Talk:American Spring (1983: Doomsday)

Proposition
(moved from talk:SouthWriter)

Hey South! Hows it going? I stopped by to offer you a offer you a proposition you can't refuse(to coin a phrase). I was recently talking to some other people about the US in doomsday,and a idea struck us. If we could get a petition of 50 editors who want a primarily reunited US (minus those pesky micro states that now hate the US), maybe you and the other editors would do it.Give me ring when you get this, God Bless the United States of America 03:19, March 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, GB. Pretty good for a weekend. Coming off a week-long cold!


 * Anyway, concerning a petition, I don't think we have 50 editors in 83DD. Many don't care, others work on little bits and pieces. Maybe a handful of administrators are keeping the time line alive. And half of those are caretakers of micro-states and mini-nations that would not co-operate. It has been an uphill battle to just rebuild the USA to a point where it is recognized as a civilized entity. I started to put it on the road to international recognition in the time line, but even Texas and Florida have more support. Tiny northeastern states seem to be favorites of some, with little interest in working toward a bigger picture.


 * At most, I may be able to work with Brian and Zack to build an eastern coalition that is friendly to a reunification (Kentucky and various deep south states, including former CSA states). There is hope for the Dakotas and a state to arise in Oklahoma, but those are tentative. The main problem is that the creator(s) of the time line assumed too much - and then made things in the southern hemisphere move way too slowly having made those assumptions. The time line is handicapped toward a wide-spread dystopia -- especially in the plains states (hard hit with ground bursts trying to take out silos).


 * I will see if I can work on putting more life into the USA in the time line the rest of this week. After that, we will see how much resistance there is to an aggressive reunification movement across the south. I'll include a little work on the Dakotas as well. SouthWriter 03:44, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

Ick,you sound like me with the Cold,every since the cold really set in January here in VA, I keep staying sick,anywho hope you feel better!

With the petition, I meant editors from all over the site. The thing with people not caring really ticks me off, like the USSR survives but the USA cant? I have wrote and read several articles,but this one keeps bringing me back,and I don't think I will be able to get it out of my head until the Stars and Stripes fly from sea to shining sea, and all the Americans around the world can come home to the land of the free and home of the brave ,until that day I will keeping trying for the USA to be restored to its former glory God Bless the United States of America 04:03, March 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * I couldn't help but comment on this discussion. I'd like to be part of this going forward, if that's alright, and like to state my two cents worth.


 * I'm not at all opposed to the present/future existence of a United States of America in TTL, though I do believe - given what has been established as canon in this timeline - that the reunified USA won't cover the territory that ours does and TTL's USA did before Doomsday.


 * You'd have to have an extremely strong military and political entity with a limitless budget, a country that had the means to rebuild farmland and rewire the continent, in order to pull the various nations together as they were before DD. I don't see any one country, including Brazil and the ANZC, that can currently pull it off.


 * Also - and I think this is crucial, again given canon - enough time has passed that some (not all) of these balkanized states identify as their own entities, not as Americans. Especially given that everyone's finding out that Reagan and the surviving members of the government fled instead of finding safe ground in America to start the rebuilding process from. I think it's important we keep to some sort of balkanization given what's already been established as history. You can criticize 1983:DD for a number of things, but in the end, it's merely one view of how the world would have developed after a nuclear war.


 * That said, I am caretaker of a number of the southeastern-based survivor states and I do intend for them to eventually coalesce into a single entity, be it together or something led by the East American Alliance, or Piedmont.


 * There is nothing preventing a group of survivor states from combining together as the United States of America. I don't think the ANZC (canon successor to the American Provisional Administration, the successor to the U.S. government) has the means or the will to bully anyone in North America to retire the flag. How that reunification comes about, in a world where the member states don't have nearly the resources or cash that Australia/New Zealand and South America have, needs to be worked through and discussed.BrianD 04:51, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Brian for agreeing with many,and I totally agree. It will take a long time,and the US with have trouble,but I do believe it is possible for a majority reunification. I suspect CRUSA will help a lot with finances,and the USAR and ANZC probably will give aid, due to the large amount of Americans there,many still patriotic and CRUSA starting to get a large presence in many places.SAC and those pesky micro nations in the the US's land will probably a major obstacle,but if they could survive a nuclear war, I don't see any reason why we cant one day fly the Stars and Stripes again.Thanks again Brian,have a good day!God Bless the United States of America 15:22, March 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of what Brian said. I hate to pat myself on the back, but much of the current status of the former US was built on the foundation I made. When I came here the only article set in the US was the blank article. I expanded it and then went on to create the, the  and Alaska. Most of my ideas for the former US that I shared on the discussion pages have been added to the TL, and mostly by other people (Lahbas'  and , Yank's , Brian's  and Louis' ). I am not saying "everyone should listen to me", that is the last thing I want to do, but I would like to point out that I at least began the process that so many people want to complete: reunify the US.
 * Personally I am all for it. What I disagree with it is both the speed, extent and vehicle for the reunification. South, 1983: Doomsday is a dystopia and there is no getting around that. It was like this from the beginning when that anon first posted this TL (on a side note, that is the reason why I oppose immediate deletion of TLs created by anons, you never know when you will get the next 1983DD). Certainly I felt that it went to far, hence why I began expanding the size and scope of American survivors. Nevertheless, we must reunify America based in the spirit of the dystopia that this TL has always been. Thus it will not be a quick reunification, and when has life ever provided for a quick reunification. OTL, Korea is still divided and likely to remain that way for some time.
 * GBUSA, I still feel that you are to blinded by your own nationalism to realized how unlikely it is for a "majority reunification". Consider the theocratic Utah, ultra-nationalist Lakota or the "Kingdom" of Hawaii, would they really want to fly the Star and Stripes again? All have histories of American oppression, now they are free, why would they give that away? Also what about Superior who fought Canada to a standstill? They took on a major regional power and came out of it looking good. Are they going to surrender their hard fought international recognition to join a revised US? Also what about the American survivor states that include Canadians, or those who have officially adopted an anti-American policy, or even southern survivor states who fondly remember the CSA? It is more plausible for there to be a rump US instead of a majority reunification.
 * I still feel the NAU is the most realistic form to reunite the US, and even bring Canada into the fold as well. But hey, I created the article so obviously I am biased. Who knows, maybe the NAU is too optimistic of an idea to actually work. As the Restored US expands by swallowing smaller survivor states, the other members might freak and leave. At worse the Great Plains might break out into war as the USA's neighbors fight to prevent it from expanding. Just a thought.
 * Finally, one last thing. We never make decisions on 1983DD content by majority vote. You could present me with a 100 editor petition and it would not move me. We always follow consensus and QSS and QAA. They day when 51% of the editors can tell the other 49% what to do is the day I stop contributing to this TL for good. Mitro 16:31, March 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * Good points, Mitro. I definitely agree on the importance of consensus, QSS and QAA. Without them anything goes, including the rewrite and removal of articles and concepts you created (when I say you, I mean that in a general sense, not specifically to any one person here). 1983:DD may be one as bad of a dystopia as some would prefer, but it's still a dystopia. I wouldn't necessarily keep it that way if I were doing a future history of this world, but it's important we keep to what's been established as canon and work forward from that.
 * I see no problem with American survivor states improving their lot and working in a realistic time frame towards union. Reestablishing the world as it was before Doomsday I do have a problem with.
 * GBUSA, while it's true that there is a USSR in this timeline that country is not nearly as powerful and populated as its predecessor. It's largely like the rump USA is in North America.
 * I do want to clarify the CSA thing in that there was quite a bit of controversy over how the country was named and its identification with the Confederacy, and I wonder if I made that clear enough in the article. (I would say that the whole 'experiment' was viewed as a failure and that most in the region would be favorable to a union with the East American Alliance or a bona fide continuation of the USA.)--BrianD 17:52, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

