Talk:1983: Doomsday

Before you start editing, please read the Editorial Guidelines.

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

Former Proposals: | Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6

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

New Map
I think whoever creates the maps for this timeline needs to get started on the new one, as there are a ton of newly confirmed nations to be added to the map. --Yankovic270 03:10, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think anyone would create the maps - as long as it fits with canon and it's approved by the community. I might want to try my hand at some mapmaking myself... --DarthEinstein 03:25, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * XiReney and Fero made the first few world maps. The latest one is mine, and since last June it's become very out of date.  Problem is that I was not following 1983DD for most of August and September, when the flury of activity really began.  I've been trying to read all the new pages from August or later, but just keeping up with current proposals is difficult... anyone is free to ad some or all of the new nations.  Or maybe it would be best to break down the labor?  North America is the worst offender; maybe I can upload a world map with just North America updated, and others can take it from there.  Benkarnell 16:39, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * I've actually already started a new map. I decided to build it from the ground up; that is, I'm getting the information from the individual articles instead of from previous world maps. I started with the Americas, and they're about half complete, and I haven't started on the Old World. --DarthEinstein 16:44, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, then. Ground up is probably best: I tried hard to keep it free of errors, but they crept in anyway.  Are you still going to include flags?  They have been sort of a tradition so far, but now there are many, many more of them.  Benkarnell
 * I'll try to put the flags in, but first I'm going to get all the borders. After the borders, then I'll get the names and flags. I also thought of creating maps for each continent simply by slicing up the world map, which we can put on the pages for each continent. --DarthEinstein 17:11, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

Hey Darth! What is the soonest time you can estimate the map being finished? --Yankovic270 21:13, October 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure; so far I've drawn the borders of most nations in North and South America, as well as the Alpine Confed, Celtic Alliance, and the small French nations. After I'm done the rest of Europe, I'll move south to Africa, then to Asia and Oceania. After that, I'll fill in the names and flags. So... there's still lots I have to do. By the way, if you notice any nations missing from the list, put it on. I'm using it as a referance to find all the countries. --DarthEinstein 21:31, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Could you post an image of the North American section on my talk page? I'm curious on how my nations look. By the way, Assiniboia has the borders of the old Red River colony. --Yankovic270 21:44, October 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said, I haven't put the names or flags in yet, but if you want me to get a partially finished version, that's fine. --DarthEinstein 02:17, October 20, 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say (as a comment after a long time), you might put it in a partially finished version when the names are done. Then we could decide if we insert the flags as well... But I would guess a separate map with flags would me optically more proper. I offer to do the "FLAG MAP Work as a first contribution after a long absence. --Xi&#39;Reney 17:55, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * Great to have you back! Also, here's a map update: I've drawn the borders for the North and South American and European countries, as well as the African ones except in South Africa, which has really confused me. After I'm done drawing borders in Asia and Oceania, I'll put the names in, and leave a space under each name for a flag. --DarthEinstein 19:50, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I just did a whole lot of work on the map, and I think it's ready for people to see the first version. As you can see, the countries are not yet labeled. I'd like to hear any concerns over the borders of the countries first. If you've been following the TL you should be able to recognise most of the countries. The darker grey regions between the NAU and Utah, Utah and the Navajo Nation, and Aceh and Indonesia, represent condominion or contested territory. Any suggestions for the next version are appriciated. --DarthEinstein 23:14, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a little jarring to see so much of Africa, China, Europe, even the eastern U.S. in dark grey. That aside, the map looks good.--BrianD 23:18, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

I like the map as well but I have some issues. I may have relented on NAU Nebraska, but I respectfully want all of non-NAU Nebraska to be under Lincolnite control, that would give the Lincolnites both more territory and a border right next to the NAU. Plus the loosly-bound nation of Cave City, like the Okanogan to Victoria, is a potential site for future expansion of Virginia. That warrents, at least until official control is obtained, those dots of colour you see marking influence. --Yankovic270 02:19, October 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * Right; I haven't added any "influence dots" yet, so I'll do that for the next version. I'll expand Lincoln also, but keep in mind that the map I built this off of didn't have state borders, so it will be approximate. --DarthEinstein 02:25, October 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a problem with zones of influence. The map ought to represent definite borders for each country; in some areas (like India, Sikkim) these zones can literally change by the day, or a country can claim influence that it can't realistically maintain. The issue should be discussed, though.--BrianD 02:40, October 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point. The last map did not include claims for that very reason.  Now that we have dozens of new countries, we have to pick and choose what information to show.  This is really good!  It looks so clean, and the colors are easier to distinguish.  THe small changes I'd recommend:
 * Sikkim's independent government was overthrown a couple of weeks ago, IIRC.
 * I don't think that the North American UNion overlaps with Utah; that was an error on my map.
 * The NAU might more accurately be shown as three countries with a common color, like the Nordic countries. (I'm pretty sure that when I made the other map I hadn't actually read the NAU page.)
 * More of central Italy should be no-man's land. My map used diagonal stripes only because the Alpine and Sicilian colors were too hard to tell apart when I used dots.
 * But basically... wow! Benkarnell 03:24, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks about Sikkim, I did not hear about that. So it's part of the UIP now?
 * I'll fix the Utah-NAU border.
 * I'll separate the states for the NAU. While doing this, I tryed to decide what to do about Siberia. With the addition of Mongolia, Uyghuristan and Khazakhstan to it, I thought I might want a solid border like with the Nordic Union and, as you said, the NAU. But I thought they might be too centralized a state for that. What do you think?
 * I based Italy off of the page; for territory it said that they owned it up to Milan. I did think this was odd, and I guess you agree. So will they extend to, say, the ruins of Rome? Also, don't you think Sicily might be able to control the nearby Tunisia also?
 * Thanks for the help! --DarthEinstein 03:42, October 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm, that is odd about Sicily. I think the no-man's-land as I had described it was based on the previous map. Maybe Sicily only claims Italy up to Milan?  Or, Milan was the high-water-mark of their advance, but is not securely under their control?   And I know I have heard something about Sicily controling at least part of Tunisia.  As for the Siberian states, I'm not sure, since that's a family of articles that I also have not read yet.  (Sorry!)  Finally, can I suggest a darkish blue for the NAU?  Benkarnell 04:03, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

Okay here's the next update on the map. I haven't added names yet, but I have corrected a few things and added the dots representing influence. If there are any countries I've missed or made the borders wrong for a country let me know. --DarthEinstein 18:40, October 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good. A couple things I'm now noticing, and sorry for not seeing them before:

Benkarnell 22:05, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * Namibia's situation is still far from certain. Same iwth South Africa, actually, but at least this approximtes the countries we know are there.
 * The Yugoslav Union is smaller - I think it may have lost Slovenia & Dalmatia for unknown reasons.
 * Manitoba/ Assiniboia is small, but not _that_ small, I think.
 * I don't think Sicily would control all of Tunisia, on its exact original borders.

Wow,this is exactly what I envisioned the USSR would have in terms of land.It's great,good job.--Vladivostok 19:37, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you missed . Also I know  is pretty small but is there any way you can make sure its identified on the map?  [EDIT] Never mind.  When I zoom on the map I see that you did mark it.  Mitro 20:33, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * Zanzibar will be labeled, though I know right now it's practically invisible from a zoomed out point of view. From what I read about Algeria, it is divided into city-states, and so I wasn't sure how to make any borders. I decided that once I got to the name-adding stage I would just write "Algerian city-states" in the region. And thanks about the USSR, I was unsure if that was accurate. Should the different republics be separated by black lines, though, like with the NAU and Nordic Union? Also I'll correct Tunisia, Assiniboia, and the Yugoslave Union. With regards to South Africa though, I understand that it is in a state of canonical flux or something, so maybe I should just keep those borders for now and it can be corrected later when it calms down. --DarthEinstein 22:28, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well,the Union isn't as decentralized as the NAU or the Nordic Union,I think keeping it this way,with the colorless borders in the middle would work fine.--Vladivostok 22:33, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

Once I find a decent map of BC, I'll actually mark New Caledonia/Prince George's borders, as they encompass a lot more than marked. --Oerwinde 20:10, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
 * Bc2010.png shows how BC will be divided next year, but also shows the borders of Prince George/New Caledonia. --Oerwinde 21:37, October 31, 2009 (UTC)



I respectfully wish that whoever is creating the new map use these borders for Assiniboia. It is an old map of the Red River Colony, another name given for it was Assiniboia. --Yankovic270 20:34, October 31, 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll do that. --DarthEinstein 20:43, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Just a small note on North Germany, though it is not (yet?) included on the map in the article itself, the nation has recently expanded to the formerly Dutch province of Groningen, it might be nice if that were reflected on the map. --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 15:58, November 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * It is included, just very small. I'll be sure to make the change. --DarthEinstein 16:24, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

I think we recently agreed that Belize is smaller, mostly coastal, and that a lot of the inland territory was lost. I could be wrong. Benkarnell 14:07, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * I really think Assiniboia is too large. Mitro 15:04, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

It is not like I am claiming all of Canada between Vctoria and the Remainder Provinces. I don't think Assiniboia's claim is excessive. The only impact is Winnipeg, as they pretty much made the area around it just as much a no-man's-land as the area around Chernobyl. And they did not claim it all at once. Maybe they started with what is shown on the new map so far, and just recently reached these borders. --Yankovic270 15:27, November 3, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think my biggest problem is that you are basing this on a vague and old colonial map and not on any other evidence on how far the nation could extend its borders. Furthermore what about the Lakota?  They managed to take over most of North and South Dakota and yet that map makes it look like that never happened.  Mitro 15:37, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

