Talk:1983: Doomsday

Before you start editing, please read the Editorial Guidelines.

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

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

Useful Resources:

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

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

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

Still actual ! :) 1983: Doomsday background story & interview with Col. Stanislaw Petrov (though in German)
SPIEGEL ONLINE (German news magazine) in his story series "One day in history (EinesTages)" this links )Xi&#39;Reney 08:42, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Chumash Republic (rise in population)
I was thinking about raising the population of the to about 200,000 but I would like some form of approval first. Riley.konner 5:04, April 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) Where would these people come from?
 * 2) Why are you asking for a rise in population?
 * 3) What are the current populations of the counties that make up Chumash *here*?

I'd recommend you take the population from here and cut it by 1/2 to 3/4, frankly. There's just not enough food for everyone without mass transit. Louisiannan 00:35, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * They are an agricultural community, so they pretty much make there own food, you should elaborate on transit are you talking about trains, palnes, cars etc. I would like to raise the population because there nations even more improbable than this one that have higher populations, and the main reason I am asking if I should is because there would be no explanation, i would just raise the population. Riley.Konner 05:56, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

The OTL population of the areas that make up the Chumash Republic is about 420,000.Oerwinde 01:00, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * So my suggestion seems modest doesn't it? Riley.Konner 06:06, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

OTL pop of 420,000 and received an direct nuclear strike. I'd say the current pop isn't bad. But being the most stable area of the region, it would have high immigration. I would be ok with boosting the pop to around 100k, but 200k would be too much I thinkOerwinde 01:10, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well why I dont make it an 150K would that be acceptable? Riley.Konner 09:39, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * I find the original population level to be realistic. California was probably the worst hit out of all the US states. We are talking massive amounts of fallout. Furthermore California has a lot of issues with water. Without a working infrastructure, huge patches of Cali are going to be virtually deserts for the people who live there. Mitro 00:33, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Much of California's water is piped from Utah, Nevada and Colorado. Without that water, it'd revert to a deserty-type of place. Louisiannan 16:23, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

It's a Red, Red, Red, Red world
Maybe it was the recent Ethiopian deal that did it for me, but I think that the Siberians' expansion across the globe is starting to get out of hand, and turning this nuclear war scenario into a "Communist paradise". It was enough that the USSR emerged from the war intact, while every other combatant was erased from existence. I wasn't overjoyed that we went that route, but the articles were well written, and in general the new USSR includes only the poorest and most desolate parts of the old USSR. And the Siberians' growing collection of allies in the Caribbean made sense, too: that whole region is rapidly getting caught up in a new cold war. But Africa? And (it turns out) Pakistan and Tibet? None of the other powers are meddling in areas so far from home. And what possible reason would these African countries have for linking up with the Siberians? They really are in no position to lend concrete aid (as they were in the 60s and 70s and early 80s). And, lest we forget, the Soviets helped destroy civilization, and everyone know it; they have no reason to blame them any less than the Americans, at the very least. Why are they suddenly the most popular, powerful country on earth? The trend happened gradually enough that I'm only now saying something - I apologize if it's too late and I sound like I'm grousing without justified cause. But the tone of the TL is radically different with the Siberians running about everywhere, creating this new empire of theirs. This world's setup, as I understand it, is supposed to be one with three largish blocs, yes, but no superpowers. Siberia is quickly turning into the only one, and on the whole I think it's a bad direction for the ATL. Benkarnell 02:59, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ben, I'll have to agree with you - I was okay with the USSR as it exists in this timeline having some minor influence on states immediately bordering it, but this culutral colonialism is indeed above and beyond what I understood for this timeline. I think we need to reassess Siberia and its influence in the wider world. And I apologize, too, that I'm now only noticing the trend. And given that you and Xi'Reney were chosen at one point as the "leaders" of the timeline, I think we honestly need to give your suggestion due consideration.Louisiannan 05:16, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * It is worth considering though that these states aren't part of siberia, they are close allies nothing more. Personaly i belive ideology would have the greatest impact, Ethiopia and the resistance groups in South Sudan and Eritrea were already communist as were several countries around the world yet because so many of them were in deprived areas they wern't nuked thus as the USSR was still a large power it would be logical for them to side with the largest surviving communist government.Besides there is no reason there couldn't be ex USA backed governments that affiliate themselves with the ANZC its just that no one has created them yet, how many post doomsday countries recive backing from the SAC or ANZC, they could be considered afiliated states or allies its just that they arn't classed as such.Vegas adict 10:40, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Ben. The USSR is becoming to powerful.--HAD 11:38, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Although I do agree with you Ben that Siberian expansion is getting a bit out of hand, you do have to agree that most of these places, if not all, were once communist states. None of the mentioned allies haven't had absolutely no communist influence. And FYI Tibet is only a regional partner and no country that is one needs to be communist, it just shows that there is coordination between the CSTO and that particular country on matters of regional importance. Tibet is neutral, as far as any blocs go. I don't know why exactly you're referring to Pakistan, it isn't part of the bloc. Neither is Korea, for the exact same reason as Tibet. Siberians aren't running around anywhere, all the countries created were communist to begin with.
 * Now I'm not saying that the ANZC and the SAC aren't a bit underrepresented, but that is just, as Vegas said, because no one has taken the time to create strong allies for the two. Now for the Caribbean socialist countries, I admit that I had a great part in the rampant socialist movements in the region, but I do also plan to make San Salvador an ANZC ally, as well as make Honduras a SAC member.
 * I think the main problem is that we haven't focused enough on the two remaining powers. Since I joined the project, I haven't seen anyone really stating what was best for these two blocs to actually accomplish in the next ten years.--Vladivostok 13:20, April 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand, but I don't think it's an automatic progression from "Communist" to "Siberian satellite" - or even Siberian ally. Since the USSR shares the guilt for WW3, I can imagine Communist parties around the world trying to distance themselves from the Soviet Union - "Were Communists, just not that kind of Communist". Besides this, the CSTO is clearly more than a club for Marxist ideologues and cultural exchange. It's a military alliance, and clearly only the USSR is capable of intervening militarily across such a wide range. Ethiopian troops aren't going to be fighting Contras in Nicaragua anytime soon. Clearly it's an organization for Siberian dependencies. Overall, through the CSTO Siberia has been behaving like a superpower, not a nation still struggling with the wounds of nuclear war. Benkarnell 14:42, April 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * So your objection is to the CSTO acting as a military alliance rather than a political or cultural one?. PS dependecies is the wrong word as it implys that the countries need Siberia but in actual fact they are all independent and capable of defending themselves.Vegas adict 14:50, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

