Talk:1983: Doomsday/Politics 4

Back to Talk:1983: Doomsday

Strikes
I've noticed a trend lately - several new articles of late have been ignoring the note at the top of the list of nuclear strikes, and have not been adding them where needed. Maybe this needs to be put somewhere else as well? Or it should be revised?

Lordganon 21:10 June 27, 2010 (UTC)

This is important because I didn't even know about that. Ha! Silly me. ProfessorMcG 21:21, June 27, 2010 (UTC)


 * I have put together a map onto which "known" nuked sites are posted. It is on the general information article called "Doomsday (1983: Doomsday)." I took all the sites listed there so far and posted them as dots on the US map. Strikes elsewhere will have to wait for a visual aid, but they too are listed. The list of sites is incomplete and always being adjusted as articles get written. I put a note that the map should be updated as entries are added, but I don't know how many changes (if any) have been made. SouthWriter 21:39, June 27, 2010 (UTC)

I guess what I'm saying is that people are completely ignoring the big warning at the top of the page. Take the Macedonia guy for example, he's assuming that Seville was not hit simply because it is not listed there - yet, it would have been.

We should have it somewhere else prominent as well.

Lordganon 3:29, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that in order to create new articles/nations, an area would have to escaped destruction in order to flourish. As such, folks are looking the other way regarding this. Its logical to presume more than those sites which were listed were struck. This is where we as the writers need to step in and do research to see what would have likely to have been a target. With the US we can at least use the FEMA list where as we have to apply logic elsewhere based on research. This is what I have tried to do with my articles on the Middle East. With any NATO nation, logic would indicate NATO bases, major military airfields/ports, and large/prominent cities would be hit.--Fxgentleman 04:06, June 28, 2010 (UTC)

Members of the Commonwealth
Please put your proposals and opinions about the members of the Commonwealth. VENEZUELA 01:36, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Mine: VENEZUELA 01:36, July 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * ANZ-flag-HCF.png ANZC
 * SouthAfricaDoomsday.png South Africa
 * 600px-Flag of the Cook Islands.svg.png Islands
 * 800px-Flag of the Pitcairn Islands.svg.pngirn Islands
 * 800px-Flag of Tuvalu.svg.png Tuvalu
 * CanadasFlag.png Provisional Canada
 * 600px-Flag of Niue.svg.png Niue
 * 800px-Flag of Norfolk Island.svg.png Norfolk Island
 * Flag of Papua New Guinea OTL.svg Papua New Guinea
 * 600px-Flag of Nauru.svg.png Nauru
 * HawaiiFlagOTL.PNG Hawaii
 * Calirepublic.png California
 * Kentucky-state-flag.full.gifcky
 * 125px-Flag of Botswana.svg.png Botswana
 * GhanaFlag.png Ghana
 * Flag of Zanzibar (1964).png Zanzibar
 * YukonFlagOTL.PNG Yukon
 * Flag of Singapore svg.pngpore
 * Cascadia-1983DD2.png Cascadia
 * Deseret.gifet
 * 125px-Flag of Manitoba svg.pngiboia
 * Pgflag.pnge George
 * Victoriaflag.pngria
 * Vene, you don't understand. This is only for FIJI and VICTORIA right now. AMERICAN NATIONS may NOT join. This is the successor to the British Organization of Nations. Arstarpool 01:49, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Arstarpool, Kentucky would not be a part of that. GOPZACK 02:25, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

I got it straight in Vene's mind who would join. I say we archive the discussion asap. Arstarpool 03:39, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

....and there he goes again, adding countries that have denounced monarchism and ties to the UK. I'm rolling back his edits until he gets it through his mind that these nations, especially the African ones, would not join. Arstarpool 03:45, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

I joined them because Oerwinde joined Canada, and why they cannot join? VENEZUELA 03:48, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Papua, Aussie and New Zeland, and all of the African countries, as well as Nauru, Cook, the Carribean, and all of the Pacific Islands can not join due to either become part of a new country, or not wanting to be led by the king. Why did you include Hawaii, California, Kentucky, Cascadia, and Deseret? Arstarpool 03:55, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

The CANZ remains tied to to the monarchy in name only ( I suppose), since it is a powerful state in its own right. I really don't know why Kentucky and Deseret would join. Their republics, with no ties to the original Commonwealth of Nations. The same appiles to California, amoungst others. HAD 09:27, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