Haha, Mitro you made me laugh when you brought up the nationalism thing, I had completely forgot about that thing! While to the more serious note,yes I do agree with your opinions, I know that America will probably never the same,but I would like it on the scale of the USSR,or ANZC. Maybe the US could control most of what is on the west side of the mississpi. Maybe Texas, MSP, Casacadia, Kentucky, USAR, Superior,and maybe a few others join, and I do have a feeling many of the Americans in Australia will come back(Possibly with a large amount of American Military there,maybe ANZC will give most of it to them,like they did with the Celtic Alliance) But like I say,just my opinion and dreams. And my final thing is thanks for telling me what QSS and QAA means, I had no clue! thanks again,and have a good day! God Bless the United States of America 20:13, March 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, my talk page suddenly got crowded. Thanks, GB. Anyway, some further points made from probably the oldest member (in chronological age) of this team to one of the youngest. Mitro indeed breathed life into the whole North American storyline by developing the North American Union concept. The MSP concept, was based on an earlier assumption (QAA that was challenged by a bunch of new American editors!) that the whole nation was basically toast. As we began to analyze this, we found that very few of the bombs were the mega-bombs that exist as prototypes, but rather thousands of smaller ones on the tips of ICBM missiles even to this day. Then, as we added up the targets, vast areas began to open up. Fallout proved less of a problem due to most of the bombs being in the air rather than on the land. Some writers were more pessimistic as to the ability of Americans to cope with the aftermath in areas cut off from the rest of the world. But all in all, optimism won out and "nations" began to pop up "everywhere." There may even be some areas that still need to be considered (but that's another discussion), but as it is, what we have created needs a lot of work.
 * To the point of the time frame - that was somewhat limited by the original premise in which the southern hemisphere was very slow in responding to the obvious disaster of the northern hemisphere. The League of Nations was founded a full thirty-five years after doomsday after a very limited interaction with North America in the early nineties. Siberia and Canada, along with the fringes of northern Europe, came to be known fairly early in the time line, but even then, there were a lot of missing opportunities for links with America that went totally unexplored. The articles on the numerous city-states and mini-nations (not "micro-nations") each had to be seen through the foundation of previously less optimistic lenses.
 * That being said, I disagree with the notion that not enough time has passed that this should happen within the forty-years of this time line (assuming this project can last another two years!). The nations and city-states have all learned of each other by now. America's southeast is one of the most patriotic region of the nation, only recently moderating from its solid conservative standards. I have the "most conservative Senator" (OTL) as the governor of Piedmont. Neonotia was established by moderate (Jimmy Carter), but South Georgia historically has been quite conservative. Patriotism is strong there (I grew up there, I should know). The tiny city-states in Mississippi will most gladly join up with the rebuilt state of Louisiana in whatever decision it makes (in OTL that would lean conservative. Down in the Caribbean, the United States Atlantic Remnant, is undoubtedly eager to reconnect even after a rude treatment from the APA (they still exist as a "government"!) now that the USA has established its legitimacy. There are others - like Delmarva and the Outer Banks - that are good candidates as well. --SouthWriter 21:19, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we should move this to the main 1983:DD talk page.

A few points of clarification:


 * The LoN in canon was officially formed in 2008 - twenty-five years, not thirty-five, after Doomsday
 * The APA no longer exists in canon - it basically merged into the new Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand
 * I doubt that the ANZC is going to give up large parts of American machinery and military personnel, and for that matter neither would Mexico. This would include the Nimitz. Sharing the tech for that machinery to a potential ally is not out of the question; in fact, I would not be surprised to hear of a few super-carriers built in recent years by the ANZC, Mexico...and Brazil...that have not yet been mentioned in the TL for some strange reason ;) Mexico and the ANZC aren't going to leave themselves defenseless so the new USA can be as strong as it was before the war.
 * Because twenty-eight years have passed since DD, the American diaspora in Oceania and Mexico would have built ties with their new homelands, via family, friends, business, etc. I would expect some would want to return to their homelands, and many more than one might expect would choose to stay where they've been for almost three decades. But again, those are just a few of the matters that would need to be discussed. --BrianD 21:43, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

I think we are going to have to move it, my main browser is broken,and the one I am currently using is having trouble with editing this.God Bless the United States of America 21:57, March 14, 2011 (UTC)

As, in the other thread, it has already been pointed out, I think this would be impossible. The US was hit pretty hard in several parts, especially the Great Plains, the Southeast and southernmost California. It could be interesting for the PUSA to have some slightly larger territories to the west in the U.S Northwest, but I doubt the USA will ever be unified. And for now, I think that, although we might make it slightly larger, it should not expand very much, certainly not as much as Socialist Siberia (which is even a bit implausible in it's borders now), Turkey, or Greece. --Fed (talk) 22:11, March 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Fed, for your input. However, your estimation of the prospects of the revived USA is flawed. You have not taken into account the American spirit in the southern regions of the United States. The Southeast was not hit as hard as was the northeast (DC and up) and there are several viable provisional state (for now "nations") governments up and running. Your work on other parts of the world is admirable, but you have not worked on the USA remnant states as many of us have. Brian, Zack, and I have worked quite extensively - though perhaps not as diligently as we should be on updates - on numerous US states. Mitro, in his voluminous works, has done quite a bit as well. Other editors have had their American projects as well (I err on the short side in listing only a few). There is nothing to stop the USA from at least equaling the USSR in prestige if not in size. I doubt if a population like that of Siberia will be reached, but even that is possible for the associated North American Union (mostly former US states anyway).
 * As a compromise, on the world stage anyway, I think that the NAU will very soon emerge as an equal to the USSR. While the USA may remain small (I doubt it, but we'll see), the Union will thrive if we allow the "American spirit" to continue on the continent of its birth. SouthWriter 04:23, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

The thing I think you guys are missing in all of this is the nature of the new USA, and its claims to legitimacy. No matter what, not all of these "state" governments, or the like, are likely to actually accept them as being the USA. Their claims to be the new USA, despite the documents, etc. that were located allowing some sort of chain of command, are really quite flimsy, no matter how you look at it.

Size is unlikely, between the USA and USSR. Even with much of the former USSR closed off to them, the USSR will still be far larger, no matter how much the "USA" expands.

I would think, as well, that given the passage of time, and the establishment of at least one regional government that is obviously not the USA, even in the southeast American "spirit" would be vastly diminished. While news of the new USA would increase this, it still would be very low. The assumption that these states, among others, would just up and join a the new USA, even after more than 25 years of being without them, really just seems kind of silly. These nations, with a majority of the population having grown after the event, have a large group of voting citizens with little to no loyalty to the USA of old - thus, why would that be given to the new USA when it doesn't really exist? In a few states, maybe - but all of them? Not happening, despite what some of you may wish.

In the end, the new USA will likely end up stretching across the plains, from Oregon to Lakota to Louisiana, in a rough triangle, but not getting much further. Maybe add Florida to that, though that does seem sort of silly to me, considering its isolation in such a case. Lordganon 04:50, March 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Even if we assume there is pro-American sentiment in the southern states, it frankly might not be practical for them to unite with the USA in the west. As I and others have said, there are a lot of nations that might not be interested in joining up, making it difficult for the US to reach those states that would like to. Also there is some Confederate sentiment in the South (the 1860s version not the neo-Confederacy that failed ATL). Some southerners might prefer continued independence over uniting with a western upstart. For that matter the Western states and the Southern states don't always see eye to eye, despite the strong Republican support OTL. It could only take one issue/difference to put a wrench in the works. Mitro 15:13, March 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * First, LG, with all due respect, your rhetoric is breaking the spirit of a young American who happens to be proud of his nation (OTL). The fact that two nations established as "anti-American" (created and sustained by a Canadian, mind you) stand in the way of a total reunified nation does not preclude a reunion of many of the others. You discount the American spirit because a generation has grown up that would be less patriotic to the history from which they came. But is this "silly"? I have not advocated "all" states reuniting, and it appears that even GB does not hope for that. The CRUSA of TTL may hope for that, but that is not the aim of the USA as it "now" stands.
 * There would be an orderly offer to state governments that have formed as legitimate extensions of the old and of provisional governments formed upon verification or strong suspicion of the destruction of former governments. Right now, as TTL stands, the governments of the Dakotas, Louisiana, Georgia (Rome), Piedmont, Blue Ridge, and Kentucky are all good candidates. Other states that might be included are Delmarva, Florida, and the Sierra Nevada Union. The government of Neonotia (southern Georgia and Alabama), though formed out of crisis and separate from all ties to Atlanta, might even be interested. Texas will probably stay independent, for they have had a strong independent spirit for a long time. Hawaii and Alaska, now established as independent nations with international recognition, might be given a courtesy call, but nothing would be expected beyond that.
 * Mitro, as I outlined above, the south would be quite "connected" all the way to the Gulf and the Atlantic, so the disconnectedness you mention. While the USA will not have the "muscle" to enforce what the documentation gives it the "right" to as the authorized successor of the fallen government, the process can continue as "modern" communications have been restored. Leaders are venturing out across state lines sparingly as the LoN works in establishing the infrastructure. Americans have never seen "eye to eye" on everything -- including independence in the first place. Once independent, a two-party system formed almost immediately, arguing over how much power the centralized government would have. The new USA, if it is to succeed, will have to side with the diversified states over a centralized government (the present government in TTL is overwhelmingly Republican, the "small government" party). The states would remain "sovereign," and would join together to better trade with one another and the "outside" world.
 * The "Confederate sentiment" in the south in TTL has proven to be of a criminal nature, at worst, and a fringe movement at best. The break-away city-states (and larger "nations") that have "taken advantage of" the chaos will by nature wish to remain "outlaws," and will not be able to be brought back into a revived USA. The LoN of TTL does not have the authority nor the resources to enforce the legitimate wishes of the US government (validated by the only president of the APA), but if a "joining and receiving" process proceeds, I feel certain that the USA can see significant success before the 30th anniversary of Doomsday.
 * Finally, back to the "map" of the USA envisioned above. I myself see the USA stretching from Oregon to Florida, a rough parallelogram dividing the continent northwest to southeast. The frustration of living life separated from extended families for a generation will be enough, I think, to bring states under the umbrella of the USA and the constitution of their fathers. Yes, GB, the USA does exist even in TTL, and with a little co-operation, the editors can make it bigger and stronger. I am a realist, not an optimist. But I believe enough in the "idea" of America that I think this time line can resolve into a near future where far more Americans will live as one. E Pluribus Unum and In God We Trust!

