Talk:1983: Doomsday

Before you start editing, please read the Editorial Guidelines.

Discussion Archives:

| Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 | Page 7 | Page 8

Former Proposals:

| Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 | Page 7 | Page 8 | Page 9

=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

The fate of the British Indian Ocean Territory aka Chagos Islands
The fate of the British overseas territories is known. The only exception seems to be the British Chagos Islands. Was it nuked because of the Diego Garcia base? Which nation would claim and actually control the islands after Doomsday, the Seychelles, Mauritius/R.T.A., ANZC or New Britain? What do you think? Grand Prince Paul II. 22:23, February 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know much about it, but reading Wikipedia, the base sounds highly strategic, if small. It's a Navy base and part of the Strategic Space Command network. Very likely a target, if you ask me.
 * Intriguingly, by 1983 the entire native population had been re-settled in Mauritius and the Seychelles, to make room for that base. Maybe some of them have gone back to Chagos, and it's now a dependency of either Mauritius or Seychelles. Benkarnell 22:41, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

Surely as New Britain is a naval nation, it would only make sense for them to claim it as their own. Bob 18:37, February 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I've opposed most N. British expansion every step of the way (I pretty much see NB as an idea barely within the bounds of plausibility that is always trying to burst out). But in this case, I think this is something they would do. NB has a known history of exploring former British islands and annexing them through the cunning use of flags... What do you say to this sample TL?
 * 1999: The Seychelles lead a resettlement of 500 Chagossians to the archipelago, and annex the islands.
 * 2003: New Britain sends an expedition and is surprised to find the islands inhabited.
 * 2006: New British naval expedition captures the Chagos. The Seychelles do not have the military hardware to oust them.
 * 2008: The Seychelles settle on a blockade. This state of affairs basically continues today: New British forces occupy the Chagos, but are cut off from home. The blockade is occasionally run, so they have enough supplies to survive, but NB has been unable to break the blockade. Benkarnell 19:18, February 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * That seems to make perfect sense to me. I would prefer it if Chagos remains inhabited. On another note, I wrote down about NB encouraging immigration from the Commonwealth to NB to bolster their relatively low population. I take it the Australian Aborigines are still in a pretty unpleasant condition as OTL. Well I was thinking that they consent to emigrate to NB to escape the cycle of drugs and crime in their homeland. Not all of them obviously. Only about 1000. Bob 19:30, February 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see as how the Seychelles could have the naval might to maintain an effective blockade against New Britain.Oerwinde 20:05, February 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought the big question would be, "How can a small country like New Britain hope to forcibly occupy a hostile island thousands of miles away, especially as it has many other military commitments at the moment?
 * Here's how I imagine the situation: from New Britain's perspective, it's going to be impossible to maintain the position at Chagos long term. It's far away, whereas the Seychelles are right in the area. Defense money is desperately needed at home, where NB is not only surrounded by hostile or potentially hostile states, it's also currently occupying the Xhosa state, which has a size and population at least matching New Britain itself. However, old British military hardware and know-how mean that their Marines can hunker down in the Chagos for quite a long time. And pulling out would be political suicide: the government is dominated by a party that calls themselves Imperialists, for heaven's sake, and even before that party too over, the others no doubt sensed the way the winds were blowing and would not have wanted to be the party that "lost the Indian Ocean Territory." So the long war of attrition continues.
 * Meanwhile, on the Chagos, things must be far from peaceful. If any group has a right to be angry with the British Empire, it's the Chagossians. They were all forcibly evicted from their islands in the 1960s, when that sort of imperialist overlord nonsense was supposed to have ended. And no sooner had they arrived home to the bombed-out wreckage of their islands, but here come the British again! If I were a Chagossian, I'd be furious at the British, the Americans (it was an American base that was built there), the Russians, the Cold War, everything. Some of them are probably still living among the New British occupiers (but are awfully upset about that); some have probably hooked up with the Seycheles fleet and gone back to their temporary homes, and I can imagine a few moving outside the British fortifications and waging a sort of guerrilla campaign to rid their island of the imperialists.
 * Incidentally, I can see the Cocos Islands monarchy getting involved herre, if only by making money running supplies for one (or both) of the sides. Benkarnell 20:12, February 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that the Cocos Island s Monarchy would support NB since they share a relatively similar history and culture. Also what of my idea for the Aborigine immigrants? Bob 20:33, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

i wish to make several points here: the British Indian Ocean Territory exists OTL because of the cold war and the continuting need of the USN for a base in the area, in particular to hide transformers at. The territory lacks any startegic value in ATL, for obvious reasons. Also, NB is no longer the Naval power it once was. The HMS Invincible was sold to Brazil, after all.HAD 18:09, February 17, 2010 (UTC) Sorry about where i but this paragraph. Wasn't supposed to happen. HAD 18:19, February 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * I can't really comment on the Aboriginal idea because I'm really uninformed about it. It fits with NB's policy toward the Ulster Scots, but then the ANZC might have a big problem with NB actively encouraging their citizens to emigrate. The ANZ has a considerable military presence in South Africa, don't forget, and NB would probably want to stay on their good side.
 * As for the Cocos Islands, the mdynasty probably can't afford to indulge in questions of culture. The biggest threat to their power, after all, is the ANZC, the neighbor with whom they share the most, culturally speaking. They have to be aware that they are playing a very dangerous game. The Clunies-Rosses were the ones for their islands in 1983. Now that the world has opened up once again, it's pretty clear that their time is passing. Their foreign policy can be summed up as "Don't Make Anyone Angry". It won't take much to get the ANZC to say "the hell with this" and re-oconquer what they (rightly!) see as a rogue territory of theirs. Benkarnell 21:44, February 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ever hear about the American Colonization Society? It was a pre-American Civil War organizatiopn that thought free blacks would be happier in Africa than North America. They established a colony on West Africa that today is the nation of Liberia (a true African success sotry). Funny enough the group of people who were most against their scheme were the same people they were trying to help. Most free blakcs would rather struggle for freedom and equality in their birth land than on an alien and hostile continent hundreds of miles away. In this ATL, I feel that most aborigines would feel the same way about a proposal for them to settle in southern Africa. Mitro 18:40, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point. And the African-Americans had lived there for, at most, 200 years at that point - the Aborigines have been in Australia for thousands and thousands. Benkarnell 19:23, February 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Though we are getting off topic, New Britain's future history might parallel that of Liberia. Mitro 18:46, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Monarchs page
As something of a monarchophile, I've been thinking about this page for a while. This isn't really a Proposal since it's all information that's from existing pages (QSS) or based directly on real life (QAA). Whenever a monarch in real life married or ascended to the throne after 1983, I left the consort and accession boxes blank: their predecessors' death may have happened at a different time under different circumstances, and it's likely they married someone different from OTL. Ialso left the Andorran prince-bishop's name blank, just because I want to make sure the info on the page is accurate: it says that the bishop from 1983 is still around today, even though he's dead in OTL. The only creative license I took was that I decided the Bermudan monarchs decided to name their Royal House after their peerage name (Dunrossil) rather than their familiy name (Morrison); I thought they might like to emphasize their noble credentials. Feel free to look over and fix! Benkarnell 06:22, February 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming that as the Duchy of Orleans seems to be a "dead" nation as far as editing goes you are ignoring it for the monarchs page?? Verence71 11:18, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I filled in what I could. It's still a canonical nation... isn't it? Benkarnell 13:23, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * The major problem I have with the Duchy of Orleans is that at the time of Doomsday, Duke Jacques wouldn't have been the Orleanist pretender. That would have been his father Henri whose heir would have been Jacques older brother, who is also called Henri. This second Henri is the current Orleanist pretender in OTL. Verence71 16:31, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Graphics / Visualization /Cartography
Section Archives: Page 1

New World Map
Due to size, the discussion for the new world map has been moved here: File talk:World83DD v1.2.PNG. Mitro 17:57, December 7, 2009 (UTC)
 * We really need to get this finished. The old map is way to out of date. Mitro 03:03, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Riley.Konner 18:28, January 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * New version under construction: File:World map feb 10.png. Discussion can move to File talk:World map feb 10.png. Benkarnell 16:32, February 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * I like itOwen1983 16:43, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Good job on the map, Ben! BrianD 00:08, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Fabulatious! this is brilliant. well done ben!--HAD 11:04, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Great map and thanks for adding Woodbridge :) Has anyone thought about adding regional map ie for North American, Europe and Africa?? Verence71 13:34, February 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * North America.Oerwinde 08:04, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

I love the new map, but I have a few issues with it.