I think that at least the Africa countries recently added to the CSTO should be dropped. They have their own military alliance and in terms of distance they are to far away from Siberia to be that close. Mitro 14:52, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Posibly i'l give consideration to removing them from the CSTO, but geographicly the Carribean is further away from the USSRVegas adict 15:06, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes and No. I am assuming that the Communist states of the Carribean and Central America are being supported by Siberia through ports in the Pacific, where Siberia's ports are. In that sense they are closer since it pretty much is a straight line. Meanwhile with Africa not only do they need to curve around East Asia and pass through the Indian ocean, but pirate activity is no doubt greater in those waters than the Pacific, making any trade with Siberia from there costly. Mitro 15:28, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I apologize if the CSTO article gave the wrong impression, it was never my intent to make it a "Club for Siberian dependencies", and I'm sorry you guys feel it is. The only real dependency is Aralia. As I said, Korea and Tibet don't have anything to do with the ideology, they are simply being practical. I feel that both nations are in fact neutral and their own master.
 * The Caribbean, although a strong Siberian ally, is also not in any way dependent on the USSR, they are simply accepting aid from a like-minded country.
 * Now for Africa, well there is room to talk about that. Clearly Africa is closer to the USSR, but it is somewhat impractical to get to, since going by land is not an option and the closest port cities are in the Primorskaya Territory, which isn't fit to do anything at the moment. Now the cultural exchange idea got me thinking. Maybe a new organization with exactly that agenda should arise, perhaps a Fifth international, or a name similar in connotation?--Vladivostok 15:31, April 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * In a certain sense, the Caribbean members are dependencies in that they "depend" on help from the USSR. Or at least, they have selfish motives for joining and believe that alligning themselves to the USSR will be the best way to maintain their independence in such a volatile region. And the Caribbean is much closer to the USSR's only coastline. It is much more difficult to go all the way around southeast Asia to enter the Indian Ocean and get to Africa, India, etc.
 * My main objection, again, is that the CSTO is quite clearly an organization the USSR started to create a network of client states. And this would be just fine IMO if it were limited to Siberia's immediate neighbors and/or a limited group of Caribbean satellites. If you envision it as a "Fifth Communist International" for all Marxists in the world, it would have to look and feel a lot different. ANd it definitely would be less Russo-centric.
 * And just a note on Tibet - they seem like the last nation on earth that would want to link with the USSR, even as a "regional partner". THey are not Marxist, and in fact, despite fighting a number of wars of necessity since independence, their underlying ideology is still basically pacifistic - quite different from Communism, which by definition is based on militancy. And again, lest we forget - the Soviet Union destroyed the Tibetan capital, and all the history and culture that was kept there! Why would they want to form a partnership with a nation like that? Benkarnell 15:37, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ben on Tibet. Furthermore if Korea is just being practical, than they could do a lot better than Siberia. Even though the US attacked North Korea, the Soviets attacked South Korea, giving united Korea just as much reason to distrust the successor states of those former superpowers. Korea meanwhile could get aid and supplies from ANZC and South America, who would no doubt have more to offer them than Siberia and it would likely be better quality. Mitro 15:52, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * The Tibet situation happened out of necessity, I mean, who would want to help Tibet develop, would the ANZC and SAC really have anything to gain from them bein allies? Other than making the USSR angry, of course. And tell me if I'm wrong, but I feel that the Dalai Lama is the type of person who would leave the past in the past and do what is best for his people now, since they are really in a really unforgiving part of the world, as far as geography and climate is concerned.
 * The Fifth International would be an entirely separate organization, which I will elaborate on, as soon as I create a worthwhile proposal. Now maybe I was a bit hasty when I added the African nations to the CSTO. Perhaps they could be dialogue partners with the Marxist organization in Africa.
 * Who said Korea isn't getting aid from the ANZC or the SAC? They are neutral like Tibet. I feel that both nations would try and be friendly with all three of them, as I got that feeling when I was discussing the issue with the creator of the Korean article.--Vladivostok 16:05, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Having good relations doesn't always equal joining their sponsored organization/military alliance, even if they are not full members. If they are both neutral than they could do so without having to join any organizations. Furthermore how much money does Siberia have to throw away nation-building? They are already trying to rebuild and reclaim most of the Soviet Union and China. Plus they are spending money helping communists in Central America. I don't think its plausible for Siberia to be supporting anyone outside of that. Mitro 16:30, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, you make good points. However, I don't really see any point in chaning the African communist countries, so what do you propose the future of these relations to be? I view regional partnership to be a step up from being just an observer, because in my mind, knowing what an organization like the CSTO, as well as the country of Siberia, will do on your doorstep is a good thing and coordinating help for the Chinese in the region, or perhaps defending against incursions, would lead to at least some form of cooperation, so why not write it down on paper?--Vladivostok 16:36, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Individual agreements between Siberia and Korea/Tibet IMO are plausible and probably likely since even neutral countries being so close to Siberia would have to have some contact with them. That being I don't see its necessary for them to be a part of CSTO for that to happen and I feel that both should have zero affiliation with the organization. Furthermore the African countries should be removed as well as full members but I don't see problem with having the CMC remain as a regional partner with CSTO. I think it goes about what Ben was saying about some communist countries keeping their distance from the USSR. Of course I would like to hear Ben's opinion on this as well. Mitro 16:46, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

IMO, your ideas are very reasonable. If Ben likes it, as well as Vegas, as that are his countries we would be removing from the organization, I see no reason why these changes wouldn't be made.--Vladivostok 16:53, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'v edited the news page and the CSTO article to make it so that the three CAMC are only regional partners but you would have to talk to the guy who created the Angola article about what he wants done with his county, I'l create the Fifth Communist Interational page later today if thats ok?Vegas adict 16:59, April 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Overall, yes, toning it down will probably be good. I think that the issue, for me, is less about specifics than about the overall tone. The new USSR is behaving as though it had as much power and influence as the old one - which it does not, not even close. Tulkeyev jetting around the world picking up allies feels so much like Khrushchev meeting with Nasser, and all the rest - a benevolent patron bestowing his clients with gifts. Since Marxism is such a force in Africa, maybe the 5th International, or some other pan-Marx organization, could be the brainchild of the African nations, not Siberia.
 * I'll echo what Mitro said and point to the question of resources. Siberia recently fought a long-distance war with Aralia, and has to keep enough forces at the ready to act as a real deterrent, should Aralia want to go fully independent again. It's apparently fighting a war in Primorye as we speak; it's got troops in the Mosquito Coast; it's got troops assisting in the relief work in Haiti; it's got a very long and unsafe border to defend; it has to deal with uncooperative Americans in Alaska; and it's creating a new space program. It has to be stretched as thin as watered-down borscht at the moment, and likely as not, countries half a world away can see that it doesn't have much to give in the way of defensive aid. Benkarnell 22:25, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course I see your point. In a strange way, I was going for that whole "stretched to the limit" feel. Just FYI, the Primorye Krai isn't a violent place as most people already either joined up with Siberia or simply left, there were few remaining people. But it is costly to build up and recolonize the place so yeah, that's draining money. Anyway, the Fifth International is being done by Vegas and I think he was going for the organization to be centered around the African states. Vegas does raise a good point. What about the People's Republic of Angola? It has been a member from the start, however looking back, its involvement would be somewhat lacking at best. Perhaps it too should be a partner in Africa?--Vladivostok 05:02, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

