Talk:1983: Doomsday

Before you start editing, please read the Editorial Guidelines.

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

Former Proposals: | Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6

=GENERAL DISCUSSION= The following is for general discussion to improve the TL that does not involve article proposals Structured into rough sections for easier navigation.

Countries/Regions/Politics
Archives: Page 1

East Asia

 * Okay, so it has been established that China had ICBM's, though no more than I estimate that 16 could have been used in the time from the Soviet Launch, to the Chinese realization, to the Chinese launch. DF-5A's are excluded, as they would take between 40-60 minutes to fuel, and this was during a time of relative calm for the PRC. Most would be aimed at troop concentration of the Soviet Union in Eastern Siberia, with the DF-4's being sent toward Moscow, Leningrad, Sevastpool, and Murmask. Other sites would be Vladivostok, Novosibirsk, Chita, Khabarovsk, Vilyunchinsk, Ussuriysk, Belogorsk, and any other important sites and major troop concentrations. India, Tawain, and South Korea would NOT be hit, since it would be determined that it would be carried out by airborned forces, which never got off the ground (100 or so nukes were meant to be deployed this way). Pyonyang, Seoul, and Busan are destroyed on the Korean Peninsula in the midst of the Second Korean War.
 * India, however, is not hit. Over the next couple days, it is decided to retake Kashmir, and Pakistan is threatened with destruction if they refuse to hand over the remainder. They refuse. India proceeds to drop nuclear weapons on Rawalpindi, Karachi, Lahore, and Islamabad. Pakistan is largely occupied by India over the next couple months. However, the situtation in India quickly deteriorates due to social unrest, fallout from radiation, collapse of the international market, etc. The country as a nation does not survive through 1984, and Balkanizes. The only difference "here" is that Pakistan also fails to unify, being contested by numerous Islamic warlords and ethnic groups. Lahbas 17:14, November 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * Can we assume that these would be the main targets in Siberia for the Americans as well? I'd like to know,since I have to make some changes to Siberia.--Vladivostok 19:06, November 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * Are the Korean cities destroyed by conventional or nuclear means? And who would have won the Second Korean War?--BrianD 04:51, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Former US/Canada
Subsection for US/Canada -Talk

Alaska
As the Alaska Article is still marked as proposal and I am going through the Soviet Siberia material now I would like to place some critical remarks on the SIberian attack on Alaska and the "Alaska territory" as a whole.


 * 1. motivation for Siberia? I have strong doubts that after a nuclear holocaust and after only a few after Doomsday the Siberian Government - barely able to have survived- would have any true motivation to get real and formal influence in Alaska...
 * VAST territories are around them on the same continent in Western and Southern direction, furthermore most of them old Soviet/Russian territory potentially welcomeing every Soviet Successor with open arms. This territory being full of resources and of future high potential would me as Siberian leader interest more ! And there NO force would be really able to set up resistance...
 * Alaska must be heavily radiated and nuked, given the important military infrastructure (radar, NORAD, Air Force, Nuclear Bomber airports etc.)


 * Alaska is seperated from Siberia by a harsh and COLD water. Every transportation and later military operations will face severe harshness-


 * I especially object the depicted Alaskan Invasion in 1989..reasons:


 * Military:ANZUS PAct/ANZUS order already placed in 1984 gathering a lot of military hardware from U.S. / NATO and a succesful reorganisation into the Commonwealt Army (even though not named that yet) should be fairly enough to 5 years later outclass or at least match any Siberian Expeditionary force, although I do not know that much about the Soviet Pacific Fleet and the capabilities...


 * Any tries in this direction from Siberia would be met with fierce and decisive resistance from the Provisional Bush Administration and Australia /New Zealand and the Alaskans as well.


 * Focussing on Mongolian, Mandchurian or other territories in the region does seem moch more realistics IMO, if you need sth. to happen.


 * Economy: **Imagine a government just reestablished a few years ago in country which is still rebuilding its economy in 1989...and heavily depending / interested on selling its raw materials and importing food...And simply asked: Who would pay the necessary funds for the large military operation?


 * Inner politics: I would suppose a population and especially the military (if not the generals, then the normal soldiers, see 1917 revolution) would never support such a military adventure. The forces would emphasize the importance of securing the homefront.

This a few arguments I would bring up against the Soviet/Siberian presence in Alaska in general and the depicted invasion in general.--Xi&#39;Reney 21:56, November 15, 2009 (UTC)


 * We would need to establish, then, just what was hit in Alaska, as well as the yield of each explosion. Your arguments make much sense, Xi'Reney, but I keep thinking that no one knew the state of the entire world in 1984 and that the oil in Alaska would be attractive to someone. Indeed, in the "free Alaska" article it's established that the country sells the oil along the pipeline. And, although it's true there is oil in Siberia, they probably had no idea of the status of the world's biggest sources of oil, namely the Middle East. The thought might have been that they needed to get their hands on as many resources as they could. And, though it was a U.S. state, Alaska is much closer to Siberia than Arabia, Indonesia, Venezuela or Nigeria, and Siberia may have thought it would run only into deer, polar bears and a few people whose arms would offer no resistance to the Siberian military might. In other words, Siberia could have thought things would go one way, and they actually went another.--BrianD 22:17, November 15, 2009 (UTC)


 * Taking your point Brian I agree with an ambivalent position in Siberian strategy...and not ruling out the Siberian interest...But retrieving and protecting the Alaskan oil would surely be a top priority for the ANZUS nations...sending everything militarily useful they get up there. Hawaii becoming the crucial strategical point/port etc. This even IMO heightens the probability for the scenario described above.

and where else to get it from then territory nominally in their control? I invented some "Australia expanding into Indonesia for getting oil very eraly in TTL." BUt imagine a country like Australia and New Zealand trying to maintain a vast fleet coming in from all over the world...They would naturally launch very early (1984/85) a mission to secure the reachable oil...this Operation "Oilwell" or sth. alike would get top priority...!!! Establishing ports in Alaska/ securing what they have...statining carrier groups in and around Alaska, submarines etc. Then establishing a regular shipping route for oil crossing the Pacific.. !

because the Commonwealth would run out of oil quite quickly and all US fleet would be stranded somewhere, hindering all serious tries to maintain some influence/way to protect things... I will put this on the FUndamental talk as I would guess oil (and other resources) would be at least in the short run be a top priority (after restructuring at least to the minimal level of stability.) for all and every entities playing mroe than a local role... We should have listened to MAD MAX... damn-.. :) --Xi&#39;Reney 18:29, November 16, 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you Xi'Reney,the attack,considering all the vast resources the USSR has on its own continent which I did mention on their page,seems to make no sense. But simply consider the fact that 6 years after the nuclear exchange,the Siberians didn't know whether to trust the Australians or not,as they were allies of the Americans. They would attack out of fear,sort of a shot first,ask questions later tactic. When I started writing,there was no mention of the Australians being anywhere near Alaska,not until 1987,so I assumed that some help would come from the Socialist Union. I took into account everything already said on this subject in the TL,and wrote something corresponding to that. I'm glad that a discussion has finally started on seeing what to do about Alaska and the distribution of resources in the world.--Vladivostok 19:27, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Hellerick's grand master plan for Alaska was/is that the West Alaskans actually sought out the Soviets, looking for aid. I can certainly imagine a small Soviet ship either deliberately exploring the coast of Alaska, or else blown off course. When it finds people they say, "We're starving, we have no medical supplies, please, help us." Either that, or some Alaskans themselves sailed to the Russian coast looking for somebody who could help them. Either way, the Soviets were established in Alaska by the late 80s, when the ANZUS nations were finally made aware of their presence. There was fighting, and a cease fire border was drawn. I think that's a damn good story, personally. And it's perfectly plausible, because oce the Soviets were established on the west coast, they would not want to leave and might well defend their position if attacked or ordered to get out. Benkarnell 23:19, November 16, 2009 (UTC)


 * Good points, all. Xi'Reney, I would expect the APA to have sent something up there c. 1984 or 1985 to examine the state and see which natural resources (oil) were still salvagable. --BrianD 00:16, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

Reading your thoughts I see a quite plausibility for some kind of Siberian presence in 2009, influence in Alaska, though not much more then an outpost being there. The military operation and conflict as described in the article I still discard as being non-suitable... Though thinking through some things imagine sth. like this:
 * Immediately after Doomsday there might have been intense conventional skirmishes along the border, like fighters roaring around, naval, submarine activity, something...after some time the units cease the senseless fight and retreat.
 * Life going extreme in Alaska for some time... Not really contact for Mainland Alaska with the outer world as all are occupied by themselves.
 * Along with the "Gathering Order" and the convening NATO units the APA tries to get info on territories of the US...Having Hawaii, still information flows from/to Alaska. THey could send a mission out there to see what is going on...At some point they com into contact then with the Siberian (then still rebuilding)... exchange of fire, retreat, "who come the war is over?"-events leaving deep distrust between everyone...resulting in the APA/ANZC trying to secure Alaska before any influence can be made
 * THen a gap which i am thinking on...
 * Then somewhen an ease in relations opens the way for a limited cooperation regarding Alaskan oil ... Maybee we can get some technicians from Siberia being specialist to drill oil in ice-tundra-regions coming to help...or st, like that. APA hesitating strongly, but Commonwealth seeing things more practical...

A major canon issue: Any prevailing conflict/large distrust between ANZC and Siberia would inevitably avoid any foundation of the League of Nations. And the effect of this on the Timeline!!!???!!!.. --Xi&#39;Reney 22:38, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * Would it? The LoN was founded 25 years after Doomsday. That's quite a long time for a lot of things, including nations to work out their differences.--BrianD 22:49, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * There's sort of been the attitude that no country can participate in the LoN unless its government is democratic and free of corruption, and its disputes are allsolved with other countries. The LoN exists to solve such probems!  If the ANZ and USSR still had disputes, well, they could use the LoN as another platform for discussing them.  Right?  Benkarnell 23:51, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the issue of trust has been answered,since hostilities stopped in 1989,its been 20 years since any fighting took place,and that could have eased some tension. The main reason for war was the Cold War and, obviously, the nuclear war. But, since Xi'Reney wants something earlier to take place,I agree with Ben,the LoN could solve their problems.--Vladivostok 13:30, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Virginian Expansion
Inspired by what BrianD added to the WRCB report for the deep south, I may add to the Virginian Republic at least plans to expand into Ohio, Maryland and Pennsylvania. While the Virginian territories in "East" Virginia and Kentucky are expanded. --Yankovic270 18:35, November 11, 2009 (UTC) This is my idea on the territory that Virginia at least claims in Ohio. They have simmilar claims in other states, and the territory they have now is developed enough for them to even think of expanding --Yankovic270 03:25, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

And would it be plausible for the Virginians to take over the US Virgin Islands? Is anyone still reading this part of the talkpage? If no-one objects, I will add it to my article. --Yankovic270 21:46, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be, because the Virgin Islands have been established as part of the East Caribbean Federation.--BrianD 21:53, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops. I meant, no it would not be plausible. The U.S. and British Virgin Islands are in canon part of the East Caribbean Federation. --BrianD 22:04, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Damn it. I want to be able to expand Virginia overseas. it would have been a lot more plausible if they claimed caribean territory than anywhere else. It there any part of the Caribean (other than Cuba) that is not part of the cursed ECF? If not, is there anywhere else I could have Virginia expanding? How about Africa? There are massive amounts of government-less land. Maybe former Gambia or Sierra Leone. --Yankovic270 22:19, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Virginia certainly is ambitious, isn't it? One question people are going to ask is how Virginia is going to get down to the Caribbean or over to Africa, and another will be how they are going to govern the area they conquer? Not to mention, why would Virginia be interested in any overseas territory? What is the attraction to them?--BrianD 22:30, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

I think Virginia expanding overseas is not plausible. Africa is not completely government-less; most of what looks like that is simply because people have not been writing about it. Virginia, though a local power, is not exactly a superpower that can create satellites on other continents. Furthermore, why would they want to? Just to have more land? They should be looking after themselves, and maybe annexing bordering regions if they seems promising. --DarthEinstein 22:28, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

The problem is where would Virginia expand? The East Coast was littered with impacts, especially the Northeast and New England. I suppose there is potential of expansion into former Ohio. In fact me and Zack are planning to partition the former state between Virginia and Kentucky. It seems that only the capital of Columbus was hit, so we would naturally avoid the area. I could officially annex parts of North Carolina, but I would need more territory in Maryland to even think about Pennsylvania (Though sections of the central part of the state might have survived.) --Yankovic270 22:45, November 20, 2009 (UTC)


 * One thing about Columbus, really about any area that was blasted 26 years ago: it may be salvageable. Read the Victoria article in regards to how that country salvaged Seattle and Vancouver. Also, when you consider Maryland keep fxgentleman's Delmarva proposal in mind. --BrianD 22:58, November 20, 2009 (UTC)


 * Virginia has no coastline and no navy. Colonies are impossible. Benkarnell 23:23, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Not true. I had recently expanded the Virginian Republic to include the rest of the former state of the same name. I have relented on the colonies for now. Yankovic270 23:44, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * This is for the best, they wouldn't be worried about overseas expansion, they would be trying to claim any local valuable land as it would be much easier.--Oerwinde 02:48, November 21, 2009 (UTC)



This is the current situation in Virginian Ohio. The dark red is the territory allready part of the Virginian state of Ohio, the lighter red is the newer territory. --Yankovic270 23:57, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Is it implausible for Virginia to take over the part of Maryland not in either Virginia or Delmarva? It would make sense, as Twenty-Six years is well enough to bring radiation levels to a minimum. --Yankovic270 04:52, November 22, 2009 (UTC)



This is the current situation in Ohio. The Dark Blue is Kentucky's territory, the Dark Red is Virginia's. --Yankovic270 03:25, November 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to feel like a broken record here but there is no way that Kentucky or Virginia could control Ohio like this. It would take too long to rebuild the infrastructure of the area, pacify any local communities or recolonize abandoned areas.  Not only that but Ohio would be hit hard by DD.  Kentucky and Virginia can claim portions of it, maybe even control some small enclaves and send explorers/traders through the area, but not directly control it.  Essentially its the same argument I have used for why Virginia doesn't control all of "East Virginia" or Maryland.  Way too optimistic. Mitro 03:33, November 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree with Mitro. I mean, at this rate Virginia will cover the entire US by next year! --DarthEinstein 03:41, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

If no one at all is alive in Ohio, then it wouldn't really take much to control it, would it? I'm wondering though what's in Ohio that's worth claiming, other than bragging rights for having territory. Is anyone left? What value is there TTL in gaining access to Lake Erie...does it give both countries a port for easier trade with Superior, Vermont, Aroostook, Saguenay, Canada, et al?--BrianD 03:48, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