Ok fine. get rid of the colonial map. But Assiniboia still controls at least a small chunk of North Dakota. You said that the Lakota took over most of the Dakotas. It is possible that there is a a small piece that is not in Aboriginal hands. --Yankovic270 15:43, November 3, 2009 (UTC) Umm,there have been some changes to the Kazakh article that were unavoidable,since the regions I picked would have been severely bombed. Here's a map detailing what the Siberians would control,bordered in black. The bombed regions are a closed zone in the USSR. That will be shown in more detail,once Hellerick makes a map showing this.--Vladivostok 20:48, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Can someone give me a report on how the map is coming? Mind that Assiniboia needs to be enlarged and given at least a small piece of North Dakota. But Lets face it. The new map so far only gives the Lakota a small portion of the dakotas. It still is plausible that Assiniboia can get as much North Dakota as possible.And while the southern border of Assiniboia is in question, the Northern isn't. I'd like that border to follow the colonial map as much as possible. --Yankovic270 22:10, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

I've enlarged Assiniboia and I've added the new borders for Prince George. I think I'm going to go ahead and add the country names soon. Once that's done I'll upload it again. --DarthEinstein 00:34, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

World Map
Hello, does anyone know where to get the blank version of your world map? Thank you L3eater 20:41, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear contamination map


I have made this map of the nuclear contamination after the war. Of course it should not be taken to seriously, but it gives us idea of which area can be re-populated, and which cannot. Unfortunately it show us that many regimes created in Europe and ex-USA seem very implausible (especially the Alpine Confederation). On the other hand it shows us some surprisingly clean areas (e.g. in western Ukraine and Montana). — Hellerick 08:44, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * May I ask where you got your information?--BrianD 16:56, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * What information? This picture is based on File:1983nuked2.PNG, the red dots for nuclear strikes were Gausian-blurred in Photoshop (thus imitating the contamination being spread) and isolines of "contamination levels" were added. The ICBM markers are larger, thus they produce a larger contaminated area. That's why I said that this map should not be taken to seriously, but still in shows which places are more likely to be contaminated than the rest. — Hellerick [[Image:Flag of Divnogorsk.svg|20px]] 19:16, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * Are the isolines done by hand?--TEAKAY 00:02, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference between radiation from elsewhere, and an actual nuclear impact. A state can survive radiation fairly easily, but an actual impact often destroys the chance for an organized government. The only exclusion to this "rule" is Lincoln, the destruction of Omaha did not affect it, as its capitol is Lincoln. --Yankovic270 19:48, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand Yankovic's comment. — Hellerick [[Image:Flag of Divnogorsk.svg|20px]] 13:24, October 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think he means that because Lincoln is west of Omaha, it didn't get affected by the blast nor by the fallout.--BrianD 14:18, October 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * THere's also wind patterns to consider, and this map doesn't show the recently "discovered" impacts all over the Middle East. But overall it's quite helpful.  I'm once again feeling skeptical about, for instance. Benkarnell 11:14, October 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * Obviously no Luxembourg is possible, in fact I think it would be one of the most "hot" regions of Europe.
 * I can take into account the winds if necessary (I guess it would make eastern Canada and northern Russia more polluted, and it probably would destroy the western Ukrainian "oasis"). If I'll be given am updated map of nuclear strikes, I'll make an updated map of the contamination. — Hellerick [[Image:Flag of Divnogorsk.svg|20px]] 13:23, October 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * This does help to show what I've feared for a while - that our survivor states in Europe and northeastern America are altogether too optimistic. It's time to talk about what changes are needed for the Alps and similar places.  Benkarnell 16:19, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

i thought most of the detonations were airburts, not ground detonations so there would not be that much fallout. anyway, surely nations like the Alpine Confed have been canon for to long to alter. --HAD 16:47, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

The original nuke map needs a redo anyway. There were many areas hit that weren't included as well as some areas that shouldn't have been hit. Juneau for instance.--Oerwinde 19:53, October 31, 2009 (UTC)


 * According to this map, only Luxembourg is completely and totally impossible, and maybe San Juan. Those countries affected however should represent the contamination in their articles, especially Victoria, where it appears it may block, or at least delay, its proposed expansion into Washington. Lahbas 00:39, November 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, to add to my previous statement, Central Coast and Eastern Texas would be impossible, though the latter could still potentially survive depending on the exact level of contamination. Lahbas 00:42, November 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * Luckily East Texas is pretty much a wasteland as is. C. Coast isn't canon yet, so we don't really know where that;s going to fall.  Luxembourg, now... that's going to be tough to explain away.  I had my doubts about it in the beginning, but consensus was that it could survive.  Looking at the devastation implied by that map, though... what do you all think?  Benkarnell 03:31, November 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * East Texas was never intended to involve people rebuilding over the ruins of Dallas and Houston and Austin. I picked Tyler, Nacogdoches, etc. after looking at the FEMA maps and list of targets for Texas, because it seemed to be the one area that would not get hit and could build some type of society if it survived the fallout and lack of food and chaos. I gave it 80,000 people and that might be generous. I'd hate to lose it, but I think I've done it in the most plausible way possible (however, I could easily be wrong about any or all of it).--BrianD 04:18, November 12, 2009 (UTC)

Playing around with the map made by Hellerick, I added wind patterns (taken from Wikimedia Commons). And the maps looks like this. Has with Hellerick nuclear contamination, it should only taken has an idea, not a reference. --JorgeGG 15:11, November 12, 2009 (UTC)

New TL
http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline(Evil_Empire) Fellas I request you all to leave suggestions and all improvements are welcome MC Prank 16:06, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

Virginian Expansion
Inspired by what BrianD added to the WRCB report for the deep south, I may add to the Virginian Republic at least plans to expand into Ohio, Maryland and Pennsylvania. While the Virginian territories in "East" Virginia and Kentucky are expanded. --Yankovic270 18:35, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

Mythbusters?
Just out of Curiosity, what happened to the Mythbusters cast? Jamie Hyneman might be alive in Superior. Is it a Myth Confirmed or Busted on Savage, Bellechi, Byron and Imahara surviving Doomsday? And if so, s it possible that they could make a Doomsday version of Mythbusters. With all the survivors of the event there are bound to be many, many DD-related myths to test. --Yankovic270 00:12, October 27, 2009 (UTC)

Hello? Anyone? --Yankovic270 16:44, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

English language titles
Wouldn't it be better if we made a policy to keep the titles of articles in English unless there is a good reason to do otherwise? I mean, the inconsistent usage of Spanish, French and German language names just gives the list of nations a horribly messy appearance. Especially with multilingual nations the names can even give wrong a impression (e.g. why does a Basque nation have a French language name?). Using English for page titles can eliminate this problem. Last, but certainly not least, in especially the New Germany series I have seen a various names which are either grammatically incorrect or have a very different nuance (e.g. neues Deutschland and Neudeutschland are very different concepts). Especially with the more obscure languages such errors could give dramatic results. I'd say that having a policy to use English language names would make things more consistent and less prone to errors. Now I'm not saying that non-English language names should be banned or anything, but I'd say there should at least be a functional proper reason for their usage (e.g. OTL Côte d'Ivoire). --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 15:51, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

N.B. Please note that all criticism in this comment was directed against the naming of articles, not in any way against their content.


 * I don't know - more Rules can be a good way to make things less fun. The creators of the pages (presumably) made their language decisions for a reason.  The Basque Country, for example, was first created as part of Louisianan's series on France.  (He speaks fluent French, FWIW.)  If inconsistency a problem, maybe the World Country Profiles page can be made to show only English names.  It already shows country names that often differ from page titles: nations whose titles begin with "Republic of" or something similar are usually displayed differently, in order to maintain alphabetical order. There's no reason why they couldn't also be listed using English names .  Benkarnell 22:44, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for any inconvienience that my aricle's tite created. While I had lessons in German in high school, I only really know the basics. I got the name by running New Germany into the Babelfish online translation service on Altavista. I am nowhere near as proficient in speaking or writing German as Louis is in French or Karsten must be in German. --Yankovic270 22:55, November 1, 2009 (UTC)


 * short titles, easy to remember and write if they are not in english, we can say "Pais de Oro (1983: Doomday)", but i know only yo mismo can say "parte noroeste de africa ocupada por sobrevivientes españoles (1983: Doomday)" (nortwest part of africa occuped bt spaniars survivors), i will not use a title like that. Please dont be evil with who not understood that nice languaje you have (russian/spanish/franch/chinese/japanese)--Fero 01:23, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

How about this for a compromise: authors can put the title of any nation article they create either in English or the language of the said nation. But to make it easier for us English-only speakers, if the author uses the local language either the author or someone else creates a redirect page in English. Mitro 19:02, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * Mitro - that's exactly what I would stipulate. I guess I'm going to have to make some changes of my own, but this is the English version of the Althistory Wiki - I would expect that those who contribute to it should have a page name redirect at least in the English name.  Were this any other language, I would expect a similar statute. preceding unsigned comment by User:Louisiannan
 * @Yankovic: I'm not sure to which extend my German can withstand the comparison with Louis's French, but it's good enough to see some grammatical errors. I'll post an explanation on why the two forms are different on your talk page.
 * @Fero: It is not titles like Pais de Oro I was speaking about, a direct comparison with the already mentioned Côte d'Ivoire may be drawn fot that one. I even inserted a country myself with an Afrikaans language name that would be outright silly to literally translate (Volkstaat). Keep in mind though that even Côte d'Ivoire is formally referred to in English as the Republic of Côte d'Ivoire not as République de Côte d'Ivoire, which is mainly what I am aiming at.
 * I must admit having written this comment after yet another day with a series of tiresome lectures taught by native speakers of Dutch and English, which have apparently collectively decided to lecture in the "wrong" language. Sole purpose of which seems to be causing huge headaches and annoyances. Please forgive me for having therefore grown a slight aversion to linguistic xenomania over time. I won't try to push this proposed policy on anyone (I've been a proponent of potentially ignorable guidelines rather than real rules anyway) and just issued this as a probe to bring the issue forward. --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 12:24, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

