Talk:United States (1983: Doomsday)

Archive

The state of Nebraska
All we see of Nebraska in the article is that it is a founding state and that its capital is Scotts Bluff. Then we find out that there is a provisional government on the far side of the state that has rebuilt the more populated eastern part of the state (claiming the whole state as its own). If the Provisional United States is basically in agreement with the CRUSA, then I see a problem here.

Why did the developing PUS ever accept the word of the Scotts Bluff government? Was it because it was close by and convenient to the expanding borders of the presumpious government of this late developing "country"? The more I have studied this "Provisional United States of America" the more that I can see that it is not exactly what the CRUSA has in mind. I can see why some of the CRUSA faiithful are weary of this group.SouthWriter 21:44, February 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think that the Provisional USA (and the NAU) are driven very strongly by pragmatism and local needs rather than idealism. (That feels very western, to me.) The CRUSA, in my mind, will never really like the PUSA because PUSA's purpose is to provide for the security (and civic and material) needs of western Americans, rather than revive the Glory Days. Scotts Bluff and Lincoln were mostly unaware of each other for years, as I understand it, and once they found one another neither was willing to simply merge with the other. And the former helped found the PUSA - so it's certainly wrong to say they were taken over because they were "convenient" - the whole thing was partly their idea! They wanted to form this new federation, and Lincoln did not; I think it's as simple as that. Benkarnell 22:05, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

I think that you are wrong. The PUSA AND NAU were problably formed to preserve the pre-Doomsday lifestyle. A combination of needs and nationalism.Arstarpool 00:24, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Population
How large would the population of the PUSA be? PGC has a population of approximatly 1.3 million people and the NAU holds 3 million people altogether. would 200,000 in Lakota and 1.5 million in the PUSA be acceptable?Ramdominsanity 20:44, February 25, 2010 (UTC)

I think that an ideal population could be around 2.5 million of the NAU, maybe 2.2 million in all of the PUSA. Arstarpool 00:24, March 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Its already been established that the population of the PGC is 1.3 and the NAU is 3 million. So a division of 1.5 million for PUSA and 200,000 in Lakota sounds good to me.Oerwinde 00:37, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Backup, Oer.Ramdominsanity 10:58, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

Isolated Territories
]Do you think it would be possible for the PUSA to have territories that are not connected? I think maybe the Keys off the coast of Florida or maybe some parts of Maryland, where there would presumably be large amounts of Patriots. I also think that it may be possible for Virginia, or at least certain parts of it to integrate. Also, why couldn't there be a North American Neutral Gathering (NANG) in which all of the known nations, warring or allies, could gather and discuss the future of the continent. I also think its time we discover some more countries or communities along the Californian coast.Arstarpool 00:26, March 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Arstarpool, jump on in. You're welcome to suggest ideas for newly discovered nations in California, and you're more than welcome to raise issues, and suggested changes on the main 1983: Doomsday talk page. Regarding the PUSA, Mitro (the creator) can clarify if this PUSA is supposed to be a western-based nation or a continuation of the USA.BrianD 07:19, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

I have personally always thought the PUSA to be a contituation of the USA, with the same constituion, laws, etc. Also, according to the WCRB report on the South, several microstates consider themselves Americans. Ramdominsanity 11:09, March 7, 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that the PUSA would have such isolated teritories. The PUSA is not the CRUSA. They were motivated by the practical needs of its citizens, rather than blind and borderline idiotic patriotism (it crossed the border) in a nation that hasn't existed for over a quarter of a century. They use the name and ideals United States as a unifying code to keep the stability of their lands in check. But the CRUSA's disturbingly fanatical worship of the dead nation is insane and tremendously disrespectful to the great land. To put it mildly: The generation that had such patriotism to the United States is being phased out of societies all across America. Over the years more of them would die or retire, and their children (who would grow up as Virginians, Kentuckians, etc instead of Americans) would replace them, diluting memories of the United States. even if the PUSA had interest in the territory outside their current borders, by the time they reach them no one would be interested in joining such a union. I'd like to say I don't like crushing your little fantasy, but that would be a bald-faced lie. It is about time that the naive users of 1983: Doomsday get it through their heads: America is gone, and its never coming back. Stop deluding yourselves and get back to editing 1983: Doomsday without needless patriotism fogging your mind. I apologize to any who are offended, but I have had enough.

