size and scope of American survivors. Nevertheless, we must reunify America based in the spirit of the dystopia that this TL has always been. Thus it will not be a quick reunification, and when has life ever provided for a quick reunification. OTL, Korea is still divided and likely to remain that way for some time.
 * GBUSA, I still feel that you are to blinded by your own nationalism to realized how unlikely it is for a "majority reunification". Consider the theocratic Utah, ultra-nationalist Lakota or the "Kingdom" of Hawaii, would they really want to fly the Star and Stripes again? All have histories of American oppression, now they are free, why would they give that away? Also what about Superior who fought Canada to a standstill? They took on a major regional power and came out of it looking good. Are they going to surrender their hard fought international recognition to join a revised US? Also what about the American survivor states that include Canadians, or those who have officially adopted an anti-American policy, or even southern survivor states who fondly remember the CSA? It is more plausible for there to be a rump US instead of a majority reunification.
 * I still feel the NAU is the most realistic form to reunite the US, and even bring Canada into the fold as well. But hey, I created the article so obviously I am biased. Who knows, maybe the NAU is too optimistic of an idea to actually work. As the Restored US expands by swallowing smaller survivor states, the other members might freak and leave. At worse the Great Plains might break out into war as the USA's neighbors fight to prevent it from expanding. Just a thought.
 * Finally, one last thing. We never make decisions on 1983DD content by majority vote. You could present me with a 100 editor petition and it would not move me. We always follow consensus and QSS and QAA. They day when 51% of the editors can tell the other 49% what to do is the day I stop contributing to this TL for good. Mitro 16:31, March 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * Good points, Mitro. I definitely agree on the importance of consensus, QSS and QAA. Without them anything goes, including the rewrite and removal of articles and concepts you created (when I say you, I mean that in a general sense, not specifically to any one person here). 1983:DD may be one as bad of a dystopia as some would prefer, but it's still a dystopia. I wouldn't necessarily keep it that way if I were doing a future history of this world, but it's important we keep to what's been established as canon and work forward from that.
 * I see no problem with American survivor states improving their lot and working in a realistic time frame towards union. Reestablishing the world as it was before Doomsday I do have a problem with.
 * GBUSA, while it's true that there is a USSR in this timeline that country is not nearly as powerful and populated as its predecessor. It's largely like the rump USA is in North America.
 * I do want to clarify the CSA thing in that there was quite a bit of controversy over how the country was named and its identification with the Confederacy, and I wonder if I made that clear enough in the article. (I would say that the whole 'experiment' was viewed as a failure and that most in the region would be favorable to a union with the East American Alliance or a bona fide continuation of the USA.)--BrianD 17:52, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

Haha, Mitro you made me laugh when you brought up the nationalism thing, I had completely forgot about that thing! While to the more serious note,yes I do agree with your opinions, I know that America will probably never the same,but I would like it on the scale of the USSR,or ANZC. Maybe the US could control most of what is on the west side of the mississpi. Maybe Texas, MSP, Casacadia, Kentucky, USAR, Superior,and maybe a few others join, and I do have a feeling many of the Americans in Australia will come back(Possibly with a large amount of American Military there,maybe ANZC will give most of it to them,like they did with the Celtic Alliance) But like I say,just my opinion and dreams. And my final thing is thanks for telling me what QSS and QAA means, I had no clue! thanks again,and have a good day! God Bless the United States of America 20:13, March 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, my talk page suddenly got crowded. Thanks, GB. Anyway, some further points made from probably the oldest member (in chronological age) of this team to one of the youngest. Mitro indeed breathed life into the whole North American storyline by developing the North American Union concept. The MSP concept, was based on an earlier assumption (QAA that was challenged by a bunch of new American editors!) that the whole nation was basically toast. As we began to analyze this, we found that very few of the bombs were the mega-bombs that exist as prototypes, but rather thousands of smaller ones on the tips of ICBM missiles even to this day. Then, as we added up the targets, vast areas began to open up. Fallout proved less of a problem due to most of the bombs being in the air rather than on the land. Some writers were more pessimistic as to the ability of Americans to cope with the aftermath in areas cut off from the rest of the world. But all in all, optimism won out and "nations" began to pop up "everywhere." There may even be some areas that still need to be considered (but that's another discussion), but as it is, what we have created needs a lot of work.
 * To the point of the time frame - that was somewhat limited by the original premise in which the southern hemisphere was very slow in responding to the obvious disaster of the northern hemisphere. The League of Nations was founded a full thirty-five years after doomsday after a very limited interaction with North America in the early nineties. Siberia and Canada, along with the fringes of northern Europe, came to be known fairly early in the time line, but even then, there were a lot of missing opportunities for links with America that went totally unexplored. The articles on the numerous city-states and mini-nations (not "micro-nations") each had to be seen through the foundation of previously less optimistic lenses.
 * That being said, I disagree with the notion that not enough time has passed that this should happen within the forty-years of this time line (assuming this project can last another two years!). The nations and city-states have all learned of each other by now. America's southeast is one of the most patriotic region of the nation, only recently moderating from its solid conservative standards. I have the "most conservative Senator" (OTL) as the governor of Piedmont. Neonotia was established by moderate (Jimmy Carter), but South Georgia historically has been quite conservative. Patriotism is strong there (I grew up there, I should know). The tiny city-states in Mississippi will most gladly join up with the rebuilt state of Louisiana in whatever decision it makes (in OTL that would lean conservative. Down in the Caribbean, the United States Atlantic Remnant, is undoubtedly eager to reconnect even after a rude treatment from the APA (they still exist as a "government"!) now that the USA has established its legitimacy. There are others - like Delmarva and the Outer Banks - that are good candidates as well. --SouthWriter 21:19, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should move this to the main 1983:DD talk page.

A few points of clarification:


 * The LoN in canon was officially formed in 2008 - twenty-five years, not thirty-five, after Doomsday
 * The APA no longer exists in canon - it basically merged into the new Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand
 * I doubt that the ANZC is going to give up large parts of American machinery and military personnel, and for that matter neither would Mexico. This would include the Nimitz. Sharing the tech for that machinery to a potential ally is not out of the question; in fact, I would not be surprised to hear of a few super-carriers built in recent years by the ANZC, Mexico...and Brazil...that have not yet been mentioned in the TL for some strange reason ;) Mexico and the ANZC aren't going to leave themselves defenseless so the new USA can be as strong as it was before the war.
 * Because twenty-eight years have passed since DD, the American diaspora in Oceania and Mexico would have built ties with their new homelands, via family, friends, business, etc. I would expect some would want to return to their homelands, and many more than one might expect would choose to stay where they've been for almost three decades. But again, those are just a few of the matters that would need to be discussed. --BrianD 21:43, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

I think we are going to have to move it, my main browser is broken,and the one I am currently using is having trouble with editing this.God Bless the United States of America 21:57, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

As, in the other thread, it has already been pointed out, I think this would be impossible. The US was hit pretty hard in several parts, especially the Great Plains, the Southeast and southernmost California. It could be interesting for the PUSA to have some slightly larger territories to the west in the U.S Northwest, but I doubt the USA will ever be unified. And for now, I think that, although we might make it slightly larger, it should not expand very much, certainly not as much as Socialist Siberia (which is even a bit implausible in it's borders now), Turkey, or Greece. --Fed (talk) 22:11, March 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Fed, for your input. However, your estimation of the prospects of the revived USA is flawed. You have not taken into account the American spirit in the southern regions of the United States. The Southeast was not hit as hard as was the northeast (DC and up) and there are several viable provisional state (for now "nations") governments up and running. Your work on other parts of the world is admirable, but you have not worked on the USA remnant states as many of us have. Brian, Zack, and I have worked quite extensively - though perhaps not as diligently as we should be on updates - on numerous US states. Mitro, in his voluminous works, has done quite a bit as well. Other editors have had their American projects as well (I err on the short side in listing only a few). There is nothing to stop the USA from at least equaling the USSR in prestige if not in size. I doubt if a population like that of Siberia will be reached, but even that is possible for the associated North American Union (mostly former US states anyway).
 * As a compromise, on the world stage anyway, I think that the NAU will very soon emerge as an equal to the USSR. While the USA may remain small (I doubt it, but we'll see), the Union will thrive if we allow the "American spirit" to continue on the continent of its birth. SouthWriter 04:23, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

The thing I think you guys are missing in all of this is the nature of the new USA, and its claims to legitimacy. No matter what, not all of these "state" governments, or the like, are likely to actually accept them as being the USA. Their claims to be the new USA, despite the documents, etc. that were located allowing some sort of chain of command, are really quite flimsy, no matter how you look at it.

Size is unlikely, between the USA and USSR. Even with much of the former USSR closed off to them, the USSR will still be far larger, no matter how much the "USA" expands.

I would think, as well, that given the passage of time, and the establishment of at least one regional government that is obviously not the USA, even in the southeast American "spirit" would be vastly diminished. While news of the new USA would increase this, it still would be very low. The assumption that these states, among others, would just up and join a the new USA, even after more than 25 years of being without them, really just seems kind of silly. These nations, with a majority of the population having grown after the event, have a large group of voting citizens with little to no loyalty to the USA of old - thus, why would that be given to the new USA when it doesn't really exist? In a few states, maybe - but all of them? Not happening, despite what some of you may wish.