~South

Funny, you managed to miss most of what I said, and managed to be very insulting at the same time! Good job. This is the last time I'll let that part slide, fyi - if you think I didn't notice all you said on those talk pages you are sadly mistaken.

There is no rhetoric here, but the plain and simple truth. GB - I assume that's whose spirit you are accusing me of breaking - is extremely biased on the subject of the USA, and it appears you are as well. Unable to see all the different trees in the forest, only seeing it as a whole, when that is not possible - referring to the different regions, states, etc. and the USA, respectively, of course. And don't ever apply Yank's attitudes to me again.

I suggest you go back and re-read all of what you and GB have both said, because it both cases it sounds a lot like you both assume and believe that all will reunite. And my "silly" remark - once again, you misinterpret what I say - is with regards to your assumptions. You and GB both assume that all of these nations, with decades of independence, would just up and rejoin a USA, with only the slimmest threadbare claim to be the descendant of the USA of old, despite the time that has passed. That is what is silly.

You missed my point that many of these provisional governments, and provisional state governments, are likely to not recognize the authority of the new USA at all, entirely. I am well aware of the ability of the new government to correctly establish a claim, but what on earth would stop these governments from ignoring it, or putting forth their own claims, using the same logic, which would have about the same level of authenticity? Not much.

Lordganon 19:32, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

I don't pay much attention to the North American portion of 1983:DD, but would it be fair to say that any revived US could be like the EU? There would be some strongly integrated areas (a Schengen Area, so to speak) in the US that exists currently in the timeline; more distant, independent nations (Virginia, Texas, Florida) might be analogous to how the UK is in the OTL EU - part of it, but not fully integrated, and with lots of internal debate over whether they should be part of the union or not. 'Just my two cents', as you guys would say. Fegaxeyl 19:45, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

Peace, guys.

Fegaxeyl, it certainly could be proposed, but the concept I think is not one that the American survivor states would be familiar and at ease with. My thinking is if there's going to be a United States, it's going to look like the old USA did (although the states may have increased power over a decentralized federal government).

I myself am wondering how the unification is going to occur...Hattiesburg and Louisiana are more or less allied with Texas, so I'm dubious they would choose a USA government over allies in Texas and Mexico they've worked closely with for the past three decades.

The link from south to west SouthWriter has alluded to before may have to come through Kansas, Oklahoma, Missouri and Arkansas. Is that truly workable?

In fact...would it be possible to have two entities (south and west) claiming to be the United States of America? That would be an interesting storyline to explore, IMO. BrianD 21:47, March 15, 2011 (UTC)

I still find it extremely unlikely that the United States will ever be fully reunified. The new United States may just encompass the Great Plains. The US will likely never regain it's former glory. I find it impossible that the US will ever expand past the Mississippi. For every person in favour of reunification, there is likely an equal or greater amount against reunification. American reunification is like Quebec independence in OTL. Slowly but surely it loses it's support. Somehow I doubt most former American survivors are going to welcome the country that abandoned them with open arms. As time goes on, patriotism for America inevitably becomes patriotism for the local survivor state (Virginia, Superior, etc) and chances of successful reunification slowly shrink. By the time the new US gets the economic, political or military clout necessary to successfully regain its former territory, it will be far too late to do so. Besides, I refuse to degrade any of my American states into subdivisions. I refuse to sacrifice their sovereignty for what is effectively a lost cause. Yank 23:05, March 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not here. I'm off the Internet. But I stumbled back here in a moment of weakness and now I ought to weigh in. When we talk about "the American spirit" and "loyalty" and abstracts like that, I think the most crucial factor is not the 25-odd years of isolation. It's the intense psychological and social trauma that the nuclear war created. That level of trauma is almost unprecedented, but I think everyone can agree that it's going to create changes to the culture that are unpredictable. Some of this discussion reminds me of a much shorter one at about the spread of atheism vs. religion. Some people argued that a nuclear war would drive people toward God; others, that it would drive them away. I argued that it would affect different people in different ways. I think it would be the same with national loyalty, especially in a country like the USA where nationhood is more than a shared identity and is identified with quasi-religious ideals. Some people would I'm sure look at the aftermath of the Cold War, decide the whole America thing had sounded like a fun idea but hadn't been worth it in the end, and emotionally invest themselves in some other national construct. Others would look at the destruction and turn to American ideals as a source of strength; it would strengthen their resolve to identify as American. The USA's own national anthem is about getting bombed but surviving, after all. And even these two extremes don't cover all the possible attitude shifts that probably happened. Probably nobody celebrates "Americanism" more than the  Pioneers, but the Americanism they celebrate is vastly different from most other people - they argue that the whole concept of nationhood needs a radical change.
 * That's all. I'm going away again now. Benkarnell 01:00, March 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * To LG, I did not miss what you said. I do not appreciate being talked down to -- especially in threatening overtones. If you perceive my attitude as being insulting, I certainly did not mean it to be. I was only observing that GB is a newbie, and is only 13 years old. He has read our take on the USA and he does not like what he sees. He hopes that our story line will work out to a USA at least as respected as the USSR. That is not unreasonable -- and certainly not "silly." If you read everything he has written just in this string, you would see that he admits that everything is not going to be as it was. I was at pains to explain what was probably and what was possible -- never once even hinting at a 50-states reunion. I have not looked to the mid-west nor to the northeast for states with whom to negotiate.


 * As far as legitimacy for the USA, I have built that into the story, and it has passed inspection with not too much disagreement from the community. The fact is, communications would have had to been secure to Cheyenne Mountain in order to launch the counterattack. Also, the US government has contingency plans (and did in 1983) for a continuation of the government -- and not in 'exile.' I have worked around the decision made by the Reagan administration to relocate to Australia by making that decision be after plans had been sent and verified to the bunkers. Reagan's death, and Bush's actions after that in forming the APA, were unknown in Wyoming. It is not the "slimmest threadbare" evidence when you have documents, video and audio of said arrangements. Along with legal precedent - most states have constitutions almost identical to the USA -- and two hundred years of history to establish the accepted "law of the land." The US Civil War established that states cannot unilaterally leave the legal entity which is the United States. The establishment of the APA, and subsequent directives from that government for survivors to assimilate into the ANZC, do not negate the Constitution. The new governments that chose to declare their independence (having waited a reasonable time to do so) will be honored as such, but the provisional governments should have to show why they legally are "independent," especially given the intentional statements of their founders.


 * To Fed, Texas is "next door" to the USA, and has indicated that it would not join back with it. With this I concur. I think it will probably join the NAU eventually, though. The nation now known as Virginia in TTL has established itself as totally independent and allied with Kentucky militarily if not politically. Florida is a newly combined state (or nation) that could just as easily be part of the East Caribbean Federation as the United States. Unlike many states, though, the most conservative part of the state is not part of the new nation. I am not sure how it will go in this time line (and I'm a 'consultant' to that article).