Yankovic270 23:38, March 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yank, I think you're overestimating the nationalism of nations that have existed for less than 30 years. The USA isn't some ancient long dead empire with no hope of resurrection. While many will grow up extremely loyal to the nation they belong to, there will be a huge number raised with their parents and grandparents tales of the "greatest nation in the world" and will seek to restore it. While there are many areas that would flat out not join a new United States such as Virginia, others including many of the smaller city states across the former US would likely join. While I don't think the PUSA would have any unconnected territories at this time, if at some point it gets a coastal port, I could see it happening then.Oerwinde 00:39, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

Yank, I am afraid you have taken your "fantasy" and built a future with Charleston West, Virginia, as the capital of a blantantly sucessionist state. You have taken on the personality of a general that somehow has a loyal troop of "followers" that take possession of federal property with no authority to do so, and then precede to take over land that over which they had no legitament authority. Somehow the governor of the state at Doomsday (Jay Rockefeller) had been preserved for over 20 years to be resurrected as the "first democratically elected president-general" of the nation. And this was only because the "much loved" Thompson - who was NOT a general, and not in Kentucky in 1983. Your fantasy is based on artificial situations that did not exist in OTL while most of us are taking great pains -- with a lot of research. Now the Virginian Republic is infecting the Commonwealth of Kentucky (by its very name meant to be part of a confederate system) with its philosophy of "nation building."

Your tirade above could very well reduce your "influence" in the Southeast of TTL. It may be US who have "had enough" and wish to veto your contributions. A new POD might have to be created to save your concept -- something like "1983: Virginia Survives" -- in which the survivalist state nestled in the Appalachians rises to reclaim the whole east coast, or the whole southeast, or whatever. You have done a lot of work in building your "fantasy," and it would be a shame for it to be tossed aside, but perhaps we have "had enough" of your vision.SouthWriter 04:56, March 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * South, there was a James E. Thompson who commanded the 101st Airbone at the time of Doomsday. Whether he is the same person covered by the Wikipedia article you wrote remains to be seen. "James Thompson" sounds like a common name, its possible that the commander of the 101 and the man you list are two different people. Mitro 18:39, March 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * I was curious, so I first looked up James Thompson on wikipedia and got a page listing 26 men, none of which was a general. And so, I searched wikipedia for James E. Thompson, and got only one hit. The picture on that page was that which Yank used. I didn't go any further. After a personal note from Yank, I checked further, finding the link that you list above. That list links to the wikipedia article and the picture that Yank uses as a picture of General Thompson.


 * No one has addressed what happened to Jay Rockefeller for over twenty years while Thompson ruled the new republic. The man was the governor in a state capital that was not destroyed. But when Thompson and his roving band of nation builders arrive, the state government had fallen. Apparently the WV government had followed the example of that of the US and had abandoned the cause (that is, left town to regroup). Are we to expect that a nation ruled by the military would accept vote such a man in as its first elected leader? --SouthWriter 02:33, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * WP says that Thompson has lived in Hong Kong since 1978. What gives? Benkarnell 03:44, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think thats a different Thompson. GOPZACK 03:47, March 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I think this is one of those cases where two people have the same name but the Wikipedia editors haven't recognized it. I think South makes a good point about Rockefeller though. It seems odd that a culture as militaristic as Virginia would elect Jay Rockefeller in their first free election. Mitro 13:55, March 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Let's not rule Jay Rockefeller out altogether, though. He may have been working behind the scenes to bring back democracy - even if he, for some reason, had not been able to save Charleston from the warlords. In OTL he has been very active in West Virginia politics -- on a national level since 1984. I think maybe he would have been a thorn in Thompson's side! But the politics of post DD West Virginia would make the "political bedfellows" work together in the end to assure Virginian unity. --SouthWriter 15:43, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

