Talk:1983: Doomsday

Before you start editing, please read the Editorial Guidelines.

Discussion Archives: Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

Former Proposals: Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15

Useful Resources:

A website showing potential nuclear strikes within the US can be found here. A map showing likely fallout patterns across the USA.

=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 Page 4

Graphics / Visualization /Cartography
Section Archives: Page 1 Be sure to update the map for every 10 new nations or major territorial changes

Wiki/Timeline/Article Technicals
Section archives: Page 1

Culture / Society
Archives: Page 1 • Page 2;

Miscellaneous discussion
Archives: Page 1 | Page 2

Combat on Doomsday
Was there any actual fighting? Did either side make significant headway in Europe? I assume that tactical nukes would have destroyed much of the troops on the frontline, but there still must have been survivors. I know there was combat in Finland lasting into 1984, but how long would this last in central Europe (and how long would the survivors have the motivation to fight)? I'm interested in this mostly as my dad was a medic/lab tech in Germany. Depending on how the frontline moved he may have survived and ended up in (probably) North Germany. Of course, deciding what really happened in central Germany, and indeed the frontlines of communism in general, would be a great help to the timeline. Fegaxeyl 17:32, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Given everything that I've ever read, both sides did get out some sort of order over the airwaves warning of both the attack, and telling them to pursue some sort of operations in the region.

Overall, in most cases the front - insomuch as there was one - stayed at the borders.

Besides Finland, fighting occurred in the Finnmark region of Norway, the Fulda Gap in Germany, near Vienna, the Georgia-Turkey border, and the Bulgarian/Turkish-Greek borders. Fulda and the Georgian borders were draws, and the Bulgarians were repulsed.

It depends where he was stationed, really, as to where he'd have ended up or lived.

Lordganon 17:50, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

This is something we've touched on briefly from time to time. We're always left assuming isolated units running around fending for themselves. Like what happened in Prussia, or in Luxembourg with the rogue Belgian unit. These creepy maps seem to have been made by the US DoD in 1987. While it seems clear that nothing of the sort happened in Europe, it is interesting how the USSR's expansion more or less follows the lines in the "Far East" map. Maybe the Soviet troops who initially offered aid to the starving villages of western Alaska were originally there trying to carry out some half-baked invasion plan. As for Germany, I havne't read most of the recent work on it, so you'll have to check some of the newer pages to see what they say about ground troops. Benkarnell 18:05, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Dad was stationed in Rinteln, close to Hanover, which was nuked. Apparently the bridge across the Weser was to be blown in the case of war - my dad's medical base was on the 'wrong side of the Weser'. Although I now know that if he survived (probable) he'd be affiliated with Waldeck-Hesse,

I still can't figure out whether the Reds would have penetrated that far. Presumably Hanover would have provided a nuclear shield, in that Warsaw Pact troops would not want to go through or around it - unless the nuking of the city occurred after the main exchange as a last-ditch option to hold back Red troops. In that case my dad's hospital could well have been occupied by Soviet troops, though given its relative distance from the front and the sheer level of attrition on advancing forces from tactical nukes this may be unlikely. Do we have any idea on the outcome of conflict in central-north Germany?

~Feg

Rinteln atl is located in Northeim, though not too far from Waldeck controlled areas south of the ruins of Detmold. It's around 60km west-southwest from Hanover, with most of that being forested and hilly land. Should be fairly safe from refugees too.

No record of any attacks in the area exists, so I would say that none occurred beyond the border - remember, it's not the primary avenue of attack for an invasion. Besides, the strikes on Braunschweig and Hanover would keep them far, far away in any event. Heck, the Braunschweig strike would likely have been observable from Pact lines, which would have likely kept'em away anyway.

The idea we've all been going with, to an extent, is skirmishing along much of the borders. But in most areas that didn't go much further - running out of ammo/fuel/etc will do that, esp. when no more orders are given. The only (known) place where heavier fighting occurred in Germany was the Fulda Gap, which essentially ended in a draw.

Lordganon 08:18, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

We seem to be focusing on land combat here. I personally believe that in the events immediately following Doomsday their would have been large battles between NATO and USSR ships. The belief that fleets could be hit by nuclear missiles is one i find difficult if not impossible. All ships in harbor would have been taken out, yes but it would have been difficult to hit all of the USA's, USSR's, French and British fleets.

Therefore i believe that their would have been a huge game of cat and mouse as the much smaller soviet surface fleet tried to draw off NATO forces so that their submarines could get close enough to sink NATO forces either by torpedo or missile. Regardless the eventual winner of this game would always be NATO as eventually ASW carriers like HMS Invincible would have located and destroyed the submarines while the larger American carriers would have engaged and destroyed the soviet fleet. Of course though a relatively large number of Soviet and NATO submarines would be intact and i have long believed this is something we need to take a closer look atVegas adict 10:30, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

As DD was initiated by a computer glitch and not as part of a major pre-planned military invasion by either the USSR or the USA its possible that no invasion occurred from either side until a few days after DD, when some sort of organization of the surviving military units could've taken place, and even then it could've been only small skirmishes or retaliatory strikes (particularly on surviving naval units)--Smoggy80 11:21, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Some sort of order still would have gone out about attacking the enemy, or to prepare for an invasion. Most likely, of course, attacking orders to the soviets and their allies and the reverse to NATO forces.

As for the fleets, I would call that death by bombers. You have to remember, the Soviets did have ships trailing Allied/NATO fleets, and often subs too, so they had an idea of where the carriers were. Between nuclear bombers and the subs, that would likely get the net result, even with the trailing vessels being destroyed after the fleet was notified of events.

Though, the lack of Soviet subs surviving in Siberia might be an issue.

Lordganon 11:51, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

What you seem to be forgetting with the bomber idea is the huge numbers of fighter aircraft a US Carrier fleet can put up in a matter of minutes. During the cold war at least one squadron was always on active duty in preparation for intercept missions, therefore the only bombers theoretically capable of targeting the fleets would be Tu-95 Bears as they carried ALBM's instead of bombs. However a Tu-95 doesn't have the speed of the US fighters and so might not get through although only one would need to.

The point about submarines is a good one, however the US and NATO often also tailed the ships and subs that tailed their ships (The Cat and Mouse idea i mentioned above). I don't doubt that a large percentage of both navies would have been destroyed but i still feel that A) Not all of those destroyed were destroyed by nukes and B) that more of NATO and the US's fleet would have survived, i'm not sure about the soviet fleet though, i reckon most of their surface fleet was wiped out but im not sure about the subsVegas adict 12:42, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

ALBM's were a NATO project that never actually produced anything. You're meaning the Raduga Kh-20 and Kh-22 nuclear missiles, designed for killing ships. Tu-22M Backfires would also have been included in this. They only need one shot on a fleet to kill it/most of it. Odds are fairly good a flight of bombers could manage to get in range - these missiles would detonate in the air near the ships, and not need to hit them at all, meaning little need to aim. And the backfires definitely could get through, being 4x faster. Of course, their range is more limited, but 1500 miles is still a fair ways - roughly the same distance as it is from New York City to Phoenix.

Alternatively, they could also employ a intercontinental bomber and with an airburst bomb on board and drop the thing on the fleet. Couldn't do too much to it, and the effect is the same.

As for the tails, they did know where the things were (GPS, etc.) Even when destroyed, they would know the area where they last were - not too hard to send a flight of bombers to the general region - after all, carrier groups are not that hidden! - and attack it.

Lordganon 13:29, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Lots of media tends to show the Warsaw Pact going on the offensive. But given that they saw it as a US first strike, wouldn't it be likely that they would assume the West was launching a pre-emptive strike? I would imagine that they would prepare for defensive action upon hearing the news of the incoming nuclear strike, and to hold positions whilst the release of the Soviet arsenal bombarded NATO positions.

The West, of course, might also opt for the defensive, given that from their perspective it was a Soviet first strike and therefore would assume an incoming attack. Then again - I don't know enough about military doctrine to be sure of this - the West could have decided to make what gains they could have before tactical nukes started raining down on their bases, and sent every possible vehicle in a massive and bungled assault. If you don't mind me saying I like this idea, because it's stereotypical of World War Three media in that the East goes on the offensive first. Here, on the frontline at least, we're reversing the situation. Fegaxeyl 13:25, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

There's a reason for the stereotype - that's more or less the strategic doctrine of the two sides. Even in our scenario, it's kinda hard to imagine that changing too much. I mean, in some areas it would be reversed, but overall it's a little suspect.

Lordganon 13:44, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Well GLONASS wasn't fully operational in 1983 so i'm not sure all of the ships would have been located. Regardless of the total damage to the NATO surface fleet i suspect more subs survived than we originally suspected. With the surface fleets i don't doubt that some Backfires could reach the target range intact and then if they were using missiles the ABM system on the US ships might protect them. I do agree though that a free-fall bomb from a Backfire would do the job, if they avoided interception and weren't shot down by the SAM's.

