Talk:1983: Doomsday

Before you start editing, please read the Editorial Guidelines.

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

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

Useful Resources:

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

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

Countries/Regions/Politics
Archives: Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4

2010 Toledo Confederation Presidential Election
So as mentioned on both the Toledo Confederation article and in the news, the Toledo Confederation is having an election. For about twenty years, the Democratic Party has had complete control over the government. Over the past few years however, their grasp has been slipping, especially after two schisms, resulting in the Labor Party and Liberal Party. Combined with the growth of the New Republicans (who are being backed by the Conservative Union, a libertarian organization, to displace the Democrats) this is a very real opportunity to end the Democratic oiligarchy. If the Democrats win, it will resecure their control and give them quite some time to regroup and attack their opponents.

The result of the election will also change how the nation is played for the forseeable future. I posted a poll on the Toledo Confederation discussion article, but it did not gather much attention. So, anyways, here is a poll. Please vote. You decide the fate of the Toledo Confederation. Minor parties have not been included in the poll for obvious reasons.

Who should win the 2010 Toledan Presidential Election? New Republican Party: Represenative Micheal R. Turner Democratic Party: President Micheal Bell Liberal Party: Senator Kristina Keneally

Please post any questions or comments here. Some discussion is already on the Toledo Confederation talk page. JackofSpades 02:00, August 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay, I was out of town for about two days. Looks like the Republicans are going to win this round. I'll try to get a news update up soon. JackofSpades 18:50, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Thunder Bay referendum
Thunder Bay was supposed to hold a referendum on joining Canda, Superior or staying independent a few months ago. what would be the result of this?--HAD 18:38, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously this has been forgotten, just like the war in Saguenay and the war in Europe, just one of many problems I guess. And I think no one can speculate on the outcome other than the author, although I think that the referendum would be directly connected to the outcome of the war--Vladivostok 19:48, June 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's take a poll so we can get it updated.
 * Let's take a poll so we can get it updated.

What should happen to Thunder Bay? Merge with Canada Become a protectorate of Canada Merge with Superior Stay Independent

Note:My browser had a spasm and marked "Stay Independent" when I meant to mark "Merge With Canada". Arstarpool 19:04, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as none of the options reached a 50% threshold shall we move the top two vote getters to a runoff? --GOPZACK 01:45, July 13, 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. --Lordganon 10:12, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

What should happen to Thunder Bay? Merge with Canada Stay Independent

Resetting the runoff poll because the "merge with Superior" option officially lost. It had seven votes, the other two had eleven. Yankovic270 15:12, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

How the hell is Thunder Bay supposed to "Merge With Canada"? Most of Ontario is still outside of Canadian control. For God's sake the Canadians have yet to reclaim southern Quebec, let alone Ontario. I think that Thunder Bay should stay independent until at least 2020, when the Canadian province of Ontario is officially restored.

Yankovic270 22:58, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

So it's a problem with Canada when they are to "merge" with Thunder Bay, but not a problem when the Virginians control eastern Virginia which was ripped to shreds by nukes. I sense hypocrisy...Arstarpool 02:48, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Thunder Bay merging with Canada....'''eventually. '''Let's be rational here. It would be much more convenient for both parties if they held off the merging until Canada reclaims the territory between itself and Thunder Bay. Which, at this rate of expansion, is around '''2020. '''And et tu Arstarpool? I defend the Commonwealth of California/Californian Republic and this is the thanks you give me? I try to be rational and you snap at me. All I'm saying is wait until its plausible. Which at the earliest is still ten years from now.

Yankovic270 02:57, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

How about we bring back the more plausible possibility of them merging with Superior? Arstarpool 03:09, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

I had that on the original runoff poll but Yank cleared it off, in defense of Yank it varies region to region as to who joins who & such. Thunder Bay is different then Virginia & such. GOPZACK 03:12, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

You guys need to remember that while dormant, a debate is still going on as to the actual condition of Ontario after Doomsday, and how it was originally made much, much worse sounding than it actually would have been.

Also, Canada does control the Ontario coast of Hudson's Bay - and Thunder Bay is not all THAT far from there.

While it is more plausible for them to join with Superior, it would still make some sense for them to join Canada.

On another note, whoever came up with that date for Ontario in the first place was likely wrong in some regard - sure, southern would be out, but Northern Ontario, except for North Bay, would be fine to establish a minimal territory/province, on the same level as Quebec.

Lordganon 12:30, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

While they are "not all THAT far" there are no roads to create a viable connection between the two. GOPZACK 04:26, July 29, 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. I think we should delay the vote until Canada actually controls the area in between itself and Thunder Bay. Until then, more practical voices will prevail over the blindly patriotic. Thunder Bay should remain independant, at least for now. I'm basically the practical person of the discussion, who noone listens to because the truth hurts. Thunder Bay can't and shouldn't rejoin Canada now. How many times to I have to say that it isn't practical at the moment?

Yankovic270 03:36, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be a tie, chaps.HAD 08:11, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

It is? I'm seeing 13-12 in favor of Canada (and I just voted in favor of Canada - however, the vote tally didn't change to reflect that). BrianD 15:23, August 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Never mind...the tally just changed. When are we cutting off the voting? BrianD 15:24, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea, but the vote is too close for this to be called a consensus. Also we must debate which is plausible. Yank makes a very valid point that there are no roads of use that would connect Canada's holdings along Hudson's bay with Thunder Bay. GOPZACK 06:11, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Well, way I figure it there's gotta be a way we can combine the two - without it being something that happens in 2020.

Something along the lines of what the deal was with B.C. and the railroad when it joined Confederation?

Lordganon 07:08, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Any thoughts about what I said? Sheesh.

Lordganon 13:00, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

We've been busy. We'll get to it soon. --GOPZACK 23:26, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Two points of interest: why is it that the 1st poll putting merging with Canada in the lead and the 2nd puts Independence in the lead. And how is it that 34 people have voted! With regards to communications, surely it would be possible to establish a radio link between Thunder Bay and the rest of Canada? HAD 16:25, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Up until basically today the numbers on the second one were reversed.

Lordganon 23:05, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

East British expansion into Lincolnshire
I have written it down on the page. But I wanted confirmation as to whether this would be a sensible course of action. As East Britain is mostly based in Lincolnshire with some areas of Cambridgeshire and Norfolk, as well as Hull, it only seems natural for East Britain to take control of Lincolnshire. Bob 10:15, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

It could be done, but you'd need to make sure you do a good job with the locals. East Britain has only a population of 40,000, and would be incredibly thinly spread across Lincolnshire - unless you make sure the locals agree to become citizens of East Britain, you will have major issues in maximising the effectiveness of the land you've colonised. Fegaxeyl 08:44, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I've updated it and East Britain has a population of 230000. Bob 11:07, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

That figure seems a little high to me; is it the population before or after expansion? Fegaxeyl 12:09, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Before expansion. I altered the numbers to include populations from South Holland in Lincolnshire, Hull and the occupied Cambridgeshire areas, all reduced by a considerable margin to produce this number. Bob 18:30, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

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

New Chumash Flag
Im thinking of changing the flag for the Chumash Republic here is what I came up with

New ideas Option 1 Option 2 Option 3

In addition I will also let people submit there designs Riley.Konner 01:38 August 28 2010 (UTC)

Here's my submission. Basically just the same flag only cleaner.Oerwinde 06:31, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me, or do any other users think the browns and tans of the flag make it look dull and unnapealing? What do the Chumash have against vibrant colour? Don't get me wron, the tribal logo is grest, it's just that the flag looks altogether boring.

Yankovic270 23:34, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Well for some reason the images on the poll aren't appearing, but Yank option one is very colorful. Also Oerwinde you must add your option under "option 3 on the poll and give a description. Riley.Konner 07:29 August 29 2010 (UTC)

Maybe post the other ones on here separately so we can see them? Just call them Option 1/2.