So we've reached a conclusion that the CSTO needs to be toned downed a bit and that the USSR is overstreched. Thats ironic, considering whats happening to the OTL USA right now.HAD 06:23, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Fifth Communist International
Could someone please tell me which countries/political parties would probabley join the Fifth Communist International?Vegas adict 12:31, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Graphics / Visualization /Cartography
Section Archives: Page 1

US/Canada Template
Gents (do we have any ladies?),

Here's an updated template for the Former US/Canada Template. I think it's a bit cleaner, and if everything is accepted as currently proposed, we could implement it right away. It would also make editing down the road easier:

Thoughts? Comments? Complaints? Death-threats? Do I need to take a wiki-break? User:Louisiannan 18:15, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * We have at least one, Smoggy is a lady. Mitro 18:17, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

I like the look of the ANZC template better. I think removing the national flags would make it look a lot cleaner and more organized.--Oerwinde 19:05, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * The thing is, though, the flags are somewhat a signature of this timeline. That's why I've left them. Louisiannan 17:22, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Except that the US/Canada template is the only one that includes the flags. --Oerwinde 17:56, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of it but Cape Girardeau is a member of the Dixie Alliance as well. --GOPZACK 19:13, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

The flag free template looks a lot less cluttered, and thus less distracting as an addition to the bottom of the page of an article. About the Dixie Alliance - isn't "Cave City" defunct, having been annexed to Kentucky. It would have dissolved even as a city-state when that happened, wouldn't it? --SouthWriter 18:14, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

Wiki/Timeline/Article Technicals
Section archives: Page 1

April Article of the Month
I think we can keep this program going. So what do you guys think you should be the next article of the month? Mitro 14:09, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think work should now start on the SAC, that page should show the changes that have happened over the years.--Vladivostok 16:24, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

So be it. The is this month's article of the month. Mitro 01:04, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to work on the empty articles before the large, developed pages. For instance there are a number of nations in the SAC that do not have proper articles yet.

Yankovic270 17:58, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Yank on this one. HAD 18:07, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Which English?
Which type of English should we use? There are small differences between English English and American English that sometimes might cause people to make corrections that are uncessary (organisation vs. organization). Thoughts? Mitro 20:25, April 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, guys. I do a lot of my editing in source (especially the charts). The spell-check works in source mode, and it showed an "error" with "Oganisation," I instinctively changed it. I refer to "English English" as "the Queen's English," less redundant! But then "British English" would be a bit more concise, I guess.SouthWriter 14:11, April 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't Sweat the Small Stuff? Wikipedia policy is actually quite useful: for American topics, US spelling makes sense; for Commonwealth topics, Commonwealth spelling make sense; for all else, keep whatever the original writer went with. And overall, it seems silly to formulate a policy that won't likely be upheld anyway - each writer is going to continue spelling things the way he knows. Benkarnell 19:22, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, Ben, there will be spelling differences. It would be nice, though, if our spell-check dictionaries were better trained. It is hard on us "perfectionists" to have to second guess our British brother's spelling habits. It is their language we Yanks have adulterated. What are the "rules" on which spellings will differ anyway? 14:11, April 13, 2010 (UTC)SouthWriter

I agree with Ben. SouthWriter makes a good point. The Queens English has been Americanised to a very large degree. I find it difficult to remember what the differences are. HAD 18:02, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

I've read somewhere that American English, particularly as it is spoken in the north-east US is closer to that spoken by the original colonists than the English now spoken in Britain. Verence71 18:37, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

I've heard rumours to that affect? (now is that affect or effect?)HAD 19:00, April 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * In general, American English has changed less than British English, yes. On the other hand, we went through a (partial, inconsistent) spelling reform under the influence of Noah Webster's dictionaries and school books, so we started spelling a few things phonetically.  Draft, for instance.  And effect is the noun, affect the verb.  And there's a WP page on every single difference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_differences.  Benkarnell 19:24, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Article Limits?
I'd like to suggest (because we went through something similar in Ill Bethisad) that we limit the number of open articles a particular editor can have. It seems to me that we have a number of editors that are opening 5 and 10 articles (or more) and writing a teeny snippet, and then abandoning them to go and write another snippit of an article.

I'd like to suggest that we make a general rule of articles must be written to a reasonable depth (meaning that the article is essentially complete, or mostly so) and that unless a given user does so, they shouldn't open another article. I think a given user could edit and create 2 or 3 articles reasonably - and that they shouldn't open more than that until one of the articles is graduated. I don't think this should be a rule that is strictly enforced, more of an "on your honor" thing - but I think that would prevent having 60 articles queued up for proposal status. Louisiannan 22:54, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be supportive of such an idea. Mitro 13:50, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Ditto on that. HAD 17:58, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

The Plausibility Singularity
I have a theory on the future of the TL. At some point any new nation/survivor state proposal is going to be presumptively obsolete. As more of the map is filled in and as we cancel out the areas that are unlivable, the probability of any new nation proposal being marked as obsolete is going to increase since it will either contradict the already extensive history of the TL or just be implausible. We are already starting to see this with the survivor state proposals for the United Kingdom. I also predict the same thing will begin to happen soon in North America due to that is where the most survivor state proposals are being created. The last place that will be affected by this phenomenon will most likely be Africa, due to the lack of work people have put in on the continent since this TL was created (though thanks to the efforts of Oer and Vegas that has not been the case). South America and Oceania have already crossed this point.

So what happens when it becomes next to impossible to graduate a new nation proposal? Here are some theories I have:


 * We are going to start seeing less nation profiles and more articles on other subjects in the post-Doomsday world.
 * Some editors will find substitutes for nation creation. This could include creating profiles on the subdivisions of the different states (like the individual states of PUSA) and more defunct nations that existed but were absorbed by a present day state (Cape Breton is a good example of this).
 * More articles are going to be put up for review (like how Prussia was) in an effort to free up some space for some plausible nation creation. We already have seen that with the complaints that Superior is unlikely to have gained control of southern Ontario because the likelihood of strong Canadian survivor states arising there.
 * We might even see a drop in new members. I think what is great attraction of this TL is that someone can create their own personal post-apocalyptic nation, and if they can make one that covers their hometown so much the better. Denied that chance we are going to see a lot of new users get discouraged and stop participating.

