Talk:1983: Doomsday

Before you start editing, please read the Editorial Guidelines.

Discussion Archives:

| Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 | Page 7 | Page 8

Former Proposals:

| Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 | Page 7 | Page 8 | Page 9 | Page 10

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

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

Monarchs page
As something of a monarchophile, I've been thinking about this page for a while. This isn't really a Proposal since it's all information that's from existing pages (QSS) or based directly on real life (QAA). Whenever a monarch in real life married or ascended to the throne after 1983, I left the consort and accession boxes blank: their predecessors' death may have happened at a different time under different circumstances, and it's likely they married someone different from OTL. Ialso left the Andorran prince-bishop's name blank, just because I want to make sure the info on the page is accurate: it says that the bishop from 1983 is still around today, even though he's dead in OTL. The only creative license I took was that I decided the Bermudan monarchs decided to name their Royal House after their peerage name (Dunrossil) rather than their familiy name (Morrison); I thought they might like to emphasize their noble credentials. Feel free to look over and fix! Benkarnell 06:22, February 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm assuming that as the Duchy of Orleans seems to be a "dead" nation as far as editing goes you are ignoring it for the monarchs page?? Verence71 11:18, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I filled in what I could. It's still a canonical nation... isn't it? Benkarnell 13:23, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * The major problem I have with the Duchy of Orleans is that at the time of Doomsday, Duke Jacques wouldn't have been the Orleanist pretender. That would have been his father Henri whose heir would have been Jacques older brother, who is also called Henri. This second Henri is the current Orleanist pretender in OTL. Verence71 16:31, February 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * France had a very high casualty rate in the aftermath period, so I think it makes sense if that includes members of the Orleans family. Benkarnell 18:28, March 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * It was my expectation when I started to write the article that Henri, père and Henri, fils died in the various nuclear strikes. Jacques was more of a world traveller at this time, and I suggest that he was not in an affected area on Doomsday, since I can't track down his whereabouts more precisely. Louisiannan 19:02, March 12, 2010 (UTC


 * That's fair enough. I would imagine there's no Legitimist claimant "ruling" part of France as by 1983 pretenders in that ,line had been Spanish for 100 years. It might be amusing if a Bonaparte turned up in Corsica though Verence71 20:33, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Graphics / Visualization /Cartography
Section Archives: Page 1

Wiki/Timeline/Article Technicals
Section archives: Page 1

March Article of the Month
This month's article of the month is the. If you have the time, check this article out and see what you can do to improve it. Mitro 19:02, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

So we would be able to edit the aforementioned article?? Verence71 13:20, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh...yeah. Mitro 18:23, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking that the large number of immigrants post-Doomsday might lead to the rise of a political party along the lines of this one One Nation Verence71 19:14, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

Culture / Society
Archives: Page 1 • Page 2

South American Games
The and  pages both say that the regional Games begin in September of this year. I realize that seasons are reversed in the Southern Hemisphere, but I think they would want to have the Games all happen at the same time - they're theoretically just different components of the same Summer Olympics, after all. And in OTL, they never changed the time frame for holding Olympics in the Southern Hemisphere - the Sydney Games were in September, for example, and the Rio Games will be in August. However, this month might be a good time to light the Torch in Greece. Benkarnell 17:47, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Miscellaneous discussion
Archives: Page 1

Question for editors regarding Vermont, Texas and Piedmont...and potential future proposals
Would it affect the TL if I rewrote Vermont to have had limited contact with other nations before 2000, for Piedmont to be a known nation state in the Southeast by the early 2000s...and for West Texas to have not been isolationistic, but have had its conflict with Mexico, worked it out and become a somewhat influential nation in the old Southwest?

I'm asking these questions with SouthWriter's recent comments on various talk pages in mind: how realistic are our proposals? Specifically here, how realistic is it for nation states as complex and (relatively) large as we've built them to have been unknown in their respective regions for as long as 25 years after Doomsday? I wrote Vermont and Texas as isolationalists because I tried to work within the framework of previously established canon; I assumed canon had been established for legitimate reasons, and unless there was a darn good reason to change it it was best to work within it.

Therefore, I come to all of you, particularly the editors who have been here the longest. BrianD 04:14, March 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Go for it, if you need any help let me know :) --GOPZACK 04:32, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Re: Piedmont, SouthWriter and I could come up with a proposal involving that nation.

Re: Texas:
 * The history of West Texas stays the same through the '85 earthquake. It even goes isolationistic in regards to Mexico.
 * This time, though, the outcry from the people is so great that the government eventually decides to reverse itself and pursue relations with Mexico.
 * The increasing presence of American refugees in Mexican government and business helps West Texas's cause.
 * Around this time, American refugees come under increasing persecution from some nationals, leading to riots on both sides and unfortunate assaults on, and a few murders of, American refugees by radical nationals, and a few Mexican nationals by refugees.
 * The Mexican government knows it has to deal with the crisis, so it contacts Canberra to ask for Bush's advice on the situation (since de la Madrid met with Reagan, you would have to think that he would contact Bush on this matter, since Texas would be considered American territory. It would have some ramifications for the APA, and rewriting portions of that history, though).
 * Bush encourages Mexico - urges, actually - to reopen ties with West Texas, and while knowing there is nothing his administration could do in the situation, he reminds Mexico Texas is still technically part of the USA.
 * Texas and Mexico make up, with Mexico City/Mexica recognizing Midland as the capital of the Republic of Texas.
 * Mexican scouts discover isolated survivor communities in south Texas, and a string of communities in eastern Texas having formed their own Texas provisional government.
 * Waco - midway between Midland and Nacogdoches - is trying to get back on its feet; the day Mexican Army scouts walk into the city, and inform the people that Mexico, Bush, Australia, South America, et al have survived Doomsday, is the day that turns it around for the beleaguered city. Instead of descending into a cycle of violence and despair, the people find hope.
 * Gradually, Mexico helps facilitate the meeting of President Atkins in Mexico with his counterparts from east Texas, and Waco, and representatives from the south Texas towns, villages and remaining survivor camps (including one possibly set up in a KOA).
 * Sometime in the 1990s, the four camps agree to reunify the state and send representatives to a constitutional convention at Baylor University. Bush even agrees to send a representative, though for other reasons the APA never gets up there before its dissolution.
 * The APA dissolves, with the added provision of granting Texas the option of joining the ANZC, or Mexico, or going independent. My meager understanding of TTL Texas history suggests to me Texans would choose independence, especially given peaceful relations with Mexico.
 * In 1996, the Republic of Texas, with its capital in Waco midway between east and west Texas, is born. George H.W. Bush will have visited the new republic in the late 1990s.
 * By the founding of the LoN, Texas will have good relations with Dinetah and Utah, as well as Broken Bow, Hot Springs and Louisiana (all of which it discovered during various Texas/Mexico scouting expeditions), Hattiesburg and Natchez, as well as Cuba, the East Caribbean Federation, Puerto Rico, central America, south America and of course the ANZC. The South Padre Island port will have been established by then as well.
 * With some Mexican nationals immigrating north for the job opportunities, and with some American refugees opting to return to Texas or move there (from Arizona or New Mexico or California, via Mexican refugee camps), the 2010 TTL population could be anywhere from a million to 3 million. G.W. Bush could shuttle back and forth between Midland and Mexico City, setting up for a 2012 Presidential campaign. Conaway would be the current President.
 * Re: Vermont: independence leads to isolationism, but contact with Aroostook, the St. Lawrence Raiders and Canada leads to some sort of "Atlantic treaty" by the late 1990s. An unofficial confederation of New England is formed, with Vermont taking the lead in establishing a port in southern Maine. The question of New Hampshire independence or being part of Vermont would need to be settled. I would also need to write in the Keene proposal as well.