I think both Australia and New Zealand separately might be members of the commonwealth if they so choose, but the ANZC as a federation of independent states would be entirely separate with no monarch.Oerwinde 09:38, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

I read this exact sentence somewhere:"Since Australia-New Zealand has specifically rejected monarchism". Arstarpool 14:41, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

It was in a recent WCRB news article. Nothing has been stated about the status of the monarchy in the ANZC aside from that. With multiple states making up the ANZC, and no mention of any re-writing of the constitutions of either state, I would assume that the british monarchy is still head of state of both Australia and New Zealand individually,Much like the british monarch is head of state of the individual canadian provinces, but not the ANZC, so Australia and New Zealand individually could potentially join the |Commonwealth, but likely wouldn't.Oerwinde 18:01, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

I think New Zeland would have a better chance. There was a referendum in OTL Australia to completely disconnect from Britain. Like no ties whatever, "your not our king", "we're on our own" type disconnect.

Also, I have an idea why Vene randomly added Kentucky, Utah, and California: They all have the word Commonwealth in their name. If he had actually read the article rather than add random nations, he would know. Arstarpool 18:07, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

They did have a referendum, but I believe it was unsuccessful, and I would think that would be the last thing on the minds of the Australian people at this point. Although if one were to be held, with the large number of american immigrants, it would likely pass.Oerwinde 18:37, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

Can nations from the British Isles join? Fegaxeyl 09:08, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

I would assume only if they accept Andrew as their monarch.Oerwinde 09:15, July 4, 2010 (UTC)

Even now in the Commonwealth you don't have to be a monarchy to join. South Africa is in the Commonwealth and it is a republic. Same rules apply. Bob 21:07, July 6, 2010 (UTC)

Spanish Republic
So, if the WCRB News article is to be believed, the referendum of the 21st of June has officially created a new state from the Spanish Republic and Pais del Oro. Do we all agree on this outcome and who would like to create this new article on this state?--Vladivostok 09:33, July 2, 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and I will make the article if someone can give me a name.

Out of the following ideas, choose which one is the best: A continued Spanish Republic A continued Pais del Oro Republic of Spain Republica de la Oro de Espana (Republic of the Golden Lands of Spain, or a similar name)

I made a nation called the. Check it out! Arstarpool 05:10, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * The fourth option "Republic of the Golden Lands of Spain" would be in spanish "Republica de las Tierras Doradas de España". Greetings! --Katholico 02:09, July 3, 2010 (UTC)
 * Now forgive me if I'm wrong, I skimmed through the article, but there is a lot of backstory to the article. I don't think that is necessary. There is already a perfectly good and noteworthy history on both the Pais del Oro and the Spanish Republic pages. Since the nations brand new, I thought the new article would simply deal with the present and future, not the past. Then again, only my opinion and the article is still a new one.--Vladivostok 07:10, July 3, 2010 (UTC)

PUSA Constitutional Convention
Wasn't the P.U.S.A supposed to hold a constitutional convention in which it may or may not have declared itself the successor to the United States of America back in Febuary? Arstarpool 15:13, June 22, 2010 (UTC)

We have been a bit busy, I'm afraid. HAD 09:54, June 23, 2010 (UTC)

Pais del Oro and Spanish Republic
Seeing as neither option has obtained more then 50% of the vote, shall we move the two top vote getters to a runoff in another poll? GOPZACK 01:44, July 8, 2010 (UTC)

Which should we choose for the new nation's name?: Republic of Spain Republica de la Oro de Espana (Republic of the Golden Lands of Spain, or a similar name)

So long as no one objects the Republic of Spain wins! GOPZACK 00:11, July 14, 2010 (UTC)

The Spanish Golden Lands won the first time around!!!! That's not fair! Really, it doesn't matter if they didn't get 50%! Arstarpool 21:32, July 16, 2010 (UTC)

It does sir, you see we work on consensus here. 50% is a good threshold for a proposal to reach on the ballot. Quite frankly I'd prefer it if it were a 60% threshold but 50% seems like a good number. --GOPZACK 00:47, July 20, 2010 (UTC)

Erie PA
Was it hit? Arstar contends it survived, what do you guys think of this? In the interest of full disclosure it is listed as a targeted site on the Doomsday page. --GOPZACK 03:23, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

The way I figure it, by what has been hit so far with the Soviet nukes, they were making an effort to take away most if not all of the US steel-making capacity. It would be possible that it escaped being nuked, but by how things look the steel mills would have been hit by something, for sure.