 * Thanks again, Brian, for moderating this discussion. I never responded to your clarification above. Basically, I goofed in the mental math! I rounded up to "about thirty years" and then applied the "30" as if rounding down! -- or something like that. :(
 * As for the other points, the parenthetical statement they still exist as a "government" went with the USAR, not the APA. Furthermore, the USA is not asking for the assets claimed by and relinquished by the old APA. The movement to bring more states into the USA is a constitutional and legal one, not a political power play. The USA is not an enemy of the ANZC, nor of Mexico, and does not seek to expand via military means. It is certainly not a "competitor" for the "right to rule" former citizens.
 * As for the path to the Gulf and the Atlantic, I am confused as to how the present an past alliances that Louisiana and the Mississippi city-states have with Texas preclude rejoining the USA. These states have not joined politically with Texas, nor have the city-states of Arkansas, Oklahoma and Kansas. The loose alliances they have formed with neighboring city-states and larger entities are mostly for survival in a post-apocalyptic world. The stability that comes from union with a much larger nation should be welcomed, not shunned.
 * Oh yes, you wrote "if there's going to be a United States" -- there IS a United States! I understand "look like the Old USA" to mean governed like it, not total restoration. Yes the states will have their original "10th Amendment" (now numbered differently) rights, with the federal government held to the powers given it in the constitution. The government in Torrington will not be a mirror image of that in OTL -- not by a long shot. In fact, I have never got around to writing about a rebuilding of the capital there, so maybe no construction has happened yet. That way, moving the capital to a more centralized location now that the world is almost "back to normal" might be an option (after all, it took 24 years to move to DC).
 * I suppose it would be possible for two entities claiming to be the same successor nation (its happened before). However, the closest thing we have to a claimant in the south is the United States Atlantic Remnant which stood up to the APA (and prevailed, seeing that the APA dissolved) in doing the "right thing" for American survivors in the Caribbean. That is a military-directed provisional government loyal to the "old" USA. If the present USA has the legal standing - and it does - as the successor government to the USA, then the USAR as no problem helping that government in its goals (not by military might, but through political and legal means).
 * And finally, welcome back Yank. It's been a while. If you have followed closely so far, the aim of the USA is not the same as the CRUSA. The US government only seeks to expand its boundaries to states that are willing to return. Your notion, sounding a lot like a conviction, that the USA will remain as it has become so far, or at best never return past the Mississippi, is an opinion held by you and to which you are welcome. But to assume that this is a battle of opinions is to go against the spirit of the time line. Yes, it is a consensus, but that consensus is built on logic and reason, not on emotion.
 * That you should mention Superior as an example of a nation that would definitely want to remain independent is odd. That nation, though having militaristic tendencies, was established to be as much like the old USA as possible -- to the extent of rebuilding the White House and other monuments to maintain the history of the fallen nation. Aside from the fact that the whole nation is somewhat a stretch of logic (it's canon, and I'm not knocking it), having fought off the remnants of Canada (over land that Superior had no legal claim to) is not a reason for it to reject a chance to be part of something bigger. Virginia is, of course, your creation and premier contribution to this time line, so it is "off limits" as long as you are an editor. I will not reopen old arguments here or elsewhere on that matter. The same goes for the Republic of Lincoln.
 * The nation that is seeking to bring Americans back together is not the same government that abandoned them (not with "open arms" but rather with hands over its eyes!). That was the APA, not the Constitutionally established United States of America. The proposed expansion beyond the nine states in the plains is not even like that of the expansion west at the expense of the natives. This is but an attempt to reconcile with the Bush administration, but rather to remain loyal to the Constitution of the United States. The former states have "left" what they thought was no longer there. They have experienced independence in a world where alliances became not only necessary but essential. The original succession of the southern states has been labeled "the lost cause" because the federal government proved stronger than the state governments. The "new" USA will find strength in its states, and not the other way around. It is not "clout" that the new USA has, or wants, but rather unity among Americans. If there are Americans that eschew unity, then let them be [insert demomym here]'s. The days of "big government (in TTL) are far gone.


 * Thanks for weighing in, Ben. It's good to see you still are thinking of us. Lovely thoughts and ones we each should ponder - be we Americans, Canadians or Brits. Or any of the other various "clans" heard from on this wiki. SouthWriter 02:25, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

Excellent points, South.

Re: Hattiesburg and Louisiana - I'm caretaker of those states and developed their relationship with West Texas and eastern Texas (and Mexico). My thoughts continue to be that they are most familiar with the Texan/Mexican politics, economy and culture, and much more integrated with those entities than with even the memory of the U.S. There's certainly a lot of curiosity about the Torrington government, but short of a miraculous (and ASB) restoration of the previous government and military, the sentiment is going to be to stick with the status quo and go from there. I have established Louisiana and Hattiesburg as being in the Texas/Mexican orbit for quite some time. The benefits of the status quo may be much preferable to them over the benefits of joining a successor to the United States.

Arstar needs to be heard on this, as he is caretaker of at least two states South potentially sees as being part of the renewed USA - Superior and Stillwater.

Everyone, as we discuss this, even as we argue the various points and even be blunt in our views, let's above all things remain civil. South's pretty passionate about this, and I do think the idea is worth exploring. --BrianD 03:06, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

South, If you don't want to be talked down to at all, then quit trying to preach at us through very tinted glasses. And I don't threaten - I promise.


 * Condescension is conscious and rude on the part of the one addressing another in such a way and should not be part of a discussion such as this. I have tried my best to accommodate my assumptions to that of the time line, even stating at the very beginning that if I wanted it "my" way I'd start a new time line. Research beyond the surface revealed that there indeed would be contingency plans in place, that is not a "silly" assumption. My informed opinion is not "preaching" to anyone. For the record I did not say you made a threat (as understood as a imagined danger), but that you spoke "in a threatening tone." "In a promising tone" would be a bit ridiculous. SouthWriter 17:49, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

As I've said twice, that's not what I said was "silly."


 * GB is new, and he has yet to grasp the whole picture as to this time line, so his assumption that the USA could rebuild is at worst naive, not "silly." As for me, my support for him is not an agreement to his dream, but only a long held contention that this whole time line was conceived as an over-reaction to an unrealistic scenario. If it had not been for a handful of editors, most now administrators, there would be nothing but bands of marauders (a la "Mad Max") across the continent. We came to a collective agreement that such was not the case.
 * However, my position on the USA and its expansion, is the result of a discussion on the USA talk page back in August of last year. The concept of a group of states simply declaring themselves to be the successor of the USA is laughable. There has to be be a solid ground to that claim. After discussion, I worked out the present situation. SouthWriter 17:49, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

Posting in response to, but not commenting on the main body of, someone's post, is missing its point.

I did not say that it did not have some legitimacy, or even the most legitimacy of any potential successor, which next to the Remnant is true. It says in your article on the "continuation" that these are things that would be in more than one place, not just on the plains. And it's far, far, from being finished. As such, it is slim. Any other provisional, or surviving, state government can claim the same rights to be the official successor to the USA with just as much legitimacy, giving any organization they put together the same legitimacy as the new USA. Why on earth should they all recognize this government as being the official successor when all it has is a few recordings on them? Some would, but not all. It can, too, be argued that none of this movement on the plains would have happened, had Reagan actually grabbed a brain or tried to contact others, which I am sure other states would do, negating the orders given to the west and giving them reason to ignore it. Others could easily, and likely would, simply call the records falsifications. This is my point.


 * The article - 2010 US Congressional Report on the Continuation of the US Government (1983: Doomsday) is indeed unfinished, and still in the proposal stage. However, that article was written to explain what is happening on the main page. The portion that is finished clearly states that this is a legitimate government. The instructions that so far have not emerged in other state capitals would have set things up where they did - the article states that Reagan tells the general - "Get the message to Torrington."
 * If the USA had plans to invade the rest of the self-proclaimed nations your point might have some weight. But the fact is, it is proceeding on a schedule based on the founding documents and legal precedent. No other nation has come close to claiming to be the successor of the US, not even Delmarva which has oversight of the former capital city. Most states have either remained in "provisional" status or decided on the "independent nation" route. The proposed expansion of the USA does not negate these claims, though it might challenge some of them on legal grounds.
 * While it is true that the message did go out to other governments, it was also sent in code. The key to the code was sent separately, and as it turned out, the chain of command in other places did not put it into affect. The article clearly states that the military in Colorado contacted Reagan, and not the other way around. By the time this had been done, the administration had been persuaded to follow another path, but Reagan's last words to them indicate that those plans did not negate the original plan. In fact, he says, "If all else fails..." Any state that simply "called the records falsifications" would not have a legal leg to stand on. SouthWriter 17:49, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

Stillwater, as written, and Arstar seems to have planned it, etc. is close enough to a provisional state government to be called such.

Superior, however, while copying many of the US monuments, etc. simply wouldn't join. Not only is there substantial territory between them any any potential states, but they do have their own identity. As well, while CRUSCA is influential, as written Superior is only interested in joining the NAU in some future capacity. Nor would its Canadian element support joining the new USA anyways. Other signs, such as the UC, lend support to this. As a caretaker, with Arstar, of the article, that is also my position.