In the end, the new USA will likely end up stretching across the plains, from Oregon to Lakota to Louisiana, in a rough triangle, but not getting much further. Maybe add Florida to that, though that does seem sort of silly to me, considering its isolation in such a case. Lordganon 04:50, March 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Even if we assume there is pro-American sentiment in the southern states, it frankly might not be practical for them to unite with the USA in the west. As I and others have said, there are a lot of nations that might not be interested in joining up, making it difficult for the US to reach those states that would like to. Also there is some Confederate sentiment in the South (the 1860s version not the neo-Confederacy that failed ATL). Some southerners might prefer continued independence over uniting with a western upstart. For that matter the Western states and the Southern states don't always see eye to eye, despite the strong Republican support OTL. It could only take one issue/difference to put a wrench in the works. Mitro 15:13, March 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * First, LG, with all due respect, your rhetoric is breaking the spirit of a young American who happens to be proud of his nation (OTL). The fact that two nations established as "anti-American" (created and sustained by a Canadian, mind you) stand in the way of a total reunified nation does not preclude a reunion of many of the others. You discount the American spirit because a generation has grown up that would be less patriotic to the history from which they came. But is this "silly"? I have not advocated "all" states reuniting, and it appears that even GB does not hope for that. The CRUSA of TTL may hope for that, but that is not the aim of the USA as it "now" stands.
 * There would be an orderly offer to state governments that have formed as legitimate extensions of the old and of provisional governments formed upon verification or strong suspicion of the destruction of former governments. Right now, as TTL stands, the governments of the Dakotas, Louisiana, Georgia (Rome), Piedmont, Blue Ridge, and Kentucky are all good candidates. Other states that might be included are Delmarva, Florida, and the Sierra Nevada Union. The government of Neonotia (southern Georgia and Alabama), though formed out of crisis and separate from all ties to Atlanta, might even be interested. Texas will probably stay independent, for they have had a strong independent spirit for a long time. Hawaii and Alaska, now established as independent nations with international recognition, might be given a courtesy call, but nothing would be expected beyond that.
 * Mitro, as I outlined above, the south would be quite "connected" all the way to the Gulf and the Atlantic, so the disconnectedness you mention. While the USA will not have the "muscle" to enforce what the documentation gives it the "right" to as the authorized successor of the fallen government, the process can continue as "modern" communications have been restored. Leaders are venturing out across state lines sparingly as the LoN works in establishing the infrastructure. Americans have never seen "eye to eye" on everything -- including independence in the first place. Once independent, a two-party system formed almost immediately, arguing over how much power the centralized government would have. The new USA, if it is to succeed, will have to side with the diversified states over a centralized government (the present government in TTL is overwhelmingly Republican, the "small government" party). The states would remain "sovereign," and would join together to better trade with one another and the "outside" world.
 * The "Confederate sentiment" in the south in TTL has proven to be of a criminal nature, at worst, and a fringe movement at best. The break-away city-states (and larger "nations") that have "taken advantage of" the chaos will by nature wish to remain "outlaws," and will not be able to be brought back into a revived USA. The LoN of TTL does not have the authority nor the resources to enforce the legitimate wishes of the US government (validated by the only president of the APA), but if a "joining and receiving" process proceeds, I feel certain that the USA can see significant success before the 30th anniversary of Doomsday.
 * Finally, back to the "map" of the USA envisioned above. I myself see the USA stretching from Oregon to Florida, a rough parallelogram dividing the continent northwest to southeast. The frustration of living life separated from extended families for a generation will be enough, I think, to bring states under the umbrella of the USA and the constitution of their fathers. Yes, GB, the USA does exist even in TTL, and with a little co-operation, the editors can make it bigger and stronger. I am a realist, not an optimist. But I believe enough in the "idea" of America that I think this time line can resolve into a near future where far more Americans will live as one. E Pluribus Unum and In God We Trust!

~South

Funny, you managed to miss most of what I said, and managed to be very insulting at the same time! Good job. This is the last time I'll let that part slide, fyi - if you think I didn't notice all you said on those talk pages you are sadly mistaken.

There is no rhetoric here, but the plain and simple truth. GB - I assume that's whose spirit you are accusing me of breaking - is extremely biased on the subject of the USA, and it appears you are as well. Unable to see all the different trees in the forest, only seeing it as a whole, when that is not possible - referring to the different regions, states, etc. and the USA, respectively, of course. And don't ever apply Yank's attitudes to me again.

I suggest you go back and re-read all of what you and GB have both said, because it both cases it sounds a lot like you both assume and believe that all will reunite. And my "silly" remark - once again, you misinterpret what I say - is with regards to your assumptions. You and GB both assume that all of these nations, with decades of independence, would just up and rejoin a USA, with only the slimmest threadbare claim to be the descendant of the USA of old, despite the time that has passed. That is what is silly.

You missed my point that many of these provisional governments, and provisional state governments, are likely to not recognize the authority of the new USA at all, entirely. I am well aware of the ability of the new government to correctly establish a claim, but what on earth would stop these governments from ignoring it, or putting forth their own claims, using the same logic, which would have about the same level of authenticity? Not much.

Lordganon 19:32, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

I don't pay much attention to the North American portion of 1983:DD, but would it be fair to say that any revived US could be like the EU? There would be some strongly integrated areas (a Schengen Area, so to speak) in the US that exists currently in the timeline; more distant, independent nations (Virginia, Texas, Florida) might be analogous to how the UK is in the OTL EU - part of it, but not fully integrated, and with lots of internal debate over whether they should be part of the union or not. 'Just my two cents', as you guys would say. Fegaxeyl 19:45, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

Peace, guys.

Fegaxeyl, it certainly could be proposed, but the concept I think is not one that the American survivor states would be familiar and at ease with. My thinking is if there's going to be a United States, it's going to look like the old USA did (although the states may have increased power over a decentralized federal government).

I myself am wondering how the unification is going to occur...Hattiesburg and Louisiana are more or less allied with Texas, so I'm dubious they would choose a USA government over allies in Texas and Mexico they've worked closely with for the past three decades.

The link from south to west SouthWriter has alluded to before may have to come through Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri and Arkansas. Is that truly workable?

In fact...would it be possible to have two entities (south and west) claiming to be the United States of America? That would be an interesting storyline to explore, IMO. BrianD 21:47, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

I still find it extremely unlikely that the United States will ever be fully reunified. The new United States may just encompass the Great Plains. The US will likely never regain it's former glory. I find it impossible that the US will ever expand past the Mississippi. For every person in favour of reunification, there is likely an equal or greater amount against reunification. American reunification is like Quebec independence in OTL. Slowly but surely it loses it's support. Somehow I doubt most former American survivors are going to welcome the country that abandoned them with open arms. As time goes on, patriotism for America inevitably becomes patriotism for the local survivor state (Virginia, Superior, etc) and chances of successful reunification slowly shrink. By the time the new US gets the economic, political or military clout necessary to successfully regain its former territory, it will be far too late to do so. Besides, I refuse to degrade any of my American states into subdivisions. I refuse to sacrifice their sovereignty for what is effectively a lost cause. Yank 23:05, March 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not here. I'm off the Internet. But I stumbled back here in a moment of weakness and now I ought to weigh in. When we talk about "the American spirit" and "loyalty" and abstracts like that, I think the most crucial factor is not the 25-odd years of isolation. It's the intense psychological and social trauma that the nuclear war created. That level of trauma is almost unprecedented, but I think everyone can agree that it's going to create changes to the culture that are unpredictable. Some of this discussion reminds me of a much shorter one at about the spread of atheism vs. religion. Some people argued that a nuclear war would drive people toward God; others, that it would drive them away. I argued that it would affect different people in different ways. I think it would be the same with national loyalty, especially in a country like the USA where nationhood is more than a shared identity and is identified with quasi-religious ideals. Some people would I'm sure look at the aftermath of the Cold War, decide the whole America thing had sounded like a fun idea but hadn't been worth it in the end, and emotionally invest themselves in some other national construct. Others would look at the destruction and turn to American ideals as a source of strength; it would strengthen their resolve to identify as American. The USA's own national anthem is about getting bombed but surviving, after all. And even these two extremes don't cover all the possible attitude shifts that probably happened. Probably nobody celebrates "Americanism" more than the  Pioneers, but the Americanism they celebrate is vastly different from most other people - they argue that the whole concept of nationhood needs a radical change.
 * That's all. I'm going away again now. Benkarnell 01:00, March 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * To LG, I did not miss what you said. I do not appreciate being talked down to -- especially in threatening overtones. If you perceive my attitude as being insulting, I certainly did not mean it to be. I was only observing that GB is a newbie, and is only 13 years old. He has read our take on the USA and he does not like what he sees. He hopes that our story line will work out to a USA at least as respected as the USSR. That is not unreasonable -- and certainly not "silly." If you read everything he has written just in this string, you would see that he admits that everything is not going to be as it was. I was at pains to explain what was probably and what was possible -- never once even hinting at a 50-states reunion. I have not looked to the mid-west nor to the northeast for states with whom to negotiate.


