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

Useful Resources:

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

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

Countries/Regions/Politics
Archives: Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tuscany
So, I recently noticed that the Tuscany article conflicts with stated events in the Sicily article, which is WAY older. This is something no one noticed until after it was canonized. I brought it up with Arstarpool and his response was that he was going to edit the Sicily article to allow for Tuscany to exist pretty much as is. I disagree with him on that and brought up several ways to make Tuscany fit much better and in a more interesting way. I'd like others to comment on this. The discussion can be found here.Oerwinde 08:33, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Read the "Sicilian Occupation" part under Tuscany. That does not allow it to exist "as is" but still allows it into canon. If I wanted to, I could edit the Sicily article right now to say anything that would keep Tuscany in canon since it is now officially mine, but alas, I will not do that, but will just add this Sicilian Occupation to Sicily as well. Arstarpool 17:27, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

I hope your happy now. I made very few changes to Sicily. I made Tuscany conincide perfectly since there are "other revolts" in Sicily, I just made it one of those, and the first one to gain independence in 2004. Arstarpool 18:12, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Tuscany isn't "yours" you are merely the caretaker of it. That does not entitle you to rewrite canon so another article you created can fit. --GOPZACK 17:59, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Tuscany is his, Sicily is not. I still disagree with the Alpine confederation acting as an agressor. Yes it was for the liberation of a state, but they still claim to be neutral, I can't see them committing troops to an offensive action and breaking the truce, hence why I think it should either be defunct as a state until after the 2nd sicily war, or with like half of the Tuscan territory being outside Sicilian control, have the government moved to the north until the south is liberated after the 2nd sicily war.Oerwinde 18:01, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

What should happen to Tuscany? Alter it to be divided until after the 2nd Sicily war Alter it to be a defunct state until its re-emergence after the 2nd Sicily war Keep the changes to Sicily that have the Alpine Confederation invade and liberate it and New Rome in 2004 Other (state below)

The events portrayed are depicted in all three nations! It does briefly mention of Alpine acting as an agressor in Alpine, it fully mentions it in Sicily and it lists it as well in Tuscany. Arstarpool 18:12, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Yes but you added it all today. The Alpine Confederation article states that the central government honors their devotion to neutrality, and the sicily article stated that they had established defensive lines to halt the Sicilian advance, but never counterattacked, instead sent a ceasefire, leading to the demarcation line through Tuscany. The AC breaking the ceasefire to attack sicily goes against the character the nation has established. Venice isn't strong enough to organize an assault alone. And the entire ADC is wary of entering all out war with Sicily, so I doubt the tuscans would be able to take them alone. Oerwinde 18:30, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

It looks like my choice is winning, and I swear by oath I did not vote twice :D Arstarpool

The Forgotten Texas Unification
As I recall West and East Texas were supposed to unify back in June. I've gone ahead and created the "" since no matter what happens we are going to need this page to document the new nation. Arstarpool 06:50, July 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * You best speak with the authors of the two Texases before you go any further. --GOPZACK 06:55, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be me. Unification is on the timetable, but it's not something that just happens on the spur of the moment. The timeline is supposed to be as realistic as possible, and even now they wouldn't just be united. There's a process involved, from unifying government agencies amongst the different countries to setting up a military, that takes time. 2012 is my target date. BrianD 23:46, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

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

Astoria Flag Competition
So the Republic of Astoria needs a flag. I usually love doing flags but I'm totally at a loss at what to do here. So I'm opening it up for submissions. It should have some blue and probably something representing the military, but those aren't required.Oerwinde 09:09, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Could it slightly resemble the North Korean Flag? Arstarpool 00:02, July 9, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why notOerwinde 20:05, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

I'll see if I can whip something up tomorrow. JackofSpades 04:43, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

How do you like the flag I put up? Arstarpool 20:11, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Well Arstar's flag is better than my own. My own flags are much simpler. It is almost embarressing in comparison. Here are three flags for Astoria. I do hope they fit your needs. Flag 1 Flag 2Flag 3 The large star represents the High Commander in all three, while the smaller star represents the people. In the third flag the second largest star is the General Council JackofSpades 20:22, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Funny as this sounds, I think the colors on yours fit better together, Jack. Flag #3 is the better of the three, fyi.

Lordganon 02:58, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even think of using green for some reason. I had been working on one trying to figure something out and came up with this. Still not sure what I'll use but figured I'd get some input. The large star represents the High Commander, like Jackofspades said, the three smaller ones within the cross represents the three branches of the armed forces, and the two in the blue represent the people and the state. I don't know why I used a cross, other than I like nordic cross designs.Oerwinde 08:38, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm..... Interesting, but I can't see why they'd use the nordic cross in the design.

Lordganon 10:13, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I'm still discussing it rather than just making it the flag :POerwinde 18:50, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps they could view it not so much as a Nordic Cross, but as showing how all paths converge on the High Commander. JackofSpades 04:12, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

The principle is sound, but I still doubt that they would use it like this. Besides, too religious. Maybe something along the same lines, but with the corners?