I deeply apologize for my conduct. I shouldn't have said what I said. I just think that a mass restoration of the United States is unfeasible at least at this point. I am just sick of hearing these seemingly naive ideas of the US coming back. Am I the only one who knows that this timeline is a distopia? As much as I would like to see the US back in action, I don't see see how that can happen. But that gives me no right to try and suppress any idea I don't like. Freedom of Speech is a value I treasure very much. So please accept my humble apologies, and I sincerely hope that we can get past this unfortunate dissagreement and work together better. So I ask you this : Are you willing to bury the hatchet? Yankovic270 17:52, March 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, Yank. Apology accepted. We figured out that you "kidnapped" the wrong James E. Thompson. I'm sure dear old Gen. Jim Thompson would make a fine dictator. But not the Hong Kong businessman whose picture adorns your article (in a rare instance in which he is in "civilian" digs). We don't want any "utopia," and we are sure that things would not work out in some areas after a disaster such as an all-out nuclear attack. But a fully disoptic world saved by dictators is not what we are looking for in this co-operative work. The survivor communities are towns that, for the most part, did not require federal troops to maintain order even in times of disaster. I don't have a lot of faith in human nature, but in communities that don't put their faith in mankind's wonders, such as the Mennonite communities, such disasters seem to be dealt with a whole lot better.--SouthWriter 15:43, March 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess I just don't understand your outburst Yank. You seem to be emotionally attached to your position but I fail to see the logic behind it. I don't believe anyone is suggesting that every single American survival state is going to immediately surrender their independence and join the PUSA, but if an American survivor state (which PUSA is) were to declare itself the true successor to the US, why would that be illogical? has done the same thing and it has been a part of canon since the beginning. In fact its very likely that there are several states like PUSA in post-Doomsday America, they just have not been written about yet.
 * I don't believe this is about patriotism, its about realism. As I have argued with Fero, the American people did not disappear in 1983 or 1995. Even the survivors on the continent are haunted by its former glory. I find it very probable for a state declaring itself to be the successor of the USA. That does not make it any less a dystopia, just as having a rump Soviet Union still existing does not make this TL less of a dystopia. No offense but when you once suggested that Virginia, a survivor state that has only recently gotten its affairs in order, was actually 5 times larger then what was originally graduated into canon, that made this TL less like a dystopia.
 * Now lets get back on topic since it was Arstarpool comments that started this discussion in the first place. Arstarpool, PUSA is a collection of survivor communities/states on the Great Plains. They have been isolated from most of the outside world since 2009. I don't think it would be likely that isolated communities in Florida and Maryland would join them. For one thing the distances involved would make any type of government impractical. Potential survivor states in the places you suggest might be likely (see ), but they are more likely to be independent or provisional republics like . However your idea about a meeting between the various survivor states might be an option in the future, though negotiations about where it would be held might postpone the eventual start date of the conference. Mitro 18:33, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

i would have to agree with Mitro on this. But what i find quite funny in a perculiar fashion is that if we count the PUSA as a continuation and not a sucessor, the old USA never truly disappeared. it just came back slighlty different. Ramdominsanity 19:21, March 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, good discussion. I think what hasn't come out is that this is not just about what most people want or feel. I am certain that most people in most communities all across the US still consider themselves American by nationality. But there is often a great gulf between what people say they want in the long term and what they are willing to do in the short term. (Case in point: most Americans say they want the US government to balance its budget.) Saying you believe in reviving the USA is one thing: actually seeing eye to eye with your neighbors about what that means is quite another. The PUSA falls somewhere between Yankovic's assumptions (it's a strictly local thing wthat happens to use the symols of the USA) and SouthWriter's (it's a genuine attempt at re-establishing the "real" USA). On the one hand, the founders of the PUSA probably recognized their new federation as a great "next step" and the start of a healing process for the US. On the other hand, they must have recognized that the specific system they were creating probably could not expand to encompass the entire old country.
 * The process of bringing back America (and Americanism) is going to be messy and tentative, long and slow. I tried to reflect this in my description of, which is in a similar situation. Nearly everyone there still thinks of themselves as Panamanian, and they look to the day when Panama can be restored. But in the meantime, one community (Azuero) has generally taken an attitude like Virginia, that while they are Panamanian on some level they'd rather go it alone. Another (San Jose de David) has gotten used to the idea that if Panama is going to be restored, it will be on its own terms, and its citizens are reluctant to change that mindset. A third (Guaymia) believes in a united Panama but is caught up in too many local disagreements to consider joining the current attempt at a federation. This situation is, I think, a fairly accurate microcosm for the USA and Canada. Benkarnell 22:19, March 8, 2010 (UTC)