So that is my theory which I am calling the Plausibility Singularity. So what do you guys think? Am I crazy or am I on to something here? Mitro 16:44, April 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * This is a very good idea, Mitro. Are you by any chance a maths kind of person? Your style has logic to it. HAD 17:56, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I am horrible at math, though I like to think I can be logical thanks to my background in law. Mitro 19:00, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Well that explains that then.HAD 19:05, April 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ha, this "singularity" is a perfect description, in suitably apocalyptic terms, of the life cycle of Ill Bethisad that some of us have seen. When Louisiannan was rather new to that project, it was a time of furious map-making when nobody much knew what the canon was because it changed so quickly. By the time I joined, the map was filled in and activity had slowed down. Most people were concentrating on cultural details. I'll add, though, that even after the map appears to be "filled in", there will be a lot of nations that are still mostly murky, or where the only detailed info is stuff we assumed ("QAA") rather than created. Venezuela is a good example, or Nigeria. The world is big enough that I think we will never reach the point where it's "full", but we will have to start painting with smaller brushes, if that makes sense. Benkarnell 19:11, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ben's right - the focus of many in Ill Bethisad is on refining the details about the countries. I think that there can also be any number of city-states and failed-states in the 1983DD universe. I think that we can and should explore those, and also the smaller, less "notable" aspects of the world, too. Lost journals, and the like. Louisiannan 20:57, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Mitro may have something here. We may need to go over the assumptions upon which we have created this world, but there will be a point in which we will have filled in all the spaces. I am presently looking at the extent of what the accepted targets would have affected the US Southeast - even to the extent of a low level nuke hitting near my folk's homestead (far enough away to wipe out dad's business across the river, but not directly affect them). Fallout can be ruled out as a huge threat where we can assume an airburst, but places like Washington DC and NYC will have to have had a few ground-level blasts to totally devastate them. The trouble with the big targets is that they cannot be too soon after the warning or Reagan and Bush will not escape (resulting in a 'minor' change of the canon! -- workable, but a pain). Well, I hope that is not too far off the 'Plausibility Singularity.' SouthWriter 18:30, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

Additions to Editorial Guidelines
I added some guidelines to the. It is nothing new, I just added some content about already established procedures: marking articles as obsolete and reviewing articles already in canon in case they are implausible/contradictory. Please check out and make any corrections you think are important. Mitro 16:35, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Welcome Template
I have created a new template: Template:Welcome83. I think we can use it to "welcome" new members to the TL. Please feel free to edit it. I want to make it look nicer but I really do not have the time or wiki code knowledge for that. Mitro 03:21, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

Culture / Society
Archives: Page 1 • Page 2

Miscellaneous discussion
Archives: Page 1

Glad to be alive
Sometimes when I am working on this TL I become struck by the enormity of the disaster that was averted. I got this while working on the article. Everyday I add a new city, a new place that thousands or millions of people died in this ATL, and so many who will never be born (including myself). Really makes you feel glad to be alive huh? Mitro 18:21, March 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. BrianD 05:33, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

Ditto on that. On the record, I must say that nuclear weapons and the whole concept of detterent scares the bejebus out of me.HAD 11:31, March 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, HAD. I never have figured out what those letters mean, by the way. I guess it shows how we are "divided by a common language." For instance, your sentence above misses the American usage in the first two phrases. We usually say "ditto TO that" and "FOR the record." By the way, the word is not "bejebus," but rather "an aleration of by Jesus." (and thus a 'minced oath').


 * As far as "mutually assured destruction" (aptly known as 'MAD'), more cool heads have called it "peace through strength." The Roman legends had peace because everyone knew they would be annihilated if they crossed the emporer. That was "peace through strength." When "super powers" arise, it becomes within their best interests to assure each other that an attack will bring misery to both sides. Diplomacy, then, becomes the better part of valor. Only a madman (no pun intended on the acronym) would attack an opponent that there is little chance of defeating. 'Detterent,' though, is necessary because otherwise there are those that will 'take advantage' of the weak. That is the nature of mankind. "Madmen" do come to power, and 'passive' defense is not always the best idea. If a madman can direct an army from behind the lines, then he will. If, however, the opponent comes to him, he must show himself stronger or resort to diplomacy. Therefore, if the oppressor is convinced that the victom is stronger, or just as strong and willing to retaliate, he will hold off attacking. That is 'deterrent.' SouthWriter 13:21, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of the nature of deterrent. The problems arise when it fails or accidents happen, as postulated in this scenario. By the by, HAD means nothing. At all. If pressed, i'd say it means "Happiness And Dignitiy". Secondly, i am aware of my admittingly bizzare use of the English language. Any unusual phrase-turns are delibrate, designed to amaze and impress. HAD 13:32, March 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, you are 'playing with' our language. I have fun reading the likes of FERO, for whom the English is a second language. However, when an Englishman attempts to turn the phrases, it is confusing to say the least. It is like the Masad agent on NCIS in her misuse of American idiom, it is good for a laugh when it happens unintentionally. Intentional misuse, though, needs to be more subtle. Something is indeed "on the record" if it is written down. "For the record" denotes permission to record one's statement. So, saying "on the record" should mean that what you are saying has already been recorded. If so, I guess we'd have to see a reference to verify that, huh? [ Just 'poking your leg,' Hap.]


 * FYI, when I first saw those initials I was reminded of an African Violet plant. I gave it to my wife on our first anniversary. She named the plant "HAD" - short for "Henry and Debbie" (our names). You once challenged your readers on these talk pages to figure out what your use of "HAD" stood for (it's 'on the record,' but I don't know the search terms to easily find it!), so I actually tried to figure it out. Not being up on British idiom, though, I gave up. By the way, flower of the original "HAD" is pressed in an old dictionary of ours - next to the entry for 'had.'


 * I, also, am 'glad to be alive,' for my life is wrapped up in that of the One who holds all that we call 'now' together! (1 Cor. 8:6)

Fair enough, my South Carolinian Friend. From now on, i will stick to "simple english" english, alliteration and all!HAD 14:33, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

I would have lived even if the nukes were launched. Makes me thank god that I was born in a small town in southern Manitoba!

Yankovic270 23:08, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Lucky you. Never clicked on to why you call yourself "Yankovic 270". If i were Canadian, i would be "CF-105" or something. HAD 23:01, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

It's because I am a hugely obsessed fan of Alfred "Weird Al" Yankovic.

