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.

Graphics / Visualization /Cartography
Section Archives: Page 1

Wiki/Timeline/Article Technicals
Section archives: Page 1

March Article of the Month
This month's article of the month is the. If you have the time, check this article out and see what you can do to improve it. Mitro 19:02, March 1, 2010 (UTC)

So we would be able to edit the aforementioned article?? Verence71 13:20, March 16, 2010 (UTC)
 * Uh...yeah. Mitro 18:23, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking that the large number of immigrants post-Doomsday might lead to the rise of a political party along the lines of this one One Nation Verence71 19:14, March 18, 2010 (UTC)

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)

Culture / Society
Archives: Page 1 • Page 2

South American Games
The and  pages both say that the regional Games begin in September of this year. I realize that seasons are reversed in the Southern Hemisphere, but I think they would want to have the Games all happen at the same time - they're theoretically just different components of the same Summer Olympics, after all. And in OTL, they never changed the time frame for holding Olympics in the Southern Hemisphere - the Sydney Games were in September, for example, and the Rio Games will be in August. However, this month might be a good time to light the Torch in Greece. Benkarnell 17:47, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

Miscellaneous discussion
Archives: Page 1

Question for editors regarding Vermont, Texas and Piedmont...and potential future proposals
Would it affect the TL if I rewrote Vermont to have had limited contact with other nations before 2000, for Piedmont to be a known nation state in the Southeast by the early 2000s...and for West Texas to have not been isolationistic, but have had its conflict with Mexico, worked it out and become a somewhat influential nation in the old Southwest?

I'm asking these questions with SouthWriter's recent comments on various talk pages in mind: how realistic are our proposals? Specifically here, how realistic is it for nation states as complex and (relatively) large as we've built them to have been unknown in their respective regions for as long as 25 years after Doomsday? I wrote Vermont and Texas as isolationalists because I tried to work within the framework of previously established canon; I assumed canon had been established for legitimate reasons, and unless there was a darn good reason to change it it was best to work within it.

Therefore, I come to all of you, particularly the editors who have been here the longest. BrianD 04:14, March 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Go for it, if you need any help let me know :) --GOPZACK 04:32, March 9, 2010 (UTC)

Re: Piedmont, SouthWriter and I could come up with a proposal involving that nation.