That is not true. There is only a single target in the whole state, so the entire state couldn't be depopulated. That seems to be overly negative. I admit Virginia advanced in Ohio much too quickly. :ets retool it so that Virginia expands slowly, county by county. How long would it take to get the portio0n of Ohio shown on the most recent map? --Yankovic270 03:55, November 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * We do need to establish who (or what) is there, but it isn't likely that Ohio would only suffer one hit. Cincinnati is listed as a target in the North America section. Cleveland, as the largest city, and Columbus, as the state capital and the home of then-Rickenbacker Air National Guard Base, would have likely been hit. Wright-Patterson AFB near Dayton definitely would have. If Kentucky and Virginia go into the area, my opinion is that they would run into small survivor communities near rivers (like the Ohio) or along Lake Erie between Toledo and Cleveland. --BrianD 04:03, November 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Brian. Ohio has three large cities plus several air force bases.  As for how long it would take Virginia to get that half of Ohio, my guess is 10-20 years.  Mitro 04:07, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

OK, Yankovic. You're really starting to wear me out. I try to be the nice guy here, be collaborative and follow the WikiWay and all that, but it frankly is not much fun having to check back here every few hours to respond to dreams of your nations expanding to ridiculous sizes with ridiculous numbers of troops. I'm starting to get fed up with begging you to tone everything down. No more begging: Stop it! Benkarnell 05:43, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Texas
I'm considering building towards a reunification of West Texas and eastern Texas into a Republic of Texas. Please let me know if you think it's realistic, or if the two countries need to be split. They're not at war, and there's no reason for anything beyond a few eastern Texans being mad that West Texas didn't get out there sooner.--BrianD 15:35, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

Also, a unified Texas would give me an excuse to use Clint Dempsey in the timeline; he's a soccer/football player for the U.S. men's national team and for Fulham FC in England. I've established West Texas as having tremendous interest in soccer, and see its national team as influenced by the Mexican style (since many of the players are immigrants or sons of immigrants from Mexico) and a possible dark horse in the CONCACAF region. --BrianD 19:56, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

On a more serious note, I want to establish Mexico as a West Texas ally. I've spent much time in the history of West Texas explaining how the split between the two countries occurred, and the conservative-led government's staunch isolationism as a reason why relations never were reestablished. I also want to establish how, as Americans gained power and influence in the government and in society, Mexico began to look north. To see what was there and, if anyone was alive, to establish relations. There is still the 'your war' anti-American sentiment among a few Mexicans, but everyone pretty much understands that the Soviets fired the missiles in offense. I want Mexico to be a player in North America initially in two ways: reestablish good relations with West Texas (with G.W. Bush playing a big role in mending fences), and a proactive role in leading LoN aid and reconstruction efforts in the southern U.S.. --BrianD 19:56, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

Wait, don't the Texans not like the Mexicans because the Mexicans pulled out of the northern states leaving Texas on its own? --DarthEinstein 20:13, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

That was the government, Darth. The two peoples never had any problem with each other. Although I never really fleshed it out, the chaos in Mexico following the Mexico City earthquake, combined with anti-American sentiment among some influential Mexican military leaders, led Mexico to pull away from West Texas. The military leaders were angry over what they saw as the "forced" abandonment of their territory, and deaths of some of their people, as a result of the "American" war. They managed to convince enough of the other military and government leaders that West Texas would probably die off sooner than later, and mexico needed to tend to its affairs rather than those of a dying nation. Although the military enforced the 'ban' on West Texas, many people, who had relatives on either side of the Rio Grande, found ways to evade the Mexican guards (West Texas looked the other way). West Texas leaders realized that officially they could say 'no relations with Mexico', but that actually enforcing it among its own people would be impossible. Therefore the official position on isolationism in regards to politics and trade, while looking the other way in regards to informal meetings between people. In short, the people wanted to get out there long before their government would let them. --BrianD 20:29, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

The Ohio discussion going on above makes me want to reiterate something regarding West Texas: its claims on the entire state of former Texas do not mean it can control the entire state. It doesn't really have the manpower to guard every inch of the border; it's going to be doing well to extend its reach into El Paso, down to South Padre Island and into Waco. Even if it merges politically with east Texas, it is not going to control the entire former state. Too much territory, too few people. In fact, West Texas probably will request help from Mexico in securing the port. It's one thing to claim an entire region with no one there, another when you have to deal with isolated bands of raiders and bandits and whatever the heck else is out there, in Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Coahuila, Tamaulipas.--BrianD 03:54, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Population of Superior
Lahbas and I have been debating the population of Superior for some time now. We had finally come to an agreement of 1,400,000 but now Lahbas believes that there would 300k more people living there due to the fact that the winds would not carry that much fallout into the area. What do you all think the population of Superior is? Mitro 15:28, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * Gosh, even 1.4 million seems ridiculously high. The UP today has only 300,000!  The all-time high was in the 1920 census, and that was only 332,500 .  The 1980 census counted 320,000 people.  I understand that Superior absorbed lots of refugees.  But this would be balanced by a number of factors.  First and foremost is the carrying capacity of the land.  It's not the most hospitable place to raise crops or people.  Superior sponsored a massive agricultural program, yes.  But nature imposes its limits.  Hand in hand with carrying capacity is the problem of limited resources.  Hunger would be a problem not just in the camps, but among the Yoopers themselves.  There would not be enough food to sustain an ordinary American diet.  Crops would be limited by the land, whose already low arability would be worsened by windborne radiation - a real factor even if winds dispersed the worst of it.  The article mentions fish, but the Great Lakes would not be as bountiful as they once had been because of the pollution from Doomsday.  Lake Superior, which is (I think) not bordered by any direct targets, would be better off than Huron/Michigan, but still affected.  And that doesn't even take into account the scarcity of medical supplies and new clothing, all of which would formerly have been imported into the UP, and which would contribute to a lower population.  Finally, birth rates everywhere will be lower because of background radiation, the scarcity of food and supplies, and the overall more chaotic state of the world.  Higher death rates, lower birth rates... even with the refugees, Superior would be lucky to maintain the 320,000 population level through the 1990s, followed by some growth as standards of living genuinely improved in the 2000s.  But not to the point of 1.4 million.  Not even to one million.  I do not doubt the virility of the rugged men of Superior, nor the nubility of Superior's lovely women... but one can only produce so many babies in circumstances like this.  (And, indeed, many of the rugged men of Superior, with their tragically irradiated sperm, are probably not as virile as they appear at first glance.)  Benkarnell 16:04, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with you completely. I used similar arguments when Lahbas originally listed the population as 7 million.  Arguably we also have to take into account the parts Superior controls outside of the UP (northern Wisconsin, northern LP Michigan and tiny enclaves in Ontario).  Still I understand your point that even that wouldn't rise the number that high.  Mitro 17:22, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. Those outlying areas would be the only ones to experience population growth due to refugees.  Superior's policy was to settle refugees in Mackinaw and Wisconsin, so the UP itself would have experienced a steady decline throughout the 80s and 90s due to low birth rates and high death rates.  The population loss for the Republic as a whole would then be offset by the new settlements outside the original borders.  But in the camps, birth rates would be even lower than in the UP itself, and death rates much, much higher, especially infant mortality.  You're looking at a return of third world diseases, both in the camps and in the UP, until enough experts can be drafted to re-invent some modern cures.  A year 2000 population of 200,000 in the UP, and 100,000 in the outlying areas, seems generous, IMO, and then you have to add a decade of natural growth and immigration from lawless regions.  Half a million is the highest estimate that sounds plausible to me, but then, the thought process I just went through is hardly scientific.  Benkarnell 19:12, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing I shot myself in the foot here. Anyway, I removed the proposal. It's back down to original numbers. A lot of my orginal reasoning is on the original talk page. The large population of the region before Doomsday, as a whole, is a major cause in my stubborness. As it is, I cannot realistically see the population being below 1.4 million given its circumstances. Lahbas 21:32, November 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * By "the region" you mean the entire Great Lakes region. But there;s a difference: the Great Lakes region as a whole can support a large, dense population.  The Upper Peninsula cannot.  Neither can the heavily wooded territory regions.  I'm not disputing that lots of refugees came in the direction of the UP - maybe, maybe, maybe 4 million of them.  But hardly any of them would have lived, because the land cannot support that many people.  You say that famine was "averted early on" without explaining how.  The Yoopers would have had an extremely difficult time raising enough food for themselves, much less millions and millions of refugees.  The land and the lakes are not unlimited.  Indeed, with the radiation, they are more limited than ever.  And if, by some miracle, there were enough fish that first year to feed that many people, well, there would have been none left the following year.  They'd all be eaten.  Any number with six figures seems completely absurd in that area, given the survival needs of the people, the ability of the land to provide for them, and the downward pressures on the population for years after the event.  Benkarnell 22:05, November 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at the page again, I realized the major error I had made in explaining that crisis. What happened was that while farming was occuring to an extent already, it quickly proved inadequete by 1984, following the rise in refugees. Rations that were meant to last for maybe a decade were reduced to a year or two (also, you must remember that the refugees were on lower rations than either the citizens or the soldiers). Fishing eventually became the major source of food, but it was already determined that at this rate it wouldn't last. As a result, a process of aquaculture is created during the same period of the "Fisherman's Blitz" in 1985, in order to deal with the expected loss in the following years. Carnivirous fish, such as Salmon, are left alone, since they are going to require other fish. At the same time, the government bans all fishing in the Great Lakes from 1986-1991, and then allows liscenced fishing for scientific purposes from 1991-1996, before fully restoring fishing rights to the general population. Farming remains as is, and is given a priority in the territories which have not been affected by fallout. Lahbas 04:39, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if that did happen I still doubt the population would break 1 million. Mitro 15:15, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Bush Family
- President and First Lady Confirmed Alive


 * Dorothy Walker Bush - In Greenwich, Connecticut during Doomsday. Almost assuredly dead
 * George Herbert Walker Bush – Removed by Secret Service to Mount Weather on Doomsday. Survived
 * Barbara Pierce Bush - Removed by Secret Service to Mount Weather on Doomsday. Survived
 * George W. Bush - In Midland, Texas during Doomsday. Likely to have Survived
 * Laura Lane Welch Bush – In Midland, Texas during Doomsday. Likely to have Survived
 * Barbara Pierce Bush – With Family. Likely to have Survived
 * Jenna Welch Bush – With Family. Likely to have Survived
 * John Ellis Bush - In Miami, Florida during Doomsday, which was hit. Likely Dead
 * Columba Bush – In Miami, Florida on Doomsday. Likely Dead
 * George Prescott Bush – With Family. Likely Dead
 * Noelle Lucila Bush – With Family. Likely Dead
 * Neil Mallon Bush - In Denver, Colorado during Doomsday, which was hit. Likely Dead.
 * Sharon Bush – With Neil. Likely Dead
 * Marvin Pierce Bush - In Ft. Worth, Texas during Doomsday, which was hit. Likely Dead
 * Dorothy Bush Koch - In Boston, Massachusetts during Doosmday attending college, which was hit. Likely Dead.


 * Nancy Walker Bush Ellis - In Milton, Massachusetts during Doomsday. Likely Dead.


 * William Henry Trotter Bush - In St. Louis, Missouri during Doomsday, which was hit. Likely Dead


 * Jonathan James Bush - Unsure (May have been in New Haven, Connecticut, in which case he likely would be dead, or New Haven, Maine, where he would likely be alive)
 * Josephine Bush – Unsure, same as above.
 * William Hal Bush – With Family. Unsure
 * Jonathan S. Bush – With Family. Unsure

Kennedy Family

 * Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy - Either at Brookline or Hyannis Massachusetts on Doomsday. Likely Dead


 * Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis - Likely in New York City on Doomsday. Likely Dead
 * Caroline Bouvier Kennedy - Likely in New York City on Doomsday. Likely Dead
 * John Fitzgerald Kennedy Jr. - Interesting Development! (Would have been at the University of Delhi in India on Doomsday. Whether he would survive the social turmoil that followed is another matter) Possibility of Survival


 * Rosemary Kennedy – At St. Coletta School for Exceptional Children in Jefferson, Wisconsin on Doomsday. Likely Dead


 * Eunice Kennedy Shriver - Likely in Washington D.C. on Doomsday. Likely Dead
 * Robert Sargent Shriver Jr. - Likely in Washington D.C. on Doomsday. Likely Dead
 * Robert Sargent Shriver III - In New York City on Doomsday. Likely Dead
 * Maria Owings Shriver - Likely in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on Doomsday. Likely Dead
 * Timothy Perry Shriver - Likely attending Catholic University of America in Worcester, Massachusetts. Possibility of Survival
 * Anthony Paul Kennedy Shriver - Either at North Bethesda in Maryland or attending Brown University in Washington D.C. Likely Dead


 * Patricia Helen Kennedy Lawford - Lived in New York City. Likely Dead
 * Peter Sydney Vaughn Lawford - Lived in Los Angeles. Almost Certainly Dead (due to health complications at the time)
 * Christopher Kennedy Lawford - Unsure. Likely Dead


 * Ethel Skakel Kennedy - Lived at the Kennedy Compound in Hyannis Massachusetts on Doomsday. Likely Dead
 * Kathleen Hartington Kennedy Townsend - Lived in New Haven Connecticut on Doomsday. Likely Dead
 * Joseph Patrick Kennedy II - Likely lived in Cambridge Massachusetts on Doomsday. Likely Dead
 * Robert Francis Kennedy Jr. - Unsure (Sure traveled a lot) Likely Dead
 * David Anthony Kennedy - Unsure (Spent time during September 1983 at Spofford Hall in New Hampshire, but can't find the time he left) Likely Dead
 * Mary Courtney Kennedy Hill - Either Washington D.C. or Bethesda, Maryland. Likely Dead
 * Michael LeMoyne Kennedy - Lived in Cohasset, Massachusetts on Doomsday. Likely Dead
 * Mary Kerry Kennedy - Unsure (Started traveling with Human Rights Delegations around the globe) Possibility of Survival
 * Christopher George Kennedy - Attending Boston College in Boston, Massachusetts on Doomsday. Likely Dead
 * Matthew Maxwell Taylor Kennedy - Likely attending Georgetown Preparatory School in North Bethesda, Maryland. Likely Dead
 * Douglas Harriman Kennedy - Still attending Georgetown Preparatory School in North Bethesda, Maryland. Likely Dead
 * Rory Elizabeth Katherine Kennedy - Unsure, though likely with family. Likely Dead


