Talk:Castellon (1983: Doomsday)

Round One
Kenny, there is no way that this is plausible in the least. The membership of the SAC is not imperialistic at all, like you seem to believe they are. Lordganon 06:18, April 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) How is the world supposed to get wheat? It is monopolized by the ANZC, Nordic Union, and Argentina, and they don't make a significant surplus.
 * 2) This isn't imperialistic, they are simply "helping the mother country in time of need" by adequately funneling in food and supplies, in addition to creating tons of jobs.
 * 3) Definition of imperialism: "The creation and maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination." On the contrary, you may notice the status of "Autonomous Department" which basically means equal status with Peruvian departments/regions.
 * 4) This is simply competition so that the SAC is not dependent on Argentina (which I may add was highly protectionist at the time, and likely still is—and nowhere does it say in the SAC article that tariffs must be reduced, although the existing ALADI would probably help with that).
 * 5) What would happen the world's productive wheat-bearing land if foreign countries did not exploit it? Would it be left to the fragmented city states who have no fertilizer, no machinery, and no way to market it?   Detectivekenny (Info; Talk)  06:39, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

What you fail to remember is that there are other grains besides wheat. And South America isn't a major user or producer of wheat.

Call it an "autonomous department" all you want, but it's still imperialism. This is simply you attempting to give Peru and empire, which is not possible. The SAC and Peru, as per canon, is against this type of thing. Just because they are not officially a "colony" does not make them one. Look at the great colonial empires, and how much of their territory was officially "colonies" and not actually called something else. You'd be surprised.

By the time Peru is able to launch anything remotely like this, the locals, be they at this spot or otherwise, are not going to allow you to "colonize" them, simply put.

Right on the SAC page it says "economic alliance," right in the infobox. I suggest you think about what that means, because between that line and what is mentioned elsewhere, it does include tariffs. The SAC is an economic union, like otl NAFTA or the like, but going much further, as should be fairly obvious.

Exactly. Left to the locals, with 17th-19th century techniques, depending on the damage to the area. Fertilizer is as simple as animal waste, markets are to feed themselves - and in the case of Spain, with access to the world (somewhat) as of the atl present, plenty of shipping to market the goods if there is extra - and Spain did not have an EMP, so the machinery is still somewhat intact, if low on fuel (though alcohol will work pretty good, at least until outside supplies become available).

A state here could work, as being independent, and not aligned to the SAC in anything close to this manner. But as it stands, this impossible. And the same thing goes for any other similar attempts you could make.

Lordganon 09:31, April 2, 2011 (UTC)

I'm sincerely sorry this turned out excessively long, but please bear with me:

This link clearly shows a trend in Latin American countries importing wheat. Yes, they could use rice instead, but that means less productivity in making rice bread and rice noodles. Of course they could live without it, but eventually people are going to start saying, "Well, now we have a high standard of living, but what happened to Italian food Sundays?"

You may notice the geographic location of Castellón. It is a relatively small city of only 180,000. However, it is located directly in between nuclear strikes, and it is the only such city in the area, making it a major black hole for all kinds of refugees, including victims of the Valencian bombing, victims of the Bracelona bombing, and even victims of religious strife in Algeria who escape by boat. However, with such a small population, and lack of central planning, no doubt they would have to be confined to the city's outskirts. While the weak survivor government (which likely controls close to 5 blocks because municipal governments of OTL Spain are relatively weak—see here for more information) would be forced to provide food for these people, the strife within the city would make efficient distribution nearly impossible.

So the people are in chaos and clearly in famine. The way we notice is from which clearly displays that the area does not have significant agriculture. The land is not prime land and a single JPEG will say a thousand words on that subject.

 Because the government is too weak to effectively distribute food, the famine will last for a long time. Note that in basically all agricultural societies, people will focus more on their own food production than organizing a government. So that government is basically on its own to gain control. I do not doubt that it will have the power to slowly subjugate the land around it, adding 20% of their size every year, as a general guideline. So if they own 1 sq km in 1983, then by 2006 they will own 50.7% of the city of Castellón de la Plana. It will probably be more difficult in conflict-ridden parts of the city, but for now we'll ignore that.

Okay, the year is 2005. The grand total of 6,000 cows within a reasonable distance from the city produce about 190 tonnes of manure, which yields about 0.78 kg of wheat per person per day, and then almost 0.8 kg lb of wheat per day for the people in the city of Castellon plus the people who actually farm this stuff. That means 2 kg of bread, which means about 2 loaves per person per day. Now that is a best-case scenario. Chances are, with all the factors such as abandonment of land, bad growing seasons, outdated farming techniques, the fact that the land is poor, and general entropy, this shall be about half. That means one loaf of bread per day. A loaf of bread would have close to 1400 calories, which is not bad. But once you distribute the wealth unequally, here are the statistics:

Let's use the 80-20 rule, which will probably be more predominant in this post-apocalyptic society. Using this calculation, 80% of Castellonians are living on 350 calories per day! Naturally, with little power to distribute wealth (not to mention that the people with power would be unwilling to give up that much of their food resources) and oppose such measures, there would be famine.

So now we have established that over 170 thousand people are starving on five slices of bread per day. So the Peruvian traders come along in 2005, and state that they will to restore order. So they quickly put down any rebellions, and set up a distribution centre. From that port, they bring chemical fertilizers, some of the world's most advanced machinery. Within two months, people are living on 6 slices of bread a day, and then 7. People do not see "colonization," all they see is more food. If Peru can keep this economic growth steady, the citizens will be very happy with the new government, until they are fed completely, which is when they can stop worrying about food and start revolutionizing. But I don't predict that would happen for at least 20 more years.

Okay. We have now proved there will be famine both logically and mathematically. Now comes the question of the SAC. All SAC nations are dependent on the only country which exports wheat, and that is Argentina. But you realize 63% of that wheat comes from the Buenos Aires province? Even if Argentina decided to have 100% free trade, what if there was some difficulty in growing or distributing wheat? After 1983, people would definitely be more cautious. Also, Argentine wheat would be expensive for various reasons. The ANZC can set its own price for wheat, but due to the expensiveness of transporting to say Brazil (which is one of the world's largest importers of wheat), it would be very expensive. Therefore, Argentina can set its own price on wheat, regardless of any alliance, and the price only has to be below the expensive commodity of Australian wheat.

SAC nations obviously believe in competition, that's what a free trade agreement is for. So if Argentina decides to nationalize its wheat production, which is not impossible (and SAC nations would see it as so), there is no competition left within SAC. So what you are trying to tell me is SAC's vote would not approve of this. However, you forget about the small element of greed in all countries (try to prove me wrong). Those countries that do not see "imperialism" in this will approve it immediately. And those that do will say, "Which is worse, Peruvian imperialism to improve the lives of millions of Spaniards (btw Peruvians hate the Spanish which would make this seem selfless), or Argentine imperialism over the wheat market in the western hemisphere?" Because they would naturally want lower wheat prices, it would be approved with a safe majority, with the sole exception of Argentina.

And there's the canonicity argument. "The South American Confederation is an organization of independent nations in South America created to stop the supposed successor of the "traditional Anglo-American Imperialism"." There are multiple arguments that could be interpreted by different citizens and politicians living within SAC.
 * 1) Why not fight fire with fire? (bad argument but will likely be interpreted as so by some politicians)
 * 2) This is an economic alliance. What say do other nations have in overseas charity work?
 * 3) Australian imperialism today has been characterized by hoarding of wealthy and developed areas such as the Pacific and Alaska, from the already extremely rich countries of Australia and New Zealand. What we are trying to do is show the world that helping the areas of greatest damage is compassionate.
 * 4) We've already assisted (aka. colonized) South Africa, time to work on repairing the country of our forefathers.
 * 5) (your average Peruvian) What do you mean empire? We're trying to save the country that destroyed our real empire. (the Incan of course)  Detectivekenny (Info; Talk)  06:02, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Compared to some of the arguments myself and Caer have had, that post was short, lol. But at least he sees past his blinders more often.

Using the same site you use, I also see the amount exported by Argentina, and produced by it and Brazil, meets that demand, as long as production is increased somewhat, which would definitely happen post-DD. And I'd think that they wouldn't care too much about such a simple thing as "wheat" when they were spared the nukes. The numbers you quote are not near so bad as you seem to think, either.

You also forget that until the early 1990s, the SAC did not have contact with Europe or NA at all. By the time that they could have done this at all, the locals would both be organized, and the people in the SAC would have adjusted and gotten over it. You're attempting to go against canon as a result.

Funny, similar land in Italy produces food just fine. I suggest you have a look at what the Spanish actually do with that land.

I suggest you have another look at your map. It's one heck of a lot closer to Valencia than Barcelona, and I doubt any refugees from Barcelona would get that far.

And Algerian refugees from religious strife? There's no religious strife, nor is there famine. Seriously.

That may be the size of the municipal government of the city otl, but you honestly seem to think that that's how big the state would start. Makes no sense at all. More like they'd start with the city and go from there.

You yourself continually say in that response that the area cannot produce food. Yet, you're trying to argue that they can produce food for your Peruvian state? That's shooting yourself in the foot if I ever saw it.

You assume that they only eat wheat. That makes no sense at all, you realize that? That they would even produce wheat at all in this area, which is by your own admission agriculturally poor, when that grows badly under good conditions, makes no sense. They'd grow other things, or more likely resort to ranching and fishing, instead. There's a reason why Spain, and indeed the entire Med. basin, is not known for growing wheat.

You also only take the manure into account in your calculations, which ignored so many parts of farming it, quite frankly, surprised me.

If your figures are anything to go by, then your population dies off by 1985. So, how on earth can you have them found by Peru? Simply out, you can't.

Thus, you've proved nothing about famine except that you ignore what you are saying, and attack your own arguments more often than not. Your figures don't even cut it.

Actually, they are not dependent on Argentina. Brazil, for example, produces almost as much wheat per year as it imports, and that's with growing a ton of cash crops that would be useless to grow after DD. Easy to switch that over to wheat, and the other SAC countries are in a similar situation. Argentine wheat production, given how much is exported, would have to be decreased, in fact, for them to survive, as the countries that imported it are either gone or not in contact until the 1990s. That means that to avoid a massive change in their economy, Argentina has to cater to the rest of the SAC for a few years. And if you think that Brazil is a large importer of wheat, you're wrong, as that's not what your list, that you brought into this, says.

Transport by Sea, especially for countries such as the ANZC, with a very intact merchant fleet, is cheap. Always has been.

Actually, free-trade agreements would prevent such a nationalization, especially when the organization is this much further along than NAFTA, and is almost like the EU.

FTA's are to benefit the group, not the individual. There would be no point otherwise. Your idea of competition isn't this at all. Learn more about Free trade, kenny.

Once again, you shoot yourself in the foot. The hatred for the Spanish obviously makes this imperialism, and your reasoning about the Incas is a very good example why it wouldn't happen and would be obvious to all. It's not helping, but blatant imperialism.

I've already shown that the Argentinians have no such monopoly, so your argument is no longer valid. Seriously. Brazil alone would have that "monopoly" killed off by 1985.