Re: Texas:
 * The history of West Texas stays the same through the '85 earthquake. It even goes isolationistic in regards to Mexico.
 * This time, though, the outcry from the people is so great that the government eventually decides to reverse itself and pursue relations with Mexico.
 * The increasing presence of American refugees in Mexican government and business helps West Texas's cause.
 * Around this time, American refugees come under increasing persecution from some nationals, leading to riots on both sides and unfortunate assaults on, and a few murders of, American refugees by radical nationals, and a few Mexican nationals by refugees.
 * The Mexican government knows it has to deal with the crisis, so it contacts Canberra to ask for Bush's advice on the situation (since de la Madrid met with Reagan, you would have to think that he would contact Bush on this matter, since Texas would be considered American territory. It would have some ramifications for the APA, and rewriting portions of that history, though).
 * Bush encourages Mexico - urges, actually - to reopen ties with West Texas, and while knowing there is nothing his administration could do in the situation, he reminds Mexico Texas is still technically part of the USA.
 * Texas and Mexico make up, with Mexico City/Mexica recognizing Midland as the capital of the Republic of Texas.
 * Mexican scouts discover isolated survivor communities in south Texas, and a string of communities in eastern Texas having formed their own Texas provisional government.
 * Waco - midway between Midland and Nacogdoches - is trying to get back on its feet; the day Mexican Army scouts walk into the city, and inform the people that Mexico, Bush, Australia, South America, et al have survived Doomsday, is the day that turns it around for the beleaguered city. Instead of descending into a cycle of violence and despair, the people find hope.
 * Gradually, Mexico helps facilitate the meeting of President Atkins in Mexico with his counterparts from east Texas, and Waco, and representatives from the south Texas towns, villages and remaining survivor camps (including one possibly set up in a KOA).
 * Sometime in the 1990s, the four camps agree to reunify the state and send representatives to a constitutional convention at Baylor University. Bush even agrees to send a representative, though for other reasons the APA never gets up there before its dissolution.
 * The APA dissolves, with the added provision of granting Texas the option of joining the ANZC, or Mexico, or going independent. My meager understanding of TTL Texas history suggests to me Texans would choose independence, especially given peaceful relations with Mexico.
 * In 1996, the Republic of Texas, with its capital in Waco midway between east and west Texas, is born. George H.W. Bush will have visited the new republic in the late 1990s.
 * By the founding of the LoN, Texas will have good relations with Dinetah and Utah, as well as Broken Bow, Hot Springs and Louisiana (all of which it discovered during various Texas/Mexico scouting expeditions), Hattiesburg and Natchez, as well as Cuba, the East Caribbean Federation, Puerto Rico, central America, south America and of course the ANZC. The South Padre Island port will have been established by then as well.
 * With some Mexican nationals immigrating north for the job opportunities, and with some American refugees opting to return to Texas or move there (from Arizona or New Mexico or California, via Mexican refugee camps), the 2010 TTL population could be anywhere from a million to 3 million. G.W. Bush could shuttle back and forth between Midland and Mexico City, setting up for a 2012 Presidential campaign. Conaway would be the current President.
 * Re: Vermont: independence leads to isolationism, but contact with Aroostook, the St. Lawrence Raiders and Canada leads to some sort of "Atlantic treaty" by the late 1990s. An unofficial confederation of New England is formed, with Vermont taking the lead in establishing a port in southern Maine. The question of New Hampshire independence or being part of Vermont would need to be settled. I would also need to write in the Keene proposal as well.

Thoughts?BrianD 15:20, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

I like these ideas. The possibility of a Texan state within the APA does raise some intresting qeustoins.Ramdominsanity 13:41, March 14, 2010 (UTC)


 * Bump.


 * Random, questions for the plausibility of a unified Texas, or for the APA itself? BrianD 12:47, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

The APA in particular.Ramdominsanity 17:58, March 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * That's what I thought. I do think it further shows the APA's inability to govern any part of the former U.S. And, if Bush had contact with Mexico, there were bound to be serious questions to him as to why he settled in Australia, and not in texas, or Hawaii, or southern Oregon, or even the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City. We've clearly established it, but never really got into any challenges to that...I guess early on the editors here thought America was a total wasteland. We've clearly established that isn't the case. It makes more sense that people would challenge Bush on that (and could help inform why countries like Virginia are so adamant against the U.S.) BrianD 18:54, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

The main problem as i see it is that a Texan Survivor state that the APA nows about is that it would make the APA think "if Texas survived, why not Vermont or Northern Michigan or something?" the problem is that the timeline was created on the premise that the USA was devestated. Yet it clearly was not. Ramdominsanity 19:19, March 16, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that's our collective faults, I suppose. However....given the constant complaints in OTL then, and now, about government inefficiency and incompetence...could we use that to help explain the APA's actions? That whomever the individuals running government were (besides Reagan and Bush) THOUGHT the country was totally destroyed...and were wrong. We would probably need to define why Bush chose Canberra over Mexico City (remember in The Day After Tomorrow movie where the Cheney analogue is running the U.S. government out of the American embassy there?), and why the APA never tried to reestablish the capital in Hilo or Juneau. Despite the destruction of three Australian cities, Australia must have offered the APA many more advantages than Hawaii, Alaska or a lawless Pacific Coast - or an embassy in Mexico - ever could. BrianD 19:29, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

bump. I'm serious about the Texas proposal. Or, at least rewriting the portion to allow for earlier and increased contact w/Mexico, Dinetah and other regional survivor states. BrianD 22:01, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Proposal overload
I think we have around 60 proposals currently on the docket. That is the highest I have seen the list in a long time. If you think there are any articles that can be graduated, please speak up by saying so on their entries in the proposal section below. Mitro 18:44, March 19, 2010 (UTC)