Thoughts?BrianD 15:20, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

I like these ideas. The possibility of a Texan state within the APA does raise some intresting qeustoins.Ramdominsanity 13:41, March 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * Bump.


 * Random, questions for the plausibility of a unified Texas, or for the APA itself? BrianD 12:47, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

The APA in particular.Ramdominsanity 17:58, March 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * That's what I thought. I do think it further shows the APA's inability to govern any part of the former U.S. And, if Bush had contact with Mexico, there were bound to be serious questions to him as to why he settled in Australia, and not in texas, or Hawaii, or southern Oregon, or even the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City. We've clearly established it, but never really got into any challenges to that...I guess early on the editors here thought America was a total wasteland. We've clearly established that isn't the case. It makes more sense that people would challenge Bush on that (and could help inform why countries like Virginia are so adamant against the U.S.) BrianD 18:54, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

The main problem as i see it is that a Texan Survivor state that the APA nows about is that it would make the APA think "if Texas survived, why not Vermont or Northern Michigan or something?" the problem is that the timeline was created on the premise that the USA was devestated. Yet it clearly was not. Ramdominsanity 19:19, March 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that's our collective faults, I suppose. However....given the constant complaints in OTL then, and now, about government inefficiency and incompetence...could we use that to help explain the APA's actions? That whomever the individuals running government were (besides Reagan and Bush) THOUGHT the country was totally destroyed...and were wrong. We would probably need to define why Bush chose Canberra over Mexico City (remember in The Day After Tomorrow movie where the Cheney analogue is running the U.S. government out of the American embassy there?), and why the APA never tried to reestablish the capital in Hilo or Juneau. Despite the destruction of three Australian cities, Australia must have offered the APA many more advantages than Hawaii, Alaska or a lawless Pacific Coast - or an embassy in Mexico - ever could. BrianD 19:29, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

bump. I'm serious about the Texas proposal. Or, at least rewriting the portion to allow for earlier and increased contact w/Mexico, Dinetah and other regional survivor states. BrianD 22:01, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Fiji & French Polynesia
From what I can find Xi'Reney created both of these articles and my research shows that he has not edited anything since February 4th 2010. Does he have a new account or has he simply been offline since then? In any event I am interested in adopting Fiji and French Polynesia from him. (with his blessing of course) If anyone could contact him or help me contact him that would be dandy. Thanks --GOPZACK 23:07, March 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * He would probably say yes... "Globe-Spanning France" was his idea and he did some developmental work on it but largely let it be. I do not think he ever did any real work on Fiji beyond acknowledging its existence.
 * I recently suggested to Bob that the Fijians might well acknowledge King Andrew Windsor as "King of Fiji," a role that is mostly honorary in the islands and basically puts the British monarch at the top of the traditional aristocratic structure (it's very interesting, from what I've read). Since Andrew is the rightful Tui Viti, I think it would make sense for the Fijians to recognize him as such, maybe invite him over for some sort of ceremony. Benkarnell 02:07, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose then unless anyone wields a significant objection I will begin to edit both articles. --GOPZACK 04:33, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Book About Lost American States
I recently ran across a very interesting book which was just published called Lost States by a Michael Trinklein which provides maps and brief histories about proposed or failed US states. I mention it because someone creating a survivor nation in the US might find it of some use. I found it fascinating and it offered an alternative name I might have used when setting-up the UCD. Fxgentleman 05:11, March 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * There is also this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._state_secession_proposals of various proposed US States. --GOPZACK 16:39, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Proposal overload
I think we have around 60 proposals currently on the docket. That is the highest I have seen the list in a long time. If you think there are any articles that can be graduated, please speak up by saying so on their entries in the proposal section below. Mitro 18:44, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Ashes of the 26th
See http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?p=3198559

Look familiar? Mitro 23:58, March 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Has anyone gone over there and commented? BrianD 01:58, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * He names 1983:DD as an influence on his work. Looks like he dropped some more nukes in the Southern Hemisphere to make things worse there. Interesting twist - what if Australia and Brazil were as bad off as the US? BrianD 01:59, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * What I like is how most of the other posters seem familiar with 1983DD and like it. We have fans! Benkarnell 17:59, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

having fans gives people warm, fuzzy feelings. :)HAD 18:44, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Future of Timeline, both literally and metaphorically
1st, the literally; some ideas for future events for this timeline:

French reunification as the 7th french republic sometime this decade.

Geman reuinfication as the German Confederation sometime between 2015 and 2020.

American reuinfication between 2018 and 2023.

Any thoughts? (I'm not trying to do a future history, just butting ideas out their)

Metaphorically, it strikes me that this timeline (or, more specifically, us editors) will not be here forever, so how about a book? a proper, real life book detailing this timeline and everything in it? (again, this is just a suggestion).HAD 19:46, March 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * How do you reunite the entire U.S.? Such a venture would involve massive investment - the power grid, telecommunications, rebuilding the interstate system. Mexico, or the SAC, or the ANZC would almost certainly be involved; I don't think the survivor nations would be able to truly unify in name and in deed by 2023 without that massive infrastructure investment. Also: the LoN would insist on investigating the missile sites for any remaining nukes, and that the new U.S. not use nukes in any manner (would they be able to do so with the new USSR)?


 * And, how big would the new America be? Yank's already said many times he doesn't want Virginia involved, and by his comments I assume he feels the same way for Lincoln. So, a reunified U.S. with independent nations scattered in the midwest, south, Dakotas, and out west might be intriguing. BrianD 14:03, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, an entirely unified U.S. would be out of the question, but one centered around the PUSA would be more plausible, as soon as they loose the provisional title. And since you brought it up Brian, I'll state my opinion on the whole nuke business concerning the USSR. I've been tiptoeing around it from the start, but yes, I do believe they have a sizeable amount of unused nukes and I can't see any way that the LoN could do anything about it. They would just have to agree that they were in reasonable hands and be done with it.--Vladivostok 14:12, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts, Brians suggestion on on a midwest USA with other nations scattered around does sound more plausible. Maybe they would be members of an extended NAU? And i know public opinion does not matter for much in the USSR, but surely their would be a massive revulsion amoungst the Soviet people about Thermonuclear weapons remaining on their territory?HAD 17:08, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

I don't see Germany reunifying. Bavaria is likely to join the Alpine Confederation, and Prussia and North Germany have different government systems. One or the other would have to completely abandon their system of government in order to unify, so I doubt that is going to happen. I could see it eventually solidifying into Prussian, North German, and Alpine territory. Discussion on Germany

Some of my thoughts on geopolitics:
 * 1) ANZC continues to fall behind South America. There might be a period of competition with nation building in South Asia and Africa, but in the end the ANZC will work with the South America nations.
 * 2) South America becomes the most advanced region in the world. The internet as we know it OTL will happen here.  The SAC will continue to integrate.
 * 3) New Cold War between the SAC and the USSR. It will begin with competition over Central America (there is a rather large communist presence there), but spread worldwide.  ANZC, the ADC and other nations will be drawn into it.  Might even see the return of a nuclear arms race (though it would be very secret).
 * 4) USSR keeps expanding westward. More survivor states end up like Aralia.  ADC grows as a result, tensions increase.
 * 5) Sicily is dealt (and probably very soon). Its "empire" is broken apart and a new government comes to power.  ADC still has the USSR to contend with.
 * 6) Regional blocs integrate in North America. Confederation of New England is created, Dixie Alliance evolves, the two Texases unite, the NAU expands, the former provisional USA grabs a few new states, etc.  Though a reviatalized USA as we know it is unlikely.  I think we all wrote the history to a point where that is impossible.

