Talk:1983: Doomsday/Former Proposals 6

NEW
I have moved the obsolete Republic of Lincoln to Nebraska. I remember my derisive comments towards Nebraska, and I am "eating crow" for them. I just could not figure out any other place that could be called the Republic of Lincoln. That and with Omaha's presumed destruction, Lincoln's being the largest settelement in Nebraska gave it a lot more influence. Besides it is the capital of Nebraska anyway. --Yankovic270 00:24, October 6, 2009 (UTC)


 * Overall I like the page and am very happy to see the Lincolnians thriving!
 * I have a few concerns, though, mostly small ones.


 * The North American Union is literally just next door, and like Lincoln and Gondor, it is a placeholder regime anticipating an unanticipated time when the rightful US government will be restored. The NAU even has a state called Nebraska, which I had assumed was based on some remnant of the state government.  I suppose the NAU's Nebraska could be a different survivor community that organized separately from Lincoln and joined the NAU.  Maybe now Lincoln is like a nonviolent version of Canada's Saugenay: The NAU sees no reason why Lincoln doesn't join up, while Lincoln sees no reason to be anything but independent.
 * When the USA government in Canberra dissolved itself, it was not in contact with the interior of North America. Even the NAU didn't find out about it for several years.
 * 1984 seems quite early for a community used to stable US rule to try their hand at forming a whole new country. I'd think that there would be a couple of predecessor regimes trying to maintain continuous rule in Nebraska, before giving up and forming a new republic.
 * For some reason, everyone calls it the ANZC, not CANZ. Don't ask me why.  Maybe it's to avoid the impression that the commonwealth is a pile of metal cylinders.
 * On a personal level, I'm uncomfortable just taking flags from another ATL. I think the group is creative enough that we can come up with good symbols for Lincoln.  Plus, flags with detailed seals, maps, and writing are bad enough.  A flag with a detailed portrait of an individual just seems like vexilological heresy, because it's so hard to make different flags look identical.  The flag of the State of Washington is just plain horrible, IMO.  That said, the flag is distinct and not at all unattractive.  It helps that the image is a high-contrast BW picture of Abe, not a full-color portrait like the monstrosity in Washington.  I think I could get behind a flag like this if the word "Lincoln" were removed, it being unnecessary.
 * Overall I want to repeat that I like what you wrote very much. Benkarnell 18:43, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

I have edited the flag. I also request that the the North American Union may be adjusted so that the NAU abandons its claims to Nebraska in return for Lincoln renouncing its claims to any territory outside the pre-doomsday state borders. --Yankovic270 01:50, October 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * I kind of like the idea of a separate community in western Nebraska that did join the NAU. Benkarnell 02:28, October 7, 2009 (UTC)

It would not be compatible. If the Republic of Lincoln was founded in 1984, then by 1996 (when the NAU was founded) the Lincolnites would have solidified control over the ENTIRE State. The close proximity of the two nations would foster very good relations, but the border would be pegged at the Wyoming and South Dakotan borders. Since most of the NAU is Northwest of the Lincolinites, this would not affect the NAU too much. And it is not like I am making the Lincolnites too expansionist. I have them just claiming their state and nothing else but. --Yankovic270 02:19, October 8, 2009 (UTC)


 * A couple things to consider.


 * Since the NAU page is canon, Louisianan would have to approve big changes to it (like disappearing his own State of Nebraska).
 * The NAU may have been founded in 1996, but its constituent communities are all older than that.
 * If the USA is as bad as we've been assuming, it's definitely possible that even after all these years Lincoln has not been able to secure the entire state. Nebraska's big, with lots of room for people of all sorts to roam around. Chances are Lincoln, with a small population, would not have much use for a lot of that prairie land and wouldn't expend the resources to control it, not when the only real advantage would be a larger spot on the map.
 * I don't want any of that to seem rude. I'm just trying to share my ideas.  Benkarnell 02:56, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ben. I only see Lincoln controlling only the eastern portions of the state, not the entire state.  Just one correction though, the NAU was my brainchild not Louis'.  Mitro 14:57, October 8, 2009 (UTC)
 * That's right, I was confusing it with Utah. My apologies!  Benkarnell

Ok. I have relented on the issue. The western part of the state is in NAU hands. And does anyone like the other changes I made? Including the Doomsday memorial, and Abe Lincoln-centered culture. --Yankovic270 21:29, October 9, 2009 (UTC)