1.The borders for Virginia and Lincoln are still too small.The Lincolnites control every part of Nebraska the NAU doesn't, and Virginia controls the portion of Kentucky on the Cumberland Plateau. Both nations should have their borders be up to the borders of their neighboring nation (NAU for Lincoln and Kentucky for Virginia)

2.The Assiniboians control not only a larger territory in Canada, but a chunk of North Dakota large enough to get the Lakotans riled up.

3.I am seeing nations that as far as i can tell do not have articles to back up their existence. For example, I couldn't find any refrence to Mali

Yankovic270 02:10, February 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Mali is mentioned on the West African Union page as a potential member along with Burkina Faso. Oerwinde 08:04, February 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the WAU page is where the existence of Mali, Burkina Faso, and Benin is mentioned. It also says that Sierra Leone is in "political turmoil" which I took to mean it's disunited like South Africa and Angola and Liberia. I admit that I assumed the boundary for Mali, but it's the natural one (following the northern edge of the Niger valley) so I think it's OK. The only other border that I completely made up was my old nemesis, German Southwest Africa. I would have liked to mark it as one of the italic nations (we know it exists, but have no idea of its location or size), but I had to mark it purple to show its membership in the New Union.
 * As for the size of Lincoln and Virginia, I know we've talked about that a lot, but it's been a while, so a refresher can't hurt. Virginia's borders were made by Darth Einstein in his original (File:Doomsday 2009.png, and they seemed about right: basically West Virginia, plus a bit more in all directions. It's already the largest nation (by territory) west of the Mississippi. I thought consensus opinion was that this is the most likely and correct size for it, but then again, I don't remember if that's consensus or just my own opinion.
 * For Lincoln, I admit I did shrink Darth Einstein's borders for it. My thoughts: (1) the size I depicted is already quite huge for a city-state; (2) Lincoln would have little need to expand much beyond that (it's all pretty much nomad-inhabited prairie anyway), and indeed expanding needlessly would only create extra expense; and (3) even if it did expand, it's probably not going to pay much attention to the old Nebraska border, which is at this point a fairly meaningless straight line.
 * Anyway, that was what I was thinking. I honestly had thought the matter was settled but I see I was wrong. I'm more than open to correction if I was too hasty. 207.177.213.142 16:23, February 3, 2010 (UTC) (Benkarnell)

Virginia would still have a border with the neighboring Kentucky, due to its territory in the former US state of the same name. If you had read the article I created on Lincoln you would have known that it is not just a citystate. It is an independant republic governed by the remains of the Nebraska state government. As such most of its citizenry, while gaining an independant identity as Lincolnites, believe that Lincoln is the sucessor to the old US state they feel it is their duty to reclaim as much of the state's territory as possible. And since the Lakotan territory disputes with Assiniboia are now canon they need a cause. namely the Assiniboian territory in North Dakota. I keep bringing these issues up because I want my ideas to be properly illustrated. The borders i decscribed are what I consider my nations to look like.

Yankovic270 17:27, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

well, how the borders would be drawn depend on who is drawing the map. In modern times, we would probably do this fancy dotted line thing and then color the area the color of the audience's choice--- or whoever administers the area. I also think that part of this is the inner struggle for greatness, where a writer proposes an idea, an the rest of us say "that's too big, too fast, and too advanced". then we kind of scuffle over it until map's come out. Quite personally, I do not see how a state where people worship Abraham Lincoln is going to thrive. Exist-- possible. grow to the size of the state of nebraska? Highly unlikely. Religions historically don't "pop" into existance, particuarly dramatically new ones.Desert viking 20:38, February 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * This map is supposed to be totally unbiased in that it shows effective control, not claims. No doubt Lincoln's home-made maps show it encompassing all of Nebraska. And DV, I think that "Lincolnism" is a religious movement within the republic that is still in minority. I'm sure it gets lots of attention and is something of an embarassment for mainstream Lincolnians: I can imagine that many people in North America believe Lincoln to be full of people worshipping Abe. But it's not the official state religion or anything... at least, that was my understanding when I read it (and yes Yank, I've read it, many times). @Yank - being an "independent republic" does not preclude being a city-state: Rome and Athens managed just fine as both for quite a long time, as has Singapore more recently. I had honestly thought that in the discussions of it everyone agreed that it couldn't take up all of Nebraska. As for Virginia/Kentucky - are they supposed to be touching? I admit I haven't read Kentucky's page; I think most of it was written while I was not active. Benkarnell 22:40, February 4, 2010 (UTC)

I am sure that the borders of Kentucky and Virginia should be touching. Virginia has a chunk of eastern Knetucky, and southeastern Ohio. Both of which are alongside with Kentucky's territory in the area.

Supersonic91 18:57, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

The USSR needs another major edit. For some reasons, the USSR-territory does only include the utterly northern part of the Ural, although text and map of canon USSR-article clearly stated that it is part of it. It's even called the Ural territory. Additionaly, Aralia should be coloured red-ish to show its dependence after the recent war. Grand Prince Paul II. 07:50, February 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll change the Soviet border to conform with the main Siberia map. But ... this is just me personally, but I'm very much against making Virginia and Kentucky bigger. Unfortunately the Kentucky maps are canon, so I guess I'll make the big map reflect them. But how in the world did a fortress-state based around Ft Knox take over the greater part of three American states????
 * Well Ben I also am starting to have issues with the size of Kentucky. I'm not exactly sure how this got by us but I think as a group we need to discuss the Kentucky expansion in more detail. So IMO I would hold off on making Virginia and Kentucky any larger until this is settled. Mitro 16:26, February 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * New version that hopefully addresses everybody's concerns, as well as adds the newly written pages. North America is getting messy.  Probably the next version will need numbers like Europe and India, though I have no idea where I'd put the key.  Panama is similar.  To save space, I labeled the Panamanian Federation as a single country.  I just couldn't see using a special color for an alliance of three small cities. (EDIT) Shoot, I can already see that I forgot to add a name for Korea.  Also, the purple used in South Africa no longer matches the key for some reason.  Anything else that needs fixing?  Benkarnell 22:21, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Open for Adoption Template
What do you think? Bob 20:35, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Curses!! Its gone wrong!! This bounder of a computer!! Bob 20:38, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

As a fellow British citizen Bob, i think neccasary to point out that bounder in this context is as obselete as a galleon at midway. HAD 20:16, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Wiki/Timeline/Article Technicals
Section archives: Page 1

Article of the Month: South America
Trying something new here, if it works we might stick with it. Anyway this month's article of the month is. While no one is required to work on this article, we do ask that you please take some time to add to this article and hopefully through a group effort we can turn this stub into a good article. Mitro 13:30, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

March's Article of the Month
I'm going to give the Article of the Month idea one more shot. So what should be next month's article of the month? Mitro 14:16, February 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * The problem I have with the Article of the Month is that I'm not clear on what we are meant to do Verence71 18:09, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * My hope was that it could be used to highlight certain articles that really need some help. Nobody is required to work on them but by voting on which article should be the article of the month we would decide for those who were interested where we should combine our efforts. Mitro 18:39, February 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I'll give some thought to suggestions for the next one Verence71 21:00, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I thought that by South America being article of the mounth, it would lead to articles like Boliviar or paraguy being deveolped. they have nothing to little in them. or at least some of the SAC member states don't. Ramdominsanity 20:19, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

For march i vote for the New Union of South Africa and related aritcles. theirs not much written, what is written makes little sense and the member states are either a: obsolete, or b: empty.i think this needs improvment. Ramdominsanity 20:48, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

I'd personally like to see either someone edit the SAC and ANZC pages on a full time basis, trying to keep everything in line with canon or to make the TL page a bit more cohesive.--Vladivostok 22:04, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

What should be the next article of the month? Bolivia Paraguay South Africa South American Confederation Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand

I created a poll with the article suggestions for the next article of the month. Enter your vote to decide which article will be the next article of the month. Mitro 14:00, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Culture / Society
Archives: Page 1 • Page 2