Mitro 23:31, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Loose Nukes
I know this has just been brought up in the discussion above but it is defiantly worth looking into. Does anyone have any thoughts on which nations may still posses some left over nukes? Should we make a page deciated to the serch for missing/loose nikes? (If so I'll gladly start one up.) --GOPZACK 21:09, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Israel would have a few still. They have already used a couple post-Doomsday. India would also still have nukes post-Doomsday, but since it has balkanized, it might be possible that more than one successor state has one. Mitro 23:06, March 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * How about the PUSA or the USSR? --GOPZACK 23:16, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Any nuclear weapons in PUSA territory would either already be used on Doomsday or destroyed when the Soviet nukes hit the silos there. The USSR is another story.  Mitro 23:32, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

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

and
this is the basic idea for a survior society in china-- very open to suggesting at this point.
 * It's wickedly dystopian, along the lines of Thunder Bay and aspects of Superior's history - I like it. I don't know enough about Chinese history or culture to say whether it's a realistic Chinese dystopia, though. It also seems quite large - I'm wary of creating large survivor states in China before we nail down more of its history. Benkarnell 22:11, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

yea, the size kind of bothers me, though its sparcely populated--I think. I'm kind of hoping that this will start chineese history for this TL-- when I went through this site for the first time, the abscence of any information on China after DoomsDay stuck out like a sore thumb. As far as I can tell, China was suprise attacked by the USSR, which caused a total government breakdown. A coastal few towns seem to have survived, as they are mentioned in tiawan's article, but under the impression there is no larger (or at least better) civilization in the interior. Some stuff on the edges has been claimed by the USSR, but they have simply stayed away from going farther south into manchuia--implying it not worth it due to the state of things. China has a history of major Civil wars (all of the most deadly conflicts of the last two hundred years are european conflicts or chinese civil wars), and they have a history of war lords. As for Chinese culture, my idea is that the culture was in flux at that point, and Hong Long (the emperor) got rid of those who opposed it. but I do think it could be smaller are you thinking population (its at about a twentieth or less of what the area would be now) or land holdings?Desert viking 05:33, January 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess the area: it seems like a really big chunk of China, especially for a monarchist revival like this. Given China's decades without a monarch, and the long ideological purge wrought by the Cultural Revolution, it seems like a would-be monarch would only be able to maintain control of a smaller group). But I'm not dead set against it, and it could work given enough justification. It's a revival of the warlordism of the 1930s, in a way. Did any of those warlords pretend to be "emperors"? What would they be most likely to call themselves in a post-Communist China ruin? Benkarnell 03:37, January 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * The warlord era, at least in the north was fought over who controlled the Beiyang Government. None of the warlords claimed to be Emperor but a lot of them called themselves or were called Marshal something. I would imagine that in a post-Doomsday China the warlords would call themselves Marshals and would all claim to be the legitimate government of the People's Republic Verence71 18:57, February 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * That's mostly what I was thinking. We've played with reviving monarchies in various places (Prussia, Luxembourg, New Britain, Orleans), and I've been guilty of it myself (Hawaii, Cocos Islands). But China seems an unlikely place for it to happen, what with the legacy of communism and its impact on the public consciousness. It's for the same reason that we haven't had any monarchies arise in the former USA (except Hawaii, where I honesly believe the restoration was justified, even likely). I like the idea of a Marshall running things in this region. And then I'd be more OK with a largish survivor state in Anhui. Benkarnell 03:15, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

All right, I've changed It to be slightly less monarchal--- it still has the feel, but it avoids the words. However, this means the name of the article would have to change, something I don't know how to do. Right now The best name I can come up with is the "Dragon Lands" which just doesn't sound right. The whole country could be refered to as the Dragon Army, or the article could be rewritten as a post-doomsday history of Anhui. does anyone have any ideas? (I don't really like any of mine so far) Desert viking 17:10, February 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * It sounds good. I'm almost totally ignorant of Chinese culture so I cn't offer any real advice on how to rebrand it. I do know that "Hong Chow" looks like a pretty archaic spelling - probably the Pinyin Hong Chao would be better. He is a totally fictional man, I'm guessing? Benkarnell 15:27, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

totally fictional I looked up some common Chinese Names on google. Chao would probably be a better spelling, I agreeDesert viking 07:13, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the only thing that prevents these two articles from being graduated is the name. Any suggestions on a better name for the country?  Mitro 13:08, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Nanchung and
a resilient group of chinese who have built a nation around a leader in resonse to threats from the Dragon Kingdom.Desert viking 00:57, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

My article about a small town in Illinois that survived Doomsday. Mitro 00:45, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I had been hoping to contribute to this one, since I actually know a lot about it, but I don't think it's going to happen. Graduation time? Benkarnell 16:43, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually could we wait before graduating this. I want a chance to finish writing the history of the city-state first. I realize this has been a proposal for a month now but I am just asking for a little more time. Mitro 17:31, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Life is making it to difficult to write for the TL. Is anyone interested in adopting this article? Mitro 17:23, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those general articles. Thoughts and comments welcomed. Mitro 02:56, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, I think that more needs to be added based on the fruitful discussion we had. Maybe I can do that if I don't find work today (increasingly likely :. The main thing, to me, is that the term "education" should have a broader scope meaning "teaching children the skills necessary to survive". Even in some of the largish survivor states, most of that probably occurs outside formal school builings. "Homeschooling" (probably not the term used) only gets a quick mention near the bottom, whereas it's probably the norm for large numbers of people. Benkarnell
 * I realize some of that fruitful discussion was created by my edits, but I really don't have the time to put more work on the article. So if Ben or anyone else wants to take a stab at it, go ahead. Mitro 19:59, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Karelia
A proposal for a survivor nation in the former USSR. --Jnjaycpa 05:11, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Territorially speaking is it based around this part of Russia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Karelia?? Verence71 20:23, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I assume that in a large region between the killzones of Leningrad and Murmansk there would be some survivors. The only question I have is if there are any potential targets in that region.Jnjaycpa 20:48, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

This link might help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leningrad_Military_District Verence71 21:00, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. After a little research I found that there was a minor military airbase in Petrozavodsk, which means it was nuked. For the moment, I'll assume no other nukes fell in that region.Jnjaycpa 01:04, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

70% or so of the population of Karelia is ethnic Russian so surely Russian would be the main language??

Ethnic Karelians themselves are about 10% of the population so maybe at some point post-Doomsday there could be an armed uprising among them Verence71 16:02, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

I decided to split Karelia into two parts: a Finnish-dominated democratic republic (Republic of Karelia) and a pro-Siberian regime (East Karelia).

According to this scneario, Soviet and Finnish Karelian forces fought in the winter of 1983 (Second Winter War). By spring of 1984, the Finnish Karelians reclaimed most of the territory lost in 1940. In 1988, the Finnish Karelians decide against rejoining Finland, and declare an independent nation, the Republic of Karelia (Karelia). The Soviets retreated and set up the Provisional Soviet Socalist Republic of Russia (East Karelia). By 2010, Karelia will formally join in the Nordic Union, while East Karelia will declare its alligence to Siberia.