British-Azanian Codominion over KwaXhosa
Surely this only makes sense. After a disastrous war like the Xhosans had and the amount of violent pressure groups, surely the LoN would intervene to stop chaos from ruling. It only makes sense for two local powers to take control. Also what precisely is so strange about New Britain annexing small areas in its vicinity- just as the SAC and CANZ do? Bob 17:09, November 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * Tricky. To be fair, I don't think either superpower has actually annexed anything other than uninhabited isalnds.  And superpowers usually get to behave differently from other countries, anyway.  It's not fair, but it's true.  And NB was in fact the aggressor in the KX situation, which might make others feel less sympathetic.  But then again... it _is_ a stable power in a region with few.  It may be able to present a case that co-dominion is the best way to go.  Now the Azanian League, AIUI, isn't really a country at all; it's an organization of mostly Black states in the former Transvaal region.   But maybe, the Azanian League and NB can be authorized to supervise elections and help with a provisional gobvernment in KX.  Like a condominum, but with the intent to leave soon... a lot like the RZA.  Benkarnell 23:11, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Latest Archive (nov 3)
When I saw the page had hit 6 figures, I knew it was time. As usual, I tried to leave the active discussions on the page, but may have screwed up. If you want to "rescue" a thread, they're all on Page 8. Benkarnell 23:11, November 4, 2009 (UTC)

Link problems
Why is it every time I try to link to the it is always red linked? Mitro 03:18, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Test: Multi-National Peacekeeping Force (1983: Doomsday) See what I mean? Does anyone know why this is happening? Mitro 20:16, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

That is very strange. I directly copied the title of the article and linked it. Sorry I can't be of more help... (It doesn't work! Multi-National Peacekeeping Force (1983: Doomsday)) --DarthEinstein 22:42, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Multi-National_Peacekeeping_Force_(1983: Doomsday)

Needs underscores between everything it seems.--Oerwinde 23:10, November 6, 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok so I copied exactly what you wrote and previewed it on the article page, but it still was red linked. Mitro 01:08, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Musicians in 1983: Doomsday timeline
From the Celtic Alliance and New Britain pages, it's been established the following bands exist in TTL:
 * U2 (they almost HAVE to be the biggest act in the world in TTL)
 * Barbara Streisand
 * Barbara Dickson
 * Enya
 * Dave Matthews
 * Runrig
 * Sheena Easton
 * Shop Assistants
 * Christy Moore
 * Kate Bush

I've also established that the following bands and singers known in America probably survived in Australia:
 * Keith Urban
 * Savage Garden
 * Silverchair
 * Catherine Britt

Anyone else you can think of? Keep in mind they would have had to been in a non-bombed area of the world on Doomsday.--BrianD 02:11, November 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * Was Manchester nuked? If not then the members of Oasis might have survived and founded their group, though they likely would have a different name. --DarthEinstein 02:15, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

Of course, there would be bands exclusive to the 1983: DD timeline. Acts that wouldn't have existed in our world. Like The Four Horsemen or Doomsday. I bet there would have been a massive increase in the amount of emo, goth or death metal bands than in OTL. --Yankovic270 03:09, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

French settlements in Louisiana
OK, this is a fairly wild idea, and I'm really just wondering what the opinion is for its plasibility. We've been talking lately about Caribbean/Latin American influences on the southern coasts of the USA. We've also been talking about the situation in Central America, and ethnic enclaves in the USA, and it's all led to this. I've been looking around on some of the linguistic maps on Muturzikin. Now, that site definitely has a bias in favor of minorities, which means that small minority lannguages will appear on its maps as if they were spoken by larger numbers than they really are. But there is still a substantial Francophone presence on the southern coast of Louisiana. I'm imagining a situation where the French rump government in Martinique/Guadeloupe explores the area and forms ties to survivors there. Maybe, recently, even a "colony" - a settlement or two that receive aid and are made dependent on Martinique/Guadeloupe, and ultimately are considered French territory. It would sort of be a parallel to the East Caribbean Federation forming ties with English creole speakers on the Caribbean cost of Central America, an idea I proposed at Talk:East Caribbean Federation (1983: Doomsday). Benkarnell 17:12, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
 * It sounds like an interesting idea. I have no objections. --DarthEinstein 17:17, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about the Cajuns who live in southern Louisania. I actuly have a friend who is Cajun, so I know a little bit about the region. Language wise I cant see French making that much of a comeback. The number of speakers is to small and most are of the elderly generation. It might make somewhat of a comeback, but not enough to truly become a French speaking region again.

Hovever I could see the region falling under some kind of French influence, as the Cajuns still do identify themsleves as being part French. The Cajuns have a strange (but cool) blend of French and Southern American culture and are quite proud of it. I’m sure that they would welcome any real French with open arms. While I cant see any sort of neo-colonization I could see them helping the Cajuns to form their own survivor state (called Acadiana perhaps?).--ShutUpNavi 19:07, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

Before we go any further with this what targets were there in Louisiana? New Orleans seems obvious, but are there any other targets that we know are nuked? --DarthEinstein 20:02, November 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * Shreveport (Barksdale AFB and SAC base), England AFB in Alexandria, Fort Polk in Leesville, probably Baton Rouge (since it's the state capital). The FEMA map lists other targets, but it's possible those weren't attacked.--BrianD 20:15, November 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * You know what, this won't work at all. Caribbean France is/was too fractured to go exploring, there aren't enough French in the area, and it's very likely the communities that were there are gone now.  Benkarnell 04:41, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

Pitcairn Island
Hello. I'm about to upload a new-new version of the ANZC map (all 1001 versions so far have inexplicably omitted Alaska). I want to include one minor tweak to QSS before I upload. I would imagine that Pitcairn island, isolated and almost uninhabited, would be under French-Tahitian protection for a number of years after losing contact with the UK. But once the situation in the Pacific was stabilized with the formation of the ANZC, I would think the people of Pitcairn would prefer to be connected with this new English power, rather than the French. The easist way to do that, I think, would be to make Pitcairn a dependency of the Cook Islands, the nearest ANZC satellite state. Does this sound OK? Benkarnell 17:42, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * Hearing nothing, I'm going to upload it anyway :-P. Srsly, the volume of new material is making it hard to follow the discussions & proposals.  Benkarnell 13:05, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

And when you combine their flags, I think it's actually an improvement! (For a while now, I thought the Cook Islanders needed to put something in the middle of that circle.) "Frankenflags" are not always terribly realistic, but in this case I think it makes sense: by incorporating the two principal charges of Pitcairn's arms, the Cooks symbolize their union. And the charges themselves - an anchor for seafaring, a Bible for faith - could just as well be applied to the Cook Islanders, by all reports a very religious society. Benkarnell 23:39, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, give it to the ANZC... sounds most reasonable as the decisions whom is allowed to visit Pitcairn is still being made OTL in New Zealand...Just keep in mind the inaccessibility of the island making supplies a bit difficult, even though te Pitcairnians proved to be tough...Also the dark chapter of the abuse process against the mayor might be sth. to write about here. Adamstown needs to survive!!! The flag is also very suiting!

Hey Ben :-) personal Questions: You seem to be an island fan, at least in the Pacific right?? As I Am one myself the International Small Islands Studies Association might be sth. for you :) Discovered it during my thesis wor abotu the South Pacific and the Transportation... those guys have nice topics of studies :) just have a look.

Cooks Islands: I met a few from them in New Zealand... curious, a bi strange, but apparantly nice people :)--Xi&#39;Reney 23:31, November 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Yes, I really enjoy islands, for some reason.  Maybe it's growing up in the Midwest, everything big and flat and open, I like the idea of a small, self-contained society, I don't know.  And while I do enjoy learning about the Pacific, all islands interest me, no matter where they are.  But I can't believe they have a whole society devoted to them!  As soon as I find 20 extra dollars, I'm definitely joining.


 * I'm afraid, though, that I'm not terribly well versed in Pitkern history. What happened to the mayor?  Benkarnell 15:44, November 12, 2009 (UTC)

Republic of -
I've noticed a lot of pages start with "Republic of - ". I think that we should try to make our pages just the name of the nation and dispense with the Republic of prefix. For example, the page about the would go to a page titled, and the  would go to a page titled. Just a thought. --DarthEinstein 22:08, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree I think it is uncessary to name articles by the official title a country calls itself. The short version is I think more convenient for everybody.  Mitro 16:18, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Texas
I'm considering building towards a reunification of West Texas and eastern Texas into a Republic of Texas. Please let me know if you think it's realistic, or if the two countries need to be split. They're not at war, and there's no reason for anything beyond a few eastern Texans being mad that West Texas didn't get out there sooner. Also, a unified Texas would give me an excuse to use Clint Dempsey in the timeline; he's a soccer/football player for the U.S. men's national team and for Fulham FC in England. I've established West Texas as having tremendous interest in soccer, and see its national team as influenced by the Mexican style (since many of the players are immigrants or sons of immigrants from Mexico) and a possible dark horse in the CONCACAF region. --BrianD 15:35, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

comments on southern United States/Portland/"Southern Pact/Dixie Accord"
There seems to be an opportunity developing to examine on how nations deal with other newly discovered nations in this timeline. Specifically, I'm talking about Zack's Kentucky and Yank's Virginia in regards to the city states I proposed for the southern U.S. On Zack's talk page Yank mentions making Portland an ally by diplomacy or force, and he said "Personally I am hoping for the latter, because my army has not had any combat experience since the last cell was eradicated in '94".