 * I do like the memorial. Is it in Lincoln, though? (The page never said where specifically it is). Regarding Lincolnism, there are people who see him as a deity? That sounds a little far-fetched to me, especially given that at least 10 percent of the populace are atheists. It seems more reasonable to me that, in a stable of a society as Lincoln seems to be, that any number of people would see Lincoln as not so much a god as an inspirational figure, perhaps not someone to worship but someone to model one's life and values after. People who follow Lincoln in this manner could be adherents of any religion, or no religion at all.--BrianD 00:08, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is in Lincoln. But I will keep Lincolnism. It is the North American equivalent to the Cult of the Once and Future King in New Britain. Except their is naturally evidence that the figure they worhip existed. Again, considering how much Abraham Lincoln is welded to the culture of the republic that shares its name, there might be people who would establish a religion based arround him. It is basically Christianity with a different face. I truly believe that Abe Lincoln is the only person who could fit the bill. He was kind, compassionate but he knew how to be firm. From the bits and peices I gleaned from church, that is exactly God's "personality". I don't want to offend, but if there is anyone in the Western world i'd "Deify", it would be Abraham Lincoln. --Yankovic270 00:32, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

And if anyone is good with Photoshop, I would like a picture of the Doomsday memorial. I would like it to look like the memorial I described. It is mostly copper, with iron deailing on the plinth, and of course a recycled concrete plinth. --Yankovic270 00:37, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

That's cool, Yankovic. May I ask why the city fathers decided to reinforce Abraham Lincoln with the culture so strongly?--BrianD 01:00, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

Because of the fact that Abraham Lincoln is pretty much universally knowan as THE #1 Best US President EVER. And because of the fact that Lincoln was just growing up as a city when Lincoln was assassinated. And they need a guiding light, a hero to help them get through Doomsday. And Abe provides a perfect candidate. Basically now whenever they have a problem (and I am not trying to offend anyone) they don't ask themselves "What would Jesus do?", they ask themselves "What would Abe do?". I'm sorry but noone, not even Gerge Washington, can compare to Lincoln. --Yankovic270 01:29, October 10, 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I am pretty much finished. Anyone want to comment on it? --Yankovic270 20:26, October 13, 2009 (UTC)


 * I still like most of it. And though I feel like kind of an ass doing it, here are still more bullets with the issues I still have:


 * 1984 seems much to early for Lincoln to totally give up on the USA and l themselves a "republic". Until then, I'd imagine they'd just stick with "Nebraska" or "Government for the Greater Lincoln Area" or something just as temporary-sounding.
 * They would hot have known about vents in Australia in 1996; it would have taken them at least until 2000 or later, ,IMO.
 * ANZC, not CANZ.
 * I agree that creating an exact replica of DC is unrealistic not just because they couldn't do it (basically they'll have to survive with almost no industry or modern technology, after the first few years), but because they wouldn't want to. Maybe a grid and a few bits inspired by DC, but by that time the Lincolnites would, probably and hopefully, be exploring their own identity and not just trying to copy the old USA.  Benkarnell 21:41, October 16, 2009 (UTC)

You forgot to read my article I see. Until '96 or so (when the UPA was dissolved), the Republic of Lincoln was a provisional government, or "placeholder" for the US in the area. They did not give up on the US until then. Even now the Lincolnites are holding on to the increasingly hopeless dream that the United States would be ressurected. But again, as I said, the Lincolnites did NOT declare full independance until 1996. --Yankovic270 22:16, October 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * No need to get snippy. I read it.  It gives 1984 as the date of independence and says, "It was not until April 8th, 1984 that a new government was organized. Calling itself the Provisional Republic of Lincoln, the new nation intended to act as a “place holder” for the US government until contact could be reestablished."  They acknowledged their placeholder status (they still do, dont they?) but they still call themselves a "repulic" and a "new nation", something that would take longer than a few months, I think.  At least they include the word "provisional" there, I suppose.  But at that point I really would expect they'd still be calling themselves a "state"., especially since this is supposed to be the Nebraska state government assuming control.  People like continuity in a crisis: in 1984, it would be more comforting to know that Nebraska was still functioning, than to hear them declare themselves a Republuc with a new constitution and everything.  Benkarnell 22:42, October 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm just saying, but though it called itself "independant" at the time, if there was any chance to rejoin a new USA, they would have tooke it like that (snap!). Though there has been a growing independant idenity in recent years,they had at the time considered themselves American citizens. Now they mostly refer to themeselves as Lincolnites (Chosen because I think too many common nationalities include the suffix -ian. eg: Virginian)