Ashes of the 26th
See http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?p=3198559

Look familiar? Mitro 23:58, March 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Has anyone gone over there and commented? BrianD 01:58, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * He names 1983:DD as an influence on his work. Looks like he dropped some more nukes in the Southern Hemisphere to make things worse there. Interesting twist - what if Australia and Brazil were as bad off as the US? BrianD 01:59, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * What I like is how most of the other posters seem familiar with 1983DD and like it. We have fans! Benkarnell 17:59, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

having fans gives people warm, fuzzy feelings. :)HAD 18:44, March 22, 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)


 * 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)

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 scarces the bejebus out of me.HAD 11:31, 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)

Article I made based on discussion. Riley.Konner 07:50, February 17, 2010 (UTC)
 * Riley has put this up for adoption. If no one adopts this soon I will mark it as obsolete. Mitro 14:32, March 30, 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)

Keene
This is an idea I had for a new nation based out of the Adirondacks in upstate New York. Zackshine 23:49, February 18, 2010 (UTC)

Speaking a Libretatrian myself, i don't think people would want to leave a developed state to establish their own one in a nuclear wasteland. Even New Britian came about due to nessecity. Ramdominsanity 20:31, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

Well the idea was that even after an all out nuclear war, people will still have their ideals, and will want to establish what they WANT not what is necessary. This libertarian movement is based extremely loosely off of an actual movement of libertarians to the state of New Hampshire called the Free State Project. The people part of this project are leaving what might possibly be a comfortable location, but have given it up to move to a new locality that may not be what they envision. The same with the Republic of Keene and their attempt to set up a government, a nation, and a culture that is directly built by their own motives, not those of the Republic of Vermont. In any nation, in any situation, there will be dissenters and those who decide to move elsewhere to seek a more perfect union. Zackshine 20:39, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * A 100k people leaving to set up a new nation from an already established one seems implausibly high. The Free State Project you mentioned has only succeeded in getting 700 people to move since being established in 2001, and this was done without dealing with a nuclear apocalypse. Since Keene has only been created this year, it would be incredibly difficulty to find food and shelter for that many people right away. I would suggest starting with a smaller population and working it up with new immigration as the years go by. We should also consider the fact that its more likely for Libertarians in Vermont would try to work within the system before leaving to form a new nation.
 * Also what about the people already living in upstate NY? What do they feel about this mass movement of outsiders settling in their land? Mitro 20:45, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking about the population since first writing it down. That's going to be cut down substantially (as I was unaware of the workings of sort of real time in 1983 timeline). The people living in Upstate NY have no quarells with the new people moving in...if I may have freedom to explore the possibilities, one possiblity was that the people of the area were afraid of being in close proximity to the nuclear blasts, and so headed outside of New York (though, escape might have proven futile as they were surrounded by nukes as seen on the map). The few remaining have accepted the new arrivals; they really have no choice, the exodus brought some supplies and much needed help from professionals who moved into the area. Also the present republic of Vermont will probably, as seen in the real world, not accept fully what these libertarians crave. They are all or nothing. If you have any other ideas, please let me know! I'd like to see this get off the ground! Zackshine 20:55, February 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * While there may be 100,000 people in New Hampshire who want to reform the state, it is more likely in this timeline that a couple of thousand people maximum would leave to form their own republic. (There aren't even a million people in all of Vermont). The standard of living is one of the highest in North America, and Vermont's government is pretty free and libertarian. A couple of things: 1. Plattsburgh, as it is near Burlington, is under the control of the Republic of Vermont (review the history of Vermont article). 2. I'm not sure there's anyone left in New York state, unless you count survivalists and handfuls of families tucked away in a non-radioactive zone near a water source, because of the massive numbers of hits the northeast would have taken on DD. But I could be wrong - the northeast might have tiny survivor states all over despite the hits it likely took on doomsday. BrianD 21:00, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't assume the remaining population of upstate New York would greet the new arrivals as their saviors. Even if we assume that most of the population would accept the settlers, there will always be some who will see it as an invasion (look at Iraq). Remember these aren't backwoods savages, these are Americans with access to modern tech who might even have created their own tiny survivor states in the decades that followed Doomsday. I'm just worried that the settlement of Keene was just too easy. [EDIT] Yeah the population definitely needs to be changed. Currently you have every 1 out of 8 people in the entire nation of Vermont getting up to leave. Mitro 21:09, February 19, 2010 (UTC)