I say that the entire community needs to get involved in discussions for this one, and for the following reasons:


 * All of the citystates in America remember growing up in a free country, where each person had liberties and rights protected by law.
 * If this was real, and Virginia and/or Kentucky were to take Portland or Morristown or Asheville by brute force, they probably would be able to do so easily. They also would show the people whose territory they subjugated, as well as the rest of the world, that they are not democracies, but brute military dictatorships.
 * I would think that if Virginia rolls into Tennessee and North and South Carolina and starts taking other territory by force that they could kiss their chances at being in the League of Nations goodbye.
 * Neither Virginia nor Kentucky may really care.
 * Another important point that I want to emphasize is this: Yank has established Virginia as having a variant of the Confederate flag, and Thompson as desiring to reestablish the Confederacy. Now it is probably true that in 1983 and even now, there are a few whites in the South who would want to see the CSA established, the vast majority are loyal Americans who do not want to see the country return to the days of slavery and segregation.
 * ANY military force rolling in with the Confederate flag is not going to be received very well.
 * And you probably will have some level of resistance in any such scenario.
 * This is why I established the info on the Newshour page, and the Portland page, about the League of Nations being aware of the situation in the south and offering aid to all interested city states. It's also why I made the point on Cave City's page, and the Portland page, about these city states wanting the same freedoms they enjoyed before DD under the Constitution, not to be subjugated by the Soviets, Cubans, Virginians, anyone. The LoN knows more about Virginia than the people in Portland and Hattiesburg do (although Virginia's reputation as a militaristic nation state has gotten to the folks in Portland), and knows that without going into the region with some type of peacekeepers one of the more powerful nation states nearby can take these towns at will. Cuba, Mexico, West Texas, Superior (if it was inclined), Vermont are too far away to send forces to one of these towns before Virginia and/or Kentucky establish themselves there.
 * Then it becomes a game of 'yeah, and what are you (LoN) going to do about it? What if we want to reestablish the ENTIRE United States?
 * I believe Kentucky and Virginia should continue their plans, and that the League of Nations needs to be formally established as having ongoing concerns in the region, therefore all of the territory not under Kentucky and Virginia control as of a certain date (perhaps October 15, November 1) as under LoN protection, with the aim of modernizing each city state and giving them the option to join Kentucky, or virginia, or each other, or go it alone.
 * Any action by Virginia and/or Kentucky to take LoN-protected - and former U.S. - territory by force needs to be condemned unilaterally by the LoN. George H.W. Bush, as the last President, should also condemn any force by nations in the former U.S. to take other nations in the former U.S. by force. The CRUSA should also condemn such tactics.
 * Finally, the LoN, Bush, CRUSA, and other non-LoN members in the area should condemn Virginia's apparent attempt to reestablish a racist militaristic nation state in the Confederate States of America. It should be especially condemned as something that is against American principles of liberty and freedom and a repudiation of President Lincoln's emancipation proclamation and all subsequent actions by the U.S. government to end slavery and segregation.
 * That said, let's see what Zack and Yank have for this. This could be a good scenario to work through.--BrianD 19:10, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

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

Authority for Space Operations (1983: Doomsday)
To bring forward the issue of spaceflight (and in a larger frame more global themes in 1983: Doomsday) i propose the canonization of the LoN - Authority for Spatial Operations, situated in Kourou and established by the TSAR treaty in January 2009. Aiming at coordinating and supervising spacfaring and realted activities worldwide in the signing and ratifiying states.

A frame I worked out now, some details are needed (site for ANZC launch site... etc. I already tried to refer to what I found in other articles, but not sure if got everything. Harmonizing with League of Nations and other pages will be done if approved.

Thanks for your help and comments.--Xi&#39;Reney 19:01, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Kingdom of Northumbria (1983: Doomsday)
a nieghbour kingdom that i've written to link into Kingdom of Cleveland (1983: Doomsday) page, currently a work in progress--Smoggy80 11:37, October 10, 2009 (UTC)


 * I love the idea of the Lord Lieutenant coming to the aid of his people as the Kingdom collapses - makes for a great story, one of many compelling ones to come out of this ATL. And the new kingdom couldn't ask for a better royal seat!  A couple of minor points: first, that is a lot of bombs!  How could anything survive that's caught between themm?  Do you think their number should be reduced?  I'm not sure; it may be that the towns are far enough away that there's a "safe zone" around Alnwick that can form the nuvleus of the kingdom.  Second, according to Wikipedia, Lord Hugh died in 1988 anyway; if he got premature radiation-induced cancer, that might have to move forward in time.  Third, will a royal marriage really result in the unification of the two kingdoms?  That feels so medieval - but then, this is a post-apocalyptic world.  But while Northumberland feels very much like a medieval kingdom, formed by the personal initiative and influence of the King, Cleveland feels much more modern and constitutional.  The Queen, after all, was more-or-less invited to the throne, wasn't she?  The country of Cleveland itself seems to have been formed by the people rather than y one powerful person.


 * Then again, they might be looking to unite anyhow, and the marriage just provides a way to seal the deal. Oh - did Cleveland and Northumbria design their flags independently?  They're very similar (both being based on the same old banner); has this caused confusion?  Was it deliberate?


 * Finally, it appears that the Percy family are Dukes, not Earls, of Northumberland.


 * I think that Henry is the perfect sort of person to declare the re-creation of Northumbria. From what little I just read about him, he seemed like a flamboyant, unpredictable sort of peer, just the type to resurrect medieval Saxon imagery.


 * Final question: what is the relationship of the two kingdoms to the Celtic Alliance?   The CA might very well see them the way Canada sees Saguenay, an inconvenient local power interfering with their resettlement of the country.


 * Wes hal! Benkarnell 00:54, October 20, 2009 (UTC)

War in the Mediterranean!
Discussion moved to Talk:Second Sicily War (1983: Doomsday). Benkarnell 19:56, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Tibet
This is an independant country in the Himalayas, authored by Vladivostok. --DarthEinstein 15:55, October 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * I am guessing that much of the PRC apparatus in Tibet was destroyed along with Lhasa - is this why the Dalai Lama was able to come back so early? Did he face opposition from PRC officials? It seems like the Tibetans made an awfully fast transition from "waiting for the PRC" to "inviting the Dalai Lama". Benkarnell 14:19, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well,Tibetans want to be free even now and I think they would quickly jump at the chance to become independent. Three months isn't really that short a time to figure out that help isn't on the way,they had plenty of chances to figure out what happened to the rest of the PRC--Vladivostok 15:02, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * But even with Lhasa gone, there would be oyal PRC officials, soldiers, party members, and functionaries. What happened to them?  Benkarnell 14:13, November 10, 2009 (UTC)

Portland, Tennessee
Proposal for survivor community north of Nashville, close to the Tennessee-Kentucky border. I'm going to develop it and hang onto this one for awhile, and tie it in to the WCRB article I've started.--BrianD 04:05, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops. http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Portland,_Tennessee_%281983:_Doomsday%29 --BrianD 17:21, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Nicaragua and Costa Rica
I was thinking of expanding the Costa Rican civil war,because it hasn't been expanded on recently and I'd also include a page on Nicaragua in the following week. I think it is time for the Soviet Bloc to meddle into foreign affairs,supplying the Nicaraguans and trying to unite the Sandinistans in their war in Costa Rica. I'd also like to write about other countries in the region,but I'll wait until there is a consensus on what to do about Guatemala and Yucatan.--Vladivostok 16:22, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

The Republic of Iowa
I object fiercely! I want a chance to give the doomed nation a makeover. I shall no longer be called New Germany. It shall be called the Republic of Iowa. I take the information in the article, and someone else changes the name of the page itself. --Yankovic270 01:20, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

I would rather New Germany died by my hand then by anyone else's. Though New Germany is dead, that doesn't mean my article is. --Yankovic270 01:42, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Article suggests a survivor state on the Central California coast. No offense to the author but I do not find this nation to be plausible as is. There is near 1 million people living in this nation and I don't think post-Doomsday California could support such a population. Mitro 20:27, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * I am going to change the population number to 85,000 User:Riley.Konner

Other than a simple population reduction I believe this idea is fine. No matter how hard hit an area is, there will allways be survivors. It's simply human nature. --Yankovic270 20:32, November 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, there would be survivors. Maybe 20,000-30,000 made up into nomadic tribes that were in constant war over resources. There would be no stable government, if there was one, the land would no longer have been arable, and the desert for all purposes would expand west because of this. Lahbas 22:58, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually that is not a bad idea for the region Lahbas, a small population made up of rival gangs, nomads, tiny hamlets, etc. fighting over resources. Probably not all that different from what the  article looks like.  But an organized nation state is implausible.
 * What does the creator of the article have to say about all of this? He seems to be ignoring the discussions happening on the article's talk page and this page.  Mitro 00:36, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I was waiting for you all to finish If the Central Coast gets accepted then I will begin work on a nation in Santa Cruz which is pretty much what you all talked about. If you actually read the article the nation isn't a superpower as you describe it to be it is a cultural advocate. User:Riley.Konner
 * As of now I can't support the article. It is too optimistic.  The place would have more in common with Road Warrior then what the article suggests.  Mitro 18:42, November 5, 2009 (UTC)
 * But Santa Cruz would make more since for a road warrior nation, this is because during the years 1982-1985 Santa Cruz was the most dangerous city in the U.S.User:Riley.Konner

Plus if any of you where going to make a nation based off of the region you live in you would probably write the article to the near exactness I have.User:Riley.Konner

I agree with the sentiment. It is what made me decide to create Assiniboia. I do live in Southern Manitoba. --Yankovic270 04:15, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

Please check out the newly written article and give me your criticism. User:Riley.Konner 8:05, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible that Weird Al might be allive in Central COast? If not then that is fine. --Yankovic270 00:09, November 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * If you can find any proof that Weird Al might be alive then I'll add a celebrity section to my article. User:Riley.Konner

I cannot find out where "Weird Al" was on Doomsday. My only source of information, the internet, has turned up nothing but countless pages on his albums. --Yankovic270 17:32, November 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * According to his website he did a live show in New York in July and December in 1983, but I can't find any info on what he was doing between those times. Its possible he was still in New York, or he could be home in Lynwood, a suburb of LA.  Either way I think its very likely Weird Al would be dead in this TL.  Mitro 18:21, November 12, 2009 (UTC)

