Talk:Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand (1983: Doomsday)

Would Auckland or Brisbane not be the biggest city? They weren't bombed at all. I think New Zealand would also be stronger than Australia after the attacks, having read the whole ALT.194.164.174.82 18:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I just changed it to Brisbane. Also even if New Zealand would be stronger than Australia it wouldn't really stop Canberra from being the capital city.--ShutUpNavi 04:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Territories
I made that list myself; if anyone wants to add comment or disagreement, go ahead. I wonder if Niue or the Cook Islands would choose to join the Commonwealth rather than retain their associated state status (inherited from their pre-Doomsday treaties with New Zealand). Benkarnell 17:00, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Name change.
Naming the country the Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand is kind of a mouth full I.M.O. While it works for an official name it’s too long to call it that for every sentence. How about we rename the article and common name for the country Australia–New Zealand Commonwealth, or just Australia–New Zealand? When Austria and Hungary were united as a single country before the end of World War I they were known as the Austro-Hungarian Empire or just Austria–Hungary. I think we should adopt a similar name for this page/country.--ShutUpNavi 17:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


 * ):) That's why I used the ANZC abbreviation in most places... but we can move the page to the ANZC (1983:Doomsday) cause i think linkin is the problem you targeting at...

also im in New Zealand right now i think about any prper/slang term to call the OZ+NZ Commonwealth :) --Xi&#39;Reney 23:52, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Currency
When did the currency become the pound sterling? Australia used dollars. New Zealand used dollars. The various American territories absorbed into the ANZC used dollars. It seems pretty clear that the commonwealth is going to end up adopting a unified currency called the dollar, unless they suddenly have a fit of British nostalgia. Benkarnell 17:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, someone seems to have changed it without discussion. I'll change it back. Benkarnell 17:02, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Government
Not much work on the government yet. Since the ANZC is sort of "group property", maybe it should be discussed. I don't think they'd keep the title of Governor-General, since that implies a subordinate position to the monarch. Simply a President?

Also, I've been wondering whether Australia and New Zealand are completely integrated, or whether they are federalized somehow. Is there an Australian government anymore, or just governments for the individual states? Benkarnell 17:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * the tile of Governor-General might have been kept for traditional purposes. as for its composition, ANZ might be more centralised to help with reconstruction. There has been talk *here* of abolishing the states due to some mismanagement so the idea wouldn't come out of nowhere.--Marcpasquin 18:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've also been wondering about political parties. I'm not familiar enough with the politics of Oz or NZ to even guess what political parties would emerge in a combined state. But I'm curious, because those parties would inflience politics in Hawaii. Benkarnell 21:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And also, someone somewhere suggested that the ANZC might build a new capital: on the Australian continent (bulk of the area and population) but on the coast (so all the islanders wouldn't have to go inland, which seems more Australia-centric, somehow). Jervis Bay is part of Canberra's capital district, but remains undeveloped as a port. Its original intention was to function as a port for Canberra. It seems like a good idea to me to build a capital there, and leave Canberra as the capital for Australia itself.


 * Final thought: I may be way off here, but it always seemed to me that Canadians kept the Monarchy because of their love and loyalty to it, while Australians kept it because they couldn't be arsed to abolish it. [Marc, as a Canadian-Autralian, feel free to correct me.] So for that reason I suggest that the Commonwealth adopted a President rather than a G-G. Plus a Parliament and PM and all that; the only difference would be the name. Benkarnell 22:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think part of the reason why english-canadians support the monarchy is that it is part of their culture and help set them apart from the people in the US. As for the Australians, the main reason why the republicans failed was that unlike the monarchist, they had no coherent plan to offer beside being a republic. They basicaly refused to endrse one plan or another as to which form a republic would take (presidential, semi-presidential, directly elected president, indirectly elected president, etc...). This realy hurt the campaign and still does nowaday.


 * what this mean is that if after doomsday the australian government came up with a clear plan on what a republic would look like (coupled with the death of the queen) it probably could pass easily while canada would probably try to get back to normal by having a monarch.--Marcpasquin 13:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Are we sure the Queen is dead in this TL? Don't the British have any early warning systems to get the VIPs out? Mitro 14:01, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

does someone no a way i can tidy the article? whoever put the info on the goverment in there disorganized the article and i don't know how to sort it out. --HAD 14:22, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

thanks. --HAD 23:24, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

Army vs. Force
We have two new militaries being created within a year with each other that are pretty much the same organization. Maybe we should consider merging the two ideas. Mitro 16:21, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

how about the CANZF (Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand Forces) consisting of a Commonwealth Air Force (CAF), Commonwealt Army (CA) and Commonwealth Navy (CN)?--HAD 17:02, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

in fact, i am going to merge the two. ones basically a gun list, the others a vehicle list. and about the M1, it was only entering service in the US Army in 1983, so i think an updated Leopard 1 would still be in service.--HAD 17:11, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

i hope the changes are OK. will change if unhappiness results.--HAD 17:21, September 19, 2009 (UTC)