 * Jean Anne Kennedy Smith - Lived in New York City on Doomsday. Likely Dead
 * Stephen Edward Smith - Lived in New York City on Doomsday. Likely Dead
 * Stephen Edward Smith Jr. - Unsure. Likely Dead
 * William Kennedy Smith - Attending Duke University at Durham, North Carolina on Doomsday. Possibility of Survival
 * Amanda Mary Smith - Likely remained with the main family. Likely Dead
 * Kym Maria Smith - Likely remained with the main family. Likely Dead


 * Edward Moore Kennedy - Likely in Washington D.C. Likely Dead
 * Joan Bennet Kennedy - Lived in Boston, Massachusetts on Doomsday. Likely Dead
 * Kara Anne Kennedy - Attending Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts on Doomsday. Likely Dead
 * Edward Moore Kennedy Jr. - Either Attending St. Albans in Washington D.C. or Wesleyan University in Middleton Connecticut. Likely Dead
 * Patrick Joseph Kennedy - Unsure. Likely Dead


 * These hurt to write. Lahbas 06:50, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

Superior Armed Forces

 * Just to explain, the "reserve" that is mentioned in those pages are actually people that are eligable to be drafted "back" into that armed service. They do not actually serve unless they are called upon. Lahbas 21:06, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Bases in Newfoundland
Both Goose Bay and Gander were active military installations at the time of Doomsday, and might have been nuked. Gander was one of the largest CF bases at the time, and would grow to be the largest the following year, and Goose Bay was an airbase used by both the Canadian Air Forces and NATO. Lahbas 21:27, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well we already established on the and  articles that strikes on military bases would be airburst.  I don't see why a similar situation would not apply to these bases.  There would no doubt be some destruction to the surrounding area but I don't think it would change the history of Canada too much.  Mitro 23:52, November 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * Also of interest are Camp Gagetown in New Brunswick, which was the major training center for the Canadian Armed Forces, but could quickly transition into a full-fledged base; CFS St. John's provides and interesting case to me, as it was, while not a naval base, important in a supporting role to the naval forces from Halifax, as well as NATO forces in the North Atlantic (or so it appears); CFB Greenwood in Nova Scotia, largest Air Base on the Atlantic Coast; CFB Winnipeg, headquarters for the Air Command of the Canadian Forces; CFB Cold Lake in Alberta, largest CFB Air Base and testing ground for the AGM-86 cruise missiles; CFB Comox in British Columbia, main Air Base on the Pacific Coast; CFB Moose Jaw in Saskatchawan, though a training facility, appears to have had a level of supply that the Soviets would not have left untouched; CFB Shearwater, a possibility; CFB Bagotville, a major Air Base in Quebec, may prove problematic as it is located in Saguenay CITY; CFB Suffield in Alberta, largest Canadian Forces base in the country, operated jointly with the United Kingdom; CFB Shilo, a possibility, though it is mainly there in the case of a civil or military emergancy; CFB Wainwright, a possibility; CFB Valcartier in Quebec, a possbility; CFB Borden in Ontario, a possibility, as it was a significant training facility; CFB Kingston, base for the Communications and Electronics branch of the CF (not sure what it is, but it seems important); CFB Petawawa, a relatively large CF base in Ontario that served as the base for the Special Service Force at the time; CFAD Dundrun, a possibility; CFB North Bay in Ontario, controlled the Canadian Norad sector, and basically any other warning systems surrounding Canada; CFB Trenton, main route for troop deployment within Canada and abroad.


 * A LOT of bases that are tempting targets. Lahbas 02:31, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * North Bay was targeted according to canon. Mitro 02:36, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * CFB Cold Lake would likely have been hit. Comox, while the main base in the pacific, was stationed with search and rescue, coast guard, and fighter interceptor aircraft. Not a threat and therefore not a likely priority target. From what I've learned from my grandfather who was in the Airforce, and a guy at work who was in the army, Canada was never percieved to be a real threat as we lacked offensive capability. Targets within Canada would likely have been chosen in order to weaken our ability to aid in the defense or rebuilding of the US, hence the major cities and North Bay being targeted.--Oerwinde 08:55, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

JFK Jr. in India on Doomsday

 * Would he survive the post-war chaos? What would happen to him? Lahbas 02:32, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

considering India fellapart on DD and there was no food he might have survived only to become someone dinner--Owen1983 02:59, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Not funny, Owen.--BrianD 03:01, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

I think there might be an interesting story in there. He'd probably liive as any other survivor or refugee - no White Rajah Kennedy empire! - but later on, if the APA or ANZC found him, I could see him getting some kind of diplomatic role. Benkarnell 13:05, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Cannibalism is no joke. Anyway, if the was in the portion of India that became the UIP, he might be able to get himself to the ANZC. --Yankovic270 03:12, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Indonesia Singapore
''moved from my talk page, Xi REney If I am reading the history page on Indonesia properly, you were the originating author. I'm working on Singapore, and Benkarnell suggested to me I develop Malaysia as well as Singapore. Did you have any ideas for either country while working on the Indonesia concept? Thanks!--BrianD 05:03, November 20, 2009 (UTC)


 * True, it was pretty much the first region I wrote about in detail, though not filling in a 100 percent...Aceh (1983: Doomsday) describes by far the most about Indonesia and the whole Region. HIndonesian_Region_political_2008_1983Doomsday.png

You have basically the Islamic Indonesian Islands League [Indonesia (1983: Doomsday)... (my name for it then) retreating to solidify the core of the country. Aceh gaining independence (fight as described) and declaring itself the Sultanate of Aceh. I based this on the TRUE try from Hossein de Tiri some time before 1983 and put his cousin (fictional) in power. Malaysia I only mentioned in passing: '' The relative stability encouraged Sultan di Tiro in expanding the Aceh territory behind the traditional borders. Having assured the assistance of a fragile Islamic Extremist government in Malaysia by 1992, he proclaimed the whole Island of Sumatra as Acehnese territory and let his troops head south. '' Malaysia I put on crumbling (though no details) and East Malaysia (Sarawak) I put together with Brunei declaring their own sultanate (as it somewhen has already been), argueing with the IIIL over Borneo...

About Singapore I never said sth as I can remember... Vision: As being not bombed (I guess), I would guess the already strict rule of the government maintains order. cooperation with IIIL government to secure country, especially against the Malaysian Islamist Regime (as marked on the map until 1999 in existance. It would have a influential role in Asia at least, given the important port/airport/financial institutions...being at the crossroads for trade roads... and one of the largest stock-markets surviving.--Xi&#39;Reney 22:41, November 21, 2009 (UTC)This for orientation and a frame for your writing.
 * Xi'Reney, thank you very much. This is very very helpful for me. --BrianD 22:46, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Graphics / Visualization /Carthography
Section Archives: Page 1

New Map
I think whoever creates the maps for this timeline needs to get started on the new one, as there are a ton of newly confirmed nations to be added to the map. --Yankovic270 03:10, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think anyone would create the maps - as long as it fits with canon and it's approved by the community. I might want to try my hand at some mapmaking myself... --DarthEinstein 03:25, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * XiReney and Fero made the first few world maps. The latest one is mine, and since last June it's become very out of date.  Problem is that I was not following 1983DD for most of August and September, when the flury of activity really began.  I've been trying to read all the new pages from August or later, but just keeping up with current proposals is difficult... anyone is free to ad some or all of the new nations.  Or maybe it would be best to break down the labor?  North America is the worst offender; maybe I can upload a world map with just North America updated, and others can take it from there.  Benkarnell 16:39, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * I've actually already started a new map. I decided to build it from the ground up; that is, I'm getting the information from the individual articles instead of from previous world maps. I started with the Americas, and they're about half complete, and I haven't started on the Old World. --DarthEinstein 16:44, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, then. Ground up is probably best: I tried hard to keep it free of errors, but they crept in anyway.  Are you still going to include flags?  They have been sort of a tradition so far, but now there are many, many more of them.  Benkarnell
 * I'll try to put the flags in, but first I'm going to get all the borders. After the borders, then I'll get the names and flags. I also thought of creating maps for each continent simply by slicing up the world map, which we can put on the pages for each continent. --DarthEinstein 17:11, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

Hey Darth! What is the soonest time you can estimate the map being finished? --Yankovic270 21:13, October 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure; so far I've drawn the borders of most nations in North and South America, as well as the Alpine Confed, Celtic Alliance, and the small French nations. After I'm done the rest of Europe, I'll move south to Africa, then to Asia and Oceania. After that, I'll fill in the names and flags. So... there's still lots I have to do. By the way, if you notice any nations missing from the list, put it on. I'm using it as a referance to find all the countries. --DarthEinstein 21:31, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Could you post an image of the North American section on my talk page? I'm curious on how my nations look. By the way, Assiniboia has the borders of the old Red River colony. --Yankovic270 21:44, October 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said, I haven't put the names or flags in yet, but if you want me to get a partially finished version, that's fine. --DarthEinstein 02:17, October 20, 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say (as a comment after a long time), you might put it in a partially finished version when the names are done. Then we could decide if we insert the flags as well... But I would guess a separate map with flags would me optically more proper. I offer to do the "FLAG MAP Work as a first contribution after a long absence. --Xi&#39;Reney 17:55, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * Great to have you back! Also, here's a map update: I've drawn the borders for the North and South American and European countries, as well as the African ones except in South Africa, which has really confused me. After I'm done drawing borders in Asia and Oceania, I'll put the names in, and leave a space under each name for a flag. --DarthEinstein 19:50, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I just did a whole lot of work on the map, and I think it's ready for people to see the first version. As you can see, the countries are not yet labeled. I'd like to hear any concerns over the borders of the countries first. If you've been following the TL you should be able to recognise most of the countries. The darker grey regions between the NAU and Utah, Utah and the Navajo Nation, and Aceh and Indonesia, represent condominion or contested territory. Any suggestions for the next version are appriciated. --DarthEinstein 23:14, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a little jarring to see so much of Africa, China, Europe, even the eastern U.S. in dark grey. That aside, the map looks good.--BrianD 23:18, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

I like the map as well but I have some issues. I may have relented on NAU Nebraska, but I respectfully want all of non-NAU Nebraska to be under Lincolnite control, that would give the Lincolnites both more territory and a border right next to the NAU. Plus the loosly-bound nation of Cave City, like the Okanogan to Victoria, is a potential site for future expansion of Virginia. That warrents, at least until official control is obtained, those dots of colour you see marking influence. --Yankovic270 02:19, October 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * Right; I haven't added any "influence dots" yet, so I'll do that for the next version. I'll expand Lincoln also, but keep in mind that the map I built this off of didn't have state borders, so it will be approximate. --DarthEinstein 02:25, October 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a problem with zones of influence. The map ought to represent definite borders for each country; in some areas (like India, Sikkim) these zones can literally change by the day, or a country can claim influence that it can't realistically maintain. The issue should be discussed, though.--BrianD 02:40, October 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point. The last map did not include claims for that very reason.  Now that we have dozens of new countries, we have to pick and choose what information to show.  This is really good!  It looks so clean, and the colors are easier to distinguish.  THe small changes I'd recommend:
 * Sikkim's independent government was overthrown a couple of weeks ago, IIRC.
 * I don't think that the North American UNion overlaps with Utah; that was an error on my map.
 * The NAU might more accurately be shown as three countries with a common color, like the Nordic countries. (I'm pretty sure that when I made the other map I hadn't actually read the NAU page.)
 * More of central Italy should be no-man's land. My map used diagonal stripes only because the Alpine and Sicilian colors were too hard to tell apart when I used dots.
 * But basically... wow! Benkarnell 03:24, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks about Sikkim, I did not hear about that. So it's part of the UIP now?
 * I'll fix the Utah-NAU border.
 * I'll separate the states for the NAU. While doing this, I tryed to decide what to do about Siberia. With the addition of Mongolia, Uyghuristan and Khazakhstan to it, I thought I might want a solid border like with the Nordic Union and, as you said, the NAU. But I thought they might be too centralized a state for that. What do you think?
 * I based Italy off of the page; for territory it said that they owned it up to Milan. I did think this was odd, and I guess you agree. So will they extend to, say, the ruins of Rome? Also, don't you think Sicily might be able to control the nearby Tunisia also?
 * Thanks for the help! --DarthEinstein 03:42, October 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm, that is odd about Sicily. I think the no-man's-land as I had described it was based on the previous map. Maybe Sicily only claims Italy up to Milan?  Or, Milan was the high-water-mark of their advance, but is not securely under their control?   And I know I have heard something about Sicily controling at least part of Tunisia.  As for the Siberian states, I'm not sure, since that's a family of articles that I also have not read yet.  (Sorry!)  Finally, can I suggest a darkish blue for the NAU?  Benkarnell 04:03, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

Okay here's the next update on the map. I haven't added names yet, but I have corrected a few things and added the dots representing influence. If there are any countries I've missed or made the borders wrong for a country let me know. --DarthEinstein 18:40, October 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good. A couple things I'm now noticing, and sorry for not seeing them before:

Benkarnell 22:05, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * Namibia's situation is still far from certain. Same iwth South Africa, actually, but at least this approximtes the countries we know are there.
 * The Yugoslav Union is smaller - I think it may have lost Slovenia & Dalmatia for unknown reasons.
 * Manitoba/ Assiniboia is small, but not _that_ small, I think.
 * I don't think Sicily would control all of Tunisia, on its exact original borders.

