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 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19

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

Nations in former France
Is anyone editing the nations in former France



I know Louisiannan set them up, but no editing has happened on some for over two years

--Smoggy80 13:06, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

A few of those are to one degree or another under another editor. Yank, for one. Lordganon 15:24, February 24, 2012 (UTC)

I would take over these but I'm very uninformed about the areas. However, I have tentative ideas for Lille.

While I'm here, I might as well kick off discussion: would there be any chance for an Organisation of French Nations, with the involvement of the RTA? I think Louisiannan had some plans in this direction as early as 2009 but never seemed to get round to them. I think it's high time we brought an 'ONF' into the timeline.

Additionally, I've ideas of some kind of antipiracy compact involving Essex, Southern England and Lille for the Strait of Dover. This could obviously extend to other British, French and Dutch nations as some kind of 'New Hansa'. It would be a logical and beneficial alliance now that most states in the area have good seafaring capability.

Also, since British people are most likely able to speak French, and vice versa, it would be the most obvious international link. I should point out too that the Celts would obviously have a stake in this, either against but more likely with the nations, perhaps acting as some sort of cultural/geographical bridge between the British Isles and France.

Feg 13:10, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

The French nation-states are currently negotiating some sort of new French state. Much more than something like the OBN. Think of it as more like the Greek Federation.

Only a single French nation borders the ocean, and that's not by much. And the only Dutch nation is decidedly isolationist. Basically, what you're describing is the OBN with the Celts.

Lordganon 22:30, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we should step up the progress of this nation, then? Also, I'm confused - from all the maps I've seen, at least four French nations border the sea (Lille, Poitevine, Auvergne, and I think Orleans too, which has controlled/claimed Normandy much longer than LG and Smoggy were discussing expanding the Celtic Alliance's French borders in Normandy). And after two years of inactivity on Louis' part, we have to assume some kind of expansion. After all, look what the British nations have done.

Feg 08:23, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

You're mistaking the claimed areas on the France maps as being part of their territory. Lille's the only one of the French states that does have actual territory on the ocean.

Even with expansion, that only adds, at most, one more French state on the ocean - and barely, at that. It wouldn't have any ports or anything to worry about.

Really, though, these nations are all directing their efforts towards a new French state - expansion is not something they are going to be really doing too much of.

Lordganon 13:54, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

Ah, okay, thanks for the clarification. In that case, though, where's the French nation? :L Feg 15:02, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

At this time, still "in negotiation." Lordganon 15:09, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

As in, shouldn't we get round to saying it's done? Feg 15:24, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons why I brought this up, no one was editing a major area of Europe, somebody really should be, either Louis or Yank should does something soon or I think they should be put up for adoption, so someone can do something with them--Smoggy80 17:51, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

As with Angola, putting them up for adoption at random like that is improper, at best.

Two of them are actually, at this point, articles by Tristanbreiker, who does attempt to keep things updated, somewhat - and the Basques and Andorra, the two in particular, are not involved in any of the French processes.

Feg, French unification is something for us to discuss separately from here. All we really know if that it would be a Federation, and that the claimant to the throne would be crowned.

Smog, atl, it's not a major area of Europe.

Looking into it again, don't know why I said anything about Yank. Heh.

Way I figure it, we discuss the talks in a different section, at least keeping Louis informed of events, and move forward somewhat.

Lordganon 00:46, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

By major area I did mean in size, not power base, 4,250,000 square miles (minus bombed areas) can be described as major area. --Smoggy80 09:51, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

Angola's
Is anyone editing the Angola's


 * Republic of Angola
 * Soviet Kingdoms of Angola
 * People's Republic of Cabinda
 * Republic of Kongo
 * Republic of Kongo

Looking at the histories most of them haven't been edited for over a year--Smoggy80 21:33, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

All four were created by Lahbas, which more or less explains that.

So, I suppose the answer'd be "no," no one is editing them.

That being said, however, if anyone wanted to adopt them, they'd definitely need to ask Lahbas about it. He does still care, somewhat, about such things, and while he doesn't post, he does still log on to here and look at things. Heck, he even uploaded a few images three days ago.

Lordganon 08:11, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

I've left a message on his page, see what he says--Smoggy80 15:43, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

Still no answer from him, i'll give him till the beginning of April--Smoggy80 18:00, March 23, 2012 (UTC)

As i've still not heard anything can we open these up for adoption then?--Smoggy80 17:33, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

I have to oppose any thought of adding the banner to them. That being said, I'm open to people asking here, or preferably asking Lahbas himself, about it.

Lordganon 00:37, April 3, 2012 (UTC)

Southeastern U.S
Is there anyway to bring about a small nation from the ashes of Alabama, Georgia, and Florida? I was toying with the name Federal Republic of America or something similar. I know that Montgomery is a total loss, but I was wondering about the formation of some sort of country, what kind, I suppose is to be determined. Any thoughts? Andr3w777 20:46, May 26, 2012 (UTC)

The region is already covered by survivor states, radiated areas, and abandoned spots.

Have a look at the area here.

Really, it's a good idea to look into the area on here before thinking to hard about potential proposals.

Lordganon 03:48, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

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

Superior Flags
Don't know if any of you have noticed, but a few days ago I uploaded flags for the various States and Territories of Superior. You can have a look at them all in this category.

Some I'm quite content with, some not. Happens, you know?

Anyhoo, figured I'd see if anyone else wanted to give any of them a go. If you want to do a version, upload it separately, and post it here. Do not upload over one of mine.

Have a good night, guys.

Lordganon 07:28, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

Wiki/Timeline/Article Technicals
Section archives: Page 1

Culture / Society
Archives: Page 1 • Page 2;

Miscellaneous discussion
Archives: Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3

"POTUS Escapes"
I wrote this in September of 2010 and never posted it anywhere. It is the time line of President Reagan's escape. It should probably be added to the main page, or perhaps to an as yet unwritten article about Reagan. I am placing it here rather than in an article so as to decide what to do with it later. It is not all that long, covering just about an hour.

'''Evacuating the president. Timeline.'''

7:08 PM, Reagan makes a short speech to a reception at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel where he is staying with his wife prior to a scheduled speech at the UN on Monday.

7:45 PM, NORAD notifies the Secretary of Defense that Alaskan radar has picked up soviet ICBM incoming from Russia.

7:46 PM, SecDef notifies the officer in charge of the "Nuclear Football" standing inconspicuously in the corner within earshot of the president.

7:46 PM Secret Service agents and the president are called into the hallway outside the banquet hall.

7:47 PM Guests are advised to seek emergency shelter, or if possible leave the city immediately. UN Ambassador, SecState, Mayor, join POTUS and FLOTUS in the presidential limousine on Park Avenue.

7:52 PM Motorcade arrives in Central Park where Marine One awaits.

7:54 PM Marine One takes off, heading towards Newark Liberty National Airport where NECAP is standing by.

7:59 PM POTUS and SecState give codes to launch US missiles from silos and submarines, Bombers are ordered into action.

8:09 PM NECAP is airborne with the presidential party flying a flightpath away from populated areas.

8:16 PM NYC is struck with the first of many nuclear warheads. NECAP reaches 30,000 feet at 600 miles per hour -- having put only 20 miles between it and the explosion. In spite of its altitude, NECAP is shaken severely by the shock wave, saved only by the expert handling of the plane by its captain.

8:25 PM NECAP passes over Allentown, PA, flying on instruments as "shades" have been pulled in the cockpit. All windows in the passenger compartments have also been closed.

8:30 PM Communications re-established with Veep from Marine Two said to be in route to the Greenbrier facility. Messages sent to all members of Congress have called for them to make their way there. Washington, though, has been hit several times since the warnings began. Chaos rules the capital's suburbs as many try to escape without proper automobiles.

Thank you for your consideration. SouthWriter 04:23, April 7, 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, South. Lordganon 06:17, April 7, 2012 (UTC)

Pages Referring to Geography
Can we make pages anything related to geography such as the Amazon, the Pacific Ocean, or the Himalayas? Just wondering. RandomWriterGuy 04:56, May 2, 2012 (UTC)

You probably could, but.... what would be the point? Lordganon 21:41, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

We could makes pages such as about Earth. I mean every geographical feature in the world is changed due to the effects of Doomsday, right? Isn't that obvious? RandomWriterGuy 23:32, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

That is most decidedly not true. Most features are the same. And a page about Earth itself would make little sense, imo. Lordganon 23:54, May 3, 2012 (UTC)

To be fair the page about the general Los Angeles area is a pretty damn good one, and it's geography - not in the sense RWG is describing, but it goes to show these articles can work very well. Feg 08:36, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

LA? Think you mean San Francisco, lol. City articles, as you describe, Feg, do work - but like RWG means, not so much. Lordganon 14:10, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

It's the right state. :P I suppose they could work if they've some kind of peculiarity to them - I dunno, piracy on the High Atlantic or whatever. Feg 14:45, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

Really no piracy there, lol.

Really, though, there's not going to be any real changes to geographic features such as those. Most I'd expect to find is a few mountains blown to bits that used to hold bases in/under them, and maybe the "Garbage Patches" in the oceans being slightly different.

Lordganon 15:09, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, it was just a random example! I wonder under what criteria could there be a need for a geographic article? Feg 15:20, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

Any real changes from otl could be grounds for one, I'd think. Lordganon 15:51, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

There is a page for Climate, a geography page could look similar. They could even be linked, due to the increased rainfall across the planet new lakes and rivers have formed in in places.--Smoggy80 17:09, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

Those changes aren't happening everywhere, Smog. And, really, in most cases it's just adding a permanent water source where temporary ones have occurred every time it rained before. Fairly minor in the grand scheme of things. About the only places that really applies is Utah and the Sahara anyways.

But, that's not what he was asking, either. He was wondering if he could make articles about random bits of geography - which doesn't really have much point to it.

Lordganon 18:53, May 4, 2012 (UTC)

You do know that the nuclear blasts have an effect on things such as the oceans, the forests, everything! Even causing nuclear winters and larger ice caps! RandomWriterGuy 03:40, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

...RWG, not a single thing has happened to any of those things. Please read more of the timeline. Lordganon 06:40, May 7, 2012 (UTC)

But can I make a page about the Earth then? I mean it SHOULD change due to the effects of Doomsday. RandomWriterGuy 04:06, May 12, 2012 (UTC)

No, it won't. For such a thing, you'd have to nuke the icecaps. There's only a tiny number of changes, and the earth as a whole hasn't. Lordganon 08:50, May 12, 2012 (UTC)

What about geopolitics? We should talk about the effects of nuclear radiation as well. RandomWriterGuy 23:00, May 14, 2012 (UTC)

That is already taken into account. Add to that that such a page already exists. Lordganon 08:51, May 15, 2012 (UTC)

Fanfiction
I've penned a work of fanfiction for you guys to check out and read. I'd appreciate any feedback and comments. Thanks, guys! You can find it here. Feg 15:13, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

I've managed to make reality an Axis Powers Hetalia crossover based off 1983: Doomsday, namely an alternate universe (AU) called The 1983 Doomsday Stories (the link leading to the DeviantART collection). Though as a warning, the AU is what TvTropes would call a broad strokes adaptation meaning that it's not purposefully 100% accurate. Still, any feedback, critque or even interest is welcome. Mdc 1957 14:17, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

Anyone Know Anything About Coal Mines?
I've been trying to figure out which collieries would be operational in Lancaster and so far I haven't had much luck since while I've found plenty of names, I haven't been able to find the dates they were closed. The only ones I've managed to pin down are the Bickershaw complex at Leigh which is in an exclusion zone, and Ellerbeck Colliery near Chorley. Anyone know anything or where I might find any information?Tessitore 02:46, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

A hunt through wikipedia shows that Cronton Colliery, Golborne Colliery, Bold Colliery, Parsonage Colliery, Agecroft Colliery, Sutton Manor Colliery, and the Parkside Colliery were all still open at the time.

However, Tess.... most of these mines shut down due to the economy, not a lack of resource. Pretty well all of them could be in use again atl so long as they are not radioactive.

Lordganon 10:12, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

Golborne and Parsonage are in Leigh like Bickershaw. Agecroft is near the middle of Greater Manchester and thus radioactive. The rest are in OTL Merseyside so I'll have to faff about with maps for a bit to figure out if they'd be in Lancaster's territory, the CA's or the area that they're still arguing over.Tessitore 15:30, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

Should clairfy what I said before - pretty well all coal mines in the area that have ever shut down will still hold coal, because of the reasons for their closing.

I got the impression, Tess, from what I was looking at, that most of the mines in the region were either in the Greater Manchester area, or Merseyside, too.

Lordganon 22:52, May 17, 2012 (UTC)

Well, there's a least one that isn't which is a start I suppose. A more thorough examination of Wikipedia yielded the names of dozens of mines in suitable locations but I haven't a blind clue as to when they closed and Google isn't helping. *sigh* This is proving to be frustrating.Tessitore 01:09, May 18, 2012 (UTC)

Likely the same list I looked at.

Given things, most of them seem to have closed from 1930-1960. Really, the number from after the 60s that were still open seems to be really small.

02:26, May 18, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I kept looking and my persistance paid off, sort of. I found one mine in Rossendale that was privately owned and worked somewhat sporadically until 1996 and which they're thinking of reopening due to there still being plenty of coal down there, one near Burnley that's listed as being open in 1980 (don't know about 1983 but if it was closed before then it could probably be reopened) and one near Wigan that was closed in 1980 which they might've been able to resurrect. Tessitore 23:44, May 18, 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget, though, that a mine being closed has little to do with how functional it could be. "Closing" a mine usually consists of quitting production and moving valuables out of the facility, then putting up some sort of small barricade at the entrance. Really easy to reopen.

The ones still in operation at DD would be the first ones up and running, true - but at least some of the others will without doubt follow.

Lordganon 23:59, May 18, 2012 (UTC)

Mount Pinatubo
Has the Mount Pinatubo erruption been mentioned in Doomsday? Cause that erruption reduced the global temperature by about 0.4 °C and the aftermath of Doomsday surely made this worse. further escalates the global warming situation thanks to all of the aerosols released, potentially ruining the Philippines and making global warming worse (increased sea levels), not to mention potential famine thanks to falling temperatures. Just thought I'd check to make sure this was accounted for --VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 23:02, May 20, 2012 (UTC).

No, not covered.

Von, it would slow down the process, not quicken it. Really, it should have no net effect.

Really, the changes are pretty minor, overall, atl.

Lordganon 08:34, May 21, 2012 (UTC)

How can a 0.4 degree drop cause global warming? Plus due to the drop in CO2 production there is no significant global warming, there has however been climate change since doomsday as shown on the Climate page--Smoggy80 16:38, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

No the huge amount of aerosols made the ozone hole bigger. The temperature fell while the ash remained in the atmosphere but the long term damage was global warming thanks to the increased size of the ozone hole.

There's also the problem of reduced sunlight, causing crop failures. Here is a 2007 article from the journal of atmospheric chemistry and physics. Their climate models suggest global climate disruption for as long as 10 years. They suggest cooling as great as 1.25 degrees Celsius for 10 years and .5 degrees C for some time after as a direct effect of lofted particulate carbon. They also detail the effects of snow albedo feedback on climate stabilization and response. VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 21:24, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I should have made it clear my comment was directed at atl, not otl.

Von, the hole was pretty small in the early 1980s, and only discovered otl in 1985, though it had been predicted earlier.

Atl, it probably won't be found for several more years. And most of the measures put in limiting the causes were in 1983 either instituted, or being talked about.

Either way, almost all sources of ozone-depleting substances are gone or nonoperational. Today I think that if it still existed, it'd be like the small one over the Arctic otl.

Yes, I've seen things about that finding before - it did make the news, a little, at the time. I also know, however, that by and large, those predictions haven't held much weight measured up to the present.

That study is primarily on the first couple of years after the blasts. And has actually been slightly discredited in the last few years, too.

Reductions in crops, etc. has been taken into account in the timeline.

Lordganon 05:58, June 2, 2012 (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). {C {C

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)

Thought I'd leave this note here - that I left on its talk page quite some time ago - but the strike list on this article isn't plausible. Lordganon 07:56, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

This page has been sitting here for over a year, and I handed it over to Fx a while back. Is it at least stub suitable, or should it be obsolete? Arstar 07:31, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

No in both cases. There are major issues with it so we cannot graduate it in any form, yet, it is an article on an established nation, so we cannot mark it as obsolete. Lordganon 07:34, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

I am still working on the article and intend to complete it along with Greenland. The only issue I am aware of as of this date which was raised had to do with the strike zones I selected. The areas I selected would have been legitimate and logical military targets of a Soviet attack: NAS Keflavik, the Keflavik Airport, and the Distant Early Warning (DEW) radar stations located in Sangerdi and Hofn.

Although the Doomsday scenario does revolve around a Soviet attack based on the assumption they are under a sudden assault, there is nothing to indicate the Soviets would not have followed up with bombers in a secondary attack on targets. The DEW radar system was designed to detect such incoming bombers. This would make it a target by the USSR. Although this aspect of the war to the best of my knowledge has not been explored in any great way, it was established in the history of Victoria that coastal Canada came under attack by Soviet bombers and they were shot down.

The destruction of DEW radar stations in Greenland and Iceland coupled with the effects produced by the HANEs over the continental US would help to punch holes in the network and leave North America vulnerable to any bomber attacks from that direction. I can not explain why other writers never elaborated on the fate of DEW sites in the US, Canada, and the Faroe Islands. It may have been a simple oversight given how many areas there are to cover. The article on Alaska speaks to multiple attacks on the Aleutian Island chain against military targets. Although it did not specifically clarify the exact targets, there were DEW stations in the islands which almost certainly would have been among sites hit. --Fxgentleman 16:33, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

Except for the fact that not a single part of the DEW network was in range of the HANE blasts. By 2,500 miles, at least.

Not a single one of these sites was hit, anywhere. To hit a detection site after its job has been accomplished holds absolutely no point. We've never elaborated about the bombers because whether a site is hit by one or a ICBM doesn't really matter.

And the Alaska article is not referring to them, either. Why? Because those stations in the Aleuts had all been closed in 1969. What it would be referring to is Cold Bay Air Force Station, and likely Unalaska as well.

So, as stated: They were not hit, anywhere.

Lordganon 17:12, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected regarding the stations in the Aleutians. The sources I read gave me the impression they were open in 1983. I went back and checked and you are correct. You are also correct that the DEW system ran across the northern border of Canada and Alaska. I was thinking of the Pine Tree Line and the Mid Canada Line which I mistakenly lumped in with the DEW network. It was these two that I was thinking of when I made a reference to the HANE since some of their stations would fall under the EMP line. So my error on those points.

However, could you elaborate further why you think DEW sites would not be hit?

The DEW radar stations were designed to detect bomber(s) with a certainty of at least 99.9% that by the time they crossed the line the bomber(s) location, track direction, and time of detection had been ascertained and transmitted to NORAD. Once the last of the bombers passed the line then yes, you would be correct that the station's purpose has thus been served and to strike it would be pointless because what it was created to detect has already gone through. The question I would have to ask is since the bombers would have to be launched from the USSR and pass over the Polar Cap to reach Canada and the US how long would they take to reach the radar line?

Lets hypothesize for a moment. We know the Soviets received the warning at about 3:40 GMT+3 and launched their ICBMs roughly five minutes later. Since I don't know how long it would take to scramble Soviet bombers lets say hypothetically the first bombers begin scrambling at the same point the missiles are being launched and are airborne roughly ten minutes later or 3:50 GMT+3. At this point we have different groups of bombers inbound. I suggested the radar sites in Iceland were hit at about 4:05 GMT+3. I do not know how long it takes a bomber to leave its base and reach the radar line. But I don't believe that all the bombers would have already reached and over flown the radar line by that time. So logically until that last bomber goes over their existence creates a viable threat to the effectiveness of the Soviet bombers. Thus an early attack on some or all the stations would be a reasonable action on the part of the Soviets. My suggestion is this, I can reduce the attacks to missiles carrying conventional explosive warheads given they are small targets. This would serve the purpose of neutralizing the target while leaving a insignificant footprint on the area. What do you think, I am open to thoughts?--Fxgentleman 00:58, December 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * I have always understood that this scenario was basically an accidental war fought long-distance by ICBMs and some SLBMs. If there had been scrambled bombers, they would have been sent out by both the USA and the USSR, and perhaps many NATO and some Warsaw Pact nations as well. All of this means planes in place to shoot down each other, and perhaps a few incoming ICBMs and SLBMs. The accidental war would have been over the Arals and Canada as Bombers met each other. We don't have this in any of our story lines. There is some of it, but not over the lower 48 states. The damage was done by the first strike almost exclusively, as I interpret it. There may have been waves, but as I understand it, it was mostly over in a few hours (except for border wars such as that in Alaska). Introducing bombers is too much for the time line as we have it to absorb, in my opinion. SouthWriter 05:24, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Having reviewed and considered South's comments I have gone ahead and removed any mention of the narrative regarding the DEW stations. I have to say though it is indeed very confusing from my point of view. I agree with South in that I always subscribed to the theory of how the war evolved, sudden rather than planned using just missiles in the US and Canada. The Victoria article when I read it a time ago had changed my thoughts regarding the whole business since we now had bombers flying in from Russia to attack. I just took it on faith it was simply another part of the story which had never been addressed. Under those conditions I felt DEW stations could not be ignored for the reasons I addressed earlier since they would just be to much of a threat for the Soviets to not strike. Hopefully, sometime in the future, another writer will take up the challenge of addressing the bomber aspect of what occured so we can square that part of the war. --Fxgentleman 06:39, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Basically, Fx, it's what you said in all of that: By the time the bombers arrive at the line, everything (for all purposes) is known. Their existence, and a lot of the details, would already be known by the destruction of any of them could occur. I figure there'd be a few minutes delay with the bomber launches, but it still stands. Destroying them, in this regard, really doesn't accomplish much of anything.

