Talk:1983: Doomsday

Before you start editing, please read the Editorial Guidelines.

Discussion Archives: | Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 |

Former Proposals: | Page 1 | Page 2 |

GENERAL DISCUSSION
The following is for general discussion to improve the TL that does not involve artiCle proposals.

Nuclear Weapons&Energy
Question: should I move this discussion to Nuclear Energy (1983: Doomsday)--Xi&#39;Reney 12:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

An issue I have been thinking about for a long time (since starting my work) but not publicised here explicitely is how nuclear weapons (and energy) should be treated in the ATL. This is IMO an issue of crucial geopolitical importance possibly influencing a lot of the writing done or to be done within the ATL. I kind of hesitated to touch it because of repercussions on existing work. But before this TL reaches the next stage of complexity I wanted to focus this topic. I see several critical aspects overlapping and influencing with a lot of current points. I will name them and add my personal opinion about it. For Oveview reasons I only put te XR instead of full signature behinf my points... I hope for a serious and rational discussion.--Xi&#39;Reney 12:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

if it is decided that the article is to be included yes IMHO I think this be a good adition to the ATL--Owen1983 18:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear Weapons
*Overview of current contents within TL

The main existing contents about Nuclear Weapons consist of the long possible targets-discussion. Nuclear Weapons are only briefly mentioned on the Portal page (the still dead link from the first days of my DD-Work). Also within the Gathering Order of American/NATO military hardware (ANZUS treaty, Benjamin Franklin) and the LoN page are some brief mentions.

In the Israel/Near to Middle East discussion the nukes discussion is more closely detailed.

The TL in the very first version mentioned "only 30%" of the chinese Arsenal had been launched. This is touched upon in the China/s discussion a bit below this. This shows that the topic has mainly been avoided, not been focussed on (correct me). Below I will detail some questions/areas this is touching and which I think should be treated further:

Military/"Action" issues: There is no basic definition/consense on what happens with the non-destroyed/ not used weapons immediately (days, weeks) after Doomsday.Regarding the large chaos, there are of course endless possibilities which might be happening, differing from region to region. Just to name a few, varying on the type of weapons:
 * Remaining Arsenals

A lot of space for fantasy here: Most silos would be destroyed, but some (esp. Siberia) might survive, and someone with the know-how could misuse thir potential. Maybe some governments are able of retaining control over it, using it for their interest based on their intentions...XR
 * Missile silos


 * While it's true that most missiles were launched, it's also true that known launch sites would be major targets - unless I'm totally wrong here, I'd think that silos would be a higher priority than cities. But the idea of independent fiefdoms centered on surviving silos is admittedly a tantalyzing one. In places there might even be ambitious commanders who claim to have working missiles, when in reality the weapons were launched and all they have is an empty spare shell.  Benkarnell
 * Most missile silos would be destroyed; they were just as much targets as the cities and military bases. Even if some survived I doubt you would have nations forming around them.  First, most silos were grouped near others so even if one survived it would be near an irradiated wasteland.  Second, most silos were built in places that were difficult to make a living from.  Third, it takes some high level scientist to keep a nuclear device intact and I doubt there were that many hanging around surviving silos in 1983.  Sure maybe the guy could bluff ignorant survivor communities, but as soon as he runs into one of the larger nation-states he won’t have a chance.  Mitro 14:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The US government surviving should have control over at least most remaining weapons (if there are?) from the bunkers and might secure control all the way through to the transition of military command to the ANZC. Possible ramifications: A heated discussion in the ANZC: Should we keep the nukes or not?... New Zealand banning everything!!, heavy discussions with the ANZC and the several entities in the Old U.S....some vowing not to have them, not to want them. XR
 * US ARSENAL


 * Probably a theoretical discussion - how would the ANZ go aboit reclaiming missiles on the abandoned American mainland? Benkarnell

Espc. Siberia should be able to retain control over some nuclear units and devices, given the local commanders keeping control (as canon). I speculate the generals would be very happy to keep this power for the future. But some Warsaw Pact states might be able to build up their own small arsenal...or see Renegade/local units...XR
 * Soviet Arsenal


 * It seems unlikely that Siberia would be able to communicate with Europe before 2000 or so, and by then the renegade units probably already used any missiles they had. Benkarnell

Very important, but difficult to imagine what happens. depens on command chain and the discussion result...Maybe something used on Taiwan? ...XR
 * Chinese Arsenal


 * Dan mentioned that earlier, I think. We really need a China expert to create the post-DD scenario for China.  That remains the biggest hole in our story.  Benkarnell

I think most of this would be destroyed by DD itself and nearly all survivors insisting on getting rid of them. But some regional things, see below might happen. Giving the common NATO command structure maybe allmWeapons might quickly be put under joint command until the ADC...XR
 * British Arsenal


 * The ADC is new, only founded in 2005 or so. Probably NATO command broke down before it could be effective.  But theremay have been some surviving rump units claimming to be NATO's successor in Europe.


 * French Arsenal

more ambivalent here: Given the French near-independent military structure, especially in nuclear means...I could imagine the french Arsenal being kept under strict control of some military commanders and maybe transferred to stable entities...French Polynesia? A swimming command centre on the Carrier"Charles de Gaulle"? This could be politically interesting backfiring on the ADC etc.XR


 * Renegade/local military units take matters in there own hands after loosing communications with central commands. Mainly armed with tactical, short to midrange nuclear devices, exact political will on their own initiative, become terrorists bombing non-destroyed targets, or maybe using their "power" to secure local influence in communities, regions etc. This is described in a TL I read on alternatehistory.com, but basing on a mislead Cuba Crisis 61/62.. But the force unleashed in 1983 would be much higher and more destructive putting down the probability .XR


 * Global dealing with Nuclear Weapons post-DD

I think this would be a high priority for all reforming nations, international organisations... In Southamerica given no one really had weapons (I know about ambitions, but no arsenal) i think the SAC would be absolutely against all and any Nuclear weapons.

The ANZC might be, as mentioned, a bit more open to keeping the nukes concerning the own security. But as no one in governments wants to have terrorists nuking them I can imagine a international institution being to deal with the Nuclear Arms (at least those out of control) could be founded relatively fast, even predating all other LoN- like tries..even a military contingent with world-wide mandate migt me imaginable. (NOt a global police force, but maybe some multilateral sepcial-ops unit. But do not spin this too far...).

The disposal/destruction of nuclear weapons might be an additional problem. Where to put them? And getting/preserving the know-how for this could be difficult (maybe a joint expert coouncil of Soviet/US/NATO/chinese experts). XR


 * Those expeditions around the world probably looked for nukes. Benkarnell


 * Global Political ramifications

I imagine hot and intense discussions both multilateral and in each state concerning the nuclear weapons problem.

After the first recounctruction years I could see a highly strenghened global "green/ecological" movement totally against any nuclear weapons (and nuclear energy) aiming to collect and destroy all still existing nukes; then absolutely against reconstruction and development of new nuclear weapons. This could be based and mainly driven by huge political forces/movements in New Zealand, the SAC and European survivor states like Celtic Alliance. They probably would get gradually more influence in those states over the years, promoting research in renewable energies, agricltural methods etc. They might swiftly collaborate on international level, trying to instore a new peaceful world order.XR
 * Greens:


 * I've been wanting to work on Hawaii's political parties for a while, but I need to know more about politics in mainstream ANZ. That's a good start.  Benkarnell


 * A further tendency could be (as alrdy described in some US remainders) strenghtened and more extremist religious movements throughout all ajor relogions. More people turning to pastoral lifestyle, fundamental ideologies on the rise, aiming against any technological advances to avoid new "doomsdays". Space for exploration :)XR


 * There will be some sort of radical Catholic movement in urban Costa Rica. I still need to research the details.  Benkarnell


 * A third major political current might be a reformed neo-conservatism mainly in the surviving old powers like ANZC, Siberia and maybe Canada. Driven by nationalistic ideologies, they are pro-keeping nuclear weapons to "secure and protect what we rebuilt". US-rebuilders might be a major force in this movement.XR


 * Makes sense! Possibly related to the nationalist CRUSA.  Benkarnell

The further development of nuclear technologies and their use in civil areas (space exloration, energy etc.) would be higly controversial. But some ambitious dictatorships and Al-Qaifa like organisations might be strongly focused to posess nuclear weapons, either by developing them or aquire old arsenals...This would be major argument for the "Falcons" described above.XR
 * Development/Technologies/Science

maybe a IAEO-like LoN -institution with extended rights and powers could be acting maybe in the not-restabilized regions. Posession or the will to have nukes should be a crucial point for prospective members. (Including the whole "you have em yourselves"-discussion of here)...XR
 * League of Nations

I have stated in Science and techmology 198: Doomsday that nukes were outlawed by the LoN

Nuclear Energy
to be described soon!

France
The Poitevin Republic of has nursed France's nuclear plants along -- I think that France would keep using them, if only to be sure it was energy independent, although I can see a shift in ideas and an increased devotion to wind and wave power, as well. Louisiannan 20:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Embassies and Religion
I'm exhausted right now, so please excuse any spelling and/or grammar errors. Are there embassies in the 1983 Doomsday? My next question is; what exactly is going on with religion? The major sites of Orthodoxy, Catholicism, Buddhism have been destroyed. I can really only speak for the Eastern Orthodox Church for examples; but how exactly did the world restore the Patriarchs, Popes, Lamas, etc. I suppose an emergency synod could be called amongst any surviving Bishops, or even priests. Though how many Bishops, who they would pick, and at what time this historic Synod would be in I have no idea. As for everyone else; ideas anyone? I also realized that areas like Australia and New Zealand that have a huge Greek population might actually save Orthodoxy. I don't know where the seat of the Patriarch would be. Mr.Xeight 04:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You touched a large issue Xeight:)...Embassies I'd guess still exist somehow, at least in the capitals not nuked. But I do not think they fare better then any other institutions after nuclear fallout, famine and diseases. Not sure if many can manage to evac their embassadors or recall them. In General I think the diplomatic network will have to be rebuilt from the ground. And many new nations emerging will have had further consequences in the years 1983 to mid-90ties at least. We already have a lot of diplomatic elements in the TL... maybe the worldwide WCRB bases may be recognized as sth. like diplomatic corpse bases as in many regions they might be the only reliable more or less neutral institution. I propose the WCRB Platforms of Diplomacy (1983: Doomsday) or sth. similar serving as regional neutral contact bases and diplomatic missions as a worldwide infrastructure of embassies and consulates will be hard to maintain for most nations. A League of Nations Resolution might be legitimating this.--93.212.13.3 07:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, even without heads, these religions aren't just going to disappear. Islam is still around, obviously, as we've mentioned several Muslim states (Indonesia for example). Catholicism might survive in the Celtic Union, or at least the Irish part. Eventually the world religions would reorganise, get popes and Lamas, etc. Similarly for embassies. Say we have an Australian Embassy in Dublin. Obviouly they can't contact their government or represent a government they can't assure the existance of, so either the ambassadors would die of cancer, starvation, etc or integrate into society. But eventually embassadies would reorganise, though I think that each country would send ambassadors rather than just have the WRCB bases. DarthEinstein 12:29, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A bigger question might be: what effects did the Doomsday event have on theology and religious thought? A lot of changes no doubt happened as a response to it.  Benkarnell

