Talk:North Pennsylvania (1983: Doomsday)/Archive

According to the list of strikes in the US on the Doomsday page, both Pittsburgh and Erie were hit.

Erie I could give you as not being hit - but there is no way, ever, that Pittsburgh would not be.

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

Also, according to the article on New York State, there are survivors found by Penn. forces out of St. Marys in the Westfield area, which is basically the part of New York you have listed as part of the state.

Lordganon 02:56, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Pittsburg was not hit according to the FEMA list, but it was heavily damaged by local strikes. Arstarpool 03:00, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Dont much care about the fema list. The industry in and around the city means that it and the surrounding region would have been leveled by nukes. It is a secondary target according to survivalring, and there can be no doubt that the steel mills there would have meant a direct nuke.

Lordganon 03:20, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Very well, Pittsburg is not the problem. So Eire is safe in your book? Arstarpool 03:47, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Agriculture
Please someone help me find ONE place under Pennsylvania's control that produces agriculture. I always like to build my articles around established things, including farms. I can't graduate it if it doesn't have the food to feed itself, right? Arstarpool 05:15, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Just reading wikipedia "Pennsylvania ranks 19th overall in agricultural production, but 1st in mushrooms, 3rd in Christmas trees and layer chickens, 4th in nursery and sod, milk, corn for silage, grapes grown (including juice grapes), and horses production. It also ranks 8th in the nation in Winemaking." Hope that helps a bit. --GOPZACK 05:19, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

I read that, but I cannot find a specific place to list where it produces these products in the current border of the state/Commonwealth, specifically the north-west corner of the OTL state borders. Arstarpool 05:22, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Most of the agricultural land is in the southeast, but there is some. Possbily enough to support the population but the best land use map I found was silly small resolution so I don't know for sure.Oerwinde 09:04, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

Successor State?
Just taking a name does not make a legitimate government. You have this corner of the world claiming not only the state of Pennsylvania, but part of New York state as well. Not to mention reaching out across international boundaries to save a little town in Canada. Meanwhile, in the center of the state another struggling band of citizens claim the mantle but not the name. At a disadvantage of being land-locked the University-centered state still manages to survive. And now, another government from further away from the state's capital comes along and grabs the name. What are the criteria for being the legitimate successor of a state government? Did members of the state government make it to the area?

Just wondering. SouthWriter 19:44, July 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, as always, you are the first to question the content of my articles...


 * I never stated that they claim all the state, but I did state do claim to be the legitmate government of the state. But if you wish, I will just have them claim/control whatever manages to come into their grasp, rather than making the mistake of "stubbornly" claiming the rest of the state that they have no control over.


 * In regards to the Canadian lands, Oer suggested that the area would have come under the control of London, Ontario. I disagree, since Pennsylvania began to control this "little town" in Canada in 1989, very shortly after contact with Toledo. But this is not a permanent settlement by the Pennsylvanians. Once Canada finishes recovering the area will be returned. Arstarpool 00:23, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

I was stating the obvious, Alex. And you are right, you did not write that they claimed the state. In fact, they are careful only to claim the counties under their control, leaving State College (I've thought it strange that the state would take that name anyway) to govern its own "nation" in peace. But I want to see some proof that they can become the "official" successor of the historic state of Pennsylvania. That area of the state was the "wild west" during the formative years of the United States, and only has a bare grasp on the culture of Philidelphia and Harrisburg.

May I suggest a new name for the nation be sought. Perhaps something that incorporates the name of Lake Erie - Like "Republic of Erie." I say this for two reasons. First, because it avoids the sticky problem of "claiming" to be a continuation of a dead past. And second, because in absorbing adjacent counties on two sides (but none in Ohio?), a good part of Lake Erie is being surrounded.