Your argument about canon doesn't even make sense. No politician in his right mind, or even his wrong mind, who is supposed to be opposing imperialism will take part in it, especially in such an obvious case. This isn't charity work, but 'obvious imperialism.

The Pacific nations have joined up voluntarily. And, for the record, most of those nations are dirt-poor. They've been subsidized for decades - the ANZC is stepping in before they starve without the handouts from the USA that they've always gotten. And, for that matter, the surviving areas of Alaska and Hawaii fall into this category as well, though you failed to notice that too.

You've already stated that people from Peru - and more than likely the rest of the former Spanish colonies - hate the Spanish. Yet you call them forefathers? By your own admission that's not true, so why on earth do you try to use it in an argument?

The SAC didn't assist South Africa. They, along with the ANZC, overthrew a dictator at Cape Town so that they could use the port.

You're trying to establish an empire. End of discussion.

Also, 2005? Why on earth would the states in the Western Med allow this Anytime after 1992? They'd have helped these people long ago, and wouldn't stand for it at all.

When you asked Oer about this concept, you were supposed to talk about it on the main talk page, not cook up this, with regards to canon, etc. Your problem. Even in your proposal to Oer it's obviously imperialism, and in fact, its obviously in the first paragraph of this article that this is the case.

The only option for this is drastic changes, or becoming obsolete.

Lordganon 14:28, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Round Two
Okay here goes. Let's divide this argument into two parts: the situation in Castellón and the situation in the SAC.

I'll start by saying you're throwing a lot of specifics at me in regards to the famine, but really, it is inevitable. I made a few flaws in my calculations such as forgetting to include refugees, but a more prominent thing I came across that would affect this was this sentence:

"The economy [of the Republic of Rif] is primarily agricultural, the cattle farming has suffered greatly as a result of radiation and today is almost insignificant."

Because Castellón is in virtually the only spared location between three bombs (Valencia, Barcelona, Zaragoza–note that Castellon is within 5 km that grey strip of land), it would receive large amounts of radiation, that would kill off most cows. Not to mention that the Republic of Rif was only close to one bombing, and much of it was further than Castellón was from Valencia. Anyway, that rules out the possibilities of using manure for fertilizer, as well as possibilities of ranching. The reason I used wheat is because it is a grain. People can live off of grains, but they cannot live off citrus (the main agricultural product of the region). But, of course, the area does not produce wheat, see here. So clearly the economy would be based on wheat and fishing. The wheat crops would be unproductive due to the scarcity of fertilizer. In addition, almost no wheat is grown in the area, as you can tell from. So wheat could obviously not prevent famine. The only way to prevent famine, then, is fish. The only river in the area is the Mijares, but the article does not say anything about fish, and neither do any of the articles about reservoirs (and I also checked the Aragonese and Catalan articles). Finally, this sums up a lot of what I'm saying. This is also very useful. Agriculture only makes up 3% of the GDP and only 7% of that comes from fishing. So if they are to support themselves, it will require an extreme number of people to immediately learn how to fish. And as to your argument that there is similar land in Italy. The only area prone to desertification as much as Castellón is southern Sicily, which has very fertile soil due to volcanic eruptions. Also, you may note that the soil in Castellon is Entisoil, which means much less productivity.

We come across the question of foreign aid. While I don't doubt the other countries would be sending economic aid, they surely are facing the same problems: lack of fertilizer, lack of cows, lack of fertile soil, and lack of grains. In addition, places such as the Republic of Rif are facing their own problems, namely overcrowding. I suppose the ROS could introduce greenhouses, but neither Spain not Castellón could afford to build them on a mass scale.

Of course the whole population would not die off. Once it got to a number where people had enough to survive, it would stop. Maybe 30,000 would be an extremely rough estimate, but I shall have to do some more research to determine what that number should be. Once Peru arrives, they can bring chemical fertilizers as well as seabirds to make guano.

"Algeria devolved quickly into different city states, some lead by militant Islamic clerics, most lead by a local military leader. The fortunes of these cities waxed and waned. Most were captured by rival cities some number of times and just as quickly released to rule themselves, resulting in an overwhelming state of anarchy." That's what I meant by religious strife.

****************

Okay now for the SAC argument. I have numbered your arguments 1 through 25 for convenience. The ones I omitted pertained to the famine.

1) Keep in mind Argentine production would increase, but also, Argentine consumption would also increase. You are right about them not thinking about simple things such as wheat, but eventually, when these nations want to restore a world akin to the old world, they would want to find a better system of wheat production than have it dominated by two of the world's countries.

2) This is not a question of "getting over it," nor is it a question of survival. This is a question of healthy competition, economics, and a new world order.

12) True. But I dunno what you mean about Brazil not being a large importer.  Brazil in OTL imports 5,600,000 tonnes of wheat a year.  That doesn't just go away.  Also, you say that "useless cash crops" such as coffee and copra could be replaced with wheat.  However, one thing about wheat is it does not grow in wet, tropical climates, so that could only go so far.  Instead of chopping down more trees and killing land to make it suitable for wheat, they would find it more profitable to cultivate rice.  Also, the Brazilian coffee belt experiences a constant humidity of between 36 and 57 percent throughout the year, as well as average temperatures between 24.8° to 30° year round as can be seen here.  It experiences a yearly rainfall of 1424.5 mm, which is 4.4 times as much as Calgary.

13) True. But which is cheaper?  Transportation by rail over a border, or sailing halfway around the world?

14) Well, let's see. Did NAFTA step in when the US nationalized a whole crapload of their companies?  It could happen.

15) Yes it does benefit the group. Peru would obviously benefit, Paraguay would no longer be controlled by Argentina.  The rest would benefit from lower prices on wheat.  The only country that is at a loss is Argentina, but after all, we are benefitting the group, not the individual.  It also benefits Spanish countries, which would  make it a valuable ally of SAC, as well as having low prices on wheat.

16) I didn't say it was my reasoning, I just said it was a reasoning. Also, Peru does not hate Spain; it hates Ecuador and Chile, especially Chile.  The people are just sore about how they used to own Chile, and Chile was created by the Spanish, etc.  The way it would be interpreted by politicians is, "It is now time to forgive.  The world will see us as compassionate." etc.

Also, the reason Peru chose Spain in the first place is anti-imperialist. If they would have colonized France, for example, it would be colonization, because Peruvians aren't in any way similar to the French. However, Peruvians and Spanish people are both hispanic, and they both speak the same language, and therefore they are brothers. Also, a more technical aspect is that they speak the same language. If Peru would have colonized France, for example, then an upper class would form of people who speak Spanish instead of French. So it's clearly not about hatred for the Spanish, it's about brotherhood.

17) See #12

18) The SAC article didn't say they were opposed to imperialism, they just said they were against Anglo-American Imperialism. So were the French.

19) Castellón joined voluntarily. And for the record, it is "dirt poor" (see famine argument).  It's been subsidized for decades - Peru is stepping in before they starve without the handouts from Spain that they've always gotten.

20) LG… Things are not black and white.

21) Okay. "So they could use the port."  Sounds like an economic reason to me.  This is exactly the definition of imperialism.  Messing with a sovereign country for economic reasons.

22) Dunno how to reply to that. Also, the only reason I chose Peru was because I own it, because it believes highly in competition, and it is a major importer of wheat.

23) Would you rather me change it to 1992? I would be happy to.  But see the famine argument.

24) I didn't want to clog up the main page before I was done with this article. And see above discussion.  The first paragraph can always change, it's the concept I'm arguing about.  What if I changed it to say "Castellón is an overseas Autonomous Department of Peru. It was formed in 2005 as a mutual trading post between Spain and Peru and is a major source of SAC's wheat."  Detectivekenny (Info; Talk)  22:30, April 3, 2011 (UTC)

Rif hasn't been edited in any great detail, and thank you for poiting out that impossibility. I'll fix that momentarily, because it's just not possible. Though I'd fixed all of that from Tristan's articles, but I must have missed the one.

Kenny, you failed to miss my point, though you yourself said it. No fertilizer, no crops but citrus in the area, and no wheat grown there normally because the climate won't let it? You can't have people growing food in an area long after they'd be dead. That is your own admission.

Your quoted pages, once again, don't help you any. I'd not brought irrigation into this, but given the benefit of the doubt on it. But by what I'd already figured and what you just quoted, there's no way that there would be water in the region to grow wheat, even with any attempt at irrigation.

Once again you are trying to tell me that this area, which cannot grow wheat, is capable of growing wheat, all of a sudden, post-DD? That neither makes sense nor is plausible, even with a slightly moister climate globally. That alone kills this article, Kenny, like I already pointed out to you.

I suggest you re-read not only what I told you about Italy, but also look into agriculture in Italy. That area is just as prone to desertification and the like in many areas as Southern Sicily, but it balances out because the higher areas of Italy - versus the dry valleys - get rain, etc. But your note about desertification once again shows that it is no possible to grow wheat in the area.

Again, by your own admission, the people don't know how to fish, so how on earth could they do it enough to survive? You're contradicting yourself and making no sense, besides. Everyone here dies, or at least the vast majority.

Rif, if it says overcrowding, isn't right. That area has no more people than otl Morocco in that area does, so it's not overcrowded. There are no refugees, they still have some sort of outside contact in the region, and more importantly can feed themselves much better that your desertification-risk zone, which you continue to argue, against everything you and I have both said, that it can produce wheat? That's just not possible.

Actually, the population numbers would continue to fall. What you fail to take into account is that as the population drops, so does the food gathered. In the end, only a few thousand people, who can fish might remain, but given the chaos in a society starving to death, that, quite honestly, isn't possible.

Aye, that may be what you meant by religious strife, but that's far from what it actually is. Religious strife is when different religions in a country are going about and purposely killing each other, like Lebanon and the Religious Wars in Europe a few hundred yeas back. Can't be religious strife in Algeria when everyone is basically Sunni Muslim.

Why on earth would they spend money to change the world, when it's not needed? People adjust, kenny, though you do fail to get that. Argentina produces both its needs, and the massive amount of exports. Their "consumption" only increases in small amounts as its population increases, which is minor and easily compensated for. The increase in production more than cancels that out.

Your second numbered paragraph isn't even an argument. You are trying to give your mother country an empire, despite your own repeated admission that the area can't grow wheat and would suffer massive amounts of famine, killing the residents.

Your own quoted source says "30.0892 thousand metric tons per year" for Brazilian imports of wheat, which is a hell of a lot less than you are saying. This is equal to about 30,090 metric tons, as you thought the period was a comma.

Did I mention the coffee belt at all? Nope. There are tons more cash crops than that, and plenty of other uses for the coffee land than wheat, but you fail to think of that. Large areas of Brazil are used for other cash-crops than coffee, which can be converted to other uses, one of which is some cases would be wheat. There's also areas used for grazing otl which would be available with the market for cattle dropping out. While it's not the most efficient wheat area, it works. The climate is like much of Southern Alberta, which can drought some years badly, but also grow wheat much of the time. This is especially true in the southernmost states that wheat is mostly grown in in Brazil.

Actually, rail and ship tend to work out the same. If anything, rail is more expensive.