Miscellaneous discussion
Archives: Page 1

Olympics??
According to International Olympic Committee (1983: Doomsday), the first postwar Games won't happen until 2012! I'd love to follow the Vancouver games with parallel ones in Zurich, but I don't think we'll get to do that for another two years. Benkarnell 05:18, February 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I guess it says that Zurich's hosting a "limited" Games. Shall I start a page on it? I'm interested in which nineteen countries are competing. Probably the only smallish participants are from Europe, with the rest coming from S. America and the ANZC. (And probably none of the ANZ's satellite countries will be sending teams.) But it's still true that the Summer Games won't happen until 2012. That postponement was a fairly significant news cycle last year. Benkarnell 15:16, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I moved it back to '12 because I thought the traditional Olympic cycle would make more sense. That, and the Olympics would bump up against the World Cup...which does not happen in our timeline and would be a bigger issue in their timeline. I think the DD world would prefer that major sporting events happen in separate years. As far as the Winter Games, feel free to start that page (I'm tapped out...I have several other pages here to work on, not to mention life in general). I am establishing the IOC in TTL gearing up towards a full resumption - pomp and all - of the Winter Games in '12. You should probably work this part in from the IOC page, too: "The vote for the 2012 Winter Games is said to be held in February 2010, and the IOC is discussing moving the Winter Games to two years before/after the Summer Games." I would put the 2012 Winter Games in Siberia/USSR, and have the IOC vote on whether to keep the Winter Games in line with the Summer Games (same year), or have the Winter Games 2 years before/after the Summer Games (which would mean a 2014 Games; I would propose having the Nordic Union as a primary advocate for this, in part because it stands to benefit from having the 2014 Games in Norway and Sweden. BrianD 15:34, February 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * If we can get a list of nations and sports, we can put together medal winners for Zurich based on the scores and times in those sports. For instance, France took the gold in the men's downhill. But France as we know it does not exist. Austria (Alpine Confedaration) takes the silver OTL, moving to gold ALT. Swizerland in OTL takes the bronz, giving the Alpine Confedation a silver ATL. Fourth place goes to Norway OTL, good enough for the bronz in ALT.
 * I used the same idea when I made the list of post-DD world cup winners. On a related note, would snowboarding still be an Olympic sport? Mitro 23:09, February 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Not this time, certainly. I did manage to write a list of sports on the page for the Olympics. (I don't think I ever made a link, actually: .) The listis the same as in 1980, but with a couple of specific events removed, very no-frills to reflect the basic concept of this year's Games. The only additions are curling and Eissstockschiessen (an Austrian-south German game similar to curling), but those are demonstration sports only. The curling demonstration is actually being sponsored by the Celtic ALliance as part of its never-ending quest to promote Celtic culture and sport. Regarding winners and news updates, I was going to do a news item on the first day of the Games about men's ski jumping, since the winner *here*, Simon Ammann of Switzerland, is a likely winner *there*, but I messed it and never got myself caught up. Benkarnell 23:17, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Check any sports site for results from Vancouver. The IOC's website - or Wikipedia - should give you a list of nations OTL. Snowboarding definitely would not be a sport TTL. Ben, I was about to correct you on curling being a Celtic sport - but a check of Wikipedia shows that it has Scottish roots. And I would go ahead and add that item on Ammann, even if it's a few days old. BrianD 02:47, February 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * As something of a curler myself (not a very good one), I think I know what I'm talking about ;-). It's probably inaccurate to call it a "Celtic" sport; it came from the Lowlands, not the Highlands, I think, and none of the Scottish terms associated with it are Gaelic, just Lowland Scots. But Scotland is a "Celtic Nation", and I don't think the CA would oppose a little re-branding.
 * I'll retcon some news items when I get the chance.
 * What does everyone think of the list of nations? Unfortunately we don't know much about eastern Europe, so unfortunately it might be skewed away from that region. But given the countries we do know about, I tried to pick the most logical list based on distance, expense, and history in previous Winter Games. Benkarnell 12:20, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Good article -- the 2010 Winter Olypics, that is -- Are there going to be 2010 Summer Regional Games in North America? I think Virginia, Kentucky, West Texas, and the NAU will definitely be ready. And the American community in Mexico, at least, would probably have athletes willing to participate. I'd like to think the Piedmont would be ready, but I'm not even sure they are "recognized" yet! SouthWriter 14:27, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * yeah, South - Americana Games, in Virginia. Yank's posted some brief information on the Virginia page, and I think there's some info on the NewsHour page as well (do a search for Americana Games). BrianD 15:22, February 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. The Americana Games are still on. Of course, even if Canada, Sanguenay and Superior wanted to be a part of the games, there is still the issue of the ongoing war. I would think that the smaller nations would be eager to join, as I have the idea of a provision that each of the participents recieve official diplomatic recognition from the rest. But, of course the official Olympic torch relay bites the dust due to the fragmented and chaotic nature of quite a bit of former US territory. The public relations boost is too precious to Virginia, who is desperately attempting to join the LoN.


 * Yankovic270 16:01, February 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Regional games are happening all over the world this summer; it might help to decide what exactly the regions are. North America, Europe, South America, certainly. Would Central America and the Caribbean have a separate Games? Would West Africa draw teams from all over the continent? That might be difficult to write, simply because we don't know much about most of Africa yet. ame with east Asia and the Middle East. Benkarnell 18:43, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Do we have a list of the countries that will be competing in the next Summer Games yet?? Verence71 21:33, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Reviews of 1983: Doomsday
You find people discussing 1983: Doomsday in the strangest of places: http://www.golemlabs.com/community/showthread.php?p=413704. Mitro 02:20, February 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's exciting! I'm very glad they have good things to say. How cool would it be to have someone else create an RPG based on our work? Benkarnell 12:18, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have seen people discuss the same thing on a Civ fan forum. Mitro 15:19, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm just thrilled they like the Siberia I created =). I personally think HOI 2 would be a better place to make the mod, but the same problem would arise that these guys discuss: What about the unclaimed land? I'd personally reduce it to probably being a rebel faction.--Vladivostok 19:11, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thats probably why Civilization would be better. Just leave the lands empty or stick in some barbarians to be stand ins for all of the brigands, nomands, and raiders that haunt the blank areas of DD landscape. Mitro 23:10, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that thought did cross my mind, but if we are talking about Civ 4, it wouldn't be very realistic border wise. If I remember correctly, the borders expand as your cultural infulence expands around the city, right? That would make smaller nations huge after a couple of turns, unless there is no culture to begin with. Maybe I'm wrong, I haven't played the game in a very long time. Oh, and could you provide a link to that Civ discussion? I'd really like to see what they've come up with.--Vladivostok 10:45, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

haven't we had this conversation before?HAD 11:10, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Square Leg
Found a potentially useful article on Wikipedia. Its about a British home defense exercise done in 1980 that assessed the effects of a Soviet nuclear attack. Its called Square Leg and it even comes with a handy danady little map about potential targets. There are some criticisms of the exercise but this still may be useful in helping figure out how the UK fared. Mitro 20:05, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Two articles
Found some useful articles. The first is a proposed list of primary, secondary and tertiary targets in the US: http://www.survivalring.org/cd-targets.php.

The other talks about the number of targets US missiles are pointing at and the nations they are in: http://www.cdi.org/issues/proliferation/blairnytimes6.12.00.html. It was written in 2000 though, but from what the article says the number of potential targets has actually increased since the end of the Cold War. Mitro 21:06, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Jackson, Tennessee
Are we to assume that Jackson was a lot smaller in 1983 and that the Gilmore of OTL was an outlying village that somehow was abandoned for the safety of a centralized population in that smaller town that has not grown in 26 years? Today, Gilmore is a community that shows up as surrounded by the city limits of Jackson. It seems to be of about at most 50 houses. Without historical records, I have to assume the growth records of Jackson to be about like those of the state. If that is so, the town would have a population in 1983 of around 45,700. After Doomsday, that would have swollen by around 400,000 as survivors from the Memphis area. Frankfort couldn't handle it, but it looks like somehow Jackson did. If anything, there must have been a grand expansion of the town (even assuming half of the new population, and some of its own, died). If even a new population of 200,000 in 1990 increased at 1% for 20 years, there would be a population of 240,000 there today in the ALT.