 * As far as legitimacy for the USA, I have built that into the story, and it has passed inspection with not too much disagreement from the community. The fact is, communications would have had to been secure to Cheyenne Mountain in order to launch the counterattack. Also, the US government has contingency plans (and did in 1983) for a continuation of the government -- and not in 'exile.' I have worked around the decision made by the Reagan administration to relocate to Australia by making that decision be after plans had been sent and verified to the bunkers. Reagan's death, and Bush's actions after that in forming the APA, were unknown in Wyoming. It is not the "slimmest threadbare" evidence when you have documents, video and audio of said arrangements. Along with legal precedent - most states have constitutions almost identical to the USA -- and two hundred years of history to establish the accepted "law of the land." The US Civil War established that states cannot unilaterally leave the legal entity which is the United States. The establishment of the APA, and subsequent directives from that government for survivors to assimilate into the ANZC, do not negate the Constitution. The new governments that chose to declare their independence (having waited a reasonable time to do so) will be honored as such, but the provisional governments should have to show why they legally are "independent," especially given the intentional statements of their founders.


 * To Fed, Texas is "next door" to the USA, and has indicated that it would not join back with it. With this I concur. I think it will probably join the NAU eventually, though. The nation now known as Virginia in TTL has established itself as totally independent and allied with Kentucky militarily if not politically. Florida is a newly combined state (or nation) that could just as easily be part of the East Caribbean Federation as the United States. Unlike many states, though, the most conservative part of the state is not part of the new nation. I am not sure how it will go in this time line (and I'm a 'consultant' to that article).


 * Thanks again, Brian, for moderating this discussion. I never responded to your clarification above. Basically, I goofed in the mental math! I rounded up to "about thirty years" and then applied the "30" as if rounding down! -- or something like that. :(
 * As for the other points, the parenthetical statement they still exist as a "government" went with the USAR, not the APA. Furthermore, the USA is not asking for the assets claimed by and relinquished by the old APA. The movement to bring more states into the USA is a constitutional and legal one, not a political power play. The USA is not an enemy of the ANZC, nor of Mexico, and does not seek to expand via military means. It is certainly not a "competitor" for the "right to rule" former citizens.
 * As for the path to the Gulf and the Atlantic, I am confused as to how the present an past alliances that Louisiana and the Mississippi city-states have with Texas preclude rejoining the USA. These states have not joined politically with Texas, nor have the city-states of Arkansas, Oklahoma and Kansas. The loose alliances they have formed with neighboring city-states and larger entities are mostly for survival in a post-apocalyptic world. The stability that comes from union with a much larger nation should be welcomed, not shunned.
 * Oh yes, you wrote "if there's going to be a United States" -- there IS a United States! I understand "look like the Old USA" to mean governed like it, not total restoration. Yes the states will have their original "10th Amendment" (now numbered differently) rights, with the federal government held to the powers given it in the constitution. The government in Torrington will not be a mirror image of that in OTL -- not by a long shot. In fact, I have never got around to writing about a rebuilding of the capital there, so maybe no construction has happened yet. That way, moving the capital to a more centralized location now that the world is almost "back to normal" might be an option (after all, it took 24 years to move to DC).
 * I suppose it would be possible for two entities claiming to be the same successor nation (its happened before). However, the closest thing we have to a claimant in the south is the United States Atlantic Remnant which stood up to the APA (and prevailed, seeing that the APA dissolved) in doing the "right thing" for American survivors in the Caribbean. That is a military-directed provisional government loyal to the "old" USA. If the present USA has the legal standing - and it does - as the successor government to the USA, then the USAR as no problem helping that government in its goals (not by military might, but through political and legal means).
 * And finally, welcome back Yank. It's been a while. If you have followed closely so far, the aim of the USA is not the same as the CRUSA. The US government only seeks to expand its boundaries to states that are willing to return. Your notion, sounding a lot like a conviction, that the USA will remain as it has become so far, or at best never return past the Mississippi, is an opinion held by you and to which you are welcome. But to assume that this is a battle of opinions is to go against the spirit of the time line. Yes, it is a consensus, but that consensus is built on logic and reason, not on emotion.
 * That you should mention Superior as an example of a nation that would definitely want to remain independent is odd. That nation, though having militaristic tendencies, was established to be as much like the old USA as possible -- to the extent of rebuilding the White House and other monuments to maintain the history of the fallen nation. Aside from the fact that the whole nation is somewhat a stretch of logic (it's canon, and I'm not knocking it), having fought off the remnants of Canada (over land that Superior had no legal claim to) is not a reason for it to reject a chance to be part of something bigger. Virginia is, of course, your creation and premier contribution to this time line, so it is "off limits" as long as you are an editor. I will not reopen old arguments here or elsewhere on that matter. The same goes for the Republic of Lincoln.
 * The nation that is seeking to bring Americans back together is not the same government that abandoned them (not with "open arms" but rather with hands over its eyes!). That was the APA, not the Constitutionally established United States of America. The proposed expansion beyond the nine states in the plains is not even like that of the expansion west at the expense of the natives. This is but an attempt to reconcile with the Bush administration, but rather to remain loyal to the Constitution of the United States. The former states have "left" what they thought was no longer there. They have experienced independence in a world where alliances became not only necessary but essential. The original succession of the southern states has been labeled "the lost cause" because the federal government proved stronger than the state governments. The "new" USA will find strength in its states, and not the other way around. It is not "clout" that the new USA has, or wants, but rather unity among Americans. If there are Americans that eschew unity, then let them be [insert demomym here]'s. The days of "big government (in TTL) are far gone.


 * Thanks for weighing in, Ben. It's good to see you still are thinking of us. Lovely thoughts and ones we each should ponder - be we Americans, Canadians or Brits. Or any of the other various "clans" heard from on this wiki. SouthWriter 02:25, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

Excellent points, South.

Re: Hattiesburg and Louisiana - I'm caretaker of those states and developed their relationship with West Texas and eastern Texas (and Mexico). My thoughts continue to be that they are most familiar with the Texan/Mexican politics, economy and culture, and much more integrated with those entities than with even the memory of the U.S. There's certainly a lot of curiosity about the Torrington government, but short of a miraculous (and ASB) restoration of the previous government and military, the sentiment is going to be to stick with the status quo and go from there. I have established Louisiana and Hattiesburg as being in the Texas/Mexican orbit for quite some time. The benefits of the status quo may be much preferable to them over the benefits of joining a successor to the United States.

Arstar needs to be heard on this, as he is caretaker of at least two states South potentially sees as being part of the renewed USA - Superior and Stillwater.

Everyone, as we discuss this, even as we argue the various points and even be blunt in our views, let's above all things remain civil. South's pretty passionate about this, and I do think the idea is worth exploring. --BrianD 03:06, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

South, If you don't want to be talked down to at all, then quit trying to preach at us through very tinted glasses. And I don't threaten - I promise.


 * Condescension is conscious and rude on the part of the one addressing another in such a way and should not be part of a discussion such as this. I have tried my best to accommodate my assumptions to that of the time line, even stating at the very beginning that if I wanted it "my" way I'd start a new time line. Research beyond the surface revealed that there indeed would be contingency plans in place, that is not a "silly" assumption. My informed opinion is not "preaching" to anyone. For the record I did not say you made a threat (as understood as a imagined danger), but that you spoke "in a threatening tone." "In a promising tone" would be a bit ridiculous. SouthWriter 17:49, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

As I've said twice, that's not what I said was "silly."


 * GB is new, and he has yet to grasp the whole picture as to this time line, so his assumption that the USA could rebuild is at worst naive, not "silly." As for me, my support for him is not an agreement to his dream, but only a long held contention that this whole time line was conceived as an over-reaction to an unrealistic scenario. If it had not been for a handful of editors, most now administrators, there would be nothing but bands of marauders (a la "Mad Max") across the continent. We came to a collective agreement that such was not the case.
 * However, my position on the USA and its expansion, is the result of a discussion on the USA talk page back in August of last year. The concept of a group of states simply declaring themselves to be the successor of the USA is laughable. There has to be be a solid ground to that claim. After discussion, I worked out the present situation. SouthWriter 17:49, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

Posting in response to, but not commenting on the main body of, someone's post, is missing its point.

I did not say that it did not have some legitimacy, or even the most legitimacy of any potential successor, which next to the Remnant is true. It says in your article on the "continuation" that these are things that would be in more than one place, not just on the plains. And it's far, far, from being finished. As such, it is slim. Any other provisional, or surviving, state government can claim the same rights to be the official successor to the USA with just as much legitimacy, giving any organization they put together the same legitimacy as the new USA. Why on earth should they all recognize this government as being the official successor when all it has is a few recordings on them? Some would, but not all. It can, too, be argued that none of this movement on the plains would have happened, had Reagan actually grabbed a brain or tried to contact others, which I am sure other states would do, negating the orders given to the west and giving them reason to ignore it. Others could easily, and likely would, simply call the records falsifications. This is my point.