And NAFTA is much, much looser than the SAC, and you're talking about a massive industry being nationalized, which means the comparison wouldn't even remotely be valid.

You're talking about an area that can't export anyways, again by your own admission. How on earth can that benefit anyone? Simple answer is that it doesn't. If anything, the wasted effort spent in Spain would make wheat prices go up from having to feed these people. And Paraguay has never been controlled by Argentina, kenny - your regional bias speaking, once again.

The SAC is not an ally of the Spanish states, at all, and by your admission, would never be. Wheat prices would be unaffected.

You already said they don't like the Spanish. Can't take that back or change it now, though you obviously want to. Your argument for it not being colonization is not valid, either, as the only difference is the language spoke by the natives. It is still colonization, no matter how much you try to sugar-coat it. Can't be brotherhood, either.

See #12? 12 was DoA long before I got to it. Do you actually read what you post, kenny?

That means they are opposed to imperialism, and you're trying to have them do it. And the French were against Anglo-American Imperialism because it hurt their own attempts, not because they opposed imperialism in general, like the SAC and its members always have, long before DD. And you should know that, so that comparison isn't valid at all.

The article makes no mention of them joining "voluntarily." As a matter of fact, you wrote "created by the Peruvian government," which means the exact opposite. They'd have long starved without the handouts long before your all-of-a-sudden Imperialistic Peru got there.

Actually, you're the on insisting things are black and white, not me.

Use the port safely, more like - and stop the pirates there. None of them recognized it as sovereign, and no one had a claim to the area, so no, its not messing with a "sovereign country." And not even for economic reasons, but for the security of all.

Kenny, the people are dead long before 1991, and the SAC members have no contact with these people until well after 1992. The New Republic of Spain's ancestor state would had taken these people under its wing in the 1980s, if they lived. And that we already established, is impossible.

Even your attempt at compromise doesn't work, as it just says the same thing you've just failed at over again. The Spanish republic would never do it. They are the internationally recognized successor to the Spanish Kingdom, which is most of the peninsula except for a few northern zones they had to recognize, and all of this is recognized by the LoN, including the SAC. How on earth can it supply wheat, even with imported fertilizers, when they can't do it otl? You are violating canon.

Your entire proposal, based on your own arguments, is not valid. By your own admission, the people would have starved to death. By your own admission, you cant grow wheat in any of the area you are claiming in the article is doing so as a so-called "wheat republic." The Spanish government, and indeed, the ADC, SAC, and the Peruvian government and people, would never allow it. It makes no sense economically, or in any other fashion, and I repeat, violates canon.

This is simply you trying to give Peru an empire, despite everything, including your own comments and quoted sources, which say that it's not possible.

There are two options here: A Spanish supported city-state of a few thousand people, or obsolete. There are no other options, as your own arguments show.

Lordganon 01:58, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

Round Three
1) Uh, okay.

2) Okay, first you're telling me the people would be in a city-state. Now you're telling me they'd all be dead.  In history, a population has never suddenly died out, even Kalmyks and others who were deported to Siberia still managed to survive for a reasonable amount of time, despite forced labour.  The only people who die are the colonists at Roanoke and stuff who are in tiny numbers and have never seen their surroundings before.  I never admitted that they'd all be dead, I just said odds are against them forming an organized state without famine.  The land around there will produce a reasonable amount of wheat (not excessive), and like you mentioned before, fish will provide enough food, and there should be enough food in food-processing plants to keep the population alive.  I mean, after all, this is not a desert.

3) There are enough reservoirs to provide a limited amount of wheat. What do you call this?  Also, wheat can grow without irrigation.  It will be pitiful in the soil, but it is enough to prevent total death.

4) The climate is perfect, especially with the moister climate. All that is needed is fertilizer and irrigation, and the yield will expand exponentially.

5) Desertification by humans. One of the many characteristics that shows Italian soil is not like Spanish soil.  Desertification is a human-induced process caused by over-grazing, over-irrigation, but is easily combatted with the use of modern technology.   Don't believe me about the desertification?  Look at this.

6) The majority, yes, would die. But it doesn't take excessive time to learn how to fish from the few people who can.  They would be able to set up a sustenance industry within a few years.  Of course they could not avoid famine, though.

(seven is nonexistent, my bad)

8) Okay, but it would be naïve to say there isn't any poverty that the country needs to fix. Morocco is in no position to send massive aid when its own people are starving.  Morocco's Human Development index is 0.567, but Algeria's is 0.677.  Castellon wouldn't be much lower, at 0.433 and that's assuming a 40-year life expectancy, and a GDP of $400 per capita.

9) There is a happy median number of people who will survive. We can guarantee that a society with one person will survive 20 years in this situation, assuming them to be healthy and reasonably intelligent.  We can also guarantee that five healthy people will survive.  Same with a hundred.  There are plenty of resources to go around, so the people would be able to support themselves.  It would be safe to estimate from 20,000-80,000 people would survive.  Have you heard the term limiting factor?  Also, one thing I haven't mentioned is that the people who farm this stuff aren't in famine, they only go hungry when providing food to the city.  Even if almost all the people in the city die out, they would be able to hold their own crops for subsistence use.

10) Okay. Political strife.

11) Yes, it cancels out, I get it. But things are not preferable if two countries control the world's wheat trade.  If Peru could find an easy way to fix this imbalance, why wouldn't they?

12) That isn't really an argument either, or at least not one I haven't heard about 5 times yet far. So I guess we're equal.

13) Not really sure what you just said, but what I understand is Brazil is the third largest importer of wheat in the world.

14) Check this out. Maybe we could replace rice with wheat.  That would be highly worth it.

15) Diesel rail over a short intracontinental distance is less expensive, and therefore more efficient, than transocean sea transport. Multiple diesel engines can lead a train, leading to a geometrically increasable maximum load, whereas ships' cargo capacities are static, and cannot be increased over the size of the ship.

16) NAFTA wasn't even mentioned though, in the Wikipedia articles. Also, what do you expect SAC to do in such an economic crisis?  Provide extra cushions for the companies than they already got by filing them out of bankruptcy?  Having SAC take over the company?  The US nationalized 2/3 of its auto industry, btw.  And this is the stable US we're talking about, not a post-apocalyptic developing country.

You're talking about an area that can't export anyways, again by your own admission. How on earth can that benefit anyone? Simple answer is that it doesn't. If anything, the wasted effort spent in Spain would make wheat prices go up from having to feed these people. And Paraguay has never been controlled by Argentina, kenny - your regional bias speaking, once again.

17) Regional bias? Paraguay is dependent on Argentina for a lot of things: trade, ports, wheat, etc.  Alfredo Stroessner (whose term, as you can see, I've extended past OTL because of the political situation) is highly against Paraguayan dependence on Argentina, and almost all Paraguayans would agree with them.

18) You don't have to be an ally to trade. Are the US and PRC allies?  Peruvian wheat could be relatively cheap because of the climate, fertilizer, labour, etc., so that would make competition with Argentina and bring prices down, which would in turn force the ANZC to bring their prices down.  I'm not saying the ANZC doesn't already have low prices, but competition is always good, and will never fail to lower prices in the long run.  Try to disprove me.

19) Uh, it's kind of hard to explain. Peruvians don't hate the Spanish, they just have a mistrust of whites/asians, because they are an upper class and they are foreigners.  A Peruvian might make a statement like "Darn you Spaniards, you took all our gold!" on a regular basis, but this is mostly the undereducated people, the people who are not in a politically correct mood, etc.  It's not a deep-rooted dislike like that for Chileans.  Would a racist person in modern day go to Africa just to harass people who are starving?  And it's not like the Peruvians don't have good relations with Spain, either.  On a political level, hatred does not make a difference.  We like to think it does, but really it doesn't, unless you get into apartheid and stuff.  I mean seriously, you're going to argue with me about my own heritage?  I'm part Spanish, like 50% of Peruvians, I would not abuse a Spanish person out of hatred.

20) Ok?

21) That means this. That means that.  IT'S NOT SIMPLE.  As a history major, you clearly know that.  But what is the long term plan?  Does SAC simply have its little selective rivalry against the ANZC while the rest of the world starves to death?  There's a line between imperialism and simple humanity and this is clearly humanity because it benefits everyone.

22) What's the difference? Doesn't the Peruvian government create all of their departments/regions?  It was a starving city state which submitted to Peruvian demands in return for economic prosperity.  Is that not voluntary?

23) Ok?

24) So we're trashing 30,000 perfectly good starving people because it's not for the "security of all"? Give me a break.  Also, isn't this for the security of all?  If Peru could help restart the economy of Spain, there would be less violence in Spain, and less hunger.

25) This is not the only area in Spain with such a plight, keep that in mind. All of Spain is like this.  Castellón is just one of the many cities which have starving people, infertile soil, and lawlessness.  However, according to the already canonical map, Spain would have to expand five times taking all the starving people under their wing, before they would own Castellón.

26) Never do what? I can't tell because you aren't numbering…  The Republic of Spain would be thrilled, because now they have a stable economy intervening in helping them restart their economy to former prosperity.  Think of it as something like Shenzhen, where a degree of sovereignty is sacrificed for prosperity.  I mean, Spain doesn't want to give up territory, but practically, this is more profitable in the long run, and physically, they can't do anything about Peruvian influence in the region, anyway, so why not take advantage of it.

One thing that I forgot to mention is an instance of blatant imperialism among an SAC nation.

"The UAR is one of several nations to claim territory on Antarctica and has built a research station there to enforce these claims. Argentine claims over Antarctica, as well as overlapping claims made by Chile and the United Kingdom, were suspended by the Antarctic Treaty of 1961. Following Doomsday, the treaty was ignored and nations have reopened claims to the continent."

Not only is this a clear example of imperialism, but it is also the destruction of an international treaty that was meant to "ensure in the interests of all humankind that Antarctica shall continue forever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and shall not become the scene or object of international discord." The definition of imperialism is "the creation and maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination." Because Antarctica clearly cannot show any type of resistance other than weather, this undoubtedly constitutes an unequal relationship. The purpose of a nation is to unify people, correct? So what is ownership of land on Antarctica other than economics, because it lacks inhabitants. This is in no way different to, for example, British colonization of the uninhabited Christmas Island for phosphate. In addition to being imperialist, it also severely threatens Antarctica as a free continent, because it contradicts "the interests of all mankind."

You could offer the geographic argument, but really, this is another continent. It all comes back to Peru, that created a settlement in another continent not for purely and transparently economic/political purposes, but also for humanity.

Also, you might argue that since they created only "small research stations" it would not constitute imperialism. However, why else would they enforce their claim if they could simply engage in peaceful research with other countries, as in OTL. They are obviously going after the rich mineral deposits, because no one claims a vast expanse of territory just to look at penguins or drill ice cores.

Okay, you might also say "Oops, I will have to go back and revert canon because this does in fact constitute imperialism, and I missed." But you cannot do that because, for one, it is on two articles. You also comment that SAC nations have been against imperialism, but if you look back at all the wars, you will notice they are all imperialist to some extent. Especially this "War of the Confederation." Yes that is long gone, but it shows that there is nothing ingrained against imperialism in Latin Americans.