Post WW II in Europe the percentages of religious people plummeted; we can all only imagine how much more it's gone down here. Of course people could be drawn closer to religion after such shocking events, my guess is that Xi'Reney might have to decide on if Atheism in 1983DD either sky-rocketed or is less than in our world. Mr.Xeight 13:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it would depend on the country, ie how much it was hit, how important religion was before Doomsday, etc. DarthEinstein 13:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * i think Catholic church elect a independent Pope by South America where people is live and almost of them are catholict, add of catholicnot nuclear attack to south america like a god bendition, how care about 2 million of catholic in Irelan when we have 130 millions in Brazil, same numbers in all latin america Roman Catholicism by country Archivo:Mapamundi católico (2005).png --Fero 15:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fero -- I think that's a bit away from the norm, though. I don't think that the Catholics there would just up and decide to elect a pope, especially since the rules of the Catholic Church state that all the cardinals have to gather to elect a new pope.  And do we know where JPII was at that time?  Otherwise, you've got an Anti-Pope for South America. --Louisiannan 16:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia, John Paul II travelled a lot, and in 1983, the last place he visited was Austria, from Sept 10 to 13. I think its likely that he was in Europe at the time of Doomsday. See Pope John Paul II. DarthEinstein 16:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd sort of like expect an epic scale schism resulting from the lack of communication possibilities immediately post-DD, with self-proclaimed popes arising all over the world. Guess the only place where a pope would actually be able to gather a substantial following would indeed be South America. --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There may be some anti-popes, but in the long run the church would be reunited under a pope chosen by the cardinals. The Roman Catholic church does have procedures in place in case contact is lost with Rome (for example 3 bishops can create other bishops thus allowing for more priests).  I would give it a year or two and then someone is going to call a conclave to choose a new pope, that is assuming that John Paul II is actually dead.  I also could see a "New Rome" being set up in South America because of its Catholic population and being missed by Doomsday.  Mitro 17:07, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * i was choise Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Brasília to a new vatican city base and her Leadership


 * Archbishops of Brasília (Roman rite)
 * Archbishop João Bráz de Aviz (2004.01.28 – present)
 * Cardinal José Freire Falcão (1984.02.15 – 2004.01.28)
 * Archbishop José Newton de Almeida Baptista (1966.10.11 – 1984.02.15) like heavy popular new pope--Fero 17:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that if the South American (and Mexican and possibly Central American) cardinals were to elect a poe, he would be the de facto pontiff even if some Catholics elsewhere disapproved. The facts are that South America likely contains an overwhelming majority of the world's Catholics now.  If there was a Brasilian coclave in the late 80s or so, my bet would be that the rest of worldwide Catholicism has either accepted it, or else formed small splinter groups dedicated to the memory of Rome, saying that true Popes may only be elected there.  Probably the split was deep and painful - it actually reminds me of the Sunnis and Shi'ites.  But whatever the changes to Catholicism, they must have been profound.  The church is so deeply tied to that place - it is the Roman Catholic Church, after all, and that name is more than just a nice tradition.  It makes me think of the Jews after they lost Jerusalem, or the Greek Orthodox when they lost Constantinople.  Benkarnell
 * "the Jews after they lost Jerusalem, or the Greek Orthodox when they lost Constantinople", totally agree, and even more so, since Rome is now totally destroyed. Perhaps to keep the tradition alive they would make a city called New Rome (or Portuguese/Spanish equivalent) or else rename a city to New Rome. DarthEinstein 22:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't rule out the rest of the world's participation in the election of a new pope. 1/4 of Australia's population is Catholic.  Whether that would have a major impact on the selection I don't know but it is something to consider.  Also don't forget the prestige that goes with having the Holy Father in your country.  We may see a lot of South American nations falling over each other to get "New Rome." Mitro 01:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Australia might actually be the saviour for the Eastern Orthodox Church. Australasia has Archbishops, Bishops, and Priests (who could be invited because Doomsday has the habit of making drastic changes) from many of the Orthodox Churches. Now there is a small (and I stress that) group of Eastern Orthodox people in South America, Asia, Africa, and the survivors of Europe, though they would be so small they would most likely be Kenothronists, with the clergy and laity remembering the Patriarchs with honor. Of course with Greece taking mandateship over North Africa, great strides could be made in Africa, maybe in some missionaries making it into Sub-Saharan Africa. Mr.Xeight 17:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

i think somone like Micheal jackson would be viewed as a prophet and would attract a fallowing which would be viewed as a religion--Owen1983 15:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's hope not. Mr.Xeight 19:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

#3
1983: Doomsday is now #3 on the editor's pick. Mitro 15:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hurrah! By the way, who picks it anyway? DarthEinstein 15:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I may be wrong but I think it involves how often it is edited. Hence, editors choice.  Mitro 01:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Where were you? Where are you?
My own birth did not occur until almost exactly a year after Doomsday was averted in Our Timeline. It's safe to assume that my parents, in suburban Chicago, would not have survived to create me or anyone similar to me in This ATL. But some of you are older than I am. Where would you have been on Doomsday? Are you a likely survivor? Where are you living now? It's a fair thing to include in the TL, if you ask me, since we've already tapped so many rather average figures for major roles! Benkarnell 21:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Alas, I was also born after Doomsday and I am double unlucky because my parents lived in the city of Chicago. If they did avoid being turned into radioactive dust, my guess is there likelihood of survival is small.  Kind of depressing to think about, I'd rather they both survive unharmed and lead a group of bad ass refugees across cannibal infested Wisconsin until they set up a homestead in Upper Penninsula Michigan (which might have survived intact).  Mitro 21:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be in Utah, and would likely be a survivor, possibly a veteran of the Spokane War. I definitely wouldn't be a linguist, or do much else of what I've done in my life, that's for sure. Louisiannan 21:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I was not born to 1983, but my parents was (how tha fack i say that in englsih?)in a Romantic friendship in Buenos Aires, that mind they was not died, that is good. (time to diner, i back later)--Fero 01:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't born before Doomsday, so my likelihood of birth would be low. It's safe to say that I don't exist in the timeline, as both my parents were either in an American or Canadian major city. DarthEinstein 01:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

My whole family would be dead in southern Chicago :( Mr.Xeight 13:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

My family live in rural Lincolnshire so I don't think my parents would have been killed. Unfotunately my parents hadn't met yet so I wouldn't exist. However I may have many "half-siblings". Bob 18:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No me around yet either. But since my parents live in the rare truly rural part of The Netherlands I guess they'd have a fair chance at survival. Whether they'd meet is a much different matter though. --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 15:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I lived about half an hour drive from Montreal so I might have survived and being one of the

many refugees going to the Saguenay (part of my familly is from there).

I would have survived becuse my perants well my mum lived in the Algarve at the point of DD I live in Bury a small town in Mancunia--Owen1983 14:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure if I would have had any chance of survival... On September 26th, 1983, I just turned 4 months :( And living in Westfalia at that time... 2 hours west from the Inner-German Border, south of Hamburg, east of Cologne, north of Frankfurt, close to the Rhein-Ruhr region...hmm.. looks like I've been living at the junction of Mushroom Cloud Alley and Radiation Avenue... Even if I had been with my grandparents... one surrounded by (known and confirmed) US nuclear missile bases and German army bases and 10 kms of Frankfurt-Hahn Airbase... the other 40 kms east of Frankfurt near Hanau...US army bases, German Border again, near the Fulda Gap... anthing I need to add? --Xi&#39;Reney 17:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, my own birthday, May 30th, is infamous to be the expected Doomsday! According to Jehovas Witnesses and a german folk song...:( --Xi&#39;Reney 17:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

My birthday was the day a fictional British Empire took Cuba from the Spanish :D Mr.Xeight 18:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * @Xi'Reney Well... at least the last thing you'll be doing is having a party, can imagine worse things to end life with... Anyway, can I find the text of this folk song somewhere? Just a bit curious ;). --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Karsten, here a link to the youtubevideo of the german folk song "Am 30. Mai ist der Weltuntergang" Youtube
 * And the lyrics: Lyrics in German if anyone is interested I might translate that to English, but it is in general a 1955-song about "The world is coming to an end and we have to drink as much as we can before" :):):) I always hated this belief in my birthday being th end of the world, but what can I do about it...--Xi&#39;Reney 21:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well my parents would be dead 10 years before I'm born, fun fun fun... And I only just noticed that (@Mr.Xeight) :D --Gamb1993 09:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Absence
Just a heads up to everyone: I'll be gone until the sixth of July. Farewell. DarthEinstein 04:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Bye! If it's a vacation, I hope you have fun. If it's job related-I hope the conferences aren't too boring :) Mr.Xeight 13:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and by the way I miscalculated, make that 13th of July. Farewell again! DarthEinstein 15:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * What are you still doing here? You'll miss your flight - get going!  Benkarnell

Have been away for a few days...road trip in Germany, and only briefly here, at least until the weekend (going to visit a Belgian girl :):) . So please do not be sad/in anger/in despair :P will throw in comments again soon. --Xi&#39;Reney 21:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC) To all WCRB: Keep up the fabulou work !! THank you, you guys are amazing!!

Not sure if I need to put this here, but incase anyone needs me I will be gone throughout the rest of August. I'll try to get all my pages back in order when I get back.--ShutUpNavi 14:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The Best
What do you think are the best articles on this TL (note: don't name your creations or anything you made major contributions too)? Mitro 13:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Off the top of my head, I'm a big fan of the Netherlands Antilles. Benkarnell 15:40, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * hmmm..after your limiting question, mitro ;)

--Xi&#39;Reney 17:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Hawaii
 * 2) Nordic Union

the world in 2009
Climate change this has had an odvious effect on the world and is a major concern

Disease the rsate of a lot of cancers has increased

Europe with the braek up of SSR last year things are looking hopeful

Technology since DD all technology ceased but this restarted 9 years ago

Transportation this is back to pre doomday levels thanks to a huge effort to kickstart automotve production

Willdlife has suffered due to radiation but this is getting better

--Owen1983 16:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarification
User :86.156.70.49 is actually User:Mumby but my computer has been a tad funny of late. 86.156.70.49 16:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

2009
i think there would be major differences between are 2009 ant this ATLs 2009 for instence major world events aftere 1983 never ocured oor happened differently --Owen1983 19:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * First off please put topics under the right headings, this is the second time I had to do this for you. Second off, I don't think anyone doubts that the world would be a different place after a nuclear war in 1983.  What exactly are you getting at?  Mitro 19:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

RZA
What does it stand for? Bob 09:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the ISO country code for South Africa. It comes from Republiek Zuid-Afrika, the name in Dutch... Dutch, of course, is no longer an official language in South Africa, but it was a the time the ISO code was assigned. Benkarnell 14:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

New Britain
I have received some comments that there is no point in New Britain and that it probably wouldn't exist anyway. All that I wanted was to have the Union Flag fly over land, no matter how small. A world in which that banner is lost is a sad world indeed. I think we should canvas some votes to find out whether we should keep New Britain or not. Option 1 is that New Britain exists. Option 2 is that it does not. Before you vote may I remind you that people have been calling themselves British for something like two thousand years. Thanks to the existence of the Empire something like 125,043,387 either consider themselves British or are descended from British people. Something little like a nuclear war won't end that legacy.