Wow,this is exactly what I envisioned the USSR would have in terms of land.It's great,good job.--Vladivostok 19:37, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you missed . Also I know  is pretty small but is there any way you can make sure its identified on the map?  [EDIT] Never mind.  When I zoom on the map I see that you did mark it.  Mitro 20:33, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * Zanzibar will be labeled, though I know right now it's practically invisible from a zoomed out point of view. From what I read about Algeria, it is divided into city-states, and so I wasn't sure how to make any borders. I decided that once I got to the name-adding stage I would just write "Algerian city-states" in the region. And thanks about the USSR, I was unsure if that was accurate. Should the different republics be separated by black lines, though, like with the NAU and Nordic Union? Also I'll correct Tunisia, Assiniboia, and the Yugoslave Union. With regards to South Africa though, I understand that it is in a state of canonical flux or something, so maybe I should just keep those borders for now and it can be corrected later when it calms down. --DarthEinstein 22:28, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well,the Union isn't as decentralized as the NAU or the Nordic Union,I think keeping it this way,with the colorless borders in the middle would work fine.--Vladivostok 22:33, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

Once I find a decent map of BC, I'll actually mark New Caledonia/Prince George's borders, as they encompass a lot more than marked. --Oerwinde 20:10, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
 * Bc2010.png shows how BC will be divided next year, but also shows the borders of Prince George/New Caledonia. --Oerwinde 21:37, October 31, 2009 (UTC)



I respectfully wish that whoever is creating the new map use these borders for Assiniboia. It is an old map of the Red River Colony, another name given for it was Assiniboia. --Yankovic270 20:34, October 31, 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll do that. --DarthEinstein 20:43, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Just a small note on North Germany, though it is not (yet?) included on the map in the article itself, the nation has recently expanded to the formerly Dutch province of Groningen, it might be nice if that were reflected on the map. --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 15:58, November 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * It is included, just very small. I'll be sure to make the change. --DarthEinstein 16:24, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

I think we recently agreed that Belize is smaller, mostly coastal, and that a lot of the inland territory was lost. I could be wrong. Benkarnell 14:07, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * I really think Assiniboia is too large. Mitro 15:04, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

It is not like I am claiming all of Canada between Vctoria and the Remainder Provinces. I don't think Assiniboia's claim is excessive. The only impact is Winnipeg, as they pretty much made the area around it just as much a no-man's-land as the area around Chernobyl. And they did not claim it all at once. Maybe they started with what is shown on the new map so far, and just recently reached these borders. --Yankovic270 15:27, November 3, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think my biggest problem is that you are basing this on a vague and old colonial map and not on any other evidence on how far the nation could extend its borders. Furthermore what about the Lakota?  They managed to take over most of North and South Dakota and yet that map makes it look like that never happened.  Mitro 15:37, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

Ok fine. get rid of the colonial map. But Assiniboia still controls at least a small chunk of North Dakota. You said that the Lakota took over most of the Dakotas. It is possible that there is a a small piece that is not in Aboriginal hands. --Yankovic270 15:43, November 3, 2009 (UTC) Umm,there have been some changes to the Kazakh article that were unavoidable,since the regions I picked would have been severely bombed. Here's a map detailing what the Siberians would control,bordered in black. The bombed regions are a closed zone in the USSR. That will be shown in more detail,once Hellerick makes a map showing this.--Vladivostok 20:48, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Can someone give me a report on how the map is coming? Mind that Assiniboia needs to be enlarged and given at least a small piece of North Dakota. But Lets face it. The new map so far only gives the Lakota a small portion of the dakotas. It still is plausible that Assiniboia can get as much North Dakota as possible.And while the southern border of Assiniboia is in question, the Northern isn't. I'd like that border to follow the colonial map as much as possible. --Yankovic270 22:10, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

I've enlarged Assiniboia and I've added the new borders for Prince George. I think I'm going to go ahead and add the country names soon. Once that's done I'll upload it again. --DarthEinstein 00:34, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Simply put, I still want Assiniboia's borders to bear some resemblance to the map I had chosen. --Yankovic270 04:42, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, they will. --DarthEinstein 05:23, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * Again I ask, why should they? Your map is an old map of the colony, it has nothing to do with the present TL.  Mitro 15:17, November 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because it's a map of an old colony doesn't mean it can't roughly coincide with this country. Yankovic just happened across a map which looked like what he wanted his country to look like. --DarthEinstein 17:01, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

The map shows the borders of the last incarnation of Assiniboia, the Red River Colony. Anyone who has even a basic knowledge of the history of the area would understand that this Assiniboia would mimic the borders of its predecessor as much as possible. Yankovic270 17:21, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would they micmic the borders of the old colony? The likely expansion of the place would be a sphere, not a the shape the map represents.  The old colony map represented a vague idea of the boundries of the colony not based on geography and other factors.  Mitro 18:08, November 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * Mitro, the borders follow a natural watershed; take another look at that map. I don't know hther a confederation of Manitoban towns would be able to, or have a need to, incorporate settlements from North Dakota, especially since the Dakotas were a region of heavy fighting in the late 80s.  (Or am I wrong?)  But the Red River Colony was not a "map coloring exercise" colony; it was indeed based on natural geography.  Yankovic, obviously that's too huge. Or were you joking?  Benkarnell 02:17, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

No I never joke when it comes to my nations. I only changed my idea because of how important the one complaining about it was in the wiki. Now that I have some support I hearby go back to my original idea. Except Assiniboia contains absolutely no former American territory. Yankovic270 02:30, November 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * As I look at the map again I can see that it did follow the natural geography. That being said it is still too large for the nation in question.
 * When did I become "important"? I don't even have full admin powers.  Sure I'm active but I'm not the boss of 1983: Doomsday or even this Wiki.  Hell I'm going to be gone for a month soon, but I'm sure you guys will survive without me.  Mitro 05:57, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

I allready promised I would abandon any claims to former American territory. Yankovic270 13:18, November 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * @Yankovic: please do not take criticism to personal here...even though I understand if it touches "your" nations...No one offended you in person. And changes are generally to be made out from discussions and consensus reached, not by decision of someone considered "important" (@ mitro: your long and always fruitful contributions earned you some reputation within this (and the WCRB),, nothign bad about it)...No one is the "god" or "omnipotent institution" of this Timeline, neither Mitro, Benkarnell, me (though a few times I was tempted to think that, I openly admit) or someone else. If I am called upon, I try to find a settlement and thats it basically. I give my comments, and if in a rare situation a decision is needed to be done, ok... but that´s it. --Xi&#39;Reney 21:00, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

New map of former USA and Canada: [[File:USACanada83.png]]
i created a new map to paste in there all new norther america nation, because we know limit inter brasil-venezuela, but what is the fontier canada-superior? where is easter texas? delmarva and virgina are in the same place? Dineta have sea cost? who of them have contact to great mexican republic? i paste North American Union in blue, around whyomyn, add your country and upload a new version of that file, i was count 23 entities in former USA and Canada, where?--Fero 01:22, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

Assiniboia has most of Manitoba, except for the Hudson Bay coast. Virginia has a good chunk of Southeast Ohio, most of Virginia, all of West Virginia and all of Maryland not under Delmarva control. And Lincoln has all of Nebraska not under NAU control. --Yankovic270 01:32, November 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * okey, you can paint the map to we all read that easyly and clearly--Fero 02:24, November 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * look this, is relevant--Fero 02:53, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

You can look at the map on the West Texas page for the borders of east and west Texas, relative to the former TTL (current OTL) state of Texas. If I can find a free equivalent of MS Paint for Mac OS X, I'll add Texas/Vermont/northern townships to the map.--BrianD 04:50, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

New Virginian flag
Now that Virginia is officially starting to help the other survivors states in the South, they need a more politcally correct flag. Their current flag is offensive everywhere but the "Neo-Confederate" states. And no, I will not accept either Virginia or West Virginia's flags. Inspired by the little contest for the new flag for the NAU (and by the fact that I don't have an artistic bone in my body), I will take ideas for the new flag. Post your ideas either here or on my talk page, and I will judge them fairly.

PS: Owen1983, since you were disqualified for not being inivited, consider this an invitation.

Yankovic270 02:33, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Wiki/Timeline/Article Technicals
Section archives: Page 1

Talk Page -Talk
'''as there is no Talk page for this Talk page (:P) I explain it here: I tried to restructure the Talk Page a bit by sorting the discussions into categories oriented at the Main Page structure...all felt a bit chaotic for me and some discussions i was not able to find again...hope this is okey for everyone... if not simply tell and we roll it back...'''--Xi&#39;Reney 19:38, November 13, 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. Let me take this time to say that anyone can archive, and anyone can graduate, if it looks like a discussion has died, or there is clear consensus.  As a group gets bigger and more complex, it's natural for a hierarchy to emerge, but XiReney and Mitro and I are not the bosses of the timeline.  Personally, I would welcome the help!  With the new format, we can probably make our archive pages "open" like the formal proposal pages: they don't have to be archived a page at a time, and new archival pages probably only need to be created if the old one feels full.  But what should we call the archive pages?  "Countries Archive 1"?  "Society archive 1"?  Benkarnell 20:28, November 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I really am not digging how the talk page looks like. It was bad enough when we just had two subsections when correcting people's formatting mistakes, now we have several.  I think we should either go back too just the two sections (General Discussion and Proposals) and drop all of the subsections.  Or we could make seperate pages for each sub section.  Mitro 15:19, November 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * I see your point... This site is growing out of the shoes it wore since i did -again unilateral wothout consultation prior, sorry :( - the restructuring of the content...

I am also a bit confused what would be the right way...having Many subsections are confusing yes, but having jsut one "General Discussion" leaves the chaos just with another face...I am thinking about the possibility splitting the discussion into a few major subpages...according to the categories...I just see the risk of many discussions goiing unnoticed and destabilizing what we since a long time had... all talk on the main page and nothing been lost by talking on the pages discussion page...I have not enough wiki experience to see for possible alternatives...this is difficult...--Xi&#39;Reney 20:04, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Latest archive (Nov 14)
I've begun to archive everything according to the new system. Discussions are now stored section by section. As always, I apoligize if I archived discussions that you had wanted to remain active. You can find them in Page 1 of the appropriate sections if you want to resurrect them. Benkarnell 15:46, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

Flle spelling standard
I think we should make some file spelling standard for uploaded files... it drives me crazy guessing names, or browsing through the galleries (not complete anyway...) sth. for flags, for maps, pictures etc. like 83DD_map_XYZ!"$·%%, 83DD_flag_xyzº12345, 83DD_photo_dasiud, 83DD_coa_ABCRUNFURSOMETHING... with 83DD btw the easiest abbreviation Ive seen so far. suggestion --Xi&#39;Reney 20:13, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

Template:MeCaCa83 Mexico Caribe and Centroamerica
almost, paste that where must be, thank U, and we have a lot of unwrited territory in that reagion, 50.000.000 peoples who we nont now if are alive (of course they are) and how--Fero 13:22, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Template:SouthAmerica83 Template South America target
a little help to finish this is welcome--Fero 21:56, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Culture / Society
Archives: Page 1

Fashion??
How does the world dress 26 years after a Doomsday event?? Are we all wearing radiation protection suits? Are all children Gothics? Or are the eighties somehow goin on (cruel...)?? The one account the original TL (before my interaction) was that people in Australia are getting used to wear thick layers of clothes all the time... Weird... just browsing through some non-political topics ... at least a nudist movement would be quite unlikely to survive, giving UV intensity...--Xi&#39;Reney 20:39, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

Everyone in Virginia wears one variation or another of a military uniform. They wear uniforms even after the President-General started loosening the iron fist. Now they wear them of their own free will. --Yankovic270 21:30, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

Celebrities
I am curious. What happened to the various celebrities of each survivor state? I think that, if aplicable, there should be a "Celebrity" section to each nation. --Yankovic270 00:46, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

Unification of Orthodox/Catholic Church ?
As much as I may be opposed to it, I still think it should be proposed...
 * With Orthodox Christianity and Roman Catholicism in tatters (Australia, Greece, New Zealand, Turkey being the strongest vestiges of Orthodoxy, South America being the strongest of Catholicism) the two religions might be more prompted to unite the Ancient Churches. Of course whoever is the caretaker of Catholicism might want to discuss it as obviously everyone here is going to have a different idea. Though there are still a great many matters that would need to be taken care of. Would the new South American pope even want to relinguish power to nothing more than "First Among Equals".

Mr.Xeight 02:57, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * How can Turkey have the strongest vestiges of Orthodoxy? What about all those people in Socialist Siberia?--Vladivostok 13:50, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Could someone shed some light on the proportionalities/basic principles in the Orhodoxy? Like numbers of followers in each country? And international hierarchy in between the Orthodox Church??

I would really welcome it if we treat the religious topics in a careful way (evolving them through rational discussion) as it is too simple to offend some readers/contributors with this issue !!--Xi&#39;Reney 20:49, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it had a BIG population, only that there more Greeks who jumped ship from the Motherland and headed East. Northern Greece certianly doesn't, nor Thrace, nor Yugoslavia, they're all dead! And didn't the USSR surpress Orthodoxy anyway? Besides, are there even a lot of Orthodox Christians in the Russin Far East? I could just be stereotyping here, but I'm guessing the great percentage of the native Turkic Tribes of Siberia and the like are animists or shamanists? And of course you have to take into affect whether any Orthodox Christians in Siberia could even communicate with their Western brothers.
 * Xi, I can look it up. If all else fails, I can inquire to my priest, I'm sure he can direct me to an Inter-Orthodox website.
 * To answer about inter-Orthodox hierarchy, it's complicated... Let's use me for example. I'm a Greek Orthodox Christian under the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North & South America (now called "The Americas"). I can attend liturgy at an Antiochan, or Russian, or Ukrainian, or even an Oriental Orthodox (who are not in-communion with us.). I can even receive communion from any of the above churches (though receiving from an Oriental Orthodox church is frowned upon). That's about it. We're "expected" (a great deal of rules are unwritten and unofficial, they're more like guidelines you're expected to folow) to only get confession from our own subsect, meaning I can not receive confession from a Russian Orthodox priest. Unless there's a shortage in the area, priests from their respective sects give liturgy at their own church. I know of some saints who were Greek that became Patriarchs in Russia, but of course this was hundreds of years ago. There is an inter-Orthodox Group I know of, SCOBA (Standing Conference of the Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas).
 * Doomsday might change all of this. For all we know the surviving Russian and Serbian monks who were forced to leave Mt. Athos might be able to hold liturgy in Greek churches now.

Mr.Xeight 23:29, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have any ideas at all? Is the caretaker of DD's Catholicism interested? Mr.Xeight 22:58, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

i have not had much thaught on catholism but but I agrre reunifications a logical step --Owen1983 00:25, November 22, 2009 (UTC)

You did not just say that...
 * You do know that there are other Christian religions out there besides Catholicism & Protestantism right? You do know that there Orthodox Christianity is the 2nd largest Christian religion? You have no idea how much that angers me to see so much ignorance in Western Europeans and Americans who choose not to look beyond their own life.
 * Do not come to my page and give me an apology, in-fact don't bother responding to this comment. Just be more informed next time you open your mouth to comment.

Mr.Xeight 00:35, November 22, 2009 (UTC)

As a Protestant, I feel like anything I have to say on this matter is limited at best. But I'm not inclined to believe that even a nuclear war would necessarily lead Roman Catholicism and the various branches of Orthodoxy to seek to become one Church. I am inclined to believe that adherents of Catholicism and Orthodoxy would continue to follow their own faiths.--BrianD 01:02, November 22, 2009 (UTC)

Owen 1983 is being his usual, irksome self again causing ditress for all. This time he created a page for the "Catholic Church", giving it only a completely made up timeline and a horrific stream of sickening typos.
 * Xi'Reney, have fun trying to discipline him; as if any attempts have been successful in the past. Hopefully this time he won't say I'm in cahoots with him trying to off one of DD's integral parts of the interworkings of the creative process.