I do agree that most of the NATO fleets would have been destroyed but i still feel that there are far more unaccounted NATO ships/subs than we normally take into account. This also might lead to a greater number of nuclear devices unaccounted for which might be in the hands of ex NATO or US allied survivor statesVegas adict 21:18, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Call it satellites in general, or even just radio signals then. Either way, they'll have a rough idea.

The only ships besides subs that really would have held nukes were the carriers, which would have been the primary targets anyway. Having one survive outright, and another (now in Victorian hands) be abandoned after a close hit, is about right. The Victorian carrier would be without them - nukes used, or dumped in the ocean - but ANZC/APA likely got some from theirs.

In my opinion, many of the little guys that survive the blasts would have run out of fuel before getting anywhere. You're right about the subs, however, though they would have no nukes left on board, for sure, since their armament is much more limited.

Some of the NATO nations may have some sort of nukes somewhere still intact, but the chances are slim. The only American survivor states that could have something are the new USA, Vermont, Lincoln, Dakota, Lakota, and nations in Missouri, largely due to the silos and the chances that one survived somewhere.

Despite their limited ranges, the Yak-38 Forger, a Soviet carrier plane, as well as the Su-17 Fitter, the Su-24 Fencer, and even the Su-7 Fitter-A may also have mattered a bit - nuclear bombs are part of their armament and they were common enough.

Lordganon 22:00, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

In response to what Fegaxeyl said, while the media does show the Soviets going on the offensive, that is accurate because that was the actual Soviet plan. The battle plan is called 7 Days to the Rhine. It entailed a massive Soviet military assault against NATO in the event of a NATO first strike attack, which is happens here. Essentially, the Soviets believed that with their vastly larger army, they could quickly drive back NATO, and this happened to be true. While it isn't really account for much in this timeline, the vastly superior size and presence of the Soviet army in eastern Europe would have made reaching the Rhine in seven days possible, even with nuclear strikes. But, since we haven't really considered that at all in this TL, its too late to consider it now.

As for the navies, most of the Soviet and NATO surface fleets would be wiped out. However, a large number of submarines on both sides could have survived. Those submarines, along with surviving surface ships, would have eventually returned to an allied port and joined that survivor nation. Also, if these ships were running out of fuel, they would have just docked at the closest port.

Many NATO survivor nations would have nukes. France, Great Britain, and the United States all had their own nukes. In addition, the United States, through NATO's nuclear sharing program, based their nukes in Turkey, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, and Greece, all of whom could have several surviving warheads (though their usability is up for debate). In addition, a number of Soviet tactical and mobile nuclear weapons were based in Warsaw Pact countries, and many of these weapons would survive since they were not held at fixed sites.

Caeruleus 04:14, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, while the Soviet plans were that, in practice they were also not very prone to acting without commands from higher-up. And while a plan may be decent, as soon as the enemy is involved, it goes out the window ;) I honestly doubt in this scenario they could carry such a plan out on more than a slight regional basis - only those units in the field would get away to attack, realistically.

With the ships, there's a good chance that they could run out of fuel trying to find a place to refuel - I mean, a lot of those in the middle of the Atlantic could be royally screwed.

You're forgetting that they also launched a lot of these nukes, and the areas were often hit as well, possibly destroying the things too. Canada was also getting rid of the things at the time, and had never had the things at more than a couple bases. CFBs Bagotville, in Saguenay, Quebec, and Cold Lake, in Alberta, are the only places that had them at all. Bagotville being nuked kills Saguenay as a nation, and Cold Lake was hit to a degree. With Greece, the bases the things were at were destroyed by blasts in/around Athens, Larissa, and Patra. The Netherlands is gone, and so is much of Belgium. And most of the German ones were around Frankfurt and are thus gone too.

At any rate, the general consensus has been that almost all of the things were destroyed or fired. Heck, outside of the new USA, ANZC, and the USSR, the Russian Confederacy and Israel are the only ones that have nukes. There may be some room to quibble on that, but.....

Lordganon 05:45, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

There's a hell of a lot of room to quibble on that, If you think the only ships that carried nukes were carriers and submarines then you are very mistaken. British ships definitely had nuclear depth charges on anything larger than a corvette while soviet cruisers carried ship to ship nuclear missiles and other soviet ships had nuclear SAMs, Depth charges and torpedoes. I'm not sure about the US although i'm sure that its ships had similar equipment. Therefore the number of nations with nukes in the post DD world is likely to be far higher that the 5 mentioned. New Britain could easily have them as could any nation in south Africa, the SAC could have them as could Crimea and other survivor statesVegas adict 16:30, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Beg pardon, then. Did not know the British had them on little ships. The Americans and Soviets sure didn't - their nuclear depth charges were aircraft-deployed, not ship-deployed.

I can find no information on the soviets having any of the mentioned nuclear SAMs on ships, though they were on land. The only real place the US deployed surface-to-air nukes is in Germany. I also find no evidence of ship-to-ship nukes in the Soviet Navy being built until after 1983, though they were in testing at the time.

Nuclear Artillery, again, was deployed near the front in Germany. American forces also had them in northern France and Korea, and the French did have a few of their own. A few seem to have been deployed by the Americans in other NATO members, but only in tiny amounts.

You misinterpret my statement. There may be others that have them, but no states other than what I listed are known to have them. There's room to quibble there, but not much, given that the things would have been used or targeted.

And watch the tongue, fyi.

Lordganon 17:57, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

LG, you're overestimating the number of nuclear weapons launched on Doomsday. In 1983, both the US and Soviet Union had more than 30,000 nuclear weapons, plus France, Britain, and China had around 500 or so. All of those weapons wouldn't have been launched simply because there was no time to do so. And all of them wouldn't have been destroyed either because neither side knew the location of every nuclear weapon the other had. Every NATO nation that was part of the nuclear sharing program and various survivor states in Britain, France, USSR, China, and the US would have nuclear weapons. These weapons would range from nuclear artillery (which almost all mentioned survivor nations would have) to surviving ICBMs (land or submarine based), however, the serviceability of these weapons in many survivor nations.

Also, several of the Indian survivor states outside the UIP would also have nuclear weapons. As would a variety of nations who took nuclear weapons from various nuclear armed ships that docked at their ports post-Doomsday. Additionally, many nations, such as Iran and Brazil, would have probably developed their own nuclear weapons post-Doomsday for a variety of reasons. Caeruleus 03:05, November 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * According to the Nuclear Weapon Archive, India's program was very primitive as of 1983 and they may not have even had any fully-assembled weapons. Certainly no missiles, though I know that's not what you meant. Benkarnell 03:14, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not. Note the word targeted. Once again, you missed half of what I and everyone else said.

You're saying that every single one of these nations would have the things. You do realize how ignorant that sounds, correct? That's besides most of these locations, if not all, being targets of weapons in their own right. And if not nukes, then by conventional bombing. We can also assume that short-range and submarine missiles were all, or almost all, launched. No need to reload like the bombers/silos, which would almost definitely be what remains.

Also, many of the artillery shells, depth charges, etc. were stored until needed, and would have remained in their depots here, to be destroyed, for a lack of time to ready them.

We'll start with the French and British, who had no more than a couple hundred each, and likely fired all of them off - no need to reload the blasted things like the Americans and Russians.

British forces inside Germany did possess nukes, as did their boomers. In Germany, British forces were stationed almost completely in the Rhineland, much of which turned into nuclear hell on Doomsday. The boomers would have launched all of their missiles - we can definitely say this much - and any survivors would be New British (possibly but unlikely Celtic) today. US weapons stationed in Britain were located at RAF bases Greenham Common, Molesworth, and Lakenheath. All of these would be hit on Doomsday, and any surviving nukes - unlikely, but who knows - would be inaccessible for quite some time. British air bases in Germany are located in areas of the Rhineland near the former Netherlands, outside of the control of any nation, though close to several, and would have been hit, rendering any nukes there worthless. Any nuclear weapons in those areas like artillery would be rendered null and void, having been abandoned or destroyed as well. British nukes on carriers are also gone with their destruction. The only surviving nukes (at this time - others may yet be found as radiation falls) would be the previously mentioned depth charges, under New British control.

French boomers would be in a similar situation to the British ones, as well as their carriers. Their air launched nukes were located at Avord, Landivisiau, Luxeuil, Istres-Le Tubé, and Taverny air bases. The land-based nukes they held are in the Vaucluse region of southern France. Vaucluse and Taverny are strike zones, and Taverny is even in Paris - nothing will ever come from there. Istres is just north of Marseilles, which was also hit. Neither Avord or Luxeuil are in areas controlled by any given states, and would both have been targeted anyway. Landivisiau is the least likely of these to be hit, and at most that gives the Celts some nukes, though not likely, as noted above.

Now, the nuclear-sharing:

Canada was covered earlier, but a recap: CFB Cold Lake was hit, CFB Bagotville is empty and they had begun ot remove the blasted things by 1983 to boot.

