Talk:Egypt (1983: Doomsday)

Would the Egyptians ommit the "Arab" from their nation's name since their tenant of Arab supremacy might be knocked down a bit in the post-apocalyptic world? Mr.Xeight 23:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd thought about that ... Louisiannan 15:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hellenization of Arabic
You speak Arabic, right? I was wondering if you could maybe give me a help on the Hellenization (if that's even a word) for translating words in Arabic writing into Greek words. "Lake Toshka" is already one example, going from "توشكة‎" to "Λίμνη Τασκα". Now I'm not looking for an enormous page on par in terms of intricacy as Xrirampur Romanization or Tibetan transcription, just a small tidbit that can flesh out 1983:DD, something besides member states, wars, and supranational organizations. Mr.Xeight 04:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You could always use this list and just guess at it, or you can just send me the names you want transliterated. I think that's mostly what they'd do -- just transliterate straight across, unless there already existed a Greek name for a place. (Like London in French is Londres, for ex.) Louisiannan 15:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Αίγυπτος ελληνική could be land that the Greeks have bought/traded from Egypt in return for developing the Eonile, (أيونيل) (the new river that makes the desert habitable). That would be the only way I could see the Egyptian government accepting the colonization of the shore. Maybe a treaty agreement about fishing, too. Louisiannan 22:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

You're spot on about fishing, you know how much us Greeks like to cast our nets into the water :) I would prefer a trade for a mandate in Egypt so as to spruce up the unrecognizable Egypt. The Eonile a very interesting name. How did you think of it? Mr.Xeight 23:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Trade of goods and services, then, cash or "in kind" which it's much more likely to be "in kind". I'll write the article. Let me know what you think. As for the Eonile, it's actually a term for the Nile that once flowed through Egypt in the Pleistocene or something. Louisiannan 23:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

A trade agreement might be nice as well; Greece in our world does manufacture its own weapons, although there might only be one working in the whole confederation for all we know. I'm also wondering, would the Kharga Egyptians be trying to get the nation's oil out from the ground; or would that have to wait until after Egypt's landscape has become a New Ireland? Mr.Xeight 23:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think they would start digging it out the ground as they're likely one of the few sources for it, and that would definitely interest Greece/Sicilians/and the LoN. Louisiannan 00:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a bridge in the Suez Area called the "Egyptian-Japanese Friendship Bridge". I wonder if in this world the name could be changed to "Egyptian-Greek Friendship Bridge", since even if the bridge was built before DD, no one knows what happened to the Japanese, and now I think the only foreigners the Japanese are focusing on is the Greeks. Mr.Xeight 15:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not picky. You can handle that with whomever it is that "takes over" Japan. Louisiannan 15:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I offered to, but no one replied. That fellow you just banned did an article on it, but it looked like he tore it right from a page of Toyotomi, so I reverted it. So I guess no one wants to take up the burden of Japan. Mr.Xeight 15:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note -- I only banned him for a few days to see if he'd get the hint. But -- yeah, it doesn't look like anyone's interested just yet. Louisiannan 16:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess the name change will have to wait until a new user wanting Japan comes by. Oh well, we have to worry more about the Green Heaven that's now Egypt and mainting all the canals, artificial lakes, and ultra-Arab Muslim fundamentalists. Mr.Xeight 16:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

LoN - administered "Suez-Channel-Zone?
Just to remind of the (at least described) installed Suez-channel-Zone administrated by the LoN... or did this change already?...lost the overview a bit in the Cyprus-Greee-Mandate-Egypt discussion...--Xi&#39;Reney 16:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh we fixed that. Greece got the Canal in '03, but sometime after that the LoN got free passage for their diplomats, soldiers, and everyone else the LoN wants to give passage to. The actual zone is Greek though. Mr.Xeight 17:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Aswan High Dam
I still think the Aswan High Dam would be a target for Israel. A strike on that damn would pretty much demolish the entire Egyptian state as the floods move down the Nile destroying all of the cities there. Mitro 15:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It would wash everything out, but there would be survivors who could arguably still retaliate. It would be interesting to find out what their targets were *here* at about that time frame. Louisiannan 16:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

All of Egypt (yes, even the desert) would be flooded in 9 hours as of 2010. There would be hardly any survivors, surely not enough to retaliate, Louisiannan. Fedelede 21:46, March 27, 2010 (UTC)