But I see no reason myself for it to have no ability to function as a capital if a missile hits the mills.

Lordganon 04:03, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

I would assume that the steel mills may have been spared, since the Soviets were undoubtedly screaming success at the destruction of Harrisburg, Philadelphia, and Pittsburg, they would have forgotten about the little steel mills at Eire. Arstarpool 04:29, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

I think the Soviets were too busy being incinerated by an American ICBM then to be "screaming with success" at the annihilation of Harrisburg, Philadelphia, and Pittsburg. --GOPZACK 04:54, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...you're a real positive guy Zack. Arstarpool 05:03, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

I usually am but this TL's POD incase you've forgotten is a all out nuclear war man! --GOPZACK 05:16, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

We can't let one steel mill through, though? Come on, man. I'm afraid to ask for a group consensus, since it's just me and LG versus the rest of the bunch...Arstarpool 06:05, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Thats how we do things here, by group consensus, so yes we are going to see what the community has to say. --GOPZACK 16:19, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

I would love to support this city surviving, but lets face it. The Soviets are going to attempt to destroy American industry in their attacks, just as the Americans did to them. If they would attack Wheeling they are definitely going to strike Erie. If you can figure out a way that Erie could have survived, I say go for it. If its plausible and not the cliche "malfunctioning ICBM" it should absolutely be used.

Yankovic270 23:05, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

Ah, Yank. You seem to want vengance for the destruction of the Virginian steel mills. I will do a poll to see which of the survival scenarios is more plausible:

Option 1: "At 5:30 PM, a missile was detected 170 miles south of Erie. However, since the path of the missile was headed through the mushroom clouds around Pittsburg, the missile malfunctioned and crashed about 50 miles south of Erie, barely sparing the city from total destruction.

Option 2: A missile headed towards Erie was miscalculated when programmed and ended up crashing in Lake Erie.

Option 3: The nuclear missile launch site was hit by a missile launched from West Germany shortly after the missile directed towards Erie, damaging the missile and causing it to crash somewhere in western Poland.

Option 4: Erie itself was not an important target in a nuclear war since the Soviets had no knowledge of the steel mills located there.

Which scenario is more plausible? Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4


 * If the nuke went in Lake Erie there could be a Tsunami & the pristine water mentioned in the Pennsylvania article would be ruined. --GOPZACK 05:26, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

If Option two wins that mean Pittsburgh was nuked not abandoned. --GOPZACK 05:28, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

& finally option three may effect the articles in the area & the exact location of the nuke must be determined, who knows where the devil it will land. --GOPZACK 05:28, July 25, 2010 (UTC)

I think a reasonable case could be made for the survival of Erie. At one time or another we have all discussed what might or might not have been targeted in the DD ATL. We have used the FEMA list as well as our own logic in trying to answer these questions. By this time I think we are in agreement 98% of all primary targets and at least 75% of secondary targets were struck. We can also agree it is reasonable to believe tertiary targets, which are normally population and industrial center sites targeted in follow-up attacks, likely escaped given the type of war which occurred, i.e. USSR reacting to assumed sneak attack. Further, both sides would have been exhausted by this point. The PA map shows no primary targets, five secondary targets, and 14 tertiary targets. I think a common misconception has been to assume why some targets were hit, believing one city was hit because it was a state capital or was known for certain industry, such as steel. Look beneath the surface however, and you find a military objective which would make said cities a target in the eyes of an enemy military. I carefully looked over the five secondary targets and found the following:

Harrisburg: Harrisburg IAP Air Guard Station home to 193 Special Operations Wing

Willow Grove: Willow Grove Naval Air Station

Scranton: Scranton Army Ammunition Plant, (US Army Industrial Facility)

Pittsburg: Allegheny County Airport, home to Pittsburgh Air Reserve Station, provides aerial refueling, air mobility and tactical airlift support to USAF & DOD)

Philadelphia: major metropolitan area and home to Philadelphia Naval Shipyards; Defense Industrial Supply Center, Defense Personnel Support Center, Philadelphia Naval Station My thought for DD would be all five areas would be destroyed, with Philadelphia especially being hit by two to three 1+ megaton weapons and the remaining targets 1-2 550 kiloton devices. I would also err on the side of logic and say the tertiary targets in the Harrisburg area might be destroyed or abandoned given their proximity. Strikes on Harrisburg would also likely rupture 3 Mile Island, which while closed because of the 1979 accident would contribute to fallout. The southeast part of the state would be hit extremely hard from fallout caused by the Harrisburg and Philadelphia strikes and those in the DC-Baltimore corridor and the likely rupture of the 3 Mile Island. I would see it being abandoned or become devoid of most human life for many years to come. For good measure I would include areas adjacent to New Jersey and New York getting hit by the fallout from strikes in those regions, maybe not as bad as the se area. I have put together a map to show my thoughts. Erie would not be out of the woods though, given the fallout from places like Canada, Ohio, Indiana, etc. You would definitely see deaths and long term health issues. This is just my thoughts. What do you think?--Fxgentleman 01:41, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