Yes, gentlemen, I have way too much time on my hands. If anyone wishes to further expand on this news item, I hope they do some research. I seem compelled to set this time line on the right path. I have articles of my own I need to develope. SouthWriter 19:49, February 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * I would ask that you, somewhere on the main talk page, develop your objections to each of the article you see here and detail the work that we will need to do in order to meet the standards that you apparently believe have yet to be met. I would also invite you to take up your concerns directly with the editors who oversee this wiki - specificially, Xi'Reney, Benkarnell and Mitro.


 * I will also say this, and I believe I would speak for the entire wiki: constructive criticism is fine. But I don't come here to get nitpicked. You also should understand that this is a wiki where decisions are ultimately made by consensus - which means that not only may your suggestions get heard and implemented, they may also get heard and rejected. BrianD 20:03, February 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * This is the main talk page, and Jackson was introduced on the main news page. I took it up as a challenge because it was introduced without discussion as a new survivor state. And I always try to be constructive in my remarks. I don't wish to be "nit-picky," but I would think that the storylines should seek accuracy. That is what I have seen in all the discussions that I have followed. I would not be offended if my suggestions are rejected. In fact I have asked for suggestions toward the articles I have developed, but have received very little input. I never attempt to alter any article someone else has created past minor edits of spelling or an occasional word choice. I apologize for my attention to detail. It is probably the reason I do not get much fiction completed. The remark above about doing some research was not meant to be a slam against anyone's article. It was only to say that I will not be doing the research. :-(


 * SouthWriter 20:44, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I want to be charitable in my remarks, and I hope I have not come across as arrogant or uncharitable in any way. I picked Gilmore because I had the group traveling by foot along I-40, and also because while Gilmore is a suburb in OTL, it may or may not be the same in a world where transportation is either by foot or by horse. I probably screwed up by saying the former town of Gilmore...I will revise the item now.

=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.

Poland
I have an idea for a Polish survivor state with its capital in Wroclaw. is this a plauible idea? --HAD 14:43, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wroclaw is the 4th largest city of Poland, it might have been destroyed during Doomsday. Mitro 14:57, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

Okay. if it were, are their more plausible alternatives for a polish survior state? --HAD 16:28, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well there is a Polish survivor state mention in the article. You should contact Oer about it if you want to expand on the idea more. Mitro 16:30, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Look for places that can feed themselves for the long-term. Some sort of natural defenses would also be a plus. So would an existing administrative structure like in a provincial capital, etc. Benkarnell 16:47, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking making an article about Poland, it seems like the most likely area for a survivor region would be southern Poland. Riley.Konner 21:51, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

i was actually basing the Polish idea on the state mentioned in the Prussia article. will contact Oer.. HAD 18:02, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

Well this has stalled. Ramdominsanity 18:26, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Well we had a basic framework. Soviet West Poland based out of Poznan, and Democratic East Poland based out of Bialystock.Oerwinde 18:51, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

sweet. How about you work on West Poland, and i work on the "Commonwealth of East Poland". Will need help linking it, though. Ramdominsanity 19:02, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

I hearby proclaim the to be offically established. (Cue drumroll). check it out. i'd like to hear what you think about it. Ramdominsanity 20:07, February 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Eastern Europe is finally taking shape! I like it. Benkarnell 15:11, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

It is rather good that its doing so, isn't int? Can someone please proposalise East Poland and add it to the main page under proposals please. Also, as an aside, i am aware that this is an international project. Is their a convient time (using GMT as a marker) that we could all work at. Or is this just silly?Ramdominsanity 18:14, February 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * I get home from work about 11:30-11:45 PM PST and go to bed between 2-3 AM PST, thats when I do most of my work. That and friday, saturday, sunday.Oerwinde 08:01, February 23, 2010 (UTC)

A Sicilian Breakaway
What about if some breakaway democratic cities on Italy start appearing and breakaway from Sicily? Firenze (The Republic of Tuscany), Genoa (Ligurian Kingdom) and Pisa (Pisan Republic) can be some of the options. They could confederate between each other and escape the Alpine or Sicilian grip. Fedelede 02:19, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

I love the idea of these republics, as I think the neo-fascism of the Sicilians has been imposed for too long on the Italian peninsula. Plus the idea of a nation (prehaps a rebirth of Italy itself) not being drawn to one side or another interests me.

Yankovic270 02:27, February 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * See here for discussion on whats up with Italy. Its looking like its going to get carved up into Alpine Confed, Venice, ADC, Sicilian and Greek aligned territory.Oerwinde 03:13, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * That may be the plan, but I bet the Italians have something to say about it, too! Benkarnell 06:41, February 20, 2010 (UTC)

LON Authority for Space Operations
To bring forward the issue of spaceflight (and in a larger frame more global themes in 1983: Doomsday) i propose the canonization of the LoN - Authority for Spatial Operations, situated in Kourou and established by the TSAR treaty in January 2009. Aiming at coordinating and supervising spacfaring and realted activities worldwide in the signing and ratifiying states.

A frame I worked out now, some details are needed (site for ANZC launch site... etc. I already tried to refer to what I found in other articles, but not sure if got everything. Harmonizing with League of Nations and other pages will be done if approved.

Thanks for your help and comments.--Xi&#39;Reney 19:01, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Before Doomsday the US was a major force in Space exploration but with the US gome the only two countries that have the recourses ar the SSS and ANZC and theres another thing how are these governmants going to justify a space program when people in meny parts ofthe world have medievel living standerds --Owen1983 19:07, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * You know what Owen, this is one of the few times I have to agree with you. Space exploration in all likelihood will be a low priority even among the first world nations. Mitro 19:15, November 16, 2009 (UTC)


 * My intention is definitely not bringing any moon mission into DD. Any ambitious space program Would sound like Science fiction. I am mainly thinking about practical focus, e.g. satellite starts for reestablishing communications and/or meteorological/reconaissance purposes, maybe a GPS-like system in a timeframe roughly 2009...more economical than rebuilding vast terrestrial infrastructure once you get a functioning rocket system back to work. --Xi&#39;Reney 22:03, November 16, 2009 (UTC)


 * This is true, we take satellites so much for granted nowadays that we forget just how much the Space Race has benefited society. If you can just get a satellite up there, it is much easier to use it to communicate, instead of building miles and miles of land lines. nd then there are the public safety benefits that come from being able to see hurricanes and the like when they're still out in the middle of the ocean. Benkarnell 23:40, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * Satelites make sense, my concern though was for more ambitios space exploration designs I have been seeing pop up on certain articles. One proposal suggested that an American survivor state could make it back to the moon sometimes in the 2010s. Mitro 00:13, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * what happened to the satalites already orbiting? most of the communications on the ground would be gone, but would it be possible to rework the systems?Desert viking 18:16, January 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Where is that page? Benkarnell 00:52, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * It was on the proposal, but Riley has removed it but has kept the space exploration which still seems unlikely IMO for such a nation. Mitro 03:11, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

I could see Virginia starting a space program. Considering what kind of nation Virginia is, the space prgram could have started as an unexpected side effect of missile research. --Yankovic270 03:21, November 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, this is an old proposal but it's good that it waited so long. The Alaska paragraph can now be brought into line with what we now know about that conflict.... whatever that is. Benkarnell 19:03, January 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I've changed a few things regarding the whole Alaska business and now it can very well fit into canon. I also removed the Calculations subheading, as it seemed somewhat out of place in the article. Does anyone have any objections regarding this article becoming canon now?--Vladivostok 15:02, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Bob. Question: would the UK manage to evacuate 900k to southern Africa? Mitro 17:37, December 19, 2009 (UTC)

answer: they couldnt becuse it would be impossible a more realistic figure would be 200 max becuse with fual souces gone and there would nned space for machinary and crops--Owen1983 17:19, December 22, 2009 (UTC)

I just started with 900k to provoke debate. I agree that it should be smaller, but 200 is a gross underestimation. Your average British ship houses and provides for men in excess of 300. I think the bar should be set about 300k and we can discuss from there. Bob 16:36, December 23, 2009 (UTC)

200 would be about right due to food been rationed and coal or diesel needed to make the journey--Owen1983 13:11, December 28, 2009 (UTC)