Confusion Over Israel Nuking Middle East
I am confused as to why Israel would have dropped nuclear weapons on anyone on Doomsday, let alone Cairo, Egypt. Where as I do not believe Israel would hesitate in using nuclear weapons against an enemy if it felt it had a need to a matter of last resort, I can not see them suddenly nuking Middle East countries on Doomsday, especially Egypt. Only four years earlier in 1979, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin had signed a peace treaty for which both later won the Nobel Peace Prize. In fact, Israel had withdrawn from the Sinai Peninsula in 1982 as part of the treaty. Even though different people were leading Israel and Egypt at the time, I can not see Egypt threatening Israel in anyway by which to provoke such a response, short of suddenly invading them. In fact it would seem more logical for the Soviets to destroy Cairo or Amman, Jordan, since Egypt and Jordan were more aligned to the US. Also, Israel would most likely have been a target of Soviet weapons as well on Doomsday.--Fxgentleman 00:42, September 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * No one has suggested Isreal launching nukes on Doomsday, but its generally believed that with the loss of the West Israel will be denied its greatest supporter. Meanwhile radical Islamists would convince the populace of Israel's neighbors that now was there chance to take down Israel. While the governments might not support that, they could be overthrown eventually leading Israel to strike first to defend itself. Mitro 14:20, September 27, 2009 (UTC)

I understand the thought you are putting forward and yes, I could see this happening in that kind of scenario like Birmingham raised in his recent book. However, I got the strong impression by the following quote from the section on Egypt this was the idea being floated, "With the advent of Doomsday, Cairo and many of the other capitals in the region were targeted by Israeli nuclear weapons and many of the governments were effectively decapitated." If I misunderstood, my bad. However, I am thinking about doing something on Israel as an outgrowth of what I am currently working on and it would be important for me to understand the current thought here. Thanks. --Fxgentleman 00:00, September 28, 2009 (UTC)

The page on Israel rules out the possibilty of Israel using nukes on Egypt or any other Arab countries. I tried to change the page to reflect that, but somebody changed it back.
 * I don't think I can agree with you. The history on Israel only goes up to the immediate aftermath of DD while Egypt suggests (and the discussion involving its creation affirms) that Israel's nuclear attacks came years later. Exactly when has not been written yet. Either way you should have brought this up before making massive changes to the article. Please read the if you have not already. Mitro 19:33, December 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah I think I see the confusion. The article seems to suggest that Israel attacked on DD. That will need to be changed. Mitro 19:47, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I changed it. Hopefully, this edit will stick.--71.52.248.240 20:17, December 23, 2009 (UTC)Anonymous92
 * It will depend on group consensus, you may want to see Talk:1983: Doomsday the main discussion page for the TL. I also strongly reccomend getting your own user name. Mitro 20:19, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

Since I am the one writing the article on Israel, it might help for me to let you know where I am taking it. I do not plan to have Israel attacking any neighboring nations, with the exception perhaps of Iraq. I based this upon research dealing with Israel's nuclear policies as to when they would use them. My thought has been Israel, Egypt, and Jordan would all have been attacked in 1983 by the USSR because of their military relations with the US. I plan to return to my work on the Middle East in the new year and begin expanding on it. I had said, I honestly can not think of a legit reason they would hit Egypt. I hope this info helps.--Fxgentleman 02:11, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the USSR helped build some sort of dam in Egypt in the '80s, I remember reading about it somewhere. I suppose if Israel doesn't attack Egypt, no one will. Mr.Xeight 04:56, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

And I would think that the Islamic regime briefly installed in Egypt would terrify the Israelis, so I would belive that they would try to cut off the head before it chooses to attack. --Yankovic270 05:49, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

You both make good arguements. Based on what I have read and what I remember from the time, Egypt did have a close relationship with the USSR in the 70s, but Sadat had kicked all the Soviets out. But I don't know about them helping with the dam. I know they had moved closer to the US militarily and I rember joint military exercises being carried out between the two nations. An Islamic regime could be a threat if they came to power given they had assassinated Sadat in 1981 for making peace with Israel. However, his successor, Mubarak, cracked down on them, such as the Moslem Brotherhood, after he took over. In order for them to rise to power, there would have to be a major disruption such as Cairo, including Mubarak, and key police and military installations being taken out, such as in a Soviet attack to pave the way. I think this would set up a very interesting scenario. However, I still think Iraq would pose the greatest danger post Doomsday, versus Egypt. I believe the closest the Israelis came to arming their nukes came in the early 70s when they were on the verge of being overrun which met their long standing criteria for such an attack. Again, this is all food for thought. --Fxgentleman 22:21, December 25, 2009 (UTC)

Map
All other maps show Egyptian control extending into otl Libya somewhat - needs to be added to the new map.