Lordganon 05:37, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Thats what I was thinking. Riley.Konner

Also just a note the same flag that gets picked will also change the nations coat of arms (unless option 3 is chosen). Riley.Konner 16:02, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Why does everyone think that the Chumash Republic needs a flag that looks like it came from an old western. We can use a flag that doesn't look like it came from a sepia-toned movie. We have the technology.

Yankovic270 16:48, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Quad Cities Flag
So I have been working on the article and I realized it does not have a flag. So I am opening up a contest for some of our more graphically inclined editors to design a flag for the article. Best one will be selected for the article, most likely by vote. Mitro 04:18, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Option 1, red white and blue for america, the red representing the two states the cities come from, the blue represents the mississippi, the stars the four cities. Option 2 the same thing but the stars are oriented to represent the states the cities hail from.Oerwinde 06:44, August 30, 2010 (UTC)



Looking at the Illinois and Iowa flags, I saw both had eagles on them. Ran from there.

Lordganon 10:46, August 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually the Quad Cities area is a geographic area that is used to describe five cities. So there would probably be 5 stars on the flag not 4. Mitro 13:59, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

While that may be true it is called the "Quad Cities." So......

Lordganon 09:57, August 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand the confusion, but since it was five cities that started the alliance, there would be most likely be 5 cities. The only reason the area is not called the "Quint" Cities is because people found it easier to say Quad. Mitro 13:42, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Hmmph. All three of the flags have been changed, but its not showing up on here....

Lordganon 18:39, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Thrace Reclamation Zone flag
I've spent the last few hours racking by brain, messing with my graphics designer, trying to make a decent flag for this, to go instead of that byzantine thing. And I can't think of one.

So, I'm asking if anyone else can come up with something.

However, needs to have four things on it to fit in with my plans:


 * Something for Bulgaria
 * Something for Greece
 * Something for the Turks
 * Not have the seal as the centerpiece

I'd also love it if it had the double-headed eagle on it.

Lordganon 19:34, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I made up a new one, plus there's my old one. I like the new one better and you probably will too.Oerwinde 08:24, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

I like that, but I would like to see if anyone else has any ideas.

Lordganon 11:44, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Duchy of Lancaster flag
Okay, I've done my research and there's two possibilities. The first is the flag of Lancashire, while the second is the flag of the real life duchy. Personally I'm leaning towards the former (the latter seems rather gaudy) but I thought I'd get a second opinion.Tessitore 17:14, September 3, 2010 (UTC)



I'll have to agree with you.

Lordganon 19:48, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Wiki/Timeline/Article Technicals
Section archives: Page 1

Culture / Society
Archives: Page 1 • Page 2;

Food
Given that it's undoubtably a major issue in post-DD world, it might be interesting to look at it in more detail. Which countries are still suffering the most from shortages, which ones are doing okay, rationing and the extent thereof, national staples, changes in diet since before DD, which foods have almost vanished from many countries (eg, chocolate, coffee, tea, cane sugar, ect). Food production has probably changed in a few places as well, due to a combination of isolation, limited farmland, and climate change. What do you think?Tessitore 23:59, August 12, 2010 (UTC)

the Celtic allience and ANZ are doing okOwen1983 14:58, August 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * I have a brief section in the Toledo Confederation article on how food had been effected by Doomsday. A large portion of the population starved to death between 1984 and 1989 despite a quick response by local governments. Most farmland and livestock were destroyed by fallout resulting in government takeover. In the modern day, the federal government and most states have set up emergency stockpiles in case of another food shortage. I was considering adding something about the average Toledan's diet but was unsure where it would go or what it would be. JackofSpades 15:08, August 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've started a page on this as a Proposal (see below). Input would be appreciated.Tessitore 20:35, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've started a page on this as a Proposal (see below). Input would be appreciated.Tessitore 20:35, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Miscellaneous discussion
Archives: Page 1 | Page 2

Atlantic/Carribean American Authority for US Territories
I would like to make a page for the US's Atlantic and Carribean territories and a government they could form. This proposed "" would govern Puerto Rico, US Virgin Islands, Navassa Island, Gitmo, Serranilla Bank, and any other territories for a certain period of time until little by little the organization was diminished to only a small area of control where they would remain to the present day. Please if anybody would like to work on this with me list your name below. Arstarpool 00:38, August 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Your proposal conflicts with the Puerto Rico article somewhat. It pretty much states that the Commonwealth government was running itself up to 1984 when they established their independence. Also it has already been established on the South Florida article and talk page that the Cubans would control Gitmo. Mitro 04:24, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * There is some wiggle room here seeing as the Caribbean Federation is fairly vague. Also I think it should be a member of the East Caribbean Federation seeing at it has adopted its currency. Also I'd like to see what territories the controls now or has controlled in the past. --GOPZACK 18:05, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Zack, there were indeed quite a few territories in the western Atlantic and/or Eastern Caribbean. Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands, working with the Consulate office in the Bahamas perhaps, could easily have established control over the islands in question almost immediately. Reagan's office could have had some contact with as many consulates as possible (though from reading this time line that is not so clear). These territories should have been very active in the days immediately following DD - receiving east coast refugees, sending relief ships (cruise ships that had off-loaded their passengers before returning to ports on the continental US, etc.
 * I will volunteer to help Arstar on this. If the article on Puerto Rico has to be changed, we will have to tread carefully because of QSS, but it is always possible that the original editor(s) did not take all pertinent things into account. --SouthWriter 20:02, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * So here is a loose history of the USAR, then:
 * It takes its roots in the Gitmo situation. Regardless of what happens with Gitmo, the US Navy will send some troops out to the Carribean to check on the islands.
 * Navassa Island is as always, quietly empty.
 * The US Virgin Islands are, well, in confusion and in water and food shortages, but have reached a level of stability.
 * Puerto Rico is in chaos because they actually were hit on Doomsday, but not in disarray.
 * By the 1980's, Puerto Rico will probably leave the remnant, or possibly even fracture into an American side and a Hispanic side.
 * Eventually the organization will join the ECF under, well, unique conditions regarding their soverignity (representation, political autonomy, etc.)
 * Ultimatley the Remnant will serve as a service to keep America alive (in a way) in the Atlantic/Carribean and to help refugees and stragglers that didn't make it to the Gathering Order (which would be almost all of the Navywith the Panama Canal closed they wouldn't want to trek aroung South America to get to Australia.)
 * If you are gonna work on it please do, as I can rarely log on these days and I need someone to help me work on my articles.
 * If you are gonna work on it please do, as I can rarely log on these days and I need someone to help me work on my articles.


 * Oh, and at the moment it controls Navassa Island, which would probably be repopulated by now at Lulu Town, Gitmo, assuming the Americans defeat the relatively weak Cuban army and others who made it through the Cactus Curtain and the Mine Curtain, and the USVI, assuming the ECF is modified to include the USAR under special conditions. Arstarpool 21:37, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear winter
I found this link at alternatehistory.com (on a thread dealing with the buildup and aftermath of a nuclear attack on Britain). At this link, Carl Sagan's theories of nuclear winter are thoroughly debunked; the argument becomes that, in the event of an all-out nuclear war, the survivors would deal with a nuclear autumn (though crops would fail because not enough sunlight is getting through to ground level). BrianD 15:46, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Proposal Overload
We currently have 53 proposals swimming around, most of them have sat idle for a month or so. Lets try to get to around 30 or so before we start making new pages guys. In my opinion I think placeholder articles like Yunnan or Alaska should just be graduated and marked as stubs. Arstarpool 00:36, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually there are 86 proposals currently. Also no offense Arstar, but a fair few are articles created by you. I think you should try getting some of your articles graduated before creating any new ones.
 * On a similar note, personally I am not that bothered by this huge number. Admittedly I used to be like that in the past, but the more I think about it, its better to make sure a few quality articles are added to the TL instead of just rushing through several mediocore ones. If it meets the proposal cue is a little long, so what? This is an active TL, we have more than 20 editors contributing to it. Its a good sign we have so many proposals. Mitro 01:36, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