Capital
Some months ago, Jervis Bay was proposed as a new capital: it is on the Australian continent but is not part of any Aussie state, and it's not located inland, which would probably snub the islanders from across the Commonwealth. I think Aukland was also suggested, since it is also not an existing national capital. At any rate, Jervis Bay or Aukland make much more sense than Canberra, which would give the impression that the Commonwealth is really just an expansion of the Australian government. Benkarnell 05:15, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * Works for me.--BrianD 06:01, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. What does everyone else think? I'm happier with Jervis Bay, since (1) it's different, and (2) it fits most closely with the canon saying Canberra. Benkarnell 11:09, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

Sydney, Melbourne, Perth
So what did Australia do with these sites? Did they eventually excavate them, or leave them as memorials? And, has ANZC given any thought to rebuilding those cities?--BrianD 06:01, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

I've also wondered if Australia would have decided to 'replace' the three destroyed cities by building up infrastructure in nearby towns (and cleaning up whatever damage they may have taken from fallout and the blasts)? Here are some possible replacements: Just some thoughts.--BrianD 02:30, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
 * Melbourne - Geelong? (on the coast)
 * Sydney - Newcastle? (like Geelong, also on the coast)
 * Perth - Bunbury (I believe the ANZC would not let Western Australia wither away, that it has some type of importance to the country)
 * In a story I read several years ago Chicago was destroyed during a war between a US/Russia/Japan alliance vs. the UN. In the sequel they mentioned a "New Chicago" was built by combining two suburbs (can't remember which ones now will have to find the book again). Anyway I think such an idea you proposed may seem plausible. If anything they will need a place to put the refugees from those cities. Mitro 23:28, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
 * I went with that idea because a) those cities have already have an infrastructure and it's easier to add to them than b) building a "New Sydney" or "New Perth" from scratch. Australia wouldn't have had the means to do that early on anyway.--BrianD 00:43, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

Sparse
this article lacks info on ANZC customs and cultre, etc. i no nothing about Oz or NZ cultre,so if anyone does, i think it would an improvement to the article if they shared this knowledge. --HAD 10:38, October 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * So far no one has adopted the ANZC, so there's not a whole lot written on it. And honestly there's no rush. It's not as if our members are starved for ideas at the moment. Somebody will come around with good material for Oz-NZ eventually. Benkarnell 11:08, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

thats OK then.--HAD 11:26, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

?
why does the goverment paragraph look like its overlapping the military one?--HAD 23:28, October 25, 2009 (UTC)

why?
why were the australian cities hit with nukes? whats australia done to the Soviet Union? --HAD 14:32, November 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * Military alliance with the USA. Though that was ANZUS, Australia-NZ-US, and yet New Zealand was never hit. Did NZ have no major air or missile bases? Benkarnell 04:28, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps NZ wasn't much of a threat. Or enough of one to merit nuclear warheads. --BrianD 04:52, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

There were two reasons for nuclear strikes: to destroy as much enemy's missiles (before they were launched) as possible, and to cause inadmissible (for the enemy) damage to the enemy. What's the point of hitting Australia? As if destroying America is not "inadmissible" enough? Just for being bad guys sake? — Hellerick 05:24, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

NZ not a threat to any one. there navy had 4 old frigates, an air force with about 20 figters and a small army. they wouldn't be hit. i don't australia would be hit either. it has no targets of any significance and posed on theat to the USSR. --HAD 09:24, November 20, 2009 (UTC)

What were the reasons for targeting Melbourne, Sydney and Perth, other than their economic status? What is their military value to the Allies, and therefore first strike targets for the USSR?--BrianD 07:03, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * I would think Australia wouldn't be considered much of a threat, and if it was targeted at all, the national capital would be the #1 target in order to decapitate the leadership.--Oerwinde 09:17, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

so the question is: was Australia being nuked a plausible idea? if it isn't, we should change the article to reflect this. --HAD 10:55, December 17, 2009 (UTC)

1984 all over again
Dammit. why did u made australia the most advanced? are u trying to make this like 1984 by owrell? This is sick. I would rather go fed my dog than read that shitty timeline of yours for offending Europe and think Oceania is better, you big brother fan boy Imperialreign88 December 7th, 2009

In case you haven't noticed, Europe was BOMBED INTO SMITHEREENS. Australia is an advanced nation and thus was the best candidate for leading the Anglosphere. And besides, it has a wonderful British model to follow, AND isn't even the world's only superpower, I suggest looking at the SAC's page. So guess it pays to read, huh? But I would like to congratulate you, with the new year around the corner you're a candidate for the wiki's biggest idiot AND the biggest FAIL! Mr.Xeight 01:15, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * Calm down X, I wouldn't reccomend feeding the troll. Mitro 01:21, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * ...And a sockpuppet too. What was the name of the other person who went on and on about George Orwell? Benkarnell 12:52, December 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * "Greatereich33" was his name...should we extend his block longer? I only got Imp88 for 3 days. Mitro 19:02, December 9, 2009 (UTC)

population estimate
ANZC revised population estimate

OTL (source - Wikipedia)