Lordganon 08:56, March 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * Stillwater, OK, would indeed be the capital of any proposed reconstituted Oklahoma, with the city-states of Antlers, Broken Bow and Hugo coming under its jurisdiction. Also these states have existed alone for 27 years, with scarce communications even to this day. They would likely as not consider joining with the legitimate successor of their former country.
 * As for Superior, I was just floating the possibility, not seriously considering that it would join even the NAU. I admit there may have been a bit of sarcasm there. In fact, the government of Superior makes no pretense of being a successor government, and would not be expected to accept an invitation to rejoin the USA. SouthWriter 17:49, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

I didn't mean to cause an argument, I just want to see some of the USA reunified,enough to at least match the USSR. I am a proud American, I will never deny it, and I do admit my Patriotism can "blind" me at times(you know who you are.) My family has fought and lost many members at times to defend this land,and as such it breaks my heart to see the balkinzation( I know I misspelled) of the US. I do understand the US might never be the same as it was again,but I do not see why it cannot regain some power. I will respect the opinions of all however, and I thank South for sticking up for me, and LG I understand your comments. Maybe we could all make a article,take everyone's ideas, and make a partially reunified USA.God Bless the United States of America 15:18, March 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * I would say, then, that you do need to see things with a little perspective. This is a fictional world, one that is not exactly favorable to the USA to begin with, their having destroyed half the world, and all. I have felt for a while that the USSR, responsible for destroying the other half, came out of it with way to much going for it. That's more or less a function of there being very few editors with a deep familiarity with Russia. One or two people came out with a souped-up version of the new USSR, and we pretty much went with it. Since then it's been scaled back a little - it's no longer quite the world player it was in some earlier versions - but you're right, there is an imbalance in our treatment of the two superpowers. But ... as I've said before, history is full of things you don't expect, and in this version it so happens that the Siberians were able to cobble together a bigger successor-federation than the Great Plainsians.
 * Here's the way I see things currently:


 * Communication is improving across N. America at a rapid pace. Probably there is a growing awareness of the continent and of the former USA as an interconnected region, and so there is more discussion than ever about its joint future.
 * There are a range of opinions regarding the USA as an idea - ranging from fanatical loyalty to fanatical hate ("the USA's the reason my family's dead," etc). Most people's opinions fall more in the middle, though I'd think the majority would say they want their country to come back.
 * Ultimately what happens will be decided by changing circumstances, the interactions between popular feelings and the actions of leaders, and that hard-to-define thing called political will.
 * Above all: Though there may be moments when things seem to be happening all at once, the course of change is SLOW. The history of revolutions contains many false starts (USA Confederation 1777-1789, Europe 1848, possibly the Arab world 2011); dead ends (The UAR 1958-1961, Europe's myriad independence movements 1918-1920), small changes that accumulate over time (UK 1832-1928, China 1976-present), and changes that simmer for years and burst out all at once (Europe 1989, South Africa 1990-1994). And even when things move fast, they may feel slow by Internet standards.
 * That's all I have to say about that. I felt I should follow up on this discussion. 207.63.140.254 17:14, March 16, 2011 (UTC) (<-- Benkarnell, not signed in at work)
 * It's worth remembering when considering the imbalence between the two superpowers that the USSR is big and that all of its military instalations were concentrated in the west with a few naval bases in the east. This means that it was much easier for it to survive because there's all that space that wasn't nuked. The other thing I don't get is why the Americans would want to reunite. In the former UK there is a much easier pathway to reunification and they all have some sense of patriotism to the old UK and the Monarchy but me and the other UK editors have realised what the american editors seem to be incapable of grasping which is that over twenty years distinct national identities have developed. Yes, they work together in the OBN but its not like the CRUSA. Besides in America where there already were distinct diferences between the states I'd say that the likelyhood of distinct national identies forming was much higher. Vegas adict 18:06, March 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the discussion, Vegas. I didn't realize that you were a Brit, so the perspective is certainly welcome. Yes, Siberia is big, but it is also sparsely populated except in the cities (read 'nuclear targets'!). The success of the new USSR required the military stationed outside of targets being pampered by the surviving Communist leadership so as to subjugate the population of Mongolia and Kazakhstan, to feed the people of frozen Siberia. And then, it conquered Manchuria and Uyghuristan from the hapless Chinese. Yes, it became powerful and huge. But pure brute force does not make a nation great. The Siberians, along with the Soviet and Chinese states it absorbed, do not know the virtues of freedom and loyalty that make America great. At the time of Doomsday, Ronald Reagan had instilled a sense of pride in most of America. The economy was on the rise, though hampered by necessary defense spending. "We" had every reason to be proud. The vast majority of the nation would not know of the actions of its surviving government or the reasoning behind it. They would continue to have regional differences, and most would still consider themselves "Americans."
 * The national identity of the United States did not come about in a generation, and it would not be lost within twenty-five years either. As Ben just reminded us all, this is a fictional world. However, it is a fiction based on truths held for over two hundred years. The North American continent, like Asia is also Big with a lot of space that is better suited for survival than Siberia. The people of the emerging states of North America did not depend on conquest and subjugation to survive, but on determination. Adjoining states, for the most part, had to work together to survive. The old motto "E Pluribus Unum" (out of many, one) would hold true, perhaps even more so than the more basic official motto "In God we trust." SouthWriter 19:43, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

"Great Plainsians"? :-)

Thanks Ben, for once again speaking words of wisdom. However, things have not been going fast in this time line. Twenty-seven years is a long time. Besides, the movement to return to a continental nation versus a regional one can hardly be called a "revolution." If there are "revolutionaries" it is the brave state and local governments that took over in a time of dire crisis. One of the aspects of the "American Spirit" is that "rugged individualism" that is seen in such attempts. But another aspect of that same spirit is seen in the traditional motto: E Pluribus Unum- "out of many, one." That is, out of diversity, unity. Most of us have cousins that are "not like us," having grown up in different parts of the country. Many of us have "Virginian" blood flowing back to the 1600's. Our history holds us together, for better or for worse. And so, I can see both sides here, but stand behind the "movement" to bring North America's USA up beside Asia's USSR in 1983DD. SouthWriter 17:49, March 16, 2011 (UTC)

Virginian blood, thats the point. You have pride in being from one state which makes it more likely for distinctive indenties to emerge. With my point about the USSR being big I wasn't talking about the ATL USSR i was talking about the OTL USSR which is 2.3 times the size of the USA but had only around 1.3 times the Population. This means that the USSR was much better at being able to restore its power because its poplation density was much lower which makes all of the diference in the event of a nuclear war.Vegas adict 21:52, March 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * It has been a while since I last checked on this discussion. So much has been said that my internet is actually lagging as I leave this message. Nevertheless, we have had this discussion before and I still am not convinced that my creation would reunite America or most of it at least.
 * I am leaving this message, however, to point out a worrisome issue with the TL which may lead to a compromise to this issue.
 * Take a look at the NewsHour section of the portal page. Now compare that to the January 2010 archive. The news we have written in the last three months is not even close to being as long as that one month a year ago. IMO, the TL is stagnating. While I agree that history tends to move slowly, I feel South is right in saying that the TL itself has become too slow to be realistic. We have put so much effort into protecting our individual creations that we have neglected the TL as a whole.
 * Maybe it is time for a new world event, something that can draw all the editors in and bring in some new ones. I think we should look at the events happening in the Middle East as inspiration. Maybe the time has come that consolidation in the former US is going to happen. It could be a popular uprising among the people who want to recapture some of the old glory. Some might want to reunite the United States, while others want to create something new. Certainly such events would attract the ANZC and the SAC. There would also be violence, maybe even some civil wars. Even the remnants of Canada might be affected by this.
 * This is just an idea. I only hope to direct the energy that has been spent arguing to a new purpose. Mitro 03:40, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

South, you still fail to get my point, even though your own article, as written, backs me up, contradicting itself in some cases in doing so. But, whatever. I can see when I'm trying to beat a dead horse. Lordganon 11:19, March 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * For the record, the BunchofNumbers up there really is me. It's probably a bad practice to edit anonymously like that, since it opens the door for any old person to pretend to be me. Anyway.
 * @Mitro (I think), just becasue things don't move at a breakneck pace doesn't mean it's "stagnated." If there is stagnation, I'd blame it on the proposal backlog rather than the lack of news items.
 * But I do think that a big world event would be a positive addition to the TL. And it would make sense to put it in the USA - it could justifiably be said that things are building toward such an event. I also agree that it might take the form of a popular revolution; the governments of the various splinter-states are generally more wedded to the status-quo than The People. And @LG (I think), I disagree with you that nationalism would go awayin a generation. I think about Korea, where the idea of reunification persists, even if everyone acknowledges that there's no practical way to do it anytime soon. It depends on the person and on the place, but for many young Americans (ATL), the USA may very well represent a mythic golden age whose tales they were raised on, the pinnacle of everything they aspire to.
 * If some kind of Big Event were to happen, though, it ought to acknowledge the complexity that exists. Peopole who see the US as the symbol of ultimate good might very well reject whatever comes to be in real life - "I believe in the USA, and that thing is most assuredly not the USA," they might say regarding the PUSA in Montana, for example.
 * OK, now that I've cleared up the questions surrounding my anonymous edit, I am really, truly, going away for a couple months. I hope you all reach a positive solution. Benkarnell 13:18, March 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * To Vegas, my point about Virgina blood was not that I am proud of my Virginian heritage, but that I am an American from waaaaayyy back. Regionally, I am a "native" South Carolinian only because I moved here in 1976, over half my lifetime ago. Before that I lived for a long time in South Georgia after several years in North Florida (where my four oldest siblings were born). The population density in the old USSR was somewhat less than that in the old US based on the collective farms that could not feed the people clustered in the cities. But the people on those farms are the ones most likely NOT in the Communist Party. That the Party could restore order AND expand is what I cannot understand.