 * As Doomsday becomes a receding memory, I imagine that Americans everywhere are starting to look around and realize they live in a fairly empty country with lots of open land. It's 100% plausible that the old Pioneering Spirit will reawaken in some of them, and dropping everything to found a new settlement based on The Way Things Should Be does not sound so harebrained as it might to us. I do not think that this group of New Hampshirians could conquer the Adirondacks in a stroke. But they can definitely leave Vermont and create a new, self-governing town and farming community out that way - there's bound to be enough open space. There will be some conflicts with people living there already, sure. That's all a part of the Pionering Spirit! If the Republic of Keene is shrunk to the size of a city-state, I think it can be a fascinating piece of American culture and politics. Oh, also: right now is a poor time to found new settlements - that area hasn't seen the end of winter yet. How about bumping it back to March of 2009? You can write about how they've fared in their first year. Benkarnell 21:29, February 19, 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying Keene can't work. Just as it is now its to optimistic and needs to be scaled back. Mitro 22:26, February 19, 2010 (UTC)

why is the flag black & white? i've never seen a falg like that before, Ramdominsanity 13:16, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for all the good ideas! I'll be editing this properly and adding a few new additions to it. 1. The population will be scalled back appropriately. 2. Keene will be a city state looking to expand with others in the future. 3. The timeline will be set back to March 2009 and the first yeat of their settlement will be recorded. [EDIT] And the flag was randomly put together by me. I chose black and white as to set it apart from other nations, maybe in the spirit of these pioneering folk! Zackshine 18:26, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

i think its inappropriate that a libretatrian nation does not have a flag that expresses this. how about making it golden yellow, with a bit of red. a Libretarian flag! (PS: i consider myself a libretarian, put the UK Libretarian Party only has 500 people in it. Which Sucks) Now, if you'll excuse me, i'm off to watch Jeff Dunham on YoutubeinMyFaceBook. Bye!Ramdominsanity 19:07, February 21, 2010 (UTC)


 * Black and white is good, definitely distinctive and different, but the one you made is a weird black-white-grayscale gradient, which doesn't look like any flag i've ever seen, and which would be impossible to actually make on cloth without some kind of laser printer (which the good people of Keene don't have)! Benkarnell 20:22, February 21, 2010 (UTC)

Ha, alright, there's a lot of stuff I need to get done! I'll fix that flag up quick. Off subject; I've been talking to my proffessor at school about why more people don't accept the libertarian philosophy, politics. He said this. All groups of people must go through three steps, I can't remember exactly how it goes. 1. They are ridiculed. 2. They are fought against. 3. They are accepted. Zackshine 01:34, February 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * And libertarianism *there* is bound to be a whole lot different from *here*. Our libertarians are responding to a system where they feel governments are becoming too large and powerful. The post-DD libertarians live in a system where most people live without any real government, so really they're trying to create a state from scratch from completely new principles. Maybe they like what they see outside the "civilized" states - local control, a lot of individual agency (at least, outside the "evil warlord" areas) - and are trying to combine the best of the small survivor vilage system with elements of larger-scale national organization. Something like that. Benkarnell 03:43, February 22, 2010 (UTC)

its been more then a week since this has last been discussed, yet Keene remains unedited. Also, by "individual agency" do you mean "individual liberty", Ben? i've never heard "agency" used in that context. Ramdominsanity 19:09, March 2, 2010 (UTC)