I called the Canadian holdings a "little town" based on the map you provided. I did a little research and found that Norfolk county is substantially bigger than you indicate and would indeed make an excellent extention of the new nation that you are putting together. And actually, I agree with you against Oerwinde here. London is two counties over and may not be in a situation to control Norfolk.SouthWriter 03:12, July 24, 2010 (UTC)



Here's an updated version of the map of your new nation. I filled in the approximate boundaries of Norfolk county. SouthWriter 03:12, July 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that would be like Kentucky renaming itself the "Commonwealth of Appalachia" since the true Commonwealth of Kentucky was dead and buried. As Kentucky does, Pennsylvania has "open borders", not claiming anything in specific but slowly "sprawling" out. Arstarpool 18:45, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

Bad choice for an analogy, Alex. Kentucky is west of the Appalachian Mountains, and even the little bit of the state that might be said to touch the foothills was ceded to the Virginian Republic. The point I was making is that for a state to claim to be the successor of the former state, there must be some organic connection to the former government. I would have to look back to the CK article to see if any actual government officials survived to resurrect the Commonwealth after Doomsday. Your own Commonwealth of California (renamed later) is a continuation of the old state, since it was revived by the governor and his staff. So with the neighboring state.

Taking the name from a major feature of the area has been used many times, as has naming the new nation-state after a major city in the area. For example - the Republic of Blue Ridge and the Republic of Piedmont, named for the mountains in the region and the "foot hills" of those mountains. Those nation-states, by the way, are considering a political aliiance to COUNTER the Dixie Alliance!

However, for a part of the state to take the name of the whole is de facto claiming the whole state. When the new government then finds another government with the same claims, the fact that one has the name of the state does not immediately grant it "successor" status. There would be nothing stopping the new CP from keeping the name, I guess, until two nations with the same name attempt to join an international organization. But the claim to "official successor" status does not come with the claim of the name. SouthWriter 20:51, July 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * As for Ohio, the Survivalring map indicates that there were many strikes in north-east Ohio. Arstarpool 18:45, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

Canada
I think it more likely that the Canadian parts would have come under the influence of London rather than an American survivor state.Oerwinde 20:32, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

True, speaking of which, Oerwinde do you want to get that proposal up & running? --GOPZACK 20:35, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with Pennsylvania controlling just that one Ontario county? Arstarpool 00:12, July 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * One might ask 'What's wrong with Nevada controlling just one homogenous resort area around a lake in the mountains? There is not anything "wrong" if the citizens of said county are in agreement. As I asked above, though, should it not be at least a majority that agree to this arrangement? SouthWriter 00:19, July 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oer's suggestion above could be closely tied to the outcome of the Saguenay War. He wrote this on my talk page a while back, breifly mentioning the possibility of a functioning London survivor-state:


 * Its two over here as well. Anyway, I was thinking that with Canada controlling most of the St Lawrence, at least until the St Lawrence raiders started stepping up, Canada could have had some presence in the great lakes region. I figure they could have had an outpost in Kingston, that they lost contact with following Saguenay funding the St Lawrence raiders and essentially cutting off any travel upriver. Ontarian states would likely be centered around Midland and Kitchener, and London, with London being an urban center in the middle of a large agricultural area, Kitchener same thing, and Midland being a vacation town with accomodations for like 10x its actual population(being an ideal place for refugees from Toronto and North Bay to settle). The Midland area is part that is claimed by Superior. I figure if we want to keep it as close to established canon as possible, have it largely be unorganized, and Superior troops add a welcome bit of stability, resulting in them joining Superior, they feel marginalized though, and maintain their Canadian identity, so when the Saguenay war reaches full swing, you have massive civil unrest in the area. Unrest requires Superior to pull troops from Gaspe to keep order, allowing the Canadians to swoop in and liberate it. With Superior pulling back and Saguenay on their own, the newly revamped, due to the Canada First Party, Canadian forces sweep into Saguenay, then move upriver to the great lakes along with Celtic Alliance allies. Once in Southern Ontario, the Canadian Superions give aid to the Canadians, but having their supply lines so long and having to occupy Saguenay strains resources. Saguenay unconditionally surrenders, but Superior and Canada are more evenly matched, Superior only being pushed back due to domestic pressures. So the treaty between Superior and Canada results in Canada's recognition of Saguenay, and recognition of Superior control of Ontario territory from Sault St Marie west, in exchange Superior cedes all Canadian territory from Sault St Marie east. Canada then establishes a Special Administrative Division of Ontario, basically a governorship, encompassing territory from Kingston to east of Sault St Marie. This would be a mostly autonomous region that answers to Canada, with the SAD government responsible for re-constructing infrastructure and regaining a sense of order in the region. Once the SAD reaches a minimul level of order, it will be graduated to Province status.
 * I'm assuming that after we decide the outcome of the Saguenay War, the area will turn to London or "S.A.D." Government. Arstarpool 00:29, July 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that after we decide the outcome of the Saguenay War, the area will turn to London or "S.A.D." Government. Arstarpool 00:29, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