I think, that automatically, you all have thought with the "possible future utopia" outlook or a "total permanent dystopia" outlook. I disagree with both, and while I agree with some of you that the old United States Of America, with the 50 states and the same old borders is just a dream, I think that partial re-annexation would be possible.

In a post-apocalyptic book I once read titled "World War Z", a zombie virus kills off about about 2/3 of the world within the course of a year, and the remaining populations are housed either in the main safe-zones or alone or in small communities. After nearly a decade, the United States government, which is now based behind the Rockies, In Hawaii, starts an offensive to reclaim thier lost territory.

Maybe a similar event may happen in the Doomsday:1983 Timeline, where the PUSA starts to reclaim territorys of the old USA, and acknowledging the new countries. So rather than this horrid time be the "Fall of America" or "The Reparation of America", it may be a middle path. I don't know, maybe it would be a Union of 30 or so states, maybe it will stay the same, or maybe it will be a carbon copy of the old Union, with every single county as it was before. But before you maybe childish postulations, remember to use our collective consiousness and combine all of our ideas to create a reasonable scenario rather than stick to the polar opposites. Arstarpool 00:18, March 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * I read World War Z and while it was a good book, I'm not sure if the lesson would translate that well into 1983: Doomsday. For example, there were some communities in the US of WWZ that did secede and had to be brought back in using force. I don't think you are going to see that here with the PUSA. For one thing I doubt the, for which they are a member, would support such actions. Another reason is that PUSA I don't think is strong enough to forcefully take over places like or . The NAU has a better chance of expanding across the old borders than (P)USA does.
 * Also lets not forget that in WWZ the USA didn't end, here it did.
 * I seriously doubt that when PUSA drops the P they will become a carbon copy of the old Union. Almost 30 years post-Doomsday history will prevent that. Furthermore PUSA's new constitution (whenever they finish writing it) will no doubt be affected by western politics. Mitro 04:46, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

I've been pondering this for sometime, I believe that one day a "new" United States will form somewhere most likely originating from the PUSA. Some nations will join others like Virginia will be hell bent on staying out. Any reformation of the USA is years off however. South I also want to assure you that Kentucky will not be "infected" by Virginia or by anyone. Kentucky is a more moderate nation then their friends to the east in the sense they will not rule out joining a new America but at the same time see the value of strengthening relations with their regional partners. Friends America is not forgotten and is hardly an afterthought for those in the former United States. Yank's contributions should not be vetoed from this timeline as they are logical well though out, creative and compelling scenarios. It appears that most of South's grievances have been cleared up as mere misunderstandings.

I know Arstarpool's suggestions deal with a zombie invasion but in a way it's the same thing, scores of people killed in senseless violence and a provisional United States in the plains instead of Hawaii seeking to reclaim territory but instead of marching in all guns a blazing they use diplomacy to entice small city states to join their fold. I think it's a route defiantly worth considering. GOPZACK 04:31, March 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * On the issue of if the US will ever return I think it’s possible, if not likely for it to eventually come back. There are several nations OTL that have disappeared for century’s only to come back again in the modern era. I am sure that to someone living in 1860, the thought of an independent Poland would seem like an ultra nationalist polish fantasy. But today we have a Poland that has existed for almost 100 years.


