Talk:United States (1983: Doomsday)/Archive

State of Idaho
your article states that in 1995, several cities in southern Idaho petitioned to be part of the Provisional US. the History of Utah article says that same year the snake river and cache valley areas voted to incorperate as North Deseret. Other articles also state that most people in the disputed area consider themselves to be part of desert/utah, as it currently administers the area-- also, the area disputed between the two nations is the most "Mormon" part of the state. Did this movement to join the NAU happen in reaction to incorperation in Deseret? at any rate, I can't see a functional idaho state in this area.Desert viking 05:15, January 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Its mostly border towns/cities that are closer in contact with the NAU then Utah, as you can see from the map. The map of Utah itself shows most of the territory in southern Idaho is disputed. The exact boundaries between the 2 states are very fluid at the moment. Still I should bring this up with Louis, we both need to finalize exactly where the borders of the NAU and Utah are. Mitro 07:50, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

yes, but monteplier is not closer to the NAU than Utah at all---in fact, the area is seen as some as being culturally part of utah. also, the disputed area would form the backbone of northern deseret,-- the other two areas (snake and cache valley) were evacuated during the war with spokane, and were not fully resettled until 1995-- once again, the date that southern idaho simutaneously decides to be part of both the NAU and Deseret, and the area has historically had strong ties with salt lake. there is a case to be made for isolation however. I see two possibilities-- an idependent Idaho that considers itself part of both "organizations" as both claim it and both have geographical difficulties in reaching the area. or a token government, where two opposing petitions were submitted and accepted, resulting in two seperate Idahos that officially ignore each other or regaurd the other as Illegitament but don't see it as a cause for war. I would be happy to create either state, or someone else could if they want. I'm not quite too sure how this whole "caretaker" thing works. at any rate, the issue certainly needs to be resolved, even if it results in an unresolved situation.
 * I think the major issue here is that I did not know exactly where Monteplier. Another editor suggested as a state capital and I thought it was farther north. I'm going to choose Dubois, Idaho instead as the state capital and take closer look at the history of Utah. Mitro 19:19, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

I have given this subject a little thought and have an article that I would like to run here, since if you don't like it I'll have to pull it off and I'm terrible about things like that (I think it was you that cleaned up my last mess). This is an idea for the State of Idaho/ Upper Northern Deseret. if don't like it, say so. IdahoDesert viking 22:11, January 18, 2010 (UTC)

PUSA
at first I was against ths article but it could work Owen1983 16:28, January 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * How can you be against something that was technically a part of canon since before you got here?Oerwinde 20:10, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Flags
I designed two flags for consideration by the government of the (P)USA. The first one simply reduces the stars, leaving the stripes to reflect the history of the continuing USA (with hopes of acquiring new states in line with the design of the CRUSA). This would be ideal, but perhaps unrealistic since it is doubtful that some states will agree to rejoin the union. I chose the nine-star design that is best centered in the field with the least amount of editing! Of course, the square could be rotated 45 degrees, but that would mean cutting and pasting single stars. Personally my vision and heart would be for this flag. I don't know about the folks in the ALT Southeast though (not even "my" creation of the Republic of Piedmont).



The second suggested flag would be the same starfield with fewer stripes, reflecting the "new beginning" of the United States in the practically untouched plains states east of the Rockies. That flag would only have nine stripes. The stripes are broader, using a flag with the standard proportions. The appearance reserves the original at first glance but removes the link to 1776 and the rich history of the original USA. I suspect that if the vote were held in the PUSA, the first flag would win, hands down, even though none of the colonies represented by the stripes are currently a part of what is going by the name "USA."SouthWriter 20:51, February 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting flags South. I think we should hold a poll and see what the votes are. Mitro 20:53, February 10, 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is the place, I have one more suggested variant. After reading the whole page, I see that only six former US states "founded" the PUSA. Therefore, to be totally accuate we'd have to have a flag with only six stripes (awkward because it leaves a white stripe on the outside). Here is one form of that variant. It begins to lose a little of the familiar proportions the fewer stripes the flag has. This one might just be for the history purists, wanting to preserve history in the making with the same symbolism of former days. The star field might be adjusted a little, dropping it to leave two stripes below and four beside it. That would preserve the "look" of the original a little. Also a different arrangement of the stars might be used (a square, for instance). Any other suggestions should be added to the poll before you put it up. As in "real" referendems, chose the nominees, and then have the vote!SouthWriter 22:35, February 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the 13-striped flag would definitely win: maintaining that connection to the "old USA" would be incredibly important to them.
 * Thinking along those lines... is the PUSA going to drop the designation "Provisional" anytime soon? That would be a good time to drop the 50-star flag and take on a new one. Benkarnell 22:15, February 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about that right after South posted his flags. Roughly 15 years after the US disbanded, a new one is declared. Though I wonder if the PUSA government would want it to be symbolic so they would wait until July 4th. Mitro 03:51, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. Perhaps the president can contact all the other "provisional" governments that are known by the CRUSA and the ANZC to propose incorporation in the new federal government. Perhaps they may be able to begin anew with thirteen stars!SouthWriter 07:46, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