There is currently a dispute about whether this article should remain in canon. Please see the article's talk page. Mitro 14:54, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Prisons & Crime
There is potential for small nations lead by former criminals. There are bound to be maximum-security prisons that survive DD. If any of the "supermax" prisons existed at the time, then there is massive potential there. Most of those facilities were fr away from large population centers, for obvious reasons. I could see one of these inmates declaring himself warlord over even a small city-state in the midwest. --Yankovic270 18:14, November 5, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yank, you don't get nations from those, you get thugs. Even if they formed a government, I couldn't imagine one more unstable. Lahbas 19:12, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

True, but for all the thugs there are in the prsions there are white collar criminals. The schemers. The men or women who can get the thugs to work for them. Why do you think organized crime is still arround? Because there are men or women (but usually men) who can give orders. --Yankovic270 21:50, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

i agree with Yankovic270. theres a hierachy in everything, even in prisons. --HAD 09:48, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

I have read (in a fictionalized account of a post-apocalyptic world) about these, for lack of a better term, fiefdoms run by former criminals who had naturally escaped from prison when they were abandoned. I could see Crime lords seizing control of territory in the midwest. It would be like an American, and less refined, version of Sicily. And what role is the Yakuza playing in post-DD Japan? For those who are not familiar with the terminology, the Yakuza is the Japanese Mafia. --Yankovic270 04:10, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

I think the kind of order that would be imposed by criminals taking power in areas would actually be more common than just in prison areas. Basically you would end up with a new kind of feudalism, and criminals wouldn't be the only ones doing this. All over America and Europe there would be small groups led by an ambitious or talented leader. Sometimes encountering someone more ambitious or talented, and certainly some more powerful, and eventually some areas would have sort of feudal kingdoms, with groups led by one leader swearing fealty or some such thing to a stronger leader, eventually this system of control encompassing an area large enough to be called a country. Likely there would be several rival lords fighting for control etc. I think this would be just as commonplace as small municipal republics.--Oerwinde 07:31, November 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree here. We've focused so far mostly on the larger and more stable communities.  But for each of them there are probably several polities held together by strongmen.  And I like the idea of prisons as nucleii for a few of them, because it does make some sense.  In a post-apocalyptic world, the alpha dog of a cell block has a lot of what it takes to rise to the top.  Benkarnell 18:00, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

I could see the Rat Pack regaining control of Las Vegas, because in my mind there is no logical reason thet Sin City would be nuked. There may be targets in Nevada, but I don't think Vegas should be one of them. If it is possible, what if it is a nation with Gambling being a major source of income? That would be veeerrry interesting. --Yankovic270 17:34, November 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * Las Vegas is certainly not attacked, but everyone in it is dead meat anyway. Las Vegas is a bizarre service-economy anomaly.  It only exists because of tourism and entertainment: all foot, water, and supplies need to be shipped - and with DD, the people lose not only their only means of paying for all that (tourism), but also the infrastructure they need to get it all.
 * Imagine several thousand planeloads of people crash-landing in a random spot in the Nevada desert. That's basically the situation the Las Vegasians would have found themselves in after DD.  Benkarnell 18:00, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

And also due to the ruthlessness of these hardened criminal masterminds, I seriously doubt there is going to be competition for long. One of the warlords is going to kill the others. By the way, I need a suitable criminal mastermind to lead this "nation". The four questions I need answered before I can start on the article are:

1.Who is the leader?

2.What is a suitable name for the "nation"

3. Where is the nation?

4. How much territory should it control?

--Yankovic270 17:50, November 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * It depends on the criminal mastermind's political skills. You have to keep your lieutenants in check in order to stay in power long term.  Most of these criminal-warlords probably meet an untimely end at some point; seeing one last more than a few years would be a rarity.  But probably it would happen in a few places.  Benkarnell 18:00, November 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * You know what, I'm rethinking what I just said. The USA is severely depopulated.  If you're a hardened criminal mastermind, and you don't like the way your boss (a stronger hardened criminal mastermind) is running things, you have more than ample opportunity to pack up and leave.  So in a way, the prison folk are probably already accounted for: they are in the many "roving gangs" and "nomadic clans" that are mentioned so very frequently.  (And whether you call a particular group a roving gang or a nomadic clan probably depends largely on whether they're on your side or not.)  But I'll grant that there may be some criminal-ruled communities that stay in one place.  Benkarnell 18:11, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please answer the questions I asked? And I would want the "nation" to be in Las Vegas, because other than New York or Chicago it was the only city in the United States with a criminal underground strong enough to actually be in control of the city. --Yankovic270 18:13, November 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * Nellis AFB is near Las Vegas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nellis_Air_Force_Base --BrianD 20:12, November 7, 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm trying to think through the whole idea. The Las Vegas criminals probably died of dehydration along with everyone else.  As for other locations - how about somewhere along the US border?  Drug smuggling and all that.  Again though, that's mostly a lot of desert.  Benkarnell 18:30, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

Why wouldn't there be even a "skeleton crew" managing the water supply? All you need is a small group of people to maintain and teach other people how to maintain it. --Yankovic270 18:37, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

I need at least a community or district where a supermax prison that was functioning at the time of Doomsday is. I at first thought that the supermax at Florence, Colorado was perfect, but it only opened in 1994. So that was immediately nixed. I want a place near a supermax prison, but of couse not near any impacts. --Yankovic270 13:43, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

A part of Panama annexed by Colombia. Benkarnell 23:13, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * I am very supportive of graduating this article. Mitro 15:03, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

There is a dispute about the plausibility of this nation. I marked it as a proposal until the dispute is solved. Please see the article's talk page for more info. Mitro 03:02, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

Canal Zone
One big question. Was the Canal Zone supposed to be nuked down?. If so, how do we rebuilt it. Since sea shipping has become an important medium of transports post 1983.
 * This also comes from an early version of the Timeline (1991): "After a hard passage to a bombed and nearly unusable Panama Channel the Franklin approaches Continental Europe." Now, how the canal was bombed but still navigable I have no idea.  Maybe engineers blasted a way through it???  But you're right - it's another instance where I think I/we failed to put 2 and 2 together. Benkarnell 16:52, November 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, I asked because Darién says "Colombia finally made progress in 2008. That year, the League of Nations created a new Canal Zone as one of its first mandate territories. The League gave Colombia primary responsibility for administering the new territory, provided it drop its permanent claim over the zone. A number of people from the Darién Autonomous Region are playing a crucial role in heping to establish League control over the Canal Zone, work that remains incomplete."Possible scenarios I can think of the Canal Zone (Wikipedia):


 * 1) The Canal wasn't nuked. Plausible if Panama City was not nuked. Has you see here, the city and the canal are very close.
 * 2) It was nuked and destroyed both city and Canal (locks and other infrastructure, destroyed, rendered useless or beyond repair). It is not navigational and must be rebuilt .If there was a direct hit to canal itself, forget all what follows and end of story;
 * 3) Only destroyed or heavily damaged the City and damaged the Canal. It could render useless the locks on the Pacific, blocking navigation on one side. Could be repaired in a few years (or decades).
 * 4) Only destroyed or heavily damaged the City and cracked or destroyed both locks. Could be repaired in a few years (or decades).

With the following variations from above (mainly 3 and 4):
 * 1) If both locks where destroyed, the Canal could be flooded, and made a connecting strait to both oceans or obstructed along its water course,
 * 2) If the Pacific lock is destroyed, it could still be navigational up to the next lock.
 * 3) The canal is obstructed or with heavy debris on the Pacific and/or along its course and major removal or repairs needed.

Some ideas for the moment. --JorgeGG 18:15, November 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * If anyone did not put it together than it was me... I did not want the "Franklin" having to circumnavigate Cape Hoorn, so I simply decided to let the Panama Channel Zone navigable...It was an early stage of the whole TL when I have been working alone practically... did not give it much thought though I got my Bachelor´s Degree in LOGISTICS :):)

But a complicated issue which needs some thinking... (I insist to solve it myself as I did not think about the ramifications.)

So I would solve it by one of these possible scenarios:


 * a)leaving the Channel intact and changing it to NOT being bombed...reason? because the USSR wants to keep the Channel for tactical reasons (giving Cuba and the Soviet allies in the region a way to act freely or occupy it later by conventional meanings.

though this would leave a considerable US military force intact which would have great repercussions on the region and some topics very well explained in articles... --> objective in civil wars around the Channel Zone and the position/involvement of the US forces to it... --> they could decide to cooperate with the (then dictatorship if i remember right?) Panama Government to a "protection for supplies" -Program defending the Zone and an extended area (maybe al of Panama) pledging not to atack any neighbours. THis after some years could leave Panama in a quite important position and becoming at least regionally important...By 1999 (analogous to the US-Panama Treaty on Sovereignty in the region) to scenarios possible:
 * Panama as a the "Bouncer" state guarding a Channel vital and crucial to the post-Doomsday-world playing its own role.
 * Because of strong interest from the Commonwealth (justifying its rights via the ANZUS Treaty) and the SAC to control the passage (maybe even the European Remainder) there might be one or more "Panama Crisis" nearly drifting to war...only to be solved by implementing a form of International Administration...which we somewhere have already mentioned in a LoN administered Channel Zone i think...


 * b) Channel being bombed and unusable: American force wiped out, passage closed, significant problems for international trade. The problem I see is to imagine who might be ablte to rebuilt it, depending on the amount of damage, radiation forget it for the next 20 years?? This would also have effects on the whole region and a LOAD of content written as all is based on nothing in South or Latin America (apart from Cuba) being nuked!! If by definition the damage is not that much (which I would rule out, bomb it or leave it) there might be an engineering race between South America and the Commonwealth to rebuild it as a navigable Panama Channel is crucial and control of it a vital point...giving all the aid convoys, military routings and later restarted commercial relations and trade routes like Celtic Alliance-Punta Delgada-Panama-Tahiti-Commonwealth...