Lordganon 05:21, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

I took out the cross and changed it to a horizontal bar. How's this?Oerwinde 18:14, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Snappy. Very Snappy. =)

Lordganon 10:43, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Niagara Falls Flag Competition
Could somebody make a flag for, please? If you can, try to use any shade of blue and something representing it being a pair of "twin cities". Arstarpool 03:11, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

How's this. Red and White are Canada's colors, Red, White, and Blue are the US colors. Star represents the US side, Maple leaf the Canadian side, and the blue bar represents the falls. In two orientations depending on preference.Oerwinde 03:53, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Wiki/Timeline/Article Technicals
Section archives: Page 1

Culture / Society
Archives: Page 1 • Page 2

Miscellaneous discussion
Archives: Page 1

Arstar is leaving!
Ever since Mitro returned he has pretty much pointed out every major and minor flaw in my articles I will most likely leave the site if I can't get my prized article on Pennsylvania passed in it's current version. If I do leave, I will come back on some time in mid August to say my goodbyes and start giving away whatever is left of my canon articles. I won't be on until August 8th anyways because my computer broke. Arstarpool 02:48, August 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Arstar, it is true I have had issues with some of your articles. Are you the only one, have I singled you out, am I persecuting you? No. Look at my contributions and you will see that I have had several issues with canon and proposal articles of various other editors. I even put one of Ven's articles under review recently. Have I put any of your canon articles under review? No.
 * That being said, I am not here to defend myself, apologize or beg you to stay. I am willing to work with you on this TL as I have worked with dozens of other editors. If you feel the best decision for you is to leave, than fine. I wish you the best of luck in your future endeavors and I hope that your issues with me do not affect our ability to work together on the TSPTF. Mitro 03:44, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

Whale farming?
I brought you the notion of airships, now I bring you another ludicrous - but possibly workable - idea.

Whales can provide huge sources of not only meat, but also other products. With their numbers increased due to a likely fall in whaling post-Doomsday they would be readily available food stocks which opportunistic coastal nations could make the best of. However, rather than run the industry on luck, could a rich enough state (Japan, ANZC, Victoria) net in a number of whales to a particular bay or coral and establish a breeding population? Japan had OTL plans for something like this - ostensibly for research - though it was unsurprisingly shot down by the environmentalists. But with most people in TTL concerned about their next meal than happy whales, might we see in the decades after Doomsday people starting to farm whales on an increasing scale? I understand the idea is far-fetched and economically taxing - Minke whales, the smallest, require around 200kg of fish daily - but any nation that managed to pull off the notion might be able to supply itself with large amounts of food and have a significant trading source for inland nations. The strongest nations (like the ANZC) could probably rope together their neighbours to construct the large infrastructure necessary to sustain the industry and make it profitable.

I know that this is a very implausible idea, and I won't be surprised if it's shot to pieces, but if you consider it objectively and from the perspective of a starving post-Doomsday citizen, the idea might just be workable, in spite of the economic and ecological flaws. Fegaxeyl 09:46, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

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

Moved to Talk:Sierra Nevada (1983: Doomsday) due to size. Mitro 02:19, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Lordganon 03:03 June 23, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christ! He just gave himself nukes. Not getting graduated with that there, buddy.

Still needs to be smaller and expand less, especially with the new nuclear strikes. No way is that happening now. Add Edirne, in European Turkey, as well, please.

Lordganon 10:45, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know per our earlier discussion, I have posted my thoughts as you asked on your discussion page for Turkey. Please let me know if you wish to talk further in the future.--Fxgentleman 03:30, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should we make it obsolete? Arstarpool 23:56, July 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * No, Arstar, Vegas was working hard to make it work. Ask him, though. I am not much on what's happening in Europe. SouthWriter 01:46, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

I'v actualy fixed to objections that Lordganon raisedVegas adict 19:21, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Arstarpool 19:29, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

So any objections to grad? --GOPZACK 23:15, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Germany is way too crowded right now, so maybe if you could shrink it down a little bit, that would be fine. Arstarpool 01:37, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

I'v shrunk down the area of control, so can it be graduated?Vegas adict 18:28, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

You'll want to make the area around Wiesbaden-Mainz in the southeast of the country that claimed color too - it would not be very habitable after the twin strikes there.

Lordganon 06:55, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

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


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

OK, I did a blurb as I don't know how to rename a page. Fedelede 21:22, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * You make vague mention of military bases in Georgia being hit. Can you be more specific? I think Batumi would be hit. Mitro 16:05, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Any objections to graduation? Arstarpool 16:21, June 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Not yet its still very vague. --GOPZACK 19:29, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * The Sulnate of Turkey, which claims most of Georgia, has much more merit. I think this one and Ossetia have to go. Arstarpool 19:29, June 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * This Article exist before Turkey's one and if you read the article of Turkey, you can see that he deleted that part, and the article has been changed is now more complete.
 * I think that all those damn little break-away states that Vene made need to be eliminated, except Ossetia, which has much more merit. Arstarpool 22:34, July 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Any objections? Arstarpool 22:15, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Any objections? Arstarpool 22:15, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

I still need to go over this. Could you at least wait until I do that for ven before asking about them? For some of them its even still effectively a copy of the OTL history post DD. Sheesh.

Lordganon 03:52, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

I kicked Ven out of the Georgia project. So theres really nothing to be done on your part. Arstarpool 03:01, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

And where on earth did that occur? Haven't seen hide nor hair of that.

Besides, I've been the one going about planning it out so its actually decent - where have you been? No where.

At any rate, the point still holds - the blasted thing is still basically the wikipedia article, but copied to here.

Thus, I still object to it.

Lordganon 10:48, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

I returned!!!!!! VENEZUELA 04:21, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

No need to brag Ven. Now, to fix this up, tomorrow.....

Lordganon 11:40, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

A little later than planned, but fixed in line with canon, and not like wikipedia now. Also slightly in line with the Turkey article.

How's it look? Lordganon 10:51, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seville is in SPAIN, Not Yugoslavia.