Jnjaycpa 02:33, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

I've started a proposal for Soviet Karlia. Jnjaycpa 06:10, February 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Though both incomplete, does anyone object to graduating these articles and marking them as stubs? Mitro 04:31, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and does anyone object to me adding to them and fixing the name of Soviet Karelia?--Vladivostok 06:10, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * You should at least ask the original creator before you go ahead and add things to the articles. Since you do plan to add more I say we should keep them as proposals until then. Mitro 17:40, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, I will of course ask him.--Vladivostok 18:34, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln, PUS
Here is the preliminary work on the state of Lincoln in the Provisional United States of America.--SouthWriter 01:30, February 14, 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so simply "Lincoln" will work as a page. I see now that the "other" Lincoln goes by "Republic of Lincoln," being independent as it is. I'm wondering if that Republic will settle for maybe the bottom third of the state (basically, below the Platte River). I've made that suggestion at the Republic of Lincoln talk page.SouthWriter 05:49, February 15, 2010 (UTC)

Article I made based on discussion. Riley.Konner 07:50, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Per the scenario I listed earlier on the New Vegas discussion page, this is a nation consisting of parts of Nevada and adjacent California which I have been working on. I hope to proivde a map soon. However, I don't want to accidently encroach on New Vegas in regards to borders. When I originally envisioned this, I had loosely used Route Six to define the southern border, imagining everything south of there was of little concern to this nation. I welcome comments on this article, which I will add more to as time allows. Thanks..Fxgentleman 05:21, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you link to the page? Benkarnell 16:25, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

Keene
This is an idea I had for a new nation based out of the Adirondacks in upstate New York. Zackshine 23:49, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Speaking a Libretatrian myself, i don't think people would want to leave a developed state to establish their own one in a nuclear wasteland. Even New Britian came about due to nessecity. Ramdominsanity 20:31, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Well the idea was that even after an all out nuclear war, people will still have their ideals, and will want to establish what they WANT not what is necessary. This libertarian movement is based extremely loosely off of an actual movement of libertarians to the state of New Hampshire called the Free State Project. The people part of this project are leaving what might possibly be a comfortable location, but have given it up to move to a new locality that may not be what they envision. The same with the Republic of Keene and their attempt to set up a government, a nation, and a culture that is directly built by their own motives, not those of the Republic of Vermont. In any nation, in any situation, there will be dissenters and those who decide to move elsewhere to seek a more perfect union. Zackshine 20:39, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * A 100k people leaving to set up a new nation from an already established one seems implausibly high. The Free State Project you mentioned has only succeeded in getting 700 people to move since being established in 2001, and this was done without dealing with a nuclear apocalypse. Since Keene has only been created this year, it would be incredibly difficulty to find food and shelter for that many people right away. I would suggest starting with a smaller population and working it up with new immigration as the years go by. We should also consider the fact that its more likely for Libertarians in Vermont would try to work within the system before leaving to form a new nation.
 * Also what about the people already living in upstate NY? What do they feel about this mass movement of outsiders settling in their land? Mitro 20:45, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about the population since first writing it down. That's going to be cut down substantially (as I was unaware of the workings of sort of real time in 1983 timeline). The people living in Upstate NY have no quarells with the new people moving in...if I may have freedom to explore the possibilities, one possiblity was that the people of the area were afraid of being in close proximity to the nuclear blasts, and so headed outside of New York (though, escape might have proven futile as they were surrounded by nukes as seen on the map). The few remaining have accepted the new arrivals; they really have no choice, the exodus brought some supplies and much needed help from professionals who moved into the area. Also the present republic of Vermont will probably, as seen in the real world, not accept fully what these libertarians crave. They are all or nothing. If you have any other ideas, please let me know! I'd like to see this get off the ground! Zackshine 20:55, February 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * While there may be 100,000 people in New Hampshire who want to reform the state, it is more likely in this timeline that a couple of thousand people maximum would leave to form their own republic. (There aren't even a million people in all of Vermont). The standard of living is one of the highest in North America, and Vermont's government is pretty free and libertarian. A couple of things: 1. Plattsburgh, as it is near Burlington, is under the control of the Republic of Vermont (review the history of Vermont article). 2. I'm not sure there's anyone left in New York state, unless you count survivalists and handfuls of families tucked away in a non-radioactive zone near a water source, because of the massive numbers of hits the northeast would have taken on DD. But I could be wrong - the northeast might have tiny survivor states all over despite the hits it likely took on doomsday. BrianD 21:00, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't assume the remaining population of upstate New York would greet the new arrivals as their saviors. Even if we assume that most of the population would accept the settlers, there will always be some who will see it as an invasion (look at Iraq). Remember these aren't backwoods savages, these are Americans with access to modern tech who might even have created their own tiny survivor states in the decades that followed Doomsday. I'm just worried that the settlement of Keene was just too easy. [EDIT] Yeah the population definitely needs to be changed. Currently you have every 1 out of 8 people in the entire nation of Vermont getting up to leave. Mitro 21:09, February 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * As Doomsday becomes a receding memory, I imagine that Americans everywhere are starting to look around and realize they live in a fairly empty country with lots of open land. It's 100% plausible that the old Pioneering Spirit will reawaken in some of them, and dropping everything to found a new settlement based on The Way Things Should Be does not sound so harebrained as it might to us. I do not think that this group of New Hampshirians could conquer the Adirondacks in a stroke. But they can definitely leave Vermont and create a new, self-governing town and farming community out that way - there's bound to be enough open space. There will be some conflicts with people living there already, sure. That's all a part of the Pionering Spirit! If the Republic of Keene is shrunk to the size of a city-state, I think it can be a fascinating piece of American culture and politics. Oh, also: right now is a poor time to found new settlements - that area hasn't seen the end of winter yet. How about bumping it back to March of 2009? You can write about how they've fared in their first year. Benkarnell 21:29, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Keene can't work. Just as it is now its to optimistic and needs to be scaled back. Mitro 22:26, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

why is the flag black & white? i've never seen a falg like that before, Ramdominsanity 13:16, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all the good ideas! I'll be editing this properly and adding a few new additions to it. 1. The population will be scalled back appropriately. 2. Keene will be a city state looking to expand with others in the future. 3. The timeline will be set back to March 2009 and the first yeat of their settlement will be recorded. [EDIT] And the flag was randomly put together by me. I chose black and white as to set it apart from other nations, maybe in the spirit of these pioneering folk! Zackshine 18:26, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

i think its inappropriate that a libretatrian nation does not have a flag that expresses this. how about making it golden yellow, with a bit of red. a Libretarian flag! (PS: i consider myself a libretarian, put the UK Libretarian Party only has 500 people in it. Which Sucks) Now, if you'll excuse me, i'm off to watch Jeff Dunham on YoutubeinMyFaceBook. Bye!Ramdominsanity 19:07, February 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Black and white is good, definitely distinctive and different, but the one you made is a weird black-white-grayscale gradient, which doesn't look like any flag i've ever seen, and which would be impossible to actually make on cloth without some kind of laser printer (which the good people of Keene don't have)! Benkarnell 20:22, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Ha, alright, there's a lot of stuff I need to get done! I'll fix that flag up quick. Off subject; I've been talking to my proffessor at school about why more people don't accept the libertarian philosophy, politics. He said this. All groups of people must go through three steps, I can't remember exactly how it goes. 1. They are ridiculed. 2. They are fought against. 3. They are accepted. Zackshine 01:34, February 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * And libertarianism *there* is bound to be a whole lot different from *here*. Our libertarians are responding to a system where they feel governments are becoming too large and powerful. The post-DD libertarians live in a system where most people live without any real government, so really they're trying to create a state from scratch from completely new principles. Maybe they like what they see outside the "civilized" states - local control, a lot of individual agency (at least, outside the "evil warlord" areas) - and are trying to combine the best of the small survivor vilage system with elements of larger-scale national organization. Something like that. Benkarnell 03:43, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

its been more then a week since this has last been discussed, yet Keene remains unedited. Also, by "individual agency" do you mean "individual liberty", Ben? i've never heard "agency" used in that context. Ramdominsanity 19:09, March 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * The number 1 definition in the American Heritage Dictionary for "agency" is "The condition of being in action; operation," and second is "The means or mode of acting; instrumentality." The basic idea that an agency is something that gets something done. "Individual agency" would be a condition where ordinary folks take care of themselves -- that famous "rugged individualism" that made America great. It is not that we were "granted" liberty to get things done by any government, but that we just went out there and did it -- sometimes to our detriment, in fact. While a great strength, it can lead to arrogance that can be dangerous. SouthWriter 03:55, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you SouthWriter. I must say that being a Southern Englishmen will enivitably lead to confusion when working with Eastern Europeans, Carolinians and Canadians, not to mention South Americans!Ramdominsanity 20:29, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