Existence of New Britain Option One Option Two

I think the largest and common concern, Mumby, is that your plans have all been very optimistic in a very dystopian timeline. Louisiannan 14:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not about the existence of one thing or another. The original ideas for NB and its permutations ignored the history of South Africa.  Any British survivor community has to exist in a local context.  We have spent a very long time talking about this, and I think you had finally reduced the idea to something workable.  But if you're mostly concerned with preserving a feeling, then there are lots of ways that can be preserved outside of South Africa (where the British flag had not flown since 1910, and which had severed all connections to Britain in 1961).  The Falklands probably have some official recognition of their Britishness, as do the British citizens of the Celtic Alliance. There could theoretically be a British parallel to the Committee to Restore the USA operating in the British Isles, including Ireland.
 * Another possibility is Prince Andrew, who we've established was a likely survivor. Find a place for him to establish a court-in-exile (the Caribbean?  ANZ?), and he could even be contemplating a recolonization of Britain itself, possibly in cooperation with the Celts, possibly in competition with them.  Come to think of it, we know very little about the Caribbean.  He could have ended up in one of the colonies or Commonwealth realms there, where he still was heir to the throne.
 * I'll echo Dan: this TL is not about wish fulfillment, quite the opposite in fact. Some of us may enjoy the idea of Nordic union or revived Celticism or independence for Hawaii, and therefore may like aspects of the world of 1983.  But it's supposed to be a realistic look at how the world would re-form itself following a catastrophe.  As far as nationality goes, my loyalty lies with the USA, and yet for this TL I've been telling the story of its dismemberment; I even argued against the original version of the North American Union, which was an over-optimistic USA rump state.  My point is that we're trying (hopefully) to explore the most plausible results of an apocalyptic event, and that will involve things that nobody likes.
 * Finally, I will add that the British identity isn't as old as you suggest; there was no such thing as "Britain" until 1707, and even then many people hated the idea. Benkarnell 15:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Mumby we're all truly sorry but there is no way whatsoever that Britain can survive in any way at all. Any royal family in London at the time I can bet all of my life's savings are dead; radioactive piles of ash scattered across hellish ruins. If there was anyone in succession to the throne somewhere in the world that didn't see radioactive Hellfire rain down from the skies carried by enemy planes, maybe he could set up a government in exile in wherever. If he was in Australia, he would actually be the head of the government anyway, and be given high esteem in the country, maybe a palace built for him, he could marry a native Aussie, etc. When the world can set up communications again and everyone knows everyone else is out there, this successor to the throne could set up his government in the Celts' Cornwall area, the closest place he can get to England without fighting three-eyed cannibals. As for a 2nd British Raj in Nepal or a British Empire from Cape Town to the Congo is pure ASB, please take that somewhere else. Mr.Xeight 16:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't share Mr. X's view that it is impossible for their to be a British exile state somewhere. South Africa might work but as we have said repeatedly you need to tone down the scope and optimism.  I fear that you are trying more to recreate the British Empire then a British state.  This will not be some enlightened empire bringing light to the darkness, but just one more survivor state that is trying to ignore then mass grave of skeletons in their closet.
 * Furthermore I agree with Ben. The concept of being "British" was a product of the 18th century and is certainly not 2000 years old (I think you mean "Britons" who were Celts and have more in common with Ireland then Britain today).  I doubt even the concept of being "English" existed back then since the Anglo-Saxons hadn't shown up yet and I doubt any Picts thought of themselves as being British.  Plus not everyone in Britain today likes being British (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_autonomist_and_secessionist_movements#United_Kingdom_and_associated_territories_.28Europe.29 for a complete list).
 * Also a nuclear war wouldn't end the British legacy just because there state doesn't exist. The US might be disbanded in this history but their "legacy" lives on in the ANZC, the Committee to Restore the USA, the US government in the NAU and the various successor states.
 * Finally nationalism is great and all but this is supposed to be a plausible alternate history. Plausibility, not nationalism, should be at the forefront every time you sit down to write something on this TL.  Mitro 17:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

After thinking a while I casted "no". A "no" which means New Britain as a separate, sovereign nation of that name not existing. From all experiences I made, especially in 6 months in New Zealand, so breathing in Commonwealth Air and meeting a lot of BRITAINS, the strongest impression I had is that a true "british" identity/nationality share by the largest part of the country does not really exist. "British" seems to me more a kind of a collecton of several national identities mixed up and rought together in a name. I felt that the lived and felt nationality in the "United Kingdom of Great Britain" and it's people lays more in the English, Scotish, Welsh (Irish?) heritage, language and culture. This based on the centuries-long process of forming different cultures (norse, anglo-saxon, celticetc.) and nations, often battling each other for decades into the United Kingdom.

If you add the 17th-19th century British Empire and later the 20th century Commonwealth I do not argue that a certain, common "british" heritage exists and will definitely be carried on post-Doomsday (English, basic law system, culture etc.). But given the diversity and the highly developed national identities in the "colonies" at that point, in 1983... I do not see a serious oppurtunity for a formal, sovereign and influential state of "New Britain" surviving, not in the scale of a nation in South Africa. What I could imagine, taking your phrase "have the Union Flag fly over land, no matter how small" is one (or several) of the small, then-still-crown colonies after being able to survive declaring a "New Britain", maybe in a symbolic gesture after a surviving royal(Prince Andrew or alike) takes his residency there...this might be accepted by the ANZC, MSP etc. to tease/appease a "British Royalists Movement" having gained political influence there(headed by old "Lords", RAF&Navy members or sth aka) canditates? but St. Helena, Tristan da Cunha, Ascension... Or maybe a Federation of all/most of them? "British colonial Federation", "British Crown colonies Association"... sth. a like?? Hard to imagine sth. in the Pacific... too far and to small... Or can you imagine Adamstown on Pitcairn being declared British Capital?? And to dependable on the ANZC.
 * Carribean was a good hint: Bermuda, Brit Virgin, Cayman Islands, St. Vincent etc...
 * South aAtlantic would be potential...NOT the Falklands!
 * In Europe sth. like the Channel Islands, Gibraltar, Malta...

A "NEw Britain"/ "NEw British Empire" is more something suitable for a Doomsday-Scenario taking place decades earlier, 1950's or 60's, resulting NOT in a devastation as large as a mid-80's total nuclear war.

And if I were a refugee from the UK somehow being able to survive I would probably try to get as far away from the radiation on the Island as possible. If the ANZC takes me, okey then. I would guess there would be a strong variety of refugees and where they go. The Scotsmen would probably stay within the Celtic Alliance territory, if possible...also the Welsh and Irish expected to be working closely...the English...I guess they wouldbe keen to leave, if they can...being privileged to most european survivors/refugees because having at least some countries helping them out of old tradition!!! (Imagine a german, Italian or East European survivor trying to being brought to Australia??)--Xi&#39;Reney 17:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I had an idea last night. How about an enclave similar to Orania in ANZC for self governing British remnants. They could have a head of state in some distant heir to the throne and actually be governed by a 'British Survivors Administration'. Bob 17:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would this happen when in this TL it did not happen for the Americans? ATL the US disbanded in 1995 and its remaining territories were given the option to either join ANZC or try for independence.  Mitro 18:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Bob, the best we can give you is the closest surviving relative of the Current Royal Family setting up a government-in-exile in some state, maybe even with autonomy if the group sees fit. No Nova Imperium Britannia. Mr.Xeight 19:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the fact that the ancient Britons shared more in common with the Irish. The three groups of Celts in the UK were very distinct, especially the Brythonic Celts from the Goidelic ones. (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britons_(historical)) As for your secessionist parties, almost all of these are objects of derision and often amusement in the UK. The only really serious one is the Scottish National Party and even then doesn't manage to get a majority in the Scottish Parliament. It took a very long time for Scottish devolution to set in and the main reason they wanted it was because they felt detached from Westminster because of the policies of Margaret Thatcher and John Major. Today under a more Scotcentric Labour government the Union is much more popular. Independence to Northern Ireland is often met with outright hostility. In 1974-79 welsh devolution was suggested but the referendum declared a staggering no by almost 700'000 votes. Even when they got their own Assembly it only got in by a very narrow margin. The very idea that English is British is a fallacy. The Scots mostly guided the development of the British identity in the early years. It was a Scottish king who envisaged himself as a new Arthur, King of the Britons. Saxon and Celt were united against the threat of Papacy. Both World Wars reinforced the Union of the two races. If you come on a jubilee or another time of national celebration you will see the union of which I speak. In the past, it has always been crises and the threat of liberty and freedom which has drwan English, Scot, Welsh, Cornish and Irish together into the umbrella of Britishness. Besides British has a better ring to it. Also 98% of the genes of the British Isles is the same as the first settler in this green and pleasant land. Bob 19:54, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Bob -- whether the Britons considered themselves Britons or not, the true point of all of this discussion is this: For the 1983: Doomsday timeline your proposals are quite simply too optimistic and too broad.  They don't fit the timeline because of this.  If you can tailor your proposals down using the suggestions of the kind-minded folks who've taken time to review your many suggestions, I think your ideas can find a place here.  If you don't wish to tailor them down, you might wish to elaborate a timeline in which they will fit.  Louisiannan 21:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with being optimistic? Sometimes in these times of death and despair is when more people are unshakingly optimistic than the jolly times. Sultan Narp 17:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

He doesn't mean optimistic as in the population is happy, he means optimistic in the fact that everyone survives the England Bombings and relocates to South Africa where they outbreed the natives and conquer the whole continent. Mr.Xeight 17:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * @Mr. X: What you described was Rhodesia, which is no longer canon. In all fairness to Bob,  is much more realistic.  Only a small number manage to relocate and the state itself is just one of many factions fighting in South Africa.  Though it still needs work it is much more plausible then its predecessors.
 * @Sultan Narp: Maybe for the post-Doomsday world a little optimism can go a long way. But in OTL we aren’t living in times of death and despair (relatively speaking) but we still need to be realistic when portraying a world that went through a nuclear war.  Any nation we create must reflect that.  Mitro 17:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