Greece had its shared nukes located in destroyed cities.

As we have discussed before, nukes in Turkey were located at Incirlik Air Base, which was hit and should not be recoverable for some years yet, if anything survived the blast to be recovered at all.

In Italy, the nukes were stored at Ghedi and Avaiano Air Bases and should have been either fired or destroyed by nukes (I see I need to modify the Italy page slightly now, having forgot about these when making it... hmmm....)

The Netherlands had its nukes under the agreement at 't Harde, Havelterberg, RAF St Mawgan in Cornwall, Volkel, Curaco, and Valkenburg. The Cornish ones, being more of the depth charges, if intact, would have fallen under Celtic control. The ones at Curaco were more of the same, and would likely be with the dutch nation there. Valkenburg is underwater, or nearly so - but, its weapons were more depth charges. Havelterberg and Volkel are not under the control of any nation, and are also close enough to the new water in the area to have been made useless is anything remained. 't Harde is underwater.

The Belgian ones, I cannot find anything on except the planes used, though I can say they would be gone or used as well.

Shared weapons in Germany were located at Buchel and Ramstein air bases, both targeted. Any others in Germany not already covered were under US control at their destroyed bases or in similar situations.

The rest:

Any Pakistani nukes are under their control. Unknown about the Indian ones, but given the lack of missiles, they'd only be bombs - and I think the Indian government would have secured the bombs they did have, giving the UIP them.

Nukes made by South Africa would more than likely, given the chaos there and the small number, be gone or New British if anything.

Sweden had a program in the 60s, but nothing came of it - and they would not have made them after DD.

The Siberians have nukes, that much is a given. As is the Russian Confederacy retrieving some from the Eastern Ukraine. The remainder of nukes inside Ukraine are at strike zones, or possibly the chaos that was once the eastern parts. In Kazakhstan, they are either gone, fired, nuked, or under Siberian control (we hope - otherwise the terrorists will get them) and Belarus has none. Given all things, it is possible some remnants of the Soviet Navy in the Baltic and Black Seas with Estonia or Crimea still possess some of their nuclear missiles (eating crow slightly here, but the battlecruisers didn't have them, nor any nuclear SAMs- some corvettes and regular cruisers did, however have a few missiles, apparently). None of their carriers lived, nor did their big battlecruisers, but the subs survived to be under Siberia and others, though their nukes would have been spent.

There appears to be no Soviet nukes on the territory of its "allies," barring the front-line. Poland and Bulgaria both had the means to make, and to fire, nukes, but never had any, and could not have done so after DD. Romania did actually have a program of its own, with one of two facilities being inside Transylvania and the other being outside of their territory, though under their effective control. I consider that worth remembering for my use, but otherwise worthless due to a lack of uranium or other fuel to make them.

Iran has no nukes atl - they'd have used them otherwise. They have used dirty bombs from scavenged Soviet leftovers for a dirty bomb in the past, and likely have more, however. But a project would definitely be underway.

Iraq is toast as a nation, so nothing there either.

I could see the Gulf States Union having some sort of very long-term project going, in response to Iran.

ANZC forces, given the carrier, would be armed with nukes, and could very well make more, given the capabilities of the country and its mines.

Japan, while anti-nuclear in culture, could very easily make there own otl, and given the anti-americanism atl, I can easily see them developing their own for defense.

It is perfectly possible for Brazil or Argentina to make nukes, but in light of DD and the work they once did being a product of a rivalry between them, I doubt it would have happened.

Chinese nukes, if any remain intact, would be in Tibetan or Siberian territory. Given lack of a block on it now though, I could see Taiwan finally building some.

And then the USA:

I've already talked much on this. But a recap: the new USA has nukes, given the silos.

Otherwise, Dakota, Lakotah and possibly Lincoln could have some from these, as well as air bases, too. Silos in Missouri are outside the control of any nation.

Superior has no nukes, as seen in recent events.

Potentially, when radiation levels fall, nations in northeast Arkansas, Texas, Florida, Arastook, the Pasco Free State, north-central California, Vermont, western Georgia, northeast Missisippi, central New York, as well as potentially Superior, could possibly retrieve weapons from the rubble of destroyed air bases in their areas, though this is unlikely due to the blasts themselves destroying the weapons.

In conclusion, I do not overestimate at all. Rather, you ignore the extremely likely destruction of the nukes on DD that were unused.

Lordganon 17:21, November 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Your argument also has its own problems. Mainly, you assume that all these surviving nukes ended up in the hands of only a few nations. For instance, you stated that most British and Dutch nukes would end up in the hands of either New Britain or the Celts. How either would obtain Dutch nukes doesn't make sense. I doubt New Britain would be able to bring any with them when they evacuated the British Isles. And British nukes were based throughout England, most of which remains outside Celtic control, so various English survivor stats would probably have a few.


 * Another problem is that you're still insisting all would be fired. Most Cold War nuclear launch plans, for all nuclear nations, only involved the launching of 300-500 nukes in the first salvo, most of which would be American or Soviet. I could see France launching the majority of their nuclear weapons, but Britain, the US, the Soviet Union, and the various nuclear sharing states wouldn't have. There wouldn't be many nuclear weapons left in Western Europe, but I'd say there would be anywhere from 50-200 remaining. Most of these (NATO) nukes would be in the hands of the Celts and various English states since the British would have the largest surviving arsenal. Sicily would probably have a few, since those bases weren't nuked. Turkey would have some, since they had nuclear artillery and other tactical nukes deployed with armies in eastern Turkey and in Turkish Thrace. There would be some surviving nukes in the Netherlands, though whether anyone would have recovered them is doubtful. Also, the Alpines and Nords would probably develop them as an extra safety measure. The Nords would have an extra reason to build them once Siberia began pushing past the Alps. And if Sicily has nukes, the Alpines would obviously build them in response.


 * In Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, several eastern European and Soviet survivor states would have them. I would also expect Prussia to have some, inherited from Soviet frontline arsenals. Survivor states in Poland and Czechoslovakia could have them. The Soviets did base nuclear weapons in Belarus, so they would have them, as would several Ukrainian survivor states. Central Asia would have hundreds of nuclear weapons, since that's where the Soviets placed their missiles aimed at China, so nuclear states would be expected their, though mainly in Kazakhstan.


 * In Asia, once again, a lot of states would have nukes. China didn't keep its nukes near their border. They were in Tibet and east-central China mainly. So Tibet and the Dragon State would have them. Japan probably would develop them. Korea could develop them and probably would. Since the Indian government suddenly collapsed, many of them would be outside the UIP's control, though they would undoubtedly control the majority of them. And, as mentioned previously, Indian nukes would be mostly bombs. Iran would be developing them throughout the 2000s. The GSU would develop them to counter Iran. Israel-Palestine already has them.


 * I agree with you on the nuclear states in the former USA and Canada. However, the end of the Argentinan-Brazilian rivalry and the creation of the SAC would just result in a joint nuclear program, so the SAC would have them primarily to compete with Siberia and the ANZC.


 * And of course, like I said previously, their usability is debatable. Many missiles would be without fuel. Many bombs would be without appropriate bombers. So a nation would have to be fairly sophisticated to use it without resorting to suicidal tactics (i.e. putting it in a truck and driving it to the city center). And the reason most nations wouldn't use their nukes is because of their difficulty to deploy, the fear of other nuclear states, and memories of the horrors of Doomsday. Caeruleus 02:54, November 5, 2010 (UTC)

East American Alliance
Sorry guys, I've been gone for over a week since my internet broke down, but I came back on about 15 minutes ago and glance on the page of the WCRB News report and see two things that have me a tad confused. First one was that the EAA was going to help take down the Scottish New State and was going to transport troops to the British Isles. Is that really plausible? From which ports? Does the EAA really have any say in a European dispute? Sorry if I come back and I'm just going to start pissing people off but I feel like this is going to be a Virginia-East Britain "reverse colonialism" incident all over again ending with a Virginian-occupied Scotland. The second was the expansion plans for the EAA. Since most of these Confederate states were part of Brian and South's works, I'm wondering was this checked by them and allowed? Another thing that had me confused was including Toledo and North Penn as well as the yet-to-be-created-or-even-canonized-for-that-matter Republic of Florida. Nothing against Yank but I'm keeping North Penn and Florida out of this. Florida will likely be involved in some compact with the ECF and North Penn and Toledo will probably do something with the Great Lakes.