I have been thinking about updating this page but I need some help. First off what exactly happened to ? There has been some debate about whether it remained a unified nation or whether it collapsed after Doomsday. A decision on this will help me work out the history of Assyria and also effect this article:. On a side note I changed the article of Jordan a little in response to my edits. The Jordan article stated that Jordan and Assyria share a border which seems unlikely considering the likely location of Assyria in northern Iraq. Mitro 14:49, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Iran has been more or less a unified country in some form for thousands of years. I would keep it that way.Oerwinde 16:42, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

I have no issue with the change as if applies to Jordan. At the time, my understanding, based on my reading, was that Iraq was being referenced as the Assyrian Republic. However, I would like to raise a question concerning Iraq. Ever since I first started my work on the Middle East, I have been crafting what I thought would be a sensible scenario for the future. However, I got delayed in putting this out for consideration. Further, it involves several articles I did not create. Since I am getting started again on this region, I wanted to present my scenario for this portion of the Middle East. Iraq and Iran reach a temporary ceasefire following Doomsday in their war, with neither being struck by bombs since it made little sense for this to happen. Iraq emerges from this period of regrouping in earlier 1984 (perhaps enlivened with Soviet military refugees and weapons looking for work), launching a full scale attack against Iran using Scud missiles as they did per OTL, with the difference they heavily bombard Iran and their cities with chemical weapons, since there is no US, USSR, or UN to stop them. An invasion follows with Iraq reaching Tehran and the nation surrendering and Ayatollah Khomeini dying either in the attack or from a heart attack (he died in 1989 OTL). The Kurdish region of Iran breaks off and merges with its parent region from the old Turkey to create Kurdistan. Iraq annexes western Iran along with Kharg Island with the remaining portion of Iran forming a new government. The rest of the Arabian Peninsula does not do anything to stop them, given they don’t care for the Islamic Republic. A few years pass and an emboldened S. Hussein overruns and annexes Kuwait as well and briefly threatens Saudi Arabia, who fights him off with the help of the other nations of the peninsula. He now turns against the survivor nation in eastern Syria (which I am getting ready to add) and invades. This is too much for Israel who orders Hussein to stop his advance. When he refuses, they nuke Bagdad, killing him, as well as dropping a bomb on his advance army. The new Iraq disintegrates and the Saudi’s and their allies take advantage of the chaos and invade, liberating Kuwait. The Kurdish region of Iraq finally breaks free and joins Kurdistan. It is important to note Hussein would never have given this area up while alive and had used repressive measures, including mass killings and chemical weapons, to control them. Under the benevolent influence of the Arabian Union (a coalition of Arabian nations akin to OTL European Union), Iraq regroups under a new name including their captured area of Iran. At this point, smaller sub nations would emerge such as the new Assyrian Republic. I am currently working on several Middle East articles, including one for Saudi Arabia, and would like to use some of this. Understandably, I don’t want to conflict with what someone else is laying out, so please give me your thoughts. --Fxgentleman 16:52, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure if Iran or Iraq would not be attacked. The US Department of Defense suggested in the 1980s that in case of WWIII the Soviet Union would invade the Middle East to deny the US access to the oil. Mitro 17:05, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

My general thought, has been nations firmly in one camp or the other (East vs. West) would make them likely targets of attack in 1983, which is why I argued (and still do) Egypt would have been hit. Iran hated both the US and the USSR. Iraq played both sides, but did tend to lean slightly to the Soviets. This does not put them on the list to likely get nuked. Also, we have to think back as to how this came about. The Soviets are reacting to what they believe is a sneak attack on Doomsday and as such, are going against those elements which immediately threaten it. If this was a thought out plan of conquest, then yeah, I would agree that a strike on Tehran would be a good idea followed by a ground invasion via Russia and Afghanistan. However, the USSR is going to be shattered and will not be thinking ahead towards something like this. This said, your point is good, but I cannot see how it applies in this case. --Fxgentleman 17:18, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

A proposal for the HQ of the along with the history of the facility when Bush was there for a short while. --GOPZACK 04:35, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

A proposal for the BBC Wartime Broadcasting Service message after DD. --Jnjaycpa 15:14, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by me. Hoping it will detail the American refugees who fled to other parts of the world after Doomsday. Mitro 16:56, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

and
Series of Indiana related articles. Mitro 16:56, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by new user. Mitro 16:56, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Jack Vexx. Mitro 16:56, March 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * I had been wondering what had happened to Corsica. Now we just need to figure out Sardinia.Oerwinde 04:57, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * In the Italian General Election of 1983, a regionalist part, the Sardinian Action Party got 9.5% of the vote in Sardinia. I would imagine that post Doomsday that that party could get a lot more support and be at the forefront of any possible declaration of Sardinian independence. However there were a lot of military bases on the island so that leaves open the possibility of some sort of junta. The only trouble is though that according to the article on Sicily, that nation successfully invaded Sardinia in 2004 and presumably it is still in charge Verence71 16:42, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * How important are those bases? Would any of them be destroyed during Doomsday? Mitro 16:57, March 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be amusing if this guy became President of Corsica Charles Napoleon Verence71 10:01, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

I noticed Corsica is an ADC member. This makes complete sense, with Corsica right in the path of Sicilian expansion. But it will raise interesting questions as the ADC finds itself interacting more with "Overseas ", which has plans to organize a new Sixth Republic. It sounds like Corsica would not want to reunify. Benkarnell 19:54, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * any objections to graduation? Mitro 17:24, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

and
Liberian related articles. Mitro 16:56, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Yank. See also. Mitro 16:56, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Verence. See also. Mitro 16:56, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by new user. Brian you should check this out. Mitro 16:56, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Yank. Mitro 16:56, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

More Islands in the Pacific
,, , , , , &  --GOPZACK 20:52, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Although I don't really see the need for many of them, I can't find any reason not to graduateOerwinde 19:56, March 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I am against having these articles. The Carolines are the same thing as the . Banaba, Tarawa, and the Gilbert and Line Islands are covered by - actually, there's a double overlap there because Tarawa is part of the Gilbert Islands. Same with Temoe, which is part of the Gambier Islands, which together with the Society Islands is part of . So the only one that actually needs its own page is Tokelau. If we "double-cover" islands like this, I think it will make it harder to keep track of our information. (EDIT) The Tarawa, Banaba, Gilbert, and Line pages make some sense, since they are apparently districts of the Republic of Kiribati, but that should be made clear, probably in the first paragraph on each of the pages. The others still don't make much sense to have. - Benkarnell 207.63.140.254 20:25, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Any objections to marking, , &  as obsolete?  Mitro 03:20, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Mitro 13:03, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking again, I'm unsure what purpose the Tarawa, Gilbert, Line, and Banaba pages serve. The Kiribati page says these are the former districts and are not administrative units today (which matches the situation OTL).  In post-DD Kiribati, were the districts restored?  That would actually make sense as communication became more difficult. Benkarnell 14:15, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

New _____
Could be small self-proclaimed states where Brits trying to evacuate to Southern Africa stranded or got lost, therefore making do with what they have. I have a few proposels:


 * St. Helena (exists in real life) because of a large number of higher-class British people accidently evacuating to the island, the island becomes a new 'Hong Kong' becoming a densly populated, crowded island, a centre of trade and a protector of British Culture, a real success story. The island gets most food from fish and trade and has managed to buy it's way into everything after finding enormous oil reserved in the south atlantic. A very stable country with a good democratic system. Could also include other islands in the south Atlantic like Tristan du Cunha and others..