Lordganon 09:29, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Err... if you look at the geographic map already here, a large portion of the reasoning would be the growth of lakes in that area. Coupled with what is here now that would work.

Lordganon 00:48, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Map
That new map is a good addition, thought it should probably actually be in the infobox.

However... It's a bit larger than it probably should be in Libya. I know that you've given it some of the oilfields, but..... It's a bit much. Also, Kemet runs a bit further southeast than you have it, and Cyrenicia controls the entire coastline up to Tunisia in the west, and the Egyptian border in the east.

Lordganon 22:52, February 14, 2011 (UTC)

Muhammad Ali
Thought I'd let you know that he would not have been in Switzerland - his parents tended to be in either Morocco, Paris, or Monaco. At a guess, as one of his sisters was born in Monaco in early 1982, he would have been there at DD. Lordganon 10:23, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

?? I haven't said he was in Switzerland on DD. I've said his home in the Alpine Confederation, as in, at present, not on DD? I haven't decided on where he was on DD, but thanks for the heads up on possible locations, i'll prob go for Monaco.--Smoggy80 16:08, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

Not really what I meant. Given how things were post-DD, he couldn't have gotten to the Alps from Monaco for a number of years - and past that it's doubtful he'd have left Monaco because of being established there at that point. Basically, for him to be living in the Confederation in the atl present, he'd have had to have been there at DD, but he was more likely in Monaco. Lordganon 17:37, February 25, 2011 (UTC)

Population
How is the population of Egypt only 3 million? I don't even think that's possible. 24.53.129.136 19:30, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

I agree. In 1980, the population of Egypt was almost 45,000,000. And Eypgt was not hit by any nuclear weapons on Doomsday, so they didn't lose that much population. PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 19:43, March 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * Egypt was hit by nuclear weapons after Doomsday by Israel. Read the section on the Muslim Brotherhood taking control of the country for more info. Mitro 19:52, March 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, oops, I don't know how I missed that. However, I find it hard to believe that the population of Egypt has gone down by 40 million people after Doomsday. Just some thoughts. PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 19:54, March 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well half the population of Egypt is located in the Cairo metro area. Considering that almost the entire population lives along the Nile River, anyone downstream would suffer contamination by the nuclear strike. Social disorder following the collapse could be responsible for even more deaths. More importantly, this article is on the population of an alternate history Egypt. This Egypt has 3 million people because that is the number of people living in this alternate Egypt. Remember there is 6 million in, which was once a part of Egypt and there is a half-million located in the Sinai peninsula which is now controlled by Israel. So in reality there is 9.5 million people living within the OTL borders of Egypt. Mitro 20:05, March 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * I see. So what you are saying is that in this world, Egypt had a smaller population? PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 20:07, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

...What I am saying is that the stated population level in the article that you and the anon had a problem with is plausible if you consider the fact that we are not talking about OTL Egypt. Mitro 20:10, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

That still doesn't make sense. The Cairo metropolitan area only contains a fourth of Egypt's population. Mitro, you forgot to account for population growth between 1983 and now. Cairo was struck with a 250 kiloton nuclear weapon that was aimed at the government facilities. That means the initial blast radius would be less than a mile and the significant part of the shockwave would go only 10 miles past that (see [this simulation] for more details). The Cairo metro area is 33,347 sq miles, which means most of it would survive. Only the city center and surrounding areas would be damaged/destroyed. Also, downstream of the Nile is the rest of the Nile Delta only. It flows into the Mediterranean. Also, the winds in the area go to the northeast. Everything south of Cairo would not experience significant water contamination. As the article says, most people who lived north of Cairo fled south or were later evacuated, so those people can't be completely discounted. Social disorder would cause many deaths, but not the millions described here. A more appropriate number of losses in the post-Doomsday years would be between 5-15 million. The modern population would be between 45 to 60 million.
 * Okay. I get it now. PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 20:12, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

