Talk:Nordic Union (1983: Doomsday)

What happened to Sweden during Doomsday? I presume from the habitation areas that Malmö and Stockholm were nuked -- but the rest? Did the king et al die in Stockholm? --Louisiannan 16:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi!


 * First of all: the Nordic Union is an expansion of the OTL Nordic Council, and thus all nations (Norway, Iceland, Denmark, Sweden and Finland) are fully sovereign countries.


 * Sweden and Finland was not as targeted as Norway and Denmark during WW3, due to the fact that neither are NATO members (while Norway and Denmark are (OTL)/were founding members of that alliance). Thus, the Swedish governemt, parliament, and the royal family would have had a chance of avoiding any Soviet attack. In the case of Denmark and Norway the parliaments, government and royal families would have been evacuated before Copenhagen and Oslo, respectively, were targeted by nuclear attacks (other nations would have been given a higher priority in terms of being targeted by nuclear weapons.


 * Realismadder 16:30, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, in light of the above, how does that correlate with your map? From the map above it looks like Copenhagen/Malmö and Stockholm were all nuked, because no one lives there, according to your maps.   Am I reading it wrong? --Louisiannan 17:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Åland?
I get the sense that the NU is a little more than a typical international organization, and a little less than a typical federal state, and that autonomous regions like Greenland and Faeroe participate as full members. So is Åland a member now, or is it treated as a part of Finland? [EDIT] I've skimmed a Wikipedia article thoroughly researched the Nordic Council and see that Åland was/is definitely a member in its own right, as are Faeroe and Greenland - so why not also in the Council's pepped-up and strengthened version? Benkarnell 22:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point. I have a final exam on Monday, so I can update the article later that week. - Realismadder 22:53, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK... mind if I make suggestions? I think it would make sense if Aaland joined the NU in the first enlargement, together with Greenland and the Faeroes.  With Finland no doubt having lots of troubles, being right on the Russian border, I'd imagine that Aaland was left to fend for itself for a while.  And if the Swedes were also having problems of their own, it's possible that there were attempts to retake Aaland for Sweden.  The Aalanders appealed to the NU to maintain their autonomy, and they were admitted together with the Atlantic islands, on the basis of their earlier membership in the Nordic Council.  Within a few years, of course, Finland & Sweden had gotten their act together, and everyone respected Aaland's status again.
 * EDIT: Almost forgot - I found an Åland flag on site, so no need to upload one: Flag of Aaland.png Benkarnell 17:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Very interesting - although I doubt Finland and Sweden would "go to war" against eachother over Åland, as they are closely bound to eachother due to history, culture and the fact they have also have close relationsships with Norway, Denmark and Iceland. However, I will look at this later next week. - Realismadder 18:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I wasn't thinking a proper war, more that rogue elements within Swede or Finland would try to take it over.  Benkarnell 19:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)  And PS: Don't feel like you have to take my suggestion.

Flag?
is someone going to crate a flag for the union? all we have at the moment is the logo.--HAD 12:13, October 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * And the logo's out of date, since it doesn't include the most recent members. But Realismadder has never made anything in the way of a flag for the NU.  He was pretty clear that the NU used a logo, both when it consisted of just Norway-Iceland, and when it grew to four members.  If the NU ever needs a flag, if, say, they are being jointly represented at a conference and the ambassador needs something on his desk, I suspect they just stick their logo on a sheet.  Benkarnell 16:34, October 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the absence. I would assume any Nordic Union would be similar to the current Nordic Council (Nordisk Råd), which actually uses a flag. Either the Nordic Union would be a continuation (or expansion) of the Nordic Council, or a seperate organisation. I would assume the former. However, the reason I used a logo in the first place is that I have absolutely no idea how a flag for this union would look like. Any suggestions are welcomed.
 * Realismadder 20:02, October 11, 2009 (UTC)

If it is a continuation of the Nortdic Council, then why don't you use the flag of the earlier organization. --Yankovic270 20:16, October 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * That does make a lot of sense. Or else, a flag similar to it, but different enough to show that it is a new organization.  This is just one idea.  The emblem is shifted toward the hoist to match the geometry of the Nordic cross flags and the Greenland disc.
 * Maybe the NU used the current logo between 1991 and 1993, and then when all remaining Nordic Council members joined, they adopted a NC-like flag. Benkarnell 04:14, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