Yankovic270 23:09, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough!HAD 09:56, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Proposal overload
Ah! 60+ proposals on the docket. Please take the chance to review some of these articles and state whether you think they are ready to be graduated. Mitro 22:48, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yikes, my attempts at graduating are not keeping pace with the proposals. Again, if you have the chance review some articles and move for them to be graduated. Mitro 17:32, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * I know this won't solve the current problem, but I was wondering if I could change the name of a recently graduated article. It's the Nanchung article. Why is it called that way, I mean, it is clearly based on the city of Nanchang and I can't find the name Nanchung anywhere. Can I move the article and correct the name?--93.138.118.165 17:51, April 12, 2010 (UTC)(Vladivostok)
 * Well I did find "Nan-ch'ung" which is the Wade-Giles spelling of the city. Mitro 17:55, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if the city could be spelled that way, I guess we could leave it alone, it's just that Nanchang seems to be the more prevalent way of writing the name. Anyway, maybe we really should have designated proposal readers, or at least a limit on how many articles per week until the ones that aren't graduated eventually are because this is getting silly. By trying to quickly graduate articles we run the risk of creating canon content that doesn't fit well with other content. We should at least try and slow down. Oh, and I can't edit for some reason -.---93.138.118.165 18:04, April 12, 2010 (UTC)(Vladivostok)
 * What you say is true. We don't want to rush articles into canon that are not ready. However if you do know of any articles that you think should be graduated, please tell me. That being said we also want to avoid turning this project into work. Appointing people to be proposal readers just sounds like to much bureacracy for an AH timeline built by volunteers. As for limits, well we might be able to lean on veteran editors to finish their current articles before proposing new ones, but how do we prevent new editors from proposing articles when they might not have read our rules? Article limits and reviewers sound good on paper, but I think implementing them will cause to many issues. Mitro 18:10, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realize that, but something needs to be done. I mean, I see around ten articles in the proposals that can be graduated. Some that really talk about already established stuff, some that I don't see the harm of graduating, and I'll say which ones later. But there are others that are practically empty. Did we really need to bring them up here? Shouldn't we wait until there is something to comment on? Sure, this way we bring up articles that couldn't possibly exist before the person takes the time to write it, but this way we just clutter the talk page and create a situation that isn't really that alarming.--93.138.118.165 18:18, April 12, 2010 (UTC)(Vladivostok)
 * Maybe you are right about waiting to create a section on this talk page until the article is a little more substantial. That being said some people get sidetracked and abandon articles. Also some editors might not even know the proposal exists unless its listed on the portal page or here. In a way by listing the proposal here it acts to advertise this to the entire group, which promotes the TL in the long run. All that aside, your right, maybe I have been making this situation more alarming than it really is, but it would be nice to just clear up the Proposal category of anything that doesn't need to be there anymore. Mitro 18:30, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

Good points. I'll give my opinion on the articles below now and try and help out with this situation. Which is entirely not alarming! :-) --Vladivostok 18:39, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

I have three sugestions for you Mitro, 1st remove all the articles that have no content (Delete them or leave them its your choice), 2nd is to put a notice at the top of the proposals section that says "Anyone can graduate an article if there is nothing in it that breaks cannon, reasonabley spelled and no one has raised objections in (A certain period of time)". 3rd is to get contributors to list the articles they think can be graduated on a seperate page i.e Talk:1983: Doomsday/Graduation sugestions Vegas adict 18:51, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think I'm going to implement your first two suggestions, restating the wouldn't hurt anybody. However I don't think we should created a new page for graduating articles. This page serves that purpose already and creating another page where people will have to go to will just make the whole process that much more formal and more confusing to new users. Mitro 18:59, April 12, 2010 (UTC)
 * Slow down there Vegas. As much as I appreciate you trying to help, at least lets ask if anyone has any objections to marking those articles as obsolete. Mitro 19:02, April 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like we've slashed down the number of proposals by about half. It's progress I reckon. --GOPZACK 21:18, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Qinghai earthquake
Another one... this time it's just outside the borders of in far southern Qinghai province, an extremely remote area that would (IMO) most likely be independent subsistence villages within Tibet's sphere of influence, possibly within some kind of larger dependent structure. (I could imagine a Tibetan consul or governor to liase with the village leaders in this region, but not having direct control.) Benkarnell 15:19, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually the area is majority-Tibetan and has a strong monastic culture. So I wrote the news item as if Jyekundo (the Tibetan name for the town) is a frontier region of the Tibetan state. Consider it non-canon unless there are no objections. Benkarnell 20:36, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ups, must've missed this one. I agree with everything that has been written. I'll probably include some of the information in the main article as well.--Vladivostok 21:16, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Revision of History of West Texas
I'm revising history of West Texas to eliminate the isolationist history I gave it when I created the nation and to allow for more survivalist communities in the region. It's kind of a mess right now but won't be (hopefully) when I'm done. I will also be doing a similar revision of eastern Texas in the next few weeks. Your thoughts and suggestions and constructive criticism are definitely welcomed. BrianD 01:23, April 17, 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.

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)

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)


 * FXG, I think that's a great scenario and would be a wonderful addition to this althist. I don't think Iraq would have a different name, though, any more than Spain or Italy took new names when they underwent regime change. "Iraq" is simply what that country is called. I like the idea of Assyria emerging later, though. Benkarnell 15:43, April 19, 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)

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)


 * While Saudi Arabia still needs some work, any objections to graduating the UAE and Gulf States Union?Oerwinde 08:31, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

Although I still have to do some tweaking to the GSU and UAE articles, I would be grateful to have them graduated. As my article on S. Arabia is still a work in progress I could not recommend it for graduation just yet. Thanks. --Fxgentleman 19:05, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

Essex and History of 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)

'''I've just made some changes and additions, and moved the completed history section to its own page. Fegaxeyl 16:17, April 6, 2010 (UTC)'''

Not trying to be needy, but I really need to know what the community thinks the fate of Colchester and its garrison would be, as they represent an important part of my country's history. Fegaxeyl 17:39, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * So what does everyone think? Can these articles be graduated? Mitro 12:46, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks okay to me but then as Essex would be a neighbour of Woodbridge it could be argued that I have a conflict of interests :) Verence71 15:24, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't finished the page (obviously) but I feel it's ready for graduation, as only the parts about culture need to be expanded currently. I take it that we are saying Colchester wasn't hit on Doomsday, and that the five or so references to it being nuked elsewhere within the project are false? (Everyone is probably going to get annoyed with me constantly going on about Colchester!) Fegaxeyl 11:35, April 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, missed that. No Colchester was hit according to canon. Mitro 21:04, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to agree that it was, and make a few changes where necessary in the history to accommodate this. But I'm not convinced it would have been; Colchester is only the third-largest town in Essex, and though it contains a military base if all the major transport routes abroad (i.e. airfields and ports) have been cut off - and they have all been nuked - then the fact is a single land-based regiment simply cannot harm the Soviet Union or Warsaw Pact unless the USSR chooses to invade. Or is it being attacked simply because it's a major population centre? Fegaxeyl 15:23, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a generally accepted belief that all military bases are primary targets, in fact they take seniority over major population centers. Since Colchester has both, it is very likely it was hit. Also since there are so many mentions of it being targeted in 1983DD canon, we have to accept that it was destroyed since it already has been worked into the TL. As I have said before, unless something is very implausible or contradictory, proposals should conform to canon and canon should not conform to proposals. Mitro 15:27, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Right then. I'll start figuring out the changes I'll need to make and put them in place. Fegaxeyl 16:01, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Mitro, You say that all military bases are primary targets but seeing as how Woodbridge is already canon is it safe to assume it wasn't hit?? Verence71 18:22, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah sometimes those things get past us and are graduated into canon. Usually I just suggest using the "malfunctioning ICBM" plot device, [EDIT] but that device should only be used sparingly and usually when an article is already in canon. However in Essex's case, its been canon for a long time now that Colchester was destroyed and I don't think it should be changed for a proposal. Mitro 18:30, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough Verence71 18:32, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Which is more likely: a 1kt precision strike on the Colchester Barracks to eliminate the garrison or a 30kt strike to take out the whole town? I'm not sure whether the USSR would want to simply focus on destroying the main base and leave the rest of the town to any ensuing fires or whether they'd avoid the risk and just use the bigger bomb. Fegaxeyl 16:12, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

