Talk:1983: Doomsday

Before you start editing, please read the Editorial Guidelines.

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

Former Proposals: Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 =GENERAL DISCUSSION= The following is for general discussion to improve the TL that does not involve article proposals Structured into rough sections for easier navigation.

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

El Venezolazo
a group of big protests, riots, and looting that is happening in Caracas, Maracaibo, Maracay, Ciudad Bolivar, Valencia, and other cities and towns in Venezuela, the cause of the so called Venezolazo ( in english the Great Venezuela Smash) is the take of possesion of the dictadorial goverment of Henrique Salas. The countrie congress have suspended the constitucional rights, and the police and military are using firearms to stop the situation, also civilians are using guns against the police and military. by 11:00 am. , all shops are shut, and public transport is not running, the official number of deaths civilians and not civilians is 37 and is constantly growing, by 12:30 a self coup has start in Venezuela, the goverment know that in the next days there will be chaos, with restrictions, food shortage, militarisation, burglaries, an the persecution and murder of innocent and not innocent people. Then salas is in exile in Brazil, a provisional goverment start for the constitucional period 2007-2012 that salas was going to finish and possible continue being president, the new provisional female president will be Ana Beatriz Perez Osuna ( here on venezuela she is a political character and friend of my mom so i know her very good so i know that she will be a good president if this is canonized) and if you ask if Salas is a dictator why the countrie is going so good (in the story becuse in real life it's completely different), well i'm going to give you an example our dictator president Marco Perez Jimenez he do injustices but also modernize the countrie but he finished in the same end like salas here. So i think that this is a very good idea.

Albania
So what happened to Albania? They were not a member of the Warsaw Pact in 1983, but they were on the Chinese side of the Sino-Soviet split. What do you think happened to this nation? Mitro 16:01, April 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Given that the USSR attacked China, it seems a reasonable guess that some of the Warsaw Pact nations attacked Albania. Gaining position in the Balkans and all that. Do we have any sources on likely Soviet strategy in a nuclear war? Benkarnell 20:04, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

Graphics / Visualization /Cartography
Section Archives: Page 1

Wiki/Timeline/Article Technicals
Section archives: Page 1

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

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

Culture / Society
Archives: Page 1 • Page 2

Miscellaneous discussion
Archives: Page 1

Future of Timeline, both literally and metaphorically
Moved to Talk:2010 WCRB report on the Future Geopolitical Outlook (1983: Doomsday). Mitro 00:49, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

Loose Nukes
I know this has just been brought up in the discussion above but it is defiantly worth looking into. Does anyone have any thoughts on which nations may still posses some left over nukes? Should we make a page deciated to the serch for missing/loose nikes? (If so I'll gladly start one up.) --GOPZACK 21:09, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Israel would have a few still. They have already used a couple post-Doomsday. India would also still have nukes post-Doomsday, but since it has balkanized, it might be possible that more than one successor state has one. Mitro 23:06, March 24, 2010 (UTC)


 * How about the PUSA or the USSR? --GOPZACK 23:16, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Any nuclear weapons in PUSA territory would either already be used on Doomsday or destroyed when the Soviet nukes hit the silos there. The USSR is another story. Mitro 23:32, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Israel would definitely have a full and intact nuclear arsenal. Based on my research, they would have had missiles, bombs, artillery shells, and mines. Two other thoughts though. South Africawas engaged in a nuclear weapons program in 1983, so what would have happened there as the nation fell apart. Also, I think it would stand to reason some smaller nukes would have escaped the USSRinto nearby nations, perhaps ex-military using them as bargaining chips. As I mentioned earlier about Iraq, I think some of these soldiers would head there and logic indicates maybe parlay with Iraq for asylum be giving them give them a couple of artillery shells or something smaller, which they could then use against the Iranians. However, I think it likely they would be squandered quickly and as such, Iraqwould only briefly be a nuke power. Shells, suitcase nukes, mines, and mortars are likely what would be floating around there, Europe, and the old US rather than missiles. It would of course depend on where such items were stored and if a site survived the war. As such, we would have to determine, if possible, where these were in 1983. Fxgentleman 23:42, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

USSR certianly would have them. Israel is a definate possibility. "Pacific France" or whatever its called might have some based around the old Force de Frappe SSBNs, while some European nations might have old tactical nukes such as the SS-20, Pershing and such and such. Prussia, the two Polands and Belarus are likely candidates in this catergory. the PUSA probably has some B61s stashed away somwhere. Scary thought: Scily might have nukes recovered from the nuclear sharing agreemnent storage stations. --HAD 09:43, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Hello? Any readers?HAD 16:25, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Related pages
Where did the "related pages" things at the bottom of the articles come from? they look out of place. --HAD 09:38, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe it is a new feature that comes with wikia. We didn't have any control over it. Mitro 13:13, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. --HAD 14:37, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Additions to headlines
why do the recent WRCB headlines seem like proposals rather then statments. surely you propose soemeting onb the takpage then create a headline?--HAD 16:26, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Why does Virginia and the Dixie Alliance care about what is going on in California? Mitro 03:30, March 31, 2010 (UTC)


 * And how do they know? That - while not the topic of your question - brings up the topic of communications in 2010 TTL. How do the various nations know what's going on, unless the Associated Press or UPI (or Reuters) was resurrected? We have to assume some reliable, global press agency is operational and informing people on what's going on...we also have to assume that's how the Dixie Alliance is aware of California and keeping up with it. So the alliance can support whomever they want, but practically, it would do well to concentrate more on the Cannibal Hordes of Nuked Memphis than the Chumash Republic. BrianD 05:40, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh, "Cannibal Hordes" -- in 2010? Joking, right? SouthWriter 12:50, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to go with South on this one. I have no doubt that in some places there were outbreaks of cannibalism, but any "bands" would have burned themselves out a long time ago. Mitro 13:13, March 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, I claim Reuters. Someone else can create the WCRB Press Agency or claim UPI or whatever. BrianD 05:40, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

It can be certain that such places as stable as Australia and New Zealand, and parts of South America, would have news agencies that did not depend on the "international" new agencies for their stories. They would have agents around the world covering things and getting the news back home by whatever media was available. The news in the northern hemisphere after DD, though, would depend on the re-establishment of radio broadcasts and relay stations to get the word back to Jarvis Bay, etc. I figure their would be at least two agencies - one in ANZC and one in SAC. The USSR would probably also have one up and running as well. Any group that wanted complete coverage would have to work with all three regional agencies.