I do not see much more possible scenarios (Panama seezing control by force?? I would doubt, maybe a later war with neighbours but this would contradict a lot of canon work as well). Conventional attack? or a later attack by a Soviet submarine?? I would doubt this would be realistally explicable...

So me personally I would tend to scenario a) as this would have less repercussions (and discussions!!) about well-established and recognized content...and to harmonize it is not unfeasable...a Panama remaining neutral, staying to its borders, keeping out of regional conflicts but focussing itself and the economy. This would also safe my logistics honour in maintaining an important element of world trade.

I am interested in hearing other opinions (what I described is from memory, not researched yet!) or proofs of the channel being "PRiority target in Soviet war plans etc... nontheless I will start working on a Proposal page for Panama (1983: Doomsday)!!

WELL SEEN JORGE !!! Thank you very much. Hope you register soon and become a contributor :)!! --Xi&#39;Reney 18:40, November 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * OK. I think the key question is US military.  They would probably have been the target, and in 1983 they still had a major presence in Panama.  This page gives information on all US bases in Panama, and this map shows where they were.  The most impoortant targets were probably Fort Clayton and Howard Air Base, both right next to the canal on the Pacific side.  One nuke could probably have taken out Clayton, Panama City, and the canal, and done heavy damage to Howard.  Is it remotely possible that a nuclear impact would result in flooding, rather than blockage, of the channel?  The 1991 voyage of the Franklin is a pretty significant plot point, and impacts lots of pages.  Benkarnell

hmm. seems I forgot to read your Darien proposal sorry ben .... :(:(  this would leave a few more variations but cementing the scenario a.... I would prefer not to having the Darién work you did-and which I really like)  being radiactively influenced. So I strictly vote for a non-bombing of the Canal as this is as you mentioned a damn crucial point for a large part of DOOMSDAy, especially the established international relations and the basis for a lot of content written on this... (kicking my ass for not thinking about this...)

I am thinking about a way out...but NOT malfunctioning ICBMs...hmmm --Xi&#39;Reney 18:54, November 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * We have a complicated situation within Panama (once again sth alike her in Doomsday)... as according to Wikipedia then-strongman in Panama Manuel Noriega -I guess you US citizens like this- just gained power on August 12th 1983...so he was just 1 month in de facto power (not being elected, just head of the armed force" as the world changed...hmmm. This might give a bit of weight to a possible Soviet attack on the Canal...I go on researching to find Soviet intentions on Panama (or Channel ZOnes in general in possible wars between the Superpowers... ) and I think we need to discuss the strategical importance of the US force down there...referring to Cyprus as an example...hmmm...--Xi&#39;Reney 19:08, November 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of the USSR saving the canal for its own future use, but... no other behavior from Doomsday demonstrated that kind of foresight, did it? DD was kind of an insane burst of destruction.  But if it was spared, conflict between US troops and Panama's government... or even between different factions of Americans and Panamanians... could have gneerated enough refugees to tear apart the Panamanian state and generate refugees (which is the premise for my Darien idea), yet left the canal damaged but basically still serviceable.


 * According to the book I've been using, Noriega didn't have a firm grip on power until 1984. So Panama's power structure was basically unstable.  If there was no nuke, it might be possible for the US troops to take over the country outright.  (For a while.)  Benkarnell 19:18, November 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit) XiReney, I really do like your "scenario a". It opens up lots of possibilities for tension between ANZ and South America.  And (selfishly) it wouldn't require me to change too much in my Darien page.  Can I suggest, though, that whatever power ended up "winning" in Panama, it wasn't stable?  First a US military junta, then a Panamanian dictator, etc. etc.  The idea of a stable, powerful "bouncer state" in Panama does not seem to fit with what we've been assuming in the region.  There may have been periods where the Canal was not useable because of civil wars.  This would give the ANZ and South America (and, actually, the Soviets) all reason to fight for control of the canal.  And it would also help motivate them to accept LoN arbitration.  After all, all want the canal to be open and working.  But I do think Colombia would get a sort of priveleged role in the Cana Zone, due to its proximity, with ANZ and Soviet officials and forces participating as well.  Maybe even some French as a neutral party that also has an interest in maintaining the canal.  Benkarnell 19:37, November 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * And you have to consider the possible interest of on the Canal. If theres is war on with  and the rest of Central America, besides controlling the canal for transport reasons, it becomes a military necessity to have control of it before someone else has the same idea. --JorgeGG 19:46, November 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, so (assuming this will work), our best idea seems to be that Panama was spared a nuclear attack because the Soviets expected to be able to capture it conventionally. That never happened, and basically... for 24-odd years Panama's neighbors began a headless-chicken type of competition for contorl of the canal.  Finally the LoN introduced some kind of compromise solution that was best for everybody.  Now here is the question: How likely is it that the Soviets would not have bombed Panama?  A lot hinges on that question.  Benkarnell 19:58, November 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * I would go for your unstable Panama...much more attractive for neighbouring and transcontinental potentates...and according to the research I am doing It seems the mmost plausible way having until 1999 or so a fragile country being the playball for ANZC, SAC, Colombia, Costa Rica and whomever you want. I would go for the US Military Junta! The Noriega-led National Guard can not eb a match to what the US have stationed their, not counting what US forces might gather from the region to fall back to the Canal providing a surviving base. (imagine a Carrier Group blockading a least the Atlantic outlet of the Canal!!). This would be kept up al least until the ANZUS order kind of reestablished contact between the dispersed forces...until 1984 or so... but still then I in place of the ANZUS High Command would have a interest in keeping control of the Canal...BUt this kind of brings me to a concern for the famous "Franklin Mission"... if a large US force is still holding ground in Panama, they would for sure be an information HUB in the region... Even with all satellites gone I would guess there was some contact between Australia/Tahiti and Panama resp. the US Forces there...Solution: Panama is a first target for them in the region to go to and regetting supplies.

an intact Panama Canal is a mighty tool in Doomsday...control for the ships passing the channel at the time...

WE NEED A DECISION FIRST BEFORE GOING IN TOO MANY DETAILS: Is the Channel an ICBM target for the Soviets or not?? If there is not a overwhelming and convincing majority against it I call upon the "elderly/admin status" to decide this quickly myself with Ben as this touches the background of 1983: Doomsday (or its flaws, as I admit) and a lot of work currently being done to preserve the integrity of this Timeline.--Xi&#39;Reney 20:07, November 11, 2009 (UTC) So ME casting a strong YES to Panama Canal survival, for the above mentioned reasons. REsponsibility for a flawles and well written explanation lays with me. --Xi&#39;Reney 20:07, November 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * It's definitely best for the Timeline if the Panama Canal survives... that Franklin voyage is such a turning point.
 * As for the big contradiction, namely: if the US had continuous control of Panama, how to explain this Franklin business? I think we can look at the darker side of human nature to  solve that.  The destruction of the entire USA would have profoundly affected the troops in Panama.  Ideally, they would heroically maintain order in Panama an wait for some kind of US contact.  But there could easily have been divisions and power struggles within the body of US troops.  Maybe when the Gathering Order happened, one faction of the Americans said "We're getting out of here," took everything that wasn't nailed down, and went to Australia.  Those left behind were left to do their own thing, basically becoming caudillo-like rulers themselves.  By 1991 there are other powers active in the region: Colombia, Mexico.  The Franklin may have had a "hard journey" up the canal (as in the timeline), but were able to mostly drive away any attackers.  Now, I still want to know what the Soviets were actually planning in the event of nnuclear war.  Various members here say they've read what their plans were.  Do most printed versions say Panama was a target, or not?  Benkarnell 20:17, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

This is the hard point I... i can not find anyhting in the endless depths of the web which mentions Panama being a primary target or even the US mentioning this apart from what I put in below...I am currently analysing what to find about the military presence in Panama at Doomsday time...

Seems that in general at that time we are looking at about 10.000 american soldiers stationed in the CAnal Zone, even though they were in Kind of reduction since the Panama Canal Treaties fom 1977...Mainly infantry stationed in several forts, including the Jungle combat School, and -most important installation- the US Army South Central regional command and the AFN South network TV and Radio station (important for the later Franklin Mission maybe). The 193 army Brigade, an airborne paratrooper unit something was not very strong until october 1983 I would suppose...

The US installations were mostly assigned to protect the Canal, provide a Intervention unit for some region...not very much pleading for an Soviet ICBM to say good morning...Hard for me to evluate the importance of this regional command or alike...maybe some US guy can shed light on this??

I say this presence ... though significant...would not outweigh a possible tactical importance for the Soviet having an intact Panama Canal at their disposal later on...though leaving it to the US/NATO intact moving their ships through...(though the carriers will NOT fit through the Channel..all assembled invasion scenarios on US soil here in AHwiki place the direction heading via ALaska to the West Coast right?

So I would say let the Soviets plan for the wargame (rememebr we have a SUDDEN TOTAL STRIKE, no conventional kids games month ahead of Doomsday) be with sending a few submarines around the Pacific and Atlantic outlet of the Canal (maybe along with some Cuban kamikaze boat bombers) causing enough trouble and binding enough forces of the NATO in the region to use the assigned ICBM (S) for something else in Europe or Continental United States. --Xi&#39;Reney 20:57, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

HISTORICAL Facts speaking FOR nuclear attack:

Each of these missiles, in short, is capable of striking Washington, D.C., the Panama Canal, Cape Canaveral, Mexico City, or any other city in the southeastern part of the United States, in Central America, or in the Caribbean area - President Kennedy about the CUban Missiles in 1962, naming the Canal as 2nd only to Washington --Xi&#39;Reney 20:16, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

Facts speaking AGAINST nuclear attack: and survival for the CHannel in MY PRIVATE :) key to WW III scenarios in the 80s "The Third World War: The Untold Story" written by the the former NATO HEAD General Sir John Hackett, the Panama Canal is not really mentioned as far as rememeber (I know, this book depicts a mostly conventional war with just one exchange (Birminghan, then Minsk or Kiev), but it explains a lot of strategy, goals etc. of both sides....