That was just me using what you meant as optimism in a sentence. We don't mean optimism as in the state of mind a person has, but optimism as in the movies; where the hero and his girlfriend live to fight another day and everything turns out just fine; even if something like a dragon or horde of zombie bikers were the antognists. Mr.Xeight 17:45, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. Yes the mindset of the writer should not be optimistic.  Mitro 17:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Geography
It just occured to me whilst reading the Climate page, that Geography may have been altered dramatically. There may well be craters from the bombs which have become lakes. And the rise in sea level would surely alter continent shapes dramatcally. Surely we should take this into account in the map?Bob 14:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Fero once made a map showing likely places where bays had been deepened. We've already seen a large lake appear in Egypt.  I'll bet a lot of those island targets in the Pacific look very different today.  Benkarnell 20:34, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Per my suggestions on Climate, the sea-level isn't actually rising because of the increase of rain/snow across the northern hemisphere, which is leading to the greening of the Sahara, increase in glaciation, etc. It's also resulting in the temperate zone pushing a scosh more northerly, meaning that temperatures there are much the same as here -- just wetter.  But that also means there are going to be more than a few nuclear lakes. Louisiannan 14:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

request
could pple please put new posts at the bottom becuse the tak page is becoming cheotic thanks --Owen1983 23:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should. Our current setup has three separate sections for general discussion, proposals and the world map.  If we get rid of said sections things would actually get more chaotic since they would no longer be organized in their category.Mitro 00:14, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Could setting up a forum structure like The Nexus be an idea? This page is getting rather lengthy, so it might be worthwhile to split it up. --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 15:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe, we could split this page into three seperate pages with the links to each on the back of this page. Mitro 15:53, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

we need some kind of structure my favoure idea is to saught the article into alphabeticle order this will make the talk page easier to use --Owen1983 18:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No More Nationalism
I don't know about you all, but new people who happen to have nationalist tendencies are starting to axacerbate the situation of this particular TL slipping from reality to the most unfortunate condition known as "ASB". We need to do something. I propose a sort of "Inquisition" of Contributors where they split up the pages and carefully exam them to see what should stay, what should be downgraded, and what should... I supposed you could see it as a "surrender of democracy", but is it really that bad? Frankly I'll admit that my Peloponnesian plans for Libyan domination might be a little unrealistic, so I'm not afraid to volunteer my work first. Mr.Xeight 23:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe that if everyone sticks to there own country it will ad to distrust between nations i would like to remind people of the events of 26 years ago when nationalism and fear between the old USA and the old USSR led to 3billion deaths --Owen1983 13:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Owen, it IS a dystopian time line. It's not meant to be all rosy and happy utopia rising from the ashes, unless I've misunderstood.  I think it's definitely important that we don't have anyone in the northern hemisphere declaring that they were somehow not nuked, that they some how have the wherewithal to "save the world."
 * I don't agree, however, that we should go through and rip out work -- I think that we need to work with those would be contributors, just like other projects I'm involved with. Granted, some of them just won't get the hint, and we'll have to ask them to leave, but some should start to understand the feel of the timeline, and will be accepted into the group.  I think more of the pen, less of the sword. Louisiannan 14:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry-but this is not a place to reiterate the foundation of DD. I am quite serious of letting stronger hands take over and fix the mistakes we have; unless the group is perfectly happy with some of the recent shortcomings. Mr.Xeight 17:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Louisiannan has got a valid point and on occasion it is inportent to reiterate the foundation of DD I consider myself as somone with stronger hands but I am happy to let the group evolve --Owen1983 18:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Since creating the proposal procedure generally three things have happened when group consensus is against approving the proposal:


 * 1) Editor changes the proposal or the article he has made to make it more plausible.
 * 2) If no article is created, the proposal is rejected and removed from the talk page and the editor does not object.
 * 3) If an article is created, the editor agrees to allow his work to be listed as obsolete or voluntarily asks for it to be deleted.

Eventually though we are going to run into an editor who is either uninterested/unwilling to make the changes to his or her work for it to be acceptable to the group. Unless we have a plan about what to do in this situation we may have articles that sit in proposal status for a long time. It would be even worse if the editor does not agree to mark his work as obsolete or voluntarily request deletion.

I think a gradual process is in order. First we continue to try to reason with the editor about why his or her work needs to change for it to be canon. Second if the editor continues to be unwilling in making the changes we should reject the proposal if that is the group’s consensus and politely ask that he or she remove mention of 1983: Doomsday from the article. If he or she refuses someone should go in and remove all mention of 1983: Doomsday from the article (article name, categories, links, etc.). If the editor attempts to revert this then I think requesting deletion is necessary, but only as a last resort.

I suggest this procedure because I do agree that we should not be hasty in deleting or removing someone’s work. No one likes to see there work be unceremoniously removed by complete strangers and it is better to give them a chance to either improve their work or take it to their own fictional universe. Marking it with the obsolete banner gives them a chance to return in the future or have someone else come along and make changes to it.

Hopefully we will never come to this situation. Someone who is truly able to work in collaborative setting would probably not be so stubborn that he would refuse to accept the rejection of his proposal. Still it is best to be prepared with a process to follow in case the situation ever comes. Mitro 14:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Risk//Extended use
Could we use the world map to make a doomsday version of Risk or something like it? Bob 19:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

[extended the section a bit:]I think basically there is nothing to say against this idea. I would agree and it could be fun. But it might be difficult because large parts of the globe not yet having been described, finally canonized (China etc.).

For my part I toyed with working on a "1983: Doomsday" Civilization IV map/mod a while ago. Based on the original rules before any Expansions (BTS, Warlords etc.), based on the Earth18Civs scenario. I started adding the factions, tried to modify technology etc.... but it's a task nearly as complex as the TL here itself...

But I would love to hear the groups opinion about the TL scenario being used for application beyond the wiki? Do not know if there are copyright issues touched then? Maybe someone can shed some light on that? Thx--Xi&#39;Reney 08:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The risk wouldn't be very fun. Would you really wanted to conquer thousands of kilometers of nuclear wasteland that would have no resources or anything like that? Mr.Xeight 17:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I am all for developing this ATL and this is a great idea --Owen1983 21:50, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikibreak
I have decided on a wikibreak cuz theres a lot of other sstuff i need 2 do --Owen1983 19:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Review of 1983: Doomsday (circa 2005)
I googled 1983: Doomsday just to see what would come up and this forum post first made in 2005 caught my eye:

the 1983: Doomsday scenario looks to be pretty well-written and interesting, even if more than slightly goony

http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/1983:_Doomsday

edit: actually, I semi-retract this; I was basing this on the canada section being detailed and readable, the rest is pretty much tripe

Hopefully in four years the TL has improved. :-) Mitro 22:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you link to that forum post?
 * Yep, right here: Mitro 02:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sad to say, that post is from last month (July 10). 2005 is the date that member joined the forum :(. Get to it, people!  Cut the tripe! Benkarnell 04:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Life After People
I was thinking that you guys should look into this. Despite that we are still around, many areas might develop the way that this show does present, especially smaller towns and cities that are not hit by nuclear weapons. Lahbas 00:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Featured nomination
I nominated 1983: Doomsday to be a featured alternate history! Check out its nomination: Alternative History:Featured alternate history. Mitro 14:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey don't forget to cast your vote on Doomsday becoming a featured TL. Plus there are other nominations to check out.  Mitro 13:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Woot! 1983: Doomsday is now featured, and I edited the Template:Featured September so that now the TL will appear on the main page.  Feel free to edit the template in case it should be expanded on.  Mitro 01:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Timeline Based off a Possible Nuclear War

 * I thought this might be more informative on the situation following the nuclear war. Though it is set a little farther in time than the timeline itself, it just means that the war would be more devastating that it shows, not less. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nuclearwar1.html Lahbas 20:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Just an Idea
i am pretty new to this and after reading about it etc and looking at that map about where the nukes hit, wouldn't the far north of england be pretty intact. the lake district or cumbria wouldn't have been nuked, and before you jump down my throat, it was an idea, and it really would just be villages and small towns which survided. they could possibly form new new england or something.

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.

Literature
Hold on-I'd like to keep this; as a fictional novel for the DD universe. With JK Rowling either a pile of ash or a 3-eyed cannibal, the world's young adults probably have no huge almost cultlike novel. I'd propose someone maybe from ANZC would write this novel, combining real facts of Britain with this fantastical idea. It gives some variety and a hint of realism for us to delve into fun things like books, or technology. Mr.Xeight 02:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Don’t be so quick to rule out Rowling. My research puts her possibly in Devon County in Southwest England in 1983, and the Celtic Alliance apparently controls that area according to the World Map.  It’s possible that she might have survived and went on to write a novel, though one that would be incredibly influenced by Doomsday.


 * Still I like your idea about fictional works in Doomsday, it really is a good way to get creative with the TL without just focusing on politics. I wonder whether some author might write an alternate history where Doomsday doesn’t happen, from our perspective a double-blind what if.  How would the people of Doomsday envision a world without World War III?  Mitro 13:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure they would be overly-optimistic to make themselves feel better. Maybe it would be a world where the US and NATO and the USSR and Warsaw Pact go into extreme isolation, sealing off the borders (which would present a problem with Berlin, there might need to be a war to save it). If it's written by someone in Australia the world might be filled with no toxin emmitting cars, and each house having a white picket fence and a garden. Of course where the conflict will fit in, I have no idea. As for the FotB novel we can call it "UnderBritain". Well that might be a working title :) Mr.Xeight 15:23, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Speaking of the alternate history novel, it could be written by the Australian alternate history author John Birmingham. He would most likely not be in any of the Australian cities nuked in 1983.  Mitro 15:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Would he still write his other two real-world novels and then our fictional ones? Five novels in his writing career doesn't sound too unrealistic to me. Not that I know much about the creative process of course. Mr.Xeight 15:39, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I thimk a DD novel is a verygood idea but eny works must reflect the SS POV --Owen1983 14:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Wildlife
I've also been meaning to ask about technology and wildlife. How many years has our modern world's joys been set back? And what about animal-life throughout the world. Any survivors might actually flourish without humans to interfere. Another sort of thing that might might be; the radioactivity causes them to evolved. Any surviving dogs would no doubt interbreed causing a new species; maybe even breeding with wolves. Problems such as hairloss might result from radiation. Do we have anything on DD wildlife? Mr.Xeight 02:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen anything on DD wildlife, apart from a small thing I wrote on radioactivity affecting Newfoundland's cod fisheries. Mutation is likely; however be aware that most mutations are not beneficial for the organism. As for technology, I think that things like iPods wouldn't exist, but as far as I can tell cell phone technology is already on its way by 1983. DarthEinstein 13:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wildlife, I would compare to the wildlife in the exclusion zone around Chernobyl. Technology -- I think we'll be lucky to see 1980's technology before 2020. Louisiannan 21:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Greek Mandates
I know I was given the go ahead for LoN sanctioned Greek mandates on North Africa; but how far do they extend? I'm not dreaming for mandates that extend from the Suez, across Libya, onto Barbary, and into Morrocco (one "R"?), but maybe only Egypt and the area around the Pentapolis. I'd also wonder if they're flags would be Greek inspired. Mr.Xeight 22:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I've designed flags for the two nations. The first is of Egypt. The top red stripe of the flag was replaced by the bright blue of the new Saltire. Next I changed the Eagle; his wing feathers are the same blue, as well as the left and right stripes of the crest on his chest. The middle stripe is the same color gold the eagle is drawn from. The scroll the eagle is holding no longer says "The Arab Republic of Egypt" instead I've changed it to "The Kingdom of Egypt" (I'll explain that, but I doubt anyone will read this). As for the Libyan flag, I decided to use the Flag from the Kingdom of Libya, but I change the green stripe to blue. This sort of makes the flags look a bit dreary, maybe someone else has ideas? Maybe a different shade of blue, or avoiding blue altogether? Mr.Xeight 23:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahem. I've read it.  Now, will you explain?  Or do I have to bring out my Wiffle-bat of Justice (+3 Righteousness) and beat you about the head and shoulders?