I did my research. The only place fallout would be coming from would be Ohio, which has strikes right across the border. Arstarpool 02:21, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Fx I think that is a very reasonable rational explanation for Erie surviving and so long as nobody objects I don't have a problem with it not being hit. GOPZACK 02:31, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine, though Pittsburgh would have been hit with a bigger nuke / more of them than that. If you're going to hit a big city, you may as well get ALL the steel mills too ;)

Also, its not Pittsburg, but PITTSBURGH! Sorry, its bugged me that NONE of you can spell that right.

Lordganon 12:34, July 26, 2010 (UTC)

The Forgotten Texas Unification
As I recall West and East Texas were supposed to unify back in June. I've gone ahead and created the "" since no matter what happens we are going to need this page to document the new nation. Arstarpool 06:50, July 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * You best speak with the authors of the two Texases before you go any further. --GOPZACK 06:55, July 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be me. Unification is on the timetable, but it's not something that just happens on the spur of the moment. The timeline is supposed to be as realistic as possible, and even now they wouldn't just be united. There's a process involved, from unifying government agencies amongst the different countries to setting up a military, that takes time. 2012 is my target date. BrianD 23:46, July 30, 2010 (UTC)

Tuscany
So, I recently noticed that the Tuscany article conflicts with stated events in the Sicily article, which is WAY older. This is something no one noticed until after it was canonized. I brought it up with Arstarpool and his response was that he was going to edit the Sicily article to allow for Tuscany to exist pretty much as is. I disagree with him on that and brought up several ways to make Tuscany fit much better and in a more interesting way. I'd like others to comment on this. The discussion can be found here.Oerwinde 08:33, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Read the "Sicilian Occupation" part under Tuscany. That does not allow it to exist "as is" but still allows it into canon. If I wanted to, I could edit the Sicily article right now to say anything that would keep Tuscany in canon since it is now officially mine, but alas, I will not do that, but will just add this Sicilian Occupation to Sicily as well. Arstarpool 17:27, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

I hope your happy now. I made very few changes to Sicily. I made Tuscany conincide perfectly since there are "other revolts" in Sicily, I just made it one of those, and the first one to gain independence in 2004. Arstarpool 18:12, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Tuscany isn't "yours" you are merely the caretaker of it. That does not entitle you to rewrite canon so another article you created can fit. --GOPZACK 17:59, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Tuscany is his, Sicily is not. I still disagree with the Alpine confederation acting as an agressor. Yes it was for the liberation of a state, but they still claim to be neutral, I can't see them committing troops to an offensive action and breaking the truce, hence why I think it should either be defunct as a state until after the 2nd sicily war, or with like half of the Tuscan territory being outside Sicilian control, have the government moved to the north until the south is liberated after the 2nd sicily war.Oerwinde 18:01, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

What should happen to Tuscany? Alter it to be divided until after the 2nd Sicily war Alter it to be a defunct state until its re-emergence after the 2nd Sicily war Keep the changes to Sicily that have the Alpine Confederation invade and liberate it and New Rome in 2004 Other (state below)

The events portrayed are depicted in all three nations! It does briefly mention of Alpine acting as an agressor in Alpine, it fully mentions it in Sicily and it lists it as well in Tuscany. Arstarpool 18:12, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Yes but you added it all today. The Alpine Confederation article states that the central government honors their devotion to neutrality, and the sicily article stated that they had established defensive lines to halt the Sicilian advance, but never counterattacked, instead sent a ceasefire, leading to the demarcation line through Tuscany. The AC breaking the ceasefire to attack sicily goes against the character the nation has established. Venice isn't strong enough to organize an assault alone. And the entire ADC is wary of entering all out war with Sicily, so I doubt the tuscans would be able to take them alone. Oerwinde 18:30, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

It looks like my choice is winning, and I swear by oath I did not vote twice :D Arstarpool