Lordganon 10:31, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Tehnically, the Croatia article I'm writing has Belgrade nuked and since Yank is doing Serbia and I think he agrees as well it would be nuked. If Vienna was nuked, why not Belgrade? The USSR already had plans to attack both countries in case of a war.--Vladivostok 12:27, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you look on a map of Europe, the Greater Macedonia area is relativley small comapred to other nations. Ownerzmcown 12:50, June 28. 2010 (UTC)

I know where Seville is. And I don't know why a completely neutral, communist country would be hit by the USSR. Arstarpool 13:03, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, then you'll have to ask yourself why Vienna was nuked. It was also as neutral as it gets.--Vladivostok 14:12, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, Vienna was nuked because the Soviets assumed NATO would violate the neutrality of Austria and move in for invasion through there. They took it out to neutralize a threat. If a neutral communist country is nuked it will be the allies that nuke it.Oerwinde 16:20, June 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I never really specifically stated who nuked Belgrade, just that it was obliterated. Now, in a conventional war, the Soviets, or NATO, which ever came first, would try to invade Yugoslavia. Now, that wouldn't happen during Doomsday. I just suspected that perhaps one of the superpowers, if not both, would try to take Yugoslavia out of the equation in Europe during the nuclear exchange.--Vladivostok 16:31, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly we had a discussion on whether Yugoslavia was nuked about a year ago; therefore the caretaker of Macedonia and whoever else wants to prove his own opinion is true will have to dig through the Archives to the find it. Though I have to warn the caretaker of Macedonia; generally speaking when a nation is up for debate on whether it was nuked or not, I can't think of a time (remember I'm older and went inactive for months, I can't talk about the recent past) when any nation in question was spared; the council of contributors usually ruled in favor of any sort of bombings, probably based on the idea that NATO or the Warsaw Pact would bomb them "just to be on the safe side". Mr.Xeight 19:17, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

My point is that the list of targets is unconfirmed, and needs to be updated. Spain is no exception, and I find it hard to believe that Seville would not be hit. Even it it wasn't, it is not explained how on earth he'd get there in the first place. If he were to somehow survive the hit, it is extremely unlogical for him to have not only made it to the bunker, but also survive with so many followers and gotten there in the first place.

And, as I noticed on the talk page for the article, it is illogical that a bunch of Greeks and former communist subjects would except him as king anyway. The chetniks from the war and the anti-royal propaganda afterwards would argue against it, anyway.

Lordganon 03:37, June 30, 2010 (UTC)

I think that I've got most questions answered in the article and that the major points of the article are finished, so I believe my article should be read over now and considered for the canon. Ownerzmcown 02:03, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * This "bunker" seems a little fanciful. Did Alexander actually have one in Spain? Can you provide a source to prove it? Mitro 02:31, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

I can in fact, not provide a source as of yet, but good reasoning, Alexander was and is a very important person in society, he is the Crown Prince of Yugoslavia, which although isn't a country anymore, he still is a high-ranking member of a historical society and would easily be given permission and money to build a bunker. Ownerzmcown 02:49, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * We can't just assume he would have a resources to build it even though he is a VIP. There were a lot of VIPs during the Cold War who had the resources to build nuclear bunkers and didn't. Assuming that this exiled royal did have a bunker without any source is too ASB. Mitro 02:55, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

You can't keep track of everything in history, Alexander lived in Spain, I believe as a guest of the King of Spain, and there is a distinct possibility he had hereditary connections to the Spanish Royal Family, the Spanish Royal Family was very important at the time, and probably had bunkers for multiple members, maybe even Alexander, I can't say exactly, besides the only way I'll really ever know is if I asked Alexander himself, besides, one, that will never happen, and two, it is in my opinion an interesting part of the story that makes sense in multiple ways. Ownerzmcown 21:31, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * This TL is supposed to be as realistic as possible. Thus we try to keep it as plausible as possible. Article have been marked obsolete that assumed that a person or place would be overly-prepared for Doomsday when they were not. When Yank proposed a new Germany article he had the founder of Aldi apparently buy land in Saudi Arabia before Doomsday, even though there was no proof of this. An early version of the Republic of Indiana had Dan Quayle apparently knowing that Doomsday was going to happen and thus warn the Governor of Indiana to prepare for it. Again no proof that this happened, these were guesses and in my opinion bad guesses. With your assumption about Alexander you admit yourself that you have almost no way to prove that he had a fallout shelter/bunker. To just assume might be interesting, but it is not plausible. Mitro 02:56, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

I'm ust saying, even today we know that everything in history was never written down, thats why we know what we do about Ancient Egypt and such, their are the parts of history we can prove, like Alexander was from Yugoslavia, and the parts we can't prove due to no documentation and have to assume, like Alexander, a crown prince, having a bunker. Ownerzmcown 07:28, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * We make assumptions about ancient history for a reason, because it was really long ago. The year 1983 is not ancient history.  Ben once found the names and location of the daughters of the governor of the governor of Bermuda.  We don't just assume someone was somewhere or had something just because they were an important person.  By 1983 the bunker craze was already long gone and if we assume one VIP had a bunker than we have to assume that every VIP has one, which does not make sense.  If you can prove he had a bunker than great, but if you can't than its logical to assume that he did not have a bunker.  Mitro 16:04, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

Me and Sunkist's proposal for a military alliance in Italy. Arstarpool 05:49, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * No mention of the Alpine Confederation? Kind of odd to me, since it has been stated time and time again that it is the principle contributor to North Italian stability in the face of the Sicilians.--Vladivostok 07:05, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this is more of an Italian alliance to combat Sicily within the peninsula. That would be like having Pais del Oro in the Organization of British Nations. Arstarpool 07:08, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I wasn't thinking of them joining, of course not. But perhaps some funding would be in order. I mean the AC is de jure neutral but de facto it actively supports the ADC and northern Italy. Thus, I was thinking something along the lines of them being an observer. Maybe the ADC as a whole could be the same.--Vladivostok 07:14, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe. I'll write it in. Arstarpool 15:14, July 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Any objections? Arstarpool 01:31, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I was re-reading the sicily article and it had some stuff that contradicts the existence of Tuscany as a state. I posted it in the Tuscany talk page.Oerwinde 09:17, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * I was re-reading the sicily article and it had some stuff that contradicts the existence of Tuscany as a state. I posted it in the Tuscany talk page.Oerwinde 09:17, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Pashtunistan
A country in former Afghanistan! VENEZUELA 17:40, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

I would like to graduate it in 2 weeks if no one objects? Any objection? VENEZUELA 17:42, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

There is already a country there, the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. Arstarpool 18:35, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Actually is in one part of Pashtunistan NOT in all Pashtunistan. VENEZUELA 18:36, July 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah I see Ven has changed the location of this new state. Originally it was in Kandahar. -Mitro

Looking at this in context, it looks to me like it would be impractical - a good half of that territory isn't Pashtun, and a lot of it's in the Pakistani-supported Afghan state according to the world map too. Maybe make it obsolete?