WTD is going on between East Britian and the Celtic Alliance?
- - WTD (What The Duece). Why has the Celtic Alliance declared a blockade of East Britian over the comments the East British PM made? It's a bit of an over-reaction, isn't it?--HAD 16:20, September 2, 2010 (UTC) -
 * Sure sounds like it. Mitro 17:09, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

- -
 * I think the OBN would much rather the situation be settled by peaceful means but none of nations of the OBN are members of the LoN they would be concerned that the Celtic Alliance has much more influence on the world stage. That in itself is one of the reason for the existence of the OBN Verence71 18:58, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

- Speaking as the President-General of Virginia, until this dispute is settled, the Virginian Republic will officially sever all ties to the Celtic Alliance. The Virginian ambassador to the Celtic Alliance will become the first ambassador to East Britain. - - Yankovic270 19:05, September 2, 2010 (UTC) - - This isn't a RPG. Who is responcible for the Celtic Alliance?HAD 19:14, September 2, 2010 (UTC) - - Point taken and I've altered my post accordingly - - I think Arstarpool is currently running the CA Verence71 19:17, September 2, 2010 (UTC) -
 * He is indeed. --GOPZACK 21:42, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

- - Agreed with HAD. BrianD 20:14, September 2, 2010 (UTC) - - The Newshour says something about East Britain having weapons of mass destruction? Would anyone want to elaborate on that?--Vladivostok 20:52, September 2, 2010 (UTC) - - I agree with HAD to. Weapons of mass destruction? Now that sounds down right implausible. --GOPZACK 21:42, September 2, 2010 (UTC) - - I believe that this move would make basically every nation on the planet ( or at least the nations in contaoct with the Celts) furious with the Celts. I don't believe the LoN will stand for this kind of unreasonable war-mongering on the part of the Celts. - - Yankovic270 22:05, September 2, 2010 (UTC) - - It was a joke, I just wanted to see Bob's reaction, and then I was going to delete it. No sweat, guys, it was all in good humor :D Arstarpool 02:57, September 3, 2010 (UTC) - - Really, meh..--Sunkist- 02:58, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

First off, if you're going to take this conversation off the talk page, archive it. Don't delete it wholesale as you just did. That's not as I understand the practice around here...at least it hasn't been.

Secondly, Arstar, your actions regarding your 'joke' were very unprofessional. It appears as if you're treating this timeline and the wiki like it was some sort of game. This ain't life and death, but there are people here who take this seriously enough to try to do good work and not pull some ridiculous joke. If you really do care about 1983:DD, you won't pull stunts like this. BrianD 03:36, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with BrianD. This isn't funny. Jokes, if appropriate, should be reserved to the Talk Page. Please, delete the posts (is that the right term) off the main page and the WRCB page. --HAD 11:39, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

I however, did not mean my comments on the Celts to be a joke. They were meant to be a serious condemnation of the Celts which is a logical growth from East Britain's Britishness. Bob 11:47, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

That's a bit unfair on the Celts, isn't it? Yes, they hold territory in the former UK, but they didn't activetly set out to establish an empire, it just sort of occurced as a consequence of providing humanitarian aid to the former UK. That's my reading of the situation, anyway. --HAD 12:17, September 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Nations are territorial. It took god knows how many centuries to work out what belonged to which country and afterwards it was more or less a case of 'you stay on your side, I'll stay on my side and we won't have any more trouble'. The CA didn't stay on their side. It may have been due to humanitarian reasons but I can see how it'd ruffle a few feathers.Tessitore 13:00, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

=CURRENT ARTICLE PROPOSALS= Please list any and all current article proposals and their discussion here. If the proposals only involves a specific section of the article, please state that. Also remember to use  when reviewing new articles. To graduate an article, move to have the article graduated and if no one objects the article will be considered canon (see the for more information on this process).

The Sultanate of Turkey is the successor state of the now defunct Republic of Turkey. I've started to write the article. Commentary and ideas are welcome. Most of the pre-Doomsday history is straight off Wikipedia. And I hope this doesn't conflict with any already accepted nations in this althist. I've accounted for the existence of Kurdistan, the Greek control of Rhodes and the (formerly) Turkish Straits, and the possiblity of an enlarged Armenia in eastern Turkey, though I'm not sure there's an accepted article about Armenia.

Caeruleus 22:17, May 21, 2010 (UTC)

In fact, its pretty awesome. Any objections? Arstarpool 17:24, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

Heh. That Caucasian war bit is impossible, realistically, and the state is still too large.

Lordganon 03:03 June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if it included only southern Turkey, and shared little/no borders with Greece, then it would be acceptable. The Causcausian War crap should be taken out. Sorry, but I didn't read through the whole article, heh. Arstarpool 16:31, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

You have to erase the Georgian and Armenian things. There is a state on Georgia since much before you wrote this article. Fedelede 16:48, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Bye bye Turkish Empire I guess. Caucasian War portion removed. Caeruleus 18:29, June 24, 2010 (UTC)

Still way too big as well as expanding too fast, and he's right about the strikes - dont know why I didn't notice before. You have to remember, the list is only a guideline, not anything definite. Some research is involved in this project, remember.

You need to take the criticism and work with it, not ignore it.

Lordganon 10:50, June 26, 2010 (UTC)

Christ! He just gave himself nukes. Not getting graduated with that there, buddy.

Still needs to be smaller and expand less, especially with the new nuclear strikes. No way is that happening now. Add Edirne, in European Turkey, as well, please.

Lordganon 10:45, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to let you know per our earlier discussion, I have posted my thoughts as you asked on your discussion page for Turkey. Please let me know if you wish to talk further in the future.--Fxgentleman 03:30, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Any other objections to its graduation? I believe I have fixed most of the previous issues. Caeruleus 15:42, August 11, 2010 (UTC)

Um..... no, you haven't. It's still illogical for it to be that size. If I'd been the only one to say so, I'd let it slide, but I'm not the only one. Thus, I do object.

Lordganon 05:176, August 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * But it's not illogical for it to be that size. It makes sense and is explained in the article... Caeruleus 23:15, August 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * LG, you're the only one left who has signaled any opposition. So, last call, can it be graduated now? Caeruleus 20:19, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * I just think it seems too optimistic. Every rival just seems to fall over and submit.Oerwinde 11:44, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * And...? There are lots of optimistic articles in this TL. There is also always one state that always wins their battles to unite their nation (i.e. Genghis Khan and the Mongols, Red Army in China and Russia, etc.). Caeruleus 19:51, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Well, you're always complaining that Greece is ASB, so then why are you sinking to its level? Just because more than a couple of nations here are optimistic doesn't mean you have to make yours bigger than it should be out of spite or because you want your nation to bloody recreate the Ottoman Empire; ever heard of the "Would you jump off a bridge if..." saying? Mr.Xeight 21:59, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Unlike Greece, I'm not creating an international empire and an entirely unrealistic Mediterranean superpower in a country that would probably revert to a Peloponnesian War-like state. Also, to clarify, my main problem with Greece was not that it was unrealistic (lots of things in althists are), but that there was no detail on to how everything happen so it seemed as if it became a superpower from nothing. Now the article is much more detailed and I thank you, and the others who assisted you, for that.
 * The only reason this article is may seem optimistic, in my opinion, is because I didn't dwell very much on the famine, disease, death, and general destruction post-Doomsday. I also assume that Turkish nationalism remains relatively strong post-Doomsday, which is not unreasonable to assume. Between nationalism and pre-Doomsday preparations, I crafted Turkey to be reunited in a relatively short amount of time, which happened previously during post-WWI Turkey and during the initial Ottoman unification of the Turkish peoples of Anatolia in similar timeframes. Plus, Turkey isn't a particularly large nation, so unification can occur in a much shorter time period than it can in other nations. Caeruleus 22:09, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