By 2010, of course, there would be Reuters (as Brian has established) and probably an American agency working out of a stable area like West Texas. And then there could be "leaks" from intelligence agencies via shortwave broadcasts that could be picked up and judicially shared. SouthWriter 12:50, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have to object to this whole Virginia-Chumash union. The current state of North America makes any such organization highly improbable. Furthermore it is unlikely that either state could provide aide to the other in case they are attacked. Mitro 15:58, April 1, 2010 (UTC)

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


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

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


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


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

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


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


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


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

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

=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.

and
this is the basic idea for a survior society in china-- very open to suggesting at this point.
 * It's wickedly dystopian, along the lines of Thunder Bay and aspects of Superior's history - I like it. I don't know enough about Chinese history or culture to say whether it's a realistic Chinese dystopia, though. It also seems quite large - I'm wary of creating large survivor states in China before we nail down more of its history. Benkarnell 22:11, January 21, 2010 (UTC)

yea, the size kind of bothers me, though its sparcely populated--I think. I'm kind of hoping that this will start chineese history for this TL-- when I went through this site for the first time, the abscence of any information on China after DoomsDay stuck out like a sore thumb. As far as I can tell, China was suprise attacked by the USSR, which caused a total government breakdown. A coastal few towns seem to have survived, as they are mentioned in tiawan's article, but under the impression there is no larger (or at least better) civilization in the interior. Some stuff on the edges has been claimed by the USSR, but they have simply stayed away from going farther south into manchuia--implying it not worth it due to the state of things. China has a history of major Civil wars (all of the most deadly conflicts of the last two hundred years are european conflicts or chinese civil wars), and they have a history of war lords. As for Chinese culture, my idea is that the culture was in flux at that point, and Hong Long (the emperor) got rid of those who opposed it. but I do think it could be smaller are you thinking population (its at about a twentieth or less of what the area would be now) or land holdings?Desert viking 05:33, January 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess the area: it seems like a really big chunk of China, especially for a monarchist revival like this. Given China's decades without a monarch, and the long ideological purge wrought by the Cultural Revolution, it seems like a would-be monarch would only be able to maintain control of a smaller group). But I'm not dead set against it, and it could work given enough justification. It's a revival of the warlordism of the 1930s, in a way. Did any of those warlords pretend to be "emperors"? What would they be most likely to call themselves in a post-Communist China ruin? Benkarnell 03:37, January 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * The warlord era, at least in the north was fought over who controlled the Beiyang Government. None of the warlords claimed to be Emperor but a lot of them called themselves or were called Marshal something. I would imagine that in a post-Doomsday China the warlords would call themselves Marshals and would all claim to be the legitimate government of the People's Republic Verence71 18:57, February 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * That's mostly what I was thinking. We've played with reviving monarchies in various places (Prussia, Luxembourg, New Britain, Orleans), and I've been guilty of it myself (Hawaii, Cocos Islands). But China seems an unlikely place for it to happen, what with the legacy of communism and its impact on the public consciousness. It's for the same reason that we haven't had any monarchies arise in the former USA (except Hawaii, where I honesly believe the restoration was justified, even likely). I like the idea of a Marshall running things in this region. And then I'd be more OK with a largish survivor state in Anhui. Benkarnell 03:15, February 5, 2010 (UTC)

All right, I've changed It to be slightly less monarchal--- it still has the feel, but it avoids the words. However, this means the name of the article would have to change, something I don't know how to do. Right now The best name I can come up with is the "Dragon Lands" which just doesn't sound right. The whole country could be refered to as the Dragon Army, or the article could be rewritten as a post-doomsday history of Anhui. does anyone have any ideas? (I don't really like any of mine so far) Desert viking 17:10, February 10, 2010 (UTC)


 * It sounds good. I'm almost totally ignorant of Chinese culture so I cn't offer any real advice on how to rebrand it. I do know that "Hong Chow" looks like a pretty archaic spelling - probably the Pinyin Hong Chao would be better. He is a totally fictional man, I'm guessing? Benkarnell 15:27, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

totally fictional I looked up some common Chinese Names on google. Chao would probably be a better spelling, I agreeDesert viking 07:13, March 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the only thing that prevents these two articles from being graduated is the name. Any suggestions on a better name for the country? Mitro 13:08, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Nanchung and
a resilient group of chinese who have built a nation around a leader in resonse to threats from the Dragon Kingdom.Desert viking 00:57, January 19, 2010 (UTC)

My article about a small town in Illinois that survived Doomsday. Mitro 00:45, January 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I had been hoping to contribute to this one, since I actually know a lot about it, but I don't think it's going to happen. Graduation time? Benkarnell 16:43, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually could we wait before graduating this. I want a chance to finish writing the history of the city-state first. I realize this has been a proposal for a month now but I am just asking for a little more time. Mitro 17:31, February 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Life is making it to difficult to write for the TL. Is anyone interested in adopting this article? Mitro 17:23, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take this off your hands if you'd like. Seeing as I have done a decent amount in the area. --GOPZACK 19:46, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those general articles. Thoughts and comments welcomed. Mitro 02:56, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm, I think that more needs to be added based on the fruitful discussion we had. Maybe I can do that if I don't find work today (increasingly likely :. The main thing, to me, is that the term "education" should have a broader scope meaning "teaching children the skills necessary to survive". Even in some of the largish survivor states, most of that probably occurs outside formal school builings. "Homeschooling" (probably not the term used) only gets a quick mention near the bottom, whereas it's probably the norm for large numbers of people. Benkarnell
 * I realize some of that fruitful discussion was created by my edits, but I really don't have the time to put more work on the article. So if Ben or anyone else wants to take a stab at it, go ahead. Mitro 19:59, February 17, 2010 (UTC)