I have a map of what I propose the colony of Libya might encompass. I've decided that only the Egyptian Mandate will be ruled by the Confederation as a whole; the Kingdom of Libya will be owned by the Moreans. Think of it as the Congo Colony in its early stages, formerly being owned by the King of Blegium, not the whole nation. Mr.Xeight 02:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would they not colonize the central region? Remember that you've got Hadley cells pushing up from the Equator up to (I'm thinking) the 60 latitudes, which means that the whole of the Sahara will be seeing increased wetness. Louisiannan 21:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't want to get too greedy in terms of land so I only decided for the Jebel Akhdar Valley and Cyrene, and the heavy pop. area of Tripoli. However if the group agrees that's not too much of a land grab, I'm okay with it. Mr.Xeight 22:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's obviously a land-grab in any form, and I'm sure that when the Libyans get their legs under them in the next twenty years or so, the Greeks are going to have a fight -- that is, if they can't incorporate the locals into their government and thus gain some semblance of legitimacy with the locals. It's all about the spin.  The Greeks need a good PR agent, right about now. Louisiannan 13:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well an insider on the colonization plot might tell you there are Greek enclaves for the purpose of having safe havens to go back to when teams of searches get back from their oil-quest. A PR might say the Greeks are doing this for their good will, saving these poor Arab souls from the horrendous horrors of Israel. With the collapse of fascism since the foundation of the Confederation, I can safely assume the Libyan Arabs have the same rights as Greeks; they're given no more aid than any other Greek state that needs it, and now they can finally immigrate to Greece if they decided Libya is not the safest place to make money and raise a family. Mr.Xeight 18:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This map should probably go hand in hand with a brief history of Liby, post-Doomsday. What did Gadhafi do in the aftermath?  Did the Libyan state completely disintegrate?  That would probably have to happen, if Greece was able to colonize it.  Remember: Greece was bombed; Libya, probably not (except, possibly, by Israel).  Benkarnell 04:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Bo Arthur is right-unity between the different peoples in undeniably unrealistic. So I propose a new story... I was thinking that when Akrotiri and Dhekelia lost contact with England, they put the bases under martial law, and decided for the good of the island to take over the whole of Cyprus and do the same. Their plan was to make division between the native Greeks and non-native Turks even worse. However, with a 3-way war on the island; odds are the Greeks would win. So right around the late '80s I propose conscripts from the Dodecanese and Hellenic Republic (the Cretan exile government, not the official nation of Greece) help the Cypriots defeat the Turks and British once and for all. Any survivors of the war might find themselves on the former British bases, which could be turned into concentration camps and/or prisons. Mr.Xeight 18:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I had no real problems with an eventually unified Cyprus, after perhaps a period of fighting. With British forces there to act as heavily armed mediators, they really hold the balance of power and could (1) mediate the coflict, or (2) side with the Greeks.  The biggest problem with Cyprus now seems to be that it may have been a nuclear target.  Benkarnell 12:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I was added a new nuked map File:1983nuked2.PNG, with The Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia are two UK-administered areas on the island of Cyprus that comprise the Sovereign Base Areas military bases of the United Kingdom. The bases were retained by the UK following the granting of independence and the eventual transition of Cyprus from a crown colony to an independent sovereign state. The United Kingdom demanded and succeeded in continuing to occupy a portion of Cyprus in the form of military bases because of the strategic location of Cyprus in the Mediterranean Sea in pursuit of UK interests, nuked and Berlin too, if you like we can change her name to the classic File:1983Nukes.png --Fero 23:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

How many times do we have to tell you the British military bases in Cyprus were SPARED, they were not bombed, so let it go damnit! Stay away from my field of work, I don't want any of your opinions. Mr.Xeight 01:39, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, are we positive about that? Are we sure Cyprus was not hit?  Mitro 02:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I warned the group in some thread that if Cyprus were to be bombed; that would blow all my work to hell. No one objected and since then that's how it will stay. Fero is just being a jackass because he knows I despise him. Maybe the Soviets didn't have enough time to bomb the city before they were bombed or something, either way; all my work will be ruined. Mr.Xeight 02:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the guidance systems of the nuke targeting Cyprus malfunctioned, landed in the Black Sea or something. Or something like that, I don't know how nukes work. DarthEinstein 02:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Thanks, Darth. Anyone mind if I add that to Cyprus' page? Mr.Xeight 03:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Darth: That would set a dangerous precedent. While it may be likely that there would be some malfunctions, we don't have the information to make a good educated guess about where that would be.  Furthermore it would allow people to carve out nations from areas that would logically have been nuked using the argument "Hey it malfunctioned too, why can't I have my way".  I think its best to assume Worst Case Scenario.
 * Mr.X: Correct me if I'm wrong but the necessity of Cyprus was important for the Unity League (which is obsolete), but not for the Confederation of Greece so the fate of Cyprus could change without affecting your current work. It might actually be probable that the bases were hit and though no one said anything before...well man I admit we can't get to every topic and I apologize for missing it if it happened after I became active.  I still think we should really look at whether Cyprus would be targeted and I would also ask that you stop with the personal attacks against Fero.  I'm not asking you to like him but we should all try to be civil.  Mitro 03:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * How large and important are those Cyprus bases? I knew about them but have been assuming they were not targets - though I admit I know nothing about them other than they're there and they are British territory.  Benkarnell 12:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Cyprus is too small to withstand 2 military bases being bombed, no Greek, Turk, or Brit would survive. The bases I read are practicly empty, nothing has happened there since the Suez Crisis. They take up 3% of the island's area. Mr.Xeight 14:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, my point is that it had never occurred to me that those bases might have ben USSR or Warsaw Pact targets, but now on second thought it seems at least somewhat likely - they re rather in the middle of everything down there in Cyprus. My question is: were they really "practically" empty in 1983?  Were they nothing more than colonial-era holdovers that nobody really cared about, or were they really worth the Russians' while to launch missiles at?
 * Since your concept for the Greek survivors has moved beyond the idea of Greco-Turkish cooperation, I think that the Confederation idea could still work if Cyprus goes down. The Delians in the Aegean could be instrumental in evacuating Cypriot survivors in such a scenario.  Benkarnell 17:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Though I'm rather-upset at the proposal, if it would be a target for the USSR, then we may need to see. I was thinking maybe instead Turkish or Greek terrorists could simply bomb the bases instead. I think we need to delve in this more. Mr.Xeight 19:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My comment:


 * 1st: I also see the danger of a "malfunctioning ICBM" being used as a universal plot device... I have to admit I already did it to legitimate the survival of the Nimitz Battle Group a while ago...("apparently malfunctioning ICMS") and will rethink that.

I honestly do not believe the USSR wants to spare an ICBM on those minor bases (compared to so many strategic targets in Continental Europe. If I were Soviet Commander I would guess my Black Sea Fleet or an airborne division can take care of Cyprus at a later time, after the capitals of the NATO-allies Turkey and Greece been obliterated. I could even imagine Cyprus being intentionally NOT nuked to ahve some base of operation to secure the Eastern Mediterranean, Levante and Dardanel strait, access to the Black Sea. This would outweigh the strategical significance of the two bases. BTW, they do not have any sufficient port facilities for larger NATO battleships, so marine importance can not be so high. Open for all objections, but I would guess we can keep Cyprus not being nuked, keeping the general work of Mr.Xeight.--Xi&#39;Reney 21:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 2nd: Military tactics discussions, The, Sovereign Base Areas (SBA) of Akrotiri und Dekelia...together some 230sqkm... after some research saying these bases only having some SAR-helicopters, a few recon aircraft, one RAF airbase, and 1500 soldiers...today


 * i back, and okey 7000 military british society of Cyprus was not nuked, but can we agree they was attacked in some way for soviet forces in the Mediterranean region?, maybe hardly attacked--Fero 00:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Such as a naval attack? Or perhaps conventional bombing (ie not nukes)? Though, if its not nuked, I doubt the Soviets would send anything, what with imminent total destruction. Turkey might invade though. DarthEinstein 01:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking communists in the Levant could sail over under the USSR's permission. The Greeks, British, and Turks who aren't commmunist would defend it; though not working together. Yeah I have no problem with a seige or lesser bombings. Mr.Xeight 02:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

For sake of argument (I really am not held up about Cyprus) the Soviet Union would have thousands of nukes to use against NATO. Even factoring in all of the capitols and major cities, plus important military bases, you would still have a lot of ammo left for other targets. Mitro 12:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

They would have thousands of nukes to use, true. But one point is the formula how many nukes are used on which target. because we always have to keep in mind that it is not 1 warhead=1target. Some very important things would be attacked with multiple warheads. Why? to a) cover a wide area, b)to ensure a target is definitely taken out (US ICBM launch sites etc.) due to high security measures, to prevent malfunctions in the weapons. And the strategical importance of Cyprus related to european NATO targes (tactical weapon depots) and the canonized attack on China not that high, I suppose. I'd love to see the original USSR plans where to bomb first, but I can not imagine they not being classified :) --Xi&#39;Reney 21:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have bucked up my ideas a bit and have created this page. Rather than Rhodesia, Raleizia or New Britannia, New Britain is supposed to be the ethnically fair democracy from the beginning.
 * I’m a little concerned about the slash and burn approach you’ve taken to your old articles. This means that a lot of content already established throughout this shared universe will have to be changed, including stuff written for the Timeline and the News Page.  Mumby/Bob, consensus to me seems to says that most people are ok with your original idea for Rhodesia, as long as it was scaled back to make it more plausible.  Is rewriting the entire history from the beginning and renaming the article really the proper course?  Mitro 17:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You may be pleased with a fascistic racist state existing in Africa, but I don't. After I had read what I had written about Rhodesia, I was sickened. How could my mind spawn this hate? How dare I write about the systematic destruction of a race as if it is everyday. The British are already the only nation in the history of the planet to successfully carry out a genocide. I am not about to let it happen again. As an aside, how do you like the flag? Bob 18:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Bob/Mumby: It is not a matter of being “pleased” about a fascist state. I assure you as a descendent of resistance fighters against Nazi occupation I have no love for genocidal dictatorships. This is a “fictional” universe in post-apocalyptic setting.  A nuclear war on this scale will lead people in most targeted nation to do at best morally questionable and at worst downright horrifying things just to survive.  In this world we would see people resorts to all kinds of violence, even cannibalism, just to get enough food to hold off starvation.  There is going to be anarchy on an unprecedented scale as nations collapse because of the strain Doomsday has caused them both directly and indirectly.  Some nations will even abandon people in parts of their territory just because they don’t have enough to give to everyone (you can kind of assume that in the way  came out) and will do their best to keep them away (like the MSP).