 * The number 1 definition in the American Heritage Dictionary for "agency" is "The condition of being in action; operation," and second is "The means or mode of acting; instrumentality." The basic idea that an agency is something that gets something done. "Individual agency" would be a condition where ordinary folks take care of themselves -- that famous "rugged individualism" that made America great. It is not that we were "granted" liberty to get things done by any government, but that we just went out there and did it -- sometimes to our detriment, in fact. While a great strength, it can lead to arrogance that can be dangerous. SouthWriter 03:55, March 3, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you SouthWriter. I must say that being a Southern Englishmen will enivitably lead to confusion when working with Eastern Europeans, Carolinians and Canadians, not to mention South Americans!Ramdominsanity 20:29, March 3, 2010 (UTC)


 * So what's the story here? If Zack doesn't come back, I'm thinking seriously of adopting this myself, or at least temporarily fixing it up to put it in working order. I'm actually kind of excited about my ideas for an "alt-libertarianism" in my comments from a month ago. Rather than a projection of attitudes from today, I think I can rework it into an authentically American response to a postapocalyptic world. Which i funny, because in RL I'm so not a libertarian, and when libertarianism comes up in AH I usually find it to be horribly cliche, but I think it can really work in this case.
 * Also, I have yet to do any actual work in North America (unless you count Hawaii, which I don't). I'm going t leave Zack a message and ask permission. Do any of you mind if I spruce up his article? Benkarnell 14:25, March 26, 2010 (UTC)
 * Go right ahead. Mitro 14:46, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Consider Keene to be officially re-written. For a flag, I kept Zack's basic design but made it ... more flaggy. Benkarnell 23:28, March 26, 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)

A proposal for the BBC Wartime Broadcasting Service message after DD. --Jnjaycpa 15:14, March 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Does anyone have any objection to graduating this article?BrianD 21:34, March 30, 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)

and
Series of Indiana related articles. Mitro 16:56, March 9, 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)

Article I made explaining what happened to the county of Monterey. 18:04, March 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Any objections? 17:52, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * Possibly. Monterey and Salinas are both listed as potential targets. Are we positive they would not be hit? Mitro 15:11, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am pretty sure the are we would be of no importance for a nuclear strike. Salinas has never been a big area of importance, and Monterey could be possible, but it is unlikely. Riley.Konner 14:45, March 29, 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering that Salinas is the largest city in the county, I think that would make it slightly more important. Also just looking at the FEMA map shows me that there are 4 potential targets in Monterey County alone. I find it hard to believe that all would be missed. The question is I'm just not sure what they are hitting. There are some Army and Navy bases in the area though. I need to do some more digging. Mitro 13:12, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * I will have to also I'll need some more thurough research to, until we can learn exactly where the area would have been hit we can make no formal desecion. Riley.Konner 17:53, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Fort Ord is definitely a secondary target. It would be destroyed on Doomsday. That at least should be in the article. Mitro 15:12, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

The areas listed are the most likely to have been struck, Salinas, Fort Ord, and Fort Hunter Liggett. Riley.Konner 13:35, March 30, 2010 (UTC)
 * Considering Monterey proximity to so many blasts, I think its likely the town would have been abandoned, with only the most harden brigands residing there. If you are cool with that I have no objections. Mitro 20:34, March 30, 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)

Juegos Sudamericanos
Shouldn't we have a page for the Juegos Sudamericanos (Sudamerican Games)?