Another important piece of evidence is that four out of nine SAC countries have reserved the right to make claims in Antarctica. And those are literally the only countries with coastline and significant territory in the southern hemisphere. If we want to be black and white, let's say Bolivia will team up with Peru because they're best friends, and Peru is the only country Bolivia really likes. Paraguay, of course, would not want to be left out if Argentina is getting money down there. I cannot speak for Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela, but chances are, they would either not care because they have a degree of control over the Panama Canal, and aren't really close to Antarctica. But really, even if they voted against, a 6/9 majority would definitely sanction Antarctic claims and yes, "imperialism."

The only differences between Antarctican imperialism and Castellón are:
 * 1) Antarctica has no permanent inhabitants.
 * 2) The people of Castellón actually benefit, as well as surrounding countries.
 * 3) Castellón does not violate a treaty.
 * 4) The area around Castellón is not impacted detrimentally by the intended economic activities, as long as care is taken to avoid desertification.
 * 5) Research conducted in Castellón is either not relevant enough to be of concern to the international community, or could be replicated elsewhere. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk)  04:47, April 5, 2011 (UTC)

First off, it's none of your beeswax how I spend my time.

What I said was that any survivors would be in a city-state. Most would be dead, largely by your own admission and so-called evidence, and yet you say otherwise when you attempt to argue in your own favor. You assume that there are food production plants, which is not something right to do, and you should never assume anything. Fish is good enough for a few thousand people, yet the population of the region is a heck of a lot more than that, and you continually try to argue it as well.

Many areas of the globe had their population die off in the atl world, and you fail to remember that, comparing a normal situation of famine with a famine, refugee-filled, radiated world with no hope of outside authority, like they even had on Roanoke. Have you not noticed the zones of death - not even radiated - around major cities, even ones not hit by multiple warheads, but one? Seriously. Have you even read the articles of the timeline?

You have continually said that the area cannot support anyone by growing wheat, according to your figures that show a loaf of bread per person might be feasible, under good conditions and assuming that they have both someone in charge and someone that knows what they are doing, combined with seed, fertilizer, and water. Thus, they cannot support themselves by growing wheat.

The area, by your own admission, is one step above desert. Wheat, or any other decent crop, cannot be grown in any number to support a society. The people would, easily, starve to death, fish or not. The few - once again, your own admission has them being tiny in number - cannot support the population. More likely than not, either these fishermen and their families would flee, or die.

Irrigation doesn't change the soil enough to grow wheat, although thank you for contradicting things that you've already said previously in bringing that up. Again, by your own admission the best they can do is a loaf a day, and that is assuming that they even have the seeds and the like in the area to grow it, which you cannot assume about an area where wheat is not grown. Guess what this leads to? Starvation. Simple, and from things that you, yourself, said.

You've already said that the area is one step above desertification, which means little rain, so don't try and now say otherwise. Not only that, but your own figures show that they can't possibly have the fertilizer needed to grow anything but citrus on hand.

Actually, desertification is not just due to humans. I suggest you look into that, Kenny. Italian soil is subject to it, just not to the same degree. Your map shows the overall picture, but fails to take into account differences on a regional level. In Italy, for example, higher altitudes get enough moisture, and that is where crops are grown with little ill effect. But the valleys below, in the case of Southern Italy, are worse off than Spain. And that is from the weather,' pure and simple. Your map is also just on Spain, not elsewhere in Europe at all, and from an organization whose opinions is but one of many on the matter, though I bet you never thought of that.

Again, you're assuming that the fishermen hang around, or are not killed by the locals, and that they teach others. After almost everyone dies, in a best-case scenario.

Did I once say that they didn't have their issues in Morocco, or could send aid? I did no such thing, and don't put words into my mouth. All I said was that they are much better off and will manage with regards to food.

Again, you have already admitted that the area can't grow wheat, or similar crops, enough to feed the people. I'm well aware of what a "limiting factor" is, though it's not relevant here as it is only relevant with regards to growth, not 'loss.''

Actually, we can't even ensure one person survives, unless he's a very lucky farmer or fisherman, two circumstances that don't factor in here. If there is no food, not enough food, no way to get food, and the like, then how could even a single person survive? Simply put, there is no guarantee.

You're talking about the rural citrus farmers, Kenny. They might be fine, they might not. They'd be on their own inland, if the starving city-folks didn't get them first - and the same goes for the fishermen, who more likely than not fled elsewhere. You assume so many things, Kenny. You know what happens when you assume.

Once again fail to recognize that as the people drop in number, so do the amount of crops that can be grown by a population, and thus a drop in the amount of food they have. This makes starvation worse, not better. Again, using you own data.

There is no canon that says anything about people fleeing. Why would they flee when the same chaos is elsewhere and they would have known it? Short answer is that they wouldn't. But Algeria is irrelevant to this discussion.

Because the area cannot grow wheat, by your own figures, and thus cannot export it? There is no way that they can use that to get something that cannot exist. And you already said before, very correctly, that their is far more than a single country exporting grain.

Argument? Try a statement, kenny, which is what you did. ;)

Oh, they may be, but that, as seen in virtually every other poorer country, is because they got sucked into planting cash crops in order to try and pay debts they got suckered into by the wealthier nations. The same goes for the rest of South America. Heck, most of the countries in the SAC import so little wheat a year that it's irrelevant. For that matter, the only one that imports more than the United States does each year is Brazil. The loss of markets for these crops means that they can grow it themselves, even your attempt at a Peruvian Empire.

Rice is indeed the crop much of the coffee would change to in Brazil, but even irrigated - ignoring the death of everyone previous to it - the climate won't let it grow in Castellon. Why do you think that they don't grow it there otl?

Actually, rail is often more expensive. What you fail to take into account is that ships have a far, far, larger carrying capacity than any train. The smallest size of the average container ship - not a new invention, by far - is about 10,000 tonnes carrying capacity, or about 22,046,226 pounds or so. Yet, the average modern boxcar is in the neighborhood of 93 tonnes, or 206,500 pounds, and the ones in South America are definitely not that big, being older. May not be quite as efficient per pound, but with that kind of carrying capacity, it's cheaper. You would need nearly a hundred and ten boxcars to equal that one tiny cargo ship. And they get far, far bigger than that.

They invested in the auto industry - and if you look a couple years back from that, you'll find it's all three - and took temporary control over them, with both the permission of the companies and written records saying that control would be 100% returned in time for money. That is not nationalization, at all, as they had the company approving it without any real duress. And NAFTA wasn't mentioned at all in the wikipedia articles because all three governments bailed the auto companies out. And stable? lol Recession = not very stable economically.

Was bailing out companies mentioned by me at all? Easy answer! No, I did not. Really, Kenny.

Dependence is not control, Kenny - like I said, bias. If you use that, then the world is largely controlled by the USA. But we both know that's not true.

Again, you seem to think it would grow, and even if it did, would be cheap. Even with irrigation and fertilizer, your own figures are a loaf of bread, per person, per day, at most. Even doubling that means there's nothing to export. Competition can lower prices, true, but only if many companies are in the field - if there's only a few than the reverse happens, often enough.

If you can't grow wheat, then how can you lower wheat prices? Easy. You can't. Price goes up because of the exports to feed the workers. Thus, not feasible economically.

Still wish you could take that back, eh? Not happening. Hatred does make a difference, though you're obvious both too biased on your own, and ignorant of reality, to get that concept. Not arguing about your heritage, but your obvious obliviousness to you own biases.

Did I say it was simple? Nope.

No, it doesn't benefit everyone. Only your attempt at a Peruvian Empire. The world after the 1980s is not starving to death, though you obviously have missed that. Long term, who knows? That is in the future, and not up to just you.

There's a ton of difference here. In Peru, that's just a government thing. With regards to others outside of Peru, that means it is not voluntary. And there's no way it's possible either, though you fail to get that part.

Your own data and argument proves that the locals would be lucky to have ten thousand people alive, and probably not even half of that, not even close to your lofty figures for survivors. It's imperialism, by a country that has no desire for that type of thing, nor the ability to help, that you are attempting to push on the rest of us because of you desire for your country to gain an empire. You're not the first to try and make that happen, and not the last.

And you think that they haven't, or with the LoN, mapped to get that map? How do you think they made it atl? Magic? Fortune-tellers? Any survivors would have been found and moved long ago, or at small isolated farms inland. Neither situation gives you the region for your Peruvian Empire.

Why do I need to number? Can you not read?

The ADC, and even the Spanish Navy, could easily prevent it. You are overstating the abilities of Peru. The Peruvian Navy is tiny, and so are their merchant fleets.

The Spanish are doing fine, and would not allow it. Simple.

It's not imperialism as they have always considered it their territory. Note the word "Suspended" that means the claims are still there but not being argued over otl. Without the UN to dictate to them, they have merely regained control in all manners of what they consider to be their territory already. That is not imperialism.

The governments agreed to that treaty via a combination of pressure, and a lack of desire to fight for their claims. They never dropped them at all. And international treaties are broken so often it's not funny, so that's not valid either. And it's not unequal because the place is still useless outside of research, which benefits all, though you miss that one badly. And you say that they are "obviously" going after vast mineral deposits, yet that's not the case according to anything. Thus, still not imperialism.

You quote me a definition of Imperialism, obviously from a dictionary. Thus, not a very good one. Find an academic definition, because the two are not the same.

The countries of the SAC have always condemned the actions of the colonial powers, and were among the strongest voices for decolonization. Your claim that those wars constitute imperialism is also false, because that is border disputes. That is not imperialism, even with that horrible definition of yours.

Even your War of the Confederation does not apply, as that is a war by a pair of nations against a hostile one, in which they imposed no measures of control, or took anything, really. But I'm sure as a Peruvian you see that differently.

Again, you are making assumptions about things. Seriously, Kenny. Why would Bolivia and Paraguay care? They wouldn't.

And I suggest you have another look at the countries signing that treaty, because the only two countries that have reserved the rights to claim are the USA and Russia. Simple, and on wikipedia. Thus, Chile and Argentina, two countries with long-standing claims, are the only ones with an interest. And as the "claims" are as far as they are concerned an integral part of their country, why on earth would they concern the SAC with that? Answer's obvious.

Thus your differences are not valid. It's not even remotely imperialism in Antarctica, but in Castellon, it not only would be, but is impossible for all the reasons the resources you brought into this yourself support.

So, once again:

Your entire proposal, based on your own arguments, is not valid. By your own admission, the people would have starved to death, or nearly so with few survivors. By your own admission and quoted references, you can't grow wheat worth mentioning in any of the area you are claiming in the article is doing so as a so-called "wheat republic." The Spanish government, and indeed, the ADC, SAC, and the Peruvian government and people, would never allow it. It makes no sense economically, or in any other fashion, and I repeat, violates canon. It is imperialism, and not even imperialism that makes sense what-so-ever, that you are attempting to shove through to give Peru an empire, no matter how impossible, improbable, or canon-violating it is. Your attempt to say that it is not imperialism, and that the SAC countries are already imperialists because of Antarctica, has even proven to be nothing.

You already know your options, Kenny. And this attempt at imperialism isn't one of them.