 * The article - 2010 US Congressional Report on the Continuation of the US Government (1983: Doomsday) is indeed unfinished, and still in the proposal stage. However, that article was written to explain what is happening on the main page. The portion that is finished clearly states that this is a legitimate government. The instructions that so far have not emerged in other state capitals would have set things up where they did - the article states that Reagan tells the general - "Get the message to Torrington."
 * If the USA had plans to invade the rest of the self-proclaimed nations your point might have some weight. But the fact is, it is proceeding on a schedule based on the founding documents and legal precedent. No other nation has come close to claiming to be the successor of the US, not even Delmarva which has oversight of the former capital city. Most states have either remained in "provisional" status or decided on the "independent nation" route. The proposed expansion of the USA does not negate these claims, though it might challenge some of them on legal grounds.
 * While it is true that the message did go out to other governments, it was also sent in code. The key to the code was sent separately, and as it turned out, the chain of command in other places did not put it into affect. The article clearly states that the military in Colorado contacted Reagan, and not the other way around. By the time this had been done, the administration had been persuaded to follow another path, but Reagan's last words to them indicate that those plans did not negate the original plan. In fact, he says, "If all else fails..." Any state that simply "called the records falsifications" would not have a legal leg to stand on. SouthWriter 17:49, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

Stillwater, as written, and Arstar seems to have planned it, etc. is close enough to a provisional state government to be called such.

Superior, however, while copying many of the US monuments, etc. simply wouldn't join. Not only is there substantial territory between them any any potential states, but they do have their own identity. As well, while CRUSCA is influential, as written Superior is only interested in joining the NAU in some future capacity. Nor would its Canadian element support joining the new USA anyways. Other signs, such as the UC, lend support to this. As a caretaker, with Arstar, of the article, that is also my position.

Lordganon 08:56, March 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * Stillwater, OK, would indeed be the capital of any proposed reconstituted Oklahoma, with the city-states of Antlers, Broken Bow and Hugo coming under its jurisdiction. Also these states have existed alone for 27 years, with scarce communications even to this day. They would likely as not consider joining with the legitimate successor of their former country.
 * As for Superior, I was just floating the possibility, not seriously considering that it would join even the NAU. I admit there may have been a bit of sarcasm there. In fact, the government of Superior makes no pretense of being a successor government, and would not be expected to accept an invitation to rejoin the USA. SouthWriter 17:49, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to cause an argument, I just want to see some of the USA reunified,enough to at least match the USSR. I am a proud American, I will never deny it, and I do admit my Patriotism can "blind" me at times(you know who you are.) My family has fought and lost many members at times to defend this land,and as such it breaks my heart to see the balkinzation( I know I misspelled) of the US. I do understand the US might never be the same as it was again,but I do not see why it cannot regain some power. I will respect the opinions of all however, and I thank South for sticking up for me, and LG I understand your comments. Maybe we could all make a article,take everyone's ideas, and make a partially reunified USA.God Bless the United States of America 15:18, March 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * I would say, then, that you do need to see things with a little perspective. This is a fictional world, one that is not exactly favorable to the USA to begin with, their having destroyed half the world, and all. I have felt for a while that the USSR, responsible for destroying the other half, came out of it with way to much going for it. That's more or less a function of there being very few editors with a deep familiarity with Russia. One or two people came out with a souped-up version of the new USSR, and we pretty much went with it. Since then it's been scaled back a little - it's no longer quite the world player it was in some earlier versions - but you're right, there is an imbalance in our treatment of the two superpowers. But ... as I've said before, history is full of things you don't expect, and in this version it so happens that the Siberians were able to cobble together a bigger successor-federation than the Great Plainsians.
 * Here's the way I see things currently:


 * Communication is improving across N. America at a rapid pace. Probably there is a growing awareness of the continent and of the former USA as an interconnected region, and so there is more discussion than ever about its joint future.
 * There are a range of opinions regarding the USA as an idea - ranging from fanatical loyalty to fanatical hate ("the USA's the reason my family's dead," etc). Most people's opinions fall more in the middle, though I'd think the majority would say they want their country to come back.
 * Ultimately what happens will be decided by changing circumstances, the interactions between popular feelings and the actions of leaders, and that hard-to-define thing called political will.
 * Above all: Though there may be moments when things seem to be happening all at once, the course of change is SLOW. The history of revolutions contains many false starts (USA Confederation 1777-1789, Europe 1848, possibly the Arab world 2011); dead ends (The UAR 1958-1961, Europe's myriad independence movements 1918-1920), small changes that accumulate over time (UK 1832-1928, China 1976-present), and changes that simmer for years and burst out all at once (Europe 1989, South Africa 1990-1994). And even when things move fast, they may feel slow by Internet standards.
 * That's all I have to say about that. I felt I should follow up on this discussion. 207.63.140.254 17:14, March 16, 2011 (UTC) (<-- Benkarnell, not signed in at work)
 * It's worth remembering when considering the imbalence between the two superpowers that the USSR is big and that all of its military instalations were concentrated in the west with a few naval bases in the east. This means that it was much easier for it to survive because there's all that space that wasn't nuked. The other thing I don't get is why the Americans would want to reunite. In the former UK there is a much easier pathway to reunification and they all have some sense of patriotism to the old UK and the Monarchy but me and the other UK editors have realised what the american editors seem to be incapable of grasping which is that over twenty years distinct national identities have developed. Yes, they work together in the OBN but its not like the CRUSA. Besides in America where there already were distinct diferences between the states I'd say that the likelyhood of distinct national identies forming was much higher. Vegas adict 18:06, March 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the discussion, Vegas. I didn't realize that you were a Brit, so the perspective is certainly welcome. Yes, Siberia is big, but it is also sparsely populated except in the cities (read 'nuclear targets'!). The success of the new USSR required the military stationed outside of targets being pampered by the surviving Communist leadership so as to subjugate the population of Mongolia and Kazakhstan, to feed the people of frozen Siberia. And then, it conquered Manchuria and Uyghuristan from the hapless Chinese. Yes, it became powerful and huge. But pure brute force does not make a nation great. The Siberians, along with the Soviet and Chinese states it absorbed, do not know the virtues of freedom and loyalty that make America great. At the time of Doomsday, Ronald Reagan had instilled a sense of pride in most of America. The economy was on the rise, though hampered by necessary defense spending. "We" had every reason to be proud. The vast majority of the nation would not know of the actions of its surviving government or the reasoning behind it. They would continue to have regional differences, and most would still consider themselves "Americans."
 * The national identity of the United States did not come about in a generation, and it would not be lost within twenty-five years either. As Ben just reminded us all, this is a fictional world. However, it is a fiction based on truths held for over two hundred years. The North American continent, like Asia is also Big with a lot of space that is better suited for survival than Siberia. The people of the emerging states of North America did not depend on conquest and subjugation to survive, but on determination. Adjoining states, for the most part, had to work together to survive. The old motto "E Pluribus Unum" (out of many, one) would hold true, perhaps even more so than the more basic official motto "In God we trust." SouthWriter 19:43, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

"Great Plainsians"? :-)

Thanks Ben, for once again speaking words of wisdom. However, things have not been going fast in this time line. Twenty-seven years is a long time. Besides, the movement to return to a continental nation versus a regional one can hardly be called a "revolution." If there are "revolutionaries" it is the brave state and local governments that took over in a time of dire crisis. One of the aspects of the "American Spirit" is that "rugged individualism" that is seen in such attempts. But another aspect of that same spirit is seen in the traditional motto: E Pluribus Unum- "out of many, one." That is, out of diversity, unity. Most of us have cousins that are "not like us," having grown up in different parts of the country. Many of us have "Virginian" blood flowing back to the 1600's. Our history holds us together, for better or for worse. And so, I can see both sides here, but stand behind the "movement" to bring North America's USA up beside Asia's USSR in 1983DD. SouthWriter 17:49, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

Virginian blood, thats the point. You have pride in being from one state which makes it more likely for distinctive indenties to emerge. With my point about the USSR being big I wasn't talking about the ATL USSR i was talking about the OTL USSR which is 2.3 times the size of the USA but had only around 1.3 times the Population. This means that the USSR was much better at being able to restore its power because its poplation density was much lower which makes all of the diference in the event of a nuclear war.Vegas adict 21:52, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

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

Wiki/Timeline/Article Technicals
Section archives: Page 1

Culture / Society
Archives: Page 1 • Page 2;

Miscellaneous discussion
Archives: Page 1 | Page 2

How does radiation travel?
An article I found on the io9 blog purports to give the skinny on radiation - what it does, how it affects people, how it can be treated, et al. Link found at this link.BrianD 23:40, March 16, 2011 (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).