Karelia
A proposal for a survivor nation in the former USSR. --Jnjaycpa 05:11, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Territorially speaking is it based around this part of Russia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Karelia?? Verence71 20:23, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I assume that in a large region between the killzones of Leningrad and Murmansk there would be some survivors. The only question I have is if there are any potential targets in that region.Jnjaycpa 20:48, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

This link might help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leningrad_Military_District Verence71 21:00, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. After a little research I found that there was a minor military airbase in Petrozavodsk, which means it was nuked. For the moment, I'll assume no other nukes fell in that region.Jnjaycpa 01:04, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

70% or so of the population of Karelia is ethnic Russian so surely Russian would be the main language??

Ethnic Karelians themselves are about 10% of the population so maybe at some point post-Doomsday there could be an armed uprising among them Verence71 16:02, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

I decided to split Karelia into two parts: a Finnish-dominated democratic republic (Republic of Karelia) and a pro-Siberian regime (East Karelia).

According to this scneario, Soviet and Finnish Karelian forces fought in the winter of 1983 (Second Winter War). By spring of 1984, the Finnish Karelians reclaimed most of the territory lost in 1940. In 1988, the Finnish Karelians decide against rejoining Finland, and declare an independent nation, the Republic of Karelia (Karelia). The Soviets retreated and set up the Provisional Soviet Socalist Republic of Russia (East Karelia). By 2010, Karelia will formally join in the Nordic Union, while East Karelia will declare its alligence to Siberia.

Jnjaycpa 02:33, February 7, 2010 (UTC)

I've started a proposal for Soviet Karlia. Jnjaycpa 06:10, February 7, 2010 (UTC)


 * Though both incomplete, does anyone object to graduating these articles and marking them as stubs? Mitro 04:31, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and does anyone object to me adding to them and fixing the name of Soviet Karelia?--Vladivostok 06:10, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * You should at least ask the original creator before you go ahead and add things to the articles. Since you do plan to add more I say we should keep them as proposals until then. Mitro 17:40, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem, I will of course ask him.--Vladivostok 18:34, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

New Vegas -- adoption?
I was "thinking it over," but apparently I waited too long. What is the procedure in "resurrecting" an obsolete article? I don't have time right now, for I still have to flesh out my own corner of the althistory universe. When the article was abandoned, I was still unsure of where the editors were willing to take the survivor city-state. How about archiving the discussion so I can go over it and perhaps bring it back when I get time? SouthWriter 02:06, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just remove the obsolete tag and slap on a proposal tag, its that simple. Mitro 02:18, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I saw that the discussion is at the article - How could I forget! I'll revisit the article sometime in the coming month. It seems that I can't get into helping out in the "article of the month" for the life of me. I guess I just let the rest of the world develop any old way and work my articles in when I can. SouthWriter 03:26, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Per the scenario I listed earlier on the New Vegas discussion page, this is a nation consisting of parts of Nevada and adjacent California which I have been working on. I hope to proivde a map soon. However, I don't want to accidently encroach on New Vegas in regards to borders. When I originally envisioned this, I had loosely used Route Six to define the southern border, imagining everything south of there was of little concern to this nation. I welcome comments on this article, which I will add more to as time allows. Thanks..Fxgentleman 05:21, February 18, 2010 (UTC)
 * Can you link to the page? Benkarnell 16:25, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

I have been thinking about updating this page but I need some help. First off what exactly happened to ? There has been some debate about whether it remained a unified nation or whether it collapsed after Doomsday. A decision on this will help me work out the history of Assyria and also effect this article:. On a side note I changed the article of Jordan a little in response to my edits. The Jordan article stated that Jordan and Assyria share a border which seems unlikely considering the likely location of Assyria in northern Iraq. Mitro 14:49, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Iran has been more or less a unified country in some form for thousands of years. I would keep it that way.Oerwinde 16:42, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

I have no issue with the change as if applies to Jordan. At the time, my understanding, based on my reading, was that Iraq was being referenced as the Assyrian Republic. However, I would like to raise a question concerning Iraq. Ever since I first started my work on the Middle East, I have been crafting what I thought would be a sensible scenario for the future. However, I got delayed in putting this out for consideration. Further, it involves several articles I did not create. Since I am getting started again on this region, I wanted to present my scenario for this portion of the Middle East. Iraq and Iran reach a temporary ceasefire following Doomsday in their war, with neither being struck by bombs since it made little sense for this to happen. Iraq emerges from this period of regrouping in earlier 1984 (perhaps enlivened with Soviet military refugees and weapons looking for work), launching a full scale attack against Iran using Scud missiles as they did per OTL, with the difference they heavily bombard Iran and their cities with chemical weapons, since there is no US, USSR, or UN to stop them. An invasion follows with Iraq reaching Tehran and the nation surrendering and Ayatollah Khomeini dying either in the attack or from a heart attack (he died in 1989 OTL). The Kurdish region of Iran breaks off and merges with its parent region from the old Turkey to create Kurdistan. Iraq annexes western Iran along with Kharg Island with the remaining portion of Iran forming a new government. The rest of the Arabian Peninsula does not do anything to stop them, given they don’t care for the Islamic Republic. A few years pass and an emboldened S. Hussein overruns and annexes Kuwait as well and briefly threatens Saudi Arabia, who fights him off with the help of the other nations of the peninsula. He now turns against the survivor nation in eastern Syria (which I am getting ready to add) and invades. This is too much for Israel who orders Hussein to stop his advance. When he refuses, they nuke Bagdad, killing him, as well as dropping a bomb on his advance army. The new Iraq disintegrates and the Saudi’s and their allies take advantage of the chaos and invade, liberating Kuwait. The Kurdish region of Iraq finally breaks free and joins Kurdistan. It is important to note Hussein would never have given this area up while alive and had used repressive measures, including mass killings and chemical weapons, to control them. Under the benevolent influence of the Arabian Union (a coalition of Arabian nations akin to OTL European Union), Iraq regroups under a new name including their captured area of Iran. At this point, smaller sub nations would emerge such as the new Assyrian Republic. I am currently working on several Middle East articles, including one for Saudi Arabia, and would like to use some of this. Understandably, I don’t want to conflict with what someone else is laying out, so please give me your thoughts. --Fxgentleman 16:52, February 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure if Iran or Iraq would not be attacked. The US Department of Defense suggested in the 1980s that in case of WWIII the Soviet Union would invade the Middle East to deny the US access to the oil. Mitro 17:05, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