And, too, the radiation and EMP from such blasts would screw up any future waves a fair amount.

By the time the bombers get to anywhere that they can be harmed, the EMP and many ICBMs have gone off, crippling a lot of them. Same goes for their adversaries, and most people to whom the data would mean much of anything.

It's really a waste, at best. Largely, entirely ineffective. They know about them the entire time, so there is no point in destroying them.

As for Victoria.... really, those ones would have likely flown over the edges of the continent, and survived the EMP, etc. like that. To assume that the bombers would all fly straight is a little off, in my opinion.

Past that, as South said.

Lordganon 10:10, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

One of the things I learned during my recent research was in 1983 there was an active discussion on going about revamping the entire DEW radar line. I was surprised in my reading to find out how bad a shape the network was actually in, reports describing it as decrept. Soviet bombers could fly under 10k feet and avoid it. Apparently the Soviets had a far better and more effective network to stop US bombers. The Reagan administration was discussing as of 4/83 of spending $2 billion to revamp the entire network and trying to force Canada to cover part of the cost. This data was part of the reason my thoughts were finally swayed. Based on all these points, Soviet bombers would have had no real concerns. Nice to find out how well we were protected in 1983. --Fxgentleman 15:31, December 4, 2011 (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)


 * Hello, I have a few ideas that in process that would help expand and grow the Illini Republic area. I may start contributing soon, I just need to finalize how I am going to approach the topic. I am open to discuss, contribute, collaborate, or critique.
 * Jroak 06:48, October 8, 2011 (UTC)

Considering our rules, the only thing you're doing is discussing. Lordganon 07:24, October 8, 2011 (UTC)

The history of the Illini Republic can be made in narrative form, with bits and pieces of documentation and documentaitonal clippings chronicalling post-Doomsday events. Based on the Doomsday history of Illinois, a timeline of events can be established chronicaling the evolution of a midwest unversity town into a land of lawlessness. I am approaching this from three lines of ATL historical narrative.

1. At the time of Doomsday, a senior undergraduate student at the University of Illinois, who is originally from Chicago, now finds himself in the role of a student, refugee, graduate student researcher, and later one of the last official administrators of the University. The role of the University during this time, its attempts to stay neutral, and an evacuation of "knowledge," both books and people, to Purdue University in West Lafayette, IN shortly before the local civil government collapsed in 1986.

2. An Illinois Central Gulf railroad engineer whose knowledge of the region's current and former rail routes allows for resource scavenging and for those who want out, a less vulnerable way to travel than staying on the main roads. With help from other surviving Champaign-Urbana (C-U for short) railroad workers, many of whom would have been incapacitated from the strike at Chanute AFB, if they had been on yard duty that night, prove valuable in this capacity. Air Force technicians who were in Champaign at the time also prove helpful to keeping basic machinery usable. But not everyone wants to play nice with this collective knowhow of knowledge.

3. Bulletins and minutes from post-Doomsday news spreads and campus meetings.

Premises (Still formulating details)

The C-U area would have been immensely affected by a strike at Chanute Air Force Base in Rantoul, IL. As a training base for aircraft, ICBM, and eletronics maintainance, its target value would to be deny repair and recovery. I'm going to life hard and say it received two hits in the 100Kt range.

Aside from flash and blast damage, if the winds were from the south, this would blow some of the short term fallout away from C-U. I'll deal with this detail when I find out what weather conditions were like that day.

Any college town (and rural area) for that matter will have more than its fair share of 20 year old vehicles. 1983 C-U will be no different. Vehicles that survived the EMP and can run are highly sought after. Unfortunately this will create some initial problems in post-Doomsday.

Refugees from Decatur would probably find it easier to come to C-U via I-72. Refugees from the Chicago area are few in number and start to die relatively quickly. Refugees from Indianapolis travel west on I-74. Those who settle in Danville have fare better than those in the C-U area.

Any thoughts? Jroak24.1.29.37 07:34, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

The majority of that is things that aren't possible, or are at best logic holes. The three points are not possible.

Past that....

Winds go east-northeast. Meaning that the area gets whacked with radiation from Springfield and Decatur.

Only blast, and likely bigger than that.

No fuel, no vehicles. Simple.

Only survivors from Decatur could get there, at all. And that's kinda doubtful

And you've missed the point of this. These are brigands in the ruins. With little to nothing to do with the previous inhabitants.

See previous statement, too.

Lordganon 07:57, October 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, JR, thank you for your interest. That you have done some work on getting this article - only a place holder for at least a year - on the road to realization is commendable. The proper protocol is to ask to 'adopt' the article, seeing that it has been dormant for so long. Mitro is no longer an active editor, but he does check his messages occasionally, so his permission should be easy to come by.


 * As for the scenario, make sure you read what Mitro wrote on the Eureka page and aim at getting to that point in much the same way as did the "Chinks." As Mitro wrote in February the Illini Republic was founded by "University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign fraternity and sorority members who banded together during the collapse of Urbana–Champaign." There is, therefore a link to the "previous inhabitants." However, the evacuation of Urbana-Champaign and the university may not have been as smooth as you see it.


 * The train and the cars would be available with only what fuel was in their tanks. Fuel out of storage facilities would be accessed only by mechanical pumps that would have to be manually operated - and then only if authorities could keep them out of the hands of bandits and such. That being said, the cars would be used sparingly, and possibly only by whatever emergency governments that arose. However, the evacuation by auto would have been possible in cars with a fair amount of fuel even with low efficiency, for the trip was only 90 miles.


 * Assuming for a moment that a locomotive with adequate fuel had been available, please remember that tracks may not have been clear everywhere. And without communications the engineer would not know of any blocked tracks. Exit during comparitively quiet times would have been possible, though.


 * All that being said, the evacuation would only been nominally successful, given the picture that Mitro draws in his Eureka article. I would not encourage anything like the orderliness that you portray in your notes. SouthWriter 20:38, October 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a question here, but it seems a bit unlikely that the local government would survive so long as three years. The Japanese government nearly collapsed in WW II despite just two cities (Hiroshima and Nagaski) being nuked. Even then, it still had quite a bit of power, but it was an entire country. Here, most of the authorities would be shocked to the level of the refugees. As long as we are assuming that the air force base was nuked, army support would be very limited. I would estimate a local government collapse at a year at the most.
 * 98.14.126.83 01:16, November 21, 2011 (UTC)

This has been nothing but a sentence now for about a year-and-a-half. Any objections for it being marked Obsolete? SouthWriter 21:33, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Yes - it is referred to in other articles, with links and everything. Mitro's said a few times he's going to finish it, too. At this point, the best spot for this is as a proposal - I don't think it's good enough to be a stub right now, though it could possibly qualify for that. But obsolete, no - I must object to that. Lordganon 23:43, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Okay. So, Mitro, what do you want to do with this? SouthWriter 00:42, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Article created by Yank. Mitro 16:42, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Is this going anywhere? Lordganon 14:59, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

I'd be willing to allow someone to work the kinks out of it. I just have one request. I request that it is not to be annexed by another nation.

Yank 15:05, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

I suppose in light of that, and time passed, would there be objections to putting it up for adoption? Lordganon 05:13, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

Put up for adoption. Lordganon 11:44, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

Thought I'd leave a note here to say that this page has been adopted by a new user, Martin1983. Note, too, that he, despite the name, seems to have nothing to do with Owen. Lordganon 22:55, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

.....Or not. I undid all of that stuff he put in, as per policy. Lordganon 10:13, December 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * So...can we obsolete this? Mitro 19:48, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's still up for adoption. So, no reason to do that, I'd think. Lordganon 01:07, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

This article has been up in the air for a year and a half. Just because it's up for adoption doesn't mean we should keep it. Unless Yank works on it in the next week I think we should obsolete it. Arstar 02:09, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

The article is perfectly valid, and just needs to be completed. So, I have to oppose that idea. Lordganon 11:12, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Article created by Arstar. Mitro 03:42, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how I can make this work at the current moment as it was one of several dozen projects I started that aren't appropriate to the direction my projects took over the past year. Any objections to me making it obsolete? Arstar 01:12, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It's good, just needs a little work. As with a lot of things you left, it's on my list of things to finish, and I'll get to it at some point. Lordganon 10:15, December 4, 2011 (UTC)T

I'm going to try to make this article work by starting it over from scratch. Arstar 01:51, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

I started an article on the actives of the Former Beatles(Paul, Ringo,George) following the 1983 Doomsday Event. I hope to finish it soon. Is this an acceptable topic to write about? If not please let me know. (Jer1818)


 * I've moved this section from the archive page to this one. Let's see where the page goes, since for now it's just a recap of the OTL biographies up to 1983. Benkarnell 04:56, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome, Jer! I've made a few comments on the article's talk page. BrianD 06:49, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I updated Paul's and Ringo's Postdoomsday activities...read them and let me know what you think Jer1818 22:16, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Ok to graduate?--Smoggy80 14:59, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

No. It's definitely not done. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ganon's assessment on the talk page, Paul McCartney's demise must be mentioned in order for the article to be complete. SouthWriter 04:17, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

Something on John's grave, and maybe even Yoko and/or Pete Best would be nice too. Lordganon 08:08, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

Hey, Jer1818, are you still there? Just a little bit more and this can be graduated. @Ganon, though John was cremated, and his ashes scattered in Central Park, a memorial was erected -- dedicated in 1985. The memorial was a gift from Naples, Italy. More info on this would need to be gathered (I have only been to Wikipedia), but I suspect that this probably didn't get built.

Wikipedia only says Ono continued to live at the Dakota, across the street from Central Park. If she was home in 1983, she probably did not escape. Given her active career, though, she would be a good one to bring through the wreckage if possible.

On the other hand, Pete Best, the Beatles first drummer, had been working as a civil servant in around 15 years in Liverpool when the bombs fell. He got back into music in 1988 in our time line, but could have become popular sooner in this time line. He is known to have been a fan of the Beatle's music though the group apparently did not treat him well after his being replaced with Ringo Starr. I'm for him becoming one of the Celtic Alliance's formost musicians if it could be worked in to the time line.

~South

Well, it was only actually part of the memorial that was from Naples. Yoko and the city did actually start the project in 1981, and "completed" it sometime before the blasts - it was redone in 1984, and the dedication in 1985 was very much a re-dedication, for all purposes. None seems to have been done previously, yet it had obviously been open before that.

Yoko was recording parts of several albums at the time - and she did record in NYC.

Best is a bit of a dilemma - he was in Liverpool working for a number of years, but at some point between 1963 and 1988, he became the training manager for the entire regional division of England, meaning his job likely moved to St Helens, east of Liverpool. Seems that he still lived in Liverpool, but... nothing for sure, there, really.

Lordganon 15:00, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Issaquah-Snoqualmie
I made an article stub for a survivor community in the Cascades near where I live. The geography of the area forms a pretty protected valley in Issaquah (It's located between two mountains and home construction on those mountains had yet to begin in earnest in 1983 - they arrived as a result of the Microsoft boom. This also means that the population would be smaller than in OTL, since Issaquah's growth spurt didn't happen until this past decade.) There are a lot of highlands and whatnot in Issaquah proper to protect the city from the shockwaves 25 miles away in Seattle, although some radiation would probably occur there too.

Snoqualmie itself is located further up the mountains, near the town of North Bend. Don't worry, I'm not trying to turn North Bend into a massive empire like *cough* certain people did, but its protected up in the mountains and is far enough away from Seattle to suggest that it would have survived almost completely intact. I propose Issaquah-Snoqualmie as a minor conurbation of small communities stretching through the Snoqualmie pass from up in the mountains to the foothills. Pasco is pretty far from this area but likely enjoys healthy trade with Issaquah-Snoqualmie thanks to their outposts in central Washington (Ellensburg), as is established in canon. Again, to reiterate, I'm not trying to transform the Issaquah-North Bend corridor into a mighty Cascade empire - it would be a self-sufficient, hectic and maybe even wild-west style survivor town in most of the 1980's saddled with refugees from the Seattle/Bellevue area.

On the note of Victoria, I doubt that at least until the mid-2000's or even now, they would have bothered crossing an irradiated wasteland to get to Issaquah, even though the communities between Issaquah and Snoqualmie technically fall within their claimed territory.

Issaquah, culturally, was much more of a rural and exoburban city in the 1980's, even though today it's full of rich assholes (My personal bias. Fuck those guys.)

KingSweden 19:53, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Well, looking at the much more zoomed in map on the Victoria History article itself I think it could work in some form. Issaquah is on the border line, and the other community is definitely outside of it. Though, that map is a little old, so.... Definitely could have lived through the blasts, etc. mind - radiation would have went to sea. Oer, thoughts? Lordganon 22:33, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

I've got no problems. Victoria is too busy with the Olympia and Aberdeen areas and bringing the newly aquired south into the fold, along with establishing a border with Astoria to worry about some small mountain towns.Oerwinde 09:54, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

So, what's the plan for this one, guys? King, are you planning on doing anything with it? Lordganon 22:45, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Are there any objections to making this a stub?Arstar 22:43, January 13, 2012 (UTC)

Yes. There is no reason at all to even consider it at this time. The article is far from done, and unlike the stubs, has entire sections blank. Lordganon 09:39, January 14, 2012 (UTC)

Superior Election Articles

 * 1984 Republic of Superior Congressional Elections (1983: Doomsday)
 * 1986 Republic of Superior Congressional Elections (1983: Doomsday)
 * 1994 Republic of Superior Congressional Elections (1983: Doomsday)

Though created by an anon, they allegedly follow canon and were originally red linked. Mitro 17:21, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

The first two have no basis in canon at all - virtually no reference to numbers and political positions of the two parties or the like with the congress of Superior exist for that era that actually indicate things one way or the other like this. The independent numbers are.... not possible, either. The 1994 one is the only one with some actual accuracy as it currently stands, though even it has to be massively re-written. Lordganon 20:21, March 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well I think we should mark the first two obsolete and put the last up for adoption. Any objections? Mitro 18:31, March 20, 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure this won't come as a surprise to anyone who's been paying attention to the newsbits and edits with Superior I've been doing lately, but I'm adopting these articles, and am going to be adding many more of them. Lordganon 00:11, August 12, 2011 (UTC)

President ones first, then congress, then governors. Lalalala.... 07:15, August 26, 2011 (UTC)

All right, I believe I'm done with the Presidential elections. The 2012 one is ongoing, obviously, but should be graduated too, I think.

Any objections to their graduation?

Lordganon 14:46, September 26, 2011 (UTC)

All right, they've been graduated. Lordganon 23:00, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

Arstar, why on earth did you do that? The articles that I asked about were graduated months ago. Lordganon 11:17, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Arstar: This is now the second time that you've done that. The articles here are proposals and the ones I asked about, as I already told you, were graduated months ago. Lordganon 01:14, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

What's the story on these? Ganon says they're graduated, but they're still have proposal templates on them? SouthWriter 02:29, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

There was several presidential election articles here that were graduated back in October. Arstar's missed that a few times, despite being told about it point-blank, lol. Lordganon 14:35, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Article created by Crimson. Mitro 17:25, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

So, where is this going, Crim? Lordganon 22:47, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Any objections to graduation as a stub?--Smoggy80 15:03, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Yes. There's nothing here, really, to graduate, and as it stands it's not plausible. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Well, Crim, what do are you going to do with this, it's been over a year? I agree with Ganon here, it needs to be mostly in Vance county if it's going to succeed. Right now it's a skeleton in need of some meat. I'd suggest doing some research on Henderson, NC, to put some names to the characters. SouthWriter 02:49, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

He told me at the end of February that he'd be working on it "soon." Lordganon 14:36, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Article by Sunkist. Mitro 19:42, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

So what are we doing with this? It's pretty obvious that Sun's more or less abandoned it. Should we obsolete it? Or what? Lordganon 22:48, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Anything done with it has to tie into Kentucky. I could adopt this, as part of my proposal to flesh out the DDTL state of Indiana. BrianD 03:33, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

That would work well, though I'd talk to Zack about it first. Lordganon 05:30, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Has BrianD adopted this?--Smoggy80 15:04, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

More or less. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Article by South. Mitro 19:42, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

I've worked on a few paragraphs. Let me know what you think. SouthWriter 01:46, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

South, you still working on this? BrianD 03:33, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Brian, since I am no good at creating fictional characters, would you mind adding to this article. You can use the characters that you created for me earlier. I can't get into the evil mindset the way you can. The article can be an extension of your fascinating one on Athens. It will make a great addition to the post DD history of the tri-state area. SouthWriter 04:13, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Ok to graduate? --Smoggy80 15:05, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

It's not done yet - they periodically add to it. By the looks of things, it's about half done.

The Ipswich Incident
Ongoing article. Semi-collaboration between Verence and I. Fegaxeyl 21:27, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Feg, Verence, what's the story here? Lordganon 22:52, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Proposal by GB not previously put here. It's got..... major issues, but is indeed a start. Lordganon 11:18, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

Is GB still the owner of this article? I have read through it and would like to take it over and expand it based on research I have been doing and also bring it into line with what I am doing for Delmarva. If anyone can let me know, thanks.--Fxgentleman 13:24, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he is. And you are definitely the person who should take over and do the article. Lordganon 14:27, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

What's the progress on this article? FX, you still want to take it over?BrianD 03:33, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

By my best guess, he's doing some research and will get to it when he's ready. Lordganon 05:33, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Ok to graduate as a stub?--Smoggy80 15:06, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

No. There's barely anything here, and what is here... well, it really isn't the case of what would happen. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

My apologies for not responding sooner regarding this. I had not thought to look at the discussion regarding this for awhile. It is still on my list of things to do and I have not forgotten it. Unfortunately, the duties of my job often take alot of my time and energy and things have been especially hectic since December 2011. If I don't appear to respond and there is a concern/question please just message me on my discussion page or email me and I will respond. Thanks and sorry.--Fxgentleman 22:45, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

More or less what I've been saying about your articles on this list, Fx. No worries, overall - I know some of us are very busy. Lordganon 09:11, March 5, 2012 (UTC)

Survivor state in former Slovakia, by Jnjaycpa. Here's hoping that it doesn't end up like all of his other proposals and he actually works on it. Lordganon 08:00, May 20, 2011 (UTC)

....I suppose I'm not shocked to see this, but since I posted that there has only been two days that it has been edited, and virtually all the problems and blankness remain. Yet, Jnjaycpa has been around. So, what should we do with this? It is somewhat valid, so I'm really not of a mind to make it obsolete. Maybe make if ofa? Lordganon 22:58, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

OFA works for me. It would be good to see Jay return to it and finish it out. BrianD 03:33, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

I have now marked it as open for adoption. Lordganon 01:01, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

I would like to request this article for adoption. Gatemonger 17:31, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to ask if it has the banner. Power to you, Gate. Lordganon 01:41, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

Has this been adopted?--Smoggy80 15:07, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Smog. Gate's clearly done so. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Article by Feg and Vegas. Lordganon 11:32, June 21, 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be all finished now, so any objections to graduation?--Smoggy80 14:54, August 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * One thing I noticed: No casualties or losses mentioned or listed on the template. I think it needs to be fleshed out just a bit, but I don't know much about 'battle articles' (the only war I did was incorporated into the main article).


 * Before we graduate this one, and the one below it, I thought I'd point out the irony of the two being adjacent: The Invasion of Kent & Superman! :-)


 * SouthWriter 04:56, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. And, too, the invasion goes from 15th May, 2011 to 2nd June, 2011, but only May 15th-17th is written down. Not even any idea what the consequences/results are, either.