Even if you can organise an exodus of about 200k brits to southern Africa (use cruiseliners etc. and it goes okey..) what would you do with the problems in te host nation?? food, shelter, public opinion, neigbour states reaction?? As far as imagine 200.000 of mainly white people of the "Empire" -though long gone- nearing the shore of southerm africa...a HUGE conflict potential IMO.--Xi&#39;Reney 00:32, January 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought we had nixed the whole idea of a coordinated mass evacuation of Britain - a LONG time ago. My main problem: why, why, why, why would they just up and decide to go to South Africa? They had no idea that a pro-British state was taking shape down there! South Africa may have drawn some British refugees, but I personally have huge problems with the idea of a single Moses-style exodus to New Britain. Small numbers of refugees from Britain to SA would probably have landed first at the cape, but would have found their way to New Britain eventually given the anti-White climate in Cape Town. Bob, we have been over this endlessly, month after month after month. Please stop pushing for it. Benkarnell 19:26, January 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * I have altered it so its a few thousand. The government and supporting troop as well as bureaucrats and the like. The population of New Britain has increased as Brits from ANZC Celtic Alliance and other places flood into New Britain.
 * The numbers from other parts of the world would be small though. The CA and ANZC are major world powers with a large economies. Would that many people really prefer a small refugee state in chaotic Africa where most of the population is Xhosa or Anglo-African? Mitro 19:13, January 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe New Britain sets up a major operation to begin moving more people from mainland Britain who don't want to be a part of the Celtic Alliance, Clevelande/Northumberland/Albion, or Bentwater/Woodbridge. With a major waystation in Avalon, Guinea-Bisseau.Oerwinde 20:16, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it would depend whether they thought Bentwaters/Woodbridge would be big enough to worry about Verence71 16:20, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I question the whole operation, I mean, who would want to leave their home they've always known for some seemingly backwards African country that's got an identity crisis when they could have a more stable life where they've always lived. That's my thought. I wouldn't leave my home and move to the opposite ends of the Earth just because they promised to be the "same-old Britain".Louisiannan 22:45, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Because your home is now an even more backward and unhealthy place which offers you much less opportunities. New Britain is located in former South Africa, probably the most developed country in pre-DD Sub-Saharian Africa, barely a backward country. Even the Britons would know this fact. Grand Prince Paul II. 22:57, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

this whole situation is conusing. New Britian is part of canon, yet we can't decide how the evacuation that led to its exsistance came about!HAD 10:40, February 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * So... what's the consensus here? I'm in favor of obsoletizing. This whole idea of an "evacuation" makes no sense whatsoever. Benkarnell 15:58, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Do you even attempt to read the pages?! I apologise in advance but I am extremely annoyed. As HAD says above, New Britain is part of the canon. In this canon it says that a small part of Britains populace mostly military personell and a remnants of the government fled to South Africa to form a new state and bide their time until a day came when the economy was large enough to transport larger civilian populations to South Africa or better yet leave Africa and return to the homeland. Bob 16:58, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Bob is right. There was some evacuation of Britain after Andrew allied himself with ANC/Anglo-Africans. It was small but it still happened and it is canon. Mitro 04:11, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Moving tens of thousands of people, all at once, from Britain to South Africa, following a nuclear war? There's nothing small about that. Benkarnell 05:46, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Although this might sound idiotic, i propose we leave discussing this issue to a later date if a consenous cannot be reached. Moving large amounts of people by sea is not as impratible as it sounds. the Germans managed to put six thousand people on the Wilhelm Gustav or whatever she was called. HAD 10:25, February 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for setting a bad tone. I really thought this was something we had discussed and rejected (over and over). I was thinking about this: could we re-tool this as more of a broad-based movement of many people moving over a span of time, rather than a one-time event organized by the authorities? Less Book of Exodus, more Grapes of Wrath? There's nothing inherently wrong with a British government-in-exile going to a faraway country; it's what we have the Americans doing, and it's a nice parallel, really. But after that, how about instead of orchestrating a massive project to bring "the best" people to Africa, they bring over a very small number (more would really be impossible - HAD, going from East Prussia to Kiel is wholly different from England to the Cape!). But they also leave the message among the survivors, "We're starting fresh down in Africa - come down, anyone who can." The idea that a place is actualy welcoming refugees would sound like a miracle, and for the next 5-10 years a steady trickle of oceangoing Brits makes the trip. Can we do it that way? My biggest problem this entire time has been the scale of the undertaking, organized by a government without any real resources. Benkarnell 11:43, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

i like the sound of that, Ben.HAD 12:22, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I haven't looked at this article in a while. Its been changed recently to say "several ten thousand" people were evacuated and that is just implausible. I was arguing for it based on the smaller number that was once listed. So as it is now this article cannot be graduated until it reflects only the smaller, more plausible amount. Mitro 13:21, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

According to History of New Britain-article, the government-organised evacuation was done between 1986-1992. That's enough time to evacuate much more than "very small number" of Britons, even if every convoy transport only few thousand people. And this was not the end of British emigration to New Britain.Grand Prince Paul II. 19:14, February 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, if this is re-conceived as a long, slow trickle rather than a big, grand event I think it's definately acceptable. Benkarnell 15:13, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

and
this is the basic idea for a survior society in china-- very open to suggesting at this point.
 * It's wickedly dystopian, along the lines of Thunder Bay and aspects of Superior's history - I like it. I don't know enough about Chinese history or culture to say whether it's a realistic Chinese dystopia, though. It also seems quite large - I'm wary of creating large survivor states in China before we nail down more of its history. Benkarnell 22:11, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

yea, the size kind of bothers me, though its sparcely populated--I think. I'm kind of hoping that this will start chineese history for this TL-- when I went through this site for the first time, the abscence of any information on China after DoomsDay stuck out like a sore thumb. As far as I can tell, China was suprise attacked by the USSR, which caused a total government breakdown. A coastal few towns seem to have survived, as they are mentioned in tiawan's article, but under the impression there is no larger (or at least better) civilization in the interior. Some stuff on the edges has been claimed by the USSR, but they have simply stayed away from going farther south into manchuia--implying it not worth it due to the state of things. China has a history of major Civil wars (all of the most deadly conflicts of the last two hundred years are european conflicts or chinese civil wars), and they have a history of war lords. As for Chinese culture, my idea is that the culture was in flux at that point, and Hong Long (the emperor) got rid of those who opposed it. but I do think it could be smaller are you thinking population (its at about a twentieth or less of what the area would be now) or land holdings?Desert viking 05:33, January 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess the area: it seems like a really big chunk of China, especially for a monarchist revival like this. Given China's decades without a monarch, and the long ideological purge wrought by the Cultural Revolution, it seems like a would-be monarch would only be able to maintain control of a smaller group). But I'm not dead set against it, and it could work given enough justification. It's a revival of the warlordism of the 1930s, in a way. Did any of those warlords pretend to be "emperors"? What would they be most likely to call themselves in a post-Communist China ruin? Benkarnell 03:37, January 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * The warlord era, at least in the north was fought over who controlled the Beiyang Government. None of the warlords claimed to be Emperor but a lot of them called themselves or were called Marshal something. I would imagine that in a post-Doomsday China the warlords would call themselves Marshals and would all claim to be the legitimate government of the People's Republic Verence71 18:57, February 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * That's mostly what I was thinking. We've played with reviving monarchies in various places (Prussia, Luxembourg, New Britain, Orleans), and I've been guilty of it myself (Hawaii, Cocos Islands). But China seems an unlikely place for it to happen, what with the legacy of communism and its impact on the public consciousness. It's for the same reason that we haven't had any monarchies arise in the former USA (except Hawaii, where I honesly believe the restoration was justified, even likely). I like the idea of a Marshall running things in this region. And then I'd be more OK with a largish survivor state in Anhui. Benkarnell 03:15, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

All right, I've changed It to be slightly less monarchal--- it still has the feel, but it avoids the words. However, this means the name of the article would have to change, something I don't know how to do. Right now The best name I can come up with is the "Dragon Lands" which just doesn't sound right. The whole country could be refered to as the Dragon Army, or the article could be rewritten as a post-doomsday history of Anhui. does anyone have any ideas? (I don't really like any of mine so far) Desert viking 17:10, February 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * It sounds good. I'm almost totally ignorant of Chinese culture so I cn't offer any real advice on how to rebrand it. I do know that "Hong Chow" looks like a pretty archaic spelling - probably the Pinyin Hong Chao would be better. He is a totally fictional man, I'm guessing? Benkarnell 15:27, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Selma
My proposal on a survivor community in Selma, Alabama.BrianD 04:03, January 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Slavery was abolished in 1993... does that mean that Selmans(?) enslaved whites before that? Benkarnell 03:40, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, because the "CSA" was doing it to African-Americans. I'm still working on this idea, so while the idea of a black community (Selma) and white, racist Confederate community will stick, the details will change. There's a lot of anger there over things that happened in the first decade after Doomsday, but potential for Selma to eventually join the "greater community of nations" in the South. Not so much for New Montgomery, whose leaders are bound and determined to resurrect the Confederacy. BrianD 05:41, January 26, 2010 (UTC)