Sorry ven, but its not really practical.

Lordganon 06:25, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

Balochistan
Another country in Afghanistan. Any objection? VENEZUELA 01:14, July 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * I just think Afghanistan will be too crowed. Most of the country is not to suitable for life nevermind an organized nation. --GOPZACK 01:46, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Zack. Arstarpool 02:37, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Any objection to marking this as obsolete? --GOPZACK 14:47, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but knowing Vene, he'll mark it as a proposal again saying that there are too many nations in America so there can be a lot of nations everywhere else. Arstarpool 16:23, July 7, 2010 (UTC)

VENEZUELA 16:13, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * We'll have to tell him that the geography and conditions very by location. If he fails to realize this we can take further action. WE'll just have to wait and see. --GOPZACK 16:52, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact were Balochistan is located no parts were nuked. VENEZUELA 19:00, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh my God, I am about to lose my patience. So four nations will be able to survive in desert lands with little to no trade? Arstarpool 21:33, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * First what 4 nations? and second I never said they doesn't have trade. VENEZUELA 21:35, July 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * There is the Northern Alliance, Afghanistan, the other one you made, and Balochistan. It is logical that in a time like this, trade would be cut off. Use your head, Vene. Arstarpool 01:21, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * One nation in Afganistan tops! Pick one you think is most viable then the rest should be marked as obsolete. GOPZACK 01:42, July 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Zack, has anyone ever told you your right almost all the damn time? Arstarpool 02:17, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ha! As a matter of fact yes. Thanks! --GOPZACK 02:46, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm at my witts end with Vene. Any objections to making this article obsolete? Arstarpool 03:31, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * yes, and wait until other people that are not you or Gopzack writes. VENEZUELA 03:33, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * What's your objection, Vene? Arstarpool 03:38, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair, before we mark this as obsolete lets here what Vene has to say. --GOPZACK 03:41, July 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting....Arstarpool 15:18, July 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Balochistan is to small, so in fact it can survive and be away from the radiation
 * there is no Northern Alliance (except in Canada)
 * the Baloch had live like in the 1 century for years, so in fact they can survive
 * The Baloch wouldn't care about the deaths because they just want a nation since the 18 Century.

A Baloch nation would be interesting, in that it would likely cause issues in Pakistan and Iran, as parts of them are part of the Balochistan region and have large Baloch populations.Oerwinde 20:07, July 11, 2010 (UTC)

That better guys? If so, any objections to graduation as a stub?

Will be making the other Afghan one more.... workable. It's just no good with that map.

--Lordganon 16:46, July 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * I still have my doubts about the viability of another Afgahn survivor nation. Ven points out that "the Baloch had live like in the 1 century for years, so in fact they can survive" but they never had to deal with a nuclear war & the final point Ven makes lets of the impression that the Baloch are pretty heartless, which I doubt is true. --GOPZACK 17:57, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit - I completely disregarded the vast majority of what he said and wrote, and made it realistic. This as written now is essentially an Iranian puppet, honestly.

But, to only leave the area of Afghanistan as the "Northern Alliance" and the Pakistani-supported state being the only "nations" seems like it wouldn't be enough.

Lordganon 10:47, July 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Still I think the "Northern Alliance" and the Pakistani-supported state is enough unless Iran annexed the area seeing as they are as you say a "puppet" regime. --GOPZACK 23:11, August 1, 2010 (UTC)

Well, the Northern alliance really is not defined at all in canon - its only really mentioned. But, in my mind it is led by Massoud and occupies the rough area the OTL Northern Alliance controlled when the attacks occurred in 2001.

But looking at the world map, the Pakistani-backed state only controls parts of east-central Afghanistan - and leaves plenty of space for other states.

This one here is up against the Iranian border, and is basically to prevent domination of the area by Pakistan. While they may be effectively allies, I see no reason why they'd want Pakistan to have total influence over the area.

Heck, I see an opening in the northwest where something else could exits, even if it is only under GLA control.

Lordganon 00:50, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Page to document the fate of Miami. Arstarpool 21:30, July 21, 2010 (UTC)

My proposal for the north-western corner of the state. Arstarpool 00:29, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

I hate to be buzz kill but Erie was hit I believe, but the article could still work. However I think the article could still work, I made mention in my State College article of some survivors in Oil City & that has become canon. I can work with you to fit this in if you'd like. --GOPZACK 00:45, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is where I'm going to apply a theory of mine to counter-attack Eire being hit:

Almost every article has one town standing that should have been destroyed. Virginia has Richmond, Sierra Nevada has Reno, Lincoln has, well, Lincoln, and Kentucky has Fort Knox. Well mine is just going to be Eire. If you don't like that, then you can remove the aforementioned cities from their respective articles and then I'll remove Eire. Arstarpool 02:03, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Well Richmond was hit, so that might sweeten the deal some. Nonetheless that theory with do respect is bullshit. We don't swap the nuking of cites so one article or the other can fit. --GOPZACK 02:11, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

According to Yank, Richmond was not hit. If it is "bulls**t", then why do you cling so dearly to Fort Knox, a known target? Remember that the the FEMA list is the FEMA list, and I'm sure the Soviet's had their own map on what they were going to nuke. Arstarpool 02:47, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Yank's out to lunch with the Richmond thing and everyone but him knows it. Fort Knox is a secondary target, and it can be argued that it would not be hit in this scenario - it even says in the article that the troops there were surprised to not be hit. Reno is an entertainment town, and a tertiary target - and I think that is overrated myself. Erie is indeed a teritary target, but it IS on the list atm, so...... And its the northWEST corner, fyi.