What about useing the flag of the Kalmar Union? It was the flag last used when all of the Nordic Countries were (sort of) united, like in this timeline.--ShutUpNavi 14:47, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

i think the Kamar Union flag is pretty good as an idea. --HAD 15:37, October 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * But would the Nordic governments decide to start using the Kalmar flag? It was a flag used for a dynastic union in an age of feudalism (transitioning to absolute monarchy).  I think they would seek out something more modern, something that conveys a spirit of looking ahead, not back.  That's why the Nordic Council went with a new symbol, the swan, to represent Nordic unity.  Benkarnell 18:41, October 12, 2009 (UTC)

How about this: change the position of the swan so it looks like it's rising, or about to take flight - like the typical depiction of phoenix? It would symbolize the Nordic nations rising from the ashes, and so on. Benkarnell 12:54, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

i ilike the original swan flag idea. --HAD 11:10, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

Sweden
wouldn't sweden be a more plausible figure as the the dominamt nation in this Union? uit's was neutral, got powerful militray and industrial bvase. --HAD 11:05, December 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the premise was that Sweden took longer to get itself back together than Norway & Iceland, and so it was something of a latecomer to the Union.  I'm not sure why, though. Benkarnell 13:38, December 11, 2009 (UTC)

thats my point. since Sweden was neutral, was it nuked? i doubt Finland would be. they were (sought of) the USSR's friends after all. emphesizes on the "Sort-of". --HAD 15:25, December 15, 2009 (UTC)


 * Finland would suffer damage from nuclear attacks on Leningrad. Rural Finland (north) would most likely survive. Sweden the same. Copenhagen would nevertheless be nuked. I will look into it this weekend.
 * Realismadder 16:00, December 15, 2009 (UTC)

Denmark and Norway would be nuked. Oslo and Cophenagen would be obilitared. but would Sweden have been hit at all is my question. the article seems to say a Former NATO State would cope better than a non NATO state. Sweden's military was defensivily orientated. it was powerful, but a tool of denfence. i doubt Sweden would be nuked. i might be wrong, but thats my view. i don't think Finland would have suffered any direct hits either. --HAD 11:10, December 16, 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed. But Norway's population are spread out, many of whom are living in rural areas which wouldn't be affected, or at least not bee too affected, by a nuclear strike. Finland (its southern coast) might be affected from fallout due to nuclear attacks on Leningrad, except that be relatively unaffected. Sweden would most likely be the nation least affected - except Skåne (due to attacks on Copenhagen) and Western Sweden (due to attacks on Oslo). Thus, Sweden, Finland, Norway and Iceland would be the dominant nations in the union.
 * WIll fix it this weekend.
 * Realismadder 12:36, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

i think the military would be using Swedish equipment built by saab then norwegian equipment. --HAD 15:32, December 16, 2009 (UTC)


 * Combination of Swedish, German, U.S. and Norwegian locally made equipment. Sweden would most likely be the main contributor to the air force, Norway navy. Land forces would be combined.


 * In terms of economy, Norway would have oil, natural gas, fish and lumber. Sweden would have lumber and industry. Iceland would have fish. Denmark would have agriculture, while Finland would have lumber.


 * Realismadder 17:54, December 16, 2009 (UTC)

i agree. but my point was that sWWEDEN AND Finland would have Higher populations then there neighbours. they hadn't been nuked, after all. --HAD 11:04, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

i just made a couple of changes. i'm not to comftable on the language side of things, so i'll leaves that to someone else. --HAD 15:31, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Flag
? --Fero 22:42, February 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * I like it in theory, but I think it looks too much like Norway swallowed all the others.
 * I really need to get on my idea for a "rising phoenix" version of the Nordic Council flag. Benkarnell 22:54, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, that one's pretty. Reminds me of a Scandinavian flag from many (well 2) years ago. Mr.Xeight 23:52, February 12, 2010 (UTC)

and yjis?--Fero 04:58, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

A bit mentalist but rather effective.

Very 60s-chic, Mumby. I also noticed that I've given nothing useful to the conversation, 'spose it's time for me to stop talking. Mr.Xeight 17:00, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

Frankly I think the third flag is way too confusing visually. The bizarre patterns of colour make me think that certain people would get seizures just by looking at the blasted thing flapping in the breeze.

Supersonic91 17:41, February 13, 2010 (UTC)

i agree. this flag looks LSD induced. Also, the Country pages profile doesn't dispay the current flag, which has nothing wrong with in my opinion. HAD 19:09, February 13, 2010 (UTC)