Mr.Xeight 01:44, November 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * Xeight...agree, the Catholic Church thing is quite awfully made...though yet solved. if I should alone be trying to discipline this TL, the discussions and all around it...then I would have a new full-time job... which I would love to do indeed :) I think the wiki dynamic regarding corrections/discipline is quite reliable in this...even though I tend to believe that you will have a close view on his behaviour/contributions, out of personal motivation, won´t you?...--Xi&#39;Reney 20:27, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense that there would be a vestige of Eastern Orthodoxy in Turkey. After all, the religion was officially started in the city then known as Constantinople. --Yankovic270 21:32, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

And what about the Mormons? Or the Baptists, Lutherists, Anglicans and other Protestant sects? They did not vanish after DD. In fact, I think Utah might have made Mormonism their official religion. Yankovic270 21:49, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

Ideas for Films
This is a space to put ideas for post-Doomsday motion pictures. --Yankovic270 17:37, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

My idea is a post-DD spy thriller, where an Australian James Bond-type has to prevent a Neo-Nazi organization from creating a "Fourth Reich" in the United American Republic. This film could also be used to help bridge the gap between the SAC and the ANZC. --Yankovic270 17:48, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * This based on your earlier ideas for Neues Deuchland? :) In a movie form, it could work, though. --DarthEinstein 20:46, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

What should the movie be called? And does anyone have any ideas of their own? --Yankovic270 21:06, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

I could imagine genres like fantasy/science fiction/ epic good vs evil stories would gain a strong audience (both to escape reality and to reflect the past events)...though the special effects would be far behind our standard...--Xi&#39;Reney 20:35, November 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * Thinking to my favourites...(I was born in 1983: !! Maybe some sort of

I wonder how many years it would have taken someone to make a bona fide blockbuster-type film on the scale of a Star Wars?--BrianD 20:43, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * !Knight Rider!...but more kind of a wrecked and more tank-like vehicle...Mad Max meets Knight Rider...patrolling and aiding in the Municipal States of the Pacific for a CRUSA -like "Foundation" (the film being part of a media campaign financed by CRUSA to promote USA-reunification ideas.--Xi&#39;Reney 20:35, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Star Wars
I've been thinking recently about the status of the Star Wars franchaise in the TL. The third movie (Episode VI) had just been released half a year earlier, and had apparently not made it to Australia yet, though was available in the United States and (presumably) Canada. Because we Canadians get all that stuff at the same time as the Americans. So perhaps sometime in the 2000s, a group of Australians travel to Canada and find the long-lost Episode VI: Return of the Jedi. This triggers a renewal of interest in the franchaise in the ANZC, and eventually a prequel or sequel trilogy is started. New books could be written too. There is the pesky issue of copyright of course... some fans would likely not accept the "new Star Wars". However, a large issue is: where was George Lucas? I don't know, but if he was somewhere in the US I think we can count him out of the picture. So I'm going to assume that he died on Doomsday or in the aftermath, unless evidence comes up that he was somewhere where he would survive. Anyway all thoughts welcome, I will hopefully start an article on it this weekend if I have time. --DarthEinstein 21:02, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

Literature
Given that in the post DDay world, much of the mainstream entertainment such as movies and television would be unavailable or very limited in some regions, I have felt reading might emerge as a popular form of leisure. This said, I have been thinking what might have happened to some of the popular authors at the time. One author in general was horror novelist Steven King who lived in Bangor, Maine. Although I could not track down where he was at the time, he “could” have been at either of his residences in upstate Maine with his wife and survived. I have also discovered during my research on Delmarva that Tom Clancy was living in adjacent Calvert County, MD and was probably still working on his first book which wasn’t published till 1984. As such, I think he might have survived and I am looking into the possibility of bringing him into my nation if feasible. All this said I believe this to be a subject worth looking into long term. If anyone has any thoughts on King or any possible surviving authors, I would be interested in seeing them. Thanks. --Fxgentleman 01:39, November 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * That would potentially place him in TTL Aroostook.--BrianD 01:45, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

Where would Harry Turtledove be on Doomsday and would he have survived DD? I would think that an alternate history novel of a world where Doomsday did not happen would be a bestseller. What would it be called? --Yankovic270 02:17, November 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * I actually tried researching where Tdove would be and as far as I could tell he was most likely in LA in 1983. Mitro 14:11, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

So if not Turtledove, who would be the author of the alternate history novel I mentioned? John Birmingham? Douglas Niles? There must be some author that imagines a better world. Our world may not be oerfect, but it is a whole lot better than the 83:DD world. --Yankovic270 14:49, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

Sports by country: football
American football, not soccer ;) Yank's entry for Lincoln mentioned the Lincoln Cornhuskers joining the "hypothetical football league". I'm almost certain he's referring to an idea I put on my talk page for a feature article on a Superior businessman who had an idea of reforming the NFL, with teams in existing survivor countries. In TTL, I think this would be impractical because the travel costs for teams travelling cross-continent would be too prohibitive (remember, none of these countries are New York or LA). I do think that forming a North American football league, consisting of teams in the NAU, Lincoln, Deseret, West Texas and perhaps Dinetah would be more doable. I also think that Lincoln's support - based in the OTL rabid support locals have for Nebraska University football - would help spur the league into a top-flight league. Your thoughts?--BrianD 05:54, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Olympics?
I took this from the sports by country talk page, and wanted to replicate it here so everyone had a chance to see it. In TTL, it's been 29 years since an Olympics have been held. I've stuck with canon in keeping the first games post DD in 2010, and placed the next games in 2016. Should I dream up something to postpone the games to '12? --BrianD 23:17, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

Olympics will in 2010? i think the right time is 2012, like in our timeline, 2 years before/after fifa worldcup and others competicions, Pan American Games are in 2011, every 4 years, because america cannot send 30 football teams to ANZC, or 30 Rugby teams, i think we must read Multi-sport event wikipedia to do a reasonable calendary--Fero 23:08, November 17, 2009 (UTC) Hi, Fero. You're right, the Olympic cycle would put the summer games in 2008 or 2012. When I started on this timeline I saw that the first games post DD were listed as being in 2010; I chalked it up to the butterfly effects of Doomsday. I'm having reservations about it being in the same year, and same time, as the World Cup. But I don't want to automatically change it without taking it before the community, so I'm going to list this on the main 1983: Doomsday talk page. Your suggestion of a sports calendar is a good one.--BrianD 23:17, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

I have an idea. What if we have an Olympics-like sporting event that only features the American survivor states. The modern Olympics were started as a way to foster peace and (symbolic) unity. The balkanized state of former Canada and the United States makes it a great place for exactly that reason. I think, as the North American Switzerland, Vermont should hold the first North American Games. --Yankovic270 03:12, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

There is a real Central American and Caribbean Games, can be a good source, north american games sound good to me, and rememmber the real Pan American Games what is clasificatory to the (world) Olympics--Fero 03:47, November 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yank, hmmm. You'd have to have it two years after and before each Olympiad. The Pan Am Games are held the year before the Olympics, and of course you wouldn't want these North American games to conflict with the Olympics or the Pan Am games. Regarding a host site, existing venues large enough to hold spectators for each sport is a determining factor. You have to have them or build them. Off the top of my head (going with universities I believe still exist in TTL), Vermont (Dartmouth, New Hampshire, Vermont), Deseret (BYU), Lincoln (Nebraska), Virginia (West Virginia), West Texas (Tx.-permian Basin, Baylor), and maybe the MSP (Oregon State?) could host Pan Am-type competitions.--BrianD 04:18, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

How about we have it start on July 4th, 2010 for obvious practical and symbolic reasons. The fact is that any major sporting event like the North American Games needs quite abit of time to be prepared for. The nations involved need time to train athletes to, hopefully, get the gold. Just out of curiosity's sake, what would althletes get? Medals or trophies? --Yankovic270 13:31, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be fine. In fact, these North American Games could be part of regional competitions sponsored (or approved) by the IOC, in line with moving the Olympics back to their regular schedule. Six years is a long time between Olympics. But as none have been contested in 29 years in TTL, I don't think waiting another three years is going to make a real difference.--BrianD 15:48, November 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * An alternative: The Commonwealth Games !!! likely to be going on for some time given the significant number of commonwealth members surviving. I would go for a 6 years circle as well.. the logistical efforts are -related to the nations possibilities- immense and would cost a fortune !!


 * Even Olympic Games taking place in New Zealand or a SAC country would be sh. like setting up FIFA World Cup in South Africa, in the best case !!--Xi&#39;Reney 20:41, November 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * Logistics probably are why the Olympics haven't been held yet. It may just now be at the point where nations can have these things and affordably travel to the site and support their sports federations. --BrianD 20:49, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Is it plausible that these nations participate in the Americana Games?
 * Aroostook
 * Assiniboia
 * Deseret
 * Dinetah
 * Kentucky
 * Lincoln
 * MSP
 * NAU
 * Prince George
 * Superior
 * Vermont
 * Victoria
 * West Texas
 * Republic of Texas
 * Alaska

Yankovic270 19:31, November 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * It certainly is plausible. A few things to consider:


 * North American Games might sound better because Americana sounds too U.S.-centric
 * Would the NAU compete as one nation, or three (US, Canada, Lakotah)?
 * Extend an invitation to Alaska and the eastern Republic of Texas
 * Double-check with the editors of the various nations involved, to make sure you have their OK. I'll give my blessing for Vermont, West Texas and eastern Texas to compete.

We'll need to figure out a list of events, and list of venues as well - this will mean confirming that some sites (universities) exist or were abandoned in Virginia/West Virginia TTL.--BrianD 19:38, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Yes the NAU is one entity. It is shown as one entity on the WCP page, so I will recognize it as a single entity. And I put the list on the talkpage so I could get the authors to give their OK. So fasr you are the only one to answer Brian. Yankovic270 19:54, November 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right, it is one entity on the WCP page. But its page refers to it more as a European Union-type organization: the countries work together in certain areas, but retain their independence. Mitro would need to answer that definitively. I do understand the Canadian provinces there are exploring reunion with St. John's on the east coast. As far as the various editors, give them some time. It is the weekend after all. I'll ask the question though in the summary field for this page.--BrianD 20:00, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Proposal: move the summer Olympics TTL to 2012
After reading Owen and Yankovic's suggestions, I believe that we should move the Summer Olympics back two years to 2012. In OTL, this helps me, or whomever the caretaker might be then, to be in the proper mindset when writing the scenario for the games. In TTL, my thoughts are that nations would see it as being too close to another major sporting event, the football World Cup. Nations probably wouldn't want to throw all their resources into two major events that would happen back to back. They would be more likely to do regional competitions - a North American Games, an European Games, Oceanic Games, etc. That gets nations reacquainted with the Olympic-type schedule, and allows them to see how ready they are (or aren't) for the Olympics. Now, I could see going ahead with the Winter Olympics, and on the OTL schedule. Where they would be hosted is another question, but it would be easy to say that nations have been preparing for a limited Winter Games. Thoughts?--BrianD 15:48, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * Fero cronology proposal (for America)
 * Central American and Caribbean Games 1926-1982 (86 canceled) 1990 - - - 2010
 * North American Games (only former USA and Canada, inspirated in Cen Amer and Car games) 2010 -2014
 * South american games 1982 (86 canceled) 1990 - - - 2010
 * Pan American Games 1979 1983 The 9th Pan American Games were held in Caracas, Venezuela from August 14 to August 29, 1983. (1987canceled) 1991 - - - - 2011 (1991-2007 sometimes named Olympics)
 * Olympics 1980 (1984-2008canceled some regional event was named olympics) 2012
 * tell us your Multi-sport event proposal timeline--Fero 18:21, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Here's how I see it: there may have been small regional events calling themselves the Olympics, but until the IOC was formally reorganized, there were no official Olympic Games, not even in South America. When the IOC was restarted a few years ago, 2010 was targeted as the earliest date the Games could be restarted and have time to prepare the infrastructure, find venues, allow nations' respective sport federations to prepare, etc. Some influential countries also in the World Cup want the Olympics to be postponed two years. The ANZC would not necessarily mind this, as this gives it 2 more years to make sure it gets the Olympics right (and hold Oceanic games as a test run). I'm inclined to have the IOC push it back, but again, I would like to present this to the editors here for their thoughts before I make that change.--BrianD 20:27, November 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * I do like the idea of North American Games, though, and Fero, I like your logo for them! I would nominate Virginia for host in 2010, with the games to be held every 4 years. If West Virginia University in Morgantown and University of Virginia in Charlottesville have survived, I think that they would be a good base for a Olympic or Pan Am-type competition.--BrianD 20:30, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'll go ahead and move the Summer Games back to '12, with an announcement forthcoming on confirming Rio as host for '16 (as in OTL). That will be on the Newshour page, as well as a confirmation on Alpine hosting a very limited winter games during the timeframe for OTL games in Vancouver, and an announcement on Siberia hosting the Winter Games in '12 and Nordic Union in '14. I would like for TTL Olympics to be on the same timeframe as OTL going forward.--BrianD 19:28, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Video Games
To make myself clear before there are any misunderstandings, this is not about the '83: DD timeline being turned into a video game. This is about the video games made in the timeline. For instance, I imagine a video game version of the Virginian propaganda film "Rebirth of a Nation". In it you play former President-General Thompson as he travels from Kentucky into West Virginia, and as he defeats the "evil" warlords. Any other ideas? --Yankovic270 00:46, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

The video game industry for this timeline looks bleak. North America was just getting into the video game crash of 1983 when DD happened. Nintendo might still be around as they are based out of Kyoto. However, thanks to Japans isolationist policy they are unlikely to spread out of their home market and save the video game industry like they did OTL. Thus I am wondering if video games would even exist as a popular form of entertainment 83DD TL. The one silver lining might be that Europe had a fairly robust computer game market at the time, so assuming there are a few video game developers left in the Euro-Atlantic fringe we might see a few computer games coming out every now and then, but nothing compared to what we see today.--ShutUpNavi 18:37, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

Miscellaneous discussion
Archives: Page 1

Revitalising idea: 1983: Doomsday TL in Videogames?
As I finally aquired a version of Supreme Ruler 2020 I wanted to revive a discussion we head breifely a time ago.. Does anybody have an idea to work out a plausible and workable realisation of the 1983: Doomsday TL into a suitable videogame? By building a mod, a scenario etc.? I am no computer geek so I would have had more ideas yet as this keeps me fascinating... to imagine interacting in the world of 1983: Doomsday...