 * No one's gotten around to it yet. You are as welcome to start it as anyone! Make sure to note it here on the main 1983:DD talk page after you create it. BrianD 01:08, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried to start a discussion on that up above. Why are they happening now, when all the regional Olympics are scheduled for this September? They should all happen at the same time - a powerful symbol of world cooperation and all that. Benkarnell 04:04, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the Juegos Sudamericanos here is happening now. Also, Yank's Americana Games are in July...and summer here is winter in the southern hemisphere.BrianD 04:07, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Mentioned this already, but. Sydney's Summer Games were in September, and the Rio Games will be in September. The pages on the IOC and the 2010 Winter Games say September. Benkarnell 04:45, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

I probably forgot about it. I assume there's a good reason the real life Juegos Sudamericanos is going on now and not in September; I'm just reacting to what the editor suggested we do. Also, right now I'm cranky as it's really late for me...which further affects my memory :)BrianD 05:03, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

BrianD, the OTL place for the Juegos Sudamericanos is actually on the Northern Hemisphere. Fedelede 22:42, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Iran and some related ideas
Since there was no consensus on the history of Iran following DD, I wanted to write down a couple of ideas I had regarding the country and the region surrounding it. I know that Fxgentleman is the caretaker of the Middle East and I have already written a couple of my ideas on his talk page.

So, Iran was in an extremely difficult international position during 1983. International support was mostly leaning towards Iraq, but the country had managed to halt the Iraqi invasion and even mounted unsuccessful attacks of their own on Iraq. So, if we were to assume that the Soviets nuked Iran and the Iraqis using chemical weapons, how is the Iranian government going to cope with these setbacks? I propose terrorism. This already theocratic regime could start to endorse a wide range of things, from suicide bombers, sleeper cells, using WMDs and other similar tactics. I would like this to happen regardles of a nuclear strike, which could maybe happen later via Israel. I'm not sure who would be the leader if Ayatollah Khomeini would be killed early on, but he would definately have to be a fanatic and charismatic at that.

So, a broken Iran decides to use sneak tactics, maybe then being the cause of the destruction of Iraq, carrying out terrorist attacks either before or after an Israeli nuclear strike on Bagdad. This new army would then take up a more aggresive name, like the Muslim Liberation Army, Muslim Jihadi Army or something similar. I was thinking of chapters of this organization spanning the Middle East.

Also, I wanted to create a branch of the organization in former Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, where they would be military rulers, forcing the remaining citizens of the area to pay tribute to them. They wouldn't be directly controlled by Iran, they would be quasi-independent entities. Now this idea would go on even if I my Iran idea fails, but it would be great if the two organizations would be linked together.