In addition, Egypt has a very high birth rate and a very large agricultural base that's capable of feeding its own population many times over. While agricultural production would suffer, the production in the south would be minimally affected and still be able to feed Egyptian population plus maintain an expanding growth rate. Once the Eonile was formed, agricultural production would increase even further. So even if the population of Egypt was somehow reduced to 3 million, there would have been substantial population growth due to the abundance of agriculture and previous tendency to have a lot of children in Egypt. Caeruleus 22:34, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

As has been stated many times, the population of Egypt is on the river, north of Cairo, for the most part. The radioactive contamination of the soils, given the flooding that occurs, is easy, and would kill off the crops and everything to do with it. Most people there die, leaving that population quite reasonable. You also fail to remember that a fair number are now in Israeli territory as well.

The population of Cairo itself is today around 6.7 million, up from 6 million in 1986. Figure around that remains the same here, more or less. And you also assume that the area of the modern metro area was the same when the nuke went off, but we all know that you can't do that and that it was definitely not the case.

Using your figures, the blast thus destroys an area of about 379.94 miles squared. Far larger than the size of the actual city, which is today 174.9 square miles. The area is also one of the most highly dense areas of the world with regards to population and settlement, meaning that the entire urban area would be destroyed by fires, with most dead in the process.

Soil contamination, along with the abandonment of the delta early on, means starvation on a massive scale. Agriculture in Egypt depends on the Nile and the soils it leaves behind, and with most of these contaminated, they cannot feed themselves - not even close. The survivors could be evacuated, but, simply put, there isn't many.

The population is perfectly reasonable. Deal with it, Caer.

Lordganon 08:58, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

Half of the Egyptian population lives south of Cairo. Only 4.5 million would be in Israeli territory. Even if you write off the entire Cairo metro area and the half of the population that lives north of Cairo, you still have at least 15-20 million people surviving. The only soil that would be contaminated would be those north of Cairo (downstream). Southern agriculture would remain largely intact. Plus once the Eonile was created, agricultural production would increase further.

One 250k nuclear weapon is not going to kill 35 million people anyway, even with the radiation aftereffects. Only those within the blast radius would die of acute radiation sickness. The rest would die slowly, over the course of potentially years, or have other long-term effects. Soil contamination would be limited due to the ability to limit the flow of the nile thanks to the Aswar Dam as well. Soil contamination is also fairly easy to deal with, since you just basically have to get rid of the topsoil, and after a year or two at most would not be a problem. And the current figures still fail to consider population growth rates regardless of the initial losses. Caeruleus 18:56, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the population that lives south of the Cairo region is, otl, around 23 million, a little bit more than a quarter of the current Egyptian population of about 79 million. The amount in Israeli territory would be closer to two million, if even that high, as they only control the Sinai area up to the Canal region. Do better math.

I know I've told you this before, elsewhere, but I'll remind you: Agriculture in Egypt is dependent on two things, the Nile, and with that dam there and intact, massive amounts of fertilizer. The Nile, even with the dam in place, puts out a massive amount of silt, which it deposits along its banks, and especially throughout the Delta region, though the contaminated silt would probably peter out in the Delta at some point before getting to the coast. The strike on Cairo would contaminate this silt, which then spreads throughout the lower areas of the river, killing the crops that are being planted around that time of the year. Now, the population, due to a severe shortage of fertilizer, is already on the verge of starving and killing each other for food. Three guesses what effect the loss of the crop and central authority has on that situation. Ends up being far, far, more than half of the population dead, with only fishing in the Med. keeping the coastal cities somewhat alive. No matter how limited the flow of silt is - and it would be a lot less limited after Doomsday, with the fertilizer shortages - it is still enough in the Nile to cause massive problems.

And you say that the contamination can be easily fixed by removing the topsoil - but, you miss one thing: In Egypt, there is nothing but sandy soil beneath the topsoil. Won't do a bit of good.

Now, in the Upper region of the Nile, you have a power vacuum for a short time, in which people die. The fertilizer shortage is now made even worse now that contact with the coast is lost, as is the food shortages. The area eventually controlled by the new Egyptian government also does not control everything south of Cairo, either. Populationwise, this area had half the population that it does today at the time of the attack. Fires in urban areas, with no authority to fight them, go unchecked and in short time, incinerate several urban centers and their suburbs.