 * I find your proposed article to be overly optimistic. South Africa would still be in the midst of apartheid and I don’t find that changing simply because of the arrival of some British refugees.  If anything the survivors of Britain are going to adopt a “British first” policy in an effort to survive.  Furthermore what about the native Africans, white and black alike?  In the midst of the worst catastrophe in human history are they just going to share their limited resources with thousands of refugees who just happened to decide to set up shop there?  According to the TL South Africa is already in anarchy shortly after Doomsday, so I don’t expect an organized response to their arrival.  How else would the British refugees take control if not by force?


 * Bob/Mumby, if you don’t want to write about genocide, then don’t put the British refugees in some former colony where they are a racial/ethnic/etc. minority. You mentioned St. Helena?  Why not put them there?  Mitro 19:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please just call me Bob. The British at this point in time (in 1983) ere inviting people from all over the former Empire to come to Britain. That is what crated the ethnic melting pot Britain is today. In 1983, the British were condemning apartheid and racism in general. What makes you think that they would turn to the actions that they traditionally despise? Also I was thinking that they would still be inviting people from the Empire to come to New Britain resulting in an even greater ethnic mixing. I was also inspired by a news article that I was listening to on Radio 4 this morning. The British were thinking about evacuating the island if it came to nuclear war anyway. Why ever not South Africa, one of its most important white settler colonies. I also factored in various civil wars and the starvation, disease and radiation that the Africans would suffer before the British got there. That would put white people at roughly one third of the poulation which is not by anyones standards a small minority. Bob 19:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It’s really easy to do the right thing when a nuclear war is not happening. Any nation that attempts to invite large numbers of refugees and support them is going to suffer a huge strain on their resources.  You are having a nation of refugees who have settled in a land none of them are native too inviting other refugees to come live with them.  If I were in charge of feeding all of these refugees in a hostile country, the last thing I would do would be to call for more, it would be a logistical nightmare and people would die because of it.  Furthermore, I’m pretty sure I gave you my reason on why they would do a 180 on apartheid: simple desperation.  Their nation was just destroyed and most don’t know if they will even make it in their new land.  People are going to hoarde and this will breed hate on both sides.


 * You also did not address my point about the natives, why would they even allow this to happen peacefully? The country is already in turmoil and now they have armed refugees carving out a new nation in their sovereign territory.  People are going to be displaced to make room for these new arrivals and they won’t be happy about it especially since they are all foreigners, regardless of their past history.


 * As for important white colonies, why not Ireland? They are right next door and only Belfast got hit and since they are further west they won’t have a high rad count. Canada can also apply, at least the Atlantic provinces, and so can Australia/NZ who according to the TL already have Royal Navy ships that showed up to help there and are doing pretty well.   They are all good spots for the refugees, some even better then South Africa.  Also why does it have to be a former British colony?  If some South American nation is opening its doors wide and promises everyone a home and food, why would the British prefer a chaos-ridden former colony they apparently had a problem with the last few decades?


 * I do agree with you about the British plans to evacuate the island. In fact if you actually read my statements under the collection of South African proposals on this talk page you would see that I specifically said that.  I even had no problem at first with South Africa as the destination, until you began changing it to be overly optimistic.


 * One question: where did you come up with 1/3 of the population? South Africa white’s make up 1/10 of the population OTL.  How many British do you realistically think are going to make it to South Africa?  My best estimate puts it around 200,000 British refugees that could be taken over successfully, but that is optimistic. Mitro 19:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I shall answer easch of your questions in turn. My idea was that the at the time banned ANC invites the British to settle their refugees on the condition that they destroy every last remnant of apartheid. The British considers this and accepts.


 * Your question about resources and hoarding could be easily settled by rationing. This worked in Britain when we were clashing with the evil of Nazi Germany so why not now? There would of course be a black market but I'm sue the government would do everything they could do to stop it.


 * As for other important white colonies, if the British moved to Australia they would be part of the ANZC population. If they went to live in Ireland, they would become Celts. And why would they want to move to South America where Hugo Chavez would eave his arms in the air and claim that this is English imperialism forcing itself on the free nations of South America.


 * You also have to remember that New Britain doesn't take up all of South Africa. They control KwaZulu-Natal, Eastern Cape and Free State. I judged that about half of the populations of these areas would die, mostly blacks before the British got there due to lack of regulation of food leading to the whites shunting enough to themselves to keep themselves alive whilst the blacks starve and die in their millions. When the British get there demographics have altered considerably and it takes years to reverse the damage the whites have done. Eventually population ratios even out at 30% white, 60% black and 10% Asian.


 * I hope this has answered all your questions. Adieu. Bob 20:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to believe that the ANC would invite in the same people who once ruled South Africa, or that the British would accept knowing there is much more peaceful areas they could settle. I would even wager that the blacks can overthrow the white government in this scenario without foreign help.  Even if they do accept British help, why would they name the nation New Britain?  If you are trying to make a state in where everyone is equal then why a name that furthers the assumption that white's are still in control?  Still I like how you now agree that there would be some violence with the arrival of the British.


 * Rationing might work, but comparing it to WWII is a weak argument since Britain's homeland wasn't nuked at the time. What limited resources that would be available in Britain and South Africa in this ATL would mean that even less British refugees would survive the trip then I originally estimated.  I would also seriously recalculate the demographics of your state as the percentages still seem to high for whites.  I do like how you used Prince Andrew as the new king though


 * Hugo Chavez, meanwhile, didn't get any serious political power in OTL until the late 90s. In 1983 he would only be a soldier and I doubt his complaints would matter to most of South America at the time.  Its not unheard of that stable nations will take in refugees during crisis.  Plus any South American nation will benefit from British knowledge and expertise.


 * Based on your comments you really want Britain to survive as a nation and not be absorbed into the population of another, which is fine. I still find that your current setup is too optimistic, but you do seem to be trying to improve it.  I would highly recommend finding these plans we both know exist and read them and see what a British evacuation of the island would entail.  Mitro 20:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mitro, it's not a matter of rationing, nor is it a matter of resettlement -- the changes you propose are very optimistic for this pessimistic ATL. And while you want Britain to survive in some form, I don't know that as it's proposed it would work. Louisiannan 21:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You mention creating a British State in South America. However all land in South America is accounted for. Where would a British State go?
 * I never said they would create a state in South America, only said they would go their as refugees and be accepted by the governments there. Mitro 21:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there anything else wrong with this? Bob 17:28, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have mentioned other issues on the talk page. Plus your copy/paste of my rough draft on the history of post-Doomsday South Africa was meant to cover just the region of the area and not to be used for any specific article. I highly recommend you rewrite the history section of New Britain to reflect that. (Note: I stopped indenting, it was getting too long). Mitro 20:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I have made a rudimentary map of what New Britain claims. The areas it claims are pink. Bob 16:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Would it be possible for New Britain to be made canon? Bob 10:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been collaborating with Bob to improve the New Britain articles and I think that New Britain can be graduated to canon. Are there any objections to this?  Mitro 13:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm generally speaking supportive of making New Britain canon. But I must say that I do think the article could still be improved if the actual Anglo-Africans weren't neglected. For shear logistic reasons I suppose these folk would form the bulk (or at the very least a substantial part) of New Britains population. Secondly Jacob Zuma being president seems highly unlikely to me. He was in Mozambique during the attacks and is not native to the Port Elizabeth region. Even if he somehow did manage to rise to prominence he'd be leading KwaZulu, surely not New Britain. The latter should also be interpreted as a general comment on having the very same people in charge as OTL, which me seems just isn't likely at all (e.g. Angela Merkel leading Namibia? :s). --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I removed references to the prime ministers on the New Britain page and the list of prime ministers page. That can be worked out later and has never been a must for graduation.  There is mention of Anglo-Africans migrating to the region, but to be honest I am not an expert on the region so I’m don’t know exactly what you think needs to be added about them.  Feel free to add to the article or if you know any good sources that may help me expand on the article that would be appreciated.  [EDIT] I added a section on the Anglo-Africans that expands on their presence in the country, what do you think?  Mitro 15:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It all looks perfectly fine to me now :). Ripe for canon status I'd say. --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thirded. I'd put Zuma in one of the Zulu camps, possibly the Unionists, assuming that stuff becomes canon.  As for Merkel, I'm about to put a <!-- around the whole thing to prepare rebuiklding the South Africa page from the ground up.  Right now it's in a pretty sorry state.  Benkarnell 21:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

China or Chinas
just to start The Population of China’s Provinces Compared with countries population. i am Fero good loock--201.255.54.35 06:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt there would be a united China, but a Third East Turkestan Republic is a possibility. Mitro 12:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way I mentioned this on some other page but I think that Tibet would grab the chance to form an independant state. DarthEinstein 13:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Before we get further into this I want to point out something that has bothered me from the beginning about this timeline. Why was China nuked in the first place? I know that relations between China and the Soviets were pretty bad in the 1980s, but I don't think it was so bad that they would nuke each other. It doesn't make any since to me. If the Russians are so freaked out about the ICBMs that (they think) are about to slam into there country, I doubt they would risk getting hit with more by attacking another nuclear power unprovoked.