My general thought, has been nations firmly in one camp or the other (East vs. West) would make them likely targets of attack in 1983, which is why I argued (and still do) Egypt would have been hit. Iran hated both the US and the USSR. Iraq played both sides, but did tend to lean slightly to the Soviets. This does not put them on the list to likely get nuked. Also, we have to think back as to how this came about. The Soviets are reacting to what they believe is a sneak attack on Doomsday and as such, are going against those elements which immediately threaten it. If this was a thought out plan of conquest, then yeah, I would agree that a strike on Tehran would be a good idea followed by a ground invasion via Russia and Afghanistan. However, the USSR is going to be shattered and will not be thinking ahead towards something like this. This said, your point is good, but I cannot see how it applies in this case. --Fxgentleman 17:18, February 26, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by me. Hoping it will detail the American refugees who fled to other parts of the world after Doomsday. Mitro 16:56, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Series of Indiana related articles. Mitro 16:56, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Any objections to graduating Bloomington? --GOPZACK 13:50, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Minor technical issue. Since Bloomington is a state of Kentucky you should use the subdivision infobox instead of the nation infobox. Also I am a little concerned about the population. The article list Bloomington as only having 4,000 people, while the state of Bloomington has 95,000. Now I realize the state of Bloomington includes the Bloomington, Indiana metropolitan area, but I really do wonder if 95k is to high. How about 80k? Mitro 20:29, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

I dropped it to 85K, is that alright? Also how do you make a subdivision infobox? --GOPZACK 20:47, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Just use one of these infoboxes instead. Mitro 20:50, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you sir, how does it look now? --GOPZACK 20:57, April 2, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by new user. Mitro 16:56, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

and
Liberian related articles. Mitro 16:56, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Yank. See also. Mitro 16:56, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Verence. See also. Mitro 16:56, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by new user. Brian you should check this out. Mitro 16:56, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Yank. Mitro 16:56, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

More Islands in the Pacific
,, , , , , &  --GOPZACK 20:52, March 12, 2010 (UTC)

Although I don't really see the need for many of them, I can't find any reason not to graduateOerwinde 19:56, March 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I am against having these articles. The Carolines are the same thing as the . Banaba, Tarawa, and the Gilbert and Line Islands are covered by - actually, there's a double overlap there because Tarawa is part of the Gilbert Islands. Same with Temoe, which is part of the Gambier Islands, which together with the Society Islands is part of . So the only one that actually needs its own page is Tokelau. If we "double-cover" islands like this, I think it will make it harder to keep track of our information. (EDIT) The Tarawa, Banaba, Gilbert, and Line pages make some sense, since they are apparently districts of the Republic of Kiribati, but that should be made clear, probably in the first paragraph on each of the pages. The others still don't make much sense to have. - Benkarnell 207.63.140.254 20:25, March 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Any objections to marking, , &  as obsolete? Mitro 03:20, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Mitro 13:03, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking again, I'm unsure what purpose the Tarawa, Gilbert, Line, and Banaba pages serve. The Kiribati page says these are the former districts and are not administrative units today (which matches the situation OTL). In post-DD Kiribati, were the districts restored? That would actually make sense as communication became more difficult. Benkarnell 14:15, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * We're not trying to replicate Wikipedia, so unless there's specific divergence for that area of the world, I don't think we REALLY need an article. I mean, we don't need an article about Kerguelen, or many of the Indian ocean islands, because life would continue largely as it always had, unless they get invaded by someone, you know what I mean? Louisiannan 15:44, March 26, 2010 (UTC)


 * True, but the articles are there and not hurting anybody, if you ask me. Benkarnell 18:21, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

,, and
Rather than taking up additional space by making a new posting here, I am modifying the one I originally posted on March 15 [enclosed below] to incorporate all my work. As part of my work on the Middle East, I posted my article for Saudi Arabia on the 15 and one for the UAE as of today. I will post additional articles this week for Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait. Additionally, I posted an article on March 20 concerning the Gulf States Union, a political and economic union between the Arabian nations. My apologies for not being able to post something sooner here on the page regarding it. My apologies for the delay in putting this up, my job takes alot of my time and as such, I have been really busy until just recently. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks. Fxgentleman 02:52, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

As a follow-up to what I have been discussing for awhile, I have created an article for Saudi Arabia as part of my return to the Middle East. I will be following up with more articles regarding other Arabian nations and for a unified body for the region. Additionally, I will be resuming my work as well for those I am already working on. My apologies for taking a while to put this up, my job takes alot of my time and as such, I have been really busy. Fxgentleman 05:06, March 15, 2010 (UTC)

Republic of the Trent and Derwent Valleys
My proposal for a republic in the former East Midlands. I find it odd that no-one has done anything about the huge space in Britain where nothing was nuked! Emperorjames