It's not radiation that really does in Egypt, but the starvation brought on by the non-existence of fertilizer, and the contamination of crops in the ground, as I've pointed out to you before. In areas as tightly packed as Egyptian urban areas, fires, unless fought fast - not happening, atl - would end up like the Great Chicago Fire, only worse. While many may survive these fires, lack of food and the desert do the rest. Between the military and refugees retreating from the north, and this situation, there is going to be a lot of deaths. When all is said and done in the area, the population is quite reasonable, though an increase to around 5 million may be reasonable.

But nowhere near the figures you think are reasonable.

Lordganon 12:26, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on this discussion.

I've spent many hours researching how the population of Egypt was distributed at the time of the nuke attack from Israel, how many would die in the initial attack and within 2 weeks due to radiation around Cairo, how the radiation would spread down the Nile and effect plant growth, animal metabolism (for example, how the radioactivity would get into the milk and meat etc) how the low level radiation would effect the people who ate the plants and animals, how long the fertiliser would last and how yeilds would be effected by the lack of fertiliser, as well as starvation rates, militant attacks, disease etc.

I also worked out how long it would take for the new Eonile to be fertile enough to grow plants in (without fertiliser) I worked out that the population of Egypt would be between 2.5 and 5 million and I picked a number somewhere in the middle.

I'm happy with the current population numbers (they seem resonable to me), however if anyone can give me a reason why the number should be higher (or even lower) i'll change it.--Smoggy80 13:38, March 19, 2011 (UTC)

I still think it should be higher. I think the effects of a single, groundburst 250k nuclear weapon are being overestimated. It would release a finite amount of radioactive debris that would primarily affect only areas downstream of Cairo. Parts of the Nile Delta would be contaminated, but all of it wouldn't. Cities located slightly away from the Delta, such as Alexandria, would be directly affected by the contaminated silt at all. There would be minimal airborne radioactive fallout because it was a groundburst detonation and because the winds go in the west/northwest direction. There are ways to filter radioactive fallout from the water supply and the further from Cairo you are the lower the concentration of radioactive fallout in the water. Much of the contaminated silt would remain, but a large amount of it would flow into the Meditterranean within a few months. They could remove it fairly easily and it would be replaced by new soil once the dam was adjusted to allow some slight flooding, which would also solve the problem of fertilizer. Additionally, Egypt would still have ports along the Red Sea and most of the world escaped Doomsday unscathed. South America, New Zealand, and parts of Southeast Asia would be able to trade with Egypt. Between trade and domestic production, some fertilizer would be obtainable. The Nile Delta would only experience up to a year of crop losses since after that the contaminated silt could be dealt with and the central government would be restored. A large part of the surviving population would still be able to be fed, though at much lower levels of sustenance. There would be some famine, but there would be no more than 3-5 million deaths from it. Beyond that, let's just write off the entire population of metro Cairo (6 million), 1 million from radiation poisoning (others would have it but wouldn't die from it), plus another 1-2 million from the fires and effects beyond Cairo.

LG, I don't know where you're getting your figures from. You're right about the population of the Sinai peninsula, but everywhere I've looked says only half of the Egyptian population lives in the Nile Delta. Could you post the link please? Also, communication wouldn't break down. Radio would still be working and not all the communication cables run through Cairo, and even those that do may have survived depending on how deep they're buried. Communication would be hampered, but not cut off.

Also, since the Egyptian military is the backbone of the governement, a total collapse wouldn't occur, so there would be some remaining central authority in at least some parts of the country that would be able to respond to this. Minor warlords rose up, but since it only took a year to suppress them they obviously weren't a significant challenge to the military. Even if they were, millions would not die during those struggles. At most, 100,000 to 300,000 would die and I doubt it would be much higher than 100,000. Also, we have the recent uprising in Egypt to use as an example of what would happen when the government withdraws. Citizen committees formed to enforce law and order, but they all ultimately deferred to the army. While this would occur less in this situation, the army would probably remain popular and many would side with it.

All together, I would estimate losses to be between 12-20 million in the first year, after which fatalities would largely cease. Food shortages would continue beyond that for a few years. By the early 1990s, the situation would stabilize and population growth would begin again, though at a reduced rate. There would be a population of about 25-40 million in 2011. Caeruleus 15:50, March 19, 2011 (UTC)