Madagascar Idea
I was wondering whether you'd be interested in an idea I had. What with Madagascar's economic problems, why not bring them into the African Economic Community. If they did that, I am sure New Britain would be willing to make political concessions. That way, Madagascar would recover, economically and politically, New Britain, KwaXhosa, Botswana and the RZA would be ardent supporters of Madagascar and they would be brought to the forefront of politics in Southern Africa. Not just that but Madagascar would become the largest nation in the union, giving it considerable leverage. Bob 10:05, August 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Bob. In OTL Madagascar had been slow to come over to the AEC. With the fall of its Soviet and French socialist support, though, I did not see that the People's Republic of Madagascar as being favorable to reaching out to Africa in that way. However, with the fall of the socialist republic, there might very well have been a change in this policy. The new democracy may have "worked better" in TTL.


 * Feel free to work on the period following 1991. I tried to imagine what would have gone differently, and came to the conclusion that Madagascar was fairly uninvolved in the affairs of the continent which was at the time in turmoil itself. Perhaps with different people arising to power (this is after 1983, so all's fair), there would be more co-operation. Anything has to be better than the nonsense that is happening there in OTL. Run your ideas by me on the Madagascar talk page. SouthWriter 15:48, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

A More Conservative America?
I've had this thought percolating in my mind for a while now but the recent discussion surrounding the Toledo election got me thinking about it again. With most urban more Liberal areas in America destroyed on Doomsday, leaving the rural, more conservative areas and mid sized cites (those swing districts you never hear the end of if you watch American TV in OTL) to fend for themselves. Most Democratic American survivor nations are run by Republicans/Conservative politicians. As I've done some research for some articles I've found that most are heavily Republican leaning or are home to those Conservative Democrats. Anyway I was wonder what you guys thought of this. --GOPZACK 02:30, August 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, yeah, that's pretty much it. With the urban areas gone, the rural conservatives would dominate most North American nations. Also, liberal ideas mostly center around stronger government and more expansive social policies. Post-Doomsday, almost all governments would become heavily centralized and powerful, but social programs would be disregarded, if they existed at all. The only exceptions to this would be areas like Toledo, the West Coast nations, and the northeast nations where more of the non-urban population was liberal/Democratic. Caeruleus 03:14, August 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * I think both of you pretty much nailed it. You also may want to consider the absence of American pop culture, which (IMO) is strongly influenced by those with a more liberal, non-religious mindset. Pop music, movies, TV, not to mention the internet....all butterflied away by Doomsday. Caeruleus I believe is accurate regarding the areas of North America TTL that would be more liberal, and I'd add Midland from Texas to that list....Midland is a place where conservatives and Baptists mix with liberals (who produce much of the art that comes out of that city). I would guess Yankovic's Republic of Lincoln would be liberal as well. Blue Ridge has a dynamic where the capital (Asheville) is more liberal, in keeping with its OTL equivalent, and the rest of the nation is more conservative. BrianD 04:17, August 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * A look at the county map for the US 1984 election may reflect this better than anything else. Of course, 800px-1984prescountymap2.png was the year that a very popular conservative (Reagan) won re-election, but it is the America as it was constituted (in OTL) soon after Doomsday. The blue counties are either in the urban areas or in areas where "minorities" are in the majority. It looks like Yank's Assiniboia was a hotbed of liberalism, as was the area of eastern Kentucky and West Virgina that becam his Virginian Republic. The Nebraska he transforms into a liberal utopia, though, seems to have voted for Reagan.
 * Interestingly, much of what Zack has as the failed "non-racist" CSA is populated by liberal voting blocks in the major cities! South Texas, with its heavy Hispanic population, votes Democratic though I doubt if they are "liberal" in the traditional sense (no irony intended). The "black belt" (original for the soil, but also came to apply to the African-Americans) in the south (AL-GA) includes Selma as well as my proposed (only on Georgia page) "New South." Toledo, indeed is liberal, Nuke-overlay-1984.png is Natchez, MS (!). I took the liberty of overlaying the US Nuclear strike map (as I had originally stored it on my computer) That map is to the right -- open it in a new tab to see the strikes (black dots). A look at the county maps for the 2000 (OTL) election gives a truer picture of the American dichotomy between urban and rural voting patterns. The population centers are shown to be the the most liberal -- and that election was a 50-50 in popular vote. SouthWriter 14:59, August 20, 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't use the 1984 elections as a measure for the location of liberals and conservatives in the country. 1984 was a realignment year where almost everyone voted Republican (remember, Reagan Democrats?), so many moderates and liberals who would have normally voted Democrat voted Republican. Otherwise, you are correct. Caeruleus 16:50, August 20, 2010 (UTC)

