Talk:The Spasm (Viva California)

Redistricted North America
Nuking the US Northeast is a very heavy assumption, but I rather have a problem with some of the new nations in North America.

First of all, there are three nations on old Texan territory, Texas proper with Houston, Texicoma with Dallas and Sequoia and Aztlan with the rest, though there are only two major ethnicities, Ibero- and Anglo-Americans. Why has Texicoma become an independent nation and not a part of one of its neighbors? Is there a huge make-up of Native Americans making the base of that nation?

Secondly, why did the people south of the Columbia and Snake rivers want to get part of the Californian nation rather than becoming Canadians? I mean, BC, WA and OR have always been a special cultural region despite the OTL US-Canadian border, so why should Oregon separate itself from its cousins? The borders of this timeline's California reminds me much of Toyotomi Aruta in its 1890's with the only difference that it is an Hispanic nation and not a Japanese one. And if New France consists mostly of OTL Ontario and Quebec, the core of OTL Canada, then the ATL Canada should rather have its core population at the Pacific, just like Toyomoti "Oregon". So why were the Oregonians to secede to California rather then Canada?

Thirdly, and that's most suspicious to me, are the nations of the Great Plains. If the Union-Dixie border correlates much to old state boundaries, why are the Louisianian borders so naturally defined? And why is it so big, stretching from Montana to New Orleans, after the end of East Coast power? I almost have the urge to reduce this Louisiana to OTL MO, AK and LA and make the Great Plains region a separate nation or part of the Union Commonwealth, the old core of the US.

Let alone the question why in Europe Germany loses Silesia and holds Northeastern Prussia and not the other way round. --Dr. Nodelescu 02:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)