REALISM speaking FOR attack: NUCLEAR or CONVENTIONAL


 * I would assume that the Panama Canal is nuked, for the reason of the strategic bonus it would give to the American forces. The Soviet Union would have no hope of capturing it until they were ready to actually ready to invade the United States. That, and the fact that the United States itself is only a couple hundred miles away from its reserves, which could be deployed in days. The Suez Canal is a different situation, since it is within easy access of both NATO and Warsaw Pact forces; therefore, the two are not comparable. With the Soviet Union fighting both China, NATO, fighting in the Middle East, they would NOT plan on taking the Panama Canal, and would wish to deny it to the United States; they would realize that communist forces in Latin America would not be strong enough to take it either. Lahbas 21:10, November 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * Since this seems to be one of those things that could go either way (there are good arguments for both sides, kind of like the nuclear winter issue), then I move that we declare Panama to NOT be nuked.  This simply makes it easier for us.  I will modify the Darien article accordingly, if that is what we decide.  Benkarnell 21:34, November 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * I move for Panama to not be nuked. There's something, IMO, for leaving canon largely as it was, because the alternative is to leave the timeline open for constant revision and take the risk of effectively rebooting it every so often. I believe we need to be cautious about revising canon, and make sure we're making changes for the right reasons. Also, is it possible that Russia would have sent a small-yield weapon that would have destroyed the military base and leave the canal (largely) usable?--BrianD 01:30, November 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * Nothing nuclear. The base is just about on the canal.  Benkarnell 01:38, November 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, Ben. IF you attack it, then it's done. Panama City would be immediately affected as well, giving the close proximity. Even a small-yield weapon might be enough to render the Canal unusable respectively the occuring chaos would avoid successful repairs. --Xi&#39;Reney 15:26, November 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * I repeat my vote: I declare Panama and the canal NOT being nuked and unusable. Only deciding on historical facts we would be able to go for both...BUt the sake of the TL integrity IMO leaves us not much options.--Xi&#39;Reney 15:26, November 12, 2009 (UTC)

Suez Canal
And now the Suez Canal. According to, El-Cairo, and perhaps Alexandria (not clear in the text) was nuked. This would leave the Suez Canal has a no strike zone. No problem here, it was spared because of tactical issues. It is obvious, considering that the USSR needed a fast and short route to India and Asia for its Black Sea Fleet and supply line. Therefore... get ready for this question... Who controls afterwards the Canal, before giving up the control to the LoN? Egypt? or we get another conflict in Middle East for the control of Suez. --JorgeGG 19:27, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

The Confederation of Greece does. Mr.Xeight 21:44, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

Guyana Cooperativa & French Guyana Suriname (1983: Doomsday)
Why exactly is Guyana not a member of the South American Confederation? It's one of the earliest country pages we have, yet it's never been explained. Is it only a matter of time, do you think?

Along the same lines, with the SAC such a powerful and prosperous organization, have any neighboring states (Central America, the Caribbean) requested membership? Or candidate/observer status? Benkarnell 03:09, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * I have always thought that the natural expansion of the SAC would take it north into Central America and even Mexico. I think Colombia annexing that Costa Rica island is a good example of that.  Mitro 15:08, November 4, 2009 (UTC)


 * I never developed the Guayana cooperativa to more than a 3 - lines- status... It was created even before Fero added the South American Confederation so it is more a relict country...I tried to give this another destiny than Being absorbed into a unified South America due to French Guyana being always something special as a French territory...

referring to my established description of Guiana Space Centre (1983: Doomsday) and the events between the French Foreign Legion and BRazilian forces "KOrou incident".... the Korou Space centre being a cornerstone for International Cooperation and crucial I would propose the following:

and the Korou Space Centre after the Korou Incident be put under joint French-Brazilian administration in the first place. This later being modified into SAC-French/RTE administration, but NOT becoming part of SAC because resistance from European remainder Government. Suriname (or a leader) seeing advantages of turning to neither European influence nor SAC proposes merging the territories forming some kind of a "South American Switzerland" in 2002. PLebiscites in both countries decide by tight margin to form a unified government declaring "eternal neutrality". The Country being reorganised in a way like pre DD-Switzerland. BOth SAC and European Remainders accept because of Guiana Space Centre and to have a neutral buffer in between. IN the following it would copy Swis strategies and offer attractive tax conditions etc.... becoming an important international HUB, at least in between European and South American Trade. A lot of European Refugees enter and help boost the economy to a relatively rich country.
 * French Guyana& Suriname merging

After the foundation of the LoN in 2009 Suriname/French Guyana place themselves under LON direct administration, giving a basis for international organisations and a precedence for a sovereign nation putting itself under jurisdictional orders.

I would keep the name by communities after a brief stage of civil war starting to cooperate and calling itself Guyana Cooperativa firstly being drawn into the SAC becoming a member state going the "normal way". Maybe a internal political dispute about joining Suriname/French Guyana might arise in the 2000's feeling unimportant along the SAC...
 * Guyana = Guyana Cooperativa

This would be my idea i will start working on now... I reverted the Guyana cooperativa back to Proposal status and insert the pages about French Guyana and Suriname according to above mentioned ideas. PLease keep the pages themselves intact until I announce my proposal work being finished!!!

ANy comments, especially on the idea of converting French Guyana/Suriname into a "international model/precedence state" are welcome. Also keep in mind the proposal of the LoN AUthority for Spatial Operations. But please plce them here !!!--Xi&#39;Reney 20:52, November 8, 2009 (UTC) ;Thank you... and I am feeling the vibe of working on DD again... yeahay...


 * the separate country pages are opened and in proposal status now. --Xi&#39;Reney 21:51, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Wait, isn't the Guyana Cooperativa the former Guyana and Suriname? If so, why do we need an article for Suriname? --DarthEinstein 22:00, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Because I propose a fundamental change in the situation reverting what was somehow canon before regarding Guyana cooperativa..! An Suriname being not that spanish-like many of its neighbours i believe it an interesting move to vary it a bit!...--Xi&#39;Reney 18:44, November 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to say that I don't like the idea of French Guiana being under direct administration of the LoN. We talked about that idea with the Celtic Alliance berfore, and came to the conclusion that it doesn't make sense for a relatively developed nation to willingly give up its own self government.  It's not as though it were a sensitive, small area like the Canal Zone or Malta - it's a big country, and one with a history of democracy.  Besides which, it would put the country's fate in the hands of who-knows-what faction that happens to be in control of the League.  I think French Guiana is able to declare itself a neutral nation without becoming LoN territory.  Switzerland, after all, managed to do that in OTL, and Vermont is starting to do that in TTL/.  Benkarnell 23:08, November 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * Ceding sovereignty indeed just doesn't make sense to me. Even the current LoN territories would be sui generis entities in International Relations which would require a profound restructuring of the way we think about sovereignty. Employing this principle on a country scale seems, at least for the coming decades, just one bridge too far to me.


 * I must admit that I already had some ideas on the Guyana Cooperativa as it used to be, though I never posted them for fear of turning the place as incomprehensible as South Africa due to my lack of time to actually write an article about it. Now that it is being discussed anyway I feel I might as well post it:
 * Venezuela claims the part of Guyana that is west of the Essequibo river, I believe I have seen on several maps that the Venezuelans would try to reclaim the area which I guess makes sense.
 * In a desperate attempt to fend of the invasion, Guyanan authorities might seek help from Suriname.
 * Military dictator Desi Bouterse of Suriname, though not formally speaking in charge surely the 'strong man' of the country at the time, could send his military to the east bank of the Essequibo river. Since I reckon the Venezuelans just won't be interested in conquering the east bank and won't bother crossing it the Surinamese troops won't meet much, if any, resistance. Something I guess one would exploit by claiming this to be a 'tremendous military victory'.
 * The atmosphere created after the invasion will have brought the two countries together, paving the way towards the union as used to be described in the article.
 * Because the country was created after a Venenzuelan invasion, this also gives us a plausible reason for the country not being a member of the SAC.
 * Anyway, it's just an idea. Feel free to comment or to just ignore it. --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 15:08, November 12, 2009 (UTC)

I have been working on the Chile article. I am not an expert on the region so feel free to change or add things to it. Mitro 23:24, November 12, 2009 (UTC)

Delmarva
In addition to my ongoing work on the Middle East, I have created a survivor nation on the former US East Coast, Delmarva. http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Delmarva_(1983:_Doomsday) I have already opened a discussion page and laid out some of my thoughts. Since this is still a work in progress, I welcome your feedback and suggestions. Thanks.--Fxgentleman 03:28, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

Cape Girardeau
I would like to get this article canonized. I have yet to hear any complaints or issues with it. I also need this article to progress the expansion of The Commonwealth of Kentucky. --GOPZACK 22:23, November 11, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm generally ok with this article except for Rush Limbaugh being the leader of the country. My research puts him at Kansas City in 1983, and that city would probably be destroyed.  Even if the city wasn't I doubt he would make it toward Cape Girardeau.  Mitro 03:17, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

Afghanistan has been described as a lawless region in this TL, but I have been wondering about what actually happened post-Doomsday. There were Soviet troops located in Afghanistan at the time of Doomsday, would they have tried to return home or would they remain behind and try to carve out their own territory? Also would the US lob any nukes toward Afghanistan to destroy these forces? Thoughts, comments, questions? Mitro 15:02, November 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * Given the scale of the war that was like a Vietnam for the USSR, I would try get out quickly (perhaps to Siberia or a planned rendezvous point - perhaps a military message sent from the surviving Army command in Siberia) with as much personal and equipment. That would toppled down the so called Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, government that only survived thanks to the Soviet forces. The vacuum of power wouldn't be necessary be filled by the Taliban. Perhaps a long civil war, with Pakistan ambiguous on whom to support. --JorgeGG 15:15, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