Australia 22,000,000 New Zealand 4,330,000 Samoa 245,000

minus Perth 1,600,000 Sydney 4,400,000 Melbourne 3,900,000

Minus roughly 10 million due to the loss of the three major cities

Plus perhaps a million refugees

I come up with a figure of 17 million in the ANZC--BrianD 06:12, December 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't forget and the territories. Also what about the associate state? They have their representation in the LoN but they are political tied to the Commonwealth? Should we consider their populations as well? Mitro 14:43, December 18, 2009 (UTC)


 * Micronesia would add 100,000 and Hawaii another 80,000. I think it's safe to assume there were some survivors in the suburbs of each of the three bombed cities (and that the survivors would have migrated to nearby cities for shelter and to begin rebuilding their lives, and went on to have families and raise kids). I will guess 10 percent of the present TL population to have survived - giving a number of 990,000. So, if we have


 * Australia - 14,000,000 (roughly the same number of people in OTL outside Sydney, Melbourne and Perth, plus 1 million survivors and children of survivors, plus 1 million refugees and ex pats from the United States)


 * New Zealand - 4,300,000 (same as OTL)


 * Samoa - 245,000 (same as OTL)


 * Micronesia - 180,000 (according to article)


 * Hawaii - 80,000 (according to article)


 * East Timor - 1,134,000 (same as OTL)


 * Alaska
 * Cook Islands (includes Pitcairn Island) - 20,000 (same as OTL)
 * Kiribati - 98,000 (same as OTL)
 * Nauru - 10,000 (same as OTL)
 * Norfolk Island - 2,100 (same as OTL)
 * Niue - 1,400 (same as OTL)
 * Palau - 20,000 (same as OTL)
 * Papua New Guinea - 7,500,000 (according to article)
 * Tuvalu - 12,000 (same as OTL)
 * Vanuatu - 200,000 (according to article)


 * I come up with a revised number, counting every nation (including Papua New Guinea), is 27,802,500. Without Papua New Guinea, it's 20,302,500, still a significant number counted against other individual countries (but not against a South American Confederation).
 * We also may want to consider the possibility of a government-encouraged baby boom between 1984 and say, 1988. This (along with migration and the ex-Americans needing somewhere to live) could help account for Bunbury, Newcastle, Geelong and Jervis Bay being close to a million inhabitants. It might raise the population figure higher - perhaps 500,000, a million, or higher?--BrianD 18:47, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

Rugby union and rugby league
I am going to rethink the development of rugby union and rugby league in Australia. The main growth of the sport seemed to happen in the mid-1980s and 1990s. Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation was a big player in the development of league. I'm not sure, post-Doomsday and no Murdoch/Fox/News Corp to speak of, and with television probably not having quite as much influence on sport TTL as in OTL, that league would have developed to the extent it has here. This is where it would be great to have an knowledgable Australian rugby fan working on this section :)--BrianD 19:50, December 18, 2009 (UTC)

ANZC Timeline
@Brian: as far as I know there is no TL for ANZC, but there has been so much written about them on other articles you could easily expand their history section if someone wanted to take the time to go through everything. Mitro 13:22, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

MItro i think the main timeline fits the role but this idea would be useful for less specific eventsOwen1983 13:34, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

Got it. BrianD 15:12, January 14, 2010 (UTC)

MISTAKE
guys, i made a mistake editing the article and deleted somw ifo at the bottm at the page. i don't know how to correct this. i'm sorry. --HAD 10:00, January 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--Oerwinde 11:19, January 15, 2010 (UTC)

edit
can someone please edit the info box to reflect the exsistence of newcastle and other important cities? me an templates don't mix. HAD 19:44, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

AC/DC
I apologize if anyone else thought of this before, but wouldn't the band still be alive and kicking after DD? Does anyone know where they were during September 1983?--Vladivostok 16:09, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Markings
- Can somone please change the the CAF markings to reflect that is The Commonwealth Armed Forces (CAFs) inseated of ANZAF, pleae? and the air Force is the CAirF, by the by. --HAD 16:13, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

USS Nimitz
Wasn't there a discussion regarding the USS Nimitz? The article currently says it was found in 1997 floating off the coast....would it still be usable after that time? What was the reasoning behind that?

I don't think there was any reasoning. An i would say its a bit unreasonable for a ship to drift for 14 years while remaining unnoticed.HAD 20:24, March 23, 2010 (UTC)