Some possibilities I would see:

Does anybody have any ideas of this? Or anywhere someone tried this before? Il bethisad or so? Maybe some Timelines from this wiki have been used somewhere? --Xi&#39;Reney 19:47, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Civilization IV: here I even started creating a world scenario mirroring the World in 2008 of 1983 DD, but it was when so many things were not described yet so I kind of let it go down the drain...also because of the details of CivIV were at that point overwhelming...just do have no access to it right now...
 * Supreme Ruler 2020: tentativly started to find sth. to do it with this game as it would be the closest plausible idea I can imagine...but there is no map editor/easy scenario editor and the modding by editing files is scary for me...
 * Superpower 2: fairly unuseful as far as I know the game...only for maybe a Doomsday simulation I could imagine


 * It sounds good in principle... but modding a game is a lot of work. I've tried modding Civ 4 before, I created a "Canada" faction... but this is much more complex of course. It would be a project spanning several months as far as I can tell... perhaps even a year. Also there is the question of which countries to add as factions. Technologies would be tricky as well... I'd assume that the game would progress in months from September 1983. Since technology isn't improving at a very fast rate in this TL, technology would be sort of useless. We could replace it with something else I suppose... though what I don't know. Culture would also be problematic. In Civ 4, culture determines control over the surrounding regions, however that doesn't translate well into this TL. So we could replace culture with, say, self-sufficiency? Or something like that. Anyway, those are my ideas. Those other games I haven't heard of. --DarthEinstein 20:35, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

I think the best way to achieve the territorial extent and smaller nations etc. would be to mod Hearts of Iron 3. Its a WWII game, but heavily modable. The game is super complex though.--Oerwinde 22:14, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

my idea would be A GTA game GTA Arostook were you play a drug dealer in a post DD city--Owen1983 01:07, November 22, 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear Holocaust Bibliography ..Amazing collection
foun in wikipedia a potentially interesting: Nuclear Holocaust Bibliography... Have a look ... Did anyone see this before?? Anybody knows who is teh author of this? Might be something useful... :)!!--Xi&#39;Reney 21:54, November 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * Just going through letter "a" takes me a long time... This is definitely an amazing collection which took a long time to write...Fascinating...--Xi&#39;Reney 22:02, November 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * Continued this sunday on letters c,d and e... took me about 2 hours, with looking up some of the books/stories mentioned. Just can recommend this again !--Xi&#39;Reney 20:42, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

I read a few pages on that site, Xi'Reney. Amazing resource. I recommend Warday by Streiber. I don't necessarily agree with his premises, but it probably accurately reflects the effects of even a limited nuclear war on the U.S.--BrianD 22:34, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Cricket
Cricket would be popular in the Indo-Australian sphere at least and also in New Britain. It is the national sport of Australia, so I think it has a chance of retaining its earlier position.--MC Prank 15:58, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Economic question - which currency has replaced the US dollar?
I'm wondering what currency in TTL has replaced the US dollar as the global standard? As nations rediscover one another and engage in trade, this is going to become more and more of an issue...barter can only go so far. But which nation's currency (or nations' currencies), and how would that develop in the 26 years post-Doomsday?--BrianD 05:48, November 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * Once the SOuth American unified currency comes into effect (4 years from now?), it will probably be The Global Currency. Until then... ? Benkarnell 05:55, November 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * Until then...does it break down by the most powerful nations in a region? Would the North American nations default to the Canadian dollar, or the Mexican peso, for example? It's something that as international trade becomes more common, the nations will have to address. What do you use in the period before the SAC currency becomes official?--BrianD 06:34, November 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * we must create the article Economy (1983: Doomsday), i suport mexican peso, brasilian real, australian dollar are the greater money in this timeline from 1983, maybe a new money os spanish speaker nation in america (Amero) can up them--Fero 20:40, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

look that table Most traded currencies, most of that nations was nuuclear destroyed, but we still have Mexican peso and others, that is the 1983 currency--Fero 20:47, November 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * Mexico's been portrayed as somewhat isolationist, with a lot of problems to sort out within its own borders. Brazil, on the other hand, is the ne economic great power of the world, as much or (possibly) even more than Australia.  At least, that's the essence of the Brazil page.  If there's One Single Currency in the world, I think I'll move that it be the real.  Benkarnell 21:00, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

That is if there is a global currency. If we couldn't get a global currency in our, relatively stable world, what makes everyone think there would be one in the fractured world of 1983: Doomsday? Yankovic270 21:13, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Yes... the Brazilian currency seems to be the one that has replaced the US dollar in many respects, but I doubt that it could be considered a global currency. Actually, do you think that the SAC would have a shared currency, similar to the Euro? If so, than that would probably be the best currency. But of course it is not used everywhere, and I doubt that countries like the Celtic Alliance or India (just randomly picking two) would have investments in the currency. --DarthEinstein 21:41, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

I would guess any global currency would honestly be illusion until the establishment of the LoN and even then we have large issues to overcome. Not just currencies, folks...! What is the use of a suitcase with 5mio $ in your hand when you are walking through nuclear, green-shining ruins in Wall Street?? Taking this more fundamental we have a devastating situation for any global economy system...almost forgot I got a diploma in BA :);P) NYC, London, Frankfurt, Paris, Moscow, CHicago, Boston, Beijing, Sydney, Hongkong(? do we know the fate yet??), Tokyo...nearly all major financing centers, stock markets, trading places are GONE !! ALong with computer infrastructure, communication (satellites), the skyscrapers, banks, the records, a lot of money is melted or burned.!!! So we have world economy largely in scrambles aka vanished. buyers, sellers, gone...all who still live (largely) fight to survive...goods-trade would be predominant... GLobal economy you might consider MEdievil. Over the years slowly economical trade would restructure itself somehow...but on a regional scale...(working on more) South America would likely have a currency union... the COmmonwealth and its associated countries as well... I would see a rivalry with an advantage for the SAC as they have HUGE common market on their continent...--Xi&#39;Reney 22:54, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * Another important point is the international debt of latinamerican, asian and african countries. It would come has a mixed blessing. For latinamerican, specially Mexico it would come has problem that they can write off easily, althought formally they would declare a moratorium (indefinite or playable if carefully specified and impossible conditions are meet). Resources will be diverted to reconstruction and internal solutions. However the need of credit for major capital development would be stuck on the need of credit. I see this a big, big problem for Africa and perhaps some parts of Asia. Perhaps South America, Mexico, Celtic Alliance, Nordic Union, ANZC and URSS would have a working currency for internal use and foreign trade in their respective areas and perhaps regional credit and loan systems. --JorgeGG 23:11, November 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * international debt of latinamerica, that dont care, we not gonna pay, pay to who, USA France, Neteeland, they dont exist, and here sucesor are... dust, the great mexico is not gonna pay 300000000000 millons of dollars to 3 hungry texans, mexican president say someting like "talk to the hand" LOLOLOLOLOL--Fero 00:31, November 22, 2009 (UTC)


 * Well there goes West Texas' get-rich-quick scheme. :) --BrianD 01:14, November 22, 2009 (UTC)

What I wondering is, in a world where the pre-war banking system and the dollar are lost to history, how do you do trade? If I'm Vermont and I am interested in doing business with other nations, do I barter? Do I try to use Vermont dollars, or Canadian dollars, or the Brazilian real? Ben alluded to the future SAC currency taking the place of the dollar TTL. Until then, what are people using? When it is said that Singapore and Chile have a trade agreement, what does that look like? Business and economics are not my strong suit...I need to learn as much as anyone here would (if not more).--BrianD 01:14, November 22, 2009 (UTC)


 * I would still guess that the Brazilian real and the Austro-New Zealand dollar are the two biggest ones. However, probably currency, like everything else, is much more regional.  The world of 1983DD does not yet have a "global economy", so there's probably no need (yet) for a "global currency". Regarding the SAC: if I'm reading the page right, it's still a very young organization (2004), and its Constitution is not set to go into effect until 2010.  The Peso Real, the united currency for the continent, is not set to be adopted until four years after the constitution goes into effect... so 2014 at the earliest.  Benkarnell 01:22, November 22, 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree trade is largely regional, and I am guessing that lacking a common currency it is almost exclusively barter.--BrianD 01:27, November 22, 2009 (UTC)

first 2 nations agree of how much mush pay for some food, how much vermond dolar can vermont print, you mush agree if whit a dollar you can buy a house or a piece of rock, is not the same, in south america that is easy, we was have money before and in DD but brasilian and argentinians can trade easy and quickly but to commerce argentine Vermont, i dont believe easyly in vermont crap green/pink paper--Fero 01:30, November 22, 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow...Fero, I understand the South American countries are the powerhouses TTL. So is the sentiment TTL from South America that the North American survivor states are third-world countries, with 'crap' currencies? That would fit the overall scenario for TTL that the southern hemisphere countries are the powers, in every way, and the northern countries are this TTL's new Third World. Question...if South America really feels that way toward the former U.S., would North American nations then look to a more sympathetic ANZC?--BrianD 01:51, November 22, 2009 (UTC)

You know, until reading thru this thread, I never really realized how much the tables had turned economically TTL...the former U.S. (and Europe, China and the USSR) could legitimately more or less be the third world economically. We probably need to look into this...would the US survivor nations tie their currencies to the ANZC dollar or Mexican peso (as some nations OTL tie their currencies to the US dollar)?--BrianD 02:13, November 22, 2009 (UTC)


 * a new currency of a new little postwar country is sow.... look kosovo money, that is Victoria money, the only who respect that is another small new postwas country like prince george--Fero 02:46, November 22, 2009 (UTC)

I'm not particularly interested in U.S. bashing, just as I'm not interested in bashing any other country in the world OTL or TTL. I am interested in how trade works TTL, and part of that is how the more powerful nations in the southern hemisphere see the ones in the formerly powerful regions in the north. If their reaction TTL is like Fero's in this talk thread, perhaps the North American and European nations are almost by default going to be forced into the ANZC sphere of influence, because ANZC probably will be more willing to do business with them. --BrianD 16:13, November 22, 2009 (UTC)


 * Gold, precious metal for coinage, jewelry, that is a good thing, a send many food for that, is the africa business, Colombia(for example) dont believe in Ruanda dollars and dont believe in Milwakee dollars, and Australia can take milwakee dollar high because chile is not gonna acept that crapy money, is just like today Ferox, USA say that maney is chipy and euro agree euro say that monet is high and russian ruble agree, omaha dollars is like real world nicaraguan peso. I think, maybe i wrong--Fero 17:54, November 22, 2009 (UTC)

Texas have black gold, is like Saudi Arabia, but is in someway conected to mexican peso like real world saudi conected to american dollar--Fero 17:57, November 22, 2009 (UTC)

I thought that as well, Fero, about West Texas and the peso...and I definitely agree that the currencies of North America are nowhere near as strong as the Brazilian real, or even the Mexican peso or ANZC dollar. Compared to the real the Vermont dollar is definitely third world and nowhere near the status of the former US dollar. Let me propose a list of the most powerful nations and their currencies TTL, and which nations are tied to them:

I could see the peso being in turn pegged to the real - giving South America financial influence over all of Central America, the Caribbean and the southern portions of the former United States - and creating a situation where the ANZC dollar and the Brazilian real are the two dominant currencies in TTL.--BrianD 20:26, November 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * ANZC dollar - ANZC, Papua New Guinea, MSP, Victoria, Alaska, Hawaii, Siberia, Japan, all of Europe, Canada, Victoria, Prince George, Vermont, Aroostook, Superior, Saguenay, New Britain, RZA
 * Mexico peso - Mexico, West Texas, Cuba, eastern Texas, East Caribbean Federation, Puerto Rico, Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Nicaragua
 * Brazil real - all of South America, Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia, Aceh
 * yet to be determined - the remainder of Africa, the Middle East, India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, NAU, Dinetah, Deseret, Virginia, Lincoln, Kentucky, any other North America nations found or yet to be discovered

congratulation for your ideas, but this is long i think we mush move to Talk:Economy_(1983:_Doomsday)--Fero 20:39, November 22, 2009 (UTC)

Since recently the Virginians restored the rights of the constitution, I am planning on having Rockefeller establishing a Virginian SStocke Exchange, with priavately owned corporations. I know Virginia isn't as strong as Brazil, but any nation that can keep an 80's lifestyle in a region where most nations are in the 19th Century is in pretty good shape. I could have it start national, but slowly get corporations from other nations trading stocks. --Yankovic270 22:45, November 22, 2009 (UTC)

=CURRENT ARTICLE PROPOSALS= Please list any and all current article proposals and their discussion here. If the proposals only involves a specific section of the article, please state that. Also remember to use  when reviewing new articles.

I'm creating a page on CANZ Armed Forces.--MC Prank 15:25, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

India articles
I added information on Khalistan and Operation Red Blood which was blank before that. Any ratification problem --MC Prank 15:25, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you link to the page? Benkarnell 05:56, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/India_(1983:_Doomsday), here. --MC Prank 07:21, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * See also Republic of Khalistan (1983: Doomsday) and . Mitro 03:22, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

LON Authority for Space Operations
To bring forward the issue of spaceflight (and in a larger frame more global themes in 1983: Doomsday) i propose the canonization of the LoN - Authority for Spatial Operations, situated in Kourou and established by the TSAR treaty in January 2009. Aiming at coordinating and supervising spacfaring and realted activities worldwide in the signing and ratifiying states.

A frame I worked out now, some details are needed (site for ANZC launch site... etc. I already tried to refer to what I found in other articles, but not sure if got everything. Harmonizing with League of Nations and other pages will be done if approved.