Getting 13 stars could take a lot longer than July 4th. Certainly you could get some solid canidates, but the get an actual working constitution would take ages (in case you've never dealt with parlimentary procedure, it takes a very long time to do anything, particuarly something important) I could see it getting set as a goal though and still changing the flag on the 4th to reflect the "States" whose delegates would be arguing about details in a constitution. The biggest problem I see is state size and capital location. Superior, for example, if it wants to join (and I don't see why not) would not want to come in as one state amoung 10, (particuarly as one of the other states has less than 100,000 effective people (300,000 if the land claims in Idaho are decided in favor of the NAU), and will probably make a bid to be the capital. Will Lakota join as a state, or remain independent. This is not to say this whole thing is a bad Idea. Its to say Its a very good one. Lets just make sure to have lots of realistic bickering and hard details.Desert viking 14:13, February 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * I was particularly thinking of states that began, and remain, as provisional states representing their former states. Piedmont, for one, represents the former state of South Carolina, with a governor even though it calls itself a Republic. Given its history, it is hard to say if it still wants to be part of a nation with a centralized government as the USA had become by the mid twentieth century. The new USA, though, might have a less centralized government due to the very fact that it is splintered, with unaffiliated nation-states throughout the continent. Unless the USA's new constitution grants far more autonomy to the states (that is, abides by the "old" tenth amendment), I don't see many states separated from its core nine states joining in.SouthWriter 17:23, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

I support a nine star, 13 stripe flag, along with a drop in the Povisional status of the goverment. As a future point of refernence, I think that whether a state joins either the PUSA/USA or the NAU depends on their size and/or population. A state like Pasco might join as part of the PUSA/USA, while Utah might join as part of the NAU. As a related issue, I think it unlikely that Superior would join the NAU, due to The PGC blocking their membership due to the war with CRP. --HAD 14:19, February 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think its unlikely that other American survivor states would want to join the new USA. For one thing many are isolated from PUSA by large swatches of uncontrolled, wild land. For another all of these states had over two decades to establish their own identities, they would have to give that up to join the new USA. Also their leaders would be losing a lot of power by demoting themselves to "governors."
 * As for specific states, Lakotah would definitly not join. Remember they declared their independence from the USA shortly after Doomsday. They enjoy being free and the NAU is enough for them. They are a good example of states that have evolved into a country that has little in common with the old US. Superior I doubt would want to join either (if they could). For one thing they have their own proposed multi-national union in the works and they are also way to expansionist surrender control to a new USA (look at what is happening in the 2009 Saguenay War (1983: Doomsday)). There are also other multi-national unions in the work, like the Dixie Alliance and the Confederation of New England. These organizations might not be willing to have their members joining the NAU. Mitro 14:24, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

New Boundaries for the New USA

 * I agree that Lakotah, Superior and Virginia would not join the new USA. The nearness of the two Texases (perhaps reunited) to the USA might lead to their Original_States_New_USA.pngng the USA. If they did, then the provisional government of Louisana would probably follow suit. This might lead to the governments in the states of Arkansas and Missouri coming along and then neighboring Kentucky. With Kentucky in the US, patriotic East Tennessee, Blue Ridge and Piedmont might see it best if they, too, become part of this re-newed nation. As usual I am working on maps. Here is the proposed USA after the ratification of the new constitution, say in 2012. The proposed national border is tentative, some of the member states (like Piedmont) might wish to include all with the former boundaries of the state (with minor exclusions). Of course, on the real possibility that Texas won't be the link to the rest, perhaps establishing the Missouri River as a line through the plains to Missouri and Kentucky might reach the Carolinas in much the same way. If the Dakotas and Nebraska established their borders to the Missouri River, that would slightly enlarge the map -- taking in all of Nebraska (including the state of Lincoln?). Not pushing, just giving suggestions. :-) SouthWriter 17:23, February 11, 2010 (UTC)

I like this idea. its workable and has an acceptble timesclae. HAD 17:45, February 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the timetable is too optimistic. While I think PUSA might have a new constitution before 2012, the idea that they could extend their borders so far south and east so quickly is unlikely. With negotiations and infrastructure rebuildment, it would probably take several decades. Mitro 23:31, February 15, 2010 (UTC)