Are you still on about that? The only reason they got anything in North Africa at all was because the ADC either gave it to them to hold onto, or they nipped off pieces from lawless Libya. I didn't even want Greece's influence to extend past Tripoli; it was Mr. Hicken and Venezuela that has Greece puppetifying the Barbary. And you have no room to talk about implausibility either; you bloody have all those eastern-Anatolian states practically fawning over some neo-Sultanate to become annexed by being defeated in a mere months. Greece wouldn't revert back to Ancient Times; literally no one in Greece sees themselves as "Peloponnesian" or "Athenian" like philhellenes would have you think. The only reason their are facturated states now is because the ruling parties of each won't relinquish power-a very human theme. Greece is gradually unifying anyway-by 2012 it'll become one state due to the neo-conservancy, Byzantine-recreationism, all part of the "return to the Glory Years" mentality of post-Doomsday Greeks, mostly barely out of college and learned about East Rome in their studies and how in the early-mid Byzantine Empire things were good and they'll want their politicians to represent them on that and when they get older some will become politicians ride the band-wagon and use unity to make themselves look good. Mr.Xeight 22:23, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * You're the one who brought it up, so don't complain when I mention it. And your explanation for why that happened still doesn't explain how that's even possible, but whatever. Now that I've discovered where you actually mention all those tiny details, I don't particularly care to oppose the plausibility of the FoG anymore. Also, please learn to recognize historical analogies. The Peloponnesian War was an ancient war between Greek city-states. I was refering to my belief that post-Doomsday Greece would enter into a similar state of civil war between many small Greek states. But, once again, Greece is canon, so I can't change it. My current focus is this article. This isn't the place to argue the feasibility of Greece anyway.
 * And if you actually bothered to read the entire article, you would know it takes seven years for the Sultanate to conquer eastern Turkey, which involved direct warfare, proxy warfare, and difficult gunboat diplomacy. Not "mere months" as you put it. Caeruleus 22:30, August 24, 2010 (UTC)

I believe Mr.Xeight has been satisfied. Any other objections? Caeruleus 19:00, August 27, 2010 (UTC)

Some of the diplomatic contact dates need to be changed to those established in Rhodope, or afterwards.

Lordganon 08:14, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Easy enough. Anything else? Caeruleus 15:36, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

The size...I'm sorry but it is way too big, if not almost bigger than pre-Doomsday Turkey. Arstarpool 22:19, August 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not bigger than pre-Doomsday Turkey. And why is it too big? Caeruleus 22:35, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Well when you first made the article, people were already arguing on the size, and then you made it bigger, so maybe you should return it to the original size and map. If you want, I will help you get it wrapped up for graduation even if it means toning it down a little. Arstarpool 22:40, August 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * You need to reread the article. It's much smaller than when I first started it, back when it was outrageously large. I never increased the size. It's borders are all firmly within the boundaries of pre-Doomsday Turkey, except for a few minor Syrian border provinces. And if it is the map that is confusing you on its size, it's because the map emphasizes the size of Turkey in comparison to the other countries around it. But that's just a feature of the map I used. Caeruleus 22:54, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

See? I'm not the only one that feels that way.

The dates are a bit better now, but you have the Greeks telling you of Rhodope before they even found the nation.

And I've noticed that you have the Greeks in Thrace being found and encountered for the first time in both 1995 and 1990.

The Macedonian dates should likely be held back a bit too, depending on the Greek date, but it shouldn't make too much difference.

Lordganon 00:52, August 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well you weren't when I initially mentioned it a week ago.
 * Where does it mention Thrace being encountered in 1990? I'll move that back, then I'll edit the Macedonia and Rhodope dates accordingly. Caeruleus 01:09, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

In the international relations part. And the eastern med. map is also wrong, fyi.

Lordganon 01:43, August 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Fixed the dates. What's wrong with the map? Caeruleus 03:09, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you just made it bigger. I mostly take issue that Turkey seems to be the only country nuked to hell that is unified. While it doesn't break any rules, it goes against the spirit of the TL. The territory in the north that was until recently believed to be Greek I don't think should have been added, maybe create another Republic there, as Turkey having rejected a monarch being entirely unified by one seems suspect to me. There should be more republics in Turkey. And not just Republics in Name Only like Hatay that are prime targets for Sultanate imperialist expansionism. Oerwinde 05:28, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

That sums up my feelings nicely.

It's the borders in the Balkans, Caer. Make them like the Macedonia map~

Lordganon 05:58, August 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * I made it slightly bigger to adjust it to accommodate the actual borders of Greece. I assumed that they had more territory than they actually have and are claiming.
 * Well, I'm sorry if it violates the "spirit" of the timeline, but like you said, it breaks no rules. Unless you have a problem with the actual substance of the article, I see no reason why it can't graduate.
 * I'll fix the map LG. Caeruleus 01:12, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Btw, there are a handful of real democratic republics in eastern Turkey. I just haven't gotten around to writing articles on them yet, or found a volunteer willing to do so for me. Caeruleus 01:16, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Rules? Listen we have marked articles as obsolete for being overly optimistic, like Rhodesia (1983: Doomsday). Mitro 01:18, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well it isn't too optimistic, or at least no one has proven it to be so thus far. Caeruleus 01:36, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * There does seem to be a lot of people who feel it is to large or else they wouldn't still be objecting. Have you thought about reqriting the history a bit to allow some of those Turkey survivor states you also created remain independent to cut back on the size? Mitro 14:05, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I considered it yes, but dismissed it because there's nothing I can find that is unrealistic about it. If someone can point out something concrete that shows how it couldn't happen, then I'll change it. Otherwise, why not? It makes things more interesting anyway. It's also not particularly large. It's smaller than OTL Turkey. Caeruleus 23:22, August 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I agree with that. Considering the map, even with the loss of territory to Greece and Kurdistan, the additional territory in Syria makes up for some of it. Furthermore just saying "its interesting' isn't going to convince the objectors to drop their objections. Mitro 00:10, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Dude, just drop some land... Arstarpool 00:15, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

The Syrian border territories are minor. Less than 100 km into Syria and the border with Syria is shorter than it is OTL too. And if someone can give me a legitimate reason to drop some land, I will. So far, the most people have said is "It's too big." but give no reason why it is too big or why it can't be that big. Or at least that's how I understand most people's point so far. Arstarpool, if you, or anyone else, can come up with a reason why it has too much land, then I'll reduce it. "Just because" isn't a reason. Also, don't assume land = undue strength. Because it doesn't, at least in this case. Caeruleus 01:29, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

I personally find the idea of Turkey returning to monarchy to be a bit implausible. Republicanism is pretty strong in OTL Turkey. HAD 16:52, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

I think initial expansion is a bit much. The article says they become somewhat oligarchic and deal with some heavy unrest and power shortages, yet despite this nearly triple in size. Though this might just be an issue with article clarity. Contact with Hatay would have come earlier I think, considering they share a border. My major issue though is if France and Spain, countries that were struck much less than Turkey with less people and less land area haven't been able to unify their nations or even come close why has Turkey? They've been able to fully industrialize, reach nearly their OTL borders, expand their military, as the article stands they are nearly on the same level as the SAC nations, and they achieved this without foreign aid.Oerwinde 17:28, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Really? I must say I agree with the objectors in that case. Turkey needs to be smaller, more divided and less developed.HAD 19:28, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this just now for the Greek contact dates, I notice that you have contact with the Greek Confederation before it is even established. You're gonna have to push the dates back to 1995, and the same will have to go for the Macedonia dates.

Also, Oer's point is more or less the one I was making.