Thanks for your help and comments.--Xi&#39;Reney 19:01, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Before Doomsday the US was a major force in Space exploration but with the US gome the only two countries that have the recourses ar the SSS and ANZC and theres another thing how are these governmants going to justify a space program when people in meny parts ofthe world have medievel living standerds --Owen1983 19:07, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * You know what Owen, this is one of the few times I have to agree with you. Space exploration in all likelihood will be a low priority even among the first world nations.  Mitro 19:15, November 16, 2009 (UTC)


 * My intention is definitely not bringing any moon mission into DD. Any ambitious space program Would sound like Science fiction. I am mainly thinking about practical focus, e.g. satellite starts for reestablishing communications and/or meteorological/reconaissance purposes, maybe a GPS-like system in a timeframe roughly 2009...more economical than rebuilding vast terrestrial infrastructure once you get a functioning rocket system back to work. --Xi&#39;Reney 22:03, November 16, 2009 (UTC)


 * This is true, we take satellites so much for granted nowadays that we forget just how much the Space Race has benefited society. If you can just get a satellite up there, it is much easier to use it to communicate, instead of building miles and miles of land lines.  nd then there are the public safety benefits that come from being able to see hurricanes and the like when they're still out in the middle of the ocean.  Benkarnell 23:40, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * Satelites make sense, my concern though was for more ambitios space exploration designs I have been seeing pop up on certain articles. One proposal suggested that an American survivor state could make it back to the moon sometimes in the 2010s.  Mitro 00:13, November 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * Where is that page? Benkarnell 00:52, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * It was on the proposal, but Riley has removed it but has kept the space exploration which still seems unlikely IMO for such a nation.  Mitro 03:11, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

I could see Virginia starting a space program. Considering what kind of nation Virginia is, the space prgram could have started as an unexpected side effect of missile research. --Yankovic270 03:21, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

War in the Mediterranean!
Discussion moved to Talk:Second Sicily War (1983: Doomsday). Benkarnell 19:56, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Article has been completely rewritten. User:Riley.Konner 10:39, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

There is currently a dispute about whether this article should remain in canon. Please see the article's talk page. Mitro 14:54, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

There is a dispute about the plausibility of this nation. I marked it as a proposal until the dispute is solved. Please see the article's talk page for more info. Mitro 03:02, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

Discussion moved to. It had just gotten really, really long, and we seemed to be arriving at a consensus anyway. I'm planning on writing an article in the next couple of days, but they're going to be very busy. If someone else wants to write it based on our discussion, I won't mind. Benkarnell 15:51, November 14, 2009 (UTC)

Suez Canal
And now the Suez Canal. According to, El-Cairo, and perhaps Alexandria (not clear in the text) was nuked. This would leave the Suez Canal has a no strike zone. No problem here, it was spared because of tactical issues. It is obvious, considering that the USSR needed a fast and short route to India and Asia for its Black Sea Fleet and supply line. Therefore... get ready for this question... Who controls afterwards the Canal, before giving up the control to the LoN? Egypt? or we get another conflict in Middle East for the control of Suez. --JorgeGG 19:27, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

The Confederation of Greece does. Mr.Xeight 21:44, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

Guyana Cooperativa & French Guyana and Suriname
Why exactly is Guyana not a member of the South American Confederation? It's one of the earliest country pages we have, yet it's never been explained. Is it only a matter of time, do you think?

Along the same lines, with the SAC such a powerful and prosperous organization, have any neighboring states (Central America, the Caribbean) requested membership? Or candidate/observer status? Benkarnell 03:09, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * I have always thought that the natural expansion of the SAC would take it north into Central America and even Mexico. I think Colombia annexing that Costa Rica island is a good example of that.  Mitro 15:08, November 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * I never developed the Guayana cooperativa to more than a 3 - lines- status... It was created even before Fero added the South American Confederation so it is more a relict country...I tried to give this another destiny than Being absorbed into a unified South America due to French Guyana being always something special as a French territory...

referring to my established description of Guiana Space Centre (1983: Doomsday) and the events between the French Foreign Legion and BRazilian forces "KOrou incident".... the Korou Space centre being a cornerstone for International Cooperation and crucial I would propose the following:

and the Korou Space Centre after the Korou Incident be put under joint French-Brazilian administration in the first place. This later being modified into SAC-French/RTE administration, but NOT becoming part of SAC because resistance from European remainder Government. Suriname (or a leader) seeing advantages of turning to neither European influence nor SAC proposes merging the territories forming some kind of a "South American Switzerland" in 2002. PLebiscites in both countries decide by tight margin to form a unified government declaring "eternal neutrality". The Country being reorganised in a way like pre DD-Switzerland. BOth SAC and European Remainders accept because of Guiana Space Centre and to have a neutral buffer in between. IN the following it would copy Swis strategies and offer attractive tax conditions etc.... becoming an important international HUB, at least in between European and South American Trade. A lot of European Refugees enter and help boost the economy to a relatively rich country.
 * French Guyana& Suriname merging

After the foundation of the LoN in 2009 Suriname/French Guyana place themselves under LON direct administration, giving a basis for international organisations and a precedence for a sovereign nation putting itself under jurisdictional orders.

I would keep the name by communities after a brief stage of civil war starting to cooperate and calling itself Guyana Cooperativa firstly being drawn into the SAC becoming a member state going the "normal way". Maybe a internal political dispute about joining Suriname/French Guyana might arise in the 2000's feeling unimportant along the SAC...
 * Guyana = Guyana Cooperativa

This would be my idea i will start working on now... I reverted the Guyana cooperativa back to Proposal status and insert the pages about French Guyana and Suriname according to above mentioned ideas. PLease keep the pages themselves intact until I announce my proposal work being finished!!!

ANy comments, especially on the idea of converting French Guyana/Suriname into a "international model/precedence state" are welcome. Also keep in mind the proposal of the LoN AUthority for Spatial Operations. But please plce them here !!!--Xi&#39;Reney 20:52, November 8, 2009 (UTC) ;Thank you... and I am feeling the vibe of working on DD again... yeahay...


 * the separate country pages are opened and in proposal status now. --Xi&#39;Reney 21:51, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Wait, isn't the Guyana Cooperativa the former Guyana and Suriname? If so, why do we need an article for Suriname? --DarthEinstein 22:00, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Because I propose a fundamental change in the situation reverting what was somehow canon before regarding Guyana cooperativa..! An Suriname being not that spanish-like many of its neighbours i believe it an interesting move to vary it a bit!...--Xi&#39;Reney 18:44, November 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to say that I don't like the idea of French Guiana being under direct administration of the LoN. We talked about that idea with the Celtic Alliance berfore, and came to the conclusion that it doesn't make sense for a relatively developed nation to willingly give up its own self government.  It's not as though it were a sensitive, small area like the Canal Zone or Malta - it's a big country, and one with a history of democracy.  Besides which, it would put the country's fate in the hands of who-knows-what faction that happens to be in control of the League.  I think French Guiana is able to declare itself a neutral nation without becoming LoN territory.  Switzerland, after all, managed to do that in OTL, and Vermont is starting to do that in TTL/.  Benkarnell 23:08, November 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * Ceding sovereignty indeed just doesn't make sense to me. Even the current LoN territories would be sui generis entities in International Relations which would require a profound restructuring of the way we think about sovereignty. Employing this principle on a country scale seems, at least for the coming decades, just one bridge too far to me.


 * I must admit that I already had some ideas on the Guyana Cooperativa as it used to be, though I never posted them for fear of turning the place as incomprehensible as South Africa due to my lack of time to actually write an article about it. Now that it is being discussed anyway I feel I might as well post it:
 * Venezuela claims the part of Guyana that is west of the Essequibo river, I believe I have seen on several maps that the Venezuelans would try to reclaim the area which I guess makes sense.
 * In a desperate attempt to fend of the invasion, Guyanan authorities might seek help from Suriname.
 * Military dictator Desi Bouterse of Suriname, though not formally speaking in charge surely the 'strong man' of the country at the time, could send his military to the east bank of the Essequibo river. Since I reckon the Venezuelans just won't be interested in conquering the east bank and won't bother crossing it the Surinamese troops won't meet much, if any, resistance. Something I guess one would exploit by claiming this to be a 'tremendous military victory'.
 * The atmosphere created after the invasion will have brought the two countries together, paving the way towards the union as used to be described in the article.
 * Because the country was created after a Venenzuelan invasion, this also gives us a plausible reason for the country not being a member of the SAC.
 * Anyway, it's just an idea. Feel free to comment or to just ignore it. --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 15:08, November 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * Your objections are very plausible. I would propose to merge everything together and get a derivated guideline to which I would base the proposal articles:


 * Guyana and Suriname: maintain from first day on a strong cooperation (as it was established back in May 2008 when I started working on Country Profiles...Guyana Cooperativa even outdates ANZC, SAC, Indonesia and Hawaii...would be a shame to throw away oldest canon parts!)
 * They finally and quickly unite (GUYANA COOPERATIVA) and are able to fend off the Venezuelan attack as Karsten describes...Then an informal "peace/stalemate" is more or less lasting over the years...resulting in Venezuela formally blocking every initiative admitting the Guyana Cooperativa to the SAC though Brazil, French Guyana and other states maintain friendly relations with the GC... a bit feels like a post-doomsday Taiwan, no? leaving space for internal political disputes about joining the SAC or not)


 * French Guyana: Resulting from the "Korou Incident" and the following treaty Brazil guarantees French Guyana's Sovereignty which the Local administration (encouraged by the remains of France and the RTF --- sth. which I completely missed out until now) preserves throughout the years. Some point in 2001 or 2002 French Guyana (then lead by the former Commander of the French Foreign Legion) encouraged by the growing own importance at the SAC/European - Hemisphere Crossing (Guyana Space Centre etc.) proclaims its independence, declaring neutrality and giving itself a constitution modeled on the old Swiss one. International Organisations and also Companies (drawn by special tax laws, especially Commonwealth Multinationals open their dependencies) settle in and around Korou... --Xi&#39;Reney 20:28, November 13, 2009 (UTC)


 * Makes perfect sense I'd say. Let's go for that :). --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 16:47, November 16, 2009 (UTC)


 * Is the Cooperativa interested in joining neutral French Guiana? I ask because of the 3 stars on the flag and the undertanding till now that there was a movement for all three to unite somehow.  Maybe the Cooperativa government and the French government have agreed in principle to pursue unification, but have been unable to make concrete progress.  Central America made a similar agreement in the 1990s.  Benkarnell 19:33, November 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * This is what has been established before, right... as we seem to have consent that the Cooperativa is NOT part of the SAC...

an idea would be to introduce the unification idea of being brought up from a major party/movement in the 2000´s seeing the success of French Guyana in recent years...holding this flag as symbol...this based on having a small and low voice being not in the SAC... a bit hard to imagine the reaction in French Guyana (not pissing of the SAC?) I would favorize general welcome and some talks beginning in 2006...but not advancing to much... I will write this into the proposal pages :)--Xi&#39;Reney 20:10, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

sorry i was not read all that thrad but Guayana Cooperativa is just because some time post doomday venezuela conquest quicly and easy Guayana Esequiba, and the rest of damaged Guyana find a better her future join with suriname, i dont remember is we write that deeply in the canon but that is was we talk in talkpage many time ago many times, details are open to your work, and i am fero--190.48.146.41 22:40, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Delmarva
In addition to my ongoing work on the Middle East, I have created a survivor nation on the former US East Coast, Delmarva. http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Delmarva_(1983:_Doomsday) I have already opened a discussion page and laid out some of my thoughts. Since this is still a work in progress, I welcome your feedback and suggestions. Thanks.--Fxgentleman 03:28, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

Tennessee/Blue Ridge
Proposal pages for the Morristown and Asheville areas I referred to in the 2009 WCRB report on the southern U.S. I wrote up. http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Tennessee_%281983:_Doomsday%29 http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Blue_Ridge_%281983:_Doomsday%29 --BrianD 00:30, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

Russian SFSR,Ural Territory,Manchurian Socialist Republic
Are there any objections to these articles being considered as canon?--Vladivostok 16:46, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * A small thing, could we rename the Russian SFSR as just "Russia." It would be a lot easier to remember when linking.  Also is it possible to provide a list of targets hit in Manchuria?  Other then that I am ok with graduating these articles.  Mitro 18:08, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure,no problem,I'll rename it now. Yeah,the Manchurian target list is still a work in progress,that's why I wasn't too specific in the economy section of the USSR on what industries it has now. I'll work on the specific list,do you want me to add it to the article,or just write it here purely for reference?--Vladivostok 19:34, November 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to bring up some thoughts about this...It is not that I am somehow anti-commi, anti soviet or that the articles are not well written...

I just have a bit of doubts about that many Soviet/Communist/ Socialist states emerging (respectively Soviet expansion that rapidly and nearly automatically..

I try to imagine the situation in Far East Asia, Especially the Soviet Union after a nuclear holocaust...it was a very centralised state, being focussed on Moscow in general and the few large cities especially... IN between you have vast vast spaces of -if any- small isolated pockets of civilisation. And in theory you belong to one immense nation and live in a strong political system guarded by security mechanisms (army, KGB etc.)...But in reality you are somehow lightyears (or thousand kilometres) away from the political theatre. The people in this region stick to their own (folks and people) and somehow get along with the system forced upon them.

IN US Wargames everything would be focussed on taking out the important targets, and Cities like Moscow, Vlavistock, Irkutsk, Yekaterinburg, St. Petersburg (Petrograd) and military targets spread out about the vast territory... with the aim to make out as much of the appartschicks as possible, hoping for the systenm to be taken out...

What I am aiming at is that I have strong doubts a Soviet (Socialist) System even with democratic face would be that easily manifested and especially be accepted and welcomed by the people. Keep in mind the contrast between he Soviet system ruling the people (especially in the Satellite states and east of the Ural) formally being an atheistic, equal, socialist system on the one hand and the babylonic diversity of different nations, religions, traditions, ethnicities in the mosaiced USSR, even in RUssia itself...

With Socialist Siberia I get along very well, plasubly explained, well maintained etc.. So given a Soviet authority surviving there and able to establish order, food supplies, security, reganing some military strength, rebuilding the infrastructure etc...ok...rhen setting out to "reestablish a soviet/socialist system, if necessary by force (the Alaska conflict which I still "

but now imagine the reaction of the surrounding regions meeting someone trying to reestablish some variation of the System which
 * caused WWIII
 * suppressed entire ethnicities (respectively their traditions) for decades
 * costed millions of people their lives (in history)

of course in the first time (months, years) you take: food, water, help, shelter etc. (The one's bread i part, his song I sing a German saying) but on the long run I would have strong doubts the Soviet System would be that easily spread out again and accepted in all those territories!! So I object to the quickness and easiness communism is restored...Keep in mind the Soviet Union OTL falling apart wihin a few years and conflicts going on until today...

This is the content- and logic-based objection...And I am not accusing anyone of establishing influenced by his own favour for possibly his own country --Xi&#39;Reney 20:00, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

But there is also a general concern I have - and always had from the first day on- about large power blocs (naming/behaving themselves empires or not) in this Timeline being introduced, becoming canon...I always fear something too strong would negatively impact the diversity and space for creative exploration and imagination of this Timeline and reinfluence a lot of the work on especially smaller regions/countries / commnuities...