 * However it’s important to not that the modern day Republic of Poland bears little resemblance to the original Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, both in terms of territory, politics, and culture. I would assume if America was to ever rise from the ashes, it would bear as little resemblance to OTL USA as Poland dose to the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. It would have much different political systems, territory, demographics, and even culture. And remember this will be a slow process that will take decades, or perhaps even centuries for it to happen.--ShutUpNavi 15:51, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... you make a good point, Navi. Im my opinion, what North America resembles more then anything right now in tems of geopolitics is either the Holy Roman Empire or the German Confederation. Its probably gonna take a Bismark type figure to bring all the components togehter. If any of you know of a person with these abilites and who probably survived Doomsday (that means no Barrack Obama! or John McCain, for that matter!) please mention them on the Talk Page. Also, when the Constitutional Convention gets under way, i think we should do it like this: each state in the PUSA gets one (or two) delegates and then we proceed to hammer out an agreement. If i may, i would put myself in Sarah Heaths shoes and support the concept of declaring the PUSA the USAs sucessor state.Ramdominsanity 18:51, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Let me point out that Thompson may have decided that his sucessor might need to know how to think like a politician, and not a military man. This may be why he chooses Rockefeller. Do you have any candidates for President-General? Any figures that were in the military or could have been in the military ATL?Yankovic270 16:21, March 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how you can drum up a military man who would end up in West Virginia after 25 years. Perhaps someone who had been stationed at Fort Campbell in the 101st under Thompson in 1983. However, remember, the Republic had been under military rule for a quarter century and wants to impress the world community by a return to democracy. Perhaps Jay Rockefeller has been active in politics all along (or at least having resurfaced after order was restored). It would have been a bit awkward, for sure, but it would work. He might have even fled to one of the surrounding states and served as governor while Thompson was President-general. If the head of state remains a military position ("President-general"), then Rockefeller would likely agree to a commission into the armed forces after election. SouthWriter 03:17, March 11, 2010 (UTC)

I have two ideas for a military officer President-General.
 * 1) J. A. Guest (Commander of the 5th Special Group)- Was at Fort Campbell. Would have moved to West Viginia when Thompson and the 101st did.
 * 2) J. H. Binford Peay III (CO of the 101st Airborne after Thompson)- Could have boarded a ship to Delmarva as soon as he got news of Virginia.

Present Situation
As discussions fly all over the place concerning the fate of the union or co-operation between states in the former United States, the article that should be the center of things remains a stub. In fact, it is an afterthought to the trilateral agreement with the "provisional" government of the two minor Canadian provinces and some native American tribes.

I have looked over the history of the site, and see that Mitro finally took it over in April 2009 after about two months of Emanresu11's work of independently putting together a theoretical western alliance that did not work well with the althistory that had been building for a year. Loughery valiantly tried to expand the original idea, and finally, after Owen stepped in to attempt a fix, Mitro took the reigns and steered the "good ship NAU" to its current course. Finally, on November 21, Mitro introduced the history of the PUSA. It was soon after that that I joined discussions on other pages, never getting to this article until now. Basically, the introduction of the re-establishing of a Provisional United States came and was established with very little discussion. My "perfectionism" has finally gotten the best of me!

Some questions arise. For starters, why would Ray Hunkins be in any place to actually become the "George Washington" of the PUSA? Even in 2002, at the age of 63, he was an unsucessful candidate for governor of Wyoming. His attempt in 2006 was unsuccessful as well. In 1983 he would have only been 44, very young for a candidate for governor or president and with no political experience. By 1992, Hunkins would have to have returned to the Marines from his law practice, gained rank in the war against the Lakota, and then been the odds on favorite at the convention -- the only candidate, in fact, to be presented to the voters at the first national election. Quite a bit to assume for a conservative lawyer from Wheatland, WY.

Second, how did the CAPITAL of the PCUSA end up in tiny Torrington? Granted, the town is perhaps the location that would have recieved the survivors and refugees from Cheyene, and it would have been far enough removed from the Lakota to survive the ravages of the war, but some story line might be good to build up the future capital of the whole USA!