 * To Mitro, though I didn't mean that present history in TTL is moving too slow, I get your point. We have to go with what has been written. The individual "nations" in North America have developed to the point that the new generation can see that this is not what was meant to be. The leadership of the new nations, for the most part, are those that survived the catastrophe and made the best of it. Now that some normalcy has returned, I don't think the lower standard of living is going to suffice much longer. Ever since DD, in fact, "government" programs have stayed in place supposedly to assure survival. Everywhere, even in the conservative south, socialism has become a "way of life." No wonder the USSR has not felt the need to be militaristic in the northern hemisphere! Yes, a new revolution may be in the making as leaders of North American nation states balk at rejoining the United States. The mantra this time may not be "independence," but rather "unity." Thanks, Mitro, I think I see where I want to move this USA time line.


 * To LG, I thought your point was that I am biased toward nationalism. If that is the case, I can't see where believing that TTL USA has the potential to expand is feeding that bias. I answered that objection above. As a group we have acknowledged that the original "total destruction" scenario was far off base. We have acknowledged that not every government will co-operate with even legally sound propositions set forth by the US government. Now, Mitro has introduced a scenario of a popular uprising that might overturn even those objections (or at least be interesting to develop as a story-line).


 * To Ben, I echo your sentiments. The "next event" could be the rise of people living in these little nations but seeing the potential of returning to the world stage as not a "little voice" but as a "shout" as a great nation rising from the ashes. Yes, it is complex - nations that have made themselves heard, like Virginia, may not wish to be overshadowed by a return to the old ways of "subjection" to the federal government. Other states, like Florida, might consider their new bonds with other alliances a better match to this new world. Thanks again, Ben, and see you this summer.

SouthWriter 18:33, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

That was not the point, but a statement. Though you thinking such proves my point. Lordganon 09:25, March 18, 2011 (UTC)

New article
I created this article to act as the beginning of my proposed world event, similar to 2009 Saguenay War (1983: Doomsday), the Second Sicily War (1983: Doomsday) and other events where more than one editor collaborated. I am hoping that the dispute over the future of the former United States can be directed to something creative instead of just having to create a new archive page to store a never-ending argument. I do this not because I am changing sides, but only to hopefully bring the community toward some consensus. Mitro 17:25, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

PS: Feel free to change the title of the article. It was the first thing that came to my head and I am in no means attached to the title in anyway. Mitro 17:28, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

I plan to make JFK Jr. a central figure in this drama. Due to the research done by Lahbas long ago, he had a very good chance of surviving Doomsday due to the fact that he was in India at the time. So far I am assuming he found his way to Australia where other Americans were gathering and that later down the road he joined and rose through the ranks of CRUSA. Since he died in 1999 OTL he seems like a perfect candidate to be one of those obscure historical figures who rose to greater prominence in the post-Doomsday world. He would be 50 years old now, but he would likely be young enough to lead the project.

On another note, I am looking for contributions to this article. I want this to be a true collaborative world project. Due to how controversial this idea is, however, we will be following the moderator format we used for the Saguenay War and since this is my article I am going to appoint myself moderator. Please before contributing content to this article add your proposals to the talk page first. Mitro 18:14, March 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * My vision is more like an agreement between nation-states rather than a popular uprising against repressive governments as is assumed in a "Revolution" led by the CRUSA. The legal means established by the USA government should be just as much of a catalyst as the activists of the CRUSA. However, I will go along with the concept, assuming that a groundswell similar to the TEA party in OTL will prefer the old constitution to the separatist "nations" that have arisen.


 * I like the introduction of JFK, Jr., into the mix. I remember a discussion on survivors that had him out of the country at the time of DD. With the son of an American icon at the helm, the CRUSA will be a voice listened to by many states that might be inclined against reunification. Meanwhile, in the south, the "states rights" advocates that might be inclined to stay as independent in order to avoid the abuses they saw of the federal government pre-doomsday will have to weigh the significance of the US constitution rightly interpreted according to the rule of law. SouthWriter 18:55, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Mitro, you're my hero for doing this. God Bless the United States of America 19:02, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * GB: Don't praise me just yet. I still do not agree with everything you, South and other proponents of an enlarged US believe. I am basing this proposal on a recent article I read that compared the current protests going in the Middle East and North Africa with other revolutions that happened throughout history. To sum it up: revolutions tend to be long, bloody and the end result is altogether different from what the original revolutionaires wanted. I am keeping that in mind as I contribute to this world event.
 * South: Obviously I do not feel your vision is all that plausible, no offense, but I am going to be using elements of it as pound out the outline (which will probably come sometime tomorrow). I do this in an effort to build consensus instead of promoting divisions.
 * Also on the constitution, don't be so quick to to assume that there is a right way to interpret it. As a historian and attorney, the correct interpretation of the constitution often depends on many factors, including historical timeframe, Supreme Court make-up, regional culture and personal opinion. Meanwhile, there is a reason why it is the shortest governing documents ever drafted. But that is all I will say on that matter since I do not wish to cause a NC/NC violation. Nevertheless I am at least going to keep that in mind as this world event progresses. Mitro 19:23, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * I expected you wouldn't, but still this does deserve praise.God Bless the United States of America 19:33, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * Mitro, I hope that you do not use your seniority in this time line to force a bloody revolt on the editors. I don't think the majority of the nation-states and city-states would resort to armed suppression of the movement. This is especially true with the express purpose of the USA for this to be a voluntary, though legal process. I wonder what the ANZC is worried about in an expansion of the boundaries and strength of the USA, for the ANZC is just an extension of the ANZUS alliance any way. I am all for consensus and will not be contributing to violence within the states I oversee (presently only Piedmont, Neonotia, and the USAR). The offer from the USA seems to be consensus, so I take credit for that - a non-violent attempt to restore the former USA to a measure of greatness.
 * I had forgotten your longtime interest in alternate history, Mitro, though I am well aware of your status as an attorney. As far as the revised constitution, I am assuming that the document is to be interpreted literally, thus stripping many of the past interpretations of much of their legal standing. The historical timeframe is the 1990's post-doomsday reality, and the Supreme Court is practically "brand new" and largely conservative at this time. As states join, the court will probably change as well (I haven't researched that part), but the lower courts will most certainly become all new. This means that any questions of intertpretations will first come through the lower courts first. I don't see this as a NCNC argument, for this is concerning the alternate time line and not our time line. But that is as far as I'll go with that as well.
 * I look forward to the debate, but I will hold that the existing governments of the successor states will not result to totalitarian measures such as are seen in mideast and Africa at present. The governments of most political entities in TTL are elected and under the constraint of their constitutions and political systems. And so, let us procede as equals in this colaborative effort. SouthWriter 20:11, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no plans to force my ideas on any editor and certainly I do not plan some violent bloodbath. But I see any expansion of the restored US as to require some violence. Nevertheless, the change on the scale we consider is certainly "revolutionary". Whether it will be a "Glorious Revolution" as you suggest still remains to be seen.
 * Speaking of my seniority, it has given me some insight into how this TL has evolved. And one thing that has always has been a constant is that we do not own our articles, or to say it another way we do not have absolute control over the content. For example we are all restrained by canon and plausibility. When making a world event like this, we need to be willing to accept that we may have to add content to our articles that we may not like. That is a con of a collaborative projects. I am not promising violent upheavel throughout the southeast, but if consensus comes to something that you might not like South, sorry but too bad. Consensus is not unanimous and if you are not willing to accept that than I already worry about the practicallity of this world event. Mitro 20:38, March 21, 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no plans to force my ideas on any editor and certainly I do not plan some violent bloodbath. But I see any expansion of the restored US as to require some violence. Nevertheless, the change on the scale we consider is certainly "revolutionary". Whether it will be a "Glorious Revolution" as you suggest still remains to be seen.
 * Speaking of my seniority, it has given me some insight into how this TL has evolved. And one thing that has always has been a constant is that we do not own our articles, or to say it another way we do not have absolute control over the content. For example we are all restrained by canon and plausibility. When making a world event like this, we need to be willing to accept that we may have to add content to our articles that we may not like. That is a con of a collaborative projects. I am not promising violent upheavel throughout the southeast, but if consensus comes to something that you might not like South, sorry but too bad. Consensus is not unanimous and if you are not willing to accept that than I already worry about the practicallity of this world event. Mitro 20:38, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Speak for yourself. The Virginians would be all too eager to supress any sort of violent revolt. They have been preparing for one since the Republic's formation. Though I doubt these preperations would be necessary in the long-term. CRUSA members are extremely unwelcome in Virginia, and have mostly been either killed or deported. Virginian authorities would use any form of violent uprising, especially one sparked by the CRUSA, to permanently dissolve the organization in Virginia, execute the leaders for treason and use the members for hard labour in radioactive lands. So if their is any form of violence in Virginia, it will not turn out good for any CRUSA supporters. --Yank 20:39, March 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * First, Yank, it is my understanding that the modus operandi of the CRUSA is for non-violent activity akin to the civil rights demonstrations of the 1960's. There is nothing in the history of the CRUSA to indicate the least bit of violence in their activities. It is only totalitarian governments that will bring about violence within their borders. From your words above, you seem to indicate that the government of Virginia still has a long way to go toward democracy and free speech.