2010 Toledo Confederation Presidential Election
So as mentioned on both the Toledo Confederation article and in the news, the Toledo Confederation is having an election. For about twenty years, the Democratic Party has had complete control over the government. Over the past few years however, their grasp has been slipping, especially after two schisms, resulting in the Labor Party and Liberal Party. Combined with the growth of the New Republicans (who are being backed by the Conservative Union, a libertarian organization, to displace the Democrats) this is a very real opportunity to end the Democratic oiligarchy. If the Democrats win, it will resecure their control and give them quite some time to regroup and attack their opponents.

The result of the election will also change how the nation is played for the forseeable future. I posted a poll on the Toledo Confederation discussion article, but it did not gather much attention. So, anyways, here is a poll. Please vote. You decide the fate of the Toledo Confederation. Minor parties have not been included in the poll for obvious reasons.

Who should win the 2010 Toledan Presidential Election? New Republican Party: Represenative Micheal R. Turner Democratic Party: President Micheal Bell Liberal Party: Senator Kristina Keneally

Please post any questions or comments here. Some discussion is already on the Toledo Confederation talk page. JackofSpades 02:00, August 20, 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay, I was out of town for about two days. Looks like the Republicans are going to win this round. I'll try to get a news update up soon. JackofSpades 18:50, August 22, 2010 (UTC)

East British expansion into Lincolnshire
I have written it down on the page. But I wanted confirmation as to whether this would be a sensible course of action. As East Britain is mostly based in Lincolnshire with some areas of Cambridgeshire and Norfolk, as well as Hull, it only seems natural for East Britain to take control of Lincolnshire. Bob 10:15, August 16, 2010 (UTC)

It could be done, but you'd need to make sure you do a good job with the locals. East Britain has only a population of 40,000, and would be incredibly thinly spread across Lincolnshire - unless you make sure the locals agree to become citizens of East Britain, you will have major issues in maximising the effectiveness of the land you've colonised. Fegaxeyl 08:44, August 18, 2010 (UTC)

I've updated it and East Britain has a population of 230000. Bob 11:07, August 28, 2010 (UTC)

That figure seems a little high to me; is it the population before or after expansion? Fegaxeyl 12:09, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Before expansion. I altered the numbers to include populations from South Holland in Lincolnshire, Hull and the occupied Cambridgeshire areas, all reduced by a considerable margin to produce this number. Bob 18:30, August 30, 2010 (UTC)

Chumash joining the NAU
Any objections to the Chumash Republic applying for membership to the North American Union
 * Yes, it shares no border with an NAU member state and since the NAU is a landlocked organization it can't be connected to Chumash by the sea. I just don't think membership for Chumash is realistic. Mitro 17:32, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * So your saying that the NAU would prefer to have a nation that would fit geographically instead of one that would politically fit? Riley.Konner 14:50, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes because it is factor and it cannot be ignored. It also makes sense if you look at the OTL history of various political unions, including the most famous one the European Union. Besides, what contact does Chumash have with the NAU anyway? They are seperated from each over thousands of miles, probably do not communicate at all directly and have to do so through proxies, and neither had anything the other could want at this point in time. Mitro 19:10, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * The NAU would seem like the kind of organization that would open up and help out anyone even if there is minimul contact, at least the PUSA wanting as much of the former US as possible would, and it seems in a post doomsday world and with all the nations in the NAU the factor of geographic ditribution seems to be thrown out the window. Also I think you meant to say "hundreds" not "thousands" of miles. User:Riley.Konner 03:02 September 13 2010 (UTC)
 * The NAU isn't a humanitarian organization. It is a political, economic and military alliance. Chumash cannot participate in their economy directly, nor could they aid them in times of war. That is why geography still counts. All the political unions of this reality follow the same plan, I don't see why the NAU would be any different. If Sierra Nevada ever joins, maybe then Chumash could consider joining, but until then its unrealistic to think that a landlocked multi-national union would be of any interest to a tiny state on the coast of California. Furthermore, Chumash could only have known about the NAU since 2009. Are they really ready to join an organization that they only knew existed for just a year? I don't think so. Mitro 23:22, September 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine I'll scrap the idea, there was no way this was gonna end anyway. Riley.Konner 17:56 September 14 2010 (UTC)