--Yankovic270 20:34, October 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * All I'm saying is that they wouldn't have used the word "independent" at the time, for all the reasons above. Did you see the other issues I raised, also?  Benkarnell 22:40, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

Even these extremely loyal Americans could see that the Federal control of the area after DD was an illusion at best. There was no higher authority to answer to in the area. And contact to the American Provisional Administration was virtually impossible. Hell, the impossiblity of the task lead the governor to either shoot or hang himself (it isn't specified). They had noone to rely on but themselves. So the Republic of Lincoln became independant due to the lack of any leadership outside the state borders. They hoped for the US to re-establish itself, but in the mean time had to lead themselves to survive. --Yankovic270 17:03, October 27, 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're not budging on that, fine. It's a fairly minor thing, really, and I suppose Superior was declaring independence in that period.  Maybe after a year with no government, people _would_ want somebody to call the President.  But there's still no way they could have known what was happening in Australia in 1996, and no way, and no reason, to biuld a replica of Washington DC.  Benkarnell 03:47, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

They found out about Australia via the technological marvel that is HAM radio. And I had wrote it so that armed gang attacks a few years before the APA's dissolving severely damage the city. Thus they take the opportunity to reform the city into an as-close-as-possible replica of Washington DC. There. Both of your problems explained. --Yankovic270 19:47, October 31, 2009 (UTC)


 * If the Ham operators were able to maintain contact like that., we need to rewrite the entire history of the world. The interior of North America was cut off, in most cases until the mid-to-late 2000s.  It nees to be changed.  And a replica of DC is impossible.  Lincoln is a small survivor community.  Even if they did have the industrial capacety and the technology to produce such a city, thery would have no reason whatsoever to do so.  All that money, labor, and material is desperately needed elsewhere, and they would have very little to waste on a project like that.  Benkarnell 20:31, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Have it be a replica of the Lincoln Memorial and a street grid simmilar to that of DC's. And the HAM radio could have been sent from state to state to reach Australia, and not reach it directly. --Yankovic270 20:38, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
 * With all objections answered, graduated by Benkarnell 23:26, November 4, 2009 (UTC).

Multi-National Peacekeeping Force (1983: Doomsday),, , , and
All articles relate to the Middle East. Very little is written on the region and these proposals are trying to flesh it out. Mitro 18:41, October 6, 2009 (UTC)

As an offshoot of the articles I am already working on for the Middle East, I have created proposed articles for both Israel and Jordan. I have posted my arguements for these nations on the Asia Discussion page rather than taking space here. As always, I am interested in any thoughts. Thanks.--Fxgentleman 03:40, October 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * I still haven't read the old ones through yet (I'm still behind), but from what I can see they are based on solid facts and research and really add to our understanding of the world. Nobody's objected to them - I don't know if that's a silent endorsement, or if everyone else, like me, just hasn't had a chance to read them yet.  Benkarnell 12:58, October 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * I've finally read them. They are definitely good, some of the best-researched stuff we have on the immediate aftermath, and well written to boot.  I'm all for making them canon and letting you be caretaker, playing around with them to finish their history. I also am happy to see one person handle the entire region; it will make things more coherent and less fragmented.  One question: you mention that Israel not only survived after the devastating nuclear attacks, but actually expanded.  How are you going to get it there?  Benkarnell 22:45, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind critique. I am fortunate in that I enjoy doing research for fun and kind of thrive on it. I have and continue to do an enormous amount of research on the pages I am working, which is why I have not added further to Lebanon or the MNF for example. I guess a big problem is you have to go back and look at how things were in 1983 versus today, so in Lebanon’s case I am reading a book on their economy circa 1982. My intention was to do a few articles, but things sort of took on a life of their own. I am currently working on articles which will cover the rest of the Arabian Peninsula nations. As previously stated, I intend to post my thoughts on the area “hopefully” soon on the Asia page. As to your question on Israel, without going into great detail, I see them annexing the West Bank and Gaza and fully integrating them into the nation. This will involve massive changes as to how Palestinians are treated. They will become full citizens (i.e. no special ids); elect reps to the parliament and hold seats in the government; and have greater involvement in policing these areas and in the military. Imagine, all the big boys involved in the Middle East will be gone: US, USSR, Europe, Syria, Egypt, UN, etc. Without this interference and given the mutual suffering taking place post D-Day, I see both sides coming closer together and eventually making peace, although there will be extremists of both stripes who will be unhappy. As for the Sinai, with the collapse of the Egyptian government immediately following D-Day, Israel will be forced to reoccupy it to deal with refugees and lawless elements. Another factor to consider will be the existence of an oil field Israel found and developed there, which it later had to turn over to Egypt. With this “re-acquisition” they would ensure their future energy needs. I see the Sinai becoming a protectorate and "maybe" voting to join Israel in the distant future. Beyond this, I do not see Israel expanding further. I hope this helps to answers your question. --Fxgentleman 04:50, October 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. If Israel is re-imagined as a a "unity state" instead of a "Jewish state", might it end up changing its name?  Although I can't think of any neutral names for the region... Holy Land is too religious, Levant too dull.
 * Any objections to removing the proposal tags from these articles? Benkarnell 17:27, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