 * New Hanningfield - comes from a large number of British people failing to make it to New Britain and settling in Northern Angola. Name comes from a local dam where most of the evacuaes came from (in Essex). Mostly middle-class (debateable) and they sought to make their way to Southern Africa and away from the raging tribes of Angola. They have set some sort of political system, mostly like the USA. It consists mainly of two parties: Southern Progression Party and the New Hanningfield Liberals. The SPP wants to urge the population to travel south and rejoin with other fellow Brits. The NHL urges the inhabitants to remain in New Hanningfield and try to make a living and establish a stable, democratic country.
 * New Britain needs major changes, I believe there is a chance that 900,000 Brits could have managed to flee to southern Africa, but of course, just like the Boers there might have been many occasions where the inhabitants set up local independent states. These could include someting like 'New East London', 'Devonia' (After Devon), 'Doverland' (After Dover, Kent), etc.
 * Winstonia - A proposed 'Rogue' state comprised of the remnantes of English South Africans in and around Johannesburg.

Thats all I have for now :) Bezuidenhout 21:13, March 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * I had one of those already in Guinea-Bissau. So I don't see why more would be unrealistic. St. Helena is part of New Britain as far as I know. I don't see it going independent. Autonomous possibly, but not independent. Angola is already spoken for I believe, so I don't know if putting one there would be ok. Ambazonia is recently independent, trying to modernize, and officially english speaking(language of government and education), so skilled British immigrants would be welcome.Oerwinde 04:45, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Gulf States Union, Saudi Arabia, and UAE
Rather than taking up additional space by making a new posting here, I am modifying the one I originally posted on March 15 [enclosed below] to incorporate all my work. As part of my work on the Middle East, I posted my article for Saudi Arabia on the 15 and one for the UAE as of today. I will post additional articles this week for Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait. Additionally, I posted an article on March 20 concerning the Gulf States Union, a political and economic union between the Arabian nations. My apologies for not being able to post something sooner here on the page regarding it. My apologies for the delay in putting this up, my job takes alot of my time and as such, I have been really busy until just recently. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks. Fxgentleman 02:52, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

As a follow-up to what I have been discussing for awhile, I have created an article for Saudi Arabia as part of my return to the Middle East. I will be following up with more articles regarding other Arabian nations and for a unified body for the region. Additionally, I will be resuming my work as well for those I am already working on. My apologies for taking a while to put this up, my job takes alot of my time and as such, I have been really busy. Fxgentleman 05:06, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Florida??
It appears from what I can see that Florida was pretty much laid to waste, the targets, as I can see, were Miami,and the Keys (Mainly Key West, a.k.a. The Conch Republic)

However, as much as I hate the city of Miami, it would have survived much better than what people think. The main reason: Miami is not a city: It is a collection of suburbs and isles and very small, built-up areas such as South Beach that cluster together and form Miami-Dade county. Where would the city be hit? It has no hypocentre, no pinpointed location that is right smack in the middle. Another reason: It has not always been a "major" city. It has slowly grown due to a large amount of Cuban refugees coming, so what I think is maybe the largely populated areas were destroyed, but suburbs were treated with nuclear radiation. Also, the Keys? Seriously, the whole cluster of Monroe County/ Conch Republic has about 25,000 people. And there is absolutely nothing out there. No military bases, no nada. So I'm also thinking they could be spared, and if not, the more Western Keys. Also, wasnt there a community in the Everglades somewhere? I read it on an arcticle, and I think that with lack of radiation, they would be spared, but the one of the only edible animals out there are small deer and the land is VERY VERY SWAMPY. I am thinking that maybe that refugee destination may evolve into some sort of organized community, im gonna go ahead and work on that. Arstarpool 03:11, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * FEMA lists Key West as a primary target in case of nuclear and I believe that is because you have the Naval Air Station Key West right there. Also I am not sure how plausible a survivor community based out of Miami would be. Furthermore it looks like there are according to FEMA at least 3 potential targets in the area. Besides the city itself, you also have the United States Southern Command HQ. Homestead AFB is also not far away from the city. That is at least what I could find at this late hour. Mitro 04:32, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Having lived in South Florida myself up until 2 years ago I can tell you it's not a good place to put a survivor state. And yes, Miami dose have a downtown area. I would assume that Downtown Miami, Fort Lauderdale and maybe West Palm Beach would be hit. Also while the population is about half of what it is today, in 1983 The South Florida metropolitan area still had over 3 million people. And even if they couldn't find a particular area to target it just means the Soviets would use an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIRV M.R.I.V] and carpet bomb the area. Also if by some miracle the city did survive there is no good food source near by to feed a city of that size. On the issue of the everglades, yes it is as inhospitable as you get, but people have lived there for centuries and continue to do so to this day.--ShutUpNavi 19:18, March 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Think we need to establish once and for all what was it in florida and what wasn't. I agree that Cape Canaveral, Key West & Homestead. Looking at the FEMA list Port St. Joe, Tallahassee, Gainesville, Daytona Beach, Titusville, Sarasota, Ft. Myers, Palm Beach, Boca Raton, Fort Lauderdale are all Tertiary targets. I think A strong case could be made for the survival of at least 2 or 3 of these places. Miami is a secondary target, I can see Homestead getting blown to hell and back, thus Miami would get affected by that strike but I just don't see what's worth hitting in Fort Lauderdale, Boca Raton,& Palm Beach. Tallahassee the state capital would most likely be hit. Nearby Eglin Air Force Base. & Hurlburt Field would be hit. Tampa would hit plus there is the MacDill Air Force Base about 4 miles away. Titusville is out because there is Patrick Air Force Base nearby. Jacksonville's Naval Air Station Jacksonville would surely be hit and possibly the Naval Station Mayport. Naval Support Activity Panama City, Naval Air Station Pensacola, Naval Air Station Whiting Field, and Camp Blanding could all very well be targets. Thus leaving. Fort Lauderdale, Boca Raton. Palm Beach, Gainesville & Ft. Myers as potential survivors. Anyone have any thoughts on this? --GOPZACK 20:16, March 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Now as much as I would like Fort Lauderdale, Boca Raton and West Palm Beach to survive, they are just too close and too populated to survive Miami's destruction, especially if the nuclear power plant goes critical. Gainesville & Ft. Myers could survive.--ShutUpNavi 01:26, March 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * Fort Lauderdale is out now that I think about it more. I think West Palm Beach may be out of range. Perhaps a small city state centered around West Palm Beach could be viable. GOPZACK 03:13, March 17, 2010 (UTC)


 * In fact I think I'll write a proposal for one in West Palm Beach. GOPZACK 03:38, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

2009 WCRB article on the southern U.S.
Resubmitting to reflect recently approved articles (Piedmont and Louisiana) and new proposals (Conch). BrianD 12:34, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * As I stated in the section above, Key West is a primary target so it is likely destroyed. Would there still be a Conch Republic? Mitro 18:18, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't care either way, but thought it fair to let the discussion on his proposal play out. You mentioned the Homestead base near Miami, right? BrianD 18:51, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly. The Southern Keys would be toast, but the middle or upper Keys might survive. Problem is that they keys lack almost any food source except fishing. Then again most people with a fishing boat would hightail it out of there and head for the Caribbean. Still there is a possibly that those left behind would resort to either Kayak or Beach fishing. Also perhaps once they get there act together Cuba or the East Caribbean Federation would try to help them. I could see the people of the keys eventually joining the ECF (Cuba is another story). Also dose anyone know what would happen to the Turkey Point Nuclear Powerplant in Homestead?--ShutUpNavi 19:18, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe there is an air force base near Homestead. My guess is the plant was destroyed as well. Mitro 19:38, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

Please respond to section below on the Everglades, as I think that at this current moment the Keys look screwed.