Lordganon 12:31, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

Oh! And one more thing - it's not a history major, but a historian, thank you very much. Lordganon 12:37, April 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, it's hard to stay away.
 * @Ganon, I will say that the SAC, like all human creations in the history of ever, is no stranger to hypocrisy. As both a regional and a world power, it's played the geopolitical game in ways that definitely are imperialistic, the Cape of Good Hope being one example.  Even more blatant would be my own page, Ambô, though nobody's ever commented on that one and as far as I know nobody has read it, so you may decide to put it up for review now, I don't know.  You could even say that this is not literal hypocrisy, since South America is only explicitly against "Anglo American imperialism"... doubtless there are some South Americans who think they should be able to imperialize whomever they feel like!
 * Also, I think that Rif, Morocco has a large population of refugees from Europe.
 * But @Kenny, Ganon's right that this is pretty far out there, as ideas go. On top of the problems with the location that he described in detail, there is the fact that colonies are a huge pain both to create and administer.  There would have to be some real payoff to create one out of nothing like this, and a scattering of plantations on the Spanish coast does not give that payoff.  To meet the wheat demand, South Americans would undoubtedly have cultivated their own wheat growing land more intensely - especially, as Ganon explains, since cash crops declined.  Shipping huge amounts of resources across the ocean in order to get a trickle of grain in return (all the while causing friction with the Mediterraneans) just makes no sense for anybody.
 * Some far-flung colonies in this TL, like those of ANZ, are somewhat different in that they built on existing patron-client relationships between the islands and Australia, New Zealand, or the USA; or else were grafted onto that already-vibrant network of associated states. There's no comparable network of settlements dependant on South America, except maybe for some places in the Americas that are already described in the TL.
 * Maybe there's a colony waiting for Peru somewhere. But definitely not here.  Benkarnell 06:00, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

Even Ambo isn't really imperialism, as they did defend its independence and support it afterwards. Note that it is still very independent too, without control over them, much like the associated states in the ANZC - one only needs look at Hawaii to notice how much control that truly is. The Rif article says that it's in the neighborhood of a quarter refugees. Like I told Kenny, the RZA at Cape Town isn't imperialism. But this is. Lordganon 07:36, April 7, 2011 (UTC)

Round Four
It's a pain having to scroll the 60,000 bytes of above text, especially on mobile devices so I'm starting a new section…

Who said wheat wasn't grown in Castellón? This map shows that although not much wheat is grown, it is still grown, and it definitely has more potential, because Spain has decreased its wheat investment in favor of the services. You keep telling me that by my own admission, everyone would be dead. However, there are factors in the argument that you are missing. For example, my argument that the land around Castellón was entisoil and unfit for farming. However, see this map. It shows that entisoils only cover the land in the vicinity of Castellón and immediately inland. That is the only land that was not harmed during doomsday was entisoil. However, the land to the immediate west, that was affected during Doomsday, could regain use after the bombing.

Your climate argument is invalid. You obviously know of Saskatchewan, the greatest wheat-producing province of Canada? Castellón receives 442 mm of rain a year. However, Saskatoon receives only 350, and Regina receives only 304.4. Not only does that include snowfall, but that's OTL; I didn't take into account the climate change from Doomsday.

Also, you say that I can't assume there is food processing, but you forget about all the supermarkets. This clearly confirms not only the existence of several supermarkets, but also 2 hypermarkets. This would definitely serve the people until they got over the original shock.

Also, Southwriter brought up the point " Fishermen, though a small minority, would begin fishing with a vengeance, and hiring others (paying in fish?) to hopefully become "rich" as a provider of food for the area. Of course, the economy would be reduced to barter as money became next to useless. Meanwhile, fish meal and other fish byproducts would serve as the much needed fertilizer to increase the local produce -- wheat (yes, the area is good for that), potatoes, maize (corn), and especially oats."

Basically what I mean is say there are 100 fishermen in Castellón. They don't die automatically, they continue to thrive until they get killed off by random haters. Given those numbers, once the natives see what situation they are in, the fisherman will start teaching others. Also, there are surely several people who know how to fish with a rod and could support themselves that way. Again, this city wasn't nuked at all, so really the only barrier is internal conflict.

I revise my calculations. If this land can produce about 15 bushels of wheat per acre per year, and that is a very conservative estimate. If an area three times the size of Castelló de la Plana is cultivated, then that is 32,925 tonnes of grain a year. That is 90 tonnes a day, and at a loaf of bread needs about 450 g of flour, which means 200,000 people are surviving on a loaf of bread a day, or 1400 calories, and that is more than the population of Castellón de la Plana. Even applying the 80-20 rule still leaves plenty of food for at least a good-sized survival community.

And again, they have no fertilizer except fish products which are in short demand. Who says Peru can't get in there and finish the irrigation projects Spain left behind, and use legit fertilizer. The area already does produce wheat, although it is more famous for citrus.

Starting here: "Oh, they may be, but that, as seen in virtually every other poorer country…"

1) The whole reason I brought up this idea is because Latin American countries import a lot of wheat. Seven out of nine of the SAC nations are in the top 25 importers of wheat per capita in the world, the only exceptions being Paraguay and the UAR, and only the UAR is an exporter.

2) They do, on the contrary. See map.

3) Note that freight trains are often extremely long, and can travel with relative ease. It takes more diesel to move a cargo ship than a freight train. Trains are also much faster than ships, and wouldn't have to travel as far. Also, ships severely limit the amount that can be transported at one time because they are more expensive to produce, and it takes a long time to travel overseas.

4) Nationalization or not, it's terrible for those hungry South Americans. I agree the US is unstable, but we're talking about a post-apocalyptic society, and a country that just went from the third world to the first world. Murphy's Law of economics, almost anything can and will happen. My point is that SAC countries aren't going to see their wheat imports fail them.

5) Ok.

6) Dependence can be a part of control. If China says it will stop importing goods to the world if there is a foreign policy dispute, there is a major problem. If Argentina tells Paraguay it can't use Argentine ports or it can't import wheat from Argentina if it does not sign an economic deal, Paraguay has to comply whether they like it or not. SAC countries, even though in the first world, still need their pennies. I am giving extreme examples, but even smaller things relating to trade imbalance cause such scenarios. Either way, Stroessner has declared it is a goal to get rid of Argentine dependence.

7) I already took back those figures and replaced it with those above. You already know that my conservative estimate was 15 bushels of grain per acre per year. Yet, if irrigation is carried out properly and modern fertilizer is used, it will likely raise that to 50 bushels an acre. In addition, I used only a small area around Castellón de la Plana. If we used the entire river valley, the profits would be enormous.

Exactly my point about competition. The more companies, or in this case, countries, there are, the better the competition. If you can give me an instance where a resource in the hands of only one or two countries has not caused friction or colonization, or both, I'll reconsider.

Also, note. After doomsday, the supply of wheat was now limited. The only wheat in the economy comes from the ANZC and UAR. In OTL, wheat was basically unlimited because many countries such as Russia had open land that could be cultivated. However, after Doomsday, there are only two places to find wheat. Therefore, it is much more limited. Say Peru would be able to produce 1000 thousand metric tons from Castellón through intensive farming. That would surely cause prices to go down, due to increased supply and the demand staying the same. That and competition. There is no dispute that prices would go down.

8) Here. Do Canadians and Americans hate Britain? Do they go to Britain and harass people? Do people who are of British descent in Canada or America hate their own people? It is similar, kind of a ritual hatred like the kind we learn in history classes, but Spain is far away, so the common people do not recognize it as an enemy. Fifty percent of Peruvians are Spanish. Another thing you forget, is although Peruvians as a whole would rather be Inkas, they do give the Spanish credit for one major thing, and that is religion. They don't worship Viracocha (surprise surprise). Ninety-eight percent of Peruvians are Christian, almost all Roman Catholic, and mixing of religions isn't big in Peru compared to other countries. Peruvian people give Spain at least credit for that.It's not racism. It's not anti-Spanish royalty (who are dead). It's not religious intolerance obviously. It's not anti-nationalism against the state of Spain, which is far away, and Peru has relatively good foreign relations. Did you realize that Spain is the largest investor in Peru, accounting for 23% of foreign investment?

9) Uh ok.

10) Peru: money. SAC: lower wheat prices. Spain: access to technology. Castellonians: survival, and not only that but prosperity. Me: an opportunity to contribute to DD.

11) Not really. If they say "please subjugate our city so we don't starve" it counts as voluntary.

12) That statement about me wanting to make an empire out of Peru was an uncalled-for, irrelevant statement. It does not contribute to the canonicity argument, and it can neither be proven nor disproven. I'm here to tell you it's not true, but there is no way I can respond to that, and you know it. There are only two possible reasons you brought that up. Either you wanted to make a personal attack on me by smearing me, or you are trying to provoke anger. Seriously, play nice…

13) The Republic of Spain is using 17th-19th century technology. Tell me, of all the starving people on the Iberian Peninsula, why would the Republic of Spain go out of its way to help 50,000 starving Castellonians? Not only does it not have the money or technology, but if it did, it would probably invest in closer people, such as the people directly south of Valencia.

14) Uhh, I don't really care, it would be nice though.

15) Spain would have no chance alone. Forty thousand troops would have no chance against Peru's 386,000, as numbers can tell. The sum of all predecessor countries of the ADC (with the exception of Germany and England) is 687,085 (I'm pretty sure they would only be sending active troops to foreign wars). And the ADC troops are underequipped, 19th-century troops, and keep in mind my figures are maximum figures. The actual total will be closer to 200,000, and countries will likely not send their entire military, and definitely not to keep Peru out of an unclaimed city. You ask why I also included reserve military? Peru just experienced a war with Ecuador in ATL, so it would be able to.

Also, you claim Peru has a smaller navy. Well, most naval bases in European countries and Canada were destroyed, so that would be a significant loss. Peru has developed its maritime capabilities due to its increasing relations with China and Japan, so it would be able to send ships long-distance. Don't forget that SAC has the most advanced navy in the world, and the economic alliance would help standardize ships. Spain has under twice the amount of ships Peru has, and considering all of Spain's ships were from Cartagena.

16) What happened to Sr. "Did I say it was simple? Nope."

17) It's not imperialism as they have always considered it their territory. Note the word "Suspended" that means the claims are still there but not being argued over otl. Without the UN to dictate to them, they have merely regained control in all manners of what they consider to be their territory already. That is not imperialism.

18) Uhh, it's not that simple. "A sovereign power has absolute sovereignty if it has the unlimited right to control everything and every kind of activity in its territory." This means that they are openly reserving the right to use it for any purpose. The fact that they are openly violating the treaty implies that they are not interested in "the interests of all humankind that Antarctica shall continue forever to be used exclusively for peaceful purposes and shall not become the scene or object of international discord." The fact that they claimed the territory in the first place was a sign of imperialism. Keep in mind that before 1998, mining was not banned in Antarctica, so clearly imperialism.

19) True. Meaning, that most countries would like their claims. Meaning, that they would support them. But how is this not imperialism? Why would a country go to the immense trouble of breaking an international treaty just to look at penguins?

20) The Dictionary of Human Geography. And the thesis statement of one of Wikipedia's most trafficked articles.