P.S. I noticed you taking the strike off the tuscany article! Tsk tsk. Lordganon 03:17, July 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * I've opened up the discussion to the whole community above as to whether Erie was hit or not. T'was established many moons ago that Fort Knox was not hit. Arstar you have no Soviet map and your charge causes for unneeded and rather biased speculation. I agree with Lordganon on Reno. Oh & Lordganon whats this about removing the strike on the Tuscany article? --GOPZACK 03:28, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you think that the Soviets were out to destroy every little city in North America? No, and whoever added it to the list just copied every single possible target from the FEMA Target List, including tertiary targets.
 * As for Tuscany, the power went out when I was rewriting the history of Florence, so I lost internet access as well. True Story. Arstarpool 03:40, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright well thats not entirely true, some tertiary targets, secondary targets and even one primary target were not listed on the Doomsday page and were listed as having survived in various articles. --GOPZACK 03:50, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * On what talk page, might I ask? Arstarpool 03:52, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I meant to write the Doomsday page. GOPZACK 04:08, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I meant to write the Doomsday page. GOPZACK 04:08, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

LG, if you would. He'd had the Tuscany article have a non-nuclear strike on the industrial district of Florence, which he removed something during the day today. Nothing big, and I dont care much, to be honest. Did notice, though.

Lordganon 03:59, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

So is Erie safe or not? Arstarpool 04:24, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

We''l wait & se what the community has to say. GOPZACK 05:31, July 23, 2010 (UTC)''

Does anyone have any other objections? Arstarpool 19:22, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

The New York article - and the Doomsday by US Sate one as well - make mention of a survivor state in Westfield, Which is a city in the counties of New York which you've claimed. That'll need to be dealt with one way or the other.

Lordganon 06:54, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

The fact they discovered it just means they found it, not that it is independent as of now. Arstarpool 16:44, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

I think contact with London would have come sooner. London is extremely close to the Canadian protectorate, only an hour and 45 minute drive, or 20 hour walk and would likely have contacted them much earlier than 1990, more like 85. So Pennsylvania would have had knowledge of them pretty much immediately following contact.Oerwinde 18:02, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

That can't happen because the Canadian protectorate was created in 1990. Arstarpool 18:14, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

I'm saying that the communities that make up the protectorate would have had contact with London around 85. They're too close not to. So when Pennsylvania makes contact with the communities that make up the protectorate, they would likely let them know about London surviving less than 2 hours away. At that point London would be working on restoring the railroad to Port Stanley and would be easily contacted. So contact with London and the creation of the protectorate would be about the same time. London was mostly expanding according to its needs rather than building an empire, so Port Stanley was more important than the protectorate communities as it would give access to lake Erie for fishing and such, which would explain why they hadn't been incorporated into London's territory despite being so close.Oerwinde 08:46, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to graduation? I really want a quick graduation for this page since I think its done. Arstarpool 16:44, July 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have an objection. This article currently contradicts the article on . For example, Erie was destroyed on Doomsday. [EDIT] I just read the rest of the discussion above. Listen, Erie being destroyed is canon, that is final. If you don't like it, I'm sorry but we have rules for a reason. Maybe you can rewrite the article to make it not violate QSS and QAA.Mitro 02:40, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

This article can still work if Erie is cut out. It is technically canon that there are survivors in Oil City. If Arstarpool has no interest in fixing it I can certainly revamp it, so don't mark it as obsolete just yet. GOPZACK 04:40, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Hypothetically speaking, if I could get BrianD's permission to cut out Erie from the list of targeted cities of Pennsylvania, what would happen? We had a pretty big discussion and I fought pretty hard to get Erie off the nuked list after both a consensus which we voted and by which Fx gave me a logical explanation on why it could have been saved. I have centered to much of the article around Erie for it to be changed now. If I lose this article I will most likely end up leaving the timeline, because I really intended this to be my flagship article upon completion and without it I have to ditch three other articles. Arstarpool 00:55, August 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well I don't think that can be done but you can try. However like I said if Erie is out the article can still work & what three articles will be "ditched" in the unlikely event Pennsylvania is scraped all together? --GOPZACK 01:10, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Guys you can't simply get rid of canon by vote. Erie being destoryed was a part of canon long before this proposal was written. You can see it on the article. There are only a few rare times when canon can be changed, but like I said they are very rare. We don't change canon so someone can have an easier time writing. It it unfair not only to those who wrote the canon, but also those who have modified their works in accordance with it. To start making exceptions will be bad for the TL. Mitro 03:00, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * Think of it as going under review. I brought up something I wasn't happy with, I discussed it, and it won. As I understand the group voted to change the canon that Erie was hit. So as far as I am concerned there is nothing blocking this article from being graduated that is related to Erie. Consider this one of those "very rare times" that canon is changed, then. Arstarpool 19:25, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but canon cannot be changed by vote. What type of precedent does that establish where someone can work hard on an article and get it graduated into canon, only to have it changed against his will by majority vote? As far as I can tell there is nothing incredibly implausible about Erie being hit. It is listed as a FEMA target and is a center of heavy manufacturing. No one had any issue with Erie being hit when the article was graduated and I do not think it should be changed just because someone wrote an article that contradicted canon. Mitro 19:30, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Do you think Brian took the time to carefully decide which cities would be hit or not? No! He probably just took every target on the FEMA list and wrote it down on the Pennsylvania article.