Louisiana
My proposal for the known-only-until-now-to-locals state(s) of Louisiana.--BrianD 20:01, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * What I like most about this is the way the "state government" exerts its authority through informal networks of the outlying villages, and how that's replaced modern-style buraucracy. It's sort of what I had in mind for Panama once the civil war started to die down, and I think I'll add more detail on some smaller networks like these. Benkarnell 16:10, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Natchez
My proposal for the survivor community of Natchez, Mississippi. Bonus points for the first editor to identify the real-life counterpart to Natchez's mayor.--BrianD 20:01, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Would that be Campbell Brown of CNN? Is Alma her real first name? I understand why she avoids it :). But she won't be the only female HoS in North America, because Lakotah, I believe, has a woman president. Benkarnell 15:33, February 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup.--BrianD 15:56, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Nanchung and
a resilient group of chinese who have built a nation around a leader in resonse to threats from the Dragon Kingdom.Desert viking 00:57, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

Parthenopean Republic
So,i've done a new article.For now it's only an idea.If the Second Sicily war gets approved,i think it's pretty much likely to exist.

My article about a small town in Illinois that survived Doomsday. Mitro 00:45, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I had been hoping to contribute to this one, since I actually know a lot about it, but I don't think it's going to happen. Graduation time? Benkarnell 16:43, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually could we wait before graduating this. I want a chance to finish writing the history of the city-state first. I realize this has been a proposal for a month now but I am just asking for a little more time. Mitro 17:31, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those general articles. Thoughts and comments welcomed. Mitro 02:56, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, I think that more needs to be added based on the fruitful discussion we had. Maybe I can do that if I don't find work today (increasingly likely :. The main thing, to me, is that the term "education" should have a broader scope meaning "teaching children the skills necessary to survive". Even in some of the largish survivor states, most of that probably occurs outside formal school builings. "Homeschooling" (probably not the term used) only gets a quick mention near the bottom, whereas it's probably the norm for large numbers of people. Benkarnell
 * I realize some of that fruitful discussion was created by my edits, but I really don't have the time to put more work on the article. So if Ben or anyone else wants to take a stab at it, go ahead. Mitro 19:59, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Olmsted
My proposal for a theocratic dictatorship in former Minnesota. --Jnjaycpa 21:02, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

From the short stub, I have doubts that this would happen. However, this free ebook may give you a little insight into the megachurch that has developed out of the former "First Baptist Church there in Rochester, MN. A short history is found at the church's website with a link to a downloadable book.

I picked this church from the ten that google earth brought up because it had no denomination attached to it. It changed its name to Autumn Ridge Church. In order to have a viable "theocratic republic" you have to have a megachurch already established with a near fanatical following. We are trying to deal with the believable rather than the fanciful here. I doubt if a megachurch (especially Baptist) would become an "Old Testament" Church in the way your envision. You might get a "Reformed" Church (that believes in what we call Christian Reconstructionism ) that would set up such a republic, but such churches tend to be small.SouthWriter 00:31, January 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, stranger things have happened. But it's true that most USAmericans would hold on to at least some of the political ideals they were raised on, freedom of religion first among them. OTOH, a self-governing, autocratic religious community is not at all hard to imagine, especially in a post-apocalyptic world. People gather around a charismatic leader or organization, which slowly increases his/her/its degree of control. There doesn't even need to be an established church before 1983. However, a community of 25,000 seems a tad high for such a community... in a wide-open world like this, it would be fairly easy for the disaffected (i.e. anyone who did not buy into the regime's spiritual claims) to leave for another town. And it seems hard to believe this many people sticking around in a place like this. Then agiain, it is a very different world. I'm on the fence. Benkarnell 00:48, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

Point noted. I'll probably cut it down to about 10K. In my storyline, the Rochester government falls apart and a charismatic preacher joins with a National Guard unit takes over. The city was largly abandond and the people left and the survivors went to the countryside.--Jnjaycpa 01:24, January 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. And I was thinking: if the settlement is prosperous and successful, or at least more so than its neighbors, it may well be fairly big. Some people may well put up with living there if it beats leaving. I was also thinking: I'm surprised we haven't seen more communities like this. Imagine after the collapse of civilization. People would come together to live with others who shared their religious views. Naturally they would govern themselves in a way that we might call a "theocracy". There wouldn't have to be antything insidious or sinister about it - it would just be people regulating their own religious community. The American frontier was filled with settlements like that. If it's a small community where everyone basically holds the same beliefs, it doesn't have to degenerate into an oppressive dicatorship. Problems will only start to arise when the younger generation grows up, and they question the norms and beliefs of the foundrs. Benkarnell 23:22, January 29, 2010 (UTC)

I decided to change the name to Christian Republic of Olmsted. --Jnjaycpa 05:50, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

International Falls
My proposal for a survivor community along the U.S.-Canada border in former Minnesota (I had hinted at it in a couple of other places on the Wiki). BrianD 22:09, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

An article based upon the survivor community mentioned in the 2009 WCRB report on the southern United States. --GOPZACK 22:14, January 28, 2010 (UTC)

Karelia
A proposal for a survivor nation in the former USSR. --Jnjaycpa 05:11, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Territorially speaking is it based around this part of Russia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Karelia?? Verence71 20:23, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I assume that in a large region between the killzones of Leningrad and Murmansk there would be some survivors. The only question I have is if there are any potential targets in that region.Jnjaycpa 20:48, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

This link might help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leningrad_Military_District Verence71 21:00, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. After a little research I found that there was a minor military airbase in Petrozavodsk, which means it was nuked. For the moment, I'll assume no other nukes fell in that region.Jnjaycpa 01:04, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

70% or so of the population of Karelia is ethnic Russian so surely Russian would be the main language??

Ethnic Karelians themselves are about 10% of the population so maybe at some point post-Doomsday there could be an armed uprising among them Verence71 16:02, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

I decided to split Karelia into two parts: a Finnish-dominated democratic republic (Republic of Karelia) and a pro-Siberian regime (East Karelia).

According to this scneario, Soviet and Finnish Karelian forces fought in the winter of 1983 (Second Winter War). By spring of 1984, the Finnish Karelians reclaimed most of the territory lost in 1940. In 1988, the Finnish Karelians decide against rejoining Finland, and declare an independent nation, the Republic of Karelia (Karelia). The Soviets retreated and set up the Provisional Soviet Socalist Republic of Russia (East Karelia). By 2010, Karelia will formally join in the Nordic Union, while East Karelia will declare its alligence to Siberia.

Jnjaycpa 02:33, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

I've started a proposal for Soviet Karlia. Jnjaycpa 06:10, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

Mexico
My expansion on the already canonized portions of the article on Mexico (aka United Mexican States). I want to keep what has been approved as canon; my proposals would expand on the history of the nation, as well as its culture, government, military, politics, and the influence of American refugees in the nation. --BrianD 18:31, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * You might want to talk to JorgeGG. He had some ideas regarding Mexico: User blog:JorgeGG/Mexico (Doomsday:1983) - Some ideas for refactoring. Mitro 23:52, February 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'm still very skeptical about the whole governor-general thing. If Mexico wanted to create a counterbalance to the President, then I think they'd be much more likely to create a more powerful Vice-Presidency, or something like that. There's no precedent whatsoever for a G-G in Latin America. The term itself is odd, since it means "someone who represents the monarch." I understand canon and all that, but the Mexico page was written (just) before we began labeling things as Proposals, and I think that a lot of people who were active at the time didn't even read it. Someone tried to start a discussion about it, but by then Guinesscap was gone and could not respond. Benkarnell 15:45, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, most if not all the article needs revising: the quarantine zones, political parties the whole shebang. Ramdominsanity 20:27, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

It's slowly being revised now, Random - what are your thoughts and suggestions? BrianD 20:38, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Bob. Mitro 20:58, February 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you think the attitude of the different former Commonwealth nations will be? Victoria is still legally a monarchy and would probably welcome this revival. Fiji seems a likely member as well, and so does the East Caribbean Federation, composed entirely of former Commonwealth members except for the US Virgin Islands. But what about the major countries, Australia-New Zealand and Canada? Andrew is clearly the rightful King of all three nations under their pre-Doomsday constitutions; but will they be willing to join an organization headed by New Britain? It's got a history of belligerence (it still occupies the Xhosa state) and, unfair though it may be, I'll bet that the public in both Canada and ANZ believe that it is an "apartheid country". (I know that's not true, but it's a very realistic public perception, IMO.) But a much more serious consideration is that NB is openly and unapologetically Imperialist. Getting caught up in that sort of thing is exactly what they don't want at a time when both countries are trying to heal their relations with South America. Benkarnell 15:47, February 16, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Yank/Super. Mitro 20:58, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

I created an infobox for the article to get the ball rolling.