Arstar 02:59, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back! I agree with you Arstar on the Scotland issue, I've tried to get some answers from Yank but no response from him just yet. Those Confederate states that wish to join the EAA, or rather the news item that suggested such an event was written by Brian. I can see North Penn joining the EAA as they are in the Eastern US & have good relations with Virginia, Kentucky and other members. Florida, is too far way to join at this time, if at all. As for Toledo I may be wrong but one of the fellow caretakers of that article Jackofspades was interested in Toledo joining the, then Dixie Alliance. --Zack 03:13, November 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the part about Virginia (which does not have access to the coast) being able or willing to intervene in Britain. It is very implausible and seems to be just an excuse to write about a war. Mitro 03:57, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

The Republic of Virginia has acess to the Atlantic via Hopewell. The war hasn't started yet. The Virginians are building the two assets needed for such a conflict. Foreign support and the shipping required to transport the troops. If it's impossible to gather support for the war they will not imitate Bush and invade anyway. They would change their involvement to funding, training and arming an armed resistance movement.

Yank 05:18, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

Let me remind everyone that I only made the change on the WCRB mainpage. If you don't like the idea that much you can simply remove the news item from the page. I really believe that the idea can work if reworked enough.

Yank 05:27, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

=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. To graduate an article, move to have the article graduated and if no one objects the article will be considered canon (see the for more information on this process).

Kingdom of Macedonia
I moved the old discussion to the Macedonia talk page archive. Arstarpool 01:39, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Are there any other things needed to be fixed before we graduate this? Arstarpool 01:39, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the objection I had about the bunker. It is based on to many assumptions with zero facts. South has already pointed out the prince would survive without it. Any reference to a fictional bunker should be removed. Mitro 01:55, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Mitro, if you'd look at the page, all references have been removed regarding the bunker. Ownerzmcown 02:56, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Huh, your right, my bad. On another note, the map posted seems to conflict with the map posted on the Greece article. What is the deal on that? Mitro 03:19, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Owner, just fix it quick. Mitro, when he's done lets try to get this graduated quick. Owner's put a lot of work into it, and I think its time he gets his pay. Arstarpool 03:48, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

The Turkey contact dates will have to be adjusted due to issues involving their contact with Greece that would preclude contact with Macedonia.

Lordganon 20:30, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

When should the contact date be, it need to precede the Civil War? Ownerzmcown 21:09, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Just make your story match the 1994 given in the Turkey article for contact (the voyage), though give 1995 for the trip of the king.

Lordganon 21:43, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Also needs a map that removes the Serbian parts, or it needs to explain in the article how Macedonia managed to get a big chunk of Serbia from a nation that is far larger and more populous and experienced in warfare. And that needs to happen after 1989.Oerwinde 00:17, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

The understanding at the time was that in the aftermath of 1985, much of Serbia was in chaos. As of yet, the Serbia article doesn't say this, though they should, in part. Heck, my Bulgaria articles have even said that from early on.

Lordganon 17:45, September 4, 2010 (UTC)

The Bulgaria articles mention the collapse of Yugoslavia but not much more than that. The Slovenia, Bosnia, and Croatia articles are better to work from in regards to the status of Serbia.Oerwinde 17:08, September 10, 2010 (UTC)

Is my article ever gonna get graduated or what? Ownerzmcown 17:02, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

I offered you some help but you respectfully declined, however my deal is still out to make it slightly smaller and more realistic. It's your choice. Arstarpool 20:03, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't have gone for that deal myself, Arstar, especially with how it sounded.

Owner, you have to account for the existence of Serbia somehow. Maybe say something like Serbia left their southern areas undefended while attacking into Bosnia, and Macedonia took some areas over, and having the border fairly fluid today?

Lordganon 00:11, September 13, 2010 (UTC)

Serbia would crush Macedonia. I think it more likely they have their OTL borders.Oerwinde 17:09, September 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Belgrade was nuked, refugees were pouring across the border, and Serbia was fighting wars to the north. Assuming Macedonia was stable at the time, they could have fairly easily seized areas of southern Serbia, such as southern Kosovo and surrounding areas. But, once the Serbia situation is clarified, this should be graduated. Caeruleus 03:10, September 18, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, now that I've changed the map, I believe all things are in order and my article should be graduated. Ownerzmcown 00:30, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Good for changing the map - but the rest of the article has not been edited, as per suggestions on the talk page. In light of the situation in Yugoslavia, it makes no sense and still needs to be changed before it can be graduated.

Lordganon 00:35, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Look, one, the list of things on the talk page has gotten to long under the Serbia section and I have too short of an attention span to read it all, and two, can you just tell me what to change here? Ownerzmcown 02:30, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Fine, though I don't see how the list I left is hard to find, lol.


 * Remove the part about the Yugoslavian collapse - never really occurred that way.
 * Have them run into Serbian troops while attempting to get deeper into Serbia instead of local warlords.
 * A sentence about something along the lines of Serbian troops never knew they were more than rebels or Croatian forces - both would likely be present in parts of the area.
 * Come to think of it, have the original goal being a strong monarchy - not constitutional - but made that way in a compromise with the locals.
 * Have them take over parts of southern Serbia, in the process of gaining Macedonia that were relatively undefended.
 * Able to keep these areas due to Serbian preoccupation elsewhere at first, and then later on due to the defenses.
 * Contact with Serbia would be by 1989 at latest, but more likely than not prior to then.
 * Contact with Croatia and Bosnia about the same time.
 * Knowledge of Greece would be gained as well, though for other reasons - Macedonian designs on Northern Greece, call it - contact not made until 1995.
 * The Civil War could be seen as a Serbian attempt through dissidents to regain annexed regions too, and only a failure in the end because of the Turkish troops loaned to them.
 * The collapse of the Kosovo state mentioned in the Serbia article would allow parts of that province to be taken over. Call it to prevent the Serbians from taking it all. May not be canon, but makes sense.
 * Remainder of story holds up, so long as whatever refers back to earlier, edited details, is changed as well.
 * Remember, the existence of Serbia would mean that intervention against Greece would be suicidal - especially with a vengeful Serbian state to their north.

The majority of these will need to be done - but it would better if all of them were.

Lordganon 02:51, September 23, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, one, I'm not understanding what you mean when you talk about the Civil War, two, what do you mean by that last part about Greek intervention, and three, when would they probably make contact with Greece, in your opinion? Ownerzmcown 01:12, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

According to your article, there's a Macedonian civil war from 1997-1999. The last part refers to discussions on some talk pages about possible Macedonian attacks on Greece during the Sicily War.

As for contact with Greece, I would say limited contact, either with Heptanesa or Mount Athos, at some point in the late 1980s, with full contact sometime after 1992, when you encounter the Turks. Given the original areas of expansion, I would say that Mount Athos would be the more likely. I'd keep the current year - 1995 - for official relations, like it is now.

Lordganon 01:43, September 24, 2010 (UTC)

Is this now archive worthy?HAD 16:17, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Owner will get it done eventually, but as of yet there are still objections.

Lordganon 16:35, October 17, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Yank and expanded by Ven. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to graduating this now? Arstarpool 00:36, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems a little optimistic. Many of these countries have fought wars with each other in recent history. For some many to cooperate so quickly seems unlikely. Mitro 01:39, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * That, or this could be a totally dysfunctional organization of rivals. (OAS, anyone?)  Benkarnell 15:15, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Yank. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to adopt this country. General tiu 14:53, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Jnjaycpa. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2jec010 (UTC)
 * This has been a proposal since August. What are we doing with this article?  Mitro 18:20, October 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * Like many of Jni's articles, it seems fairly abandoned. If it's still around when I'm done my current projects I'll deal with it. Lordganon 03:29, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

Former obsolete article revived by Yank. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections? Arstarpool 00:36, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * There is still a lot of discussion going on in this region. What do Vlad, Lordganon, Caer and Owner have to say on this article? Mitro 01:41, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * It doesn`t mesh with canon. The Croatia article doesn`t have Serbia declaring independence from Yugoslavia, and it has it annex Kosovo and Montenegro prior to the dates in the article. Since Vlad seems to be dealing with most of former Yugoslavia aside from Macedonia, I say let him have a go at fleshing it out first.Oerwinde 08:03, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it makes no sense for them to be declaring independence.

The region should also be made more chaotic, especially in the areas near Bulgaria.

Going to have to make the Macedonian expansion northward plausible somehow too.

Would make Macedonian interference in the Sicily War much less likely too.