21) As Ben said, SAC is no stranger to hypocrisy. Ecuador has the Galapagos, Chile has its Antarctic Territory and Easter Island, Argentina has Antarctica and the Malvinas, Brazil has Ambo, Colombia has Darien, and Peru was an empire before 1531.

22) Nevertheless very selfish and for economic reasons. Bolivia and Peru make a confederation, Chile feels threatened with such a prosperous country nearby and attacks. While not strictly imperialism, it shows what lengths countries will go to have economic prosperity, and maximize their countries' borders and economic influence.

23) Maybe they wouldn't care, but they definitely wouldn't vote no. Bolivia would never desert Peru. Bolivia hates Chile for taking away their coastline, they hate Paraguay for the Chaco War. Not to mention they would much rather trade with Peru than Argentina. As for Paraguay, again, I say, Paraguay is reducing dependence on Argentina. I'm not saying they care, but they definitely wouldn't vote no if nearby countries vote yes.

24) Read this. Brazil uses this as a justification for claiming in Australia. Peru has also reserved the right to make a claim. There is obviously wide support for colonization of Antarctica. Also see here.

Competition vs supply and demand

@Ben The reason I chose Spain was simple, as you can see here:

Spain: Hola. You want to trade some technology?

Peru: Definitely. We have to pay you back for accounting for 23% of foreign investment somehow.

Other Spanish countries: NO! Don't leave us out!

Peru: Okay. Since we have limited technology, we'll trade to you guys and send funds based on population.

Spanish countries: No, that will just make other Spanish countries become imperialistic for higher population and start annexing while their own populations are starving. I don't want to do that.

Peru: Well, that's okay. We shall trade technology from international territory so everyone has equal access to technological trade.

Spanish countries: Sounds good. There's a significantly populated city of starving people near Valencia. Try there. The port facilities should be intact.

Peru: Okay. As long as we can profit from the area surrounding the port. This is a significant investment and we need a way to pay it off.

Spanish countries: Okay. Please do not take excessive territory, and please give it back when you are done.

Peru: Okay. It shall be returned before 2200.

Spanish countries: Thank you. Relations between SAC and Spain will always be good.

Something I could do. I can move the date to 2000, before the SAC was formed. Would that work? Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 06:16, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

The SAC is mostly capitalist right? They are also the largest economy in the world right? That would mean the largest multinational companies would be based in the SAC right?

Why is this a government project and not some major food producing company exploiting the chaos of Europe for great profit?--Oerwinde 09:30, April 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * That is a good point. Peru ATL is capitalist with their Inka Kola and stuff. However, if a company did decide to go to Spain and start a reverse encomienda, it would first of all not constitute sovereign control. Secondly, at that point it would become pure exploitation for profit, because after all, almost everything a company does is meant to raise a profit somehow. But throw in the government, the "sensible people" elected by their non-govermmental counterparts, and it is no longer capitalism by definition. It can then become a sincere effort to aid an ailing city, and since Peru is not socialist (at least in comparison to most SAC nations), SAC will assume no reverse encomienda will take place. Peru creates this department and lets the corporations stampede in a rush for the resources. So you are right, this will eventually become capitalism, but in order to claim sovereignty over the area, Peru needs to put it forth politically or else it cannot establish sovereign control. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 22:41, April 11, 2011 (UTC)

Wow, Kenny. All of that and you still keep admitting that you're wrong, but argue that I am? Hilarious.

You, yourself, said that the wheat able to be grown here is equivalent to a loaf, per person, per day, at best, with fertilizers. Those entisoils go a heck of a lot more inland than you think, and cover almost all of the area you claim for this attempt at making an obsolete article. And you continually claim that they could export it, and that people who know full well it won't grow worth beans would attempt to grow it here for profit and export. Hilarious, and you can't change it.

Saskatchewan may get less rain, but it's climate is a hell of a lot different than this place, which you would know if you read more about its climate on that page rather than merely looking at the rain figures trying to show me I'm wrong. Typical for you. Saskatchewan is far cooler than Castellon, with actual soils for crowing crops. Wheat needs a lot less rain than you think - but that only matters when the soils let it grow in the first place, the moisture occurs throughout the year, and the temperature doesn't get too hot, all of which would occur here, as you already admitted. Really, Kenny - read what you write, not what you claim later.

Actually, I didn't forget about the supermarkets at all. Supermarkets, except for a few fresh products like meat and baked goods, don't produce goods, but sell them. Common misconception on your part. The food stocks there only last so long, and with refugees, disorganization - that you admit to and brought up - in the government and a touch of radiation, it wouldn't last long. And yes, you are assuming - notice there's no dates or anything on those, at all? You assume that they existed then, which you simply cannot do.

I'm well aware of what you and South have been discussing. And I'm also well aware that you outright admitted that this was imperialism to him.

That is an assumption that they would not die in some sort of unrest, which would happen, or flee, which is more likely. And you also miss the numbers of starving in your calculations, not shockingly. Your fishermen aren't near enough to support those numbers, and that fact would cause the unrest, as seen in several more locations, likely killing them.

Again, an assumption. You assume that they have the seed supplies, population, and machines/tools to make a wheat crop in the first place, which is once again incorrect. Kenny, do you even think about anything before trying to prove me wrong? I mean, really. You are talking about an area where no wheat to speak of is grown, or has ever been grown, otl. Why on earth would any of that exist? Simple - it wouldn't.

As for your data, you obviously overestimate, which I expected. You are trying to tell me that an area where wheat is not grown, because of the extremely low yield that would be possible and the climate, grows almost half of the average Spanish yield. Wheat is grown in the areas of Spain highlighted by your map, and there are other maps that show the same thing. Wheat production in all of Valencia Province is less than 1% of the national yield. Now, think about what that means for your figures. It kills them. You would be lucky to manage half of your conservative estimate in a good year. And you are trying to have them export wheat and to grow wheat for export to Peru? Are you aware just how ridiculous that sounds? Seriously, Kenny.

Peru can't get in there until after 1992 for help at all, and not even realistically until well after that, by which time the locals and local survivor nations won't allow it, and that's assuming there is any surviving locals, which if any there would only be a few.

Your entire argument about wheat is based on your own assumptions. And it's obvious what that means.

Have you even looked at how much wheat they actually import, by numbers? It's not that much, Kenny, even if they are in the top 25. And, notice how Argentina balances that, and more? You are looking at the per capita numbers, which tell only half the story, at the absolute best. And then you admit that your idea is based off your own biases as well. Bet you don't even notice.

While I can find reference to it being grown in Valencia Province, near rivers, there is no mention of it being grown at Castellon specifically. If you're referring to that first map you quoted, then you're still out to lunch, as that doesn't say anything more than what I just did. Quit assuming things.

The longest railroad train on record is 500 cars, which was barely managed at all and never repeated because of the danger and it had to be done. You "long" train would likely not end up longer than 110 or so cars, but nowhere near that 500 number. The average number of cars on a train depends on where it is running, but varies from 90-200, mostly, in the USA, and you're dealing with much more ancient machines, killing that number.

The ship I quoted was one of the smallest usually used for transport. And I showed that you how much it could carry far, far more than your boxcars. Time, etc. don't matter here. Ships carry so much more that it is profitable to haul it like that. Have another look at those numbers, and remember that the ships even in the 1980s would largely dwarf that thing. I suggest that you have a closer look at the fuel costs as well.

Fail them? Argentina just lost it's market for its wheat - what about them? Any slack will be gladly taken by them, as you should already have known. And you're assuming the wheat from Argentina doesn't already go to these nations, which makes no sense either.

A part, Kenny. Is that control over someone else? No. They can easily deal with someone else instead, on all those counts. Though, you fail to realize that.

I already shot your failed attempt at a conservative estimate to hell. Even with irrigation and fertilizer you won't get 15 there, except in your imagination, which seems to be where you got those figures from.

Resources, no matter how many countries have them, always cause friction. With some industries, only a couple of companies dominated for a period of time in the past, where the two (or few) companies acted together to keep prices high. Or, they can be rivals, and force them down. It's called price-fixing, or cartels, depending on where or what it is. The same principle applies to countries. Someone may eventually try to go around it, but they generally fail without outside intervention, like the Sherman Antitrust Act in the USA. Or, in this case, cannot possibly happen in the first place because they are impossible, as I've shown you several times.

I've already established several times that you can't possibly grow wheat in any reasonable amount there. You would have to import wheat there to feed the people, causing there to be less in South America, making prices go up. And two places to supply wheat demand from? Who are you trying to kid? I mean, really.

Did I once say it was racism? No. You said it originally, not me, and it is amusing of you to try and find ways to take it back. You're failing, btw.

Spain has plenty access to technology. Peru and the companies in it put far more into this than they could ever get out of it, meaning they do not make money, but lose it hand over foot. If Castellon still survives by the 1990s, then they will do just fine on their own, and the presence of other nearby areas means their prosperity, not this attempt at empire. And, "an opportunity to contribute to DD" ? That explains why you've continued in this foolishness. This is an attempt by you to contribute to your own little Peruvian Empire, nothing more.

Either they are all right and some people survive as is, and people need no help, or they are all gone. And "subjugate"? Do you not know what that word means? That's not voluntary, by any means. There is no way that Peru could get the area "voluntarily."

You admitted on South's talk page that it is imperialism. Thus, it's a fact. And as such, I will continue to remind you. This entire thing is imperialism, nothing else, and your foolish attempt to try and argue otherwise. And, the others even agree that it is such. Seriously, Kenny. It's just the truth, deal with it.

17th-19th Century? Talk about pulling numbers out of nowhere. That may have been true in the 1980s in some areas, but not in the Republic of Spain. It's been established the 50,000 is just a dream on your part. They have both the money and technology, and wouldn't be going out of the way to do it, either. In exploring, they would have found and helped them, and most likely moved them elsewhere. End of story.

I suggest you actually look at the war articles. The ADC troops are modern soldiers, and there is a hell of a lot more than you claim. There is no way Peru could get that many soldiers there, not without the entire SAC helping them, and if you think that would be the case, then there is something seriously wrong with you.

The SAC countries do not have the most advanced, or even the largest, navy, combined. Do you even read articles? Seriously. Spanish naval forces would destroy the Peruvian ones, easily, and they are by far not the strongest member of the ADC. And any attack on the ADC like that is impossible anyways.

The claims are based on original Spanish ones to the region, and thus were inherited with their independence. Not Imperialism, especially since the areas are uninhabited. No one is on record as mining there, and no one is even looking at doing so, atl, so that's not imperialism either. They are not interested in the treaty, true, because it was forced on them. They've every right to tear it up. And yet, that's still not imperialism.

Trouble to break a treaty that they had to be pressured into in the first place? No trouble at all. These are claims to a barren wasteland, only good for research, that are very long-standing. And, if you'd actually have cared to notice, each of those claims is technically part of a territory, province, state, or the like, of the claimant countries. While technically suspended, the Antarctic territories are still officially an integral part of those countries. Thus, not imperialism, as no one lives there as a "native" of any kind, and it is not habitable.