 * Mitro, I will say this once and will not repeat it. I am cutting all communications with you regarding this matter. It is not your article and we put in a lot of discussion to it when you were gone, and then you come back and you must bash an article I worked so hard on. Did you even read the discussion we had, Mitro? It spanned three talk pages, and everyone gave their reasons why it would be not hit and it "flew" with the rest of the members. How would you know that the Soviets even knew about Erie? Do you think they had spies at all the manufacturing plants, army bases, and steel mills across America? The FEMA list is an American-made list, it is what we thought would get hit, not what the Soviets planned to do.


 * I have decided to bring it up with Brian uno-a-uno. What you don't get is that we put Erie getting hit as going under review in a way. We voted, we discussed, and it was changed. Arstarpool 19:42, August 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * Copying what I said to Arstar on my page.
 * When I wrote the Pennsylvania article, I did use the FEMA article as a source to base my target list on. I did not half-ass list targets without any thought as to what or why they would have been hit. I did have faith in the FEMA list and that the writer knew what he/she was doing. Erie would have been hit because of its manufacturing hub; the Soviets would have targeted cities and towns they thought would have been used by the military to rebuild itself and the country. I'm sorry for what this does to your proposal, but in this case, Mitro is correct. Keep in mind QSS as well, and that it not only keeps the timeline from turning into a chaotic mess, it also protects articles that editors - like you and I - have written. BrianD 20:07, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Toledo Confederation
GOPZack, Caeruleus, a few other contributers and myself are currently working on a proposal for a nation centralized in what was Northwestern Ohio. The article is about half done right now. Help on its construction would be greatly appreciated. If you have any suggestions, or notice any errors please post them either here or in the Toledo talk page. Thank you in advance for your help.

My apologies if anything has been done incorrectly. JackofSpades 03:11, July 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * Jack your doing everything right so far! I'm sorry I haven't contributed much to the article lately I've been busy as evidenced above but I will take a look at it soon. --GOPZACK 03:21, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

No need to be sorry. I fully realize that you are a very busy person. Today, I took a glance at your talk page and nearly had a fit. You have a lot of work. JackofSpades 03:23, July 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll be gone for about two weeks, beginning tomarrow. While I most likely will have internet access, updates will be... sporadic. Anyone is free to add to the current page if they would like to. Right now, I'm having difficulty with the history. However, a general list of thoughts and ideas are in the Talk page for inspiration. JackofSpades 01:52, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Invasion of Norfolk, and Invasion of the Isle of Eels
A trio of invasions following up the recent invasion of West Suffolk, written by me, Verence and Bob respectively. Fegaxeyl 09:17, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Southeastern Cambridgeshire is completed. Objections to graduation? Fegaxeyl 11:55, July 31, 2010 (UTC)

True British Army (1983: Doomsday)
links into Essex and Woodbridge.--Smoggy80 19:51, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Article mentioned on the Pennsylvania talk page. Arstarpool 00:41, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

Crap, I had one I was half working on since like noon friday and finally hit submit on what little I had late at night only to find this on the talk page. Anyway, mine was here London, ON (1983: Doomsday)Oerwinde 09:36, July 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * So the London, ON is the only viable one of the two, correct? Mitro 02:47, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the London, Ontario one is just a copy of what I have been writing on the London, ON one.Oerwinde 02:59, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Part of a project me and JackOfSpades are putting together for the Great Lakes region. Before you say "they would have been effected by the strikes on Buffalo, NY", read what I posted on the talk page of the article. Arstarpool 06:09, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to passing as a stub? Arstarpool 02:20, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * The tourism part is implausible. If you are willing to drop that than the article is acceptable. Mitro 03:52, August 4, 2010 (UTC)
 * How about now? Arstarpool 19:44, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

My proposal for Midland Ontario. I hope to flush it out in the next few days. Ideas are welcome & if anyone would like to write it with me just contact me on my talk page. --GOPZACK 06:23, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Katanga (1983: Doomsday)
My proposal for a breakaway satate in the former Democratic Republic of the Congo (which I'm assuming fell to pieces following Doomsday).

Yankovic270 19:48, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

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

An article about someone that died on Doomsday. Do we have a protocol for articles like this? --GOPZACK 00:15, July 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Protocol for what? Mitro 02:51, August 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * A Protocol for articles about a single person that died on Doomsday, personally I think this should be obsolete I just wondering what the people thought. --GOPZACK 04:37, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

List articles


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

=FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES= Archive 1

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

PUSA Constitutional Convention and the "Decleration of Suceeding"
We need to talk about the above, guys. The second bit is the document that shows the the Conituaion Act is void and that the Consituion is back in force.--HAD 21:52, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

Why are people ignoring this? This is important!HAD 21:28, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

HAD, would you link to the pertinent article(s)? I can't seem to find mention of it on the PUSA page. BrianD 00:52, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there is an article for it yet. Glad to see you've returned Brian :) --GOPZACK 01:13, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I forgot all about this. May need to backtrack a little.  Mitro 13:04, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking of PUSA, there seems to be some conflicts regarding the status of the Pasco Free State. The PFS article states that they joined the NAU (and I believe they are listed as members on the NAU article as well).  Nevertheless, on the news page its mentioned that they were to have a vote on May 25th on whether or not to joun PUSA, but there is no info on the outcome of the vote.  I suggest a compromise: let the May 25th vote have 3 options (join PUSA, stay independent and join NAU, or keep the status quo).  Let the May 25th vote outcome be to stay independent and join NAU.  Thoughts?  Mitro 13:52, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Strikes in Africa
There is a USA military base in Egypt call Cairo West Air Base since 1964 why would the USSR would not touch it and why South Africa was not touched because it had nuclear weapons and was an ally of USA. VENEZUELA 23:57, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Looking at that base, it seems to be just a refueling base - wouldn't matter too much.