Lordganon 23:10, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Most of the former Yugoslavia is already canon, except for this article. What is going on with it?  Mitro 04:13, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Former stub expanded on by Yank. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections? Arstarpool 00:36, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * What about the Sri Lankan Civil War? What happened to the Tigers? Doomsday probably would have made things go better for them. We could see a divided Sri Lanka. Mitro 01:45, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * This article has been a proposal for a long time with little work done to it. Unless someone is willing to adopt it we should probably consider marking it as obsolete.  Mitro 04:14, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Article by me and Sunkist and Zack. It will be the result of a unification between First Coast, South Florida and Gainesville. Arstarpool 20:45, August 9, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to stubby-ness? Arstarpool 20:45, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty much I'm restating the same reasons that I had above. Mitro 21:18, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * The nation-state of First Coast (East Florida) is itself still a proposal, not having proven its own viability. The date you give for South Florida joining up is in 1996. I am pretty sure you mean 2010. Before you run headlong into this reunification, let's see if you can make First Coast work first. Meanwhile, let's change "Gainseville" back to "North Florida" (Sunkist - formerly known as Perryz - is back and he's the reason Zack changed the name).
 * I haven't researched East Florida, though it looks okay in concept. A balkanized Florida, like a balkanized Texas, does not make sense. Therefore, once we have established "East Florida," we can work on pulling them together, but I think the capital should be in Gainesville (a split capital really isn't necessary). SouthWriter 02:04, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am of the opinion that a balkanized Texas does make sense, at least in the aftermath of Doomsday. The size of Texas, combined with the number of nuclear strikes on State, makes it likely that Texas would split.HAD 18:33, August 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well any objections now? All three member states are canon now. Arstarpool 02:55, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well any objections now? All three member states are canon now. Arstarpool 02:55, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

All three are canon indeed but this is rushing unification of the Florida states. They need to have more stable roadways to interconnect the three nations. I support unification but this is all happening way too fast. Maybe sometime around 2015. --GOPZACK 03:14, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

That is way to late and all of us will most likely be gone by then. I chose 2011 because it is far enough away and unification has been a planned thing since the 90's. And actually, couldn't they be an "exclave nation", a nation with no access by land but all share sea access? Nevertheless I will make a couple of modifications to the date so that they all unify at the same time. Arstarpool 03:19, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * We must stick to plausibility we may not be here in five years but he have to keep this timeline in good shape for the next "generation" of contributors. An exclave nation would not work in this environment. In Texas reunification works because the nations are almost beside each other, the three Florida's are spread out and in three separate corners. Maybe a partial reunification could work. --GOPZACK 03:35, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Was thinking about Ocala, 93 Highway, would of Gainesville visted them?, in fact its quite large, wouldent it become some type of city state?--Sunkist- 03:42, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ocala is only 30 miles south on Fla. 93 ( I - 75 ), so there is no reason why the two cities could not have not only known of each other, but Ocala could have been a city of North Florida. If so it would probably be the southernmost town or city of North Florida. Highway 93 Conecting_Florida.png/or I-75 take turns toward bombed areas somewhere south of Ocala, though. The roads east out of Gainesville sneak between bombed out areas to conect to both St. Augustine and Daytona Beach. If we wanted to put the capital in a centrally located city, Lakeland, a small town which had to deal with refugees from both Tampa and Orlando, would be the best choice. It is about equidistant between Gainevile, Daytona and Ft. Myers (junction of state highway 35 and I-4), but may have suffered as being isolated and overwhelmed. It's survivors probably ended up in South Florida, but some would have certainly gone north towards Ocala.
 * To the right is a map showing the probable roads used between the states. (SouthWriter)
 * Guys are there any objections to graduating this page? Arstarpool 04:01, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no hurry, Astar. No reason has been given why St. Augustine should be the capital - South Florida is indeed the strongest of the three nations, with international relations to the Caribbean. First Coast (aka East Florida) probably has connections with the Bahamas and perhaps Bermuda (though probably only through the Bahamas). North Florida (aka "Gainesville") has the University of Florida and possibly the remnants of the original state government, making it an obvious center of governnment as well. First Coast was a late comer in the development of this whole idea of a combined state and should not take the forefront (it is also manifestly weak, being in the midst of so many nuclear strikes). SouthWriter 23:49, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, I chose it for cultural reasons. St. Augustine is a very culturally significant place in Florida; it was one of the first European towns on the mainland and was where Ponce De Leon landed, as well as the location of the "Fountain of Youth". Plus, a unified Florida would need access to the Atlantic, and an Atlantic port would bring in lots of tax money, and that tax money would go to better the capital city and pay for government expenses "on the spot". Arstar [talk] 02:59, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no hurry, Astar. No reason has been given why St. Augustine should be the capital - South Florida is indeed the strongest of the three nations, with international relations to the Caribbean. First Coast (aka East Florida) probably has connections with the Bahamas and perhaps Bermuda (though probably only through the Bahamas). North Florida (aka "Gainesville") has the University of Florida and possibly the remnants of the original state government, making it an obvious center of governnment as well. First Coast was a late comer in the development of this whole idea of a combined state and should not take the forefront (it is also manifestly weak, being in the midst of so many nuclear strikes). SouthWriter 23:49, September 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, I chose it for cultural reasons. St. Augustine is a very culturally significant place in Florida; it was one of the first European towns on the mainland and was where Ponce De Leon landed, as well as the location of the "Fountain of Youth". Plus, a unified Florida would need access to the Atlantic, and an Atlantic port would bring in lots of tax money, and that tax money would go to better the capital city and pay for government expenses "on the spot". Arstar [talk] 02:59, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, I chose it for cultural reasons. St. Augustine is a very culturally significant place in Florida; it was one of the first European towns on the mainland and was where Ponce De Leon landed, as well as the location of the "Fountain of Youth". Plus, a unified Florida would need access to the Atlantic, and an Atlantic port would bring in lots of tax money, and that tax money would go to better the capital city and pay for government expenses "on the spot". Arstar [talk] 02:59, September 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * Aye, I chose it for cultural reasons. St. Augustine is a very culturally significant place in Florida; it was one of the first European towns on the mainland and was where Ponce De Leon landed, as well as the location of the "Fountain of Youth". Plus, a unified Florida would need access to the Atlantic, and an Atlantic port would bring in lots of tax money, and that tax money would go to better the capital city and pay for government expenses "on the spot". Arstar [talk] 02:59, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

While it may be the only port on the Atlantic, the other side of the peninsula is close enough so that such an argument means little.

Besides, it is also the weakest of the three. If anything, the strongest is the state in southwest Florida. Which is much more likely to be the capital - besides, it's also where the LoN is active.

Lordganon 07:30, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

I really don't mind what city becomes the capital, St. Augustine could be..the Croydon of Florida ( Indiana's first capital ) it can be the face of Florida and have its historical meaning, but with out being the real seat of the government, and have one of South Florida's citys host the government...being like Indianapolis.--Sunkist- 08:26, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Even then, the other two nations both would have like seven times the population of First Coast - each. The Corydon comparison isn't really applicable - at least when it was made the capital it was in the most populated area of the state, while St. Augustine isn't.

Lordganon 08:50, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

I've given up trying to change people's minds when they disagree but technically St. Augustine was the capital back in the day, of Spanish Florida, and it was one of the first colonial settlements on the East Coast. Arstar 00:10, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Imperial Airways (1983: Doomsday)
article by me (under construction)--Owen1983 14:22, September 11, 2010 (UTC)

You should probably have the approval of the caretaker of New Britain before continuing with this.

Lordganon 00:30, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Since Owen has been banned, is anyone interested in adopting this article? Or else I am going to obsolete it. Mitro 14:23, October 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll do it!HAD 16:17, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Doomsday in the United Kingdom (1983:Doomsday)
article by Smoggy80 I like it --Owen1983 16:02, September 12, 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking for anyone who is writing a former UK DD article to help fill in details--Smoggy80 17:25, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Article I made right before Zack made Antlers. Mentioned in the Oaklahoma article, I would appreciate if Zack or Brian or someone else could help me out with this one. Arstarpool 18:37, September 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to help out, let me know how I can do so. BrianD 02:14, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Any objections to passing as a stub? Arstar 01:30, October 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * An objection/ question for Arstarpool, do you have plans to update this in the foreseeable future? Or is this another Ogasawara? --Zack 02:17, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Me & South's proposal for the American Shadow Government post-Doomsday. --GOPZACK 02:12, September 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * So what is going on with this article? Little work has been done, are there plans to move it toward graduation?  If not is someone willing to adopt it?  Mitro 04:18, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Article about the state of New Zealand. Arstarpool 23:03, September 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Arstar started this but for whatever reason he doesn't have the time at present to fully develop the article. I'm going to go ahead and get it started this week, and Arstar and everyone is welcome to contribute as they have the time. By the way, New Zealand is not a state :) .... but I see where someone might come to that conclusion, given how the ANZC has been presented thus far, hence the ongoing effort to determine exactly what the Commonwealth is and isn't. BrianD 17:11, October 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think we've been using the word "state" to refer to the members of the ANZC... but what with both Australia and Micronesia consisting of numerous "states" you're right that it's a poor term. "Constituent countries" might actually not be a bad one. Benkarnell 03:27, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