This is a personal dislike i freely admit...but it was always my guidance in my work on the 183: Doomsday Timeline of not letting it become a world dominated by 2 or three powers to the extent USA, Soviet Union had in our world...rather more a bit more fractured and variable...to vary it a bit from the dominating "Soviet World Rule", "American Empire", "NAzy Germany Victory", "3-4-5 powers have a nuclear/space race to dominate the world", etc scenarios...I am not dreaming of an egalitarian world as you all know...(damn the world is nuked for large parts!!)

But this is my personal concern about this Timeline/Scenario and I wanted to remind you of this... --Xi&#39;Reney 20:00, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well,I personally believe that the break up that happened here,probably wouldn't happen in the TL. The reason being,other than the changed circumstances,that people would probably want to become a part of any country that has a plan and leadership after such a drastic event as a nuclear war. People wouldn't fight over ethnic differences and such,rather petty disputes after a doomsday-like event.In fact,I think that this would bring people closer together. I agree that the Soviet Union had a very centralized government and I tried to come up with a solution to that. A man from the old regime,in this case Aliyev,survives the war and manages to organize the remaining population and military,who were starting to fight each other without strong leadership. Most military installations would get destroyed,but since the USSR launched its missiles first,it would have some,albeit small,time to save some men and material. Granted, the Chinese would be angry to say the least,but they would also try to fight for their own survival and would eventually learn to live together with the nations of the USSR. The Uyghurs I would see readily join Siberia,as well as the Mongolians and Kazakhs. The Manchurian part would be a bit reluctant but their desperate situation would probably bring them around. I know the USSR seems far-flung, but seeing as how a lot of areas currently in the Union weren't bombed, the first strike doctrine,the communist system in place and the people's resilience, I think they would have a good chance. Not all nations bombed would necessarily disintegrate into small waring states. Amalgamations would occur somewhere.--Vladivostok 20:19, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Authoritarianism/Totalitarianism is the only kind of government that can survive in the extremal situation the nations of the former Soviet Union and China found themselves in. After the initial shock, and the chaos following, they gladly welcomed the power that brought order, stability, and... well, food. Don't take the word "Socialist" too seriously. Just like in the OTL, there were nearly no real (sincere) communists among the elite. The people of Siberia tend to see the time before the war as their golden days, when everything was alright, they tend to idealize it forgetting about the troubles they had then (because they were nothing comparing to what they had after the war). When they Socialism, they mean "the brilliant past we've lost and will regain", not a social formation. On the other hand, "emergency socialism", is how this nation's system can be described.

Don't forget that the Soviet Union had been preparing for the war. Of course most statesmen were killed, but backup government schemes were developed in advance. No matter how few political and military leaders survived the war, they already were instructed how to coopereate with each other. So it was relatively easy to restore the government. — Hellerick 03:28, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

British elections
British elections coming up! Bob 20:23, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * See 2009 Realm of New Britain General Election (1983: Doomsday) for the article in question. Mitro 03:09, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Growing National Liberalist party in New Britain. Bob 20:23, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Iowa
I Have created this artical here http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Republc_of_Iowa_%281983_Doomsday%29%29 what do people thin I Know Yankovic expressed interest in thi article

Criminal State
I want to create a nation lead by Criminals in the United States. I have two ideas for the nation: 1. A mafia state simmilar to that of Sicily. Could be lead by survivors of the Chicago Outfit or other mafia families. 2. An "Aryan Republic" lead by members of the oh-so-infamous prison gang the Aryan Brotherhood. --Yankovic270 16:08, November 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good so far. Could you make a proposal page? --DarthEinstein 16:56, November 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * you mush find the biggest prison in USA and let them free town around gonna down by the fist of..."alcatraz"?, wikipedia say "As of 2004, the three states with the lowest ratio of imprisoned to civilian population are Maine (148 per 100,000), Minnesota (171 per 100,000), and Rhode Island (175 per 100,000). The three states with the highest ratio are Louisiana (816 per 100,000), Texas (694 per 100,000), and Mississippi (669 per 100,000).[16]", have fun--Fero 18:20, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

sounds like a good idea i think thay would want to get of the mainlan the logical choice would be ellis island but thay would need more resources getting there so i suggest misissipi--Owen1983 18:54, November 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * new jersey prison parody--Fero 19:04, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

Colleges and universities
Proposed list of colleges and universities (for major colleges, not intended to be a comprehensive list) for the 1983: Doomsday TL. http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Colleges_and_universities_%281983:_Doomsday%29 --BrianD 16:00, November 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * This is something that I have proposed over the years, largely as an object of amusement. Basically, family members and relatives of those people who have edited the Alt-Hist forum, as long as they were in a location that would enable their survival, are added into this list of "Honorary Citizens", since they are among the few REAL COMMON people we know would live after Doomsday. These people would be listed under the name of the editor. Bascially included would be there names, their location on Doomsday, their current residence (or at death), and if the editor desires a brief biography on that person, mainly aimed at explaining Post-Doomsday Survival. Currently, I myself do not know of anyone who would have survived (most of my family is based in Massachusetts), but I am pretty sure the case is different for others. Lahbas 02:25, November 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * I like this idea! It continues to push the limits of "creepy Internet behavior", of course, since we're no longer dealing with local politicians who, while very obscure, are nevertheless public figures.  These are going to be 100% private people, so we have to be extremely careful when adding to this page.  I'm personally planning on misspelling or altering the names of anyone I add (which is what I do with my own name on the Internet).  Benkarnell 02:30, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

Can we include what we could imagine their occupation after Doomsday? I have an Uncle in Kelowna, and I imagine him to be the Okanogan ambassador to Victoria. And I made my Grandfather the first Prime Minister of Assiniboia. --Yankovic270 02:45, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

I think its a reat idea as long as there kosha with it but its a bad idea to use there rel names--Owen1983 19:12, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

This is a great idea. I agree we shouldn't use real names unless we get permission from whoever we are writing about. I would also like it if editors from this TL could add in themselves. I am sure some of us could have interesting stories of survival to tell.--ShutUpNavi 19:45, November 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * Basically I agree, just do not get to euphoric to get people you know, your family or even yourself promoted to sth. important if you have no plausible story!!!

This bares some sort of spoil risk. This is a wiki, no personal "I Rule the World" story place!!! I can see some of you guys becoming some brave alt-history writers :)!! Me myself...probably dead, being only 4 months old...and in Western Germany close to British forces Bases nin Westphalia...--Xi&#39;Reney 20:03, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

I guess it pays to be born in rural Manitoba. Did you survive Mitro? How about you Darth? --Yankovic270 21:17, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

No, neither me nor my family is alive in this TL, save possibly my great grandmother in St. John's. --DarthEinstein 22:52, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

Superior elections
Lahbas has created two articles regarding elections in Superior: 1984 Republic of Superior Presidential Election (1983: Doomsday) and 1988 Republic of Superior Presidential Election (1983: Doomsday). My one objection is with the 1988 article, because Dennis Kucinich would be in Cleveland during DD and would most likely be dead. Mitro 03:05, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Article on Soviet Alaska created by Vlad. Mitro 03:10, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Article created by Fero. Mitro 03:13, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Article created by Owen. Has potential to be a general article that can be inserted into the main template. Needs a lot of work though. Mitro 03:14, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Article created by Xi. Organization itself has been canon for sometime. Though the article is a stub I don't see a reason why the article should not be graduated. Mitro 03:16, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Article by Smoggy. Proposal was on hiatus but is back as a proposal. Mitro 03:17, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Article, created by Bob, has been a proposal for a long time. Nation itself is canon but I don't many people have gotten a chance to review the article. Mitro 03:19, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Article created by Lahbas. Mitro 03:20, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Article created by Mjdoch. Mitro 03:21, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Superior military articles
See: Republic of Superior Air Force (1983: Doomsday), Republic of Superior Army (1983: Doomsday) and Republic of Superior Navy (1983: Doomsday). There have been some objections regarding the size of the Superior military and the number of vehicles they command. Mitro 03:24, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Article created by Tristan. Did we ever figure out whether Venice would be targeted? Mitro 03:25, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Canon nation that is finally being fleshed out by Brian. Mitro 03:26, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Article created by Yank. Mitro 03:27, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Article created by Brian. Mitro 03:28, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

=FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES= Archive 1

''This subsection is placed to focus on things covering decisive, vital issues concerning the consistency of 1983: Doomsday as a whole and the Timeline specifically. PLease treat this section with the necessary respect and place things not belonging here below !! Comments of non-registered users will not be tolerated in this Talk section! This TL is not without flaws, and especially in the first time (me myself) a lot of things were inserted out of curiosity or not spending much time on repercussions. And due to the complexity level we have reached with 1983: Doomsday now each of these flaws might have world-spanning consequences... I will focus on identifying and eliminating those flaws/inconsistencies to strengthen the basis of the TL and prevent repercussions on the excellent contents written at all fronts. This of course in the established manner of consensus and discussions! I bring this up as a consequence of the "Canal discussion" further below with the intention keeping an eye on above mentioned things.'' Objections? --Xi&#39;Reney 22:14, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

The dominating principles of the 1983: Doomsday timeline
copied from the discussion above) There is a general concern I have -

and always had from the first day on- about large power blocs (naming/behaving themselves empires or not) in this Timeline being introduced, becoming canon...I always fear something too strong would negatively impact the diversity and space for creative exploration and imagination of this Timeline and reinfluence a lot of the work on especially smaller regions/countries / commnuities...

This is a personal issue i freely admit...but it was always my guidance in my work on the 1983: Doomsday Timeline of not letting it become a world dominated by 2 or three powers to the extent USA, Soviet Union had in our world...rather more a bit more fractured and variable...to vary it a bit from the dominating "Soviet World Rule", "American Empire", "NAzy Germany Victory", "3-4-5 powers have a nuclear/space race to dominate the world", etc scenarios...I am not dreaming of an egalitarian world as you all know...(damn the world is nuked for large parts!!)

But this is my personal concern about this Timeline/Scenario and I wanted to remind you of this... --Xi&#39;Reney 20:04, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

i don't see any problem Xi&#39;Reney --Owen1983 20:16, November 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm also concerned that the Soviet empire is too big and too well organized generally. The thing is, these pages have been logical and well researched, so there has been nothing specifically wrong with them, from what I could see.  But I agree - the whole point was to remove the main superpowers and give smaller countries a chance to be great powers.  I was concerned at first with the North American Union for the same reason, but the NAU is depopulated, low tech, and somewhat unorganized (the "union" includes some allied nomadic clans), so I think despite its large area on the map, it fits the spirit of the TL.  The rapidly growing Soviet empire doesn't, at least not all the time.  (Neither does a wanked-out Superior, Prussia, or Greece, which is why I've argued to keep those countries somewhat reined in.)  Benkarnell 00:00, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * Also the NAU is more like the OTL European Union or the ATL Nordic Union. It is primarily an economic political alliance of different states in the region.  Mitro 15:09, November 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that too. Now, I'd like to hear responses from the people working on Siberia and associated republics. Like I said, there's nothing specifically wrong or illogical about any of it... but taken together it seems to go against the overall mood.  There was an issue before about the number of targets in Siberia being hugely underestimated.  Might that be the problem? Benkarnell 03:50, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well,if it's territory you're concerned about,you don't have to be. In OTL,Siberia is sparsely populated,but we still count it as part of Russia,don't we? Nobody lives in the Taklamakan desert,but it is still a part of China,correct? Same goes for the steppes of Kazakhstan. Just because it's big,doesn't make it improbable. Xi'reney,you fear that creativity could be compromised by these articles. I don't think so. In fact,I think it is starting to create other articles and general discussions on the region. Sure,they may be influenced by the country, but there weren't really any articles detailing the region,except Soviet Socialist Siberia, until Hellerick and I started making some changes. Now,the population,could be decreased,perhaps even the technology,event though I am using technology that existed circa 1983-89. It is not an empire as you call it,it hasn't made any serious actions since Doomsday. It influences some smaller nations like Cuba or Nicaragua,because they were Soviet allies in the past.--Vladivostok 06:14, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * And you're right, of course. All right.  Like I had said, the pages were too good for me to have voiced any concern before.  The idea that the USSR could have survived as an entity when the USA did not sort of bothered me... but I think the world is genuiney improved by your discoveries in the Russian Far East.  Benkarnell 12:56, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Ben,I like that you found the articles to be well written. And,it isn't really our world's Soviet Union. If you want to nitpick,it is another country,the Socialist Union,but I know what you meant. So, where do we go from here? I'd hjate to see large changes in this article. I know it probably doesn't matter,but I really wouldn't push some "take over the world with our giant laser" scheme. Or any sort of Death ray for that matter.--Vladivostok 14:48, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

Condidering the soviet Union was nuked quite badly an as a result would be very highly tadiate and would be unhabitabal i I think the size of siberia is unrealistic--Owen1983 02:53, November 21, 2009 (UTC)


 * I still kind of agree with that too. Like I said just above, there were probems eary on with "not enough impacts" in the Siberia and Far East regions.  Were these ever fixed?  It would alter the history somewhat - like a slow expansion from the Pacific coast.  Benkarnell
 * Well,I of course think Omsk,Novosibirsk,Irkutsk and Yakutsk would be bombed. Military installations in the region go without saying. But we really can't put a number,because we just don't know if any of the missiles would be destroyed,malfunction,etc, and exactly what the Americans planned on bombing. A major concern is about the population, which I still don't know how large it should be.--Vladivostok 13:21, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

Doomsday Report outdated and confusing
The Doomsday report and especially the nuked points map is IMO not really useful and just adding to confusion and getting in the way of advances. This map was quite auickly made by Fero without having been discussed within here too much. And as current problems ar based on this (radiation ways etc.) I suppose we need to thoroughly revise the Report and specifically the map... --Xi&#39;Reney 19:01, November 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, the whole article needs to be revised to take into account all of the new targets that have been mentioned on other articles. I have marked is as a proposal until the dispute is over.  Mitro 19:14, November 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea on the map. I had asked Fero where he got his information, and it seemed from his answer as if everything was based on his conjecture of where the fallout would have gone. I didn't challenge him on it, largely because I thought it was seen as his proposal. But with it being seen as canon, if it is going to be canon it needs to be discussed by the entire community. --BrianD 19:19, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

the articles needs to be consistent to avoid confusion --Owen1983 02:13, November 15, 2009 (UTC)

Population table, in World Country profiles
i think add population numbers in the countries table is good, how many you are is a basic data, not in a exactly number but talk about millons, 33.000.000 or 2.000.000, is not the same, with that our world will be sow more realist, i think. List of countries by past and future population, wikipedia--Fero 20:11, November 20, 2009 (UTC)