Malnutrition
Malnutrition comes by a lack of essential nutrients, not a low caloric intake. A 1200 calorie diet could indeed be enough to stave off malnutrition but would reduce the adult population to skeletons unable to do the least bit of activity. I would recommend at least a 2400 calorie diet be devised with enough balance to stave off malnutrition. More food, though, would have to be available to any who were doing essential manual labor. The canned food on the shelves of the stores would probably suffice to get through the first winter. After that, though, there would have to be strict utilization of usable land to grow food for the populace of the new "nation."

This would, no doubt, reduce the initial growth of the new commonwealth, both in population and in land acquisition, but it would assure its short-term survival. The winter of 1986, an inevitability, would no doubt have proved as bad on the population as you state. Depending on how the rationing had controlled the growth of the population in the interim, though, the aftermath of that hard winter may have been even more devastating than you've pictured.--SouthWriter 15:58, July 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * I have used your words of wisdom in the current revision. Any problems now? The only problem is that fallout that, well, fell on agricultural lands could cause a lot of problems... Arstarpool 21:01, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

You are being quite careful with this state. I like what you are trying to do with these survivors.--SouthWriter 03:40, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, this is the only article that I have truly put my all into. I decided I would not make the mistakes I did with South Florida, California, or Tuscany. I did my research, wrote it well (for the most part), looked into the economic background to check what company was where, and made sure that there were NO border disputes. That last one is a mistake that may cost me two articles. Arstarpool 03:49, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

Fallout
The fallout problem would have been worse in that area than in some areas, getting a moderate amount from the major ground blasts that took out the silos in a mostly futile attempt to prevent a second volley of missiles. The chances are most of our missiles and those of the USSR were deployed. Some of the later ones on both sides may have been affected by the EMP's from space, though. Anyway, the blasts that took out the major cities were mostly air blasts and did not produce a lot of residual fallout.

Dust and water is irradiated by the vaporized bomb casings alone. It is only this material that is closer enough to the plutonium or uranium to be changed by the gamma radiation produced in the explosion. This material has a limited mass, and can irradiate only a small amount of other material in its travels outward from the blast zone. In an air blast, the dust that rises by thermal action (the mushroom cloud) comes too late to be irradiated. It does spread the bomb casing quite a ways, though, but the most deadly fallout is close to the blast. In the case of the silos, though, the ground blasts are not only close to the dirt that is thrown up, but they are multiplied by hundreds of blasts. That is why the midsection of the USA is covered in heavy fallout. Your state in Pennsylvania is at the tail-end of fallout coming from Montana. Most of the Dixie Alliance, though, gets a double dose from the tri-state area near Cheyene and, then, from the Silos in central Missouri.

Needless to say, this FEMA model was not taken seriously by Yank or Zack in writing their articles. Though it was brought up, the rest of us just let it slide. Compared to them, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania would have gotten off light. Don't worry too much about the ground, the radiation from the fallout does not reach very deep. Seeds are safe. People and animals that were unprotected as the fallout fell would be in the most danger. If the plants were sprayed soon after the fallout stopped falling, the water would probably dissipate most of the radioactive dust to harmless levels near the surface.