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)
 * There is no hurry, Astar. No reason has been given why St. Augustine should be the capital - South Florida is indeed the strongest of the three nations, with international relations to the Caribbean. First Coast (aka East Florida) probably has connections with the Bahamas and perhaps Bermuda (though probably only through the Bahamas). North Florida (aka "Gainesville") has the University of Florida and possibly the remnants of the original state government, making it an obvious center of government as well. First Coast was a late comer in the development of this whole idea of a combined state and should not take the forefront (it is also manifestly weak, being in the midst of so many nuclear strikes). SouthWriter 23:49, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, I chose it for cultural reasons. St. Augustine is a very culturally significant place in Florida; it was one of the first European towns on the mainland and was where Ponce De Leon landed, as well as the location of the "Fountain of Youth". Plus, a unified Florida would need access to the Atlantic, and an Atlantic port would bring in lots of tax money, and that tax money would go to better the capital city and pay for government expenses "on the spot". Arstar [talk] 02:59, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no hurry, Astar. No reason has been given why St. Augustine should be the capital - South Florida is indeed the strongest of the three nations, with international relations to the Caribbean. First Coast (aka East Florida) probably has connections with the Bahamas and perhaps Bermuda (though probably only through the Bahamas). North Florida (aka "Gainesville") has the University of Florida and possibly the remnants of the original state government, making it an obvious center of government as well. First Coast was a late comer in the development of this whole idea of a combined state and should not take the forefront (it is also manifestly weak, being in the midst of so many nuclear strikes). SouthWriter 23:49, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, I chose it for cultural reasons. St. Augustine is a very culturally significant place in Florida; it was one of the first European towns on the mainland and was where Ponce De Leon landed, as well as the location of the "Fountain of Youth". Plus, a unified Florida would need access to the Atlantic, and an Atlantic port would bring in lots of tax money, and that tax money would go to better the capital city and pay for government expenses "on the spot". Arstar [talk] 02:59, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, I chose it for cultural reasons. St. Augustine is a very culturally significant place in Florida; it was one of the first European towns on the mainland and was where Ponce De Leon landed, as well as the location of the "Fountain of Youth". Plus, a unified Florida would need access to the Atlantic, and an Atlantic port would bring in lots of tax money, and that tax money would go to better the capital city and pay for government expenses "on the spot". Arstar [talk] 02:59, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, I chose it for cultural reasons. St. Augustine is a very culturally significant place in Florida; it was one of the first European towns on the mainland and was where Ponce De Leon landed, as well as the location of the "Fountain of Youth". Plus, a unified Florida would need access to the Atlantic, and an Atlantic port would bring in lots of tax money, and that tax money would go to better the capital city and pay for government expenses "on the spot". Arstar [talk] 02:59, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

While it may be the only port on the Atlantic, the other side of the peninsula is close enough so that such an argument means little.

Besides, it is also the weakest of the three. If anything, the strongest is the state in southwest Florida. Which is much more likely to be the capital - besides, it's also where the LoN is active.

Lordganon 07:30, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

I really don't mind what city becomes the capital, St. Augustine could be..the Croydon of Florida ( Indiana's first capital ) it can be the face of Florida and have its historical meaning, but with out being the real seat of the government, and have one of South Florida's citys host the government...being like Indianapolis.--Sunkist- 08:26, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Even then, the other two nations both would have like seven times the population of First Coast - each. The Corydon comparison isn't really applicable - at least when it was made the capital it was in the most populated area of the state, while St. Augustine isn't.

Lordganon 08:50, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

I've given up trying to change people's minds when they disagree but technically St. Augustine was the capital back in the day, of Spanish Florida, and it was one of the first colonial settlements on the East Coast. Arstar 00:10, October 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * So what prevents this article from being graduated? Does the capital just have to be changed?  Mitro 16:52, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall that was the only issue left, though that may be wrong. Lordganon 22:35, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

Have I satisfied the objections to the capital issue? If there aren't any objections to that I'm graduating the article a day from now. Arstar 21:44, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Arstar, you still have St. Augustine as the capital, so the objections remain. More than half the population here is in South Florida, so the capital would be there more likely than not - besides, they are also the strongest and best connected by far.

The largest city, as I'm noticed, is also wrong. Cape Coral-Fort Myers (even taking them separately) is much larger than Gainesville would be.

Lordganon 21:57, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the largest city but what I don't get is that while South Florida might be more economically exposed buts its one of the least favorable places to put a seat of government. You have constant heat, hurricanes, and occasional flooding. If your going to have to call an emergency every month and move upstate you might as well stay there. Believe me, I live in South Florida, and you spend half the year with shutters on your windows or the governor is calling a state of emergency. Besides 2/3 of the nations are in North Florida.

Gainesville is basically "New Miami", as thousands of Miami college students who hate UM go up there to study at UF instead. Personally I wouldn't see anything wrong with this city being the capital but other than the University and immediate areas its pretty poor and boring.

Saint Augustine, however, has both the infrastructure and the cultural significance to be the capital. It is small, yes, (not counting tourists and Canadians and Northerners who fly south for the winter) but it is the oldest continuously inhabited settlement in the US, and it was the capital of Spanish Florida, so it does have some experience as capital. Plus an Atlantic port is pretty needed. Arstar 02:35, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

The population is centered in the south to a large degree - more than half of the population would live there, which should trump or equalize the number of northern states. You have the capital being put in the weakest one of the three, by far, which makes little sense, as others noted.

St. Augustine may have been the capital of Spanish Florida, but it hasnt been the capital in almost 200 years. And that was with the Spanish, not anyone speaking English. I sincerely doubt anyone there would have such an attachment.

I'm aware of the weather reasons for South Florida, but it's Florida. The other two would face similar problems, though maybe not so severe. As for an Atlantic port, South Florida is so close that it's irrelevant.

Quite frankly, even Gainsville would be better - the First Coast is quite frankly too small and impoverished for it even to be a thought.

Lordganon 12:20, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

And since you have South Florida subsidizing First coast with taxes after the union, they would insist on having the capital not there too, and likely in their territory. Lordganon 12:26, December 14, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with LG I don't see why the future united Florida would give a rip about what the Spanish did many, many moons ago. It really should be Gainsville or the Cape Coral-Fort Myers region. Furthermore, does St. Augustine have the facilities necessary to be a capital? Considering what LG said above regarding poverty in the region that is doubtful. --Zack 00:45, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Can't stay away.. here are some buildings that could be used by the government, large Hotels usually have large ballrooms or parlors that could be converted into a meeting room for the senate or House of Reps.---Sunkist- 06:26, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Way I figure it, a lot of those are part of the College, and would likely be kept as such - education is important, after all. The one hotel would have had guests in it, and I kinda doubt they'd have left in the aftermath of DD. The other would probably have become home to refugees, given its restored condition, even if it was on the college campus.

Not to say they couldn't be used, but it's just kinda problematic, really. Both Gainesville and Cape Coral-Fort Myers would have more - and the university campus in Gainsville is much bigger and could in part be used for the purpose.

Lordganon 08:02, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

LG is right, my objections still stand. --Zack 02:13, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we take a vote to see what should be the capital?

What should be the capital? St. Augustine Cape Coral-Fort Myers area Gainesville Other

Arstar the problem with this poll is that it leaves people open to vote for what they want rather then what is plausible. The best way is still debate. These votes are anonymous and leaves a user open to voting multiple times for the option they desire. --Zack 18:16, December 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. These things work for minor things, like flags, but the capital of a country must be determine by the consensus of the community after some healthy debate.  Mitro 20:16, December 20, 2010 (UTC)

With that the poll is null & void. --Zack 02:59, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

Below is some discussion from Sunkist's talk page posted here for transparency

I'm rooting for St. Augustine to be capital, and after that Cape Coral, but Gainesville is total trash redneck world. The only thing worthwhile there is the University, and even thats pretty crappy. Arstar 21:00, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to break in here, guys, but that is a value judgment that is fully out of line! Just because you live and grew up in South Florida doesn't mean you can badmouth the good folk of North Florida. I grew up in North Florida, and indeed we are not as "high class" as the "blue-blood" rich. But we are not less able to run the state!

Gainesville is the logical choice. As it is the home of the state's main university, it has is organizationally set to run things professionally. The "rednecks" you are thinking of are mostly in the western half of the state anyway. So cut with the "trash talk," okay. St.Augustine, on the other hand, in this time line anyway, is an isolated city-state with bombed out cities all around it. Even its Atlantic coast port is inferior to that of Cape Coral's Gulf coast. Access to Mexico, Jamaica, and Cuba, trumps that to the Bahamas and Bermuda (and even the American East Coast as of 2010. My choice would be Gainsville, then Cape Coral. SouthWriter 21:25, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with South, those bigoted remarks do not belong in this wiki. Secondly I encourage the three of you to post your comments regarding the capital for a united Florida on the main 1983: Doomsday talk page so the debate can be open and transparent for all contributors to this timeline. --Zack 21:39, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

I'm allowed to ask another user, who is the co-caretaker on what I thought the capital should be on his talk page if I want.

Also, the reason I wanted St. Augustine as capital is because it balances out the differences between North and South Florida. Even though Miami was destroyed, roughly somewhere between a fifth and a quarter of the Republic of South Florida's population is Hispanic. And I can tell you right now that growing up in South Florida its' like going to a different country once you go above Lake Ockeechobee. Hey, even in our timeline, there's been multiple grassroots movements for South Floridian statehood.

East Florida, or the First Coast if you may is kind of a balanced-out zone between the Southern North and the Northern South. It has a bit of each, or maybe neither, but you catch my point. Arstar 00:36, December 22, 2010 (UTC)

Guys, how about this, how about Gainesville will be a long-term, but temporary capital, until a sort of Federal District, which may or may not be centered around St. Augustine is created? 21:20, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Gainesville makes the most sense. Its pretty centralized between the three states, and has the facilities for a capital. If Lakeland is claimed, it would probably make a good location too, being central to all three.--Oerwinde 22:27, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

It really just seems like a waste of time and money to first place the capital in Gainesville then move it to St. Augustine a few year later. Plus as Oerw said above it just makes sense to put it in Gainesville and keep it there. --Zack 02:03, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Nobody said that it'll be in St. Augustine for sure, and nobody said it's going to be a few years from now. All I'm saying is that Gainesville isn't going to be the permanent capital forever. Once the situation pacifies completely in Florida a federal district will be created, sometime around 2025 maybe.