The proposal is about the people in the Berkshires.CheesyCheese 23:53, March 23, 2010 (UTC)CheesyCheese 19:51, March 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * This article conflicts with Vermont. According to Vermont, they control the Berkshire region while this article suggests they are independent. Maybe this article could be revised as the Berkshires being a subdivision of Vermont. Anyway I would talk to BrianD as he is the creator of Vermont. Mitro 19:45, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Here is the history, as written at : The Vermont Army staged an "invasion" from North Adams and Orange into the other Massachusetts townships in March 1997. It took two months to defeat the warlords while sparing as many civilian lives as possible. Nevertheless, while 90 percent of the warlord forces were killed, 40 percent of the civilians also were killed, either by the fighting or directly by the warlords themselves. Once the Vermont Army established control over northern Massachusetts, it sent explorers - accompanied by Army divisions - into southern Massachusetts and Connecticut. In July 1997, the Army fought the Connecticut warlords, who lost half their forces before surrendering. With the situation in southern New England stabilized, the General Assembly passed acts establishing Berkshire, Franklin, Worcester and Litchfield counties in November 1997, and admitting them to the Republic.

So a survivor nation in the Berkshires would have to be fit into that history. Maybe it was involved in that fight with the warlords, was close to being destroyed, and was then annexed as "Berkshire County". Benkarnell 20:00, April 19, 2010 (UTC) Okay. I've talked with BrianD a couple of hours ago. CheesyCheese 01:56, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * When talking with CheesyCheese I forgot that I had accounted for Berkshire County! (It's been awhile since I wrote the article). CheesyCheese, Berkshires would have to be part of Vermont itself...or we could have Berkshires County AND a "client state" known as the Berkshires. It's not unknown to have separate nations fully within other nations' borders (Vatican City in Italy, various nation-states in apartheid-era South Africa). Thoughts?--BrianD 02:13, April 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we should just stick with what is already written and have Berkshires be a county of Vermont. Mitro 12:37, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Iran (1983: Doomsday) and some related ideas
Moved to Talk:Iran (1983: Doomsday). Mitro 14:44, April 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * There, I've made an extensive history of early Iranian history post-Doomsday. I'd appreciate any input.--Vladivostok 12:25, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Two similar articles created by seperate editors. Mitro 14:30, March 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Any objections to graduation for the Helenese article? Saint Helena needs some work, the population is unrealistic, etc.Oerwinde 08:41, April 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Im rewriting the parts of the that are implausible. --GOPZACK 19:19, April 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * A minor thing, can we cut down on the pre-Doomsday history? That info really isn't important compared to the alternate history elements of the article. Mitro 15:59, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Baconton. Mitro 14:30, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Pretty empty. The idea's OK in theory, but I think we at least need to clarify the extent of the destruction in Crimea. Two missiles actually seems sort of light for such a strategically important region. Sevastopol was one of the main naval bases in the USSR. Overall I hope this is not the last Russian statelet to appear. We have so many in the US. Benkarnell 22:05, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the part of them colonizing parts of Turkey is pretty weak. There are too many minature empires in this TL already. Furthermore wouldn't the Turks have something to say about Crimean colonies? Mitro 14:40, April 6, 2010 (UTC)
 * We already know that blown-up Greece has taken pieces of Turkey, so it must be in awfully bad shape. It's actually very consistent if blown-up Crimea takes pieces as well. Benkarnell 19:14, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * True, but I think Greece and Crimea's geography plays a role in that. Greece in many ways had a larger area of survivors to pull from. Crimea itself is relatively compact and even just two nukes can cause major damage and chaos to the small peninsula, preventing any future colonization unless it is part of some plan to flee to a better area.
 * I'm curious about how the Crimean Tatars are doing post-Doomsday. Mitro 19:33, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Proposed "Lost colony" in the former South Carolina
Following up on the "discovery of two communities in the western part of the state by the WCRB, I have written an article to account for the lack of contact of those people with the larger community in the upstate. Since I have the explorers of from Piedmont "missing" them in 1991 (partly because they only went as far as the outskirts of Columbia on the Broad River), I postulate that they were largely "relocated," if not wiped out by what we called "Hurricane Hugo" in 1989. I call the "colony" the "Peedee Nation" in honor of the almost extent Pee Dee tribe of Native Americans that lived in the area. One of the "borders" of the nation was the Great Pee Dee River.

I need to fill in the details, but it is assumed that the residents in the area between blasts just settled down and lived along the rivers. Unfortunately, few of them recognized the signs of a hurricane bearing down on them.

Missouri
A proposal about my home state of Missouri. --Jnjaycpa 05:29, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Georgia
I just made a proposal about the Republic of Georgia, a breakaway Georgia that got independence from the Soviet Union on Doomesday. Fedelede 19:41, April 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * I would rename it to distinguish it from the former U.S. state of Georgia TTL. Georgia (Europe) (1983: Doomsday)?BrianD 02:16, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Or when someone creates an article on the state of Georgia they could title in Georgia (U.S. state) (1983: Doomsday). We can also put a little blurb on the top of both pages telling people that there is also another Georgia in case they are confused. Mitro 14:19, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

OK, I did a blurb as I don't know how to rename a page. Fedelede 21:22, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * You make vague mention of military bases in Georgia being hit. Can you be more specific? I think Batumi would be hit. Mitro 16:05, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Republic of Both Ossetias
This is a proposal about the Republic of Both Ossetias, a republic that comprises all of Ossetia and got independence from Georgia in 1998. Fedelede 20:07, April 4, 2010 (UTC) Wouldn't they simply call themselves the Republic of Ossetia? Is there really a need to stress that it includes both South and Nort Ossetia?--Vladivostok 16:37, April 12, 2010 (UTC)


 * A few things need to be taken into account. First off although I can’t pinpoint its location I believe that there was a nuclear bomber airbase somewhere in North Ossetia. Secondly I think it’s quite likely that more of the caucuses was hit as there were a few big cities and bases in the region.--ShutUpNavi 17:21, April 12, 2010 (UTC)