Essex
A survivor state in Essex, East London and Hertfordshire. The article generates a little conflict with established canon, but I'm fully willing to negotiate. I'm also unsure as to how other users feel my nation should interact with others, so the 'international relations' part is currently blank (as is much of the history, which I will slowly add over the coming days - I don't want to swamp people here). The entire history is extensively researched (it should be - I'm local!) so I would be disappointed if this proposal were rejected; but as I said, I am fully prepared to negotiate issues of canon conflict. Fegaxeyl 14:25, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

It seems okay to me. After a quick glance the only minor problems I can see are East London being being part of the state and the overall size of the state. I was thinking maybe Essex could claim to control East London but not really have any concrete control of the area in the same way that Woodbridge "claims" to control Ipswich. Verence71 16:39, March 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * This is effectively the case. Essex does have links with London communities, supplying them with aid and so forth, but much of the East End is unexplored and dangerous due to both hostile groups and radiation. As I post up more history the situation should seem more logical. Fegaxeyl 17:03, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough then :) Verence71 20:00, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Verence71, as Woodbridge is Essex's nearest neighbour, how do you see the two nations interacting? Part of the reason I included the part over wishes to change to a new currency is to have Essex eventually converting to the New Pound, your nation's currency, as I imagine our two states would grow very close politically and economically after discovering each other. The question is, how and when did they discover each other? Fegaxeyl 20:30, March 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * I had an thought that any first contact between Essex and Woodbridge would come about as a result of a minor military skirmish. Troops from Woodbridge scouting south could "bump into" troops from Essex scouting north. Those troops returning home could tell their respective govts about what happened and then they could try and contact each other by radio. Assuming that all goes well and we both calm down them perhaps the border between Essex and Woodbridge could be fixed at the River Stour. Verence71 21:00, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds appropriate - perhaps one of your 'infrequent raids' in Ipswich could coincide with an Essex expedition? Speaking of which, according to my research the Stour and Ipswich would have received a fairly significant dose of fallout from a bomb over Harwich and Felixstowe. When would be a good time for contact? In my history Essex first begins to look seriously at foreign exploration around 2000. Fegaxeyl 21:12, March 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * Would there have been a bomb over Felixstowe?? I only ask cos I was thinking of having Woodbridge turn Felixstowe back into a trading port. As for first contact 2000 seems about right. Perhaps Essex could send a scouting party north as a result of seeing a Woodbridge helicopter flying south towards London in 1999 Verence71 21:27, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

Felixstowe was one of the UK's biggest ports in 1983, and Harwich, being just across the river, would have almost certainly been hit too as they represented major parts of the UK economy. A 100kt warhead detonated over the village of Shotley would be enough to flatten both the ports, and I can't imagine the Soviets avoiding a chance to destroy an important part of Britain's industry. And besides, if the ports survived, then wouldn't most of the populations in our nations have leaped at the chance to take the ships there and escape to New England? Fegaxeyl 21:33, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't put anything in concrete yet if I were you as there has been some concern voiced over the recent increase in the number of British survivor states. I'd have a word with Mitro if I were you. Verence71 21:38, March 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * (Predictable, generic grousing about the map being too big). Overall, yeah, should be fine. I object to the size, not for plausibility reasons, but for reasons of canon. It's pretty much established that there's nothing this big in England. But otherwise, it's good. Benkarnell 17:58, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe if the state was about half as big as it is currently proposed to be?? Verence71 19:53, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

If that were so it wouldn't be the combined communities of Essex, Hertfordshire and London - it would just be Essex. But would we be okay if I were to shave away half of Hertfordshire and most of the claimed part of London? Fegaxeyl 20:41, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't this conflict with the Celtic Alliance? I thought they had a mission in the area. Mitro 20:45, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there's nothing wrong with both Essex and the C.A. having a presence in the London area. Borders are a lot more fluid in this world than in ours. Benkarnell 20:56, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Essex would probably claim up to the series of reserviors along the River Lea (though they would probably be a single large radioactive lake by the 1990s). Provided the CA explore to the west of this area, and Essex to the east, there probably wouldn't be any meetings or conflicts. I'm surprised no one has pointed out the fact that I've said Colchester survives, whilst the CA page (and I think the Cleveland page too) say that it was nuked. How do we feel? In fact, what was the justification for it being hit in the first place? Fegaxeyl 21:09, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Remember gentlemen and possible ladies (i have no idea who any of you are) that London probably recieved 2 SS-18 "Satan" ICBMs carrying 10 500KT warheads each. London is gone. HAD 18:49, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

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

New York state
My proposals for the present day situation in TTL New York state, incorporating the Republic of Keene and New York Rangers pages now canon. BrianD 19:47, March 21, 2010 (UTC)

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

Outer Lands
The idea sprang from a brief discussion Mitro and I had on the U.S. states page, regarding Block Island in Rhode Island.BrianD 18:36, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Great idea! It would also include Gardiners Island, a little piece of real esate with a fascinating history of its own. (Shameless plug) Benkarnell 18:15, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I told you I missed stuff...this reminds me: where did Mitro or you archive that compilation on where the Kennedys were on Doomsday? The reason I ask is I am wondering if one of them may have been in the Vineyard, or Nantucket, on DD. This also has me wondering if any famous celebrities, or politicians may have been in the Outer Lands on DD night. BrianD 18:36, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Here ya go: American political families (1983: Doomsday). Mitro 18:46, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * So much for the Kennedys having survived DD.BrianD 19:05, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well JFK Jr was in India when DD hit. Its likely he survived to carry on the name. Mitro 19:13, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

The proposal is about the people in the Berkshires.CheesyCheese 23:53, March 23, 2010 (UTC)CheesyCheese 19:51, March 23, 2010 (UTC)

Iran and some related ideas
Moved to Talk:Iran (1983: Doomsday). Mitro 14:44, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Botswana related article. Mitro 14:40, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

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

Potential leader of Virginia. Mitro 14:30, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Zack. Mitro 14:30, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Baconton. Mitro 14:30, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Military conflict involving Dixie Alliance and the town of Jackson. Mitro 14:30, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