Supersonic91 19:57, February 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you going to do anything with this? It's a little difficult without knowing what's up in Ethiopia and Eritrea (which were one country in 1983, with substantial Soviet influence). Benkarnell 15:38, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * is nearby this area. You might want to check it out before writing more. Mitro 20:01, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Tiny state in Lincolnshire. Claims to be the legitimate successor to the UK. Bob 17:34, February 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Made some changes and added some detail to the history. Since I live in the vicinity of Bourne, I just happen to be the expert on all things Brunnian. It is perfectly placed to take advantage of a nuclear war. And my conversations with my friends and colleagues reaffirms my assumption that the believe in Britain not England. Bob 20:07, February 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a good survival town. I don't understand what this is trying to say: "East England would also be unwise because the Council decided that the concept of England not Britain had been growing towards Doomsday and they decided that the concept of Englishness had not taken Britain to any good places." What's that mean exactly? Benkarnell 16:13, February 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * During the 80's there was increasing nationalism in each country of the UK. ATL this feeds into the creation of the Celtic Alliance with a union of the Celtic peoples. As I was saying in the 80/90's more people considered themselves English/Scottish/Welsh/Irish than British. With Doomsday, the relatively patriotic (British) Lincolnshire folk decided it was this disunity and the islands looking back to an age where the island was disunited lead to chaos and destruction. OTL we know different. But *there* it would seem perfectly natural to assume that decreasing British patriotism lead to Britains destruction. Therefore they prefer to consider themselves British. Or at least East British. Lincolnshire folk aren't bombastic folk. Bob 19:04, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln, PUS
Here is the preliminary work on the state of Lincoln in the Provisional United States of America.--SouthWriter 01:30, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so simply "Lincoln" will work as a page. I see now that the "other" Lincoln goes by "Republic of Lincoln," being independent as it is. I'm wondering if that Republic will settle for maybe the bottom third of the state (basically, below the Platte River). I've made that suggestion at the Republic of Lincoln talk page.SouthWriter 05:49, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Article I made based on discussion. Riley.Konner 07:50, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Guatemala
Created stand-in page for Guatemala.--Vladivostok 19:44, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added a lot of history to the article and would love to hear from other users whether what I've written is plausible as I'm really in no way an expert on the region--Vladivostok 22:00, February 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Freaking reds taking over the whole continent... it does make sense, though, and fits a lot of what we've been assuming about Guatemala. Now this version does not leave room for Lahbas' old idea of Guatemalans interfering massively in Mexican affairs - the country doesn't seem strong enough for that. It had also been suggested that Guatemala invaded Belize at some point - this is shown on the map, even though it's not actually written down in any canonical source. So did that actually happen? On the one hand, Belize was probably the most stable country in Central America in 1983 and might have been able to resist whatever the Guatemalans threw at them; on the other hand, its population is much smaller, and Guatemala still claimed Belize into the 1990s in OTL. Benkarnell 16:24, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think that this version of ATL Guatemala would have the capacity to invade Belize. So, Guatemala can claim Belize until its blue in the face, but I don't think it can get it now. I rather consider Guatemala weaker than Nicaragua, maybe even weaker than the Dominican Republic in this TL. It mostly sends guerillas to do the job, like I've mentioned about it doing in Yucatan. Now I don't know what exactly Lahbas had planned for that country, so I'm not going to change anything in the Yucatan article. I could be wrong, though.--Vladivostok 19:35, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Per the scenario I listed earlier on the New Vegas discussion page, this is a nation consisting of parts of Nevada and adjacent California which I have been working on. I hope to proivde a map soon. However, I don't want to accidently encroach on New Vegas in regards to borders. When I originally envisioned this, I had loosely used Route Six to define the southern border, imagining everything south of there was of little concern to this nation. I welcome comments on this article, which I will add more to as time allows. Thanks..Fxgentleman 05:21, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you link to the page? Benkarnell 16:25, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Keene
This is an idea I had for a new nation based out of the Adirondacks in upstate New York. Zackshine 23:49, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Speaking a Libretatrian myself, i don't think people would want to leave a developed state to establish their own one in a nuclear wasteland. Even New Britian came about due to nessecity. Ramdominsanity 20:31, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Well the idea was that even after an all out nuclear war, people will still have their ideals, and will want to establish what they WANT not what is necessary. This libertarian movement is based extremely loosely off of an actual movement of libertarians to the state of New Hampshire called the Free State Project. The people part of this project are leaving what might possibly be a comfortable location, but have given it up to move to a new locality that may not be what they envision. The same with the Republic of Keene and their attempt to set up a government, a nation, and a culture that is directly built by their own motives, not those of the Republic of Vermont. In any nation, in any situation, there will be dissenters and those who decide to move elsewhere to seek a more perfect union. Zackshine 20:39, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * A 100k people leaving to set up a new nation from an already established one seems implausibly high. The Free State Project you mentioned has only succeeded in getting 700 people to move since being established in 2001, and this was done without dealing with a nuclear apocalypse. Since Keene has only been created this year, it would be incredibly difficulty to find food and shelter for that many people right away. I would suggest starting with a smaller population and working it up with new immigration as the years go by. We should also consider the fact that its more likely for Libertarians in Vermont would try to work within the system before leaving to form a new nation.
 * Also what about the people already living in upstate NY? What do they feel about this mass movement of outsiders settling in their land? Mitro 20:45, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about the population since first writing it down. That's going to be cut down substantially (as I was unaware of the workings of sort of real time in 1983 timeline). The people living in Upstate NY have no quarells with the new people moving in...if I may have freedom to explore the possibilities, one possiblity was that the people of the area were afraid of being in close proximity to the nuclear blasts, and so headed outside of New York (though, escape might have proven futile as they were surrounded by nukes as seen on the map). The few remaining have accepted the new arrivals; they really have no choice, the exodus brought some supplies and much needed help from professionals who moved into the area. Also the present republic of Vermont will probably, as seen in the real world, not accept fully what these libertarians crave. They are all or nothing. If you have any other ideas, please let me know! I'd like to see this get off the ground! Zackshine 20:55, February 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * While there may be 100,000 people in New Hampshire who want to reform the state, it is more likely in this timeline that a couple of thousand people maximum would leave to form their own republic. (There aren't even a million people in all of Vermont). The standard of living is one of the highest in North America, and Vermont's government is pretty free and libertarian. A couple of things: 1. Plattsburgh, as it is near Burlington, is under the control of the Republic of Vermont (review the history of Vermont article). 2. I'm not sure there's anyone left in New York state, unless you count survivalists and handfuls of families tucked away in a non-radioactive zone near a water source, because of the massive numbers of hits the northeast would have taken on DD. But I could be wrong - the northeast might have tiny survivor states all over despite the hits it likely took on doomsday. BrianD 21:00, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't assume the remaining population of upstate New York would greet the new arrivals as their saviors. Even if we assume that most of the population would accept the settlers, there will always be some who will see it as an invasion (look at Iraq). Remember these aren't backwoods savages, these are Americans with access to modern tech who might even have created their own tiny survivor states in the decades that followed Doomsday. I'm just worried that the settlement of Keene was just too easy. [EDIT] Yeah the population definitely needs to be changed. Currently you have every 1 out of 8 people in the entire nation of Vermont getting up to leave. Mitro 21:09, February 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * As Doomsday becomes a receding memory, I imagine that Americans everywhere are starting to look around and realize they live in a fairly empty country with lots of open land. It's 100% plausible that the old Pioneering Spirit will reawaken in some of them, and dropping everything to found a new settlement based on The Way Things Should Be does not sound so harebrained as it might to us. I do not think that this group of New Hampshirians could conquer the Adirondacks in a stroke. But they can definitely leave Vermont and create a new, self-governing town and farming community out that way - there's bound to be enough open space. There will be some conflicts with people living there already, sure. That's all a part of the Pionering Spirit! If the Republic of Keene is shrunk to the size of a city-state, I think it can be a fascinating piece of American culture and politics. Oh, also: right now is a poor time to found new settlements - that area hasn't seen the end of winter yet. How about bumping it back to March of 2009? You can write about how they've fared in their first year. Benkarnell 21:29, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Keene can't work. Just as it is now its to optimistic and needs to be scaled back. Mitro 22:26, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