Lordganon 20:28, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

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

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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

I am going to revamp the article when I have access to a computer on a regular basis, so please refrain from editing until I do so. Arstarpool 05:11, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

Hows it looking? Better than before? Please do not leave a long comment because it is hard for me to view on the current device I am using but just tell me if you may. Arstarpool 22:27, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

Better, I think, but Erie is still listed as the capital, which is a problem.

Lordganon 23:31, August 21, 2010 (UTC)

How about now? Any objections to graduation? If it is something regarding Erie please don't take it into account because when I have the time I will revamp the Erie part of the article. Arstarpool 23:38, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * We take everything into account when graduating. As for Erie, the part of rebuilidng it makes as much sense as Richmond being rebuilt by Virginia. WP is a small survivor state. They do not have the time or resources to commit to rebuilding a city destroyed by a nuclear bomb. Such energy could be spent doing a number of other more important projects. Mitro 18:32, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

With the destruction of Erie, why would WP still be reaching out to Norfolk County across Lake Erie. Also there are still a TON of references that need to be removed. --GOPZACK 18:38, August 23, 2010 (UTC)

You are acting strange, Zack. First you posted a map that supported my claim that eastern Erie would survive, and then you speak against it.

As for Norfolk County, I will have that still happen, but instead it will happen a couple years later. Arstarpool 23:24, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

I said that some of the outskirts are viable for resettlement in the future because they were not blown away to smithereens.As for Norfolk, if it happens a few years later London will have gotten there first. --GOPZACK 04:38, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

True British Army (1983: Doomsday)
links into Essex and Woodbridge.--Smoggy80 19:51, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Well what are we going to do? Arstarpool 00:36, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Graduate it? --GOPZACK 17:31, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

If we were to do so, please graduate as a stub, because there's a whole lot more that could be/needs adding to it. Alternatively, don't graduate it. Fegaxeyl 17:57, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * You can still expand articles even after they've been graduated. --GOPZACK 18:00, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Katanga (1983: Doomsday)
My proposal for a breakaway satate in the former Democratic Republic of the Congo (which I'm assuming fell to pieces following Doomsday).

Yankovic270 19:48, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections? Arstarpool 21:57, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Gécamines is a state-owned company of Zaire. As soon as Katanga gained independence the company would have no control over its mineral wealth. Nevertheless, a big question is, who is buying their mineral wealth? A landlocked nation can't have access to that many markets. Mitro 23:27, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Me and JackOfSpades' proposal for a international organization in the Great Lakes region. Arstarpool 01:34, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to passing as a stub? Arstarpool 00:13, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * Can we get a list of members, that way people don't have to consult the map. Mitro 15:02, August 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Also London, Pennsylvania and Toledo should become canon first before this is graduated. --GOPZACK 19:00, August 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think this proposal might actually conflict with this article: League of the United American States (1983: Doomsday). Mitro 16:03, August 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think it does. The League of the United American States (1983: Doomsday) was a proposed idea as I recall and hadn't even been foramlly voted on by Superior's Congress. --GOPZACK 16:26, August 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * But that is my point though. The LUAS is a canon article and pretty much seems similar to this current proposal. If the proposal is graduated, than why would this organization even be proposed if Superior was already a member of the UC in 2007? Mitro 21:28, August 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * yeah but, LUAS does not even exist yet its a bill purposed by Harold Duke some right-winger in the Congress of Superior. With that said, I really don't know Superior would be a member now that I think about it. In fact I don't know why the other members would want Superior in it. Superior would dominate all decisions made in the UC. --GOPZACK 03:17, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Arstar became caretaker of Superior, but he may not have been aware of the LUAS (which if I recall correctly was Lahbas' proposal). BrianD 03:49, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Are their any articles he's not a caretaker of? ;) I think your right Lahbas did write that article. --GOPZACK 03:55, August 13, 2010 (UTC)

How does one become a "caretaker" of an article he has not edited? Arstar was appointed to look out for vandalism and "trolls" (which I assume are obnoxious articles offensive and totally irrelevant). I am hard-pressed to keep my own articles updated, much less hop around fixing elements of other folks' articles.

Apart from that, the UC seems workable. It is not the grand scheme to bring the USA back under a new umbrella (an idea I like, by the way). The UC is a locally based organization, and probably would have been founded some time before anyone knew of the LoN. --SouthWriter 04:36, August 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * He asked Lahbas for permission to adopt Superior (and Wisconsin). BrianD 14:57, August 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Did Lahbas grant him permission? GOPZACK 01:19, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Zack, yes on Wisconsin, no on Superior. The latter was my misunderstanding. I got Lahbas and Superior mixed up with Mjdoch and Celtic Alliance. Lahbas did give Arstar permission to be caretaker of Wisconsin (with a couple of conditions), and Arstar did in fact ask him for Superior. According to their talk pages Lahbas never responded back in regards to Superior. So as far as I can tell, Lahbas is still caretaker for Superior.

Ah, I don't see any radical edits by Arstar on the Superior article so we need not worry about that for now. I still think this alliance can't work with Superior in it. Pennsylvania (if graduated) will be weaker then Arstar's original article, Toledo is in decent shape, Niagara Falls is small and London doesn't have much of an army so Superior would basically run that show with an iron fist. GOPZACK 01:22, August 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Waitasecond. Oerwinde makes reference to Arstar being caretaker of Superior. http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/User_talk:Arstarpool#Superior.2FOntario.2FCanada.2FSaguenay_War BrianD 18:03, August 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the adoption rules somebody must ask somebody who hasn't edited in three months or more to adopt a page. If the editor does not respond in a week the article is theirs. Other than a few talk page related edits within the three months Lahbas did not edit, meaning that I am the current caretaker of Superior. However I will return it to Lahbas should he request for it to be returned. Arstarpool 03:37, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you plan to do with Superior? BrianD 20:55, August 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * While it is true that someone can adopt an unedited article the article cannot be changed based on QSS. However, it can be continued in a different direction from the last chronological reference (new item in "real time" in most cases). It will have to confirm with the histories of other related articles in order to stay viable as well. I suspect that Arstar has no real drastic changes in mind, though. SouthWriter 15:39, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * While it is true that someone can adopt an unedited article the article cannot be changed based on QSS. However, it can be continued in a different direction from the last chronological reference (new item in "real time" in most cases). It will have to confirm with the histories of other related articles in order to stay viable as well. I suspect that Arstar has no real drastic changes in mind, though. SouthWriter 15:39, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Rhodope-Vidin War
Call it the Bulgarian finale. Will be ongoing through the month.

Lordganon 02:20, August 3, 2010 (UTC)

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

It's not done yet.

Lordganon 10:15, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

Article created by Jnjaycpa. Mitro 17:17, August 3, 2jec010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

List articles


I have a concern regarding the article dealing with National Historic Landmarks in Virginia. Several of those listed were located in Richmond, VA and likely destroyed along with the city on Doomsday. I mentioned it previously, but I noted they are still there. When this article is canonized, I believe this part should be accordingly adjusted. --Fxgentleman 04:46, August 4, 2010 (UTC)

So do I. I like Yank, but his insistence on Richmond having survived is almost as bad as Owen's perpetual attempts to retroactively save Manchester, England. BrianD 01:36, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

I adjusted it so that Richmond was struck, but with a non-nuclear ICBM. I altered the page to make the landmarks in Richmond reconstructions of the originals.