 * Mitro, I have no intention to go against consensus nor to propose anything implausible. Earlier today I opened up the southern part of "my" state to development by another editor if he so desires. It was not by permission, per se, for I have pretty well given that part up for now (I haven't even done anything with the upstate in ages). Also, I just posted the opening of the American Spring as the movement is known in the USAR controlled islands. Though the government is in favor of the proposed union, some are afraid that the militaristic nature of the government will result in a coup. The military on Navassa has even called on allies in Jamaica to be on alert for "possible trouble." I am not a "trouble maker," but only an elder statesmen for the American spirit. SouthWriter 21:22, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that there is consensus on the issue yet, most of the American editors do seem to agree on some form of reborn U.S.A. However just as we all agreed to scale down the socialist union even though only a few of us are from that area all editors will have to make their views heard before we agree that there is consensus. I for one would oppose any USA that could challenge the Socialist Union in terms of power simply because Canon states that because of the USSR's larger size it survived better. As well as this any fully reunified USA is impossible without huge violence because as Yank said states like Virgina will fight to maintain control. In addition to this you will still have the radioactive areas along the coast and Canadian states that won't allow there American parts to break off.Vegas adict 21:16, March 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, Vegas. I am glad to see an "outsider" admit that Americans speaking on behalf of America are hoping for "some form of reborn USA." I don't see the fact that Socialist Siberia "survived better" as the driving principle of what emerged in that whole discussion. I assume the discussion is archived under the main page, for the controversy is not at the Socialist Siberia talk page. That being said, I will just have to disagree with your premise by memory. The austere conditions of the USSR, and the militaristic and totalitarian nature of its government, is what helped it survive. The people in Siberia were used to hard times, and the military was able to invade nations to the south that could provide food for the survivors. The concept of QSS and QAA, aka known as "canon," does not dictate what a nation might become, only what it has become.
 * And I think you are confusing the stated ideal (mission) of the CRUSA with the intentions of the USA. Though the CRUSA is the instigator of the movement - a non-violent movement - the USA will be the one to "make it happen." The goal of the USA is not to "out do" Siberia or even the ANZC, but only to reclaim as much of the nation that is willing to come aboard by legal means. Those states created and maintained by Canadians, for the most part, will not be going along. That is fine with me. Any state created and maintained within North America by Brits or South Americans (if there are any) may or may not go along. Again, fine. SouthWriter 21:56, March 21, 2011 (UTC)

Mitro, you better be ready to bludgeon some of these guys down and enforce things. As the effective author of the two wars, believe you me, it'll happen, lol.

South, the USSR discussion you refer to is indeed on the main page archives, somewhere.

The idea of JFK Jr. playing a major role is a good idea.

There needs to be a far better time-frame with this, for starters, than only mentioning March. North America nations do not have easy communications, nor do they all think the same. The demonstrations, unless you have subversive moves by CRUSA that plan all of it, simply couldn't start at once. Heck, not even the current otl demonstrations started at the same time or started one right after another, and atl is much worse with communications and technology, hindering its spread.

While it does sound good, the name really doesn't work, in my mind. The American Revolution was violent, yet in most cases this won't be. A better name would be something more to do with peaceful protests, not fighting like the word "Revolution" does.

The idea that this will force nation-articles, and their creators/caretakers, to do things, is just wrong. In both of those wars, the two parties and their authors came to agreements over everything. As such, I see no reason to try and force anyone here, either. Only thing I would make everyone do is mention the protests/rallies, and have something to do with them happen. But nothing that forces anyone into something that they don't want or is not in their plans for their nation.

In several cases, CRUSA will likely have brought in outside members to several of the American survivor nations. No one likes being dictated to, even if they are inclined in the direction of the person dictating to them. Can't see those cases ending well.

There will be nation-states that don't have anything going on in them either, I'm sure, as well.

Lordganon 11:02, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

I think revolution doesn't necessarily infer violence. Look at the Industrial Revolution, or the Quiet Revolution in Quebec. It just means major change. 2nd American Revolution infers similar circumstance to the first one, as well as many Americans referring to the War of 1812 as the 2nd American Revolution. So maybe something more like New American Revolution or something.Oerwinde 18:06, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

The sole goal of these protesters is the complete reunification of the United States. Not only do I think that this is completely impossible, but quite a few nations would probably want nothing to do with the US. Especially Virginia. To them complying would be to dismantle their national government in favor of the nation that abandoned them for 26 years. As far as the Virginian authorities think, that makes any CRUSA operative or supporter guilty of treason. Ever since Reagan fled America like a sniveling coward an increasing number of Virginian citizens think that the US can go curl up an die for all they care. After all, if Reagan knew about Torrington, why didn't he just go to Torrington instead of flying to (and dying on the way to) Australia. So why is it just me who doesn't think that every single survivor has warm and fuzzy memories of America, especially when communications are improving and more and more people hear of Reagan and Bush's disgraceful actions. --Yank 18:37, March 22, 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, Yank, it is only you that has such an overtly anti-American attitude which you project on every citizen in what is now called Virginia in TTL. The reason Reagan did not go to Torrington is because the superstructure was not there at the time. The government at Torrington only knew that a contingency plan was in order. The military only made contact with Reagan after his advisers - key among them being Bush - had convinced him that the agreement with ANZUS was the best bet for survival (a bad decision, I agree, but it is what was written from the very beginning). No one is saying that "every single survivor" has the same ideas, though the "memories of America" would only be tainted by those with motives prejudiced against the former nation. Your two largest American nation-states were founded by illegitimate rulers - a renegade general and the mayor of the capital city. The general came from outside and took over, the mayor took over a city and claimed a state to be a nation. But that being the case, the USA does not "want" these nations to be the forced to join any union against the will of the people. As for the CRUSA, these people were opposed to Bush's APA from the very beginning, and they "have a dream" which is not in full accord with that of the NAU or the USA. To brand them as traitors is irrational. If they came into Virginia demanding the overthrow of the government, they would be criminals. I suspect that they are wiser than that, and would take a different tact to reach any sympathetic Virginians. Either way, though, violence against non-violent protesters is not the democratic way. SouthWriter 19:35, March 22, 2011 (UTC)

More like "2011 American Protests" or something similar, Oer. Even the Industrial Revolution, with the Luddites and Rural violence, and Glorious Revolution, with the fighting, had their fair amount of violence despite normally being written off as peaceful. The Quiet one, self-evidently, is an exception, though even then it was a "fight" against the established elite. But unless they are put down, violence is unlikely with simple protesters, so revolution itself is likely not the best name.

Yank, while that may be the "goal" of the protests, even South and GB admit it's not going to happen. Though you do have a point about the abandonment being an issue in at least a few areas, as well as Regan's movements, considering he chose to abandon the West Texans, something which will quite possibly kill the CRUSA movement in the entire region.