The best I figure it, the Soviets did not waste as many missiles trying to take out our silos as they could have. And they may have totally overlooked the silos in Missouri. Otherwise, the Dixie Alliance would have been in dire straights for years. --SouthWriter 03:40, July 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * South you are correct we (& by we I mean others besides myself & Yank) disregarded that one FEMA map many moons ago. --GOPZACK 03:57, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * This means bad for Pennsylvania's prized layer chickens...
 * I'm sorry that I must leave such a short response but I am getting pretty tired so I guess I'll call it a night. Arstarpool 04:13, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that I must leave such a short response but I am getting pretty tired so I guess I'll call it a night. Arstarpool 04:13, July 27, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry that I must leave such a short response but I am getting pretty tired so I guess I'll call it a night. Arstarpool 04:13, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

I marked up that map and was going to post it above. But then forgot. It REEAALLLY blankets the Dixie Alliance lands! No wonder we let it slide! :-)

By the way, the original "superstate" of Superior doesn't fare well either (though the upper peninsula fares better) in that infamous map. I hear that the soviets exaggerated on their nuclear strength anyway. But that's just rumor. :-) --SouthWriter 04:09, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

Police State
I highly doubt that popular mayor Louis Tullio would have taken on the role of dictator as to demand the shooting on sight of petty theft and vandalism. Furthermore, I don't think that state police (who would have been under authority of now-dead administrators in Harrisburg any way) would obey such harsh orders. An authority structure based on the major of a single city over several counties is questionable; though the recently elected, an so-far untested, county executive Judith Lynch probably would have been less likely than long-time major Tullio to mount such an effort.

In my opinion, order could surely have been maintained with less violent actions. If the authorities had been so hard-nosed, I doubt if they would have been able to remain "in power" for long any way. A "state"-wide populace of a half-million, or more, could not be corralled into such subservient mass of humanity - even a willing army of gun-toting, and trigger-happy, police. --SouthWriter 16:02, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Cars
Just to clarify where are the resources coming from for these 1500 cars produced every year? --GOPZACK 17:00, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Here is your answer:

Steel mines are in somewhat of an abundance in Pennsylvania, so that should clarify some of it.

Glass for windshields and spotlights is imported from Toledo.

Lubricants, oils, and gasoline are found in hundreds of gas pools across Pennsylvania. Arstarpool 17:06, July 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * First, "steel mines" do not exist. Steel mills do, but what we need are "iron ore mines" which are not that abundant in the area. On the far shores on Lake Superior, on the other hand, you can find a lot of iron ore. We can assume trade with Superior would facilitate the steel industry in Pennsylvania. Also, you have to consider coal mines to provide the best source of carbon for most steels. Other minerals, especially metals, need to be available for many of the grades of steel produced in the mills.


 * Also, "gas pools" do not exis t!! I took the liberty of changing that to "oil fields" in the article. "Natural gas" is also very abundant, but that is not the same thing as "gas" in the sense used here. Gasoline and diesel have to be refined from crude oil, of which the nation has to be the best source east of the Mississippi. There are also refineries in the NW corner of the state, so fuel oils should not be a problem. SouthWriter 17:30, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Abundant or not, they exist in the NW corner of the state. You're idea with Superior is good, but remember they are in a full-blown war right now and most metals are prolly going to war efforts. I'm just going to shrink the size down to "1,500 cars have been produced from the factory". Arstarpool 18:16, July 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * My first reading I missed what you were referring to. You are saying that there is iron ore for the mining in amongst the oil and natural gas. This is good, I couldn't find reference to them in my short search, but it still will be necessary to go to other sources for materials needed to keep the steel mills going. In house materials would probably last only for a short while.


 * My point was is are no such thing as a "gas pool." I even looked it up -- nada. It is not a term that is used for natural gas even. "Gas" is gasoline, and it does not exist in "pools," because it would evaporate much too fast and endanger all life within the fumes due to both affixiation and cumbustion danger. What do exist are "oil fields," or better, "oil deposits." Most of these have been found already and are actively being drilled. Your section of Pennsylvania was the birthplace of the oil industry and still has producing wells. Sorry, I misread your reference to the iron ore deposits.