Yankovic270 14:52, August 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Richmond is too important of a target to not be nuked. We have been over this almost as much as Manchester with Owen. Mitro 04:03, August 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * At least Owen's proposals are amusing. Can we by any chance add that Richmond VA & Manchester UK were hit by nukes to the QSS and QAA and the . --GOPZACK 04:08, August 25, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

Lordganon 23:10, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I did my research, and this is actually Bob's grandfather who died in OTL, but somehow managed to survive irridation and starvation. Arstarpool 23:39, August 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * Admit it, Arstarpool, the "research" was the talk page where Bob revealed to Mitro who William had been. As long as William was alive on Doomsday, his life could have gone any number of ways. This could include escaping whatever it was that killed him in OTL. If William died of heart disease, then the more austere life after DD may have improved his diet and excercise. If he died of cancer, life style changes might have prevented the cancer from developing as well. The fact that anyone escaped destruction means that it could be just that, ANY ONE


 * I say develope it, Bob. You've got the start of it on the East Britain page. SouthWriter 01:25, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Because this man is my grandfather, I know the intimacies of the causes of his death. He was a farmer and a successful one at that. He died because of a combination of a tumour which developed in his face because of long term chemical use and a small stroke. My idea was that due to Doomsday, he continued to farm, providing for his community. As East Britain expanded, it took control of farms and made them state controlled. At this point my Grandad stood up for farmer's rights and moved from the agricultural field to the political one, all the time calling out for farmers rights. He grew to be a prominent politician and helped form the Agricultural Party. Because of this move from the fields to the political battlefield, the exposure to chemicals that would one day kill him is dramatically reduced, though small cancers would trouble him for the rest of his life. I know that toward the end he may have appeared pathetic but this was just the drugs. He was a strong man with a strong will to fight. Also as you say South, the more austere life leads to his heart being healthier, rendering the stroke that would be the slippery slope to death null. This means he still a fit and strong man now, in fact even more so. Though not leader of the Agricultural Party, he was a strong voice on the National Council and his political ideas about agricultural redistribution lead to a proliferation of jobs as young mean and women served their 'National Service' not in the Guardsmen but in the fields. His popularity as food became an exportable product and wealth flowed into East Britains coffers ultimately lead to his election as King of East Britain. Bob 11:01, August 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * With all that information, you need only move it to the article in an organized fashion and the article can be on its way to graduation. --SouthWriter 15:58, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * I just think making your grandfather king and you a prince is not the right choice. How about making him a chancellor of East Britain? But a king? And you a prince? I am sorry but not only is it not plausible, but unfair. If I said I wanted my cousin the new Queen of Spain, or my aunt the Eternal President of Singapore, or my dad the King of Kentucky, or my great-uncle the new Dictator of Cuba, it would be shouted down, but making him have a temporary seat of power as a prime minister would be much more plausible. Arstarpool 22:46, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can find a plausible reason why your cousin should be the new Queen of Spain, or your aunt the Eternal President of Singapore, or your father the King of Kentucky, or your great-uncle the new Dictator of Cuba I'll support it. --GOPZACK 01:04, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Will do Zack. Arstarpool 01:32, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * But anyways does anybody else think it is implausible to make your grandfather king? At best I think he could be chancellor or some other seat of power but I doubt they would make him king. Arstarpool 01:32, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * The English love the monarchy Arstar. GOPZACK 02:05, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Though it is odd that a farmer would be elected t head the new nation, and then to be proclaimed king, it is not without precedent. After the American revolution, before the constitution, there were those who wanted to make George Washington king. It could have worked, and a decendant of Robert E. Lee might be king of America. Let Bob's grandad have his day. It does not hurt the time line and it is a possible scenario. SouthWriter 04:21, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * The English love the monarchy Arstar. GOPZACK 02:05, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Though it is odd that a farmer would be elected t head the new nation, and then to be proclaimed king, it is not without precedent. After the American revolution, before the constitution, there were those who wanted to make George Washington king. It could have worked, and a decendant of Robert E. Lee might be king of America. Let Bob's grandad have his day. It does not hurt the time line and it is a possible scenario. SouthWriter 04:21, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Though it is odd that a farmer would be elected t head the new nation, and then to be proclaimed king, it is not without precedent. After the American revolution, before the constitution, there were those who wanted to make George Washington king. It could have worked, and a decendant of Robert E. Lee might be king of America. Let Bob's grandad have his day. It does not hurt the time line and it is a possible scenario. SouthWriter 04:21, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

That is way to late and all of us will most likely be gone by then. I chose 2011 because it is far enough away and unification has been a planned thing since the 90's. And actually, couldn't they be an "exclave nation", a nation with no access by land but all share sea access? Nevertheless I will make a couple of modifications to the date so that they all unify at the same time. Arstarpool 03:19, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * We must stick to plausibility we may not be here in five years but he have to keep this timeline in good shape for the next "generation" of contributors. An exclave nation would not work in this environment. In Texas reunification works because the nations are almost beside each other, the three Florida's are spread out and in three separate corners. Maybe a partial reunification could work. --GOPZACK 03:35, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Was thinking about Ocala, 93 Highway, would of Gainesville visted them?, in fact its quite large, wouldent it become some type of city state?--Sunkist- 03:42, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Guyana Esequiba War
War mentioned at the Guyana Co-Operativa article

any objection to graduation ? VENEZUELA 17:09, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why so soon, is there really no plans to expand on it? Mitro 02:24, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely this condtricts canon? The borders of the Co-Operative have been set for along time. I know that Venezuela has a claim on Guyana territory, but I doubt they would act in the immediate aftermath of Doomsday.HAD 19:16, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

It has actually long been canon that this attack occurred, just not advertised much. Check out the article of the co-operative.

Lordganon 08:18, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Caucasus Emirate
About crazy, Islamic state in the Caucasus, tiny but claims many lands that are not from them. VENEZUELA 17:09, August 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * We need more ideas like these. Although it's not yet filled in I like it so far. Arstarpool 04:53, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * So Ven would you say this is a theocratic city state? --GOPZACK 16:26, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * yes. VENEZUELA 17:31, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

Duchy of Lancaster
An English survivour nation in the county of Lancashire. Just an introduction so far, I'll add more once I'm sure I'm not stepping on anyone's toes.Tessitore 17:48, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I am glad to see another survivor community in Lancashire in my article it was originally thought Manchester was hit by 2 nukes but the nukes malfunctioned saving the city--Owen1983 23:07, August 18, 2010 (UTC)


 * Owen, I believe that you've already been informed on a number of occassions that Manchester is toast in this timeline. Learn to take a hint will you. Tessitore 23:16, August 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Owen, Manchester is gone. G.O.N.E. H-Bombs tend to do that to cities. HAD 08:20, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, I'd really appriciate getting some feedback on what I've done so far. I've been careful but I'm pretty sure I've made some sort of mistake and if I have I'd prefer to correct it as early as possible.Tessitore 16:57, September 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just so you know, I'd really appriciate getting some feedback on what I've done so far. I've been careful but I'm pretty sure I've made some sort of mistake and if I have I'd prefer to correct it as early as possible.Tessitore 16:57, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

I plan it to be a sort of rump state comprised of the remnants of the US Military and initially the US's Atlantic territories until eventually it begins to deteriorate until it is comprised of two or three small islands in the present day. It will be kind of a mix between the APA and the CRUSA. Arstarpool 02:08, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I left my comments on the talk page. Mitro 04:18, August 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I must be high if I'm asking this but are there any objections? Arstarpool 01:41, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Um...yeah. There is still no way there would be an American presence in Guantanamo. It would either fall to the Cubans, or be abandoned and then fall to the Cubans. The idea that they would be bailed out by the ECF makes little sense. Even I doubt the ECF nations have that large of a navy to provide proper support. Furthermore Guantanamo would mean nothing for the Confederation. Mitro 01:51, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Food
I've started a page on this, since if there's a page on what people are drinking then there should really be one on what they're eating.Tessitore 20:35, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections?
 * So much of it is not even finished. Give Tess some time to work. Mitro 01:52, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

International Health Organization
Page about WHO after Doomsday, based in Geneva.--Sunkist- 22:21, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections? Arstarpool 00:36, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the Red Cross's relation with this organization? Mitro 01:53, September 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Erm, It talks about it working hand and hand with the Red Cross.--Sunkist- 00:28, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Neonotia (New South)
SouthWriter's proposal for a nation-state in OTL southern Alabama and Georgia, with former President Carter involved. BrianD 17:41, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

The name is kind of wierd, kind of something you would see in the original Map Games, but the details are okay I guess. Arstarpool 23:19, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Wales
A survivor republic based in southeast Wales. Jnjaycpa 17:53, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Second Empire of Trabzon
I have just completed an article on the Second Empire of Trabzon, a now-extinct monarchy in post-Doomsday Turkey that was extinguished by the Sultanate of Turkey in 2009. It claims to be the (nominal) successor to the original Greek Empire of Trebizond based in modern Trabzon, Turkey. --Emperor of Trebizond 19:44, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine, but graduation will have to wait until the Sultanate is graduated.