League of Britons
Proposed league of nations in Britain to counteract growing influence of Celtic Alliance and New Britain. Bob 16:49, March 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Woodbridge could well be interested in signing up Verence71 19:10, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Whitehorse
My proposal for the current TTL situation in former Yukon.BrianD 21:33, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Reuters
We've never really dug into current-day media in the timeline, and how news gets around internationally. This proposal is a very short bio on the Reuters news agency, which TTL is one of the leading organizations of its kind. The proposal was inspired by the Virginian Republic statement of support for the Chumash Republic, and Mitro's comment on the talk page. BrianD 05:54, March 31, 2010 (UTC)

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

Republic of Cape Breton
I propose that, following Doomsday, Cape Breton Island (in Nova Scotia, Canada) saw masses of people emigrate to other parts of Canada (where order was restored more quickly). The people who stayed behind were still Canadian citizens, but because of the massive area that Canada had to try to re-build, small rural areas such as Cape Breton didn't receive much Government aid. Local people started to support secession from Canada, but were mostly ignored. Eventually, they grew impatient and started to riot, but the Government still didn't listen to them; so finally, a Cape Breton Militia formed. The Canadian Government sent some troops to try to crush the rebellion, but quickly decided that it wasn't worth the effort, so they granted the Island independence.

Cape Breton now has to attempt to organize itself; as well as dealing with being so close to Canada - a country which dislikes Cape Breton for rebelling. The Cape Breton locals are mostly either Scots-Canadian, Irish Canadian, Breton, or Mi'kmaq, and they emphasize their unique culture that this has created. The nearby Anarchic islands of Saint-Pierre & Miquelon (which are disputed between France and Canada) have expressed a desire to join Cape Breton (because they share Celtic heritage). Some Cape Bretonians have suggested joining the Celtic Alliance, but the local Mi'kmaq population are very skeptical about this idea.

So does anyone have any thoughts about this? - Mister Sheen 15:33, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well its currently in canon that Nova Scotia was not an original member of the Canadian Remainder Provinces, but they did become a province again in 2006. To have them be independent now would require a change in canon. Maybe we can rework your proposal and have a Republic of Cape Breton that was declared shortly after Doomsday to provide order to the area. Eventually they established contact with the new Canadian government and joined with them in 2006. However not everyone was in support of that and there is a small but vocal independence movement that has gotten more active since the 2009 Saguenay War (1983: Doomsday). Mitro 15:48, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input, and you're right, the Cape Breton idea will definitely need to be reworked, if it does get accepted. Suppose the Republic of Cape Breton was founded quite early after Doomsday (as you suggested), and became more powerful and developed than the rest of Nova Scotia, which suffered more heavily due to Doomsday. When, in 2006, Nova Scotia was readmitted into Canada, the Canadian government also claimed Cape Breton, as it was formerly a part of Nova Scotia and Canada. However, some Cape Bretonians protested, and rejected Canadian sovereignty over their island. Nevertheless, Canada annexed the island, and the situation remained peaceful until the 2009 Saguenay War. At the outbreak of this war, Cape Breton Nationalists declared that it was due to "Canadian Imperialism", and claimed that Cape Breton was in the same situation as Saguenay (though this wasn't exactly true), and that the Cape Bretonians should support their "Brothers in Arms". Nationalists successfully rallied the population to their cause, and declared the Second Republic of Cape Breton (SRCB). Canada didn't recognize this country, and stated that the Nationalists were a "small group of radicals, with no real support". Then (possibly) a Cape Breton Militia was formed, and declared war on Canada. Saguenay became the first country to officially recognize the SRCB. - Mister Sheen 16:30, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think could Canada could force Cape Breton to join if they did not want to, in fact Cape Breton might have been the most developed part of post-Doomsday Nova Scotia, which would make the island the most influential force in the new province. I think if Cape Breton was absorbed back into Canada it was done so peacefully and voluntarily. If there was anyone against it they would have been a very small minority (especially considering the island would have 23 years of independence by the time it would rejoin Canada). I also find it unlikely that the "nationalists" would be that powerful to recreate their republic. This Canada sits on High Council of the LoN and is a leading member of the ADC. As far as I can tell they are pretty democratic as well, and they haven't forced Saguenay to join them despite their claims on all of Canada. Meanwhile you have a war started by Saguenay for ambigious reasons (they also attacked first). They have allied themselves and have armed the {{1983DD}|Lawrence Raiders}} and their only legit ally,, is in the war only to get international recognition for their control of southern Ontario. It would be really difficult for the Cape Breton nationalists to convince enough of the population that the war is all Canada's fault to make an armed rebellion likely. I still think reworking the Republic of Cape Breton as a defunct state is more plausible, though I am curious to see what some of our other resident Canadians think. Mitro 18:22, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * You know the more I look at the map of Canada, the more I wonder why Cape Breton was not a part of Canada when it was reformed. PEI was one of the original provinces and it is farther south then Cape Breton. And it doesn't make sense to abandon all of Nova Scotia just because they can't help all of it, for example parts of Quebec were part of the reformation of Canada. Mitro 18:34, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. Canada's democratic nature would mean that Cape Breton couldn't be forced to join, and I also think that Cape Breton's people would be eager to rejoin Canada, especially because of Canada's great power in this timeline. Naturally, there would be some Nationalists who wanted to remain independent, but they would be a fairly minor faction. I think that because Cape Breton was far better developed than Mainland Nova Scotia, it is feasible that they remained separate from the rest of the Province until it rejoined Canada. And I also agree that the Nationalists wouldn't be able to rally enough of the population to re-organize the Republic into a sovereign state again.
 * Therefore I put forward this scenario: The Republic of Cape Breton lasts until 2006, when the citizens elect to rejoin Canada as a part of Nova Scotia (but with the capital moved to Sydney, due to the fact that Sydney is now larger and better-developed than any town in Mainland Nova Scotia). In Cape Breton, there is a significant Nationalist movement (not large enough to dominate in Elections, but large enough to affect local politics). Most of these Nationalists are peacefully political, similar to the Bloc Quebecois in OTL Quebec; but there is a small number of more Militant nationalists, who are frequently in trouble with the law. These Militant Nationalists are itching for a chance to fight, and when the Saguenay War breaks out, they form a paramilitary group aligned with Saguenay (who they claim are also "freedom-fighters", despite the very questionable causes of the war). This Paramilitary is active primarily in the East, though they do send some soldiers to help in Quebec itself. - Mister Sheen 19:00, April 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely nothing wrong with having a page on a country that is now part of a larger one. We already have several (the Pampas come first to mind).  Benkarnell 16:00, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm cool with the article. Any objections to graduation?  Mitro 16:09, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by a new user. Due to the fact that New Albany, IN is just across the Ohio River from Louisville, Kentucky, its very likely the town would have been heavily damaged and abandoned after the strike. If there are no objections I think we should mark this article as obsolete. Mitro 15:54, April 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * Give it a chance. If the writer is from the area, he wants to survive. He has had a survivalist become the leader. The population needs to go way down, but otherwise, I think the place has chance. SouthWriter 18:42, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't have to just convince me. See the article's talk page. Zack and Brian also feel the article is improbable. Mitro 18:56, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * South, I LIVE in the area. I know how close New Albany is to downtown Louisville. No one would have lived there for many a year after the nukes hit. The concept itself is not the problem; it's where he placed the republic. BrianD 19:06, April 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm going to mark the article as obsolete. Even if we agree the idea of people surviving a strike and resettling somewhere else, the place the article is named after is implausible.  Mitro 15:59, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