So for now let's keep it at Gainesville. Are there any other objections to graduation? FYI the further details will come in when it actually becomes a nation. Arstar 04:49, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Actually changing it would be needed first, as would be a section on a possible federal district somewhere eventually. Lordganon 08:37, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Let also wait for what South thinks. Personally I wouldn't graduate anything on here until Boxing Day (Sunday) seeing as many of us we'll be celebrating Christmas or some incarnation of it. --Zack 15:52, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Mmhmm. And LG, what exactly do you mean? The federal district could likely be on the shores of Lake Okeechobee, near Arcadia where I went recently, or like I said Saint Augustine or Lakeland. 22:37, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

What is going on with this article? There is line saying it would have been formed in January and we are now passed that. Mitro 15:14, February 11, 2011 (UTC)

Me & South's proposal for the American Shadow Government post-Doomsday. --GOPZACK 02:12, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * So what is going on with this article? Little work has been done, are there plans to move it toward graduation? If not is someone willing to adopt it? Mitro 04:18, November 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's somewhat complete from what I can tell, but it's not really enough to warrant a graduation, should we mark it as a stub? If south and Zack would come back to it later, than they could finish it then. Arstar 16:27, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's somewhat complete from what I can tell, but it's not really enough to warrant a graduation, should we mark it as a stub? If south and Zack would come back to it later, than they could finish it then. Arstar 16:27, December 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * I want to conference with South first. --Zack 17:13, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

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


 * Arstar started this but for whatever reason he doesn't have the time at present to fully develop the article. I'm going to go ahead and get it started this week, and Arstar and everyone is welcome to contribute as they have the time. By the way, New Zealand is not a state :) .... but I see where someone might come to that conclusion, given how the ANZC has been presented thus far, hence the ongoing effort to determine exactly what the Commonwealth is and isn't. BrianD 17:11, October 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we've been using the word "state" to refer to the members of the ANZC... but what with both Australia and Micronesia consisting of numerous "states" you're right that it's a poor term. "Constituent countries" might actually not be a bad one. Benkarnell 03:27, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

I would like ideas on what to do with this article. This is another article that Arstar has begun and then dropped. There are some good ideas here, but (like many of you) my time is limited and I don't have as much time as I would like to spend on the TL in general. I would argue that we need to nail down exactly what the Commonwealth is, and what Australia and New Zealand's roles are within that Commonwealth. The question regarding this article is do we label it as a proposal, or a stub? Deletion isn't really an option. I don't have a lot of ideas for Australia or New Zealand, and I think we should open this to someone who has the interest and the time to spend on it. --BrianD 16:11, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am going to mark this article as open for adoption. Mitro 16:53, December 8, 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)

I disagree with you, Ben, on communication not being what it once was. I think by now society in general has returned back to 1980s levels in the ANZC, South America, Mexico, and perhaps other places like the Phillippines, parts of Europe and Siberia, Singapore, and the most advanced states in North America. In fact, it's long been canon in this TL that just a couple of years ago that Paul Keating gave a speech that was seen worldwide on TV. It would be most correct to say that technologically TTL is at least a couple of decades behind OTL. I'm also working on the ANZC article now, and initially am being pretty vague as to the layers of government within the Commonwealth. But I expect that the details will get filled in as we continue the discussion of the ANZC government. --BrianD 22:48, September 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * I meant more in the earlier days, around the time that the ANZC was formed. Its institutions would have been crafted to fit the world of 1995, and at that point we know that people Down Under still had basically no idea what was going on in most of the world. I mentioned communication to argue against the idea of dissolving Australia's state governments. Benkarnell 03:25, October 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said with New Zealand, Arstar started this but currently doesn't have the time to fully develop it. I'll start the article this week, and everyone is welcome to contribute as they have time. Arstar, as I understand, will write up sections regarding Australia's aboriginal people as he has time. BrianD 17:13, October 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like ANZ is being presented as a much looser organization than has been understood so far. I think that's fine (and it may be the only way to do this realistically) but I disagree with Australia being militarily independent. A combined military would definitely be one of the main reasons for creating the ANZC, and we've always talked about it having a united armed forces. Benkarnell 03:30, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

I would like ideas on what to do with this article. This is another article that Arstar has begun and then dropped. There are some good ideas here, but (like many of you) my time is limited and I don't have as much time as I would like to spend on the TL in general. I would argue that we need to nail down exactly what the Commonwealth is, and what Australia and New Zealand's roles are within that Commonwealth. The question regarding this article is do we label it as a proposal, or a stub? Deletion isn't really an option. I don't have a lot of ideas for Australia or New Zealand, and I think we should open this to someone who has the interest and the time to spend on it. --BrianD 16:10, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am going to mark this article as open for adoption? Mitro 16:54, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * If nobody's going to come around and adopt this, I think it's stub time. Arstar 00:52, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

I oppose that, either adoption or obsolete until someone adopts it. --Zack 02:13, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Right now I'm working on the New Zealand article so I donno if im not never going to come back to this one. Arstar 15:04, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Anyone interested in adopting this? --Zack 15:55, March 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * If no one else is interested, I'll adopt it since I'm already the caretaker for the ANZC. But...if anyone else is willing to adopt it, go for it! BrianD 19:00, March 2, 2011 (UTC)

Made this page a while back and South started expanding it. Arstar 09:18, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Are there any objections to passing this as a stub for now? Arstar 05:20, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * We should pass stubs only if the subject of the article is firmly encased in canon. Let it remain a proposal until you or South are ready to return to it again or put it up for adoption.  Mitro 16:36, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Owen but improved by others. Mitro 17:32, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Is this article ready for graduation, or do the authors want to fill in a tad bit more? Arstar 05:41, November 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I would like to do a little more work on the article itself. I realize I'm not the original creator of the idea of Elizabeth City, but I would like to do some work on its early history and then run it by Brian for review. Mitro 16:38, November 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you run it by Brian yet? I mean, it looks pretty finished, and it's kinda just sitting here. Arstar 07:56, December 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * I need to complete the history, but Brian has already heard the outline and I believe he approves of it. Mitro 03:22, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Obsolete article resurrected by Arstar. Mitro 16:18, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

I have a question concerning this article, who currently is the caretaker? I ask because amongst my other work I have been studying up on Iceland out of curiosity and feel I could flesh this out more so it would be realistic. However, I don't wish to intrude on someone else's project. Thanks.--Fxgentleman 15:43, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe it is Arstar. I think if you ask though he would be willing to let you takeover. I do believe he is trying to shorten his list of proposals. Mitro 19:32, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I spoke with him and he gave me the okay to move forward.--Fxgentleman 03:45, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

An obsolete article resurrected by myself. Its a brigand group made up of former fraternity guys who banded together shortly after Doomsday when chaos broke out across Central Illinois. Mitro 16:18, October 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Defunct state, armed faction sans territory, something else? Benkarnell 23:06, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * More like what I am doing with the Chinks in Eureka. Just another group of survivors who became hard cases.  Mitro 04:20, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Caer. Mitro 13:43, October 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * So what is going on with this article? Mitro 16:58, December 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Him and Fx have been planning it out, and making smallish edits. But they are definitely working on it. Lordganon 22:32, December 8, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Arstar. Mitro 04:23, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Arstar. Mitro 17:15, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Per a discussion I had with Arstar some weeks back, I am going to be taking over writing this article. Just thought I would let you know.--Fxgentleman 18:59, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Fx, I know your a busy person and all that, but do you have anything planned for the article? If not, than it may be time to make it obsolete. Arstar 21:26, December 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Leave it as a proposal until Fx or someone else wants to work on it. Considering that it is another former state article, there is no sense marking it as obsolete.  Mitro 22:12, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

I have not been online for some time given both the heavy demands of my job and the fact I am currently on vacation and logged in yesterday for the first time via my laptop. It is my intention to return to what I am working on, especially my work on Nevada, Iraq, Greenland, and Iceland among other areas. Per the question, I do have something I am working on for NV and need to finish it. I hope this helps. --Fxgentleman 18:34, January 2, 2011 (UTC)

Article by Caer, part of the Turkey set of articles. Just a stub at the moment. Mitro 18:24, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by HAD. Mitro 14:33, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to edit this chaps. I am rather busy at the moment.HAD 20:25, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

How can we determine if a nations has nukes or not? It is pretty much a fact that the new United States must have at least one remaining nuke as there were many missile silos in Montana, some of which's existence were only revealed recently. Arstar 22:00, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Those silos were also targets on Doomsday. Even if a few missiles remained in the silos they were likely destroyed. Even if they did survive, it takes a lot of tech and experts to keep a nuke in good shape. It isn't the type of technology that will work like it is brand new after storing it underground for 100 years. I really doubt that the survivors in the area would give the time and energy necessary to keep them operational...if there were any left around of course. Mitro 22:04, December 13, 2010 (UTC)

Most of the nuclear weapons floating around would be tactical nuclear weapons, such as nuclear artillery, short-range mobile launched solid-fuel missiles, and small aerial bombs, which were assigned to various front line units on both sides. Most of the larger missiles that required silos would either be destroyed during Doomsday or fallen into disrepair, though many nations would now be developing the capabilities to rearm any surviving missiles. Caeruleus 19:26, December 18, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Smoggy. Mitro 14:57, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Following advice from the talk page i have removed reference to a Nuke in Tripoli.--Smoggy80 19:40, December 11, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Arstar. Mitro 15:00, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I plan on contributing to this page. Benkarnell 23:03, November 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take suggestions, and I know you asked me a while back to edit it but I'd rather see what your plans are before you edit it. Arstar 21:48, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take suggestions, and I know you asked me a while back to edit it but I'd rather see what your plans are before you edit it. Arstar 21:48, December 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I've posted my general idea to . Benkarnell 17:54, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