Everglades
I am thinking that the Everglades will get the lesser blow in the case of Everglades vs. Conch Republic, and which one would be more likely. I am thinking on what would an Everglades community would be called, but I think there are too many "Republics" on this Wiki and want something more original. One I have thought of is "Municipal Province of the Everglades but I think that at this moment that sounds way too organized for the Everglades.


 * I was thinking a good name would be the “Everglades Territory” or simply the “Everglades” (nothing says everything has to have an official name).--ShutUpNavi 01:03,


 * March 17, 2010 ( I think that may be a suitable name, but something I would like to do is watch that community begin to stablilize, since coming from a Florida resident, there is not much to eat out there and there would problably be very primitive conditions. Is there a way to change the name of a certain arcticle? Because maybe it can start of as Everglades Territory and move onto something more complicated. Arstarpool 02:24, March 17, 2010 (UTC)

Republic of the Trent and Derwent Valleys
My proposal for a republic in the former East Midlands. I find it odd that no-one has done anything about the huge space in Britain where nothing was nuked! Emperorjames

Pennsylvania
What happened in the state between Doomsday and now. BrianD 15:02, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Essex
A survivor state in Essex, East London and Hertfordshire. The article generates a little conflict with established canon, but I'm fully willing to negotiate. I'm also unsure as to how other users feel my nation should interact with others, so the 'international relations' part is currently blank (as is much of the history, which I will slowly add over the coming days - I don't want to swamp people here). The entire history is extensively researched (it should be - I'm local!) so I would be disappointed if this proposal were rejected; but as I said, I am fully prepared to negotiate issues of canon conflict. Fegaxeyl 14:25, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

It seems okay to me. After a quick glance the only minor problems I can see are East London being being part of the state and the overall size of the state. I was thinking maybe Essex could claim to control East London but not really have any concrete control of the area in the same way that Woodbridge "claims" to control Ipswich. Verence71 16:39, March 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * This is effectively the case. Essex does have links with London communities, supplying them with aid and so forth, but much of the East End is unexplored and dangerous due to both hostile groups and radiation. As I post up more history the situation should seem more logical. Fegaxeyl 17:03, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough then :) Verence71 20:00, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Verence71, as Woodbridge is Essex's nearest neighbour, how do you see the two nations interacting? Part of the reason I included the part over wishes to change to a new currency is to have Essex eventually converting to the New Pound, your nation's currency, as I imagine our two states would grow very close politically and economically after discovering each other. The question is, how and when did they discover each other? Fegaxeyl 20:30, March 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * I had an thought that any first contact between Essex and Woodbridge would come about as a result of a minor military skirmish. Troops from Woodbridge scouting south could "bump into" troops from Essex scouting north. Those troops returning home could tell their respective govts about what happened and then they could try and contact each other by radio. Assuming that all goes well and we both calm down them perhaps the border between Essex and Woodbridge could be fixed at the River Stour. Verence71 21:00, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds appropriate - perhaps one of your 'infrequent raids' in Ipswich could coincide with an Essex expedition? Speaking of which, according to my research the Stour and Ipswich would have received a fairly significant dose of fallout from a bomb over Harwich and Felixstowe. When would be a good time for contact? In my history Essex first begins to look seriously at foreign exploration around 2000. Fegaxeyl 21:12, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Would there have been a bomb over Felixstowe?? I only ask cos I was thinking of having Woodbridge turn Felixstowe back into a trading port. As for first contact 2000 seems about right. Perhaps Essex could send a scouting party north as a result of seeing a Woodbridge helicopter flying south towards London in 1999 Verence71 21:27, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Felixstowe was one of the UK's biggest ports in 1983, and Harwich, being just across the river, would have almost certainly been hit too as they represented major parts of the UK economy. A 100kt warhead detonated over the village of Shotley would be enough to flatten both the ports, and I can't imagine the Soviets avoiding a chance to destroy an important part of Britain's industry. And besides, if the ports survived, then wouldn't most of the populations in our nations have leaped at the chance to take the ships there and escape to New England? Fegaxeyl 21:33, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't put anything in concrete yet if I were you as there has been some concern voiced over the recent increase in the number of British survivor states. I'd have a word with Mitro if I were you. Verence71 21:38, March 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * (Predictable, generic grousing about the map being too big). Overall, yeah, should be fine. I object to the size, not for plausibility reasons, but for reasons of canon. It's pretty much established that there's nothing this big in England. But otherwise, it's good. Benkarnell 17:58, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe if the state was about half as big as it is currently proposed to be?? Verence71 19:53, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

If that were so it wouldn't be the combined communities of Essex, Hertfordshire and London - it would just be Essex. But would we be okay if I were to shave away half of Hertfordshire and most of the claimed part of London? Fegaxeyl 20:41, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't this conflict with the Celtic Alliance? I thought they had a mission in the area. Mitro 20:45, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there's nothing wrong with both Essex and the C.A. having a presence in the London area. Borders are a lot more fluid in this world than in ours. Benkarnell 20:56, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Essex would probably claim up to the series of reserviors along the River Lea (though they would probably be a single large radioactive lake by the 1990s). Provided the CA explore to the west of this area, and Essex to the east, there probably wouldn't be any meetings or conflicts. I'm surprised no one has pointed out the fact that I've said Colchester survives, whilst the CA page (and I think the Cleveland page too) say that it was nuked. How do we feel? In fact, what was the justification for it being hit in the first place? Fegaxeyl 21:09, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Remember gentlemen and possible ladies (i have no idea who any of you are) that London probably recieved 2 SS-18 "Satan" ICBMs carrying 10 500KT warheads each. London is gone. HAD 18:49, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

State College
GOPZACK's proposal for the OTL home of Penn State University. BrianD 19:47, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

New York state
My proposals for the present day situation in TTL New York state, incorporating the Republic of Keene and New York Rangers pages now canon. BrianD 19:47, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

My proposal for the present day situation in TTL Ohio. --GOPZACK 20:10, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Outer Lands
The idea sprang from a brief discussion Mitro and I had on the U.S. states page, regarding Block Island in Rhode Island.BrianD 18:36, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Great idea! It would also include Gardiners Island, a little piece of real esate with a fascinating history of its own. (Shameless plug) Benkarnell 18:15, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I told you I missed stuff...this reminds me: where did Mitro or you archive that compilation on where the Kennedys were on Doomsday? The reason I ask is I am wondering if one of them may have been in the Vineyard, or Nantucket, on DD. This also has me wondering if any famous celebrities, or politicians may have been in the Outer Lands on DD night. BrianD 18:36, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Here ya go: American political families (1983: Doomsday). Mitro 18:46, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * So much for the Kennedys having survived DD.BrianD 19:05, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well JFK Jr was in India when DD hit. Its likely he survived to carry on the name. Mitro 19:13, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Article I made explaining what happened to the county of Monterey. 18:04, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Berkshires
The proposal is about the people in the Berkshires.CheesyCheese 23:53, March 23, 2010 (UTC)CheesyCheese 19:51, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Juegos Sudamericanos
Shouldn't we have a page for the Juegos Sudamericanos (Sudamerican Games)?