Now I think I can accept it getting nuked but only if there is a really go explanation for this. Otherwise I think it would be more realistic to have China survive doomsday. Maybe not as a great power like OTL, but as unstable state barley heeled together. I know it might be a major change, but I can't see much sense in how its set up right now.--ShutUpNavi 21:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Call me crazy; but America could be looking out for itself in this situation. Nukings across the world could bring these 2 communist nations together; or at least in the paranoid minds the men who have the keys to the "eject nuke" button. I don't actually know the real name for said button, so don't laugh at me too hard :) Mr.Xeight 22:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To be reasonable i think China was nuked by USA, not by URSS, that way should be in the timeline; a accept a new free tibet, or try to free; and i say China is a 1/5 of OTL world populaion today and in 1983 too, we must talk about them, time to take a desition, they are dead, live? in China, in the west, in the south, in the moon? --Fero 00:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In 1987, the US Department of Defense came up with projected paths that Soviet armed forces would use in case of World War III. Their maps not only showed invasions of Europe, the Middle East and Alaska, but also showed a Soviet invasion of China through Manchuria and Xinjiang.  My guess is the DoD analysts thought that the Sino-Soviet split was severe enough that if the USSR ever started WWIII they would attack the Chinese as well because they thought the Chinese might stab them in the back.  As a side note the guys who made the film Red Dawn thought so as well, and I do believe they had some retired generals help with the story, though not a great persuasive source IMO.  Just some stuff to add to the discussion.  Mitro 14:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Was it established the nukes dropped on China were American? Who's to say those nukes didn't say "Made in Moscow"? Mr.Xeight 19:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Mitro explained why the USSR was likely to attack China. They were getting on far worse with the Chinese than the US was, I believe.  MItro, why was the USSR thought to be planning attacks in the Middle East?  Do you know any likely targets?  That would certainly help us get started on that region - our work so far has been us sitting around going, "What?  Israel... Gulf War... Arafat... what?"  Benkarnell 21:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it was to get control of the oil there and deny it to the west. Here is the link where I found the info: http://techconex.com/tcblog/2008/04/05/mapping-world-war-iii-soviet-global-invasion-routes/ Mitro 14:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, one can expect a return to the warlord era in China, with a rather high population for the world, low for China (about 200-300 Million). Taiwan will likely have invaded the mainland at some strategic locations that have not been nuked, and established itself as the successor of the PRC in the eyes of ANZC. At the same time, various “nations”, made up of dictators, republics, etc., fight for supremacy, with nuclear combat still occurring due to loose nuclear stockpiles unused by the PRC during Doomsday. A major issue though is the status of Hong Kong, as I am not completely certain it would be hit by a nuclear weapon, but at the same time, it could. If not, it would be severely affected by fallout from the Chinese interior, and either would seek aid from ANZC or Taiwan. Macau would suffer in a similar situation, though the Portuguese would likely be overthrown after trying to maintain control until communication with Portugal could be reinstated. Lahbas 20:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Taiwan because of its relation with the US would probably be attacked (hence why Ben removed the original reference to a Taiwan state on the updated world map). I would also think Hong Kong as a British possession would also be targetted.  Mitro 20:10, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Confederation of North America(And Other American Remnant States)
Going with the idea of a loose confederation of small nations in the New England area, I am trying to find areas suitable for other “county states” similar to Aroostook. In the case of Vermont, the area around Essex, Orleans, and Caledonia counties seem to be the best bet, as Burlington would be hit by a nuclear weapon due to the Air Guard being stationed there. In New Hampshire, Coos, Grafton, and Carroll counties seem fine. Much of the States of Vermont and New Hampshire are untouched, but fallout from Massachusetts would severely affect anything south of these locations. The nuclear attacks at Burlington would not be of as massive a yield, but enough to destroy the city. A survivors settlement in Quebec other than Saguenay could exist, south of the St. Lawrence River, while another exists in former Ontario. These “states” would form a loose confederation, which is similar to the current OAS, along with Saguenay. Canada would not have membership, because of a situation reminiscent of the Turkish-Greek conflict over Cyprus, and Saguenay’s veto of Canada entering the Confederation. Lahbas 02:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Since we already have a, can we get a new name for the nation for form's sake? How about something that is historically connected to the region, like the New England Confederation?  Mitro 20:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Superior
As for additional American nations, is it possible that Upper Michigan could have survived? Lahbas 00:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As for Upper Michigan, YES, I do believe there would be survivors there. I have mentioned that several times but no one has shown interest until now.  Mitro 02:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well actually I had ideas about the US Midwest, even a small rebuilt city called "New Chicago" forming as a result. Now I'm not expecting a great Chicago empire extending from Peoria to Green Bay, just a small town with the culture looking as if it jumped from a Medeival Times Festival, stuff like hollowed out cars becoming carts or carriages, people not having electricity, etc. I was also thinking about survivors reverting back to a Native American lifestyle resettling the Great Lakes Region. But that's just my weird sort of "what-ifs", nothing more.

Mr.Xeight 03:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

As for a new nation in Upper Michigan I suggest you check out the WP article about a proposed U.S state they wanted to call Superior for ideas.--ShutUpNavi 18:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I already heard about it. I found the Wikipedia article on the history of the Upper Peninsula more informative. Also looked through the list of military bases and did not see any. Of course that was a current list. Anyway, the Lower Peninsula would bear all the nuclear attacks. The population today is about 300,000, so it would probably been around 270,000 then (people are moving out now). The only problem is that the land is not great for agriculture, though I don’t doubt that fishing would be able to make up for the lack of arable land. Lahbas 00:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I have absolutely no idea for a flag, since the only one I could find local was the Michigan State Flag, which I doubt would be used. The nation could be called either Superior or Ontonagon, both names which were considered when the region was petitioning for statehood in the US. Marquette would be the likely capital as well, with the American Dollar remaining as the local currency. The only problem I am encountering is how the nation is going to come into contact with the outside world. They could form a exploration troupe similar to the “Lewis and Clark” expedition sometime in the 1990’s, but I am still unsure in the method. The only good thing, as I said before, is that, due to the nation’s proximity to the Great Lakes, it is largely self-sufficient, also being located on massive mineral wealth, or what could be considered such. Most of the mines have closed since the boom, but new deposits could be found throughout the region. Lahbas 20:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I just hit a major flaw, not enough to destroy the idea, but enough to dent the extent of the nation. Apparently there was an airbase known as K. I. Sawyer Air Force base, home to the 410th Bomber Wing of the Strategic arm of the Air Force, since been decommissioned. Its purpose was to act as a nuclear deterrent, allowing B-52s to fly over Canada, the North Pole, into Russia. That alone makes it a dead certain target for ICBMs heading from Russia. If we are talking about a surface detonation, or a 1 MT nuke, then only the base would be destroyed; however, the resulting fallout would kill about half of the region’s population, and it would take much longer, if ever, for any form of government to develop in the region. I retract that; almost everyone in the region would be dead. The only bright spot is if we choose an air burst nuclear explosion, which depends almost entirely on the pressure caused by the explosion. Though it is more destructive then a surface blast, which would make it more likely to be deployed for this target, it would not cause the substantial fallout of a surface blast. Therefore most of the region would be relatively unharmed, and fallout would not be a major problem. Thus, regional government would survive. I also have a map showing the extent of The Republic of Superior.


 * Though it would easily also have loose control over areas of Ontario, especially the Canadian Great Lake islands, I could not find a SVG map that would be able to represent that as well as the US Great Lakes Region. The main claims in the Lower Peninsula are more or less, refugee camps, meant to keep the bulk of the population from the main area of the United States outside of Superior proper, except those that have worthy skills. At the same time, there is an armed border along the former border between Superior and the US state of Wisconsin, though problems are similar as the OTL US-Mexican border. Lahbas 19:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good work on finding out about that base. I think the more important question though is what the Soviets would do?  I like the map as well, though I wonder if Superior may have some contact/claim with any towns on the Minnesota panhandle.  Also this group gives a potential idea about the history of Superior.  Though it was formed in 2003, after the POD, I wonder how many of their members originate from Superior and whether that might cause some sort of communist party/insurgency for the new state.  Mitro 20:23, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought I did talk about what the Soviets would do. Those calculations were based off of the Homeland Security website on nuclear attacks. There is a similar base in the Lower Peninsula, but considering that it is near Chicago, Detroit, and right next to Lansing, it wouldn’t make much difference. At the same time, I find it hard that that group would have much influence in the Republic, outside of some representation in the refugee camps, and possibly in some within Superior itself, a third party within the Republic’s politics. Could make some of the current members congressmen within the Republic, if I could find their names. Anyway, from the above comment I made before you answered, which kind of nuclear attack would you prefer? Lahbas 21:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have added some content to the Republic of Superior. I wanted to use the Bonnie Flag and add some extra bits regarding the Republic into it, but I haven’t yet found an effective way of doing it. Tell me what you think? Lahbas 02:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Fascist Ottawa
More or less a hiccup that came out of nowhere. Basically, it is the area around the ruins of Ottawa, and Ottawa itself, under the control of a Canadian Captain known as Giraud Leppe. I did not go heavily into the details, as I wanted to determine what you guys thought about it, but it has unofficially become an integral part of my timeline, as the only other human government known by the citizen’s of Superior to existence throughout the 90’s. All the info on the Ottawa is in the Republic of Superior article. Lahbas 14:22, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ottawa would be a horrible place to build a nation-state. Living out of nuked city may be good for raiders and scavengers, but as a capitol?  There are probably smaller, but self-sufficient and intact, cities around the area in western Ontario that would be more plausible. Why not Thunder Bay or Sandly Lake?  The Ottawa peninsula area would just be unviable for nation-state building.  Mitro 01:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I like the idea of Thunder Bay being used as your state's center. It would better explain how Superior took so long to be contacted despite how close Ottawa is too  and . Mitro 01:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, but that would mean I would have the expedition to the West find nothing but refugees. I’ll just expand the expeditions to include one that scans the coasts along the Great Lakes, as it should find it if that since they will likely send out a boat of their own to meet the expedition. Also, it helps with the minor problem of population regarding Ottawa. Lahbas 02:02, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Lincoln
More of an idea, and all the info is currently within the Republic of Superior. Basically, it is a recently installed government in the ruins of former Chicago. Though it had been destroyed by nuclear weapons, refugees eventually traveled back into the area for shelter from rogue elements in the countryside. Eventually, several mobs formed among the refugees, who had been fighting over resources, both inside and outside of the city. The Republic of Superior eventually restored order in 1999, establishing the Republic in 2001. Lahbas 21:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why wouldn't it be a part of superior, if superior established it? Louisiannan 22:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm generally against the idea of reestablishing civilization in the nuked ruins of cities. Why build there when you have perfectly good farmland and small, self-sufficient towns to rebuild civilization?  Also Chicago will be hit by more then just one bomb, and don't forget the steel mills near Gary.  Mitro 22:52, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't Gary already in the stage of a mere shadow of itself in the 80s? Or would the Russians simply overlook that fact, as they have 40,000 nukes at their disposal? Mr.Xeight 23:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Middle East
I'd actually propose that instead of the Middle East getting nuked by East or West, I'd suggest that they nuked themselves into oblivion, so that most of the Levant is a slag-heap.

I'd like to say that as far as Libya and Tunisia is concerned they're "countries that time forgot."

And Mr. Xeight and I are working up Egypt as I type this. Louisiannan 21:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Specifically, who nuked whom? Israel was the only Middle Eastern country to actually have nuclear weapons, and it's safe to assume they attacked somebody.  Iran and Iraq certainly had chemical WMDs and were busily using them against one another, and possibly their neighbors.  I agree that a regional plan is probably needed for the Mideast, as opposed to our normal country-by-country process.  Benkarnell 15:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright, here’s what I had in mind for what I wrote on my Middle East pages.

With most of Turkey blown up, the Kurds in the southeast manage to establish an independent Kurdistan without much resistance. Wanting to reunite with the rest of the Kurdish populated areas they join in the Iran-Iraq war (which in this timeline is still called the gulf war) on Iran’s side. Although reluctant because of its own Kurdish population, Iran decides to help them in exchange for dropping its claims on Iranian Kurdistan. Iraq eventually collapses because of the now 2 front war, as well as lack of foreign support from the US and Soviet Union. Saddam becomes unpopular because of his use of Scorched Earth tactics in Iraq and is eventually overthrown by an extremist Shia dictator. Like OTL Iraq decides to invade and annex Kuwait, but with none to stop them they soon invade Saudi Arabia and capture the oil fields there. I haven’t worked out what happens from here, but I would imagine things would go south from here and that another war would soon break out.