Basically, it is over, but there's no events listed right now. We could probably get away with stubbing it, but... I would really rather avoid that.

Lordganon 06:54, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

Well, since then Vegas has added a little to this, but it remains mostly the same. Feg, Vegas, what's happening with it? Lordganon 22:59, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Is this article finished? can it be graduated?--Smoggy80 15:08, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

No to both counts. There's basically nothing here. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Article by a new user for the Nordic Union member of Denmark. Currently, it is horribly formatted and filled with errors in general. Lordganon 05:00, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

Looks much better now, ok to graduate?--Smoggy80 15:09, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

There has been no improvements, nor is it complete. So, no. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Article by me about post-Doomsday Tanganyika. Caeruleus 20:35, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

This article is complete and ready for graduation, if there are no objections. Caeruleus 04:08, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Yes.

The idea that all of these states would have good relations with the Tanganyika remnant and join that organization makes no sense at all.

Same goes for the situation in most of these states. Have a good, hard, long look at where the economic power in the nation actually is, and where is actually poor: it's not how you show it, at all.

Lordganon 08:29, September 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * They have good relations with the Republic of Tanganyika for two reasons. First, they have to if they want access to their ports. With Mozambique having a civil war to the south and Kenya allying its export policy with that of Tanganyika's, if they want access to wider markets, they have to be nice to Tanganyika. Second, Tanganyika rejected its goal of reunification in 1990, which removed the immediate threat it presented to the newly indepedent states.


 * Tanganyika controls the ports, the commercial capital, most of the region's industry, and the only operational gold mine. At the very least, Tanganyika would be wealthiest because it could tax any exported through its territory. However, if you have evidence to the contrary, I would like to see it. Caeruleus 16:32, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you have a good long look at your EAC article. It specifically states that unifying the area is its long-term goal. So no, it has not rejected it.

Ports are overrated whenever you write something. Note the big lake in the northeast? The population around that lake is self-sustaining, and not dependent on the rest of the area or those ports at all. Largest inland fishery in the world. There is no economic pressure that can be done to them, for they have no need to export.

Operational Gold mine? No gold mines were operational at the time. Most only opened in the late 1990s, and the others went out of business by the 1950s. And they would all be in the breakaway states, too.

Commercial Capital means little - and that city would be where most deaths and refugees occur. With exports and imports gone or sharply reduced, the "commercial" aspect goes.

So does industry, which is almost non-existant. Especially since until recently, there was basically nothing in that direction. Most of the exports and agriculture are from the breakaway states. Those on the lake are going to have a higher GNP ratio than Tan~ itself. It's also dependent on them for food, which you failed to notice.

Who's got the economic power? In some regards, Tan~ has some but overall? Not them, by a long shot.

And all that avoids entirely the aspect of relations in general. These states revolted. And you are trying to make them have good relations. That is ridiculous. A few of them, sure. But all? That is just not possible. Each and every time a nation has broken up, especially by force, not all of the parts have been friendly. And yet, you have them all loving each other. That's impossible and makes no sense whatsoever.

Lordganon 02:04, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

Please read through the new updates. Any remaining objections? Caeruleus 03:17, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

A definite improvement, though you missed the point about economic power, and population.

The states on the lake are not dependent on the rest of the nation, in any real way. The population overall fails to include any real number of deaths or refugees.

Lordganon 06:30, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * The economic power portions have been revised. The poulation is fine. It's 10 million less than OTL, which is more than enough to count for the number of deaths and refugees. Caeruleus 07:20, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

No. Half the article reads like it is an article on the remnant, the other half reads like an article on the area. If it is overall, that may work as a population. But for the remnant, not in the least. By and large, it appears to be the remnant.

Lordganon 08:01, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * It's the total population of the entirety of Greater Tanganyika. Caeruleus 08:19, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Then you need to re-write the article. That is only about a quarter of what it actually says. Most of it is an article on The remnant. Lordganon 09:40, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * It progresses from talking about the remnant to the survivor states, while remaining somewhat focused on the remnant in the context of the other survivor states. After a certain point, "Tanganyika" stops referring to the remnant and begins referring to the region. I'll go through and change references to the region to Greater Tanganyika" in order to clarify that. Caeruleus 13:34, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Much better. Lordganon 19:18, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

with the improvements is it ok to graduate this article then?--Smoggy80 15:10, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

There are still problems with the "focus," so to speak, of the article. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

I vote for graduation. This article demonstrates a sincere effort that should be recognized by the community as part of the time line. SouthWriter 03:19, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

And to that, I have to object. Half of the article is still on the nation-state, and half of it is on the former nation. As I said, there's a problem with the focus of the article. He's done work to improve it in that regard, but the problem has definitely persisted, and needs to be fixed prior to graduation. Lordganon 15:02, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Article by me about Kenya. Caeruleus 19:55, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

This article is complete and ready for graduation, if there are no objections. Caeruleus 04:06, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Yes.

That this remains intact while most of Africa collapses, despite the major drought just after Doomsday, makes no sense. Earlier on, you had a couple of the provinces go. And yet, then you had them re-join. That is not plausible.

Lordganon 08:33, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

And, to add, there's several statements in it, such as "largest economy in East Africa" which are suspect, and probably not true at all. Lordganon 08:56, September 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * It's the largest economy in East Africa OTL and that would hold true here as well.


 * As for the drought, droughts don't necessarily cause a collapse of government. The only thing that is assured to happen is a higher death toll for the duration of the drought. During droughts, Kenya does need food aid, but it still produces enough to feed a majority of its population. At most, only a few million have ever needed food aid and, even without aid, the situation could still be handled by the government. Caeruleus 16:04, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Caer, you don't make statements like that. Ever. And, for the record, it is very likely that they are not the largest economy. With the reformation and such that occurred in Ethiopia, it is likely that it, Mozambique, or Madagascar hold the title anyways. Especially given the economic aspects relied on in Kenya, which would have collapsed the economy quickly.

You'll note that I did not say it collapsed. A dictatorship, with a coup attempt barely a year prior, in a multi-ethnic - very multi-ethnic - state with regional divisions. Otl, with massive relief getting sent to them, half of the herds died, and massive amounts of crops. More than half the country is drought-prone. The blasts are on record as warming the earth slightly, making it a touch worse. And, the drought ran from 1983 until 1985, too, throughout all of East Africa. To boot, after that period there was massive floods to make the effect even worse.

http://worldvisionnews.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/horn-of-africa-drought-map.png

and

http://writingtowellness.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/horn-of-africa-drought-map-29-july.jpg

While the two maps are from modern droughts, they show the at-risk areas well, in combination. That has long been the same. Think about it.

You have a few million starving people. And no food to give them. Did you know that the average person is only three meals away from civil disobedience? Do the math. Atl, they are going to have trouble feeding the army. Good luck keeping stability like that.

Collapse outright? Not likely. Remain whole? That's crazy.

Lordganon 05:03, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

I've made some changes. Any remaining objections? Caeruleus 03:18, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

A definite improvement. But you fail to actually take the droughts into effect, at all. Lordganon 06:31, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * There's not much to be said about the droughts other than that they happened and had some effects. Caeruleus 07:15, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Not what I mean. You do not go into details about its effects, and mention it in passing, for the most part. Not only that, but a population 2 million lower, only? A fair portion of the area is constantly fought over, a few massive droughts happened, along with general chaos, and only two million lower than otl? Not plausible in any fashion.

Lordganon 08:05, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * I made a minor adjustment to the population. Still, nothing really needs to really be elaborated on about the drought. It happened, there was a famine, and obviously some people died and/or suffered because of it, which contributed to political instability. What else would you like included? Caeruleus 08:54, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Better, but you've not gotten the point. You just mention it. It's like a non-event. That just does not work. Lordganon 09:42, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a drought. They happen. It wasn't some seismic event. What happened and what it did are pretty basic. Do you want me to include specific information about what areas were affected and death tolls and such? Caeruleus 13:38, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

A massive drought, causing many deaths and society-wide problems. And you just mention it. It's not a question of figures - though some sort of those is a must - but actually mentioning more than "it happened." Currently, you fail to do so. Lordganon 19:21, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Much better, but now you've made it sound like droughts never happen again. They will. Lordganon 21:57, October 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * How is it that there can be a blossoming of the Sahara in Egypt based on a proposed increase of rainfall by mere inches a year while insisting that the droughts and desertification in Kenya remain the same? I have been told that we cannot generally expect the weather to be predictable, but here, on the edge of the equatorial rainforest things remain the same!


 * There is no mention at all of this drought, or any since 1983 for that matter, on the Wikipedia page about Kenya. It should not be a requirement for such to be an article on this wiki either. I agree, droughts happen, and people cope. In the case of this drought, with no help from the USA in 1984, there would have been a few thousand more deaths - maybe even a million in the poorer regions. The people affected, though, are not those who would revolt after a few days. They live day by day any way, gladly receiving aid when it comes, coping in other ways when it doesn't.


 * Meanwhile, back in Nairobi, well away from the suffering, life goes on. The army might fight the neighbors who take advantage of the drought, but the government would at the same time reach out to the Indian Ocean community for aid (Malyasia, Indenesia, and Australia, especially) when the emergency of the famine developed.


 * This is a very good article, though it might be improved with mention of coping without US aid in the particular emergency. I am in favor of graduating it in spite of the lack of dealing with the drought. However, I would say more attention should be shown as to how the new connections with New Britain, Australia and New Zealand would come into play when droughts inevitably come. SouthWriter 18:18, October 22, 2011 (UTC)

South, the Sahara has almost nothing to do with the rainfall, and everything to do with redirecting the river partially.

Google "Kenya drought" and either "1983" or "1984." You'll find that there was a drought then that otl, effected 200,000 people greatly even with massive food imports. This drought is referred to as one of "the most severe resulting in loss of human life and livestock, heavy government expenditure to facilitate response and general high economic losses of unprecedented levels." Which, otl, was followed by massive flooding in 1985. These droughts, btw, hit the region every few years, and especially hard every ten years or so - in 1974, 1984, 1994, and 2004, otl. These hit the entire region. 50-75% of cattle died before food aid came otl - and here, it's not coming. There was severe food shortages, too. This drought has even been called the first in the last century by some. Food crops were 50%, in the case of corn, to 70%, in the case of wheat, lost to it in Kenya. This is a drought that killed three million people in the region. Millions in Kenya were dependent on food imports to survive. And here, there isn't any.

Ever hear the addage "The average person is three meals away from civil unrest?" Think about it. The death toll will be on a disturbing level in this case.

Again, no contact with the outside world during the drought. Nor could they help at all, anyways.

And, the climate changes - wetter, etc. - are unlikely to have much impact here overall. Changes otl aren't, so why would this? And, changes here are not happening in the first few years, either. so there's no impact form them.

So, I say again: The article mentions the drought in passing. Yet, this drought has such an impact, that it needs to actually be dealt with. Caer is failing entirely in that regard.

Lordganon 05:49, October 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * First, I did do a search for the 1984 drought, and it is seen as a border issue. The fact that the Wikipedia article does not even mention it should be taken as a hint that the Kenyans indeed adjust to these seasonal emergencies. In fact, the actions of President Moi, not the US government, are what mitigated the effects of the drought and accompanying famine. Since trade with the US had vanished in TTL, agreements with nations in the southern hemisphere would have been used instead. This response was touted as a model for famine relief. Far from causing conditions for revolt, the Kenyan government was able to mitigate the situation getting the population through.


 * I know this is counter to my suggestions above, for they were just suggestions lacking LG's superior investigative abilities. I would say that Caer should indeed mention the effort since it even if the Wikipedia article in our day did not. It enhances the article to point out the effectiveness of the Moi regime - no matter where it was able to get outside help. If nothing else, help would be available from surplus in Malaysia and Indonesia (sources of year-long exports to the US and other nations of the north pre-DD).


 * One more thing, the deaths in this drought measured two million in the region, not in Kenya. The losses to Kenya were only 200,000 in its northwestern sector. In a nation of 30,000,000 that is hardly a disaster that would topple a strong regime like the one in Kenya.


 * Long story short, I agree that the drought should be 'dealt with,' but not that it is essential in validating the article. The drought would not, in my opinion, have altered the history of Kenya in this time line any more than it would have int our time line. SouthWriter 20:24, October 23, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, South, it is not mentioned in the Kenya article because it was not an issue there otl. However, this is not otl.

They imported millions of tons of food. Millions. That is why they were barely effected otl. Not because the government or the people was able to adjust to anything. But because unlike their neighbors, they were able to import massive amounts of food. Which is not happening here.

You say that it was the actions of the President that "mitigated the effects of the drought and accompanying famine." While that is true, you also missed what he did. He imported food. Which, as established, is not happening.

Again: They have no contact with the outside world until after the drought is long over. At best, it will be 1986 before it is restored between this area and the SAC/ANZC to any degree. And the entire matter is long gone by then.

I said in the region three million died otl. Not in Kenya. Most of those were in Ethiopia, which got no imports, and only a small amount of aid. Here, atl, Kenya gets no food imports, or aid. The impact will be worse. Far, far, worse. Half of crops in the country failed, and a large majority of the herds died off, otl, with imports of food and aid. Go from there.

So, we have millions dying. Which is a heck of a lot worse than otl. And as such, the history is drastically altered.

Caer has failed to deal with the drought itself in any degree, and it needs to be rectified before graduation.

Lordganon 23:27, October 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * I am keeping this civil, not going into addressing either of you in second person. As mentioned above, I believe there would be communication and trade with Malaysia and maybe even Indonesia, neither of which would have been embroiled in the politics in Australia or South America (neither of which had formed new alliances to any degree in 1984). Unless we are going to assume that geosynchronous satellites directly above were out of commission (see discussion at bottom of this page) and regular cables across the Indian Ocean were disrupted by by the bombs that hit one city in western Australia, then there is no reason why arrangements could not be made with the governments around the Indian Ocean for at least adequate aid, if not in the amount of the US sent in our time line.


 * I see that Indonesia had early contact with Australia and Malaysia but not with the rest of the world (Africa and South America). Malaysia seems a bit more stable than Indonesia because of its smaller population but lost a third of its land to tiny Brunei. So perhaps they would not have been quite as inclined to help an African nation. But I can't see the lack of contact in that direction as a reason. It is enough to lay out options with no need to be dogmatic on these things. This is a community effort and no one editor - not even an administrator - should have the last word on how a small African nation might have fared with the absence of the US in time of crisis. --SouthWriter 03:11, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

Simple truth: as I have laid it out is the current fact. Not my opinion, or yours. You need to recognize that fact. You don't like it, fine. But as things stand, it is fact. You need to recognize that.

Past that....

To quote the ANZC history:

"Communications were restored with Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, and most of the Pacific island nations by Christmas of 1983"

Contact obvious

"....met with Indonesian President Suharto in February 1984...... He believed that Indonesia needed to move forward on the assumption that the Australia, New Zealand and Singapore markets would eventually bounce back to near pre-Doomsday levels"

Contact with Malaysia, Singapore, and Brunei

"In February, an unexpected radio message from North America came: the American President, Ronald Reagan, was alive, as was Vice President George Bush and several other staffers and cabinet members, and they were trying to find out who else was alive in this post-Doomsday world."

"No one had been able to establish contact with anyone outside the Mount Weather or Greenbrier regions, and certainly not from Canada, Japan nor Western Europe."

"The one contact other than Australia the U.S. had been able to establish was with Mexican military south of Mexico City; they learned that Mexico had survived Doomsday and was not only functioning but was apparently taking American survivors from the southwest border states."

"Bush arrived in Canberra on Air Force Two on May 6 from Auckland, greeted personally by Hawke only to be told that the RAAF lost contact with Air Force One."

Contact with American Remnants, and Mexico

And, from the Vatican, we have already established, somewhat, that contact between Mexico and the rest of Latin America is up by sometime in 1984. And that contact throughout the south, is, on some level, restored enough by April of 1987 to have most of the Southern Cardinals attend a conclave. Probably, sometime in late 1985 at the latest for contact.

Contact with rest of the Southernmost Hemisphere

Note, too, that this applies to areas from Senegal south in western Africa, and Mozambique south in the east - though, this could be made further north n the east, and probably will be. But it remains: contact and trade are restored with East Africa in the latter half of 1984 at best.

And guess what? The drought has already done its damage by then.

Your "aid" has no effect. The deaths have already happened.

As stated, Caer needs to actually deal with this. He barely mentions it. Yet, it happened. The problem here is pretty big, and obvious.

Lordganon 05:40, October 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * LG, nothing you say is fact until it is established as fact by the community of this TL. That goes for you and everyone else. Also, keep in mind that the issue of communication is under review with a majority of editors so far leaning towards changing it. If it is decided to change it, all the passages you've quoted will be invalidated. Caeruleus 05:55, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

Me saying? What I have quoted is the current established fact. Until this article recognizes that or something else changes, there is no reason at all to graduate it.

And, as for the "review"? The info I quote invalidates the entire thing.

Lordganon 06:27, October 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * What LG has cited represents wide-spread utilization of communication in the southern hemisphere and even from the subtropical regions of the northern hemisphere. The communications from North America, though 'unexpected,' prove that they were operative via the communication satellites encircling the equator - one or two above Kenya, in fact. Furthermore, the fact that these particular incidents are mentioned only go to show the view point of the people involved (and the assumptions of the editors of the articles). Though the discussion is not in the "review" section, it does not mean that it is not an official process to which we need to pay serious attention.


 * The 'early warning systems' were well in place for the Kenyan government as the drought began with a failure of the "short rains" that began soon after DD (October - November, 1983). Since the government would be aware of the probable loss of the US and Europe via broadcast during the attacks if not after them, contingency plans would be made. Most of the yellow maize imported came from Thailand and the result of yellow maize being the main import caused those of means within the nation to ration other foodstuffs to compensate.


 * Without due consideration to the drought, though, the article does suffer from a loss of a good study in the alternatives the Kenyan government faced with a loss of both the US and European community. This is what this time line is all about. Though not directly affected by the nuclear war, the contacts that the Moi regime had were drastically reduced. And so, I agree that this article needs to include a paragraph of how the regime 'pulled this off' to remain stable. If that cannot be demonstrated, then the article needs to be revamped before graduation. SouthWriter 15:36, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

And now, we're off-topic. Sigh.....

Widespread? Contact in some form does not mean widespread, at all. The majority of this contact would be by ship, and minimal at best.

Actually South, they don't prove they were operative. Quite literally, there are only 4 places with any sort of contact in NA at that time - and that, with each other: Bush, Reagan, NORAD, and on a very low level the Wyoming remnant. Really, the word "unexpected" would much more so be due to their deaths having been expected. And those satellites would be unlikely - really, there are some EMP hardened sats up there, which both NORAD and the executives would have access on some degree to, though highly fractured by the EMP blasts and the ground/air bursts.

Bush and Reagan, having been airborne and in their EMP hardened planes, have functioning radios, at least to some degree. That's how they can be in contact. Between each other, it's pretty simple. Past that, the military satellites are still going to be functional at that point, at least to some degree. They would also have high-powered radios - though, their performance obviously hindered somewhat - along with, I'm sure, a few other toys we're not aware of.

NORAD is pretty obvious in itself, with the location, the story set up, and the radiation, etc. severely impacting things afterwards. But that is limited, too.

Got nothing for Wyoming, really. Where that is mentioned really needs something like "through NORAD" added to it, as it makes little sense otherwise. Proximity to NORAD, call it.

Really, those are quite reasonable. Contact between the four will be extremely sporadic, and static-filled, with little to no ability to reach beyond the continent. Sure, a few more sources may have heard them - but that means almost nothing, given codes, static, and that the further it gets, the more unintelligible it would be. That they talked to the ANZC at all through that atmosphere is a stretch, quite frankly.

Thailand. Something, as stated, only in contact with in mid to late 1984. And suffering somewhat in its own right.

No matter the plans put into place, you still have a massive food shortage. And no aid until it's more or less over, and even then in much smaller amounts than in otl. Millions will die.

As stated, my issue with this is that the drought gets a mention "in passing." Yet, it has so much more impact than that. Nor is it a "minor famine" like it says right now. It was more or less that otl - that it is going to be far worse here is a given. It's not so much the stability, in my mind, though that gets glanced over badly too, among other things that South has noted. As it stands, it's basically glanced over, being "swept under the rug," so to speak.

And that? We can definitely say is not right.