South Africa was not an ally by any means - the apartheid was just something they couldn't overlook. It was nonaligned. As it was, the nukes were unconfirmed at the time as well, though suspected by both sides.

Although, it has been a topic of discussion before about Cairo - and there are those of us that think someone would have hit it before the Israelis.

Lordganon 00:41, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

One of the main hold-ups I have had in moving forward on Israel's history has been what happened to Egypt on DD. Based on everything I know and have read about Egypt makes it seem implausable they would self implode without the help of a few strikes. Egypt was a strong country with what they would have needed to survive, oil, food, etc. DD is not going to bring down the government that easy. Pres. Mubarak had a strong grip on the country along with the military and intelligence people. If he along with Cairo and say two or three key military bases were taken out, then I could see a civil war erupt and the Islamists emerge to takeover and thus lead to Israel nuking them. I am unsure who is the caretaker for Egypt right now. If they could contact me I would appreciate it.--Fxgentleman 03:44, July 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Louis is the creator. You should talk to him. Mitro 14:49, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mitro, I wasn't sure. --Fxgentleman 20:14, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Future map
I'm sure many of you have heard me bashing 83:DD and saying how "Its about dead" every time it becomes the highest edited page. I'd like to apologize, as I realized that I may have offended some specific users. Then, to those users whom I have offended it may come as a shock to know that I like 83:DD. Thats right, you heard right. EE likes 1983:DD, and it happens to be one of his favorite timelines. So, out of a combination of hoping for forgiveness, trying to add some little piece to the crown of 83:DD, and just because I like making maps,

I have decided to make a map of what (I think) the world would look like if this TL could be continued.

Before I show it, know that its not done and that I would like it if you told me about whatever nation(s) you're in charge of.

Here you goEastward Expansion 21:45, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

I could see the Virginian Republic eventually absorbing the other members of the Dixie Alliance. And perhaps the rest of the survivor states in the area east of the Mississippi as well. After all, a lot can happen in 100 years.

Yankovic270 22:47, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

I feel that Macedonia would probably also expand north into the upper balkans, it seems Rhodope isn't on this map so I predict that they have conquered them, and, besides Greece, with no other power in the Balkans, Macedonia would probably have the ability to expand into the rest of the Balkan peninsula. Ownerzmcown 22:52, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Don't listen to Yank on the Virginian Republic. That would have to be done by force if it ever were to happen. And all of the survivor nations combined could overthrow Virginia in a heartbeat. I'm not going to get into a big argument here, but as someone else once stated he is "out to lunch with Virginia and everyone but him knows it".

South Florida might eventually rename itself the Republic of Florida and control all of the state up to the panhandle. And Plymouth will take whatever Vermont doesn't take. I could see New England itself eventually uniting, and the members of the Dixie Alliance may eventually merge into a unified state that is NOT centered around Virginia.

The Celtic Alliance will take over the rest of Wales and Scotland, but the states in England will problably merge together. Arstarpool 23:30, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

I've updated the map, and went with Arstar on the Dixie issue (sorry Yank). What do you think guys think would happen too...

China?

Mexico and America's Southwest?

That area South of India?

Indonesia?

And remember, just because I don't have some countries doesn't mean I think they would collapse. I think by 2100, there would once again be borders.

Eastward Expansion 00:38, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

What about Turkey? I could imagine them ruling some more land in the Middle East. Ownerzmcown 01:02, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

There's too many states in the northern Balkans for Macedonia to get much bigger than its current size - and not into Bulgaria/Rhodope either.

Much of the Northern areas of the NAU on that map are part of anti-NAU states, or Victoria.

The northern third of victoria there is part of Alaska. And, the eastern half of Alaska is in territorial governments that are effectively independant of Canada - and will both very willingly join as soon as possible. Victoria and the Canadian government currently in the NAU are in that camp as well, for that matter.

Sanquay~ in central Quebec is missing, and Superior (given proposals for southern Ontario) Wouldn't have near so much territory.

Current long-terms plans for France are to have it be re-established, with some small chunks of its territory taken by Monaco, Andorra, Luxembourg, and the Celtics.

The Canaucus~ is not empty of states, and Korea would be independent.

Indonesia and the Southeast Asia / Middle East nations should be added.

I don't see Israel giving up the Sinai THAT easily.

Italy on your map would need to be some sort of confederation. And Sicily would eventually be forced from the mainland, too.

Greece would have territory further north, too.

Prussia has given up on territory east of its current position, and short of war North Germany wouldn't join them - and Prussia couldn't beat them, either.

The more central areas of Germany - those not under Luxish~ control - would have allied together, but only at a bare minimum. Political positions of most if not all are against both Prussia and Alpines~.

The only Alpine territory in Germany is likely to be Bavaria.

The nations of Yugoslavia~!

Assiniboia, in southern Manitoba, northwest minni~ and north east N. Dakota.

The USSR would have gotten further West.

Eastern Texas should be added to the NAU.

Poland and Belarus?

East Africa?

Central America and Mexico?

Caribbean?

Several Moroccan states exist - why would they be under Spain?

What about Portugal?

Transylvania?

... that's all I can think of for now.

Don't take it as insulting, its just light criticism! It does actually look nice.