Some research will have to be done into locating where these places were. Information *is * a valuable resource. Jackiespeel 17:46, November 18, 2010 (UTC)

Article by me. Arstar 05:30, November 19, 2010 (UTC)

Are there any objections to graduating as a stub? Arstar 01:23, November 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Arstar, I didn't get a notification when you put the article up. It looks to me like this city-state would have been discovered and mentioned by the explorers from Superior on there way to Madison. It's not like they would be depending on hearsay from wondering clans. Their troops would have gone straight through the county. SouthWriter 19:11, November 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Meaning what? Arstar 23:27, November 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Need I remind you of the stink LG gave Sunkist over the interpretation of the reports out of Indiana. A mention of "others" was taken as gospel truth. The Superior article trumps all others written after it. No mention of Winneconne would be inexcusable since such a big deal was made of finding Madison. I don't have to draw a map -- explorers from Superior would definitely have contact with Winneconne. SouthWriter 01:48, November 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Need I remind you of the stink LG gave Sunkist over the interpretation of the reports out of Indiana. A mention of "others" was taken as gospel truth. The Superior article trumps all others written after it. No mention of Winneconne would be inexcusable since such a big deal was made of finding Madison. I don't have to draw a map -- explorers from Superior would definitely have contact with Winneconne. SouthWriter 01:48, November 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem with the history of Superior is that it specifically stated that Indiana had fallen another fate. Also remember how many other states were formed in the path of the Superior expedition that weren't mentioned in the report. Arstar 02:00, November 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * All the Superior article states is that nomads said they knew of other nomads in Indiana and other places in the Midwest. The article is very specific about the fate of many of the cities along the coast of Lake Michigan and about the liberation of Madison. To assume that they totally "missed" Winneconne is quite a stretch. Of course, you are currently overseeing Superior, so I suppose you could rectify this problem fairly easily. However, I think we need to leave the proposal up for further review before moving it to stub status. --SouthWriter 02:21, November 28, 2010 (UTC)

Here's my solution and I want to run it by you. Since this way written at the same time as the Superior rewrite started, I am going to treat it as part of the rewrite, as it wouldn't be fair to just let Canadian states go by and not anyone else, right? Arstar 00:38, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Okay then, any objections to graduating to stub? Arstar 01:01, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Arstar, just because you are the "caretaker" does not give you the right to rape and pillage canon for your own benefit. The rewrite concerning the survivors in Southern Ontario was a rare, rare exception that was only done due to a great implausibility. This does not happen often, nor should it take precedent. If the article says what South says it does (and I have no reason not to believe him) then this article will not work. --Zack 03:08, December 21, 2010 (UTC)

So basically, we're going to have to make it obsolete because it's not mentioned? I mean seriously there's been alot of nations that have arisen in the path of the expedition that weren't mentioned, or were even mentioned as being in lawless areas. Arstar 21:20, December 23, 2010 (UTC)

Basically. --Zack 02:10, December 24, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Yank. Mitro 16:42, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Bob. Mitro 14:21, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by a new user, but edited by several editors. I believe Vlad is trying to adopt it. Mitro 17:44, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

Yes, indeed I am.--Vladivostok 18:28, November 23, 2010 (UTC)

Article by Caer. Mitro 01:23, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Article by Lukesams. Mitro 01:23, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

This article is highly implausible, stating all of the restaurants were back to normal by 2005. It's kinda just sat here for the past 21 days or so. I'd move it for adoption, but seeing how few articles people adopt these days, are there any objections to making it obsolete? Arstar 16:08, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the article itself is very plausible. Some of the lines are merely not.

This chain had its headquarters in Kentucky, and most of its locations were in that region. It's survival makes sense, as a matter of fact.

And you do forget that I have been doing these adoption articles a bit as of late. Push comes to shove I'll get to it eventually.

But, considering how old this one is, it should remain as it is right now. Heck, its not even a month old yet.

Lordganon 17:36, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Long John Silver's, in OTL and TTL, is a fast-food seafood restaurant. You can grow chickens in Kentucky, but where would they get their fish? You could have local restaurants near lakes and streams, but would that be enough to provide stock for a fast-food chain in TTL? If we can answer that in the affirmative, I say we rewrite the article as needed, and graduate it. If the premise isn't workable, then I say delete the article.BrianD 21:26, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a massive chain or anything, but it could definitely survive in some form. But, I figure you'd have fishing in the big rivers too, eventually, which would be a pretty good stock. Lordganon 22:16, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Good point, LG. Perhaps beginning with a sit-down restaurant in the largest city (Lexington), possibly becoming a chain of sorts this decade, expanding into the capital (Elizabethtown) and the second largest city (Evansville)? What about Long John Silver's in TTL morphing from a fast-food restaurant pre-DD into a sit-down restaurant, similar in concept to the one national OTL sit-down seafood chain I can think of: Red Lobster? BrianD 03:50, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. Though, they did already have chains throughout the region, don't forget. Lordganon 07:58, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

True. Why would someone resurrect Long John Silver's and not Red Lobster? Perhaps nostalgia. LJS was founded in Kentucky...Lexington, Kentucky, in 1969. That, and Kentucky copyright law may have been more lenient regarding local pre-DD corporations than with out-of-state corporations...but that is a question for Zack (and perhaps Mitro) to answer. BrianD 18:51, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, its not even a matter of resurrecting, really - just survival. LJS remained headquartered in Lexington until the late 1990s, when it moved to Louisville, so even the corporate staff would still be alive. Red Lobster didn't really get out of the southeast until later than 1983 - any revival there would be in one of the Florida states, likely First Coast. Lordganon 19:48, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

Article by Caer. Mitro 01:23, December 15, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Arstar. Mitro 15:00, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Could someone rename the file "Gettysburg"? I'm having trouble renaming files at the moment. Arstar 22:26, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

Done.

Lordganon 22:30, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If someone is interested in adopting this page, let me know. My only guidelines is that its going to be based in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and is a recently reestablished city-state. Arstar 22:57, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking into making a state here for a while - but those conditions dont fly with my plans. A shame.

Irregardless, my research into the area shows that the radiation from strikes in Maryland and DC would have passed to either side, for the most part. The area would have been lightly irradiated, but by no means rendered uninhabitable by it.

Lordganon 23:21, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

...Which is why its recently resettled, but recently can mean a lot of things. Any reinhabitation happening after 1999 is my only request. Arstar 01:43, November 18, 2010 (UTC)

I more-so meant that there'd be no need to resettle it, as no one would have left originally.

No matter.

Lordganon 01:51, November 18, 2010 (UTC)

Anyone interested in adopting this article? --Zack 03:11, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

I know LG has shown interest in it, but I don't think he's gotten around to working on it so far. Arstar 22:30, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Like I said before, my idea for this nation doesn't fit with your requirements/guidelines. Without those I'd gladly take a crack at it when I have time. Lordganon 13:58, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

My feelings on putting an article up for adoption before it becomes canon is that whoever adopts it can do whatever they want with it.Oerwinde 01:53, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to make a note that this had been fixed from its original state by South and Mitro. Just needs to be finished now, if someone is willing.

Lordganon 11:35, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

I had an opportunity to review this article for the first time today and was very surprised to find what had been written in regards to Atlantic City and Delmarva. It bears no resemblence what so ever as to what I have been planning for my article, which I laid out on the discussion page today. It defintely must be rewritten and I would like to do so to bring it in line with what I am doing. However, I am in the dark as to whose article this and would like the okay before I proceed in doing anything. If anyone can give me some guidance here, I would be appreciative. --Fxgentleman 00:45, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

FX, the article apparently was started by an anon user. Mitro, LG, South and Zack helped bring it up to standards, so the caretaker seems to be the community at large. The history of the former state still has yet to be fully recorded, as it were. BrianD 03:44, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

More or less. Do as you want to it, Fx. This is still here because none of us have the time or desire - or knew your intentions/plans - to actually fix it more than we already did. Lordganon 07:59, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

I thank both of you for the information you provided me, it is very helpful. As LG correctly points out I never did mention anything specifically other than a passing mention in my Delmarva article as to what my intentions were. I had held off saying anything until I had the article researched and planned out so I could field any questions. I was just suprised the writer had taken the time apparently to read my article but did not give me a heads up as to what he was doing. I literally stumbled across it. I guess one of the concerns I have is somebody says something in another article which become canon without my knowledge and I go to write something in my article and I am told no, you can't say that, its canon. After last years problems, I try to be very careful about things. Thanks again. --Fxgentleman 17:18, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

Heh. You've South to thank for it looking at least like this, the original author had started it as a nation-state in northern New Jersey. This article will remain a proposal until you change everything you see fit, lol. Lordganon 19:51, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

Article created by Smoggy. Mitro 03:34, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Article created by Arstar. Mitro 03:42, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Article created by Yank and later graduated as a stub, but now being expanded on by Vlad. Mitro 03:42, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Article created by MasterSanders. Mitro 03:42, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Article created by Smoggy. Mitro 03:42, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

Westmorland and Furness Alliance
An article created by me due to the split in Rheged --Smoggy80 18:36, January 27, 2011 (UTC)

Article by Armachedes.