Lordganon 07:58, October 27, 2011 (UTC)

Article by an anon. Only a single sentence, absolutely nothing else. Lordganon 14:34, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

No progress since I added this one. Yet, it's definitely an article to keep. Would there be any objections to putting it up for adoption? Lordganon 23:14, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Put up for adoption. Lordganon 01:05, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

Adopted by Godfrey Raphael. Lordganon 01:28, February 13, 2012 (UTC)

Has this been definitely been adopted? as it is still only one line?--Smoggy80 15:13, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it has definitely been adopted. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Article by GB, in the Channel Islands of California. Needs a ton of work, however. Lordganon 03:46, August 27, 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this needs a ton of work. GB has asked me to oversee the development of this article due to his needing to concentrate on school work. I read the talk page, and the San Nicolas Island article on Wikipedia. The concept is challenging, to say the least. GB's only request is that it remain loyal to the CRUSA and eventually becoming a part of the USA. It seems much too small to pass as a state, much less a 'nation,' so it is going to have to end up 'attached' to some part of a willing Californian nation-state that joins the USA. I'm open to suggestions. SouthWriter 01:46, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

Far as I know, the government at Placerville is the only one with any interest in the new USA, though that depends on how factions in the MSP play out. Lordganon 05:34, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. That's the "California" that matters anyway, as far as re-establishing a successor state goes. I have done some work on the article, bringing early contact with Mexico (via a plane out of Baja) and the rescue of about a hundred refugees stranded on uninhabitable Santa Barbara Island. It's going to take a lot of work just to make the island produce crops. Anyway, I am up way too late already. SouthWriter 05:47, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the name of the article to "Pacifica (1983: Doomsday)" and the 'long form' is now "United Islands of Pacifica." As a result of this article, I am creating another article which I am inserting below as a new proposal.

Is this ok to Graduate?--Smoggy80 15:14, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

It's still not complete - large portions of it remain missing. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Avalon (1983: Doomsday)
This is an article I created to go along with Pacifica. The town becomes the name of the city-state that encompases the whole island known in our time line as "Santa Catalina Island." This city-state can stand alone if Pacifica fails to be canonized. SouthWriter 18:25, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

Graduate as a stub or leave it until more work is done on it?--Smoggy80 15:15, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

As with Pacifica, wait until it's actually done. There's not even any content to this one right now. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

An article by myself. Caeruleus 19:12, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

This article is now complete and ready for graduation, if there are no objections. Caeruleus 06:34, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

It is still ridiculously impossible. Simply put, it is not plausible that a bunch of breakaway states would agree to this when the major power is the one they split from militarily and the eventual goal of the organization is integration.

That is not plausible, at all. Some, maybe. But all, and many for reasons that make no sense locally? Not plausible.

And, you have no authority at all to include Zanzibar in this at all.

Lordganon 08:27, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

And none of that changes with Kenya helping to "convince" them, either. Lordganon 08:30, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

The current goal of the organization is economic integration, which is desirable to all the states in the region. The coastal states want access to the resources of the inland states and the inland states need access to the ports of the coastal states for trade. The ultimate goal of political unification is far off and may never actually happen. Just because it's a stated goal does not mean that's the reason they joined or that they expect it to happen. Plus, the EAC is a regional embodiment of PanAfricanism, an ideology that is strong among the regional elite. Even if the organization is particularly popular, the political elite in several of these countries would push for membership, like with the OTL EAC and other regional supranational organizations in Africa. Caeruleus 16:18, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Really? Pan-Africanism? Do you have any idea at all how inflated that concept is? It would seem not. And, for the record, the political elite in the area otl do not support the concept - that will remain true here.

No. The stated goal of it, as it says on the article itself is economic and political integration. Which is precisely why many of the little states will avoid it like the plague. Little nation-states, joining a political organization whose eventual stated goal is political integration with a nation that they revolted from - that just doesn't work. At all.

Even without that being the stated goal, that is just not plausible. A few of the remnants, maybe. But all of them? That doesn't work, at all. Have a good look at that type of thing, overall, and you'll find that many of them cannot stand each other. Either they hate the remnant of the nation they revolted from, or one another. End result is the same. Which you have failed to understand or include, at all.

As already established, the inland states have no need for the coast, and vice-versa.

Lordganon 05:36, September 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * I went through and made some changes. Any continued objections? Caeruleus 03:16, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Better, but you still fail to get the point about the states on the lakes - more so, Lake Victoria. They have little to no need for the coast, at all.

This also cannot graduate, sensibly, until the nations do.

Lordganon 06:32, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

I edited the portion about the importance of the ports. If there's nothing else, this will graduate when the other articles do. Caeruleus 08:54, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

No, you removed it. That does not change the fact that they do not need them in any form, and that the article entirely fails to get that concept. Lordganon 09:50, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * The article isn't about the ports of East Africa. Since including them as a reason for Tanganyika's economic superiority was overstated, nothing else needs to be said about them once that portion was removed. Caeruleus 13:40, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

You frequently use words like "inevitable." While the port sections were removed, the article still reads like that is the reason for joining. At the very least, no motive is given. It also still sounds like economic reasons are why things are happening, which as shown is not. the case. Lordganon 19:25, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Economic reasons are why things are happening. Lowering trade barriers and increasing cooperation will result in accelerated economic growth in the region, regardless of whether or not the ports are particularly important. That's the principle reason most of these states are joining. There are other reasons, like security aid for Kagera and pro-reunification leanings for Ruvuma, but the economic advantages remain a major reason for membership. Caeruleus 18:46, October 6, 2011 (UTC)

You are not getting the point. It still reads like pressure is being applied, yet there is no pressure to apply. And, again, the use of words like "inevitable." Lordganon 01:21, October 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * The inevitable comment is made in specific reference to the future direction of the TFTA, not the EAC. Other than that, there are no references to pressure being applied. Caeruleus 03:26, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what that word is in reference to, at all. You use other words that mean the same blasted thing throughout, as well. The whole thing reeks of it. Lordganon 06:43, October 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you're talking about. It doesn't reak of that, at all. Caeruleus 14:42, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

Oblivious, as usual, then. You are continually referring to future things in a definite manner that would be speculation. That doesn't fly. Lordganon 01:11, October 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not. The only future things the article refers to are in the "Future Developments" section, which makes perfect sense. Other than that, I don't know what you're talking about. Caeruleus 22:33, October 8, 2011 (UTC)

Again, you're failing to get the point. You are referring to things as definite. Doesn't work, or make any sense, especially in the future developments section. Lordganon 07:20, October 9, 2011 (UTC)

This could work, Mark as obsolete until made more plausable?--Smoggy80 15:17, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

No, there's only small changes needed to it - which, as per usual, he's refused/declined to make. No need for that. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

An article by myself after the post-Doomsday Zimbabwe. Caeruleus 06:34, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

This article is now complete and ready for graduation. Any objections? Caeruleus 06:47, September 29, 2011 (UTC)

How on earth can an inland nation, more or less cut off from the outside world, especially one this poor, have any real increase in manufacturing abilities, or industry? Simply put, it won't. It would decrease. As in no fuel, or materials to make such things with.

You ignore entirely why the white population was leaving. And what would happen to them, being forced to stay.

That population is 100% unrealistic. Not only is that almost higher than the population of the entire country otl, but also ignores one simple fact: AIDS exists, and would be far worse.

Lordganon 08:22, September 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * Small scale growth in industry, through the replication of existing industry, is possible even in relative isolation, though Zimbabwe still had access to the outside world through Mozambique. While the basic technology wouldn't have advanced much, if at all, since Doomsday. They have access to native and neighboring supplies to expand existing industry. I will clarify that section.


 * Actually, the population is fairly accurate. The OTL population doesn't include refugees that reside outside the country, most of whom fled during the 2000s with the economic chaos in the country. I accounted for the death toll during the two civil wars, kept the White population, and factored in the lack of refugees. I will revisit the figures though.


 * White Zimbabweans left because they lamented their loss of political dominance and feared what could happen. While low-level racism and civil strife existed, the mass, state-driven discrimination they feared didn't occur until the late 1990s OTL with the land seizures, which didn't occur in North Zimbabwe. Being forced to stay, White Zimbabweans would contribute to the nation regardless because their own prosperity depends on the prosperity of the entire nation. I'll also clarify those passages though.


 * As for AIDS, the first case of AIDS in Zimbabwe was in 1985, after Doomsday. With the collapse of global trade and travel, the virus would spread much more slowly. I will investigate more about that first reported case and AIDS's expansion paterns. However, the AIDS epidemic wouldn't be much worse because even in OTL, the problem was largely ignored until the early 2000s and Zimbabwe's health care system collapsed in the mid-2000s. Caeruleus 13:24, September 29, 2011 (UTC)

First reported case. In a time that AIDS cases went unreported, and almost nothing was known about it. By the end of the 1980s, 10% of the population of Zimbabwe had it. I suggest you look into how long these things went unidentified. The first recorded case in Africa - in retrospect, mind, from persevered samples - was in 1959. It's believed that one may have happened in the late 50s, too. I'm sure you can guess how rare preserved samples are. Spread to NA in about 1970, and existed in West African ports at that time.

To think that it was not present in Zimbabwe in 1983 is very foolish on your part. And without campaigns in the area against it and methods - imported methods - to help prevent it, it's going to be as bad or worse.

Your population is horrifically out to lunch.

How on earth do you get the idea that they have contact outside their small area of Africa? Mozambique barely has any in 1987. And you think Zimbabwe has it in 1985? That's not possible. They would literally be lucky to maintain what they have. Expansion just isn't possible on any real level.

And you assume that the white population would be all right? And that there would be no refugees? You have a Civil War. Do the math.

The violence against the white population likely would not get so bad, true, but as I said, they were leaving for a reason. And you, for some reason, think that would just go away. Simply put, it won't. And it will get worse, too, in the aftermath of Doomsday - who do you think will be blamed for it, and will get it by extension?

The idea that they have outside contact in 1985 is not possible, at all. And you should know better than that.

Lordganon 23:19, September 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll look into AIDS and add something about it.


 * "...horrificially out to lunch." I've got to say that's definitely a new phrase for me. Care to explain what specific problem you have with the current population numbers rather than making blanket opposition statements with no detail that make no sense, even if they are rather humorous?


 * Zimbabwe had native industrial capacities before Doomsday and had become largely self-driven in terms of industrial growth due to the isolation of Rhodesia. While the technology used would not have progress significantly, physical expansion of existing industry is well within the realm of possibility.


 * I never said the White population was "all right." The article states that they remained within the nation and contributed to economic growth. There would be issues, but the White population would have no where to flee to and would be too small to mount any significant military or political resistance. Ultimately, they would acquiese like the remaining OTL White population in Zimbabwe. And just because Westerners caused Doomsday doesn't mean the White Zimbabwean population would face massive retribution for it, especially since Zimbabwe never got nuked.


 * Like you said, the current Mozambique article makes no sense. They lost contact with everyone, even their neighbors, when they weren't even nuked. While I wait for someone to fix the article, I will continue on the reasonable assumption that regional communication would be minimally affected and communication with other unaffected states, like Nigeria and the Gulf States, would be reignitiated shortly after Doomsday. Caeruleus 00:39, September 30, 2011 (UTC)

I never once said that Mozambique made no sense. How many times to I have to tell you to actually read things, and to not put words into my mouth? Jeez.

You really do fail to get the point. Contact between South America and the ANZC is barely functional in 1987. Nor is either in contact with the Gulf States at the time. And you're trying to say that this inland nation has contact with all of them, plus the Gulf States and Nigeria, in 1985, through a state fighting a massive Civil War? Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? That is not remotely plausible, whatsoever. So long as you say things like that, there is no way this can ever graduate.

You have almost an extra three million people in Zimbabwe than in otl. I've already given ample reason why that makes absolutely no sense, but I'll repeat myself: Racial tensions, Civil War, refugees, no medicine, AIDS. As stated, out to lunch.

Expansion of industry? Not happening. An increase in goods made in the home? Maybe. But Industry? Just not possible. You have no fuel but coal, remember. Or any real natural resources besides a little coal, some diamonds, and some agricultural products.

You have a Civil War, to some extent caused by problems stemming from DD, and you think the white population would be not blamed? And that they wouldn't get attacked, even without any blame? Get real. Both would happen. This is a country where they had only just finished a different Civil War in 1980, against whites. And you're saying that they would be contributing? They can still flee south to the Pretoria area, under the remnants of the SA government, or more likely, die. There is a reason why Mugabe was able to do all of the garbage he did otl. And atl, it is still there.

Lordganon 07:08, September 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * I moved back the date of contact/trade with the wider world. That was somewhat implausible. As for the population, you're still not understanding why it's so high. OTL Zimbabwe has a population 12.5 million plus 3.4 million refugees who aren't counted in the national population figures and largely fled after the economy began to collapse. That makes the total number of Zimbabweans about 15.9 million OTL. You also have the white Zimbabweans population, another 300,000 people, who never left the country. Neither the civil war, racial tensions, or HIV/AIDS would cause, even collectively, substantial declines in the population, which is why the population is what it is. I've accounted for everything and the population of North Zimbabwe will stand at 11.1 million.


 * White Zimbabweans are not going to just stop working or work. If Zimbabwe suffers, they suffer, so of course they're going to contribute. As part of the negiotiations with the former Rhodesian government, the early Mugabe government agreed to actively work to maintain racial stability, for the good of the country. Also, state-sponsored racial discrimination didn't begin until the late 1990s when the economy was already declining and most of the Whites had already left. The post-Doomsday Zimbabwean government would have an economic interest in maintaining racial stability because of the skills the White population possess. Additionally, Mugabe was assasinated in 1991, which weakened ZANU and the strong authority figure who was necessary to lead efforts similar to the OTL land grabs and subsequent rise in racial tensions.


 * As for industry, I've clarified what type of industrial expansion would occur, but some type of expansion is assured. Coal is the only fuel source you need for industry in the country and most of their industry is low-tech or labor-based, which doesn't require any technology that was not natively available. Pre-Doomsday Zimbabwe also had one of the best established industrial infrastructures on the continent, whihc would give them a strong base from which to expand. Keep in mind, the level of technology most of Zimbabwe's industry uses is still at the 1980s-level. The resources to physically build the factories and such would also be available, either natively or from their more stable neighbors. 128.135.100.102 21:03, October 4, 2011 (UTC)

Caer, I'm not a bloody idiot. I know about the refugees. You, however, are failing to get the point.

The population is too high. You have a few losses from fighting in a civil war. No refugees from fighting, no AIDS/HIV deaths, no racial tensions, and you're even adding medicines to blunt the impact that would not exist. None of that is possible or reasonable.

The drugs used to deal with that virus were developed in labs, or had the related effects discovered in labs. Largely, these were in nuked areas. At best, that tech will be at about a 1990 level. And, with a global cutoff in contact, its spread outside of Africa has been curtailed, drastically, which when combined with the destruction of cities, where most of those afflicted were, and the likely - rapid, too - fate of anyone surviving the blasts with it in the Northern Hemisphere. Simply put, outside of Africa below the Sahara it's not a major issue.

Those afflicted with it in this area are not going to last even as long as in otl. Deaths are going to be major. And given that the reasons for it spreading in this area in Africa are cultural in nature, there will be just as much problems with changing that as in otl. More hospitals and schools? Maybe a few, but thinking that a large number is possible, or would actually help to the extent you say is just not possible. The number is barely going down otl, with a ton of outside money and aid. Here, that's not happening. And, 1981 recognition of it? Ha.

The SA border guarded? That has no net effect on them leaving, really. They are still going to keep fleeing. And, after the start of the civil war, they are going to flee in droves. They are in a position of wealth. Guess what happens to those people in Civil Wars?

Yeah, Mugabe did say that. And you believe it? He only kept that around for aid. Once that started to slip, so did the policy. Think about it. Note, too I never said state-sponsored.

You also fail to think about a Civil War. Massive fighting, lots of military and civilian dead. But, a ton of refugees too. Those near the front are going to flee. Agricultural production - which goes down overall anyways, lack of fertilizer, etc. - will drop drastically. That is always the case in such a conflict.

Note, I said a little coal. Nor do you at all mention that the industry is virtually the same level as at DD. Expansion past that, not happening. Stability by modern times, somewhat possible.

The majority of this applies to the South as well.

Simply put, you are failing to take into account everything that impacts this area and the people. You have dropped the population by nearly a million, overall. Needs closer to two.

Lordganon 07:32, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * I will take another look at the population figures, but there won't be any major decrease in the population. The deaths from AIDS won't be that major. The issue was largely ignored until the late 1990s, even with the presence of medicine. Up until that point, the lack of drugs would neither hurt nor help the infected. Also, the total number of infected is about the same as OTL. The only difference is that South Zimbabwe has a higher infection rate while North Zimbabwe has a lower one.


 * White Zimbabweans are not going to flee to a collapsing South Africa where Whites are being slaughtered by Blacks and vice versa. The fact that there's a civil war has little to do with the White population. They are a non-factor in the war and the war actually would make their presence even more beneficial due to their technical skills. The racial tension would be an issue, but racial violence would only occur if the government allowed, even if they didn't sponsor it as you said. The government would have a vested interest in maintaining racial harmony, which even existed OTL despite the White flight.


 * Refugees will exist but they will be internally displaced persons (IDL). ZANU supporters in the south will flee north and ZAPU supporters in the north would flee south. The percentage of the population near the border is fairly small, in the few hundreds of thousands. Most of these would simply flee deeper into their respective countries. They wouldn't have any options to flee anywhere else anyway. Botswana is sealed, Mozambique and South Africa were in a state of civil war, and Zambia is too far away. Very few of the refugees would end up leaving the region.


 * Zimbabwe, before Doomsday, was agriculturally self-sufficient, including with regards to fertilizer due to the isolation of Rhodesia. Also, Zimbabwe produces enough coal to meet all its needs plus it has a hydroelectric power plant. Electricity would not be a problem for the country's industry. I will go into more detail about the state of the country's industry though. Caeruleus 08:54, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Ignored. And with medicine, many died. Here, little to no medicine. Easy math to do. Figures are double, minimum. Same goes for the infected. Without the contraceptive campaigns of otl by aid groups - note, too, that the locals will not do this on their own, culturally - it will be higher than otl.

Collapsing stopping them? Not likely. At all. And, that ignores the Pretoria state. You also failed entirely to understand the point of a civil war. Everyone is fighting, and chaos ensues in any areas with it, especially, and a bit everywhere. They can, and will, be targets. The racial equality stuff was a ploy to get aid. Nothing more. Here, they have no reason to do so except a slight economic reason. And how long will that last? Not long. Especially in a civil war. Seriously, actually look at what happens in those. While the government will likely try to stop them, and denounce them, there will be mobs, etc. Whites will die, and the rest will fear for their lives. They will not sit around. Simple. Many will flee.

Really? You think that will be all that happens, only internal refugees? There is a Civil War. A heck of a lot more will flee elsewhere, being unable to get to the area controlled by their factions and facing death, etc. by staying where they are. Doesn't really matter what the situation elsewhere is, much. The place where they are is bad. No matter what, elsewhere may be better. It's an easy choice, repeated through history. They will leave. Simple. Even the Civil War in Moz~ may be a better situation. Even if not, it beats being killed by your opponents.

Civilian death tolls along fronts are sky-high. But, you never even thought of that.

Isolation? I suggest that you have a better look into that. They were largely isolated. That is one heck of a difference. They were agriculturally self-sufficient, true, but in fertilizer? I doubt it. Everyone can produce some, true enough, but the South African Government was, in fact, still involved with the Rhodesians, and they got supplies from there. You are exaggerating their industry.

That Dam is on the border with Zambia. It may remain operational, true, but not for long. It's called the situation in Zambia, plus parts - or the lack thereof. The coal is in the "south", and the power plant? Not even under construction in 1983. So yeah. One heck of a problem.

As I said, the overall population needs to go down another million. And you need to look at what actually happens in Civil Wars, especially in Africa.

Lordganon 11:07, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

I've split up the Zimbabwe article into the two states, North and South Zimbabwe. Caeruleus 15:25, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

Are there the same problems with South Zimbabwe as north Zimbabwe?--Smoggy80 15:19, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

With Zimbabwe being under three years old on DD is it not possible that racial problems kicked off (what with Mugabe being in charge in OTL and ATL) and the white settlers may have tried to head for South Africa (hearing of South African Union or even New Britain, not making it and setting up south Zimbabwe (or even renamed it New Rhodesia) in the 1990's.--Smoggy80 18:27, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

or more likely that it collapsed and split along the lines of Mashonaland, Matabeleland, Manicaland and Masvingo, as these have a great indivduality from each other--Smoggy80 18:37, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't have the numbers to do that.

I think, quite frankly, that you're exaggerating the different groups. Zimbabwe's never really had much trouble, in that regard - its problems, the black/white bit aside, has been political in nature. Not that there wouldn't be some problems, but fairly minimal, I'd expect.

Basically, overall, these two articles just kinda ignore the deaths the effects of DD would cause, what a civil war entails in that regard, refugees and the chaos they bring, and that HIV/AIDS would be far worse. It amounts to some of the text, and lowering the population to a plausible level.