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


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

Republic of Both Ossetias
This is a proposal about the Republic of Both Ossetias, a republic that comprises all of Ossetia and got independence from Georgia in 1998. Fedelede 20:07, April 4, 2010 (UTC)

=FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES= Archive 1

''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)

POD tweak
Maybe the POD needs a slight tweak, given that Ronald Reagan is known to have given a peace-encouraging speech over radio in the USSR in OTL shortly before the 26th and that Reagan gave a speech at the UN on September 26, 1983 in which he said that "a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought". That means Petrov might not have been the only point of POD to deal with. Suppose Petrov didn't report the missiles in OTL because he had heard Reagan's speech on Saturday....That would shift the POD onto Reagan's shoulders as well as Petrov's, and perhaps so a more threatening Ronald Reagan in ATL would've resulted in the 1983:Doomsday scenario. Rickyrab 04:06, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * The POD of 1983: Doomsday was that Colonel Petrov is sent to another installation before September 26th, 1983 and another officer was in charge when 1983: Doomsday happened. Also the fact that Reagan had been in NYC on Doomsday has been known for sometime now, but consensus is that he would be able to get out of the city and taken to safety before the first missiles arrived. The fact that Reagan survived Doomsday has been canon since the beginning. Mitro 13:19, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

North America
Recently I proposed a revision of the history of West Texas and eastern Texas, which didn't receive as much of a response as I thought necessary for me to decide as whether to go ahead or keep as is.

My proposal is this: write out the isolationism of West Texas and have it join with eastern Texas and a group of survivor communities in south Texas, reuniting the state by 1995. Ongoing contact with Mexico would also consider a rethink of the APA article (perhaps one visit to the southwest where Bush sees that Texas is viable, and decides to allow it to choose its own fate. Also, a fly over of New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma, north Texas and the bayous of Louisiana "confirm" that the rest of the nation is still a wasteland). Eastern Texas and West Texas would be obsolete, replaced by a Republic of Texas article, and I'd also go back and revise any Texas-related items in the WCRB Newshour pages.

Thoughts?BrianD 15:25, April 3, 2010 (UTC)

Sounds funky (that means its good, by the way)HAD 22:13, April 4, 2010 (UTC)


 * You're the only one so far who's commented. South has said he believes the two texases would have met up much earlier in the timeline. I may as well write up a proposal - I was waiting for feedback from everyone on the idea before I decided whether or not to proceed with the proposal. BrianD 02:17, April 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * I like it a lot Brian and I encourage you to go for it. It has however got me thinking if the APA establishes contact Texas and had good relations with them wouldn't it give Bush & the APA hope for more survivor nations like Texas throughout the US. Also during the flyover Broken Bow in Oklahoma and some of the groups in Louisiana could be found. Also didn't the state government of Wyoming have contact with the government when they were in the Mount Weather facility. Wouldn't an expedition then be launched to see if anyone was left up there allowing them to find the NAU, Utah, Lincoln and other smaller survivor communities? This is just some food for thought and something I would like to explore with you. --GOPZACK 02:27, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Zack, thanks for the kind words. It affects canon for some significant articles, namely the APA and Mexico. It could affect the balance of power in the region, as Texas may be one of the most powerful nations in North America. Regarding the APA, the deal with Bush needs to be revisited anyway, even if Texas stays as is. (Hello Mitro) What makes the most sense to me is Reagan's advisors telling him to abandon the country, that everyone (including the people in the area and in Wyoming) would die, and their best bet was fleeing to the safest, most powerful, sympathetic ally: Australia. They knew there were survivors somewhere in the US, but the decision was made to abandon it anyway. What needs to be nailed down is why. I don't have an issue with having Reagan and Bush flee for Canberra (we should keep it the same), but we should figure out a workable, rational reason once and for all. I'd like to look at the other things with you as well. BrianD 02:33, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm all for keeping the part with Bush & Reagan fleeing to Australia. I think it had to due with the fact that the only state government they had sporadic contact with was Wyoming and that food, water and other necessities were running extremely low. I doubt it was just one factor that forced them to leave but rather combination of factors. I also don't see someone telling Reagan that "everyone" would die, be taken seriously. I would assume that Wyoming would have told Reagan what had been hit and all the other information they new about the area would have given them a reason to believe that a fairly stable government. I would also assume that somewhere in the Mount Weather facility there would be a report or two on the effects of a nuclear war with the USSR perhaps it would have detailed where possible survivors would flee and eventually settle along with estimates on casualties environmental damage and such. This report may very well have scared the shit out of Reagan & company pressuring them to leave for Canberra. --GOPZACK 02:48, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * No doubt they would have had plenty of data to work with. My contention is if the data told them the long-term prognosis for the U.S. was bleak, then why would Reagan stay? What could he do? Perhaps, Reagan may have thought they could do more for survivors with a base in a friendly nation rather than staying. BrianD 02:57, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * That would make sense but why not go to Mexico City, surely they would have known that a fair amount of Americans would have fled south to Mexico anyway. plus it is geographically closer to America. I'm not saying Australia is out of the question but why not send Reagan and HW Bush there and use George W. Bush as a coordinator of the APA's Mexican division along with whoever is the ambassador to Mexico at the time. --GOPZACK 03:11, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * That's the other thing - why Australia and not Mexico? Perhaps, it was thought Mexico would pose more of a threat to U.S. sovereignty, and Mexico would not be able to ensure that the APA would be able to operate sovereignly and with a reasonable amount of protection. Also, the APA in Australia is one of those things regarding this timeline (like the Gathering Order and the Benjamin Franklin traveling around the world) that's seared into canon - if you change it you better have a damn good reason to do so. BrianD 03:26, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree sir thats why I was thinking appointing George W. Bush to the position as the director of the APA's operations in Mexico. What are your thoughts on that idea? --GOPZACK 03:39, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * This assumes that the APA was keeping tabs on the refugees in the country. This also assumes that the APA has some ongoing treaty or relationship with the Mexican government. That is something you really need to ask Mitro. When I wrote Texas, and rewrote Mexico, I assumed that the APA had abandoned everyone in the former US to their fates. With canon as presently is, I would see Dubya as being a leader in the refugee community, having grown to a position of prominence in the business and political worlds (as a businessman), and perhaps considering a move back to Midland to run for Governor of West Texas in 2013. BrianD 03:55, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