 * No one's gotten around to it yet. You are as welcome to start it as anyone! Make sure to note it here on the main 1983:DD talk page after you create it. BrianD 01:08, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried to start a discussion on that up above. Why are they happening now, when all the regional Olympics are scheduled for this September? They should all happen at the same time - a powerful symbol of world cooperation and all that. Benkarnell 04:04, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the Juegos Sudamericanos here is happening now. Also, Yank's Americana Games are in July...and summer here is winter in the southern hemisphere.BrianD 04:07, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Mentioned this already, but. Sydney's Summer Games were in September, and the Rio Games will be in September. The pages on the IOC and the 2010 Winter Games say September. Benkarnell 04:45, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

I probably forgot about it. I assume there's a good reason the real life Juegos Sudamericanos is going on now and not in September; I'm just reacting to what the editor suggested we do. Also, right now I'm cranky as it's really late for me...which further affects my memory :)BrianD 05:03, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Southern Racist State
Although I have not as thoroughly read the timeline and country profiles as other contributors I do not think this has been done. Could a small southern (united states) community survive and revert back to the old ways of racism that would still linger within the community? If there is not one there needs to be one.--Emanresu11 21:07, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * We've got, for starters. Are there any more? SW? Brian? Benkarnell 21:19, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Toccoa, in Georgia (I believe SouthWriter has adopted that for future development). I believe that another such state, if someone wanted to really explore the concept, could be developed somewhere in Mississippi, Alabama or Georgia. BrianD 21:57, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Iran and some related ideas
Since there was no consensus on the history of Iran following DD, I wanted to write down a couple of ideas I had regarding the country and the region surrounding it. I know that Fxgentleman is the caretaker of the Middle East and I have already written a couple of my ideas on his talk page.

So, Iran was in an extremely difficult international position during 1983. International support was mostly leaning towards Iraq, but the country had managed to halt the Iraqi invasion and even mounted unsuccessful attacks of their own on Iraq. So, if we were to assume that the Soviets nuked Iran and the Iraqis using chemical weapons, how is the Iranian government going to cope with these setbacks? I propose terrorism. This already theocratic regime could start to endorse a wide range of things, from suicide bombers, sleeper cells, using WMDs and other similar tactics. I would like this to happen regardles of a nuclear strike, which could maybe happen later via Israel. I'm not sure who would be the leader if Ayatollah Khomeini would be killed early on, but he would definately have to be a fanatic and charismatic at that.

So, a broken Iran decides to use sneak tactics, maybe then being the cause of the destruction of Iraq, carrying out terrorist attacks either before or after an Israeli nuclear strike on Bagdad. This new army would then take up a more aggresive name, like the Muslim Liberation Army, Muslim Jihadi Army or something similar. I was thinking of chapters of this organization spanning the Middle East.

Also, I wanted to create a branch of the organization in former Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, where they would be military rulers, forcing the remaining citizens of the area to pay tribute to them. They wouldn't be directly controlled by Iran, they would be quasi-independent entities. Now this idea would go on even if I my Iran idea fails, but it would be great if the two organizations would be linked together.

I'd really like to hear what you guys think.--Vladivostok 14:35, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Hi Vlad: In regards to your question about Iran, I have no problem if you want to write something. I have some rudimentary ideas but no overall thought for the country in that I could not think as to where to take it. I am kind of interested in trying to write something about the former Iraq; expand on Kurdistan; and do a rewrite, with permission, of the Iran-Iraq War. I think your idea, as presented, has merit. Merging Iran along with Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan into a modern Islamic Caliphate might be something to consider as well. I have not found any evidence in my research to indicate that either Iran, or Iraq for that matter, would have been targeted on Doomsday. If we think back to the basic scenario, the USSR is reacting to a sudden attack and as such is going after nations it views as threats, neither country falls into this category. Neither was aligned to either the East or West and although it is tempting to nuke Iran, say the capital, I cannot imagine a logical scenario. A more likely development at least early on would be this: Both nations emerge unscathed, at least physically from DD, but are the recipients of fallout from strikes in Russia, Syria, Afghanistan, and Turkey, along with thousands of refugees. Although both sides hate each other, they decide to postpone the war for at least a year. Additionally, their economies, already damaged by war, take a second hit by the oil market collapse. It is now a year later, and given Hussein’s ego, he decides this would likely be a good time to finish the war once and for all. Invigorated with ex-Russian soldiers and their equipment, having fled to Iraq following DD, Hussein launches a ferocious attack and since this time there is no UN, US, Europe, or even USSR to curtail him, he goes all out with massive chemical attacks on Iran’s cities and military bases, including Tehran. The Iranians fight tenaciously over the next year, but in the end it is too much. Finally in 1986, with Ayatollah Khomeini dead, the Iranians surrender. Iraq forces them to surrender control of the provinces along the Iraqi border and control of Kharg Island. After that, I have no further thoughts. However, in regards to your view on terrorism, I have been fleshing out something where guerilla war/terrorism in conquered areas of Iran begins to take a toll forcing harsh crackdowns. Finally, an Iranian suicide terrorist group bombs central Baghdad with a small nuke, say an artillery shell, killing Hussein and his top people. This results in a civil war and the nation dissolving into smaller states, including the Kurdish regions breaking off to join Kurdistan. I see the GSU stepping in with peacekeeping troops to help maintain calm and perhaps some of these new states joining them. Although I have toyed with the idea of Israel nuking Baghdad, I have been rethinking that versus what I just laid out. As for Iran, I could see it becoming an isolationist Islamic nation absorbing nearby areas through force. If it was to become more powerful over time, a fifty-fifty scenario, it would be challenged by the GSU for regional power and maybe even a future war could possible happen. I think this website may be helpful to you in writing something, http://www.country-data.com/frd/cs/irtoc.html. I hope sharing some of my thoughts helps and if you want to talk further, just let me know. --Fxgentleman 19:48, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to see you feel the idea would make for a good starting point. I had the exact same idea of Bagdad being destroyed by a nuclear attack. However, I had trouble finding a suitable source for the bomb. There were no silos in Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan, so a trip over the border for the bomb wouldn't yield any results. The nuclear program in Pakistan had its first bomb test in 1988 OTL, so that wouldn't help neither. And waiting till the middle of the nineties for the attack to take place seems a bit too long to me. I was thinking something along the lines of using some chemical warfare agents would do the trick. Also, I was thinking of making the regions occupied by the yet to be named terrorist organization in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan a separate state, centered around perhaps the ancient city of Merv. But making it into a Caliphate has a nice ring to it. Iran would then perhaps send aid to this MLA or MJA organization, who would then in turn distabilize neighbouring countries, like the GSU members, the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, Yemen and Siberian-controlled Aralia.
 * I know that a nuclear strike would on Iran would be a bit much, but there would need to be some destabilizing factor to this chain of events. I guess a refugee crisis and Iraq using biological weapons would work just as well.
 * But enough for now, once I start writing a proposal, then I'll see were it takes me.--Vladivostok 20:16, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

=FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES= Archive 1

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