Lordganon 07:27, March 8, 2012 (UTC)

Martinsson Crime Family
A proposal of a crime family in Sweden. Still updating and working on it, doing my research. But for now it looks good for me for being official. Doctor261 18:48, November 14, 2011 (UTC)

What's the story here, Doc? Lordganon 01:36, February 13, 2012 (UTC)

Is this a relevent article? it doesn't link with any others?--Smoggy80 15:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's relevant. Or will be when it's done, I assume, lol. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Latgalia
A proposal for an article on a Latgalian state in former Latvia.

Yank 20:33, November 14, 2011 (UTC)

Is anything happening with this article, it appears to be a bare bones page--Smoggy80 15:22, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Yank's working on it. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

are you sure? nothings been added since Nov 2011--Smoggy80 14:19, May 20, 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't mean he's not working on it. Given Yank's edit histories, I expect he will do more in summer on it. Lordganon 21:35, May 20, 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'll likely not return to it. The vaious map games I'm participating are monopolizing my time on the wiki.

Yank 21:52, May 20, 2012 (UTC)

A proposal by Yank. Seems to be for some sort of state near the Apalachicola National Forest of Florida. Lordganon 22:32, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Hey Yank, this is my ancestral home. (I lived in Wewahitchca, Blountstown, Bristol AND Hosford. My mom and dad met in Port Saint Joe. What do you have in mind? According to sources in the area, that forrest would have been the safest place in the world to be living in the case of a nuclear war. I won't let just anthing pass on this one. I would really rather adopt it from you, but I am willing to hear what you have in mind. SouthWriter 19:19, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Deal. I have way too much stuff on my plate. The article is basically my riff on the idea behind New Montgomery. The living-in-a-forest part, not the rascist part.

Yank 19:25, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

I hereby officially adopt this proposal as my own. I will try to be wary of the "home town syndrome." SouthWriter 19:46, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

As south has adopted this, is it ok to graduate?--Smoggy80 15:25, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Smog, there's no content. It's not ok. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

A proposal for the sub-unit of Denmark and member of the Nordic Union, by Brad30977. Lordganon 22:32, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Graduate as a stub?--Smoggy80 15:27, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Again, no content at all. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

Yank's proposal - it'd be with Fx and Caer as well, I figure - for the remnant state of the former Iraqi government. Lordganon 22:32, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Another article by Godfrey Raphael. It's about a book atl - no relation to Obama's otl one - by someone from Reading. Really, in my opinion, should get a name change, and the PoD in the "book" should change from a reverse of the timeline's PoD. Lordganon 22:32, November 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually quite a clever idea, having Jon Gosselin seek his moment of fame without the big family and the TV show he had in our time line. Supposing the PoD as being Doomsday would be the obvious choice. It would mean Gosselin would have to assume the politics of Reagan would have succeeded in ending the cold war as we know it did. I'd change the officer's name to not reflect the then name of the American author and his wife, though. On the other hand, how much would a survivor in the US know about pre-Doomsday Russia? It would probably be just as good to assume an American point of view since apparently the real cause of the war does not seem to ever have been discerned. Americans know that they did not fire the first shots, but that's about it. Gosselin was a pre-teen in 1983, so most of what he would write in 2010 would be from research, not memory, concerning the days before the war. --SouthWriter 04:00, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

What I meant, more so, was that this is exactly what happened otl, or nearly so. While it would be possible to be what the PoD is in the "book," I just have to doubt it, you know? Lordganon 05:36, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

GR has changed the article to be about an anthology. Now it is in need of synoses of stories within the anthology and an account of how the book is received within the city-state (and beyond). I think he may be fishing for suggestions (I know I would!) but without a little more to the article it won't be ready fro graduation for a while. SouthWriter 00:38, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

Second Yugoslav War
The war that me and Owner have been planning for a while. Will be ongoing for quite some time. Lordganon 08:50, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

Any progress in the war? If it has not finished yet, any idea when it will be finished?--Smoggy80 14:23, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

Yes to progress. No to finish. I know when it will be finished, and it'll be a few weeks yet. Lordganon 00:39, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

Jamaica (1983: Doomsday)
I figured as big a nation/state as Jamaica is, it needed a page. Suggestions are welcome. --SouthWriter 22:48, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

Wait,is Jamaica independent from the ECF, or is this a member-state article? Just wondering, thanks. Arstar 02:51, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

....It says in the first sentence that it's part of the ECF. Lordganon 14:53, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

Is this ready to graduate as a stub? Arstar 21:23, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

I got it started, Arstar, but the history only goes through Doomsday. Someone needs to look around the ECF for clues as to what happened after that. As it stands now, though, I guess it could be a stub. I think the Info box is up to date. That should help. SouthWriter 21:29, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the infobox is up to date, and the pre-DD and DD history is there, but.... there's really nothing else. Really probably should not graduate, even as a stub, yet. Lordganon 01:06, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

There isn’t much information about what happen to Zambia after doomsday, so I felt this would be a good topic for me to write my first 1983 doomsday proposal about. ~Goldwind1

Graduate as a stub?--Smoggy80 15:31, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

No. Almost no content/history, and what is there is.... well, so full of various mistakes that it's a little disturbing. Lordganon 20:21, March 3, 2012 (UTC)

How about now?GunsnadGlory 18:54, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Almost nothing has been done to it. Still not even close. Lordganon 23:48, April 16, 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I fixed the spelling and what grammar errors I could catch in a once over. It would help if Gold has some idea what is so "disturbing." It looks good enough for a stub unless there are issues about contradictions with canon or glaring implausibility problems. SouthWriter 01:04, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

The fact that it was so bad in the regards you repaired was what was disturbing, as I clearly said before.

That being said, I have to object to even stub status - it's still pretty bad, imo, and isn't referenced anywhere in canon articles, so there's not even a link to the timeline right now.

Lordganon 02:03, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

I am glad that people are starting to notice the effort I am putting in to expanding my Zambia article. I don’t think my post doom’s day history violates any canon information. In fact, the only mention of Zambia, was in the Zimbabwe proposals. Anyway, I would appreciate if Lordganon would politely tell why he hates my Zambia proposal. I am willing to consider any advice he would tell me about improving my idea. After all, I followed his advice about removing the Katanga line from my first draft. I also decided against making Zambia a dictatorship, since Lordganon told me he thought a dictatorship would not last long in Zambia. Goldwind1 14:31, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

What is it with people putting words into my mouth around here? Sheesh. Gold, I did not use the word "hate" anywhere.

Gold, the simple truth is that you've a lot of work to do still. Sections are incomplete, others have little content, there is no infobox, and the whole thing is pretty run-on. Plus, what history there is is basically otl in most ways.

Lordganon 22:54, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

I know my post doomsday history is basically OTL history moved up by 3 years, but it was pretty much all I could think of without have Zambia descend into civil war or dictatorship. I am thinking of having Zambia invade the Soviet kingdoms of Angola along it’s boarder, but I feel I need permission from the owner of the Angola articles first. So, in the mean time, I tried making my article interesting though the use of the sections on international relations, transportation, economy, and the Union Party. Also, I don’t know how to make an info box.Goldwind1 14:03, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

I've asked the editor of the nations in former Angola about them in the recent past (see section Countries/Regions/Politics above), and heard nothing back, I think if you want you may be able to adopt the Soviet Kingdoms of Angola, just ask the editor and if you don't hear anything back in, say, a week, you should be ok to adopt. Then you can do what you have planned for them.--Smoggy80 14:12, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

They aren't on the border - there's a distance between them.

For him to do anything with the SKoA, you're going to have to ask here. Off hand, I'd say you couldn't.

Moving up by three years is basically the same as otl. No way that works.

Lordganon 00:26, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

Mwanawasa had his first stroke in 2006. If every thing is moved four years earlier, he would have lived through his 8 years in office. It is hard, then, to determine his successor since he had 4 VP's in 6 years in OTL. There is a very good chance, though, that his first VP may have been Christon Tembo, a man chosen in OTL by Chiluba in 1996. Mwanawasa and Tembo had a history together, so it is possible. That would put Enoch Kavindele in line for Mwanawasa's second full term. Kavindele could be challenged by Rupiah Banda in 2008 to determine the present president.

All this, though, depends on the political climate as the presidents come and go. Would Chiluba have been ready in 1988? He was a powerful union boss at the time, so it is possible. If he ran for president in 1987, then that would change the union politics a little. These things have a way of "butterflying," but backing up three or four years is plausible if done carefully. SouthWriter 04:03, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

Central African republic
Their isn't any information on its history after Doomsday and its pre-doomsday history is more interesting then expected though it would be a good article to make. Brad30977 03:44, January 26, 2012 (UTC)

I (accidently) started an article in the same region. Obviously, if you want, I'lll delete it, but I would prefer a merging or some other arrangement GunsnadGlory 19:21, February 12, 2012 (UTC)

Ignore all my posts about this please. GunsnadGlory 21:32, February 15, 2012 (UTC)

I think that My Central African Republic article is about ready for canon, but if their is any changes that need to be made first please post, thanks. Brad30977 02:07, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

You need to clean it up a bit, in general. Turns of phrase, spelling, etc.

The changes to the climate were not immediate - no real changes were seen for more than a decade, outside of the nuked areas. And the direct effects of the bombs in that regard would have been minimal, at worst, here.

It really just goes from 1988, to the present. You really should add some things in there.

Adding some more information to the main page would be a plan as well. Have a look at other articles to get ideas. Government would be a part, mind.

Lordganon 04:16, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

almost there? Brad30977 19:35, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

Same points, minus the history one, still apply. Lordganon 20:49, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

Coulee
An small nation between Victoria and Paso. By Enclavehunter

As I'm noted on the talk page for the page, this is not plausible. There is a whole section of history that you have missed of the region. Have a look at the Utah article.

What it amounts to is that this area is so close to Spokane, that the regime there would have destroyed it - especially since the dam would have been a target for them.

Lordganon 02:31, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. I know. I changed it around to say it was an destroyed nation, does that still go against plausiblity. Enclavehunter 02:37, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

I think I fixed, does it still look like its talking about an surviving nation. Enclavehunter 15:28, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

The history, not so much.

Th rest still should get toned down - really, knowledge of this state would only be known from the memories of those few who fled or managed to survive, and what explorers encounter at the site.

Also, somebody needs to find the site to document it. Pasco or the new USA would be the ones likely do it.

Lordganon 21:35, January 30, 2012 (UTC)

Though the dam might be considered a good target for acquisition, it does not follow that the junta would be interested in it. The dam is over 100 miles down stream, 80 miles by air and by road it is about 88 miles, much of it on State Route 2. We know the junta has secured control of Spokane and Coeur d'Alene and would travel south to Lewiston and then into land controlled by Utah. They are said to "hold their own" against rivals, meaning they hunkered in until they needed resources. At that time, from what has been written, we know they headed south, not west. Lewiston is 106 miles south of Spokane, and en route to their big target: Salt Lake City (as per the "History of Utah" article).

This is not to say they would not expand west, but only to say that they need not have done so. The population near the Grand Coulee dam was not very big, and it had a good chance of surviving. I am not sure if the area would be a haven to refugees from the big cities, or if they would be able to support them, but it is no less plausible than many city-states that have survived. This is only my opinion, and not meant to challenge anyone's authority on these matters. This is a collaborative effort, and the community has not spoken on this situation. It could go either way as far as I'm concerned. I am just another voice in the wilderness. --SouthWriter 02:25, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

You've entirely missed that they did go as far west as to secure the Tri-City area fairly early on. They went even further west than this site, even.

And given that this is a good target, for multiple reasons, there's really no doubt that it would have been taken.

Lordganon 03:39, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

You're right, there was a presence in the Tri-City area, for a line says that the area was under that "nation's" control. The Tri-City area is far to the south; downstream, in fact from both I-90 (from the north) and Lewiston (from the east). Like I say, it could go either way, but there are limits to where the small army of Spokane could go.

Would these men, organized as they were for survival, actually want to take over the whole state? It is more likely that they would wish to seize what was easiest to get to with the most supplies they could plunder. Grand Coulee does not have much, but the Tri-City area was worth the trip, as were the twin cities of Lewiston and Clarkston (aka the city-state of Lewiston).

What are some of the multiple reasons for the taking of Coulee Dam? The water is down stream from Spokane which is on the river! The do not need the water. The EMP has made the electricity useless, so they would have a lot of work ahead of them to salvage it for that. If they were forward thinking enough, that may be a plan, but we see from the record that their main efforts went to the south to control people rather than rebuild renewable resources. These are warriors, not engineers.

Just saying. My opinions are only my own -- for what they are worth. Consider the options rather than making up your mind first. It adds to the creativity without destroying plausibility. --SouthWriter 05:02, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

Th Tri-City area was wholly under their thumbs - as was basically all of eastern Washington. It's a far shorter trip to the area around the Dam than to these areas.

Coulee is worth raiding - and small enough that it wouldn't survive the experience.

Spokane is on record as wanting domination over all. The Dam is the largest one on the river system, by far, is a good position in general, has some functionality for power down the road (and possibly some small methods without actual electricity at the present, maybe like water wheels), better spot for agriculture, and a source of "workers" too. And they'll know its there, too. For that matter, it could even, in theory, be useful as a weapon (not that it would have made any difference, but it could have been)

Plus, it's just so close to Spokane that in general it would have been raided, at a minimum.

You can't say that they were "warriors," either.

Lordganon 07:51, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

Good points, Ganon. It would be an excellent base of operation. With the water it was a good spot to support agriculture. But given their bent on conquest, I doubt they'd be setting up slave labor farms at such an early point. However, it was closer than any place they conquered apart from northern Idaho. As I wrote in the Lincoln (USA) article, the white supremest groups apparently worked together by the time of the Spokane War, but they could have been 'rivals' for a time, as the Utah article states. This only illustrates that there are numerous scenarios that could effect the time line. I am not sure if there is any record of the warlords' intentions, though. All the record has is what they did and who they controlled.

Nothing has been written beyond what I wrote in the Lincoln article concerning the rise of the Order and the Aryan Nation (using historical figures actually operating in history). Their stated purpose was to change "the region" into a bastion of white America. They knew that they could not control "all" of the nation. When the state of Lincoln was enlarged (first on the map and then in the text!) it incorporated what had been "Spokane" along the eastern Washington state line.

I borrowed the idea of "warriors" from the first paragraph of the "History of Utah" article and I used it in a figurative sense to make the point that rebuilding an hydro-electric plant was not something they would do. I am sorry if I confused anyone with the choice of words there. As survivalists, they could indeed be inventive and as warlords they were able to convince knowledgeable scientists to provide expertise under threat of great bodily harm. The History of Utah article states that they had early on developed alternative fuels to power their commandeered military vehicles.

Again, the dam would have had strategic significance if the long-range plan was to take the whole state of Washington, but the record shows that they instead chose to go south in an attempt to take the smaller state of Idaho instead. Long range plans changed even further as they dreamed of taking northern Utah. This delusion of grandeur was their downfall (though the resistance in Coeur d'Alene would probably have succeeded in time). Sure, we can add more gore and conquest to the time line, or we can go with what has been written and work around it, as Enclave originally envisioned. Though I have written in the greatest act of terrorism (1-1-1) and the greatest natural disaster ("Hugo" in eastern South Carolina), I remain an optimist.

We could call it an oversight on the junta's part, or perhaps they feared the contamination downstream of the nuclear blast over (or on) Fairchild AFB, but given all the varables, it is a possibility that the dam to the west was not a priority and never taken. The fact that the nuclear strike was between Spokane and Coulee, and very close to Spokane, is also a factor that needs to be considered. Given a choice, the warlords would expand away from, not across, the contaminated area in their "back yard."

That is enough of what I think. Are there any other opinions besides those of Ganon and myself out there? We'd love to hear from you. SouthWriter 15:53, April 17, 2012 (UTC)

The Supremacists, however, were not the only faction. You can add to that the militias in general from the region (truly, there is an insane number there, and not all of the racist type) remnants of the base, and the residents of Spokane.

Even the racist types would be survivalists, in this area.

The record shows that they went in all directions. Not just south.

Fairchild isn't close to the river. And it's southwest of the city. Nor would it's radiation have gone in a direction to interfere. Hell, it would have had that effect on them expanding in any southern direction, lol. But not this way.

There is absolutely no way that this could exist, still. It's a big, fat, target.

Lordganon 20:56, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

If as you say there are factions at home, then it would stand to reason for them to be fighting at home for supremacy. The "militias in general" in the region would not be the ones raping and pillaging small towns. It is already accepted canon that there was resistance but that the Order and the Aryan Nation had the edge and control of the Spokane region.

The recorded regions affected are the Lincoln, Pasco, Leavenworth, Lewiston, and southern Idaho on the way to Utah. Except for Lincoln all these places are indeed south of Spokane. Spokane is called a nation "in southeastern Washington" on the Washington article, and that it raided "as far south as the Great Salt Lake." There were "rumors of threats" as far away as Victoria, but no record of such advancement in that direction.

Okay, Ganon, you have had your say, and I have had mine. I say leave options open, you say it has to be the way you say it is. Let some one else have a word here. This is, after all a small city-state of recent consideration. SouthWriter 02:29, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

Christ, South. You failed to note most of that, once again. And so much for "enough" of what you think.

These are anti-government militias - and they are from the area you claim that the supremacists came from. Moreover, it is not one group but several involved here. And arguing that they would magically stop at the borders of Idaho is crazy.

The simple fact is, the raiders destroyed a massive area - and this is a massive target in it. These people are dead.

Everyone can have words here. Don't know how on earth you can at all imply such a thing isn't true.

Lordganon 05:10, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

First, I do not appreciate your using my Lord's name in vain, Ganon. "Enough of what I think" is a way of turning the floor over to the next "speaker." I was going to just post the last sentence of the previous post, but felt you had challenged me so I posted more "thoughts." Of course, you are perfectly in your rights to respond to what I said, but what I was "implying" was not that others can't have words here, it was that no one else is having a say.

As for the regime in Spokane, I would say we should let the readers decide the extent of the destruction of the area. I have listed every mention of the regime I could find with links. The nearest thing to declaring this "massive destruction" is mentions that the regime's armies were more powerful than those of Utah in the Navajo Nation article (my apologies for leaving that out above, it confirmed the southward movement).

The "anti-government" militias you postulate are not based on facts so much as hype. The only anti-government movements in the 1980's were those I mention in the Lincoln article -- racist, anti-semitic white supremacists. To discuss the pro or cons of militias here would be a violation of the "No Cross, No Crown" rule, but assuming that conservative gun-owners who wish to protect their rights would become bands of raiders is stepping beyond reason in my opinion.

I did not claim or argue that they would stop at the border. In fact I stated that their target, according to what has been written, was the Great Salt Lake area. The whole picture of what "Spokane" entails was an impression created way back in May of 2009 when Louisiannan created the History of Utah article. In February of 2010 I asked on that talk page for verification for the strength of the Spokane "hoodlums" as I called them. Louisiannan graciously explained that the war began in Idaho and went south along the border with Idaho, perhaps to provide support for the "stranglehold" they had on the folks in the region around Spokane. I invite readers again to look at the primary documents before making up there minds on this.

So, is this to be just a forum for the Ganon and I to bash our heads against one another, or will there be another voice? All I am doing is presenting options here, based upon what has been written so far in the time line. If Enclave is satisfied with the concept of the destroyed villages, I'm fine with that. It would be a small thing for the regime if it was in the early days, though I doubt if they would kill everyone (they would need someone to take care of the dam if nothing else).

Any other thoughts from the community at large? SouthWriter 19:21, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

You having an issue with my use of a word is not my problem in the least, South.

That statement in the Navajo says nothing about their methods. Far more telling are the outright statements in the Utah history, and your own Lincoln article that indicate the terror and devastation they wrought.

You are incorrect about the identities of those groups. Only a decade after Doomsday did such groups become the largest in number. Prior to that they were outnumbered by the others - and those largely consisted of anti-tax groups. Add to that other varieties in general, and the supremacists are a minority. Plus, the survivalists in general.

The border - as in the eastern border of Idaho. Sorry, I thought I made that clear enough.

Louis' statements on that page have nothing on the extent of that regime. But what they do say is more telling - as in they've gone so far that ignoring the site of the dam, so close to their base, would be impossible.

For the love of.... South, you seem to be forgetting that the dam is no longer functional. Why would they need someone to take care of it? Add to that that dams of that magnitude are designed to last at least half a century - and usually at least one outright. And even the article - unfinished, obviously, right now - says that there was survivors.

There is no way that this place would have survived the Spokane regime.