I have been pondering this point as well. I think it is likely the US would have attacked Soviet Middle East client states on DDay. I have already incorporated this thought into my work on Syria and the soon to be article on North Yemen. These weapons would have stuck key Soviet targets in the country and facilitated the collapse of the Soviet backed communist government, which was already being propped up. I would see this opening the door to Islamic rebels who were already fighting the communists at the time to eventually take control of the nation at some point and impose an Islamic government. However, there might be a distinct possibility some surviving Soviet forces and Afghan communists might try and create a smaller sub state, akin to something of a warlord, in an isolated section of the country. Though the arguement of trying to withdraw what was left is very logical, if the surviving Soviet command could reach them.--Fxgentleman 15:56, November 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * So what do you think the targets in Afghanistan would be? Kabul seems like as the capital of the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan, but would there be any other targets?  Mitro 16:17, November 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say main target Kabul (2.5 to 3 million of habs) and secondary one, Herat (it seems it was the main access route to USSR). The rest of the country has less then 500 thousand in the next major city. They had a guerrilla warfare so they spread along the country, but the command post is in Kabul. Soviet war in Afghanistan. --JorgeGG 16:34, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

My knowledge being limited in this area, I did some online research and one particularly helpful book was “Afghanistan: The First Five Years of Occupation” The writer stated the three principal Soviet military bases were Dasht-e-Kiligai in Baghlan Province astride the north-south highway; Bagram AFB, 45 miles north of Kabul; and Shindand AFB in Farah Province, 60 miles south of Heart. He also adds, “Soviet army contingents were in all major cities and provincial capitals; at all airfields, and at strategic points along major highways, such as the Salang Pass Tunnel on the main north-south highway. About one-third of the Soviet ground forces were based in the Kabul area….One section of the country, the 185 mile Wakhan Corridor in northeast Badakshan province, was occupied by the Soviets in 1980 and administered solely by them.” The book is very interesting and can found at Google books. Taking all of this into consideration, I would wager taking out Kabul and Herat, along with a number of major bases, especially airfields, might be enough to bring the whole system crashing down. Of course, this is speculation on my part. --Fxgentleman 16:57, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

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

As a beginning to explain what I mean:

Exact POD definition
Since a long time a TL-inconsistency was September 26th, 1983 being defined as the POD of this ATL..but in fact the POD must be "several days earlier" as defined on the start page. I inserted September 19th decision being made to send Colonel Petrov on a training seminar somewhere else as a provisional explication. Any other versions you might think of? --Xi&#39;Reney 22:14, November 11, 2009 (UTC)


 * hmm. seems like I am too concerned about things no one else is concerned about...I should not spend so much time on them...hmmm...or dramatize them  ...did I loose the feeling for the 1983: Doomsday Timeline...?--Xi&#39;Reney 18:19, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

Doomsday Report outdated and confusing
The Doomsday report and especially the nuked points map is IMO not really useful and just adding to confusion and getting in the way of advances. This map was quite auickly made by Fero without having been discussed within here too much. And as current problems ar based on this (radiation ways etc.) I suppose we need to thoroughly revise the Report and specifically the map... --Xi&#39;Reney 19:01, November 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, the whole article needs to be revised to take into account all of the new targets that have been mentioned on other articles. I have marked is as a proposal until the dispute is over.  Mitro 19:14, November 13, 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea on the map. I had asked Fero where he got his information, and it seemed from his answer as if everything was based on his conjecture of where the fallout would have gone. I didn't challenge him on it, largely because I thought it was seen as his proposal. But with it being seen as canon, if it is going to be canon it needs to be discussed by the entire community. --BrianD 19:19, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

Problems with the Timeline

 * Before we progress any further, we need to discuss two major points in the timeline


 * 1) According to the timeline, there is a nuclear summer during the following year after Doomsday, with tempatures 10-25 dgerees above normal, average, whichever. This brings up the rate at which ice is melting at the caps during that one year. Normally this would be unimportant, but we need to know how high the sea levels are going to rise and their effects on global geograhpy, at least in the immediate aftermath (since atfer this point tempatures are going to go down to unrecorded lows, but only after a number of years). Here is a document that showed areas in the Southern United States that would be effected in a small rise: http://blogs.trb.com/news/specials/newsillustrated/blog/2008/05/sea_level_rise_will_we_be_subm.html


 * 2) What happened to India? There is only a very small chance that it got nuked by China (whose entire arsenal was based on bombers at the time, many who probably did not get off the ground), and almost no chance by any other nuclear power. Pakistan did not have nuclear weapons until 1998, so India likely would have pushed to recapture the remainder of its disputed territories. Still, it is possible that the economic collapse could have resulted in enough social unrest to tear apart the nation, even with a stable government. This is a big "if" however. Lahbas 00:24, November 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) The Climate page addresses most of this. Louisianan has thought it through fairly well.  Since we've never actually had a nuclear war, all ideas about their effects on the climate are basically hypothetical, so I believe we picked a theory and went with it.  What is written is written (QSS), and anything else can ad to, but should not really subtract from it.  Nuclear Summer, I think, probably led to some genuinely abnormal weather patterns but not large-scale melt.
 * 2) Again, what we have is that India fell apart and Pakistan did not. Now, both of those key pieces of info predate 90% of the total content of the project.  The best answer is that the "if" you speak of came true.  It may be that we need to add some more support structure to the why and wherefore of it all, but it would be very, very hard to retool something that is so foundational to the TL.  Benkarnell 01:37, November 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * Alright then, but we have to imagine that in the first year those areas would be flooded, only to largely recede over the next couple years. However, what should be noted is that the lack of high levels of carbon dioxide, which would stunt plant growth (it has been proven that ALL plant life grows better in enviroments richern in Carbon Dioxide). We also should assume that, as a result of Global Cooling and increase in glacial ice, the sea levels have lowered by about 5-10 meters over the years. Lahbas 02:48, November 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * When I first started working on the TL the timeline said India fell apart, had a brief period of reunification under the UIP and then fell apart again shortly thereafter. I did some work on India, I created the map of balkanized India, but I really did not go into detail about how it happened.  Later MCPrank came in and began taking the India article in a different direction with the UIP, now armed by ANZC, retaking the breakaway states.  For some reason Prank and I got into an argument about whether India would have collapsed following Doomsday.  Deciding to stick with canon, I did some research and discovered that early 1980s India was not a very stable place and there was a lot of social unrest.  There was the rise of insurgents in Punjab; violence in Assam between native villagers, refugees from Bangladesh and other Indians; tensions with the Sikhs after Operation Bluestar; abuse of civil liberties; and Indira Gandhi would have been assassinated by her own Sikh bodyguards in 1984 touching off the death of over 3000 Sikhs. Consider the political and economic effects of Doomsday, this social unrest could only get worse.  Meanwhile if we consider Jorge's recent map on wind patterns, India would receive fallout from the nuclear strikes in China which would only make things worse.  I think it is plausible that India would collapse, it fits with the general them of the TL for one thing, but we do need some detail on how exactly it happened.  Mitro 15:33, November 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * I am with you on the collapse of India. seeing Wikipedia pretty rough times. To many ethnic and religious clashes between groups and also to consider some communist guerrillas warfare in some states. Perhaps in a future development in can be inserted a charismatic leader modeled in the M. Ghandi to once again unite India. Bangladesh also. I think Pakistan would also take advantage on the Kashmir to integrate it completely and has a payback on the failed intents of 1947, 1965 (and 1999 in OTL). --JorgeGG 16:07, November 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, I'm glad you agree with what we have! According to current articles, Pakistan did annex the entire Kashmir and has begun sort-of expanding into Afghanistan. Benkarnell 16:39, November 12, 2009 (UTC)

So most of us seem to be in agreement over what little we have about India... but it really needs more detail, in my opinion. Also look at my articles and ; two states that border India and should be referenced in India's page. These pages also explain the creation of one of the breakaway states of India. --DarthEinstein 17:10, November 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you add such info? As the author of those articles you are in the best place to properly explain it.  Mitro 18:31, November 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * Also I am finding references in the and  that India was nuked during Doomsday.  This seems unlikely to mean, I believe India was a member of the non-aligned movement.  I know Lahbas mentioned that China might have done it, but again that doesn't seem that plausible to me either.  Mitro 18:47, November 12, 2009 (UTC)
 * I added the information about Sikkim; I also added sections where the different breakaway states can be elaborated upon. About India being nuked, I don't see any reason why they would be nuked... then again, I don't really know much about the region at all. My articles about Bhutan and Nepal were really just stabs in the dark aided by Wikipedia. If India wasn't nuked, though, it would be the most populous region in the world, I think. And as a safe (radiation safe, that is) region, India would attract a lot of refugees fleeing China. The Chinese populations of Indochina would also increase, I think. Come to think of it, what is in Indochina? This region hasn't been explored yet, does anyone have any ideas about how to proceed with it? --DarthEinstein 20:01, November 12, 2009 (UTC)


 * It might be worthwhile to do a little region-by-region planning, similar to what's been done in the Middle East and the northeastern part of Asia, and to a lesser extent in Central America and parts of the USA. There are a few regions of the world that are totally untouched: mainland Southeast Asia, like you say, but also China, Eastern Europe, and sub-Saharan Africa aprt from Angola, South Africa, and Liberia.  It might be good to just come up with some vague plans for what is in there.  Of course, it's not like there's any rush.  If 5 years go by before we have any contributors interested in, say, Cambodia, it's not as though something terrible will happen.  We're all just having fun, after all.  Benkarnell 22:10, November 12, 2009 (UTC)