Lordganon 05:11, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

Oh good GOD! The Celts have gone most of Britain in their claws! Plausible, but not popular for the people in Albion (Cleveland and Northumbria), England/Anglia (possible union of East Britain, Woodbridge and Essex) - and definitely not for the Scots. Depending on how the future turns out we might even have seen a war between the British states and the Celtic Alliance - hopefully one where we British don't lose(!). However, I'm inspired somewhat... who here would like to do their own version of 'Doomsday in 100 years', perhaps as a little competition? Fegaxeyl 08:57, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

Hey I'm already doing it! But that might be interesting...

And Lord, thanks but can say specific nations? What Anti-NAU States? What Morrocan States? I suppose I'll try and find out myself...

And don't you think NAU would have conquered those little countries.

Eastward Expansion 13:38, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the nations in England would you unite. And there is the Scottish New State which despises the Celts. And what of France? Bob 18:39, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure? We already know Cleveland and Northumbria will unite, regardless, and though Essex and Woodbridge have somewhat larger gaps I would posit a possible unification within a few decades, possibly with later absorption of East Britain and recognising the current monarch (who might well be Prince Bob himself at the time!) as theirs. You'd have a solid power base in East Anglia for that nation, and then in the future the new Essex-Woodbridge-East British nation of Anglia might marry with the Albionic rulers to form a single new united kingdom, provided political differences don't enter the mix (Essex is reasonably resentful of the Celtic Alliance's celticism, much less so in the north). This would leave only Southern England (which would plausibly gravitate towards either Anglia or the Celtic Alliance) and the Scottish New State (which if it continues on track will still be hostile to the Celts and allied to Anglia, or completely conquered). Of course, this is a plausible extrapolation of the current situation, much less what we as editors might want. Fegaxeyl 19:16, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

The NAU is a peaceful union, not some war-mongering thing.

Besides Asinaboia, Athabaska and Lincoln are both against the idea of it.

You may want to divide it up into Canada and the USA, as well, since the stated objective of the Canadian part ( as well as the Northwest Alliance, Yukon, and Victoria) is to rejoin the Canadian government in St. Johns when it becomes practical. The Eastern half of Alaska there is the Yukon.

Morocco looks fine like that.

The Gulf States Union would have the Arabian peninsula.

Belarus, like the eastern half of east Poland.

A "German Alliance" in Central Germany, and a German Republic in the Northwest.

Crimea in the southern Ukraine.

The Celts~ would have Brittany and Normandy, Andorra the central part of the Pyrenees, Luxembourg most of Lorraine and Alsace, Monaco most of Southeastern France. The remainder would be a "Kingdom of France"

Belgium would be mostly under the control of Luxembourg, with whatever being left given to France.

The Netherlands is likely to be only recently re-colonized, and I think Friesland would end up with the whole thing.

Sicily, given its nature, would eventually be cut down to Sicily itself, with the mainland being split between Greece and Italy.

By that point, India would have its territory in the South back, for sure.

Superior needs to be cut back - much of that territory would go to Canada, Dixie or New England, more likely than not.

I'd extend the South American Confederation further into Central America - if the columbians get their way, that'll happen.

Bulgaria would more than likely be independent.

Just pencil in the Caucasus as being an alliance or something, stretching up into Russia.

Louisiana will return - the slated goal of the survivors there - and would have joined the NAU, more likely than not. Same for California south of the MSP.

Based on survivor nations east of Finland, the southern area would be Nordic while the Northen parts would be Soviet - see the Karlia articles for details.

The CMAC would be the nation in east Africa.

Iran would likely have the whole area between Turkey and Pakistan.

And don't forget about Isreal and Jordan - now effectively allied - which would have the territory between Anatolia and Egypt west of Suez, more likely than not.

The Philippines are intact after DD, and control the corner of Borneo nearest them.

The rest of Borneo is controlled by Brunei.

Mainland Mayasia is intact, as is Singapore and Sri Lanka.

I'd give most of Burma to India.

Thailand, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia survived.

In northern Sumatra is Aceh.

Prussia has given up claims east of Danzig.

Victoria controls most of Southern British Columbia.

I could see West Poland (communist!!) pissing off someone to get taken out.

Luxembourg would probably join a Central-German Alliance.

Stick Croatia in that gap between Italy and Transylvania.

Give the Caribs the rest of Central America, and Mexico the remainder of modern Mexico.

Japan is a self-isolated state, and it is highly unlikely that they'd take over Korea.

And yeah, kinda hard to believe the Celtics would have that much of Britain in their claws.

Lordganon 09:54, August 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * This map and discussion would go well with the 2010 WCRB report on the Future Geopolitical Outlook (1983: Doomsday) article. Also I renamed the topic, you got nothing to apoligize about. Mitro 13:07, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Other than Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Slovenia would also exist, especially as both Croatia and Serbia aim to join the ADC. And if this really is a map of the world a 100 years from now, or even 50, the most likely outcome in Eastern Europe would be that the rest of the blank spaces in Russia and the Ukraine be absorbed into the Socialist Union. As for Belarus, I'm not so sure.

Thailand and the rest of the Indochinese nations are also missing, but I assume you'll add most of this in the next version of the map.--Vladivostok 15:08, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Some things,

1. Japan already has Korea (according to the 83:DD map).

2. Why wouldn't the Celts have that much territory?

3. I updated the map!



Eastward Expansion 15:36, August 5, 2010 (UTC)

Korea is independant, the 1983DD map has an error showing Korea under Japan.

As the caretaker of the Celtic Alliance, neither I or the Celtic Alliance show no interest in any more expansion into France. We will take the rest of Cornwall, Scotland, and Wales, but leave England and France to themselves.

I plan on making a map myself pretty soon, but this one will also show the OTL borders. At the current moment I can't do so because I am typing from my iPod, but when I get my computer fixed I will make a more, accuate map. Arstarpool 16:18, August 5, 2010 (UTC)