I would like ideas on what to do with this article. This is another article that Arstar has begun and then dropped. There are some good ideas here, but (like many of you) my time is limited and I don't have as much time as I would like to spend on the TL in general. I would argue that we need to nail down exactly what the Commonwealth is, and what Australia and New Zealand's roles are within that Commonwealth. The question regarding this article is do we label it as a proposal, or a stub? Deletion isn't really an option. I don't have a lot of ideas for Australia or New Zealand, and I think we should open this to someone who has the interest and the time to spend on it. --BrianD 16:11, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Article on Australia, State of the Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand. Arstarpool 23:03, September 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to know, why is this necessary? It will just repeat the info on the ANZC page. --GOPZACK 00:06, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm also of the opinion that both proposals, however well-intentioned, are redundant and unnecessary because they would already be covered under the Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand article. Australia and New Zealand, as established in this timeline, are one country, not two. Also, FYI I'm a caretaker of the ANZC. BrianD 00:11, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify I agree that both are redundant, not just this one. Any objections to marking both as obsolete? --GOPZACK 00:17, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have none. Also, I'll get to work on updating the ANZC article this week. Surprisingly, it's one of those articles that is important to the timeline but no one after Xi'Reney really jumped on it. I went ahead and updated it a while back, and again recently with some minor edits. BrianD 00:22, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Really Zack? This is just depicting the states of Australia and New Zealand within the Commonwealth, and depicting the former nations before they unified. Brian I know you are a caretaker of the ANZC. There are three pages on the US now, one depicting the former, the in-exile government, and the new, so why can't there just be two on the states Aussie and New Zealand? Arstarpool 02:26, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Really Zack? This is just depicting the states of Australia and New Zealand within the Commonwealth, and depicting the former nations before they unified. Brian I know you are a caretaker of the ANZC. There are three pages on the US now, one depicting the former, the in-exile government, and the new, so why can't there just be two on the states Aussie and New Zealand? Arstarpool 02:26, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

If you want to work on both articles, here's one idea: Both articles would be good in regards to detailing the history of both Australia and New Zealand pre-Doomsday, and perhaps in clarifying differences between the two post-Doomsday. The differences would be primarily cultural, and also political. Australia and New Zealand are generally one country, as that is what Hawke and Muldoon were working towards after DD hit. Their militaries certainly are unified. But how much sovereignty does Australia have over itself, and New Zealand over itself? I'm wondering if the Australian and New Zealand governments are really a thin layer politically between the ANZC and the Australian states and New Zealand local municipalities. This would be good to explore, and could be touched on in the ANZC article and expanded on in Australia and New Zealand - by both of us, and anyone else who is interested in contributing to one of the most important countries in this timeline. BrianD 02:43, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Arstar, to compare the US to the ANZC in terms of the number of articles is absurd, they are two very different nations with very different histories post-Doomsday. Now Brian raises a very interesting & good point regarding the government, but couldn't that just go in a sub article to the ANZC page called "Government of the ANZC" or something like that?
 * Finally Arstar your not helping things when your description is, "Do I really need to explain this?" GOPZACK 02:53, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, because this page is about the blasted islands of Australia and New Zealand! If you made a couple of pages about the states of Kentucky would I fly off the wall? No! So just let me flesh this proposal out before you fly off the wall! Arstarpool 02:59, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Relax, why such anger? I'm just asking you some questions regarding the article and whether it is needed or not. --GOPZACK 03:06, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Zack, I thought it was redundant at first, but the more I think about it, the more I see the potential. If it doesn't rewrite canon and contradict what the ANZC has been established to be, then Arstar should have a chance to flesh out his proposals. He will have help, of course :) But there's nothing in principle that prevents anyone from writing an Australia article no more than one on Kootenai. The Australia article could be used to expand on concepts introduced in the ANZC article. This may be something that other editors, like Mitro, BenKarnell and Xi'Reney, who have previously worked on the ANZC, would want to help with as well. BrianD 03:08, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * If you think it has merit Brian I don't mind taking a wait and see approach. I'm the caretaker of many of the islands chains affiliated with the ANZC so if you need any help in that regard let me know. --GOPZACK 03:14, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's one. Do you have any thoughts on how the islands relate to the central government, or to the nation itself, that need to be addressed in the main ANZC article? BrianD 03:18, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well its not doubt that Australia is the main member of the Commonwealth, like England in the UK or Russia in the former Soviet Union. So it should be mentioned that Australia is the backbone and core of politics of the CANZ. Also, even though several of the islands may share the same political parties those political parties beliefs may differ from island to island. Arstarpool 03:28, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a graphic in the ANZC article addressing the main political parties for Australia, New Zealand and Samoa. It's never been expanded on, and how politics differ from region to region, and in regards to the Commonwealth in general, would be worth exploring. BrianD 03:32, September 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * The way I thought of it, both Australia and New Zealand have ceased to exsist on a Federal level. The country is a Federatioon of States (Queensland as one of them for example). The regions of New Zealand have been be amalgamated to form larger States. HAD 08:23, September 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * This is something I've wondered about a lot, and I'm glad somebody has stepped forward to try this. Some important points to consider: (1) Australia is a federal country; New Zealand is not. (2) Both Australia and New Zealand have been around for a while. (3) While Australia may look like the powerhouse, it suffered nuclear attacks on three of its main cities. It's possible that Aukland is the ANZC's largest city.
 * In my own mind, I at first had thought that HAD's suggestion was the most likely: that the government of Australia had ceased to exist, though I figured that NZ as a unitary country would exist as a single state. Now though, I tend to lean toward both governments still existing, with Australia being "sub-federalized". Micronesia already has such a system.
 * Reasons I support such a system: (1) Culturally, Australians would want to maintain a separate political identity; (2) In terms of logistics, diszsolving an entire government would be difficult; (3) Dissolving New Zealand makes even less sense than Australia. If the ANZC were a union of nine states, most of which are Australian, it might give the Aussies undue political weight; (4) Keeping the Australian government emphasizes the ANZC as a union of equals; (5) Even in the ANZC, communication is not what it once was, and I like the idea of the ANZC as a rather loose federation that handles the military and the trade and leaves the four states to fend for themselves on most other issues.
 * Possible objections: The only one I can think of is that three levels of government might result in bureaucratic overlap. If you've got parliaments in Jervis Bay, Canberra, and Brisbane, the potential for waste is obvious.
 * Marc Pasquin, the only contributor AFAIK who actually is Australian, suggested long ago that Australia's state governments were dissolved. While the idea is interesting, I think that the postwar communication slowdown would make the state governments more important than ever. Benkarnell 12:05, September 22, 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you, Ben, on communication not being what it once was. I think by now society in general has returned back to 1980s levels in the ANZC, South America, Mexico, and perhaps other places like the Phillippines, parts of Europe and Siberia, Singapore, and the most advanced states in North America. In fact, it's long been canon in this TL that just a couple of years ago that Paul Keating gave a speech that was seen worldwide on TV. It would be most correct to say that technologically TTL is at least a couple of decades behind OTL. I'm also working on the ANZC article now, and initially am being pretty vague as to the layers of government within the Commonwealth. But I expect that the details will get filled in as we continue the discussion of the ANZC government. --BrianD 22:48, September 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * I meant more in the earlier days, around the time that the ANZC was formed. Its institutions would have been crafted to fit the world of 1995, and at that point we know that people Down Under still had basically no idea what was going on in most of the world. I mentioned communication to argue against the idea of dissolving Australia's state governments. Benkarnell 03:25, October 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * As I said with New Zealand, Arstar started this but currently doesn't have the time to fully develop it. I'll start the article this week, and everyone is welcome to contribute as they have time. Arstar, as I understand, will write up sections regarding Australia's aboriginal people as he has time. BrianD 17:13, October 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like ANZ is being presented as a much looser organization than has been understood so far. I think that's fine (and it may be the only way to do this realistically) but I disagree with Australia being militarily independent. A combined military would definitely be one of the main reasons for creating the ANZC, and we've always talked about it having a united armed forces. Benkarnell 03:30, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

I would like ideas on what to do with this article. This is another article that Arstar has begun and then dropped. There are some good ideas here, but (like many of you) my time is limited and I don't have as much time as I would like to spend on the TL in general. I would argue that we need to nail down exactly what the Commonwealth is, and what Australia and New Zealand's roles are within that Commonwealth. The question regarding this article is do we label it as a proposal, or a stub? Deletion isn't really an option. I don't have a lot of ideas for Australia or New Zealand, and I think we should open this to someone who has the interest and the time to spend on it. --BrianD 16:10, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

A page about one of the associate states of the. --NuclearVacuum 19:29, September 27, 2010 (UTC)




 * I have been doing some research on Long Island attacks for this timeline. Granted I am very peaceful and would never think to attack anybody, I find FEMA's map of New York targets rather, overdone. According to this map, Montauk is attacked, which is not of risk or value to an attack. In my opinion, the Soviets are wasting good bombs on Long Island. Following some links given here, I have found a likely list of the primary, secondary, and tertiary targets of New York State. From what it mentions here, no part of Long Island is a primary target. It does say that the New York City area is a target, but it mentions that area "west of Stony Brook" would be attacked. It was mentioned here that the tertiary targets would be the least likely to be attacked, which could be a savior for LI, as the Brookhaven National Laboratory is listed as a tertiary target, but I think it would be better if it were left out, since New York City would be a better target. Another area I would like to bring up is Fishers Island, which is an island in the Long Island Sound which is only seven miles from New London, Connecticut (which would be attacked). So it would be in the direct line of fire, so it would be a no mans land, this would also make the islands of the Northern Fork quite inhospitable, so sadly they would be gone. I made this map to show a possible scenario for the attacks in the Long Island region. It may need some work, but this is just how I see it. --NuclearVacuum 14:41, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

Block Island
Another associate state of the. SouthWriter 03:01, October 2, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections? --Zack 04:54, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

Aerospace corporation located in the Commonwealth of Victoria.--Oerwinde 06:52, October 6, 2010 (UTC)

Chartered Company of Sheppey
Technically a colony of Essex, located on the Isle of Sheppey off the coast of Kent, UK. Rather... different from what has come before in terms of concept, so I'll be interested to see what the community thinks of this. Fegaxeyl 20:14, October 8, 2010 (UTC)

Would this be categorized as a nation or a corporation?Oerwinde 08:57, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

A corporation which holds land. Fegaxeyl 09:15, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Comparable to the East India Company, or other such joint-stock companies from that era.