Lordganon 00:55, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Greek Revival
So with Mr. Xeight's permission me and Lordganon have been filling out Greece including doing some articles on the various states that made up the confederation before it was unified at the end of last year.
 * Flag of Greece (1983: Doomsday)
 * Agion Oros (1983: Doomsday)
 * Cyprus (1983: Doomsday)
 * Heptanesa (1983: Doomsday)
 * Dodecanese Republic (1983: Doomsday)
 * Morea (1983: Doomsday)
 * Hellenic Republic (1983: Doomsday)
 * Cyrenaica (1983: Doomsday)
 * Delian League (1983: Doomsday)
 * Thrace Reclamation Zone (1983: Doomsday)
 * Kemet (1983: Doomsday)

We'll be filling these out for the next little while as well as expanding on the existing greece article. I'll put up the article for greek egypt once I get it started.Oerwinde 23:06, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

Can I work on Cyprus and Hellenic Republic? Arstarpool 23:10, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

They're both already being worked on. Mr.Xeight 01:21, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Me, Oer, and Xeight have them all covered. This includes Thrace as well, even if I didn't end up making it last night.

(edit - that's made now too)

Lordganon 05:46, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Kemet(greek egypt) is up too. Oerwinde 07:04, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Well which ones are ready to be graduated? Arstarpool 00:36, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Only Kemet and Cyprus can be called close.

Lordganon 10:20, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

The Republic of Indiana
Nation located in the former state of Indiana. Thanks to all who helped .--Sunkist- 04:39, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Imperial Chinese State
Can anybody help me find an heir to the Chinese throne that I can use in an article I am going to make? Arstarpool 00:12, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

I did some digging earlier when trying to come up with a Chinese revival of the monarchy. I believe the current heir was a member of the People's Liberation Army stationed in what becomes the Uyghur Socialist Republic.Oerwinde 00:45, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Would it be ok if I wrote that he was banished into the Chinese wastelands, since the Soviets aren't the biggest fans of monarchy, and managed to establish a small control sphere or an empire-in-exile? Arstarpool 00:53, August 30, 2010 (UTC)+

He was a communist. I doubt he would want to. He was also a technician in the army, so he probably doesn't even have the leadership or combat ability to carve himself an empire.Oerwinde 01:00, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he could be part of the People's Kingdom! Heres my idea: Him and some PLAs could try to revolt against the Soviets and get banished, and get picked up on the other side of China by Jiangsu. If not I could use him for Taiwan-China as a political figure or a supporter of "The One China".Arstarpool 01:16, August 30, 2010 (UTC) In 1983 this guy would have been the heir Yuyan Mind you at the time he was working as a road sweeper in Beijing so he would have died on Doomsday. His eldest son, the guy Oerwinde was talking about is Hengzhen Verence71 18:32, August 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * You could definately have some banished PLA members going from Uyghuristan, as that is already a part of the history of that former country.--Vladivostok 08:53, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

So Oer do you think it would be plausible to have him in the People's Kingdom? If not, I will give him a small area of control elsewhere with his banished army. Arstarpool 23:00, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

I think Jiangsu is too far away for him to have made his way all the way there. Its opposite ends of the country. Also, if he's going to be king of anything, he's going to be a puppet king. He's a projectionist and member of a communist army, not really monarch material. If you're going to do something with him keep that in mind.Oerwinde 08:26, September 3, 2010 (UTC)

Bosnia
A continuation of my work in the Balkans.--Vladivostok 08:53, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Article describing the history of the state of Maine after Doomsday. Created by Arstar but I have written most of it due to being caretaker of Aroostook. Mitro 17:24, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Created by me but Brian and South pretty much took over on their own initiative, so I renounce having anything to do with it. Arstarpool 00:39, September 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * This is starting to be a real pain. But I'm not backing off.


 * Arstar, the entire timeline is a collaborative effort. Some of us have probably been harder on you at times than we should have been. But I think our criticism at times has been fair and necessary. You reference South and I taking over your article. You would rightfully have a solid case for complaint if I took over Superior. On this article, one that is a gateway to various articles for citystates and nations based in the former state, it is only fair and right that everyone have a chance to contribute, and certainly those editors who are caretakers of nations and citystates based in that state. If the article belongs to only one editor, then that editor can potentially write his own article without regard to what is already history in this timeline, and without regard to what other editors have created. It also locks everyone else out of contributing to it and clarifying the history of states referenced in the article. You cannot have that on a shared wiki, where everyone has a chance to contribute.

You also cannot have editors contradicting other editors for their own purposes. I believe this is what you were trying to do with Auburn - so you could write something that in and of itself was not wrong, but contradicted what is canon. In a timeline like this, you have to have some respect for what has come before and what has been established as history. Otherwise, the TL becomes chaotic, subject to radical changes on a whim...something Arstar that could work against you, if a future editor comes along and decides he or she doesn't like anything you've written.

No one took over your article. It is a shared article, and I went in and corrected your information on Auburn. I didn't do this to be personal, nor to offend or anger you, but to correct the article. I'm sorry if that is any sort of problem, but I wanted to clarify for all of the editors what my reasons were for what I did. BrianD 01:00, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Article on the state. Arstarpool 00:47, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Article on the state. Open for adoption. Arstarpool 21:35, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Auburn, Alabama
So what happened in the Alabama college town, and site of a provisional state government post-DD? An article to expand on what has been written as canon in the New Montgomery and 2009 WCRB report on the southern United States articles (I'm giving Charles Barkley to South if he wants him for the Neonotia article) --BrianD 03:17, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Article mentioned in the New York State page. Also mentions a whole bunch of other small lake communities too. Arstarpool 04:40, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections? Arstarpool 04:40, September 1, 2010 (UTC)
 * Why so soon, you just created it. Give people a chance to read it first. Mitro 14:50, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Article I made and Zack wanted to work on it. Arstarpool 04:40, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

All it is is a hole-filler, and writes about how the Republic of Virginia controls it. Any objections to immediate graduation? Arstarpool 04:40, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Article by Trebizond. Arstarpool 04:40, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Just a hole-filler. Any objections to immediate graduation? Arstarpool 04:40, September 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd change the name, "Alaska State" just sounds kind of awkward. --GOPZACK 05:13, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

=CURRENT REVIEWS= Review Archive

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

Outer Banks
This article, created by an anonymous editor and graduated by Mitro, has been dormant. Recent concerns about plausibility lead me to add it back to the proposal list. If anonymous would reveal himself, or someone would adopt the article, these problems could be cleared up. SouthWriter 01:07, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

If the original writer does not come forward, I would be willing to take a stab at the article since the area is near Delmarva and the two areas would likely have contact. I will not do anything however until someone gives me the okay to proceed. Thanks.--Fxgentleman 04:52, August 29, 2010 (UTC)

I've left messages on the talk pages for all four (or five) of the IP addresses the anon editor had. My main interest was in linking Outer Banks to the Appalachian nations and having their respective leaders open talks on building a port in Outer Banks. If you want to adopt the article, Fx, you definitely have my blessing. I trust you and your judgment. BrianD 01:14, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

Just so I will be certain to not miss anything in my research, is there any one particular article I should review first beyond the those for the Outer Banks and WCRB report on the South to understand the dynamics involved?--Fxgentleman 01:56, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

I think those two cover it. Anon didn't write a whole lot on the area. BrianD 01:58, September 2, 2010 (UTC)

Plymouth
After due consideration, I have decided that this article needs a review. It was graduated with remaining problems with previous article named "Outer Lands " (a geographical location in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut and New York. I suggested earlier that Outer Lands might readily join with the new state, given their loose confedation anyway, but that has not been incorporated in the new article or the old. Since both are "under control" of one editor right now, I think this should be easily resolved by that editor. But until it has been, it needs to be "under review." (unsigned by SouthWriter)

Who is the anonymous editor who suggested it to be under review? Arstarpool 22:57, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

Basically since I haven't incorporated one into the other you can tell me to do so?