But this was just my idea of what could happen. Fell free to change what ever you need to with it, because I won’t be working on these pages for awhile.--ShutUpNavi 22:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a good beginning, I think. Chemical weapons were probably used more indisriminately, right?  And what about that Assyria place?  What is that?  Benkarnell 22:51, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If I may; I have another problem to add to this mix. We both have pages on Kurdistan and an Assyrian Republic. The problem; the areas they respectably claim are exactly the same. Plus, I don't the Shi'a dictator of Iraq would last long. Mr.Xeight 01:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ayatollah Khomeini planned on expanding Radical Islam across the Middle East. Any alliance with Kurdistan would be short-lived. At the same time, Iran would have more likely absorbed Iraq than allow its continued independence. From there, it would have marched on Kuwait and the Arabian states. The result would be a devastating war between the Fascist governments of the Arab World, against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Israel would finally find itself in an uneasy peace with its neighbors. At the same time, they could easily launch a nuclear attack upon the Iranians, either if asked by the Arabs, or if the Iranians get too close for comfort. Lahbas 03:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

When exactly would Israel launch its nuclear attacks against his neighors? Also how about a new article for the attack: ? Mitro 15:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's likely that Israel is just going to nuke its neighbors right away (i.e. the first few years post DD). Here's a more plassable version I had in mind. With time I would imagine Israel would be severally weakened after DD from lack of forging aid as well as fighting constant wars with its neighbors. As Hellerick put it earlier "OTL's Israel is not a self-sufficient country, it's fed by the United States and the Jewish diaspora. No civilized country can survive a perpetual war on its own."

After a while perhaps the Arabs see this as a chance to finish off Israel and start another Arab-Israeli war. This time they nearly succeed until Israel uses its nukes. While this saves the Jews for the time being, it causes them to be seen as a mass murdering state by the rest of the world. This would give the Greeks/LON/anyone else the perfect opportunity to intervene in the Middle East and take over the countries there.

Again feel free to use as much or as little of my idea as you like.--ShutUpNavi 17:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

//
I figured I would bring this up because Yugoslavia (or what became of it) is going to have a large impact on the countries left in Southern Europe. Being a leading member of the Non-Aligned Movement it’s unlikely to be nuked, but all of its blown up neighbors are sure to cause trouble. There are a lot of things that could have happened here. Instead of trying to map out what happens to it all at once, let’s start from the immediate effects of the disaster and work ourselves from there. I just wrote down what the likely effects of the fallout would be as well as the government’s response. Lets try to figure out what happens from here.--ShutUpNavi 16:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * added this to the proposals...I feel general okey about it... MR.Xeight, this is yours?? --Xi&#39;Reney 10:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * -Hello. No, actually, mine. Read through Doomsday and loved it, and though a Yugoslavia successor state could be a good thing to add (could be good if combined with the already existing stub for Yugoslavia Proper). If you find it worthy, I'll do some more edit. Cheers mate --Azazel voland 15:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I put Yugoslavia and the SSU together as one, feel it being more appropriate. Should be more productive than having two parallel discussions. Yugoslavia could be quite complex, given the ethnical conflicts and atrocities...with repercussions on surrounding states... Sicily, Alpine Confed, Greece... --Xi&#39;Reney 17:17, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. Given that the ethnic tensions first escalated during the Croatian Spring in 1971, which caused massive unrest in Croatia, asking for larger autonomy, and the issues with Kosovo at the time, the situation was resolved by the new Constitution in 1974 which grated almost state-within-state rights for the 6 republics and 2 provinces. With the death of Tito, situation was again resolved implementing rotational presidency from each of the republics. Doomsday would probably cause massive secession at first, however, being that all the surrounding countries surviving population would probably flock into the country, the differences would have been overcome in the attempt to preserve the country from "outsiders". Isolation and focus on self-preservation seem like the appropriate answer.--Azazel voland 19:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic tensions in the Balkans run too high. The Muslim Bosniaks and any Muslim Albanian refugees would no doubt be targets for the Orthodox Serbs and Skopians. The Catholic Croats would equally be in conflict with both groups so after Yugoslavia (which has already been claimed by someone) there would no doubt be a mosaic of nations in the former Yugoslavia just as there was in our world. Plus radiation coming from Thessaloniki, Skopje, and Sophia would destroy the outer rim of Yugoslavia. The refugees that gave Hell to the Yugoslavians post-DD would also be a problem. I'm suspicious of a giant union of Southern Slavs. Mr.Xeight 03:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Mr.Xeight. Good points. However, during the ages, South Slavic nations have always been able to unite in times of need (especially when a foreign enemy is at the gates) and immediately overcome all differences if there is nothing else to do. In this particular situation, given that the "enemy" is radiation and refugees, their main concern would be closing the borders down. The ethnic torn in teh 90s could not have succeeded without foreign back up to some of the countries. Croatia and Slovenia had support from Germany and Austria, while Bosnians had the support of the US and the Arab countries. Without them in the picture, the funding, support and logistics, Yugoslavia would most probably survive the Fall of Communism. In the late 70s, to quote wikipedia, "The JNA (Yugoslav National/Peoples Army) enjoyed an international reputation as a powerful, well-equipped, and well trained force." It had 620,000 active military personnel and 3,200,000 reservists. With that kind of power, the borders could have been closed and order maintained. One of the reasons for the dissolution of Yugoslavia OTL was that the army did not create a coup in 1991, and thus prevented the wars that followed. JNA was always viewed as the "Liberation Army" and serving in it was considered a thing of honour in the 60s, 70s and the 80s (any young male that did not serve the regular year, was generally considered as not worthy...and could even have difficulty finding someone to marry him :)). With the military taking control of the nation, shutting down the borders immediately after Doomsday, and moving into non-radiated territories (Sofia and Thessaloniki would not pose that much of a problem due to the geographical landscape. Serbia and Bulgaria are separated by a range of 2500+ meter mountains, as are Macedonia and Greece. Slovenia would probably get affected as would Zagorje in Croatia, and 95% of the Adriatic coast. Perhaps, the only coastal area that would escape that fate would be the Bay of Boka Kotorska in Montenegro, due to its peculiar position.)Now, refugees, that would pose a serious problem, that is true, and those that got into the country would most likely be put in camps (as a notion, Yugoslavia did already successfully close it's borders in 1948 during the Inform-bureau crisis and implemented martial law. My only concern is that the country would need a very capable general to take control but be benevolent and patriotic at the same time. I estimate at least 2 - 3 million refugees from the surrounding countries. But, with most of the army surviving, that could be overcome. A military dictatorship would have saved the country at first, them also being responsible for food distribution and peace keeping. Also, Yugoslavia had it's own oil rigs in South Banat, that, in peace times, provided fuel only for military usage (so that the army would not depend on foreign import). That would sustain military mobility and better the control over the country. In my opinion, this is a plausible scenario.--Azazel voland 07:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess I was wrong. I am however opposed to "With amazing amount of luck, most of the harvested land in the province of Vojvodina and East Slavonia did not get affected by the radioactive dust". There is no luck in this TL, I've tried it with an iffy nuke not hitting Cyprus, it's been tried to save Britain, it's been tried to save Germany, and it's been tried to save West Virginia, only the second of my examples was deemed fair enough to pass to QSS. I would however appreciate if you asked before you drag the CoG into the mix. There is no love lost between the Greeks and Slavs of Yugoslavia, even Doomsday can't change that. As caretaker of the CoG I am opposed to any such alliance between the two nations. As such, I'd appreciate it if you pull the blurbs on Greece having open discussions with each other, free border crossings, a Joint Defense Agreement, and a trade union. Mr.Xeight 15:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The Doomsday Library Project
I would like to adopt your idea Louis and propose the initiation of a worldwide knowledge salvation and preservation project. I imagine this being initiated by the LoN and carried out (mainly) by the WCRB ARK Agency for Recovery of Knowledge.

The center of gravity would be to establish a neo-Alexandrian Library where as much knowledge from the world in any form - documents, paper, papyrus, discs, tapes, books, construction plans etc. Salvage teams (WCRB) would be sent out with the recon missions to collect erything they got in their hands. A special LoN division, internationally authorized and multilaterally composed, would oversee the archives and administer the records. I could imagine all scientifical fields being included in the project. Goals of the Agency might be the recovery of technologies of global importantance, salvation of cultural, historical heritage, help in building future technologies against radiation poisoning etc. In general I would suppose a positive reaction of these plans proposed by the King of Tonga& the French Polynesian High Commissioner or similar... Problems I see: This can be a long discussion, so I open it hereby.. thanks for ideas Will come up with a proposal article soon!--Xi&#39;Reney 22:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * military knowledge and treating this? -->nuclear know-how?
 * a possible refusal of governments sharing thing they know...american technology by ANZC, USSR tech by FSSR etc...
 * the parallel tries of dictators (Sicily, South Africa) or general nations to be the first...

I can pledge the monks of Agion Oros to share their religious and Byzantine literature. Mr.Xeight 00:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Virginian Empire (1983: Doomsday)
the virginian empire consists of the Formor US states of Georgia Virginia both Alabama this article is a proposal
 * Wait -- So Virginia, Georgia and Alabama? Do you maybe mean the Carolinas?  And I hate to say this, but after living in the South, I don't know how well/functional they'd be at surviving the years since DD. Louisiannan 20:03, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * According to the article the nation covers West Virginia/Kentucky. I'm not sure what Owen is talking about.  Mitro 20:08, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Owen, are you taking crazy pills again? Louisiannan 22:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I will have to check but if the state capitals were nuked and with the US in anerchy i thing what leadership ther is would have formed ta rudementiry government --Owen1983 12:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Does any one bother to check the Nuked Places map anymore? the states of West Virginia and Kentucky are completely unscathed by nuclear impact. Maybe evn a bit of northern Tennessee. --Yankovic270 00:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Who said the map was perfect? Mr.Xeight 00:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I just don't believe that the Soviet Union would waste a perfectly good A-Bomb on every single state capital when there were much much more tantalizing targets. And I didn't say the map was perfect, I basically said it is close enough. When it was adjusted it was only changed to include bases on Cyprus that I didn't know existed on the hit list. It still left the Kentucky/West Virginia area clear. And is this you tying to find anyway to erase my country from the map even before it is included? I'm not trying to imply anything. And Owen? Can you please use something on your computer called SPELLCHECK. --Yankovic270 01:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC) does anyone both to read the description anymore? It's WEST Virginia not regular Virginia.Totally devoid of abomb Inpact.sorry 'bout the spellcheck crack.--209.121.198.180 04:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Insulting other people's spellings disinclines them to cooperate. Benkarnell 20:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Virginia even today contains a large part of the military installations; Naval, Air, Land, and Coast. Even if the capital were not hit, the resulting chaos would prevent the government from being able to maintain control. Lahbas 00:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

d


 * My mistake, anyway, while there are not major military installations there, the Svoiet Union might try to take out the coal-mining regions within the state, which produced most of the power used throughout that region. Even today we largely depend upon West Virginia for our energy needs, or at least the industry in the Midwest and lower Northeast. At the same time, you have to remember that the Soviet Union had just under 40,000 nuclear weapons at their disposal in 1983. They won't mind hitting some what could be considered minor strategic targets if it could keep the enemy down. If a nuclear strike were made on the coal mines, I can only begin to imagine the enviromental disaster that would result. Lahbas 05:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

The history needs some flushing out, a new flag is necessary and some new sections could be added. Mitro 19:06, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I’m relisting Aroostook as a proposal. Due to Lahbas’ research, the Loring Air Force Base located in Aroostook County, Maine, would probably be hit by a Soviet nuke. Because of that the article may need to be rewritten to reflect this change. Mitro 13:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)