Lordganon 05:26, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Filling in a gap from earlier page on. Benkarnell 06:25, February 15, 2011 (UTC)

Seoul
It is a city proposal by me, PitaKang. PitaKang 01:24, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

I think it's ready. Any objections? PitaKang- (Talk|Contribs) 21:51, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

Same one as I've told you several times now with regards to the terrorists. Lordganon 05:08, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

So.... no more objections? PitaKang- (Talk|Contribs) 22:30, March 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * What does LG have to say? Mitro 03:05, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

The_Former_Beatles_(1983:Doomsday)
I started an article on the actives of the Former Beatles(Paul, Ringo,George) following the 1983 Doomsday Event. I hope to finish it soon. Is this an acceptable topic to write about? If not please let me know. (Jer1818)


 * I've moved this section from the archive page to this one. Let's see where the page goes, since for now it's just a recap of the OTL biographies up to 1983. Benkarnell 04:56, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome, Jer! I've made a few comments on the article's talk page. BrianD 06:49, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I updated Paul's and Ringo's Postdoomsday activities...read them and let me know what you think Jer1818 22:16, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Issaquah-Snoqualmie
I made an article stub for a survivor community in the Cascades near where I live. The geography of the area forms a pretty protected valley in Issaquah (It's located between two mountains and home construction on those mountains had yet to begin in earnest in 1983 - they arrived as a result of the Microsoft boom. This also means that the population would be smaller than in OTL, since Issaquah's growth spurt didn't happen until this past decade.) There are a lot of highlands and whatnot in Issaquah proper to protect the city from the shockwaves 25 miles away in Seattle, although some radiation would probably occur there too.

Snoqualmie itself is located further up the mountains, near the town of North Bend. Don't worry, I'm not trying to turn North Bend into a massive empire like *cough* certain people did, but its protected up in the mountains and is far enough away from Seattle to suggest that it would have survived almost completely intact. I propose Issaquah-Snoqualmie as a minor conurbation of small communities stretching through the Snoqualmie pass from up in the mountains to the foothills. Pasco is pretty far from this area but likely enjoys healthy trade with Issaquah-Snoqualmie thanks to their outposts in central Washington (Ellensburg), as is established in canon. Again, to reiterate, I'm not trying to transform the Issaquah-North Bend corridor into a mighty Cascade empire - it would be a self-sufficient, hectic and maybe even wild-west style survivor town in most of the 1980's saddled with refugees from the Seattle/Bellevue area.

On the note of Victoria, I doubt that at least until the mid-2000's or even now, they would have bothered crossing an irradiated wasteland to get to Issaquah, even though the communities between Issaquah and Snoqualmie technically fall within their claimed territory.

Issaquah, culturally, was much more of a rural and exoburban city in the 1980's, even though today it's full of rich assholes (My personal bias. Fuck those guys.)

KingSweden 19:53, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Well, looking at the much more zoomed in map on the Victoria History article itself I think it could work in some form. Issaquah is on the border line, and the other community is definitely outside of it. Though, that map is a little old, so.... Definitely could have lived through the blasts, etc. mind - radiation would have went to sea. Oer, thoughts? Lordganon 22:33, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Superior Election Articles

 * 1984 Republic of Superior Congressional Elections (1983: Doomsday)
 * 1986 Republic of Superior Congressional Elections (1983: Doomsday)
 * 1994 Republic of Superior Congressional Elections (1983: Doomsday)

Though created by an anon, they allegedly follow canon and were originally red linked. Mitro 17:21, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

The first two have no basis in canon at all - virtually no reference to numbers and political positions of the two parties or the like with the congress of Superior exist for that era that actually indicate things one way or the other like this. The independent numbers are.... not possible, either. The 1994 one is the only one with some actual accuracy as it currently stands, though even it has to be massively re-written. Lordganon 20:21, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

Article created by Pita. Mitro 17:22, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

Article created by Smoggy. Mitro 17:23, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

Article created by Detectivekenny. Mitro 17:24, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

Article created by Crimson. Mitro 17:25, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

The British Times
The newspaper for the OBN. Similar to the NewsHour page. Personally I hope this can be graduated rather quickly. Fegaxeyl 17:57, March 11, 2011 (UTC)

A small city-state in northern New York State, north of the ruins of Syracuse. Lordganon 11:01, March 14, 2011 (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.

This is my attempt to harmonize -Sunkist-'s article with earleir canon from Bob. Benkarnell 20:28, February 3, 2011 (UTC)

I think this should be reviewed, because of several issues:

The only region that I think would be sustainable for the Kazakh to hold in northermost Kazakhstan would be the region of North Kazakhstan. I'm sorry if I'm wrong. My knowledge of the Kazakh region is not very large (after all, the only time I've researched for it is this year's MUN conference in my school) and I might be wrong, but I think that it's really improbable for Kazakhstan to be as big as it is. Fed (talk) 17:47, March 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * I doubt that a nation can hold half of Kazakhstan, the second largest Soviet Republic, the one who holded the second largest amount of nuclear weapons, and the one who had the most important test sites and rocket sites in the USSR, and therefore would be almost destroyed.
 * the Almaty and East Kazakhstan regions were the closest to China, and their cities were a few of the largest cities were located there. The area would be destroyed by Chinese nuclear weapons.
 * Pavlodar, Akmola and Karagandy are the three regions closest to the Semipalatinsk nuclear site. Besides, Astana (Tselinograd in the time and today in TTL) was, although a small town in 1983, an important terminal in a VITAL Kazakh railway, meaning it would likely get nuked.
 * Well I know even less about the region than you do, so at the moment I have no reason to doubt your word. There are a few problems, however, in going forward with this review.  For one thing the article has been canon for half a year now.  The changes you suggest are likely to affect more than one article.  Then there is the issue that the current caretaker of all things Soviet, Vlad, has not been heard from since January.  Before we can go forward, someone needs to get in contact with Vlad and see if he still interested in participating in the TL.  Mitro 03:14, March 17, 2011 (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.''

Population of Britain
This has been something that's been bugging me for a while. In my mind, the population of the various British nations should be higher. (Except for my own, Essex.) Particularly for the Kingdom of Cleveland, which for all its supposed power (and size) has an only slightly above-average population, of 210,000. Now that we've passed the plausibility singularity for Britain we can start to look at the area with a finer-tooth comb, so I think we can start to look realistically.

Before the debate, a few facts and figures: We need, as a community (which is why this isn't posted on the OBN talk page) to decide what's a realistic population level for the former United Kingdom (and other European countries), and its successor states.
 * According to the page United Kingdom, the lowest the population of the former UK came was 6.5 million.
 * Assuming optimum population growth figures (3.66%, as held by Nigeria OTL) then the population of the former UK should nowadays be 14,333,751 people.
 * The page mentioned above states that the overall population of the former UK is 7.5 million, 'mostly in the Celtic Alliance (North Scotland and islands, and Ulster - 5.5 million)'.
 * 'Approximatley 1,800,000 people live in the area that used to be England, this is roughly the level that was found in the country shortly after the Norman invasion in 1066AD.'
 * The total population of all mentioned nations across all of Britain (except the Celtic Alliance) adds up to 1,816,000 - as this includes Scotland, it's already over the limit set in the above article.
 * Populations on a nation-by-nation basis can be found here

To state my opinion, I think that generally populations should be raised (especially for Cleveland) because, certainly nowadays, British nations appear to have the agricultural base to support larger populations, and the incoming aid to fight disease. But this is, of course, up for debate. Fegaxeyl 21:53, February 28, 2011 (UTC)

Way I figure it, the population should be more so the proportion you have in Essex, though understandably not as high in some areas. In Cleveland, for example, there is current atl population of roughly 219,000. Yet, the population otl in just the Non-metropolitan county of Cleveland is 541,333 as of 1991, and the Kingdom of Cleveland is far larger in size than that. Even with the rains, etc. in that article that is too far a drop. I could see that many in the Cleveland county area, but the rest of the area does have people in it that would have survived, based on the Cleveland articles themselves.

As of 2008, otl Essex has a population of around 1.7 million. Atl, the population is around 790,000, around 46% of the otl total. I figure that number - again, slightly lower, like 35-40%, in some areas more damaged - is a good percentage to work with for the Britain articles. Northumbria is already around this mark as well.

Lordganon 06:31, March 1, 2011 (UTC)

Oh! And the figures cited on the United Kingdom article actually are really kind of worded funny. The 5.5. million figure you quote, if you look at the Celtic Alliance article, is actually for the entire Alliance - as in Ireland and the French areas as well. So it's a fair amount less of that population quoted for the UK given over to them, allowing plenty of room for increasing the population of the survivor states.

And, don't forget a lot of people still live outside of nation-states.

Lordganon 06:35, March 1, 2011 (UTC)

If everyone could update the page with their respective counties population totals on the successor states section on the UK page and i'll change the rest of the page to fit the new figures, I had already changed the Cleveland totals, however i'm going to increase it again to a more reasonable total of approximatly 100 people per sq mile, however if that seems a touch excessive let me know and i'll reduce the population back a bit--Smoggy80 09:27, March 10, 2011 (UTC)