 * Actually though, I don't think "full-blown war" is accurate for the state of affairs between Superior and Canada. The Republic is backing the breakaway nation, but not at the expense of international relations. They would probably not even have the facilities to build vehicles of their own. Their best bet is to provide the raw materials to those nations that are both friendly to them and willing to build vehicles to replace the ones they wear out. SouthWriter 02:01, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

Ecology vs. Survival
I find it a little odd that the government would "ban" powered fishing boats from its harbors - even at a late date of 2006 - when fishing is a major source of food and income for so much of the population of the nation. At the same time, the "discovery" of gravel in the lake provides a source for foundation material for road repair. I would think that road repair would mostly be by the application of petroleum-based blacktop to the roads as they weathered. The dredging of the lake (rather than the wilderness strethching into the interior) for gravel makes NO ecological sense.

In fact, ecology probably would be the last thing to be considered in a world that was fighting to survive. The "natural wildlife" would be considered "fair game" in the ongoing struggle up until recent times, at least. The harvesting of the Great Lakes would be far more important than their use for transportation, though transport of goods to and from Superior and Toledo would definitely be via the lakes. SouthWriter 17:06, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

How 'bout now? Basically I "restricted" rather than banned in order to keep local fishing stocks alive and healthy. Arstarpool 18:23, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Oil Industry Profits
Your comment about the "very, very large profits" that Pennzoil and Quaker State would make is off base. Market forces in the post-apocolyptic age would be vastly different. This is especially true for the case of a self-sufficient nation-state using most of its oil for its own survival. The abundance of the commodity, and the efficiency of its refineries, would lower the price of most of the oil to such an extent that the "Big Oil" bosses would probably be working for the state. As the capacity to actually ship the oil and the refined fuels to other markets increased, then the profits would increase, but only as far as the market would allow.

Most independent nations would have learned to utilize what resources they had, and by the time trade agreements were made with other nations, the demand would have lowered, keeping pricing to a reasonable point. By 2000, I suppose, profits of surviving or new oil companies would begin to increase, but not nearly to the point they are in OTL (which, by the way, are not that high compared to many less essential commodities). SouthWriter 17:59, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

You will have to delete Pennzoil from the text. The company had been moved to Houston, Texas, in the 1970's. From what I can tell, though, Quaker State was still operating as such in the state from which it took its name. SouthWriter 14:33, July 27, 2010 (UTC)

Oil Refineries
Good news! With all that oil, you also have two refineries. You need to play up the following locations -
 * Bradford Refinery (American Refining Group), Bradford 10,000 bbl/d (1,600 m3/d)
 * Warren Refinery, United Refining Company, Warren 70,000 bbl/d (11,000 m3/d)

Together these two refineries produce 80,000 barrels per day. That is 17,600 m3/d (17,600,000 liters!). That is

4,643,799 ½ gallons, or enough fuel oil to fill 23,219 200-gallon fuel tanks PER DAY! I think the million or so people of the nation are safe in their oil furnaced homes in the winter (assuming the pumps are running). Vehicles powered by diesel and gasoline would have enough -- 232,190 20-gallon tanks PER DAY. That's one car for each family of four. The trucks and trains, of course, use a lot more fuel, as would the power plants and factories. But I think there is plenty to go around -- as long as the oil wells don't run dry.

With trade agreements, you could have quite some leverage with the other nation-states of the region. SouthWriter 16:17, July 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, South! Yet another good discovery by you :-)


 * Actually I was thinking the trains could run on steam or coal, so as not to use up all the precious gas there, and most factories could run on some other natural gas, but whatever is realistic I will try to do. Arstarpool 16:28, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

Again, you have to have a source for the coal. You would have to trade with the Virginia Republic or some other place for the coal to run steam engines. Besides, it is the diesel trains that are already running. Steam engines are a thing of the past and conversion is not an easy thing to do. Factories might very well be running on natural gas -- worth looking into. SouthWriter 16:58, July 28, 2010 (UTC)

London had to make due with what they had and started making Biodiesel for use in generators and their own diesel engines. By the time the two nations meet, their processing will have advanced and they could start selling biodiesel for use in the diesel locomotives.Oerwinde 08:48, July 29, 2010 (UTC)