And then, the whole history of the tweny-first century -- with some idea of leadership in the past decade as the continent recovers from the early trials -- would help as we consider the fate of an eventual confederation of the scattered nations that once made up the USA.SouthWriter 02:03, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * I chose Ray Hunkins because I was looking for a politico with some military experience. Since a theme of the TL has always been to bring the little known to the forefront, he seemed like a good choice. If you have another suggestion I'd be glad to hear it.
 * As for Torrington...well I honestly don't know why I picked it. Maybe someone else did it for me. Do you feel another town would be a better pick?
 * I realize that the history of the PUSA is pretty slim, but there is still a good summary on the NAU page. I always figured one of these days I would return and beef up the article, but school, studying for the IL bar, work, looking for a career and planning a wedding are getting the best of me. Mitro 02:14, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I spent half the day researching the history before submitting this note. And then I happen to catch you in the spare moments you have set aside to give to this project. I hope that things are going well with you. Being a guy who made it through graduate school only to not find a place in my chosen field (the gospel ministry), I can sympathise with you facing the bar and all. With me, planning a wedding was not part of my history. My own was done totally by my wife's side of the family. Our son's was, for the most part, the bride's project. It was paid for mostly by her family, while my family provided the venue (our church's chapel and 'fellowship hall' directly below the chapel. I wish you the best in these real life ventures.

Meanwhile, I am closing in on a year in "early retirement" (unemployed at age 57). My wife makes good money, but I hope to have something to replace the unemployment checks when they run out. :-( SouthWriter 02:39, April 6, 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and about Hunkins and Torrington, I'll get to work on those. Probably sometinse tomorrow (EDT - Tuesday, Apr 6). I'll work from !980's governors of Wyoming and whatever I can find of military backgrounds for other politicians of the area. Hunkins was a Marine, and proud of it, but by 1983 he had long since retired and was working as a lawyer and part-time rancher. As I said above, there is some rationale for building up Torrington as the capital (since Cheyenne was so close and it would be a recieving area for any surviving government officials anyway). I'll run some figures and see how feasable it would be to rebuild there for a national government, but I think that a better idea would to build the state capital there and move the national capital, when it is needed, to Casper (where the present NAU article has the stae capital. As a much larger town, this would be more suitable for the center of a nation.

On the other hand, since the Lakota war began due to the threat of a growing presense of Wyoming, perhaps a national capital "built from scatch" would work better. Though about twice as far away, Casper would still be fairly accessable as a recieving community. It is right up Interstate 25 (US 87) and has the "advantage" of being on the other side of a ridge of mountains. I'd say that when the time came for a national government, Torrington could be converted into a federal district fairly easily. It is near the state line and the conjuction of three counties. In fact, looking at the map, a little village named Henry, Nebraska, (No kidding, my namesake!) sits near the middle of a Federal City, District of America (DA).that could be built just souteeast of Torrington (which now houses the present [2010] government).

And so, that's "settled" (yeah, like who made me king?) -- Torrington remains the national capital. But Hunkins will have to wait a bit. I need to find a "war hero" that can win against the Lakota but not enrage them so much that they would not want to join in the NAU. SouthWriter 03:30, April 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * I see not much discussion has moved on this apparently pivotal American nation. I see Hunkins was explained, and I'm good with that. As far as Federal_City.pngngton is concerned, I did a google earth approximation of the capital district adjacent to Torrington, though. It is just a screenshot of the area with a circle to show.the proposed boundaries. We could write in progress report concernig the construction of Federal City if we decide to go this route. SouthWriter 15:19, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

absaroka
It's really split in two around wyoming? Louisiannan 21:32, April 30, 2010 (UTC)

/* 1991 Constitutional Convention */
These changes were made by SouthWriter (I got kicked off and didn't realize it! [SouthWriter] 98.71.133.51 21:40, May 2, 2010 (UTC)