Lordganon 00:11, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of unfinished, what else do I need to do on the page. Enclavehunter 00:18, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm....

Well, as I've said before, someone's got to find the place (either the new USA or Pasco, at a guess, though I wouldn't rule out a Victorian flyby). Past that, a "former nation" infobox, and some more information in general both about the state, and what happened there - i.e. what Spokane did with survivors, and the site itself. Plus what it's like today.

If you have a look at a few of the other "former nation" articles you'll get some idea of what I mean.

Also, might want to change it so the deputy made his way to Pasco after the end of the Spokane War, along with prisoner-soldiers from the Spokane militias. That'd be in line with people from Pasco, at any rate, and probably make a bit more sense.

Lordganon 00:51, April 20, 2012 (UTC)

Tamanrasset
Nation in Southern Algeria/Northern Niger/Eastern Mali--Smoggy80 11:36, February 4, 2012 (UTC)

Open for adoption--Smoggy80 18:25, February 14, 2012 (UTC)

has been taken by Brad30977--Smoggy80 15:33, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for the African nation of Malawi, by Gold. Lordganon 00:21, February 8, 2012 (UTC)

About 3 weeks ago I massively updated my Malawi proposal. I think it is ready for graduation, but I will make changes if someone will give me some good suggestion. Also, I may need to remove the part about Joyce Ntila Banda because I am not sure if she was living in Malawi in 1983. Wikipedia said she lived in Kenya during the 70’s, but it doesn’t say when she returned to Malawi. I assume Joyce moved back to Malawi right after she divorced her first husband in 1981.Goldwind1 01:59, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

About the only thing accurate there is that Banda does seem to have done as you say.

Gold, the article is far from completion.

The history reads rather close to otl. And, it's a mess besides.

None of the stuff about marijuana would have happened. It is not legal there today, nor has it ever been, and you vastly overstate the impact a loss of outside medicines would have.

Even more so, however, Chakufwa Chihana wasn't even in Malawi in the early 1980s. From the late 1970s until the early 1990s, he was either studying in Europe, or teaching in Botswana.

Past all that, there's virtually nothing in the infobox, and the article is lacking for information overall.

Lordganon 09:02, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Lordganon for telling me that Chakufwa Chihana was living outside of Malawi during 1983. So, I replaced him with Bazuka Mhango. He should have been practicing law in Malawi during 1983.

Also, Lordganon, I am pleased that you said that the part I wrote about Banda was accurate. But, I’m not sure if you were complementing the section I wrote about Hasting Banda or the part I wrote about Joyce Ntila Banda.

Also, I still believe that a cessation of medical imports and the destruction of local pharmaceutical plants during the civil war would lead to the legalization of marijuana. However, I am willing to change the marijuana bit if ten to twelve suggest I change it.

Goldwind1 01:22, June 17, 2012 (UTC)

....You referred to the latter Banda in the last post, Gold. Thought it was obvious, lol.

There are not, and have not been, really any such plants in the area. Not today, not then. Most medicines have to be imported - and the vast majority of the population has no access. They wouldn't legalize it, and the concept that they would is, quite honestly, a bit silly.

Rest of my points, aside from the president you removed, still stand, as well.

Lordganon 09:47, June 17, 2012 (UTC)

I guess you have not read the economy of Malawi Wikipedia page because; its section 1.1 is about Malawi’s pharmaceutical industry. According to Wikipedia, Malawian pharmaceutical companies include Malawi Pharmacies Limited and Kentam Products Limited. I don’t know when Kentam Products Limited was founded, but Malawi Pharmacies limited was founded in 1967. If you still don’t believe that Malawi has a pharmaceutical industry, I have provided the address for a business profile for Malawi Pharmacies Limited the address for the Wikipedia page for Kentam Products Limited below.

Kentam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kentam_Products_Limited).

Malawi Pharmacies limited (http://www.tradeindia.com/Seller-1949519-Malawi-Pharmacies-2005

Limited/)

Goldwind1 01:34, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I've read it. Though I have to say that you really didn't. There's a big, fat, source there, if you'll notice.

Kentam was founded well after DD, insomuch as it matters. The other two, bet on the same.

It is explicitly stated that those companies only produce a tiny amount of anything. All of them have a primary role as importers and distributors, not manufacturers. There is virtually no domestic market. Which you've missed entirely. And, even today, they have almost no capacity to manufacture anything, and they don't. Nor is there any research facilities. And that's the present - it was far, far worse in 1983. And what is made is something that only the elite can have.

They don't have any "plants." At all.

Fact of the matter is, the concept of them legalizing it is ridiculous. And you've no ground to stand on.

Lordganon 08:59, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

As lucrative of a product as "Malawi Gold" has become in our time line, and its long history in the country (though illegal), would add a level of intrigue in a backward country when official aid from Europe and America ends. I do not know if it would be legalized for its medicinal purposes, and I doubt if there would be a demand for the product as a medicine in the rest of the world, but the rise of it's importance in Africa might be something that would work. SouthWriter (talk) 03:55, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

Proposed nation on the west coast of Africa. Proposed by Monster Pumpkin 04:21, February 16, 2012 (UTC)

Proposed ECF member state, by me. Objections? Regentage 02:13, February 27, 2012 (UTC)

Needs more of a recent history. Also, some sort of reasoning for the flag, considering how different it is from the flag the region has had for a long time. Lordganon 04:12, February 27, 2012 (UTC)

Addressed those concerns. Is it sufficient? Let me know if there's anything else. ^^ Regentage 16:14, February 27, 2012 (UTC)

Well, more content with regards to Guatemala should probably be added. Lordganon 00:18, February 28, 2012 (UTC)

Added some more in reference to history with Guatemala. Is that good? There's quite a few references, now. Regentage 20:21, February 28, 2012 (UTC)

....that's probably taking it a bit too far, imo. Compare it to the Guatemala article a touch to see what I mean.

Really, the idea that the ECF and Guatemala would be at that degree of loggerheads is just too much.

Lordganon 02:14, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

Updated, removing the most outstanding of conflicts. It consists of the same things as in the Guatemala article now; icy but existing relations, troop massing and saber rattling. Regentage 14:03, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

Much better. Lordganon 18:30, February 29, 2012 (UTC)

Excellent! Anything further, anyone? Regentage 02:58, March 1, 2012 (UTC)


 * I did not go back and look at this in the process of forming over the past few days, but I did research a little on Belize and its government. Prime Minister and founding father George Cadle Price seems to have been too easily dismissed as a figure as a result of the "democratic socialist" uprising by apparently fictional Tomás Renault, looks to me to be a little overkill. In OTL the PUP was defeated by the UDP in 1984, so it is reasonable to hold that the people were getting tired of the "People's" party, but an revolution in a small town does not seem plausible. However, I am much more comfortable with using real people (or their hypothetical descendants) in an alternate history.


 * Anything is possible, if not plausible, in alternate history. Your having the "remaining British troops" join the rebellion is another problem I see. If anything, the 1500 troops left behind would support the government that they were sworn to protect. And unless these troops largely abandoned their post for more pleasant surroundings (like Jamaica, for instance), they would be the bulk of the military of the country. The rather rapid and total success of the revolution seem to me to be far out of kilter with the nature of the population as it was in 1986.


 * If this socialist government arose like you present it, it would have a problem with being accepted among the ECF. I may be wrong, and your article seems well put together, but I it seems to me that it has more in common with its neighbors in Central America than it does the ECF.


 * One more minor detail, you need to include the Republic of Yucatan as being to the north. I realize that the rise to poser of Renault is the keystone of your article -- and a really good piece of fiction I might add -- so if the community approves, I see no problem in letting it be part of this time line. I have no ax to grind, I just offer an differing opinion. I thank you for your contributions so far and look forward to many to come. SouthWriter 03:35, March 2, 2012 (UTC)

Leeward Islands
ECF Member State. Last one for a little bit, I promise. x3 Regentage 21:58, March 1, 2012 (UTC)

Errr.... the ECF page indicates that the three states you have merged into this thing are rather separate, not one nation. Lordganon 00:00, March 2, 2012 (UTC)

Remember Monserrat will still have been devestated by the volcanic eruption thats been going on since 1995, agriculture on the scale shown in the article would be impossible--Smoggy80 16:43, March 2, 2012 (UTC)

Azanian League
So, its been canon for a few years, but no one has done anything regarding it, so I figured it was about time. Oerwinde 06:45, March 4, 2012 (UTC)

Tebou People
Another place holder -- for the Tebou tribe living in the southern portion of former Libya. SouthWriter

Now, a general article on the people themselves? That may work, so long as it doesn't go too far. Lordganon 08:26, March 11, 2012 (UTC)

Please remove references to Northern Chad, (which was abandoned due to drought and reinhabited by tribes from the south and east) and Niger (same thing abandoned and taken over by Tamahaq and Tamarrasset) also niger doesn't exist anymore.--Smoggy80 19:12, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I've reworded the intro paragraph it now reads in full:

"The Tebou people were historically spread out over the southern part of the former Libya (now the Egyptian province of Al Kafrah and a portion of presently disputed lands), eastern regions of the former Niger and much of northern Chad. The tribes were decimated in the drought of 1984, and then by the civil war in Chad. Only those acclimated to desert living surviving without assimilation into urban areas."

Should I change the caption under the map as well? And also, how should we spell "Tebou"? It appears in so many different variations.SouthWriter 20:13, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

Should probably change it to say "Toubou." That seems to be what is usually used. Lordganon 01:11, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

The droughts occurred between 84 and 89, not just 84--Smoggy80 15:17, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I changed the reference to reflect that. Thanks. SouthWriter 19:18, March 13, 2012 (UTC)

I've started to link this page to the Tamahaq page--Smoggy80 19:51, March 19, 2012 (UTC)

As this area is now covered by my nation of Tamahaq, I would like to adopt this page--Smoggy80 13:54, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

If there are no objections by the 24th April, then i will adopt this page--Smoggy80 15:19, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

So no objections, i'll adopt this page, aiming for stub status, anything needing to be added?--Smoggy80 12:05, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

Proposal by Vlad, and I think maybe Oer/Arstar too? Lordganon 19:03, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct, Arstar and I are the principal creators of the idea and Oer helped as well. Vladivostok 14:43, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

Detonation
Article on a rock band formed in 2006... GunsnadGlory 19:57, March 6, 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much ready for grad, just needs a few finishing touches. Objections?Vir prudens non contraventum mingit 18:25, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

Looks good, Guns, but I can't help but say that you're taking the concept album idea a bit too far, imo. No net objections, mind. Lordganon 07:27, May 9, 2012 (UTC)

...Point agreed to. Not changing anything, because I have no clue exactly how to do that without removing most of the article. Vir prudens non contraventum mingit 16:27, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm.....

Change the years, slightly, and make the last album that you have them listed as releasing being the one in production. Shuffle the rest accordingly. You could maybe get away with adding another, then. Between "The Unmade" and "Guns and Glory" would be ideal - you can even write it off as being an introduction to the new lineup.

More likely, you could get away with combining a couple of albums. For example, you could likely merge "Success is Failure" and "The Unmade" together in some form, and the same holds true for "Guns and Glory" and "The Freezing Inferno." Would be a fairly minor change to the content.

Something else, Guns - well, two things. First, it's too many albums overall, too fast, at least at the end. Even if they form one story, you still have them doing three of them in a year. That's just not realistic, and would kill their sales besides. Second.... well, there is literally no possible way that these albums could have such a large number of songs. You really need to cut the number of songs on some of these albums in half.

Lordganon 20:02, May 10, 2012 (UTC)

I'll change the dates, and trim the songs.

'Guns and Glory' may seem narcissistic, but i couldn't help myself. Vir prudens non contraventum mingit 16:29, May 11, 2012 (UTC)

Didn't even notice until you said that, lol. It's actually not a bad name for an album. Lordganon 08:48, May 12, 2012 (UTC)

Dates duly shuffled. Vir prudens non contraventum mingit 18:47, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

Good, good - now the number of songs and number of albums, lol. Lordganon 00:03, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

Damn, knew I forgot something. xD Vir prudens non contraventum mingit 18:57, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

MOOFUAFUAFUAFUA NOTHING CAN STOP THE GRADUATION OF THIS ARTICLE NOW!!! Vir prudens non contraventum mingit 19:03, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

Guns, virtually all of those concept albums have at least twenty songs. The most you're ever going to find on a single one is 15, and most range form 10-12 - and concept albums normally have less because of longer songs. And to produce that many, that fast, they can't be double albums.

I know you put a lot of work into the song titles, but it's just not possible to have that many.

Lordganon 00:41, May 26, 2012 (UTC)

Are you for real? Take a look at Pink Floyd's ''The Wall. (''My Favorite). 26 songs. NOT a double album.

IN addition to which, they do it often, and the reason bands took so long back then was because of touring... which these bands are going to do WAY less of, due to bad transport and few surviving English speaking countries. Vir prudens non contraventum mingit 18:51, May 29, 2012 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? The Wall is a double album. And if you don't believe me, look at wikipedia - it list four sides. As in two records.

"The Wall" took Pink Floyd a year to make. Without any touring. And that's with it already having largely been written, too.

The songs need to be cut down, Guns.

Lordganon 22:09, May 29, 2012 (UTC)

Done. Capital x and all that. Any further objections? Or should I say, what are your further objections? Vir prudens non contraventum mingit 19:11, June 4, 2012 (UTC)

Guns, you still have 17 songs, or even more, on some of these. As I said before, it needs to be about 12 on each, or the number of albums cut down overall and more spaced out. Simply put, there is only so much space on these things for songs. Lordganon 08:10, June 5, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, fine. Forget the ongs, I'll only list the albums. -_-.... 98.14.126.83 18:41, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

It's actually a far, far, better article with songs. You just need to have a realistic number of them.

And, on another note, the Grammies don't exist.

Lordganon 09:17, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

I will try to resurrect this article into something along the lines of the and. Godfrey Raphael 13:40, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

There are assumed to have been three bombs that took out Nellis AFB, N. Las Vegas, Las Vegas and Henderson. This is not quite the same as the utter destruction of NYC and DC. You can assume some survivers, for a while at least. The Sierra Nevada article says at least 10,000 came north. The obsolete "New Vegas" article may help as well. SouthWriter 21:42, April 29, 2012 (UTC)

In most situations there will be survivors on the outskirts of large cities. Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson, and Nellis AFB sit in a valley surrounded by mountains. The area is essentially flat with the few tall buildings concentrated in downtown LV along the strip even today. Although I don't consider myself an expert, I would expect there would be little to stop the blast waves from each of the three one megaton detonations as they roll back and forth across the valley. I don't know what the area was like in 1983 but I have visted it many times since the early 90s (family lived there) and have seen the layout and roads close-up. That is what fuels my pessimistic outlook for survival.

The 10,000 survivors I referenced who went north came from communities outside the valley expected to covered by fallout from the LV strikes and those in Southern CA. This said, there is always a small chance someone could survive the attacks and escape, but I think it would be slim. That said, I am curious to see what the writer comes up with. He asked me back in March about the article and I gave my go ahead as long as it is plausable. --Fxgentleman 00:47, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

Something which the environment of the area, in general, would make worse. Lordganon 01:09, April 30, 2012 (UTC)

Nation in former Liberia--Smoggy80 16:59, March 12, 2012 (UTC)

Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic
A page linked to Western Sahara/Pais Del Oro/Spanish Republic.

Just need to know what it controls in Western Africa.--Smoggy80 15:06, March 26, 2012 (UTC)

See my notes to your questions on other pages. Basically, take the map on the Western Sahara page as being correct.

But, besides that, it needs to be done to be graduated, so it does need more than just that.

Lordganon 00:44, March 28, 2012 (UTC)

I'm opening this up for adoption--Smoggy80 11:19, April 1, 2012 (UTC)

Monster Pumpkin is interested in adopting--Smoggy80 17:41, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

And he has adopted it--Smoggy80 15:02, April 9, 2012 (UTC)

What should I add? David Rain 16:26, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

More history, maybe more info about the albums. Lordganon 22:44, April 19, 2012 (UTC)

Lesotho
Article on the country post doomsday. GunsnadGlory 19:00, April 23, 2012 (UTC)

Pretty much done. I my add some finishing touches, but stuff has been written about this article before, and I don't want to accidentally violate canon and get into a month long argument with LG (no offence intended) Vir prudens non contraventum mingit 19:00, May 29, 2012 (UTC)

...There is virtually no history from after Doomsday. Lordganon 22:10, May 29, 2012 (UTC)

Hows about now? Vir prudens non contraventum mingit 16:37, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

Better. Lordganon 01:50, June 2, 2012 (UTC)

People of Eden
Article by me. Ofa. Have fun. GunsnadGlory 18:58, April 25, 2012 (UTC)

One problem, Berlin was intact after DD--Smoggy80 15:56, April 26, 2012 (UTC)

War of the Alboran Sea (1983: Doomsday)
Article by Gatemonger. Feg 17:09, May 8, 2012 (UTC)

Article currently covers mostly post-Doomsday, someone else might have to add pre-DD if that's neccessary. But I'm proposing this article. 77topaz 05:10, May 13, 2012 (UTC)

...None of that is possible, realistically. 77, you really should look at the timeline and nearby articles, some more. Also, there is almost no warning. Lordganon 07:39, May 13, 2012 (UTC)

Better now? I've made the shelters into having being built there by a corporation for "testing purposes", which was overrun by civilians. 77topaz 07:52, May 13, 2012 (UTC)

No, that still makes no sense. As I said, have a look at more of the timeline. Lordganon 08:35, May 13, 2012 (UT

There are/were no shelters, there are no records of any being built/already existing on DD, why would there be? they are small islands in the middle of nowhere--Smoggy80 12:34, May 16, 2012 (UTC)

The RRL War
On going war between the RRL and the forces of the Ivory Coast/Federation of Liberia and combined WAU.--Smoggy80 17:28, May 23, 2012 (UTC)

That name is... a touch excessive. You should probably shorten it a bit, Smog. Lordganon 08:01, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

Not what I meant, Smog. Something involving the leader of the RRL, or the geographic location, would work far better. Lordganon 03:34, June 1, 2012 (UTC)

Wars all finished now, just need to tweek is slightly before its ready for graduation--Smoggy80 15:59, June 10, 2012 (UTC)

And, give it a name. Lordganon 10:20, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

What would you recommend?--Smoggy80 17:15, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

How about simply "Liberian War of 2012"? SouthWriter (talk) 17:37, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

There's already been a "war" of sorts in the area this year. I mean, it works, but....

Smog, using some sort of geographical location, like the capital or where the fighting started, or the leader of the RRL, for the name would work well.

Lordganon 12:18, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

See also. 77topaz 22:34, May 26, 2012 (UTC)

There is no fallout in the area at all, and thus no damage from it, no strikes even remotely nearby, no dead from radiation, no shelters on St. Kitts and Nevis, and almost no dead. Lordganon 03:25, May 27, 2012 (UTC)

New London
Figured it was time to start this page, give me couple of days to get the bare bones in then comments and suggestions will be greatly recieved.--Smoggy80 17:19, May 28, 2012 (UTC)

Took longer than expected, but the bare bones of an article are in, i've tried to link it to the already canon information on the UK and Celtic Alliance pages. Any suggestions greatly recieved--Smoggy80 20:08, June 7, 2012 (UTC)

I've spent all morning creating a gnarly image of a massive refugee camp - you better like it on the article, Smogs! Feg 09:57, June 10, 2012 (UTC)

All I can say about that picture is fantasic! any more you want to add, feel free!--Smoggy80 15:35, June 10, 2012 (UTC)

Sopron Frontier
Here is a proposal for an autonomous Sopron territory in the fringes of the Alpine Confederation. http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Sopron_Frontier_%281983:_Doomsday%29

Would this fit into the timeline?

Mdc 1957 05:56, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

I understand the effort, and your willingness to contribute is great, but this is not at all accurate. Said it when your deviaART first came to our attention, and it remains true.

So, to answer the question.... no.

Lordganon 06:30, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I understand. Thank you very much for clarifying it. Still, when did you learn of the DeviantArt page?

Mdc 1957 06:38, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

EDIT: Also, I forgot to mention that I used this page (http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Hungary_%281983:_Doomsday%29) as the basis from which the idea of an Alpine Sopron came from.

Mdc 1957 06:47, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

We first learned of it not long after you started writing them. Lordganon 07:06, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

Right. That helps clarifying things. Though would that link be sufficient in working out the details for Sopron (and eventually western Hungary) if ever it's considered. Mdc 1957 07:13, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

You could likely fix the article. Lordganon 07:47, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

Alright. Though if it's possible to leave Alpine influence in western Hungary open? Mdc 1957 08:01, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

There is no question of Alpine control in western Hungary. Lordganon 08:07, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

I see. Currently working on the revisions now, though it would help to see your inputs just in case (if you don't mind). Still thinking of keeping the idea of Sopron as the main base of the Alpines' Hungarian zone. Mdc 1957 08:14, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

Oh, it's their main base inside of former Hungary - however, there's little more than that. No established territories, etc., there. The areas of Hungary amount to little more than military control.