A direct statement by Brian giving me control of Outer Lands clearly states in fine print "do whatever you want with the article". So rather than hog up the whole Cape Cod region for Plymouth I decided to split it only taking the areas around Barnstable. So I have also removed the review template. Besides that there are no other problems so if you have something else bring it up on the article talk page.

Okay, South, I found out it was you. To be honest I think you are suffering from Power-to-the-head Syndrome like you claimed I had moons ago. I have seen a slight change in your language and even a couple "orders" like on the US Atlantic Remnant talk page telling me to change the purpose of the organization after you recently became a leutenant. I am trying to keep my slate clean as Mitro calls it but anyways the issue was resolved, but it would have been nicer if you would have just said "Hey, you should fix this".Arstarpool 22:57, August 31, 2010 (UTC)

My sinsere apologies. I simply forgot to sign the post. It happens every once in a while. And no, I am not on a power trip. I have mentioned the needed changes on the article's talk page, and even offered solutions. I have not "ordered" anything, but only made suggestions as to make your articles more viable. All I wanted from Plymoth was consistency. With US Atlantic Remnant I have resisted the concept, offering a way around the sticking point with many editors that happen to disagree with you. Consensus means compromise, and your idea of compromise is usually that the other side bends in your direction.

You have control of the articles, and all you have to do is work out the differences. The original article about the the Outer Lands assumed that the destruction of the mainland of Massachusetts was complete. It then preceded to conclude that the wasteland of New England would keep in separated from Vermont and Aroostook until recent times. Since Plymouth survived, contact would have been made early on with the Outer Lands - say 1990 or so - and the Outer Lands would be absorbed into the new nation (which claims all of Massachusetts anyway. I see no reason why the Outer Landers would not agree.

About the "fine print" - here is the exchange as Brian got tired of dealing with the article:


 * I read the description, but its not very descriptive. Plymouth had no nearby strike zones other than Boston, as with Barnstable. So I thought that it would be logical for them to cooperate with each other. If you could just allow me to use the northern tips of the Cape, that would be good. Arstarpool 04:16, June 30, 2010 (UTC) 


 * You know...that's fine. Best wishes to the Plymouth survivor nation. BrianD 04:21, June 30, 2010 (UTC) 

You "wore him down," and he decided that you could do "whatever." But when you did not change anything on the Outer Lands, only making the changes you wanted on Plymouth, you confused matters. He asked for "control of the article back" and has now relented - giving his "blessings" on the proposed changes (merging the two articles). When you make the changes on the Outer Lands, it will become a footnote in "history," and Plymouth will be on its way to claiming all of Massachusetts (and returned to canon.) It's an odd situation in which the first article has to be changed to make the second one viable. Together they will make a great nation. --SouthWriter 00:36, September 1, 2010 (UTC)

=FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES= Archive 1, Archive 2

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

Nordic Union Admissions
Having checked the page on the Nordic Union, it says that Karelia and Estonia were due to be annexed on August 10th. It's now August 26th... and no mention of this pretty important geopolitical event has been made. As well as politely requesting the curator of the Nordic Union article makes the necessary additions to reflect this news, could I make a recommendation that we have a page where future events that are set in stone (i.e. known annexations and sports events, not idle speculation) be placed, like a calendar? Fegaxeyl 16:45, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, he has actually added them to the page and I have added history to the pages in question regarding their admission. But, there hasn't been all that much added to the economy section or history section regarding the issue.--Vladivostok 17:38, August 26, 2010 (UTC)

US Congress
Early on in the timeline it was stated no evacuation was possible but by my calculations September 26 was a Monday and congressmen or women would be informed but with the general chaos they would be on their own its a fair assumption thay would make it out of the capitol to either Maryland or Virginia --Owen1983 17:19, August 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * The attack occurred Sunday evening Eastern Time in America. BrianD 17:37, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I've covered this elsewhere with Owen "in attendance," I believe. It seems he is just raising questions to get credit for doing so. However, it is true that the legistators would have been informed - perhaps by some form of telephone link (we could hope there was some such system in place) - before the general public. If not, though, they would certainly not hesitate to head out away from Washington when they heard the news. At most they would have had an hour. Though it is written that they weren't evacuated as such, we can assume that they knew of Greenbrier and that some of them made it there.
 * In a way, it would probably have worked better with there NOT being "at work" that day. SouthWriter 16:28, August 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * In a way, it would probably have worked better with there NOT being "at work" that day. SouthWriter 16:28, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

South American and Australian Colonies
Although the world is slowly stabalizing, most of the world is still in chaos. I can very easily picturing some less devestated countries in South America establishing colonies or protectorates in the former United States and Asia. Although there would most definately be an outcry from several survivor states, these nations would be almost unchallenged. This would be a new age of imperialism, and the irony is delicous. I can even picture Australia taking over land. Is it plausible for modern day colonies to form? JackofSpades 20:55, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * No. This probably wouldn't happen. The SAC has made their hatred of imperialism clear and, since they're former colonies, they know what it feels like. ANZC has no reason, be it economic, military, territorial, or political, to establish colonies. OTL Australia and New Zealand aren't into anything related to any form of imperialism. The only thing they've done so far is admit English-speaking survivor states as associates. Caeruleus 22:26, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the might fit under this category since it is jointly administered by both blocs. Mitro 22:48, August 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that technically a colony though? I believe its existence is due only to the fact that a safe harbor was needed in southern Africa and the LoN mandated it. I view it as more of a peacekeeping mission than anything else. Caeruleus 23:41, August 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * RZA is a special case - an old remnant of South Africa that had become a tragic shell of itself. International intervention was necessary to stop its total collapse. I would hope that New Britain will one day be allowed to administer that area, giving the transplanted British a decent chance to rise back to a place of influence in world politics. --SouthWriter 16:51, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

governments are focused on feeding there populations and as radiation is still a problem they would be focusing there resources on humanitarian research like new farming methods and combating radiation sickness --Owen1983 01:27, August 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * Owen, the ANZC and SAC are the two most powerful nations on the planet. And they're also amongst the least affected by radiation. If they have the resources to establish a global community (the LoN) and explore the planet with a fleet of former NATO vessels, then the issues you're describing (while valid in a handful of nations in the world) do not affect the nations in question. Fegaxeyl 08:52, August 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Owen has a point, though, Feg. The "global" nature of the LoN does give these power blocks should have been working toward solutions in the devastated areas. The fact that the LoN was so long in forming reflects a decades long deficiency in their efforts in learning the true state of the world above the equator.


 * However, we have to work within the framework of the time line as created so far. Left on their own for so long, many survivor nations did not have the resources to even rebuild communications networks. With the loss of readily available fuel imports (processed and unprocessed oil), these nations would be "self contained" for decades. The coming of the new superpowers from the south after a quarter of a century can only be in a humanitarian role, for interventionism is not to their best interests. --SouthWriter 16:51, August 28, 2010 (UTC)