Lordganon 12:54, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

You have to look at it through Virginia's perspective. To achieve the theoretical Virginian CRUSA supporters primary goal, the Virginian government would need to be either dissolved or reduced to a state government. As far as the Virginians are concerned they are just as legitimate a country as the US. So that would make any CRUSA supporters guilty of treason to Virginia. And while it is true that General Thompson forged Virginia, they have adopted a democratic (though militaristic) constitution, and have had democratic elections. Yank 20:30, March 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * You speak of Virginia as a monolithic world power with no opposing views. Or, if they are, they are not allowed to speak for fear of being jailed or run out of the country.  I suppose you are speaking of the powers that be in Charleston -- the established regime run by the military.  It has been conceded that your creation will not go along, so we cannot expect any positive feedback from you concerning this project.  Though Mitro reminded us that even the creator of an article cannot make it blatantly contradict canon, we have come to recognize Virginia for what it is.  The arguments have been made, differences of opinions smoothed out, and we have let things move ahead.  Judging from what you have written above, though, free speech is still not quite up to the same standards as those of the original Virginians.  --SouthWriter 21:17, March 23, 2011 (UTC)

Outline
Alright I finally got a chance to work on the outline for the world event which is provisionally being refered to as the "Second American Revolution". Here are my thoughts:
 * Name of event
 * Let us stick with Second Revolution unless as we write a new and better name is adopted
 * Articles that need to get moved toward graduation before work on world event can continue:
 * 2010 US Congressional Report on the Continuation of the US Government (1983: Doomsday)
 * John F. Kennedy, Jr. (1983: Doomsday)
 * Municiapl States of the Pacific (Ignition point)
 * Disputed elections still causing problems.
 * CRUSA agents organize pro-democracy revolts, but they unexpectedly take on a pro-unification tone.
 * Violence between Civic Rights Party supporters and Jefferson Nationalists supporters.
 * Old US flag used be protestors. CRP government collapses.
 * Protestors now call for reunification of United States to prevent such "tyranny" from happening again.
 * CRUSA goes into high gear
 * JFK Jr., chairman of CRUSA, plans spur of the moment speaking tour across American survivor states to take advantage of events in MSP.
 * CRUSA agents step up presence in North America.
 * Pro-unification sentiment spreads through Pacific Northwest and California
 * Victoria has a minor crisis with Americans in its territory. (Do you agree Oer?)
 * SNU hit by protests (where is Fx in all this discussion, he fought too hard with Arstar over this country to be kept out of the discussion now)
 * North American Union issues
 * US ecstatic about future
 * Utah and Lakota offically take anti-unification stance. Some protests.
 * Provisional Canada calls for assembly of Canadian states to discuss future consolidation in wake of American protests.
 * Protests spur consolidation talks elsewhere
 * Texas and Florida speed up unification
 * Texas would rather stay independent, starts worrying about Mexico, see below
 * New Florida gov considers joining either provisional southeast gov (see below), the ECF, ally themselves with Texas and Louisiana or remain neutral
 * Arizona, New Mexico and Oklahoma survivor states build toward consolidation.
 * Second Lakota War?
 * Dakota announces intention to join US
 * Lakota goes nuts
 * International reactions?
 * ANZC? Remember CRUSA is HQ'd here
 * Brazil? World's largest economy, will have some influence
 * LON? They like to intervene in places, will they intervene in North America?
 * Mexico really does not want reunited America, sends troops to occupy northern tier of Mexico, some cross old US border
 * Anti-unification stances:
 * Virginia: rather see EAA evolved into something more, but not under the control of western states
 * Hawaii and Alaska: happy with ANZC
 * Superior: much like Virginia, rather go with the United Communities
 * Southeast US
 * More pro-unification as news of events in western America spread.
 * Talks of forming a provisional union (confederacy?) until it becomes practical to unite with the US out west.
 * Opposed by EAA
 * Louisiana strikes deal with communities in Mississippi, but against further unification, seeks strong alliance with Texas especially against Mexican aggression
 * USAR approves unification with America, symbolic only though until it truly becomes practical to unite, US needs coast
 * NAU reforms
 * Attempts to reconcile events around continent before the organization ceases to exist
 * New England
 * Events elsewhere spur Keenist supporters to stage similar protests throughout New England
 * Libertarian sideshow
 * Wildcards?
 * Republic of Lincoln?
 * Minnesota?
 * "Central America" or the territory that the USA will need to go through to get to the Southeast, what is going on there?

Note: As you notice I did not add dates. I am assuming this event is going to take most of the year if not more to write out. As we discuss and get more specific, the outline should change.

Anyway, comments? Mitro 18:13, March 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a few remarks concerning the USA in all this. The USA is not a big backer of the CRUSA, nor is the CRUSA a full supporter of the present USA. Their goals are not the same. There will be some co-operation, and supporters of the unification movement will be divided among the radicals and the moderates (those who want to proceed in an orderly legal manner). The "conservatives" may very well be those who are happy with the way things are (status quo). The government, though, will be with the moderates, wishing only to extend the reach of the US to its legal limits. The most the USA can expect is international recognition of its legitimacy and its day in "court" to defend its rights as such. Any militaristic movement to secure former US territory would be futile even if it were to have the forces to try. It will only be through democratic elections in successor states (and any unaffiliated city-states).


 * I feel this is an uphill battle given the outline. I know it is just your thoughts, Mitro, and based on what some major contributors have written so far, but you carry a lot of weight on this wiki (and especially this time line). One contributor, though, has presented statements of support -- that is Zack, creator and maintainer of Kentucky and affiliated states. I foresee a breakup of the EAA if he stays true to that notion. That might alienate Virginia, causing regional conflict as well.


 * I've got to go -- real life calls -- I'll check back with you guys later. SouthWriter 21:51, March 23, 2011 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: I have updated the article on the "Report on the Continuation..." Let me know if it sounds right or if it trashes canon. :-) SouthWriter 05:04, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

Here are my thoughts regarding the countries I am caretakers of:


 * Mexico - they really would rather not see the U.S. reunify, but do not necessarily stand opposed to it. Only if it becomes a threat to Mexico's growing status as a regional superpower. its view (and mine) is that a new USA could only be a direct threat if rearmed by the world's current superpowers. If that happened, Mexico would perceive the real threat from that superpower, not necessarily from the reunified U.S. Also keep in mind that Mexico has been helping rebuild Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and also most of the Southeast, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona survivor states, so it has an economic incentive to help bring them back into the OTL 21st century. The thing is a less-powerful USA out west and an EAA in the east, allied with Mexico, is what Mexico really prefers.


 * Texas - wants to be independent politically. Economic and political alliance with Mexico is seen as the best option not just by the politicians, but by many Texans. Remember West Texas offered itself as the new home for the APA, and it was rejected. Texans have by and large not forgotten that. Instead of harboring ongoing resentment towards Bush, though, they have seen it as an opportunity to build a new country, independent, taking the best American values with it into the future. Friendly towards Torrington.


 * Hattiesburg/Louisiana - want to be allied with Texas. They know, and trust, Texas and Mexico. They are curious about Torrington, but don't know it. In their minds, they will not submit authority to anyone in the former USA just because they claim to be the bona fide successor to Washington. Given post-DD history and what Mexico and Texas have done for them, they would give up their sovereignty to Midland or Mexica before Torrington or, even, the APA and ANZC. Would be friendly to Torrington, but nothing more.


 * Blue Ridge, East Tennessee, the former CSA states in the southeast - strongly prefer to be in some sort of union or confederation with the other regional survivor states (especially the East American Alliance, and Piedmont). They would trust Torrington much more than Mexica or even Midland. I see them as being the most likely of the survivor states I'm caretaker of to join the Torrington USA. On a side note, I could see East Tennessee, south central Tennessee and Jackson reunifying as the successor to the state of Tennessee (with EAA help).


 * Vermont - strongly prefers to be independent. Unless the pre-DD USA magically appeared, Vermont prefers to be the North American Switzerland, and more importantly control its own affairs. Would be friendly to Torrington.


 * International Falls - I haven't done much with it, but would be willing to rejoin the USA as its own state or the successor to the state of Minnesota.


 * Hawaii - likes its status as part of the ANZC.


 * Alaska - The question here is whether ANZC status or rejoining the USA would be the best option for Alaska. I also suspect the ANZC would not be willing to give up the Alaskan oil.

--BrianD 01:58, March 24, 2011 (UTC)


 * It is rather a shame that the original paradigm had such a drastic abandonment by the Reagan-Bush administration. But I agree with your assessment of both Texas and Mexico. As for the Natchez Accord partners, I am not so sure that alliance to Texas and reunion to the USA are mutually exclusive. It is pretty certain that Texas is not interested in annexing Louisiana and its neighbors, so their association with Torrington might actually be to their advantage. I agree, though, that they would be wary of the USA until further information surfaced.


 * I believe that the relationship of the southern Appalachian states to the EAA will be altered drastically when and if Kentucky breaks with Virgina. Any help that these states might have from the VR regime will turn quickly to opposition if it does not have its powerful neighbor as an ally. We'll have to wait for Zack to weigh in on that (he has indicated the CK would rejoin the US under the proper conditions).


 * In Minnesota we have International Falls in the north (friendly to the US, but what about the Canadian side) and the Christian Republic of Olmsted in the south (wary of the US, or any secular government, due to the theocratic nature of the community). Neither can much claim the government of the state. International Falls, both sides, could probably join the US in much the way the USAR does, though.


 * With Alaska, it's a real toss up. I think the government would weigh the legal merits of the case and then prefer their "free" status in alliance with the Pacific power. However, since they ARE free, the oil they have is not technically the ANZC's to claim, is it? Just asking. SouthWriter 05:04, March 24, 2011 (UTC)