Just because it's on wikipedia or in popular literature doesn't make it good, Kenny. If anything, that makes it bad. Nor did it help your "argument" anyways. Hurt it greatly, as a matter of fact.

As I said, and you should have known, Chile and Argentinian claims to Antarctica are residual claims from the Spanish colonies they grew from. The Falklands, if you'd have actually bothered to look it up, have been considered part of the colonies by the Spanish and the independent states since day one. The Galapagos and Easter Island are the closest you're going to come, but the former was uninhabited, and thus not imperialism, and the latter is definitely a mercy case, in the extreme. Darien, with the chaos and the collapse of Panama, was simply reclaimed by the Colombians - they were forced by the Americans in the imperialism phase of their actions to recognize the area, but never really dropped their claims. They've also inherited the region atl partially through the rebuilding of the Canal, with regional permission, which you don't have, and will not/would never get. Ambo is fully sovereign, like the associated states of the ANZC (i.e Hawaii and Alaska), so that isn't remotely imperialism either. And then Peru being an empire under the Inca, which you only a few paragraphs before argued didn't matter with regards to Spain or it being imperialism, is not relevant. Though, it is admitting that you're trying to build an empire for Peru, so thanks for that.

Wow. You're really biased in favor of Peru with that War, huh? Not shocked you see it that way. I suggest you read the wikipedia article, and learn something. While Chile and The Confederation were indeed threatening to one another, Peru funded an expedition by an exiled Chilean President to try and overthrow the Chilean government, and events from there led to Chile declaring war, which is completely justified since attempting to overthrow a government is an act of war. No economic matters or territory changed hands, at all. The only net result was a lot of dead, and an end to the hostility caused by an aggressive Confederation in the area.

Again, a biased regional assumption. By everything you say, as an example, why on earth would Paraguay vote yes? Seriously, Kenny. Can you not see past your personal biases for three seconds to understand that at all? I doubt that, myself.

Australia? Do you check over your writing at all, Kenny? More and more, I doubt that. That theory, as that article itself states, is considered garbage even by the governments in question. Seriously. And Peru doesn't claim anything, or have the right under the treaty to claim. By that quoted article, they are claiming the right to claim a claim there, and have obviously backed down on that because of what the next few paragraphs say. You didn't even read that entire article, obviously.

Your little "conversation" between Spain and Peru is ludicrous. Even by that they know about them and have done something. Once again, you show yourself ignorant of the timeline and reality.

Your response to Oer shows your bias once again, but this time against socialism to boot. But, it's also an admission that it is an act of imperialism meant to expand Peru, nothing more. You have used words to describe the annexation as voluntary that tell us all it is anything but, which also means an imperialistic annexation. Do you not know what "sovereign control" actually means? In this case, it is imperialism.

And to quote you earlier: "Also, the only reason I chose Peru was because I own it, because it believes highly in competition, and it is a major importer of wheat." This shows bias, extreme bias, and a lack of understanding of the timeline. No one owns anything here. I suggest you have a good long look at the editorial guidelines about that one.

And your "compromise?" Seriously? You honestly consider that a "Compromise?" That's actually insulting.

A "Compromise" would be you offering something sane, like having Peru support these people in an act of charity, with permission from the Spanish government, in return for a share of future exports from what amounts to a Spanish vassal-state, with no Peruvian control involved. This is one of your two options. But no, you've got to give Peru its own, impossible, little empire that is so against canon it amazes me that you had the nerve to even attempt to create this trash.

Your own "evidence" is the thing that is constantly shooting you in the foot. You are attempting to argue that an impossible situation is possible, despite the uselessness for your own cause of your "evidence." By your own admission and quoted references, this cannot work. By the actual facts you quoted - and not that figure about wheat you obviously just pulled out of nowhere in your last response - the area canon export wheat, ever, and yet you try to have Peru claim an area for growing wheat and even calling it a "wheat republic," like the so-called "Banana Republics" that the USA did. Seriously, Kenny. Historically, it never has, though I bet you couldn't have been bothered to know that, either. You attempt to paint the SAC members as imperialists is full of crock, as I and your own quotes have shown. Even the location, in an obvious attempt at reverse-imperialism, reeks of bias and imperialism on your part. You assume everything, and know nothing more than your own biases.

This violates canon, and is impossible. It is simply, by your own admission - though even that, you fail to see because of your extreme biases - an attempt to create a Peruvian Empire. South saw it, I see it, and Ben after a fashion even saw it, and you admitted it to Oer, even. Seriously. This is something that has gone on far too long that should have long been marked obsolete.

You have your options. And this trash isn't one of them.

Lordganon 17:17, April 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * OK, Ganon, I think it's quite clear that Kenny's not budging. And in your attempt to make him budge, your criticisms are getting increasingly nasty. IMO it's time to step back and rely on the consensus of the group. You've presented dozens of well-researched and well-reasoned objections to the basic premises of this page, and Kenny has refused to address them, so I'm sure most people will agree that this cannot become part of the 83DD timeline. In the meantime, this argument is only getting uglier.
 * Kenny, this is a collaborative project. If you're doing a solo project and somebody points out concerns about facts and assumptions, it's OK to ignore them. But when a project is this big, a defensive attitude gets you nowhere. It only makes it look like you don't want to collaborate.
 * And Ganon again: On an intellectual level, I still disagree with your narrow definition of imperialism. When a powerful country flexes its muscles to gain some economic advantage (as ANZ and some of the South American states have done in this TL), I classify it as imperialistic behavior, even if the less powerful country remains sovereign. You use a different definition, but the one I've been using is no less valid. I would imagine that when the South Americans in this TL united to oppose "Anglo-American imperialism," it was more the economic type that they had in mind, anyway. Benkarnell 20:30, April 12, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I could keep arguing but if it's time to collaborate, you're right Ben, I'll propose a compromise. Even though I consider myself right, I guess I was kinda defensive, mostly because I spent time on the map/logo, but yeah I had forgotten that was the reason by the time I got caught up in the argument. My proposal is as follows:


 * Castellon is an independent city state, which managed to sustain its population long enough (~1 mo) to implement fishing into education.
 * Castellon fell onto famine due to mismanagement and lived a marginal existence of around 15% of their original population for some time.
 * Castellon has had a special trade relationship with Peru since 1995, allowing Peruvian corporations to invest significantly in Castellon.
 * Peruvian corporations work the land with advanced technology, and sell the produce to the city.
 * Foreign investment in Castellon is about 60% Peruvian, 15% Spanish countries, 25% other.
 * Peruvian companies exploit the land to a degree but overall the inhabitants are happy for the prosperity and great improvement of standard of living arising from foreign investment.
 * Because the economy has shifted from an industrial to agricultural sector based on production of wheat, the city-state has been termed a "wheat republic."
 * A small minority (~8%) seeks union with Peru, which they see as the way to maximize economic growth.

Besides the question of whether the area could produce a large amount of wheat, are there any fundamental issues with this plan? Btw it would be nice if people just bullet pointed instead of writing extended paragraphs, that way we can address the arguments later and the page doesn't get out of hand. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 00:58, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

Your "compromise" is the same thing just without the annexation. And it is still reliant on that "wheat republic" nonsense, which has been shown to be impossible several times. If you'd actually bothered to read it, I proposed a compromise in all of the text I wrote, but I suppose that you didn't bother to do that, Kenny. To repeat it...

"....like having Peru support these people in an act of charity, with permission from the Spanish government, in return for a share of future exports from what amounts to a Spanish vassal-state, with no Peruvian control involved."

And no, 1995 isn't going to work either. The SAC members only heard of survivors in the north in 1992, and you're trying to say 1995 is reasonable? It's not. And wanting union with Peru? When Spain is nearby? Not possible.

And it would be the companies involved, not the government.

Citrus, and hot, dry, crops. Wheat isn't profitable or anything close to it there.

Lordganon 12:07, April 14, 2011 (UTC)

SouthWriter 17:06, April 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * To LG, annexation was the main sticking point as I see it. However, I have argued elsewhere that Peru would have no real reason to even be there on its own. Kenny wants this to be an extension of Peru, so there needs to be some sort of relationship established if he is to work on it.
 * There would have to be a survivalist mentality among the Castellonians that included seeking help from beyond the blast zones, most likely by sea.
 * Fishermen would become the salvation of the city-state, establishing trade with other Mediterranean coastal cities as soon as possible.
 * Goods on the shelf, along with whatever crops survived until harvest in the province, would have to be utilized to assure survival until land could be cleared and new crops grown - grain, potatoes, and other vegetables, irrigated if need be. If this is not feasible, then trade would have to be established even sooner.
 * Peru becomes the main member of the SAC effort to restore trade with the entire Iberian Peninsula, seeing it as an opportunity to build its influence in the Confederation. It chooses as its base of operations the struggling city-state of Castellon, taking over the reclamation of the mountainsides.
 * Peru works with the government of the Republic of Spain toward annexation of its neighbor, becoming the primary SAC representative and main supporter of a unified Spain. It sets up an embassy in Castellon to facilitate that province's eventual annexation.
 * Export of surplus grain and produce from the Castellonian effort proves to be minimal, but Peru's presence in Europe makes it a key player as the SAC begins to claim its historical bond with that northern continent.
 * Notions of profiting from a so-called "wheat republic" are abandoned, but Peru has succeeded beyond its dreams in becoming more influential that either Brazil or the UAR in international politics.

As it stands, South, that's a longer and more detailed/thought-out version of the half-proposal I've made. And I can live with it, so long as it is Iberian politics, not internationally, not "taking over" in any form, and very clear that the eventual annexation would be to Spain. This aids Peru internationally and is not an empire, like everything Kenny comes up with.

Lordganon 18:11, April 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * The proposal is pretty good, except for two things. I have a specific reason for excluding the Republic of Spain. Sometime in the late 80s, Castellón de la Plana applies for aid from the Republic of Spain. Spain sends over a couple of troops to calm riots and other officials, effectively turning Castellón into a vassal state. However, the officials grow unpopular for failing to solve the food problems efficiently, and for various other reasons such as trying to impose Spanish/Andalusian culture. Castellonian citizens launch a rebellion, attacking the Spanish government building, chasing out some of the officials, and killing a few. The governments have been at unease with each other since then, but have slowly begun to open up to each other. I suppose Peru could support Spanish annexation, but Peru needs to step in earlier for that to happen. And yes, it is clear that it would eventually be annexed by Spain.