Lordganon 07:38, October 10, 2010 (UTC)

Waterloo Cooperative
Finally got around to doing up an article on Kitchener, different name though after finding out the region is known as the Region of Waterloo, also I couldn't find the demonym of a resident of Kitchener and Waterluvian sounded cool. Oerwinde 08:57, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Made this page a while back and South started expanding it. Arstar 09:18, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Ontario article in relation to the general re-write.

Lordganon 12:54, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Ontario article in relation to the general re-write.

Lordganon 12:54, October 9, 2010 (UTC)

Chad-Libya War
A war occurring in Africa. CheesyCheese 12:42, October 11, 2010 (UTC)

As I wrote on the talk page for this, it is not plausible as written. Read the history of Greece and Egypt and go off of them, not that Libya article, as it goes against what is in the other articles.

The two Chad sides were equal in strength, and the French forces would run out of supplies at the same time the Libyans would. Makes no sense for them to leave like this, or for the Libyans to not crush Chad without them.

A draw, with the boundary at the 15th parallel, and the northern state controlling parts of southern Libya as well would be better.

Lordganon 02:04, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the page so the boundary between the two nations is at the 15th Parallel. I also wrote that contact was lost with Tripoli after Doomsday instead of a nuclear strike, as on the Egypt page it is written that contact was lost with Tripoli after Doomsday. CheesyCheese 20:13, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Much better, though it would likely make more sense for both the French and Libyans to stay put.

Lordganon 03:37, October 14, 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that. The main reason Libya invaded Chad was to take control of of the Aouzou Strip. Because Libya was attacked, the Libyans retreated to the Aouzou Strip to make sure it was safe from attack.

The French did not want to help Chad retake the northern half in the real war, and the fact that GUNT and Chad were equal and could not take each other's land, the Libyans leaving, and the nuclear attacks would make them leave. CheesyCheese 15:56, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Libya wasn't attacked on Doomsday. There's no reason at for them to have been.

Thing is cheese, why would they leave with nowhere to go to? The most they could do is retreat to the Central African Republic, which would make very little difference.

Lordganon 16:24, October 31, 2010 (UTC)

Jon Stewart (1983: Doomsday)
My second foray into the lives of some people who would have survived Doomsday. I have asked Fxgentleman for some help, as Stewart would be currently living in Delmarva, and I do not want to contradict canon. Tbguy1992 03:48, October 12, 2010 (UTC)

Originally created by Arstar, but I have put some work on it due to my knowledge of the area. Mitro 12:53, October 15, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Vegas. Mitro 14:41, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Originally created by Owen, but other editors have been adding to it. Mitro 14:41, October 21, 2010 (UTC)

Bioko
Very short still. Part 2 of Equatorial Guinea. Part of the idea behind this is to show that the WAU can be greedy, too. Bioko will be something like their Afghanistan. The island isn't going to be particularly violent, but the WAU-imposed regime is not going to have any local support. As such, this will need specific approval from Oerwinde. Benkarnell 13:40, October 23, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Arstar on the state of California. Mitro 15:34, October 25, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Vegas. Mitro 16:31, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Yank. Mitro 16:31, October 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought Illinois had been declared "full" a long time ago. Benkarnell 03:20, November 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, any objections to marking as obsolete? Mitro 16:17, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

''I do. ''This article has potential to be a rival turned ally for Vandalia. At least I only made it a county big. Plus i don't think Illinois is "full" just yet.

Yank 17:38, November 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree with you Yank. Most of the major population areas were destroyed on Doomsday.  Southern Illinois is under control of Kentucky.  The Quad Cities are expanding in the northwest.  Central Illinois is already written in as a lawless area.  Than you have the large state of Vandalia and the small community of Charleston.  Am I missing anything?  Mitro 17:45, November 8, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Tess. Mitro 16:31, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Owen but improved by others. Mitro 17:32, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Another Owen article that has been approved by others. Mitro 17:32, October 27, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Jackiespeel. Mitro 16:18, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

There is several things wrong with the article - see the talk page for details.

To be honest, that combined with the lack of any work since September leads me to think we should just make it obsolete.

Lordganon 19:43, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

It has some problems, but it's far too early to be declared obselete. A Hungarian survivor state would obviously arise after Doomsday. The details of which just need to be clarified. Caeruleus 21:10, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

Older revisions of the Alpine article that were deleted in recent updates states that the borders are closed outside of the immediate border of Austria. It mentions security risks.

This page should just list all the Hungarian survivor states post-Doomsday. You can't go wrong on that. Arstar 08:37, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Funny how despite all of that nothing was still done. And now the existence of must be dealt with too.

And I agree with Arstar.

Lordganon 03:49, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Obsolete article resurrected by Arstar. Mitro 16:18, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

I have a question concerning this article, who currently is the caretaker? I ask because amongst my other work I have been studying up on Iceland out of curiosity and feel I could flesh this out more so it would be realistic. However, I don't wish to intrude on someone else's project. Thanks.--Fxgentleman 15:43, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe it is Arstar. I think if you ask though he would be willing to let you takeover.  I do believe he is trying to shorten his list of proposals.  Mitro 19:32, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I spoke with him and he gave me the okay to move forward.--Fxgentleman 03:45, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

An obsolete article resurrected by myself. Its a brigand group made up of former fraternity guys who banded together shortly after Doomsday when chaos broke out across Central Illinois. Mitro 16:18, October 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Defunct state, armed faction sans territory, something else? Benkarnell 23:06, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * More like what I am doing with the Chinks in Eureka. Just another group of survivors who became hard cases.  Mitro 04:20, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Caer. Mitro 13:43, October 29, 2010 (UTC)

Article by me. Bob 14:23, October 30, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Arstar. Mitro 04:23, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Arstar. Mitro 17:15, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Per a discussion I had with Arstar some weeks back, I am going to be taking over writing this article. Just thought I would let you know.--Fxgentleman 18:59, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Article by Caer, part of the Turkey set of articles. Just a stub at the moment. Mitro 18:24, November 1, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by SjorskingmaWikistad. Mitro 02:48, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by HAD. Mitro 14:33, November 2, 2010 (UTC)

Lexington, Kentucky
Article I created, in consulation with Zack, that he and I will jointly work on. BrianD 03:58, November 3, 2010 (UTC)

Jay Leno
Article created by Althistoryluver99. BrianD 22:46, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Sunkist. Mitro 14:57, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Smoggy. Mitro 14:57, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Arstar. Mitro 15:00, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Arstar. Mitro 15:00, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Khanate of Khiva
An article about an extremely small nation that is located between Aralia and the Emirate of Bukhara. --Fedelede 18:26, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

=CURRENT REVIEWS=

Review Archive

Sometimes articles are graduated into canon even though they contradict current canon or are so improbable that they are damaging to the timeline. If you feel an article should not be in canon, mark it with the   template and give your reasons why on the article's talk page and here. If consensus is that you are correct, the article will need to be changed in order to remain in canon. If it is changed the proposal template is removed once someone moves to graduate it back into canon. If the article is not changed in 30 days, the article will be mared as obsolete. If consensus is that you are wrong, however, the proposal template will be removed without having to change the article.