The references to Austria are not true - even in the beginning it was the two states, together, moving in. Past that, the rest of the Confederation wouldn't hold those attitudes as described.

No real EMP damages, beyond 20~ miles of each strike.

Alpine troops would have taken control of the area of Sopron almost immediately following Soviet attempts to invade Austria at DD.

Have to say that almost all of the Esterházy family would have been killed in Munich, Vienna, or Budapest. Unless you can find out for sure where some of them were at the time, it may be a plan to remove that.

Lordganon 08:56, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

I see. I'll make the necessary adjustments. Though I've also heard that the Esterházy family also had some holdings in Eisenstadt if I'm not mistaken, so chances are someone at least remotely linked to that line would have survived.

Also, I think it's mentioned in the history that garrisons did cross over into Sopron almost after DD and were in part responsible for its existence (it helped that Austrians were the closest to respond). In addition, I thought of giving the impression that although it's a joint Alpine affair supported by the respective governments (though not necessarily the public in Switzerland or Liechtenstein), the Austrians would have more to gain and be more sympathetic. Also I was trying to reflect the public sentiment of attempting to control what would likely be percieved as little more than wasteland. Sorry if that wasn't very clear.

Mdc 1957 09:11, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

With people, the rule of thumb is unless you can prove outright, or have a very good idea, that they survived, they died in the fires.

The Austrians, following the destruction of Vienna, received a lot of aid from the Swiss. Their troops would have been present. This is all after fighting off the initial Soviet invasion, of course. The troops there at the present wouldn't be mostly Austrian, either.

Really, moving into Hungary would have been supported by the people. Remember, the citizens of the Confederation suffer from extreme guilt over their actions in the 1980s, with regards to turning away refugees - a necessary move at the time, but by no means one people were happy with. This is something their actions afterwards support, with the actions in Bavaria and Italy, among other places.

They really didn't perceive it as wasteland at that time - moves since indicated that areas to the east largely were, true, but that wasn't until the 1990s. By that point much of western and central Hungary had been depopulated by raiders.

And when you add that the Confederation really isn't into expansion.... well, they aren't going to move out there.

Lordganon 09:28, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, the "glorified refugee camp" view in Switzerland and Liechtenstein at least reached its peak in the early 1990s, having long faded away by the present (and that's not counting the cases of denial that might still persist among some Alpines). Also, I sort of put into consideration distance and proximity for the predominant Austrian military presence. After all, Sopron is surrounded on 3 sides by Austria.

That said, however, I'll make the necessary corrections.Mdc 1957 14:11, June 9, 2012 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that that view never existed.

Moreover, there's no such authority in the area. It is military jurisdiction, and no "region" actually exists. Never has.

Alpine forces did not go on an offensive - they merely crushed the attempted attack on them.

In the aftermath of the battles on the frontiers, they moved into the surrounding areas to process refugees, areas which later became most of what they took control over when they closed the borders. They'd have had control of the area within months of Doomsday, if for no other reason than to process refugees and keep a buffer zone between them and spreading chaos to the east.

All the asides need to go. And, as I said, the parts about the nobles should too. Moreover, there's no "alpine support" for such a movement.

Lordganon 07:26, June 10, 2012 (UTC)

I see. Will make more edits. However, some of the details were meant to fill in the blanks that weren't necessarily explained in the Alpine Confederation and Hungary articles. Also, it was meant to be a public reaction that would have likely existed even for a short time (after all, there's still bound to be some degree of resentment and suspicion of newcomers despite the aforementioned guilt complex).

Also, after several years, would it make sense that there'd be more to the buffer and frontier zones than merely military installations? As an added clarification there's no formal support from the Alpine authorities; doing that would logically bring it into dispute with Partium and to a degree Transylvania. Informal support on the other hand isn't officially sanctioned. Indeed, it could be read simply as local propaganda if you wish.

To be honest, I was hoping to give at least a portion of western Hungary the same sort of improvement that happened in Post-Doomsday Britain or France. Though that said, I will likely remove the nobles among others. Apologies for the winded explanation.

Mdc 1957 07:45, June 10, 2012 (UTC)

True me, that's not winded. You've not seen some of the debates around here if you think that was at all winded, lol.

The area has a tradition of aiding others. Plus, there wasn't ever any bad reaction to the refugees - just the overall situation.

No, not even "informal" support. Informal or not, it's still support, and that's not something that would happen. The AC is very connected to the Transylvanians and Partians, after all.

Even though the" buffer" zones in the east are not under any governmental structure, there are still going to be civilian governmental units, i.e. Sopron and other settlements having governments. But, there simply is nothing beyond that.

The article alone is improving things, quite frankly. Just needs to not make it out to be something it isn't, if that makes any sense.

Lordganon 08:22, June 10, 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. If it helps, I mentioned that the Sopron Frontier Territory does have a civilian government, except that even in 2012 the Alpine Military still has considerable influence and a number of military installations along the border. It's not going to be independent or in any position to significantly expand (given limited resources) anytime soon. Also, the "support" should be stated as being largely sentimental than overtly political and more on being recognized as a legitimate successor alongside Partium rather than in opposition to it (though there's bound to be dispute should it really enter the political table). Just hope to give things a bit of a change (and perhaps more detail)rather than leaving western Hungary as is. I hope it clarifies things. Mdc 1957 14:21, June 10, 2012 (UTC)

...Not quite what I'm saying.

What I'm saying is that it's neither an actual governmental region, an autonomous area, or any such thing. It's simply territory under the control of the Alpine government.

No, not even "sentimental" support by the authorities.

As I've said, there really isn't much left in most of Hungary - this small Alpine-controlled area is basically what's left in the west. Its fate, in the long-term, would be membership in the confederation. Basically, you can't make it out to be something it's not, however much you may desire to do it.

Lordganon 10:49, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

With all respect, there admittedly wasn't much expounded. In fact, the existing material comes across as a vague blank slate for the most part. That in itself, along with the 29-year difference from Doomsday can open up potential ground for something more substantial. I'm willing to make that risk in providing that semblance of substance. Mdc 1957 12:53, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

The phrase "with all respect" is just a way of trying to make something bad into something good. Never works.

I'm not saying you can't write an article on it, or that more substance isn't a good thing - but you're simply making the area into something that it's not.

Think about it, and revise it, but by all means don't leave it, lol. One of the best starts in a while on here.

Lordganon 09:20, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Though to be honest, there really wasn't much there to begin with in terms of both info and focus. So... why not give it a shot. Besides, 29 years is a significant timeframe for something to emerge. If it helps, I left in strong hints suggesting its more military purpose. Mdc 1957 09:43, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

Not only is it not what the articles hint at, for it to be under such a structure doesn't make any sense, truthfully. As for the "hints" - no, it really doesn't help. Bring them out in the open. Remember, this is sort of like an encyclopedia, not some sort of classified or slanted report. The only way things are hinted at, normally, is if they could be deemed too "horrific." Things like massacres, Hitleresque actions, slavery, etc. If you hunt around, you'll see them, but they're not obvious. Lordganon 12:09, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

Apologies. Wrong wording. The hints were already changed, but to be honest, the articles themselves don't really give much. Still, it's a chance to at the risk of incrurring further debate stir things up a little in a corner of the world that hasn't quite been given much attention. Mdc 1957 14:28, June 12, 2012 (UTC)

Still barely any change to the hints :p

With regards to all of the "bracketed" sections you've put in - they should either be taken out, or actually written into the article.

Lordganon 10:39, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

I'll definitely modify the bracketed sections. Also, tried rewording the hints. Heh... 114.108.192.19 10:48, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

As I've said before, "hints" really shouldn't exist anyways.

But, overall, you still have it as an outright government - which wouldn't be the case. And the part about Alpine support, in any form, for the Hungarian nationalists needs to be removed.

Lordganon 12:24, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

Republic of Maryland
Not in Maryland, USA. A new nation formed from the remains of the Revolutionary Republic of Liberia, West Africa. Smoggy80 15:58, June 10, 2012 (UTC)

Why that for the name? Lordganon 10:24, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

The area used to be called the Republic of Maryland before it was included into Liberia--Smoggy80 17:16, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

National People's Republic of China
A small isolationist state located in western Hubei. Is currently attempting contact with Jiangsu, the ROC, Guangxi, Macau, Yunna, and Tibet. All necessary info in link.

Canuck2012 22:40, June 10, 2012 (UTC)Canuck2012

I have a whole host of objections to this listed on its pages. Lordganon 10:22, June 11, 2012 (UTC)

Ware Shoals
This is a community mentioned on the Piedmont Republic page. I created the page for Wingman1 who lives there and wants to develop some ideas for the town. SouthWriter (talk) 16:56, June 14, 2012 (UTC)

Thanks South, although i do live in Aiken SC now i do think of WS as my home.Wingman1 06:46, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

Have to say, I really have a hard time believing that a place like this could exist more or less just outside of Piedmont as any sort of independent group like it sounds to be. Lordganon 12:27, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

What the Piedmont article indicates is that it is a collection of neighborhoods that are more or less competing for resources. Sometimes they might even co-operate! What we are trying to do is explain the course of events that lead to this. We only have to account for a period of about seven years (1984-91). After that it can become civiilized. SouthWriter (talk) 15:41, June 15, 2012 (UTC)

...Not quite what I was saying, South. What I'm saying is that it being outside of Piedmont, despite being minuscule and right next to it, as the page says at this time, doesn't really make any sense. Lordganon 08:50, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

it is right outside Piedmont, what i am proposing it Piedmont want them to join (exact timeing to be determend), and WS not wanting to at first with events hapening that change minds. (my plan it to use the distruction of the Mill with a responss by Piedmont with someform of aid be the tiping point that changes minds of the people in WS.To get WS to this point have them rather thand up front fighting be a bit more sly and make WS look like less of a target for the outlaws and raiders. ( after all it has been said that Belton SC was mostly destroyed by people escapeing from Columbia and Augusta, Georgia) not saying no battles at all but the ones that are fought the "bad guys" are dealt with harshly and swiftly.Wingman1 10:55, June 16, 2012 (UTC)

Again: This place is literally right outside of Piedmont. Them not already being part makes no sense. Lordganon 09:43, June 17, 2012 (UTC)

so you are saying they all joined at the same time, or they didn't get to join AT ALL? I mean LG us Ware Shoals people can be stuborn at times (hell most of the times. lol!) but we do see reason sooner or latter. i am not keeping them out of Piedmont just giving reasons for the delay in joining.Wingman1 09:51, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

To quote the page: "...that have resisted incorporation by authorities in the Republic."

You're aren't getting what I'm saying. The page currently states that they are not part of Piedmont at this time. I'm saying that doesn't make any sense at all. They'd have joined long before the present day.

Lordganon 10:34, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

that is a good point LG. I might have to reword it a bit.Wingman1 11:57, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

LG made a good point, so I reworded the intro a bit South. Is it ok?Wingman1 12:02, June 18, 2012 (UTC)

As creator and caretaker of the article, I long ago asked Wingman, a local resident, for suggestions. He introduced himself when I wrote in Ware Shoals. I came upon the town the hard way (by river) without considering the distance by road. The fiefdoms (my creation) were what was found in 1991 and nothing more has said about it on the Piedmont page. I am open for it being incorporated any time since its discovery. What I am looking for is a good story based on more accurate information drawn from local sources. It has been 20 years since the expedition and a lot can happen.

Long story short, the truth trumps fantasy. All the article states is that in 1991 there was no incorporation. I can write in whatever fits best based on the facts.

SouthWriter (talk) 04:15, June 19, 2012 (UTC)

....Which doesn't contradict what I said in the least. Lordganon 09:19, June 19, 2012 (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 review 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 marked as obsolete. If consensus is that you are wrong, however, the proposal review template will be removed without having to change the article. =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.''

Australia
I have found a MAJOR problem with Australia after Doomsday and the feasability of the ANZC. Here are my findings:
 * 1) Bob Hawke was in Perth on 26 Sept 1983. Survival zero.
 * 2) Australian parliament on spring break. Three week holiday. All members likely to return home leaving half of the lower house and a third of the upper house in the three nuked cities
 * 3) All state parliaments are also off as they do not sit on Mondays. Most members of the state parliaments likely to be in target cities, some rural members likely to be out of the cities.
 * 4) All three state premiers are in their respective capitial. Survival very unikely.
 * 5) Speaker, Harry Jenkins Sr., likely to be in Sydney. Survival very unlikely.
 * 6) Deputy PM, Lionel Bowen, likely to be in Sydney. Survival almost zero.
 * GG, Ninian Stephens, likely to be in Melbourne. Survival almost zero.

Australia after Doomsday has almost no political leaders with the most important one to probably be the premier of Queensland. Also, without a governor-general, a prime minister cannot be invested and without a prime minister a governor-general is unable to be chosen. The question is, since Australia's entire chain of command is wiped out and most of the members of all four parliaments are dead; who would be able to lead Australia into the modern ANZC, especially with the loss of three major cities and without a strong leader? I'm seeing a fragmentation of Australia as very likely. Or at least a restructuring of the states. Scandinator (talk) 12:24, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about, Scan?

First, you're ignoring several of our rules with the tone and attitude of that.

Past that....

There's a little something called "order of precedence" in government that you are entirely failing to take into account.

It's "Ninian Stephen," not Ninian Stephens. And, as Governor-General, he lived in Canberra.

Harry Jenkins Sr would not have been in Sydney. Given his position, it is very likely he was still in Canberra, and if not, the area he represented was in the state of Victoria, not New South Wales, and far from Melbourne. Heck, all indications are that he outright lived in Canberra.

Lionel Bowen does have an actual reason to be in Sydney, but even in his case, there are fairly good odds he was in Canberra, given his position.

You vastly overstate numbers that would go "home" to their ridings. Along with, by far, the number of politicians that could possibly be from/in those areas. Both Federally, and in the states.

Why on earth would Hawke have been in Perth? He didn't live there, or anything, and hadn't in decades. As Prime Minister, he too lived in Canberra.

You can't even assume that the Premiers, and Governors - barring the Governor of NSW, who has a government residence in central Sydney - were in the effected zones. Heck, the Premiers' ridings all even escaped the direct effects of the blasts, and they sure as heck would have been able to escape the fires had they been in them - as would have a lot of MPs in similar situations. Government doth have its perks, after all.

So, basically.... well, none of what you said was true, Scan. Didn't even need to look beyond a few wikipedia articles to see that.

Feel free to try to prove me wrong.

Lordganon 14:35, March 30, 2012 (UTC)

The Australian parliament was on a three week adjorunment nicknamed the spring break. This always coincides with school holidays allowing the parliamentarians to go home from Canberra and see their family who usually did not move to Canberra as it is little more than a large country town (even in 2012 OTL). Canberra is missing a lot of the stuff other cities have and uprooting for a potential term of three years is a little risky considering Canberra is a purely political city with nothing for industry or commerce. The more densely populatated inner cities of Perth, Melbourne and Sydney have more electorates resulting in more parliamentarians living in these areas. Almost half the parliamentarians in Australia live in Sydney and Melbourne alone. I'm putting the parliament member death rate at between 25-50% for lower house and 20-35% for upper house federally. For the states it is at least 50% in Victoria, I'm saying 75% for Western Australia due to the public holiday and the functions for the Queen's Birthday and America Cup, and finally 33-50% for Sydney due to its unintentional firebreaks.

Bob Hawke was definately in Perth, he watched the finals of the America Cup from Claremont, Perth (right next to the CBD) on the morning of 26th Sept and would have stayed for the functions.

Governor-General has two residences, Sydney and Canberra. Ninian Stephan's hometown is also Melbourne. Since parliament was still off for another two weeks, chances are he is either in Perth, Sydney, Melbourne or Canberra. With Sydney & Melbourne the most likely.

The speaker for the Senate, Doug McClelland, was very likely to be in Sydney at the time.

Lionel Bowen is very likely to be in Melbourne.

Harry Jenkin Sr. has no reason to be in Canberra as parliament is off and there is nothing there. He would be in Melbourne and the northern district is pretty much a write-off. It was too close to the CBD so the firestorm reached it very quickly. (I accidently typed Sydney)

In regards to the state governments, it would have been too late to give them proper warning time to escape. The governors all lived in or close to the CBD of the three cities and in Sydney and Melbourne it was about 12pm on a working day and in Perth it was a public holiday so the streets would be crowded.

The premires are all likely to be at home as all their respective parliaments were not sitting on the day. The premiers and deputies and where they lived (NOTE: the ones from Victoria and NSW are likely to have stayed at home on 26 September 1983, whilst the premier and deputy of WA are likely to have been with Bob Hawke at the America Cup):


 * Victoria: premier, John Cain II - Northern Melbourne - survival chance: near zero (the north of Melbourne was engulfed by flames rather quickly)
 * Victoria: deputy premier, Robert Fordham - slightly north of Melbourne - survival chance: likely
 * NSW: premier, Neville Wran - Western Sydney - survival chance: possible
 * NSW: deputy premier, Jack Ferguson - Western Sydney - survival chance: possible
 * WA: premier, Brian Buke - Northern Perth - survival chance: near zero
 * WA: deputy premier, Mal Bryce - Eastern Perth - survival chance: near zero

Also Australia is not like the US, if the Prime Minister dies there is no immediate replacement (exception with Curtin) with the members of government electing a new Prime Minister ASAP but the GG must swear in the new PM, if the GG dies then the Prime Minister must choose a new one. Never has an event occured when both die almost simultaneously and there is nothing on that senario in the constitution. You will find the order of precedence rather interesting LG, Australia's is VERY confusing with the Prime Minister the main decision maker but far from most important.

To conclude, the nature of the situation in Australia on Doomsday would have made it very hard if not impossible to allow the escape of many of the political leaders of Australia. The most likely candidate for surviving Doomsday and having enough power to keep the nation together is the governor of South Australia followed by the governor of Tasmania and then the governor of Queensland, after that it is the Chief Justice of Australia Australian order of precedence.

Scandinator (talk) 00:03, March 31, 2012 (UTC)

Again, Scan: as I've warned before in other places, you need to watch the attitude.

Pardon my sleepiness this morning - what I meant was order of succession. Something which each and every country has, and you've missed the boat on, entirely. As per protocol, the surviving ministers of the government would easily take control.

Some proof as to Hawke being there. Good, good. You should have had it the first time, quite frankly.

Riddle me this: many countries had their leaders escape disaster. You're trying to tell me that he couldn't, and wouldn't, have done the same? That makes no sense. Moreover, you're making several bad assumptions about where he was in the area, what he was doing, and who he was with.

A third of all federal politicians have ridings in the three cities. A third. As for the rest, you're pulling those numbers out of nowhere. Arguing that half of all parliamentarians live in these cities is foolish, quite frankly, especially when combined with your statement that none of them live in Canberra. You seem to have a major grudge against the city, for some reason, btw, which is severely effecting your judgement, in my opinion.

You're over-inflating the bombs, again - hell, we've been over this before. Moreover, you're assuming that the MPs in these metros more or less all lived in the blast zones. That makes entirely no sense.

Scan, something that you're missing in its entirety is that those in cabinet still have reason to be in the capital. Good ones, if you'd think about it. This the case in all governments. You can't even really argue that their families wouldn't be there too, since their abilities to go and travel are far less than a normal MP.

A simple google search shows no mention of Ninian Stephan whatsoever with regards to Perth at the time. He did not use the Sydney House - heck, almost none of them have, if you'd look into it - and the fact of the matter is, he did not live in Melbourne at the time. There is no question as to him being in Canberra - without any doubt, that is where he was.

Doug McClelland, ignoring the fact that with his position, odds are quite reasonable he was in Canberra, did not live in Sydney, but the "suburbs" more than twenty miles to the west. Probably joined by a majority of MPs from the city, too.

Harry Jenkin Sr appears, in several manners, to have lived in Canberra. Not Melbourne, whatsoever.

I say again: As the deputy PM, Lionel Bowen is very likely to be in Canberra.

Again, you're making large assumptions about the premiers. And in the process, entirely ignoring the nuclear simulators.

I fully understand the general constitutional setup in Australia, Scan, and that whole paragraph was rather insulting. As stated earlier, "order of succession." Things can, and will, operate until things are repaired.

Scan, your argument is based off your own rather toxic opinion of both Australian politicians and Canberra, along with some very odd interpretations of the nuclear simulators. I mean, I thought I had a low opinion of politicians - something being in the States, versus Canada, has done little to aid - but these claims and assumptions you're making are just too much.