,, &
Me & Southwriter's proposals for the Dakotas. --GOPZACK 19:39, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Virginian Comics
Article by Yank. Mentioned on the Comics page pretty much from the beginning so I don't see a problem graduating it.Oerwinde 08:31, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Where are they getting the paper from - how are they circulating the comics, who's drawing them, how are they publishing them? These should be addressed in the article before graduation. Louisiannan 15:03, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

I was going to focus more on the unique characters published by the company, but I'll answer your questions as best as I can. Yankovic270 15:29, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) They do what they do with the metal for their guns and ammo- use recycled paper
 * 2) By pre-doomsday style mailmen in the more developed parts, a more Wild West version in the rural areas.
 * 3) Both surviving employees of the pre-Doomsday major comics companies (don't ask for names- I don't know any) and fresh-faced rookies.
 * 4) In a formerly abandoned newspaper HQ retooled to produce comics.
 * Like I say, work this into the article, and it should be fine...we just need to support these things in the world in which we decide they exist. Louisiannan 15:35, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

Done. Yankovic270 15:08, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Louis you originally objected to this article, is it more acceptable now? Mitro 12:35, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Muslim Liberation Army
A proposal for a terrorist organization tied to Iran with a base of operations in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.--Vladivostok 10:37, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

The article has been expanded by a new user. Check it out. Mitro 22:43, April 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not a bad article, I like it. However I don’t see why Indonesia was nuked on DD. As far as I can tell it wasn’t aligned with either side nor had any strategic value. So far I can’t see any reasoning behind the attack.--ShutUpNavi 23:18, April 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, this is my explanation of why Indonesia was nuked. During the first president (Sukarno)'s reign, Indonesia was an ally of Russia and China. It's relation with the West deteriorated. Indonesia - Russia relations were in the peak." Indonesia received a substantial amount of aid from Russia and East Europe.But then the abortive coup by the Communist Party of Indonesia in 1965 triggered an anti communist sentiment among Indonesian people. The relations of both countries of both countries reached the lowest level but it never cut off. Indonesia was also close with China before 1965 but after 1965,at that time there was violence toward Sukarno-loyalists and Chinese (both Chinese-Indonesian and Chinese expatriates) "Indonesia's friendly diplomatic relations with mainland China were severed, and the Chinese Embassy in Jakarta burnt down by a mob. New legislation included the banning of Chinese language signs on shops and other buildings, and the closure of Chinese language schools, adoption of "Indonesian" sounding names." from wikipedia,transition to new order Tji 13:57, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

A news proposal much like the Riley.Konner 11:26, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Arstarpool. One of the states of PUSA. Mitro 22:35, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Though not my article, I expanded on it since it involves affects the PUSA. Thoughts? Mitro 19:17, April 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Any objections to graduation? Mitro 03:12, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, on the discussion page. Louisiannan 05:30, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Judging from the fallout map provided by FEMA, I think Fort Collins and Greeley are far enough west that they would not get the worst of the fallout affecting the state. I also added the canon info about Utah.  I am also going to drop the population by a fifth.  Mitro 19:06, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Azokoatron. Mitro 22:35, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Arstarpool. Mitro 22:39, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Perryz101. Mitro 22:41, April 11, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Perryz101. Mitro 22:41, April 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * Isn't this nation part of the East Caribbean Federation? BrianD 13:53, April 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. I'll try to change the page so that it's more clearly a part of the federation. Benkarnell 19:12, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Georgia (U.S. State)
I put a little bit up for the summary article on my home state of Georgia. I clicked on what looked like a live link at the new article on the former Soviet country of Georgia and got a blank slate! So there you go.

I have some ideas for south Georgia, and I have to build up some of the story for Toccoa. And of course, there is the failed provisional government in Athens to which to link the article. SouthWriter 03:08, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

Azerbaijan (1983:Doomsday)
An article by me --Fedelede 02:08, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Confederation of African Marxist Countries Military (1983: Doomsday)
Article detailing the military of all three CAMC member statesVegas adict 14:11, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

Article originally created due to how long the discussion on how the history of 1983: Doomsday will progress. Mitro 14:19, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * I've started working on this article. Thoughts are appreciated. Mitro 16:14, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Brian is trying to revise the history of West Texas. Mitro 14:19, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Vegas. Mitro 14:19, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

There is currently some dispute about whether this article should remain in canon. Mitro 14:47, April 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Can this article be returned to canon? Mitro 12:34, April 21, 2010 (UTC)

My proposal for an economic and poltical union in Britain to allow for the British independent states solidarity in the face of the Celtic Alliance and the influence of New Britain.

The idea is good but the name could perhaps do with some work. The Celtic Alliance could claim to be more like "Britons" than the English are. How about something along the lines of the Organisation of English States (OES) or Organisation of English Nations (OEN)?? Verence71 19:27, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that would go against the spirit of the organisation. The idea is to bring a voice to the small survivor states. That would mean ones in Scotland (improbable) and Wales as well. The founding nations may well be all based in England and therefore English but their national identities are new and vibrant and any expansion westwards to Wales would mean they would have to be British or Britons anyway just to include the Welsh identity let alone their individual states. How a bout the Organisation of British Nations. Its not as if the Celtic Alliance can claim to be British. Bob 16:13, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

OBN sounds ok. Would the workings of the organisation be similar to any similar real-life organisation?? Verence71 18:46, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

A small country on Namibia's coastline, including the cities of Walvis Bay and Swakopmund. I'm not sure how plausible it is: GSWA and the Map give conflicting descriptions of this area (what countries exist in the area, how big they are, etc.). If GSWA is correct, then this idea should be scrapped; but if the Map is correct, and there are no other issues, then I'll continue with it. - Mister Sheen 14:04, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think GSWA is cannon.HAD 14:10, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's canon in that we know it exists and should try to preserve most of what's written, but consensus was that a German-only state probably won't encompass all of Namibia. Benkarnell 14:37, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * So it is possible for a Walvis Bay-Swakopmund city-state to exist? - Mister Sheen 14:39, April 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * I had another idea for German Southwest Africa, but I'm guessing no one was watching the talk page since no one commented. Talk:German_South_West_Africa_(1983:_Doomsday)Oerwinde 23:46, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Article I created about Myanmar/Burma. Yankovic270 17:54, April 18, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Yank. Mitro 15:57, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Perry. Mitro 15:57, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Mitro, but Perry doesn't seem to know how this time line works. Even if he begins to put together an idea that goes along with canon, his grammar is not up to par. I suggested to him that he read it aloud after he wrote it, but I don't think it has helped. SouthWriter 05:04, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

Article updated by Yank. Mitro 15:57, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Smoggy. Mitro 15:57, April 19, 2010 (UTC)

San Diego
Article created by WestVirginiaRebel. BrianD 01:35, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

The article it's self I have no trouble with but the whole idea of worshiping Lincoln as a deity I have trouble with. I don't see it catching on with 20% of the population. A fringe cult perhaps but not a major religion. Don't get me wrong I'm a fan of Lincoln the President but I just don't see a religion being formed around him. --GOPZACK 03:08, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

It's just because I realized that from what I got from church that God is a wise and incredibly loving enitity who knows how to be firm. That describes Abraham Lincoln to a T. Lincolnism is basically Christianity with a different face on God. If you ever read the bible you would know that the true face of God is never revealed. I stand by the new faith, as it is the quirk I gave it to make the country unique. And if a country could have a religion worshipping King Arthur, who may or may not have existed, then ol' Abe definitely deserves followers.