why is the flag black & white? i've never seen a falg like that before, Ramdominsanity 13:16, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all the good ideas! I'll be editing this properly and adding a few new additions to it. 1. The population will be scalled back appropriately. 2. Keene will be a city state looking to expand with others in the future. 3. The timeline will be set back to March 2009 and the first yeat of their settlement will be recorded. [EDIT] And the flag was randomly put together by me. I chose black and white as to set it apart from other nations, maybe in the spirit of these pioneering folk! Zackshine 18:26, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

i think its inappropriate that a libretatrian nation does not have a flag that expresses this. how about making it golden yellow, with a bit of red. a Libretarian flag! (PS: i consider myself a libretarian, put the UK Libretarian Party only has 500 people in it. Which Sucks) Now, if you'll excuse me, i'm off to watch Jeff Dunham on YoutubeinMyFaceBook. Bye!Ramdominsanity 19:07, February 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Black and white is good, definitely distinctive and different, but the one you made is a weird black-white-grayscale gradient, which doesn't look like any flag i've ever seen, and which would be impossible to actually make on cloth without some kind of laser printer (which the good people of Keene don't have)! Benkarnell 20:22, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Ha, alright, there's a lot of stuff I need to get done! I'll fix that flag up quick. Off subject; I've been talking to my proffessor at school about why more people don't accept the libertarian philosophy, politics. He said this. All groups of people must go through three steps, I can't remember exactly how it goes. 1. They are ridiculed. 2. They are fought against. 3. They are accepted. Zackshine 01:34, February 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * And libertarianism *there* is bound to be a whole lot different from *here*. Our libertarians are responding to a system where they feel governments are becoming too large and powerful. The post-DD libertarians live in a system where most people live without any real government, so really they're trying to create a state from scratch from completely new principles. Maybe they like what they see outside the "civilized" states - local control, a lot of individual agency (at least, outside the "evil warlord" areas) - and are trying to combine the best of the small survivor vilage system with elements of larger-scale national organization. Something like that. Benkarnell 03:43, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Indiana
My proposal for what has happened in the state of Indiana since Doomsday. BrianD 00:07, February 24, 2010 (UTC)

A new nation I created in Indochina.--Vladivostok 21:08, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

I have been thinking about updating this page but I need some help. First off what exactly happened to ? There has been some debate about whether it remained a unified nation or whether it collapsed after Doomsday. A decision on this will help me work out the history of Assyria and also effect this article:. On a side note I changed the article of Jordan a little in response to my edits. The Jordan article stated that Jordan and Assyria share a border which seems unlikely considering the likely location of Assyria in northern Iraq. Mitro 14:49, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

=FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES= Archive 1

''This subsection is placed to focus on things covering decisive, vital issues concerning the consistency of 1983: Doomsday as a whole and the Timeline specifically. PLease treat this section with the necessary respect and place things not belonging here below !! Comments of non-registered users will not be tolerated in this Talk section! This TL is not without flaws, and especially in the first time (me myself) a lot of things were inserted out of curiosity or not spending much time on repercussions. And due to the complexity level we have reached with 1983: Doomsday now each of these flaws might have world-spanning consequences... I will focus on identifying and eliminating those flaws/inconsistencies to strengthen the basis of the TL and prevent repercussions on the excellent contents written at all fronts. This of course in the established manner of consensus and discussions! I bring this up as a consequence of the "Canal discussion" further below with the intention keeping an eye on above mentioned things.'' Objections? --Xi&#39;Reney 22:14, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

The Panama Canal again
I've gone ahead and written up a very long proposal for the Panama Canal. It was a pretty big undertaking (took me a couple of days), because it brings together some major events in the history of South America, Australia-New Zealand, the USSR, even France. It mostly drew on Lahbas' ideas: XiReney and I both argued for a different course, but Lahbas was so damn convincing... This hopefully won't contradict a whole lot of canon material. Darien and Costa Rica, yes, but I wrote those pages and am willing to change them if this gets accepted. The biggest change is that the USS Benjamin Franklin sailed around Cape Horn instead of through the Canal... that may push some things back by a couple of months but otherwise should leave the timeline intact. Read and comment please (please!). Benkarnell 05:44, January 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell this idea seems workable, any objections to graduation? Mitro 14:18, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well I'm in the middle of a book on the original Canal's construction. Since nobody here seems to know a whole lot about it, I'm hesitant to graduate it until I do some more research. I'd hate to make it canon and then say, "Hold on! This whole thing's terrible!" If nobody minds keeping it in limbo for a while, that is. OTOH, maybe I can just fill in details of the construction later, and keep a lot of the TL intact. The big impact of the Panama Canal is on the geopolitical relationships between the three main power blocs. Benkarnell 21:45, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Main TL
I know there was a discussion before regarding a revision of the TL, but I think nothing came out of that, so I was just wondering if anyone would mind if I added the events of nations I created into the main TL? Of course, these nations are all canon.--Vladivostok 10:49, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Long term New Britain
I have a long term idea for New Britain. British occupation of the Chagos Islands goes disastrously wrong later on this year. A vital shipment of ammunition is captured by Seychelles battleships and the British soldiers on the islands are foced to surrender to the new Free Chagossian Republic. The BIP popularity is hard hit. However they able to hold onto power until sometime next year, a plan to transfer full control of KwaXhosa to the Azanian League becomes clear. This and a poor citrus crop (I recently discovered that the only citrus plantations in South Africa would fall under British control) leads to a collapse in popularity in the BIP dominated government. The other parties are either seen as extreme or unpopular due to the smear campaign conducted by the mainstream parties prior to the last election. Instead a 'Peoples Coalition', composed of ordinary people not politicians, seizes power and requests the ANZC or other powerful body, ie USSR or SAC to restore power. They do not want their sovereignty to be surrendered to the LoN. After that I'm not sure. Bob 17:37, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Um...New British troops do not occupy . Read the article. Mitro 18:18, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

"Seychelles battleships"? ;) The Chagos conflict should last longer. The Seychelles who receives only few real military support (ANZC is neutral and other powers are not too interested to be involved) succesfully prevent a cheap new British occupation of the Chagos Islands by forming a semi-blocade around them but are unable to challege the heavly-armed New British convoys and liberate the islands. The hostile population of the islands would not be a problem after being relocated into a concentration camp. The increasing cost of the occupation would decrease the popularity of the BIP, but ultimately not causing their fall as ruling party of New Britain.Grand Prince Paul II. 18:36, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Concentration Camp? the last time the UK tried that, i admit it worked (sort of), but it caused giganormous outcry and with good reason! Also, the Seychelles military is to be perfectly honest a bit weak, to say the least. i still think that NB should not get the BIOT, for aforementioned reassons. IF NB went to war with The Seychelles, France might get invovled. HAD 19:47, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * This is also a story of a nation overextending itself. NB is surrounded by neighbors that don't like it. Furthermore they have little support from the outside world. On top of that now they are going to fight over a rock in the middle of the Indian Ocean that was nuked. The national debt of NB must be enormous. Finally their own population must be feeling a little bothered by the fact that they are being ruled by a foreign elite. Mitro 19:53, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mitro. the Islands a useless hunk of rock (and nuked). The whole idea of an occupation/takeover doesn't make sense. HAD 10:29, February 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, it was just an idea i had; it seemed like a prize they might go for. Benkarnell 11:35, February 18, 2010 (UTC)