A clear majority of Parliament survives, including the PM. Heck, even most members of the destroyed cities probably have a decent chance - little thing called suburbs, Scan.

Lordganon 01:56, March 31, 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I have lived in Melbourne and currently reside in Sydney. The suburbs where the premier and deputy live are 20 kilometres from the epicentre not 20 miles.

Order of precedence is followed in case of a disaster.

I have no grudge against Canberra and I never said no politicians live in Canberra. Almost all of the backbenchers would not as I can testify from frequent sightings of my local MP until he became a minister. Canberra I have visited several times. Please don't get me wrong as in my opinion it is a beautiful city and I would even move there, only if I get a job in Foreign Affairs. Canberra is a purely political city with all infrastructure there built to support the parliament. It is away from the coast which is Australia's main mode of trade and where most infrastructure is. Cabinet is chosen from the most stable seats in the electorates so yes, most would reside in Canberra with their families as their seats are almost 100% safe. The speakers are usually from less stable electorates and they do not play a role in passing bills merely keeping order so therefore they are likely to remain in their home city during holiday periods. Australia's electorates are evenly distributed according to population and the population of the three cities is equal to 50% of Australia's.

I find it ironic that you tell me I have overinflated the bomb blasts... you made me go that big saying that the entire urban area up to Blacktown would burn with few survivors...

State governments, not being in session on Monday, would have been hard to locate and warn. Their governors, if at home or carrying beepers for emergencies, might have been contacted by authorities upon verification that nukes were headed their way.

And finally I apologize if I have insulted you in my comment. I meant no disrespect to you.

I've realized by reading many Doomsday articles that some of the things I have said would result in the complete destruction of most of current canon. Therefore, I propose the following Ninian takes emergency powers and takes full control of Australia in the name of the Queen and as Head of State. After order is restored an election takes place as many electorates have been wiped out. Liberal-National party comes into power under John Howard (Andrew Peacock died shortly after Doomsday) who is sworn in as PM and due to the wiping out of three major cities (cities usually tend toward Labour) has remained in power till today, although he plans to retire from politics soon as he is suffering some radiation aftereffects. Scandinator (talk) 09:49, March 31, 2012 (UTC)
 * Ninian survives in Canberra (researched - IS primary residence)
 * Bob Hawke dies as he learns of the disaster too late as he was at a function near the Perth CBD
 * Lionel Bowen survives in Canberra
 * Harry Jenkins Sr. is in Melbourne and fails to get out (unless clear proof of Canberra as primary residence is given)
 * Doug McClelland survives in Sydney's west and is in Sydney to visit his son who also survives.
 * WA premiers both die in Perth CBD as they learn of the disaster too late
 * NSW premiers evac'ed in time
 * VIC deputy premier survives
 * State governors of Victoria and Western Australia die but NSW's is evac'ed in time
 * About 25 MP's of the lower house and 10 in the upper house are caught in the nukes
 * 66% of WA's politicians, 50% of VIC's and 25% of NSW politicians are caught in the blasts

I said no distance whatsoever about where the Premier and his Deputy in NSW lived. Though, thank you for confirming my guesswork.

You very much implied that very few lived there. And, as said, quite frankly, statements like the ones you first made are, in many ways, more extreme than I've seen out of admitted anti-government nuts. Glad to see you moderated them.

Scan, just because your local MP did not, does not mean that most of them do not live there. Heck, given where you live, it's not a big stretch, given the distance, for it to be the case. But, overall? Not going to be true.

Out of 21 members of the Australian Cabinet, 6 are from the Senate. Another 5 are from areas that the Labor Party won by a small amount in the last election. So, half are not as you describe. And, most of the seats the party holds are going to be fairly safe, as has been always seen with political parties. So, of course most ministers are going to be from them. Simple numbers will always dictate that. But, saying that a majority is from such areas is an untruth, as I just showed.

Harry Jenkins, Sr., and his son as well, have won their district with massive majorities each and every time they have ran. It could be the description of a safe district. The same thing applies to almost all of the speakers Australia has ever had.

Scan, the three cities today hold 55 of the 150 seats in the Australian Parliament. Wasn't that hard to count them all up on a map. Moreover, the seats are not evenly distributed, at all. Really, that'd be impossible to do. That's why it's not done anywhere. Add to that that this is 1983, not the present, and the cities are smaller portions of the Australian population. Today it's 89% living in urban areas - and back then, it was, at most, 85%. Add to that the redistricting that's gone on since then.

And, you misinterpret what I said. There's a major difference between fires spreading and nuclear death. It's not immediate. And as members of government, the MPs and Premiers - even more so, the premiers - would be secured by the government.

Scan, "order of precedence" has nothing to do with the "Order of succession." The order of precedence is ceremonial, not political. While the governing party may decide on a PM, the fact remains that until such a time, there is a declared order to who is in charge.

Scan, you need to remember that I'm Canadian. I do understand the Parliamentary system in a large country pretty darned well, and how its politicians work.

Harry Jenkins Sr. and his family lived in Canberra. There's little doubt of it. And even if they did not, they would have lived on the northernmost edge of Melbourne - easy to get away.

The governors and Premiers of the the two eastern states lived on the edges of the two cities, except the governor of NSW (who, living in downtown Sydney, is screwed).

Perth is further from the USSR than most of the United States. And a heck of a lot further away than most of Europe. Most of the NATO countries had a least part of their government escape nuked cities. Australia has nearly 9 times the distance before they get hit than these countries. The thought that Hawke would die in Perth is rather foolish.

Scan, you're making assumptions about where Hawke was in the area, and what he was doing. And, that with a massive distance, he couldn't get out. Odds are very, very, good that he could, and would. And any government officials with him would as well.

Probably about right on the percentage of dead members of the state Parliaments.

At most, the WA premier and his deputy die. At most. And given the events of the day, I'd guess that they get out of there with the PM.

You are likely correct about the party in charge, down the road. But you're forgetting that a fair number of Liberal MPs are also from those areas - Heck, most of Perth's and nearly half of Sydney's are - and that many cities remain very intact - add the refugees to this. The Liberals aren't going to keep power all that time, not by a long shot.

In short, however, your scenario holds absolutely no water.

Lordganon 01:06, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to be away for a few days so I can't really make more posts. LG, I am heading to my university library after I get back to find some newspaper archives for the days from 23 September to 28 September and also a lot of info on the 1983 election and the main people in politics' residences. I will get back to you after that is done. It will be about the 14th of April when I can do this. Also an ICBM can do the 5,500 miles to Perth in about 40 minutes. The cruising speed of these missiles in space is so fast distance on the globe bearly matters anymore.

In Australia society in general is extremely conservative and many tend to vote one party for life. It is only the migrant population that really votes for Labor but they swing either way. The modern population of Canberra is only 358,000. This is only due to a HUGE propaganda drive in the major cities to get people to move and also major government incentives. The largest employer in Canberra is the federal government to give you an idea of the situation. The next largest is the army and there are no international flights in or out of Canberra's airport. It's really just a town. Scandinator (talk) 07:33, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

The first strikes occurred about 27 minutes after launch, in Beijing and Alaska. The three Australian strikes are about double that distance, so it's actually a little more than 50 minutes. More than enough time. Distance does matter.

Add to that that that is only the first wave of launches, and that strikes continued to rain down over the next few hours. So, at worst it is 50 mins, at best a few hours.

Scan, while that statement about Australian society and the Labor Party may be your opinion, a simple look, and honestly, some sense, shows it to be only that.

You really won't be able to find out anything about residences.

Lordganon 14:45, April 2, 2012 (UTC)

ICBM's take about 10 minutes to get in and out of the air so the nuke would travel to Australia in just over 40 minutes. Also I have lived in Australia for 14 years. I think I know what the political outlook of most of the population is - frighteningly conservative. I'd say the LNP would remain in power from 1984 till 2014. As by that time enough people would swing away from the conservative side of politics and the cities would have grown to support new electorates and more factory and office workers who would in turn support Labor as they are more working-class oriented than the LNP.Scandinator (talk) 00:19, April 4, 2012 (UTC)

...And you've missed my last points entirely.

It's 50 mins, Scan. Not 40. And you entirely missed that that is at worst. 50 mins, to several hours, to get out. And Perth sure as heck wouldn't be a target in the first wave. Hawke is fine.

Scan, even a tiny look at elections and politics in Australia shows that the nation is not "frighteningly conservative." Truly, I don't know how you can even make the claim.

Adding up seats in the 3 cities today, there are a total of 25 Liberal, 30 Labor, and 1 Green districts that would have been effected/destroyed. In 2007, 23 Liberal, and 33 Labor. And, in 2004, 25 Liberal and 33 Labor (some redistricting).

Removing these numbers....


 * 2004: Turns to 62 Liberal Coalition and 27 Labor Seats. Liberals won otl, just increase their numbers slightly, proportionately.
 * 2007: Turns to 50 Labor, and 42 Liberal Coalition Seats. Labor won otl, slightly smaller portions here.
 * 2010: Turns to 42 Labor, and 47 Liberal Coalition Seats. And, as per otl, with Labor Allies in the Greens, etc., effectively a Hung Parliament. Nor are the Liberals the Coalition Leaders any longer, having less seats than the Liberal National Party (QLD). No question of it being another election.

And, using an average of the cities' seats totals for other elections (24 Liberal, 32 Labor)....


 * 2001: Turns to 58 Liberal Coalition, and 33 Labor Seats. No net change, realistically.
 * 1998: Turns to 56 Liberal Coalition, and 35 Labor Seats. No net change, realistically.
 * 1996: Turns to 70 Liberal Coalition, and 17 Labor Seats. Extent of the large victory only emphasized.
 * 1993: Turns to 48 Labor, and 41 Liberal Coalition Seats. Slightly smaller majority for Labor.
 * 1990: Turns to 46 Labor, and 45 Liberal Coalition Seats. Smaller majority for Labor.
 * 1987: Turns to 54 Labor, and 38 Liberal Coalition Seats. Labor majority actually increases. Liberals barely keep a tie in the Coalition with the Nationals.
 * 1984: Turns to 50 Labor, and 42 Liberal Coalition Seats. Labor majority actually increases. Liberals barely keep a tie in the Coalition with the Nationals.

And, all of this assumes that there's no refugees post-DD. And that PM Hawke's work would gain his party support in the aftermath of DD.

So, the loss of the cities? No real net difference.

Not one bit of that is "frighteningly conservative." You need to ignore your own opinions, Scan. Maybe if you change that statement to say something about most ridings being stuck in their ways, I'll buy it. But not that other statement, at all.

And, about something you said before: Canberra does have an international airport.

Lordganon 09:14, April 4, 2012 (UTC)

For the record, Australia, as an ally of the United States, would have been notified along with all other American allies just after the missiles were detected by NORAD. Lordganon 22:57, April 5, 2012 (UTC)

I dont have much time to talk while on holidays, but a quote from the wikipedia link you put: "Although there are no current international flight services,Air Pacific briefly offered a service to Fiji in 2004." This is in the intro on the second and third lines... I dunno how you missed that...

Also you miss the fact that there would be a conservative backlash against Labor as they are centre left and the communists bombed three Australian cities. If Hawke survived then he could feasably cling to power for over a decade due to the respect he could gather from the reconstruction effort.

Also I wonder to the extent of the warning the Australian government had. They didn't have NORAD or anything fancy, just the tracking station at Nurrungar in South Australia and the Pine Gap facility in Northern Territory. These seem to be a little to far and also too small to make a difference. Chances are the Australians had little to no warning about the bombs until the first one hit them.Scandinator (talk) 02:14, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

I swear, it's like you missed the last few posts almost entirely.

I did not "miss" that. It's entirely irrelevant. Because international airports do not need to have scheduled flights. A quick glance at a list of international airports shows at least eighteen in the US and Canada that don't have any scheduled international flight services. Three of which are busier than Canberra International Airport, and two of which serve metro areas two and three times the population of the Canberra Metro. The fact is, it is an international airport, and you've now denied that fact twice.

No. You think that there would be a backlash. That's a far difference, as I've shown, from the country. Scan, you need your leave your opinions on such matters set aside.

To quote the last post I made before this one:

"For the record, Australia, as an ally of the United States, would have been notified along with all other American allies just after the missiles were detected by NORAD."

As in a literal alliance, since the 1950s. Sites in Australia don't matter at all. And, add to that that Perth, and the other Australian cities, aren't going to be primary targets.

Lordganon 06:35, April 6, 2012 (UTC)

I believe Perth would be a primary target as it is one of the most important ports on the eastern side of the Indian Ocean and also harbours part of Australia's navy. Melbourne would also be a primary target due to its large naval shipyards and naval base. If all American allies were notified then I shall retract all statements relating to Hawke's death. He will live and so will a few extra others in Sydney at the time as according to the multiple waves would most likely be hit on the second wave. Scandinator (talk) 23:10, April 12, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, all American allies were notified.

You mistake the logic for being hit for a factor that would make it a primary target.

Look at the targets, and the target lists. Perth is a secondary target, at best. It's not getting hit right away, at all. Nor would Melbourne, for that matter.

Melbourne does have a major shipyard, true, but naval production is concentrated in Sydney, and Adelaide. Nor is it a military center - it does have a naval training base in the city, an air training base just outside, a small army training school, and a smattering of army reserve units. But not a major center in the least - barely any troops are in the region. Again, that task falls to Sydney.

Perth holds a training air base, the SASR, and the western naval headquarters. Which sums of why it was targeted at all, and not a reason for it to be a primary target in the least.

Sydney is the only one that could conceivably qualify as a primary strike, and given all things, I doubt even that. But, Perth, or Melbourne? No way.

Lordganon 02:23, April 13, 2012 (UTC)

If I had the Soviet criterion for the targeting that would make it easier to judge which city is on which list LG. Scandinator (talk) 06:52, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

We don't have any - nor would anyone. As with virtually all strikes by any power, we made assumptions based on the data we have.

Fact of the matter is, only Sydney meets the rough guidelines we've been following, and that's iffy, at best.

Lordganon 07:10, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

Naval production in the 1980s was concentrated in Melbourne with the closing down of the dockyards on cocatoo island in Sydney in 1984. Adelaide became a naval dockyard in the late 80s in a way replacing Sydney. Melbourne's Williamstown dockyards were and are the most important in Australia. Perth is the HQ for Australia's naval task Force West which is larger due to the positioning of Perth compared to Sydney.

Sydney's main army base is 20 miles from the CBD but there are four smaller ones much closer to the CBD. The only air force base in the city limits is 30 miles aaway from the CBD.

Therefore by this information and the strike patterns, all three cities would be secondary targets allowing the extraction of almost all senior parliamentarians. However many backbenchers would not have escaped and would have thus perished in the nuclear strikes.

In the discussion about the future elections, the Greens would not exert the amount of influence they have and are a tiny party compared to OTL as climate change is no longer an issue and the National Party slowly absorbs the Liberals over the 30 years similar to the Liberals absorbing the Nationals in OTL.

Scandinator (talk) 08:32, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

Climate change is far more an issue in TTL than in ours. On top of that, the anti-nuclear wing of the Greens would be very influential because of the nature of Doomsday. Even though it could be argued that nuclear energy is a lot less likely to worsen the global warming in effect due to the enlarged hole in the ozone layer (probably closing by now, but still a big concern), the fact that radioactive material is needed is enough to keep these guys on the stage. I am not sure if the Liberals would be absorbed, since I am not clear on the nature of the party in Australlia. SouthWriter 23:04, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

Oops, also forgot to mention the Australian Greens were one of the first green parties in the world and only started to gain powerful influence in the late 90s and early 00s. At the time in 1983, there was one United Tasmanian Group member (founding party of Australian Greens) in the Tasmanian parliament. Scandinator (talk) 23:15, April 14, 2012 (UTC)

Looking at Australian naval listings shows that production was not concentrated at Williamstown - heck, it had been a decade in 1983 since anything had been built there, and otl would be nearly another before one was built. And that Cockatoo Island was not closed in 1984 - it was open, at a minimum, for nearly another decade.

Melbourne's yards were not the most important in 1983, and aren't even today.

A simply count shows that Perth is not the site of the larger of the two naval bases - Sydney is. And the only reason you can even talk about Perth in that context is because all of the Australian subs are there.

Senior Parliamentarians, by logic and your own statements, live in Canberra.

Why would backbenchers live in the destroyed areas? Most are going to live in suburbs - and make it.

South hit the Greens on the nose. Add to that the the Australian Green Party isn't concentrated in the destroyed cities, at all, and has been fairly large in Tasmania for longer than you think. If you look at federal elections, as well, before the party was officially formed, you can see that several groups that fought for causes the greens would later argue for won decent chunks of the vote, too.

Don't know how you can argue that about the National Party - only the Queensland endeavor hints of something like that, and it is very much so an alliance between the two, with very formal divisions. Quote frankly, to call that a "party" is a travesty. And past that, their support has been fairly consistent.

South, the National Party is rural, and the Liberals urban - with all of the differences you'd expect as a result.

Lordganon 14:56, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

As an expample of what usually happens in the parliamentary breaks. An Australian parliamentary delegation is in currently in the US with the Speaker of the House of Representatives. I am going to try to check newspaper archives to see if this occured in Spetember 1983. Scandinator (talk) 23:52, April 21, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to jim in, but I don't think that Australian Parliamentary delegations (including the spaeaker) are "usually" in the US during parliamentary break. They do have families, and some even have jobs. Or they"re too busy using union credit cards to pay for prostitutes. (Sorry, just had to add that one in. Sorry if you don't get it LG.)

Also, on the topic of which wave the cities would be...Couldn't all the Australian cities be classes as third wave cities? I mean, sure Melbourne and Sydney may have major dockyards and Perth may be the home of the RAN, but they aren't threats that can't wait an extra hour or two to be destroyed.

And I also think that there would not be a "backlash" against Labour. While they are technically on the "Left", they are really not that socialist at all. And it was the Australian communists who copped it during the Cold War. In 1983, Labour had just won the federal election, and in otl, Fraser went on to win the next three elections. And then he was succeeded by another Labor man; Keating. So Labor was obviously not all that unpopular because of "red scare". In fact, with a successful rebuilding by Fraser, I wouldn't be surprised if he went on to stay in office as long, if not longer than he did in otl. Callumthered 09:48, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

No need to say "sorry." The more opinions, the better.

More or less what I've been saying, lol. Nice to hear it from an Australian.

And yes, I get the reference, lol.

Lordganon 10:03, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you did. If you don't mind me asking, how DID you get it? Was the story reported on in Canada, or are you just a follower of international news? I mean, it has been the only real thing on the news here for weeks now (except that story about the albino echidna). And by news, I mean ABC news, not crappy commercial stuff. Callumthered 11:18, May 24, 2012 (UTC)

Haven't been in Canada in a couple years, lol.

Simply put, Cal, that happens far more often than you think. Don't know anything about the specific case - heck, I thought you were just saying that for effect, lol - but they are far from the first to do it, and often in similar circumstances.

Lordganon 00:08, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

I didn't realise you weren't in Canada.

Back to the topic at hand; if the Governor-General, the PM and the Cabinet WERE to all die on Doomsday, who would swear in the new federal government? Would it be the most senior state Governor, or wouldn't people mind a little uncinstitutionality after Doomsday? Callumthered 00:41, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

Well, as established, that's not possible here, but for theoretical purposes....

In that context, the senior speaker of the two chambers would take charge. Barring that, the senior surviving MP or senator would likely.

As I said, there's an order to succession of some sort. That's my guess as to how it follows past that point.

Lordganon 01:57, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

So pretty much, in conclusion, Australia's role as superpower in the post-Doomsday world is secure?

Because you can't imagine how pleased I was to find a TL where we weren't just mentioned as an afterthought. Callumthered 08:37, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

For the moment, the ANZC is one. Long-term, however, the SAC and others do outnumber them, so it's not quite so guaranteed - odds are good that they catch up and surpass the ANZC in the future. Lordganon 09:20, May 25, 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I did mean ANZC. But Australia is the more powerful partner.

I suppose that's inevitable, considering the SAC's much larger population and resources. And by others, do you mean Soviet Siberia? Callumthered 08:52, May 26, 2012 (UTC)

Figured that was what you meant. Doesn't hurt to make sure, lol.

Siberia is a possibility, but I'm more referring to India and the WAU, along with possibly Indonesia and Mexico. Siberia's got a lot of problems, both now and in the future, to deal with.

The ANZC, as is the case today atl, needs to keep a qualitative edge, in an effort to counter the SAC's quantitative advantage. As of yet, they have managed - but it remains to be seen if that stays.

Lordganon 09:52, May 26, 2012 (UTC)