The issue about the name has been on my mind as well. I have been toying with the idea of the United States of Israel or USI. I had done some research about how Israel came to choose that name and given the historical and religious context behind it, my instinct tells me they would not be willing to walk away from it. I definitely see Palestine as a new name being a dead issue. So, what do you think, does USI sound cheesy? It would allow them to keep the name but indicate the nation was “new.” --Fxgentleman 17:40, October 27, 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a little banal, but how about "State of Israel and Palestine", along the lines of "Bosnia and Herzegovina" or "Austria-Hungary"? Like B-H and A-H, most (non-Arab) outsiders would probably shorten it to "Israel" in everyday speech.  Benkarnell 18:41, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

I think your suggestion is excellent and I am going to run with it. I especially like the analogy to Bosnia. What I will do is call it Israel and Palestine, which would allow both sides to feel represented. I agree over time people would most likely come to use just Israel like we do with Bosnia today. I will leave the file name as Israel, but I will make the adjustment in the introduction. When I get to the point where I am talking about the unification, I will explain the name change. I appreciate the help. --Fxgentleman 00:37, October 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Anyone object to moving these pages into the canon?  They have a fairly huge impact on the ATL as a whole, so it's important we have consensus.  Benkarnell 03:51, October 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I say we give them one more day.  Seriously, everybody, read them if you haven't!  Benkarnell 03:10, November 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm good with the proposals. Fxgentleman did a nice job on them, by the way! --BrianD 03:18, November 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * The only problem I have with these pages is that some of the ICBM’s are shot down too easy (as HAD pointed out on Israel’s talk page). But otherwise I like the general idea behind these pages. Most of the issues can be worked out on the talk pages, so I would press for graduation.--ShutUpNavi 17:12, November 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * Thoroughly excellent, a perfect example of what this althist can create. Bob 17:45, November 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * Navi will bring up his issues on the talk page; consensus was for graduation. Benkarnell 23:26, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Greco-Sicillian War
With the war mentioned in the WCRB NewsHour, i though I'd start a page for it. Greco-Sicilian War‎ any ideas for the various battles, foreign reactions and other features of the war, please post here. (Is Greco right? or should i use a different word?)

--Das Taub 10:32, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there's already a page for this. See Second Sicily War (1983: Doomsday). --DarthEinstein 00:34, October 21, 2009 (UTC)

I only have limited time to say this; but we really don't need two pages for the same war. I have no time to work on it, and I'm sorry.
 * Red vs. Blue, I'm so sorry I haven't responded to your nice comment. I tried two weeks ago but I had a spy-sweeper on my computer and I forgot I pressed "shutdown computer after sweep". Just as I was about to press send, the anti-virus finished, and well... I have a long, drawn out response about Greek culture in your world, and when I have time, I'd love to help!

Mr.Xeight 23:51, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow didn't even realize there were two pages. Maybe we can combine them... Mitro 02:00, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

No point really, they just reiterate the same thing about that comment I put. Mr.Xeight 02:15, October 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * The pages were merged. Benkarnell 23:26, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

American Survival States
I have a question concerning development of a proposed story for an American survival state. Although my focus is primarily on the Middle East, I have also been working on a possible mini-state in my area of the former US. Having read a number of thoughts and concerns expressed about so many such nations popping up in this region of the world, should I outline my idea via this page under proposals and get feedback from the editors first or should I create a proposed article page and lay out my thoughts on the discussion page? I would like to get some guidance before I move forward on the idea. Thanks. --Fxgentleman 12:39, October 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * I would do exactly what I did with West Texas: create an article (make sure you put (1983: Doomsday) in the title, and put as the first line in the main text of the article), then list it on this page.--BrianD 22:55, October 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * This section was never really a proposal. Benkarnell 23:26, November 4, 2009 (UTC)