If I may, I'd like to tell you guys what I thought was rather strange regarding the APA. I mean, lets say they for some odd reason don't stay in Mexico City and go to Australia. I can live with that. Abandoning Texas and leaving it without any direct control, although nominal rule could be set up in my opinion is not quite right.

Why would APA disband in this case? They also had Alaska and Hawaii. Don't get me wrong, Hawaii is a great article, but isn't it strange how they rather quickly grabed the chance to become independent? I mean sure, if they officially saw themselves independent from the USA in lets say 5 years after Doomsday, that would be ok in my book. I know they have their own culture and that's fine, but I think they, alongside Texas and Alaska, had an opportunity to stick with the American government.

And also, Alaska wanting to be independent is also quite peculiar. First they disregard APA, their own nations government, and after it disbands, they become an associated state of the ANZC? Sorry, I know most of this doesn't have anything to do with Texas, I just wanted to get this off my chest.--Vladivostok 10:28, April 5, 2010 (UTC)


 * See, this is why I've been kind of a dick all along regarding the increasingly "full" United States: suddenly we look around, and even though the details of most of our pages match up OK, the overall picture they present is radically different from that in the early pages, leaving us with what amounts to an enormous mess to clean up. Either the newer pages need to be brought in line, or the older ones do, and neither is going to be a whole lot of fun. An ounce of prevention, and all that. Hrmph.
 * If we want to jury-rig a solution, it's probably helpful to note that in the period 1984-1995 (the life span of the APA), most of the US was devastated, and the various republics that dot the landscape today either hadn't been founded yet, or were just beginning to take control of their safe zones. If we want to do a deeper fix that's not too difficult, we can nudge the dates in the republics' histories so that their rise to power occurred after 1995.
 * Alaska and Hawaii were indeed governed by the APA before 1995. They didn't seek independence (or Aussie-Kiwi association) until after it disbanded. Benkarnell 15:52, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * I moved this down to fundamental issues since its likely whatever we decide several articles will be affected. Mitro 15:56, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know they were governed by the APA, but I was led to believe by the article that this leadership was a bit loose. Would it be so wrong to get Bush to govern the territories from Alaska? I mean they had territory on the mainland. With Texas and Alaska, it could retain its rule over parts of America. I didn't want to bring it up, but with so many little states and places around the United States surviving, including those we have yet to create, the question arises: Why did the APA disband in the first place? There are so many survivors in the Americas who would want to continue being a part of the United States and the President would pack up and leave?


 * I propose we keep the part where they flee, that is quite essential, but how about keeping the APA around until the present day? The skirmishes in Alaska with the USSR could serve to strenghten government control in Alaska, for example. This sounds radical, but I think future development of smaller countries should cease in the Americas, at least until we can take care of the basics. --Vladivostok 16:15, April 5, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Vlad. A surviving APA makes sense considering the "facts on the ground". After all, if the USSR (hit just as hard as the USA) survived, why not the APA? When the timeline was created, the assumption was that the USA, bar certain parts, was rendered uninhabitable. However, we now know this to be incorrect. Lets say the APA survives, with Texas, Lousianna and Wyoming included as members. Sound good?HAD 16:23, April 5, 2010 (UTC)
 * Guys you are forgetting about QSS and QAA. The US disbanding has been part of canon since the beginning.  Changing it should not be an easy decision, and it won't be because it would mean massive changes to dozens of articles.  AS for the APA, why is it so hard to believe that they could not disband?  They would be dependent on Australia financially and would only be governing a few small territories.  The cost, plus the failure to bring the future MSP citiy states in line, could be enough to convince Bush to disband the APA.  Not only that, but guys this is a dystopia, doesn't a nation failing fit into this TL just as well as it suceeding?  I am leaning more toward Ben's suggestion that the younger articles involving North America should be reviewed and tweaked before we rewrite chunks of canon.  Mitro 16:33, April 5, 2010 (UTC)