There has been a lot of discussion regarding the plausibility of this article on it's talk page. Please check it out. Mitro 21:55, September 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess I should step in here, since I adopted it from Gamb. (Check his and my talk page for more info). But Mitro can you tell me what should be fixed? Arstarpool 23:00, September 19, 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, check the talk page. South and Fx are the ones bringing the objections. Mitro 23:03, September 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Its not really an objection per se, I am just agreeing with South the idea of Bermuda breaking off all contact for so long seems a bit odd. That's all.--Fxgentleman 03:49, September 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * There are numerous things that need addressing, Arstar, and it's all over at the talk page. Mitro saw the lengthy remarks I made there and put the article under review. If you are now responsible for its content, then I hope you will read the comments and consider how to change the article to be more viable. The main thing most comments have in common (Fx and Ben agreeing with me) is that the isolationism is unsustainable.
 * Power, communications and travel would not have ended immediately as it had on the North American continent. Immediate needs would have been rationing of food until shipments could be secured from the Caribbean and South America, for Bermuda has virtually no agriculture of its own. With radio contact available (assuming a near miss nuke postulated by Mito didn't knock out 100% of the electronics with an EMP) to the Bahamas, help would be on the way soon. Venezuelan oil would be available so they would not run out of power "in five months" (highly unlikely, since that too could be rationed to last a lot longer than five months if need be.
 * The American naval base there, receiving the "Gathering Order" would surely have informed the APA of the existence of Bermuda as well. They would have probably left as ordered, but not before meeting up with others in the North Atlantic also on their way to Australia. Tiny Bermuda would not have been left to their banks and hotels, to fend for themselves for 25 years. The whole concept is ludicrous. I'm hoping that at least this can be eased into the story lines of the other articles where appropriate, but as it stands it is totally not viable. SouthWriter 18:00, September 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say "ludicrous:" what reason would Venezuela have to send more than the most modest and basic aid? I'll repeat what I said on the talk page: I have no problem adjusting the date of first contact for Bermuda, but I'm against any change to the main story of a remote island left almost totally on its own. I think it's fine for Bermudians and outsiders to be aware of one another in a mostly abstract sense, but that need not lead to any sort of regular intercourse between them. Benkarnell 13:25, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

So what is going on with this article? Do the objections still stand? Mitro 14:26, October 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * SW, would you like to write the adjustments you were thinking about? Otherwise, I can. It's very important to me that Gamb's work be respected, even if parts of it are not wholly likely. I am comfortable with basically minor adjustments to harmonize everything. But older material like Bermuda ought to get precedence; that's the spirit of QSS. Benkarnell 13:10, October 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * This article was the first article that was ever canonized in the modern canon process. I think that if it lasted this long than a few people's "opinions" would not mean that we have to change everything for them. Arstar 20:30, October 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Ben, I didn't get a note that you had posted. Though Bermuda is older than much of the other stuff, it is largely implausible as is. It needs a quiet and non-intrusive role in the development of the East Caribbean. It is a bit far, but it would have to have contact and some influence there. I will look it over and see what adjustments need to be made.


 * Arstar, it is odd that you want this island to remain implausible while you challenge articles that are more established on the continent. This place could not have remained isolated without at least enough contact with Bermuda and the rest of the Caribbean. SouthWriter 21:44, October 25, 2010 (UTC)


 * SW, I feel like we're saying the same things but coming to opposite conclusions. The whole article is implausible? Or just the issue of outside contact? If it's the latter, then my suggestion should please everybody. What else is implausible to you? Benkarnell 03:14, October 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, Ben, it will have to be a conscious effort on the part of the governor to cut off trade from the Caribbean and SAC, which would not make sense. The place in OTL (even back in 1983) was a tourism and banking center with very little self-sustaining capacity.  With it's main trading partners destroyed, but with contact definitely available (out of range of the EMPs over America) to the south, this island would not be all that remote.  They would have to contact the rest of the civilized world - most definitely the ECF and the USAR - just to survive.
 * The loss of power early on would not be absolute even if an off-course nuke had exploded, so the panic portrayed (and calmed by the governor) probably would not have been such a problem. The nation could be established as self-sufficient only after establishing expanded trade with the more agriculturally blessed ECF member states.  Over time they could re-establish a sustainable agriculture of their own (not as fast as in the article, though) and chose not to associate very much except as needed.  The islands would bemote, but not isolated.  What happens there in OTL doesn't affect much, and neither would it in TTL. SouthWriter 21:38, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

Since Arstar added the "review" template to this and neglected to add it here, I'll do it (>.>;). Seems to be an issue between this article and the Alpine Confederation in regards to the size and territory.

North of Switzerland, the boundaries of the Confederation, outside of a single sentence, have never really been fleshed out. Guess we need to do that now, lol.

Lordganon 07:14, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Swabia-Wurttemburg interpreted the borders the same way I did in my early Germany map. It doesn't conflict with Canon because it wasn't fleshed out. I don't see any issue.Oerwinde 10:05, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

Owen has now taken it upon himself to "edit" the article, without permission. Could someone please get rid of all the horrid edits?

Lordganon 12:12, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

there is no issue then Owen1983 12:41, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

....how on earth do you get that? I only asked for a rollback because I have no desire to do eight undos myself.

Lordganon 12:45, September 27, 2010 (UTC)

This is my concern. It is canon that the Alpine Confederation controls the areas around the Rhine River. Now during the current revision I accidentally deleted the specifics but go into the history of the AC right before I started editing it a lot and you will see the exact boundaries. What I don't get is how come only recently was the [provisional] government of Bavaria formed from several small communities when this nation was there? Or better yet how could this state form if there was a very bad refugee crisis in the AC coming from Germany and Italy that they had no other choice but to take control of the lands? Arstar [talk] 01:12, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

The boundaries given in the history are far from exact, Arstar, especially given the loss of Freiburg. An island of authority somewhere in the region would make sense, given the large amount of non-irradiated territory, though the boundaries should likely be adjusted in the south.

Bavaria had more strikes, which also had the effect of isolated much of the area, making that situation plausible. It also has a much greater population as well.

Lordganon 00:45, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that why would the Alpines try to make some form of provisional authority in southern Germany if one existed already? The history states that during the beginning of the refugee crisis it got so bad they had to take control of the areas around them. No matter what, this would apply to much of Swabia-Wurttenburg in some capacity. Sure, in the physical sense, the land there was spared of nuclear strikes, but does that mean that for every plot of land that was spared of the physical effects of Doomsday would also survive the later on stages? Arstar [talk] 02:17, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

What you are missing is that the size of these areas, nor the cities in them, has never been clarified. The best reference says that they took control over areas around the Rhine river south of Freiburg - well away from this area - which would logically extend to the area right around the Bodensee as well. This means that most of the area controlled by this state would be outside alpine control.

The only area that the Alpines have done a provisional authority for is Bavaria. The existence of some sort of state in this area, especially given the late formation dates bandied about, is logical.

As far as I'm concerned, the southern parts of this nation should be either Alpine or uninhabited. But until some sort of boundaries are actually made for the Confederation - following a community consensus - this should not be done.

Lordganon 02:30, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

But why would they create a provisional authority, most likely a fund-draining process, if there was already a functioning government close to Switzerland? Or better yet, why don't they arrange for a unification between the Bavarian communities and Swa-Wurt? Arstar [talk] 03:03, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Bavarians are very.... independent minded. I doubt they'd go along with something like that (think of what would happen if someone announced Texas would be put under some other state government - the reaction would be similar) even given the situation in the area.

Call the creation of it as making the bordering areas more stable. Couldn't blame them for that at all.

The problem with this article is that no history has been fleshed out worth mentioning - we only have the current picture. Shouldn't be too hard to find out a way to make it possible.

Outside of Augsburg, there doesn't seem to be any Bavarian communities in that area - thus rendering it mostly relatively uninhabited, so they are basically fighting over nothing - but the net result is the distance between the two would render it impossible for one to rule the other.

Lordganon 08:08, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

Ahh...... much better. Now undo the rest of the bad edits please, lol.

Lordganon 03:49, September 30, 2010 (UTC)

So what is going on with this article? Do the objections still stand? Mitro 14:27, October 13, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah - a fair part of the southern areas of the article do conflict with the Alpine Confederation. In my mind, I think Arstar should edit the article as needed, while keeping it canon, to bring it in line, since Jni hasn't and Arstar's the Alpine Caretaker.

Lordganon 03:34, October 16, 2010 (UTC) When I did up the original map of possible German nations, based on the Alpine article I had Ravensburg pretty much as the southernmost area of a Wurttemburg state. Maybe edit the boundaries to be more like that?--Oerwinde 08:08, October 16, 2010 (UTC)

This article was graduated into Canon before it was totally finished, and their has been much discussion about how to try to fit everything in with the timeline, as, I'll admit, I added somethings that may not completely work out. Tbguy1992 14:48, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please tell me what should be changed on this article? Since Tb has sat on his hands since the 3rd, It is quite aparent that I need to do this myself.

Yank 21:27, October 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * So what is going on with this review? I have seen little work or discussion, do the objections still stand?  Mitro 21:41, October 26, 2010 (UTC)

=FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES= Archive 1, Archive 2

''This subsection is for decisive and vital issues concerning the 1983: Doomsday Timeline. Due to the complexity level we have reached with 1983: Doomsday now, each of these issues might have world-spanning consequences that affect dozens of articles. Please treat this section with the necessary respect and do not place discussions that do not belong here.''