Yankovic270 03:46, April 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * This smacks of Russian Buddhists that another alt-history group toyed with once-upon-a-time, but they're just so out there - beyond the pale, really, that I don't know if Lincolnists or Arthurians could survive any better than Russian Buddhists did in the other alternate history. As much as you'd like to keep it because of a quirk, I don't know that people would give up their old religion for this new religion just because of Doomsday. I'm not averse to it, given a much stronger explanation - maybe that major religious leaders had visions, what-not - similar to the Jehovah's Witness or something. That would much better explain why it would take off so.


 * I'm more concerned, Yankovic, that you seem so ready to defy group consensus, something that is integral to the proper function of this and other shared timelines. I would hope you would reconsider. Louisiannan 05:28, April 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll chime in as the loyal opposition here: I think that strange things can happen to small groups living in isolation. I'm actually surprised there aren't more weird religious cults out there. I agree that a more sophisticated explanation for the origins this one is probably needed. Benkarnell 13:20, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

Danke Schon Ben. I just need a prominent local religious leader to have a vision. I also need some one to write the vision. I'm not one who can write religous material.

Yankovic270 15:17, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for cults popping up after doomsday but not on such a large scale like in Lincoln. & by making Lincoln "god" wouldn't that piss a lot of Christians off who believe God sent down his son Jesus for a time but God himself other wise was never like you said "revealed". That could spark religious tension & such plus I doubt your leader Dave Heineman, a methodist, would drop that faith and become a "Lincolnist". --GOPZACK 19:59, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

=FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES= Archive 1

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

A New Pope!
White smoke means a new pope has been chosen. However, is this to replace John Paul II who died in 1983? That seems rather unrealistic. I included the news article about the pope's Easter message figuring that whoever had replaced JP 2 would have come and gone by now, I figured that it would not hurt for the present pope to have picked the name of Benedict XVI. It made editing the article easier. Please tell me the post hasn't been open for 27 years! The Catholic Church is a lot more organized than that. SouthWriter 03:40, April 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * As a matter of fact, it has! The position is so closely tied to both the city of Rome (it is the Roman Catholic Church for a reason!) and with worldwide Catholicism that there simply was no way to have a Pope for all that time! The RCC had to wait for worldwide communication and transportation to become reliable enough to organize a global conclave, which was held last year. They chose a Pope, and a news cycle was started, but Mjdoch went inactive right after he started it, so we don't actually know who the Pope is. He's based in Rio, where a new sovereign Vatican enclave was carved out. has the story, or at least that part of the story that's been written. Benkarnell 13:09, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I can see where a worldwide concensus would be needed among bishops. However, the fact that the "Roman" Catholic Church is "tied" to Rome is only a practical matter. The capitol has to be some place. But there is no part of Church doctrine that makes this necessary. The fact John Paul II was the first non-Italian pope in 500 years demonstrates that the "Roman" part of the church is not crucial. And, in OTL, John Paul's successor was German -- also non-Italian! Having read the article, I can see where the cardinal had a problem -- there was no way to confirm that John Paul was dead! I am assuming that they have taken twenty-seven years to determine the fact, and to re-establish communications to form a quorum and get this job over with.

Since there was no pope this past Easter, feel free to change the news item I posted to reflect the message being given by the cardinal instead. Or delete it. I just thought Easter should be acknowledged in the news. I had thought about having some other religious figure make a statement, but thought the word of the pope would be more newsworthy. SouthWriter 16:24, April 15, 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. Oscar Cardinal Scheid was the de facto leader of the RCC for the entire post-doomsday era until the Conclave last year.  Part of me wants to say, just make him the Pope and be done with it.  But another part would rather come up with someone more surprising.  But sure, the story could work just as well with Cardinal Scheid in place of the Pope.
 * It's not all that surprising, I think, that choosing a new one took that long. Proper procedure would be incredibly important, and a whole new procedure would have to be drawn up for a conclave in Rio.  If, say, the Latin American bishops had decided to hold a "regional conclave" to pick a "placeholder Pope", his legitimacy would have been severely in doubt without the backing of the rest of the world.  Having the Cardinal fill in until a global conclave could be held was just the right choice, IMO.  It's a fortunate thing he lived so long! Benkarnell 19:34, April 15, 2010 (UTC)

EMP affected areas
When we are writing our articles, we assume a single EMP generated 300 miles above the center of the contiguous US, as well as a similar EMP over the center of the USSR (aka Russia). To the left is the professionally produced map (I extended the circle to completion) and one I did from the Google Earth shot of Eurasia is on the right. Collateral damage in North America includes Havana, Cuba (a friend of Russia) and Finland (a friend of the USA). As you can see, most of Mexico, as well as the big cities of Canada would also be affected. We can see by this that the EMP would have been devestating to Mexico, except that it may have more "antique" electric systems that might survive. And, depending on the accuracy of this map, Aroostook may very well have been the only place in the lower 48 that actually would have working solid state electronics! SouthWriter 18:07, April 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey South, I was just wondering if you could tell me why the airburst centered so deep into Siberia? I mean, I know that map isn't "official" but I think it would make more sense to airburst over all of the European USSR and even take out a couple of satellite states while they were at it. Or has it already been established where the centre of the EMP was?--Vladivostok 18:51, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

No, Vlad, it is not the established center for an assumed US EMP over the USSR. I chose a spot that was over the bulk of Russia itself, as it appears on the map today. As I understand it, this "Russian Federation" was the bulk of the USSR anyway. It might work well to center it over the European part of that would leave even more collateral damage on friends in Europe. I am assuming that neither superpower wanted to exspend more that one high orbit missile to deploy a nuke as an EMP generator. With one shot, they would go for as much of the enemy as they could. Disabled electronics would then reduce the effectiveness of both the missiles and the warning systems of both sides.

With that thought, I suppose, we could assume a certain number of the intended targets would have been missed due to tracking problems. A lesser number, I suspect might even fail to explode (not as likely, but if the EMP missile was first up, it could arrive in place before all the missiles reached their targets, effecting those "under" them). Just some thoughts. SouthWriter 21:37, April 20, 2010 (UTC)