 * Also, I still think Peruvian investment could profit from wheat surpluses. I did more research, and the soil located in the Castellón area is a suborder of entisols known as fluvents. This is the type that is present in river valleys as alluvium. The same type of soil is found in California's Imperial Valley, the main source of durum wheat in the south of the country, which, thanks to its major irrigation, is capable of producing 90 bushels of wheat per acre. If Peru owned the Imperial Valley, it would allow Peru to decrease its wheat imports by 29.06%, although 80.53% of arable land is used for other crops, such as vegetables, fruits, alfalfa, corn, and cotton, and 79.11% of the land in imperial county is unsuitable for farming. And one thing you may not realize is one of the most productive areas to produce wheat, the Nile Valley, classified as "high potential," is completely made of entisols, as well as other wheat-producing river valleys such as the Indus and almost all of Eastern Europe and Siberia's major rivers, plus the Elbe and Oder Rivers. The climate of Castellón de la Plana is much more favourable than the Imperial Valley, having a Mediterranean rather than desert climate. The main factor in this case is irrigation and fertilizers. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 21:37, April 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * Kenny, I am trying to make this viable for you, but introducing animosity among neighbors as an excuse for Peru to come half-way across the world to take over is not helping. The Republic is formed from the remnants of Valencia, a neighboring province and some islands. It is the nearest "nation" that would be an ally, not an enemy, to the struggling city-state. Why would they rebel simply because their neighbors are not the savior they hoped they could be? Are they so ungrateful that they would rather starve? There is no way Peru would even know about their plight unless they were part of an expedition to restore Europe (especial the Iberian Peninsula). If there is strife in the area, the SAC troops would probably be the last ones to quell the violence. There would be three regional coalitions that would have far more of a reason to step in -- the Alpine Confederation, the Nordic Union, and the Celtic Alliance. If the SAC moved in, another "World War" might ensue. If a solitary nation like Peru moved in, they would more than likely be repelled by one of the three aforementioned powers.
 * Instead of looking to the shores of Iberian rivers for fields of grain, look to the slopes of the Andes. Build reservoirs in the mountains to route waters to the coastal deserts to make them bloom. The superior 21st century technology of Peru and the rest of the SAC can be better be used at home. And with far less trouble with the locals.
 * I encourage you to develop Castellon if you want, but it is going to have to be a European state, not an extension of the "first world" of TTL. Let it blend in with the other Spanish nation-states, not stand out as a some "pseudo-colony" (autonomous but looking a lot like its benefactor). SouthWriter 02:49, April 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay. I'll reduce foreign investment to 49% Peruvian so it doesn't become dominant. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 02:59, April 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Let's look at bringing this back to reality. It is clear that you want this city-state to be a "Little Peru" on the Iberian Peninsula. But would that happen just to secure food in an economy that has plenty? If Peruvian interests were "just under" half, it would still dominate the local economy. Other interests, such as Spanish and Alpine efforts, would take second place. Castilian Spanish would soon take on a certain Peruvian flavor. But this would cause unnecessary friction in the area. It is better that Peru be working as a leading member of the SAC effort. You could then work in the Peruvian influence slowly. The SAC might see it as a reason to allocate other members' efforts elsewhere with little consequence to local economies. The point is, don't push Peru on Castellon, just let Castellon be Castellon. The editors of this time line, for the most part, are not into promoting one nation or region over another. We try to make the articles as "real" as possible. SouthWriter 03:43, April 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * What would you consider a safe maximum percentage for investment, considering that OTL Spanish investment in Peru is 23%? Foreign investment drives an economy, especially one that has so little capital to work with, and I don't see the Republic of Spain investing in other countries so soon after its peninsula and major trading ports were just ravaged. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 04:27, April 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Look, I am being patient, but Peru is going to have to be a minor player in European politics. The SAC has no real interests in interfering in Europe when three major nations of the League of Nations have a presence there.  So, even the SAC will only move in to help the Iberian nations rebuild in a peaceful way.  Peru can be their leader there, if you want, but that is all.  The Republic of Spain will not be "investing in another nation," but rather reclaiming territory rightfully its own.  Such an annexation would not be forcing a different culture upon Castellón, but instead would be rejoining families and neighbors.
 * This discussion has gone long enough, there being hardly anything on the proposal article itself. It seems that the consensus is that as you perceive the city-state, it will not work.  I suggest that you start from scratch, working with what has been written on the "Spain" article particularly, and create Castellón on its own.  Incorporate the Republic as a friend rather than an enemy.  By the present, the Republic is a member of the LoN, so it could ask the SAC members in the LoN for help in rebuilding Castellón.  Peru could spearhead the effort, perhaps providing as much as 30% of the SAC's funding and manpower to the effort (collectively 70% of aid).  Other aid, from the AC and CA for instance, would come in as well.  The amount of commitment shown by Peru will lead to other SAC members leaving most of the work to Peru.
 * Take to heart all of what we have posted, write up the article, and let us comment using separate headings for easier access to reading and responding. For my part, I recommend a decision by the end of the week as to where to go from here.  No progress would warrant at least an "Obsolete" until changes are made.  No interest at all might conceivably lead to a deletion, but I don't think that should be done.  If nothing else, this discussion page alone is worth saving!  SouthWriter 05:10, April 18, 2011 (UTC)

Kenny, you really are dredging up anything that you think will bolster your argument at all.

You do not realize the extent that the Imperial Valley is irrigated, at all. Key word here is major. I suggest you have a good, long, look at the amount of water used. The area without it is a literal desert, and it took the diversion of an entire river to manage that.

The Nile River basin is so extensively irrigated by that river that it's even more than in the Imperial Valley. The Nile is, and has always been, a special and unique case because of its slit, which is a heck of a lot different than the soils there normally.

The other rivers you quote all have much moister climates, and not so hot temperatures. They can grow wheat - and not as much as you have again assumed - for that reason. Castellon may have the same soils as these areas, but not the climate. Unless you divert an entire major river, its not happening - and there isn't one here.

All of your percentage stuff is out to lunch, as is the political stuff. Imperialism, at its finest.

I am in agreement with South here. You are continually trying to push something that the rest of us are in agreement on as being not possible. And, note that I'm in favor of deletion - taking care to archive this talk page somewhere, of course - so that this doesn't turn into another Indiana debacle.

Lordganon 05:45, April 18, 2011 (UTC)

New Changes
The outline looks good, Kenny. I am not sure if 1983 is a good date for independence, though. I think that for the first few months a declaration of that sort would be the furthest thing from the leadership's mind. Survival would be paramont, including seeking help from their countrymen wherever they may be. Also, the map's label needs to be changed to remove Peru as the "parent" to the autonomous region. SouthWriter 13:39, April 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay. My date of establishment of the Republic is 1986, but 1983 is more of a de facto independence date. Also, can I have an extra week to work on this before the decision? I'm going to be without internet/3G from Tuesday through Saturday, and I still have homework to do :/ Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 18:08, April 18, 2011 (UTC)

Sounds alright with me. Compose what you have come up with offline and post it on this talk page on Saturday evening or Sunday (whenever you have internet access). You might be able to use library facilities - electronic or even  hard copy books - to do some of that research. With what you have up now, the "Peru connection" is out of the picture and thus leaves the proposal a lot more viable. SouthWriter 18:36, April 18, 2011 (UTC)


 * Ehh, I would but I'm going to be camping/hiking and I'm not going to take anything that will get damaged when wet, and even if I took my phone, there's probably no reception and it would run out of battery soon. I might be able to cook something up on the way to the location via 3G or when i get back but I can't promise anything. I just need the extra week. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 18:45, April 18, 2011 (UTC)

No problemo! Have a great time, and stay safe out there. We won't touch the article in the time being. You've got the extra week. I'm looking forward to what you might come up with. SouthWriter 20:07, April 18, 2011 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for understanding. It should be a good chance for me to clear my brain from all this argument :P Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 04:24, April 19, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I picked the worst possible time. I have another campout from Friday until Sunday. I'll probably have a string of campouts through July :/ I typed up a good chunk today, but I need a bit longer than Sunday, 23:59 UTC. But there's a chance this time I will be able to bring my phone to the campout, but I am going to be pretty busy. I typed up a good chunk today, so I'm still interested. It would be nice to have another week or at least until Thursday. Sorry to keep postponing this, but I have priorities, not to mention a ton of homework and activities, as finals week approaches. PS Mr. Hernández is a filler person before I find out who was the president of Castellón Province in 1983, which is harder than it sounds. <small style="color:#004400">Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 05:41, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that would be fine by me, this time. Lordganon 09:04, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

Since you have removed the Peru connection - not to mention setting the poor Castellons up for the worst case scenario! - I see no reason why you should be working under any undue threat of deletion. There are numerous proposals out there that have not seen the light of day, not to mention late night research, for months. Take your time, enjoy the campouts, and most of all, get the homework done. SouthWriter 15:35, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I can't thank you enough. I'm putting off my other Doomsday stuff for now. <small style="color:#004400">Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 22:43, April 28, 2011 (UTC)

The history is in place. I wait for approval before moving on. The political history is a bit incomplete, and some of the names are made up until I can find the actual people in research. <small style="color:#004400">Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 16:08, May 4, 2011 (UTC)

I suggest that you actually look at the areas controlled by the Spanish government as of the late 1980s and early 1990s. They majority is not Castillan in descent, nor do they control any of Andalusia, even at present, nor are there "manufacturing" areas like you seem to think. As such, that whole section makes no sense and is not possible. And, it makes no sense that the Spanish government would do anything remotely close to how you have them acting.

The global community was barely - as of only very shortly beforehand - aware of any survivors north of West Africa in 1994. It isn't possible for them to do anything remotely like you describe occurring in Castellon. You are taking any early contact too far as well, with regards to the mid-1980s.

You are making it sound like these people are very well-off. Say that it is unequal all you want, but by the sounds of things, this place is better off economically now than it was before Doomsday, which makes no sense at all. And why on earth would people move here? Simply put, they wouldn't.

And, the wheat bit. You've been told time and time again that it's not possible, and yet here you are, trying to shove implausibility down our throats, yet again. And don't think for a second that I missed the reference to "1/7 of the wheat imports of Peru," either - all of Spain in the last year produced somewhere in the area of 5,500 thousand metric tons, and total Peruvian demand was around 1,300. Around 95% of that Spanish total is grown in areas in west and northwest areas of the country. And you're saying that a seventh of a 1,300 total (which is around 185) is possible to grow here, and then export more on top of that? It's not. Not even close. That is not possible, not even remotely, nor is it going to be exporting wheat at all.

About the only net "change" to this is that it's not part of Peru, but now thinking about joining Spain, following an entirely impossible sequence of events that show a complete lack of knowledge about Spain atl. Still the same thing as before you started to "change" it.

Lordganon 16:47, May 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * Welcome back to the fray, Kenny. However, you have to remember, this is a struggling town in a very harsh world.  Apart from full annexation with the Republic of Spain (formerly the Spanish Republic), the city is not going to succeed.  There is not much of a chance of an international interest in a municipality or even a province not well known before the destruction on doomsday.  How would this area become the focal point of an international immigration?  There has to be some viable catalyst to such an interest.  If you could produce some connections in Peru to the Castelló province in 1983, then there might be some way to bring in Peruvian involvement to the area.  That would result in SAC involvement and eventual work in the area with Castellón as the base of operations.


 * I agree with LG, the huge exportation of wheat from the province is not viable. It is better to drop that part of the story.  Wheat is not the main grain of the SAC anyway, for maize (corn) is much more valued (it grows better locally).


 * I really like the "water clock" idea for a standard for world time since the prime meridian indeed goes through the city. The designation of Castellón Mean Time, though, might be a stretch.  It would, though, grant a measure of recognition to the city, since the old GMT used in informal situation had become an anachronism at the destruction of Greenwich in 1983.  10.7.11.42 19:56, May 4, 2011 (UTC)