I'd really like to hear what you guys think.--Vladivostok 14:35, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Hi Vlad: In regards to your question about Iran, I have no problem if you want to write something. I have some rudimentary ideas but no overall thought for the country in that I could not think as to where to take it. I am kind of interested in trying to write something about the former Iraq; expand on Kurdistan; and do a rewrite, with permission, of the Iran-Iraq War. I think your idea, as presented, has merit. Merging Iran along with Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan into a modern Islamic Caliphate might be something to consider as well. I have not found any evidence in my research to indicate that either Iran, or Iraq for that matter, would have been targeted on Doomsday. If we think back to the basic scenario, the USSR is reacting to a sudden attack and as such is going after nations it views as threats, neither country falls into this category. Neither was aligned to either the East or West and although it is tempting to nuke Iran, say the capital, I cannot imagine a logical scenario. A more likely development at least early on would be this: Both nations emerge unscathed, at least physically from DD, but are the recipients of fallout from strikes in Russia, Syria, Afghanistan, and Turkey, along with thousands of refugees. Although both sides hate each other, they decide to postpone the war for at least a year. Additionally, their economies, already damaged by war, take a second hit by the oil market collapse. It is now a year later, and given Hussein’s ego, he decides this would likely be a good time to finish the war once and for all. Invigorated with ex-Russian soldiers and their equipment, having fled to Iraq following DD, Hussein launches a ferocious attack and since this time there is no UN, US, Europe, or even USSR to curtail him, he goes all out with massive chemical attacks on Iran’s cities and military bases, including Tehran. The Iranians fight tenaciously over the next year, but in the end it is too much. Finally in 1986, with Ayatollah Khomeini dead, the Iranians surrender. Iraq forces them to surrender control of the provinces along the Iraqi border and control of Kharg Island. After that, I have no further thoughts. However, in regards to your view on terrorism, I have been fleshing out something where guerilla war/terrorism in conquered areas of Iran begins to take a toll forcing harsh crackdowns. Finally, an Iranian suicide terrorist group bombs central Baghdad with a small nuke, say an artillery shell, killing Hussein and his top people. This results in a civil war and the nation dissolving into smaller states, including the Kurdish regions breaking off to join Kurdistan. I see the GSU stepping in with peacekeeping troops to help maintain calm and perhaps some of these new states joining them. Although I have toyed with the idea of Israel nuking Baghdad, I have been rethinking that versus what I just laid out. As for Iran, I could see it becoming an isolationist Islamic nation absorbing nearby areas through force. If it was to become more powerful over time, a fifty-fifty scenario, it would be challenged by the GSU for regional power and maybe even a future war could possible happen. I think this website may be helpful to you in writing something, http://www.country-data.com/frd/cs/irtoc.html. I hope sharing some of my thoughts helps and if you want to talk further, just let me know. --Fxgentleman 19:48, March 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to see you feel the idea would make for a good starting point. I had the exact same idea of Bagdad being destroyed by a nuclear attack. However, I had trouble finding a suitable source for the bomb. There were no silos in Turkmenistan or Uzbekistan, so a trip over the border for the bomb wouldn't yield any results. The nuclear program in Pakistan had its first bomb test in 1988 OTL, so that wouldn't help neither. And waiting till the middle of the nineties for the attack to take place seems a bit too long to me. I was thinking something along the lines of using some chemical warfare agents would do the trick. Also, I was thinking of making the regions occupied by the yet to be named terrorist organization in Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan a separate state, centered around perhaps the ancient city of Merv. But making it into a Caliphate has a nice ring to it. Iran would then perhaps send aid to this MLA or MJA organization, who would then in turn distabilize neighbouring countries, like the GSU members, the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan, Yemen and Siberian-controlled Aralia.
 * I know that a nuclear strike would on Iran would be a bit much, but there would need to be some destabilizing factor to this chain of events. I guess a refugee crisis and Iraq using biological weapons would work just as well.
 * But enough for now, once I start writing a proposal, then I'll see were it takes me.--Vladivostok 20:16, March 24, 2010 (UTC)

Of course the thing to remember, is some events have to build-up over time to happen and are not going to occur overnight. It is like the old adage of piling up enough weight to finally make it collapse. Six to seven years seems about right. Consider this, Iran is going to be in a very weakened state for sometime to come following the war's end and is not going to be able to bounce back quickly. They would have several strikes against them: The pre-DD war had already damaged both their economy and oil industry; DD hits with fallout and refugees overwhelming the nation; oil market collapses and trade is affected; Iraq restarts war, millions killed and wounded by fighing and heavy chem attacks; infrastructure is hit hard; and territory is lost. I believe the total population was in the 40+ million range. It would not be improbable to say a loss of several to ten million between war, disease, and fallout. Of course Iran could make mischief in the occupied territories, but nothing more than that. If Iraq collapses into civil war and chaos in the early 90s, it puts Iran about five to six years out from their loss, a reasonable enough time to sorta recover. This sets up the scenario as I said earlier between the GSU and your future nation picking over the peices of the country. My thought for a rough timeline would go something like this:

September 1983: Doomsday

October 1984: Iraq attacks Iran in renewed offensive

March 1986: Iran surrenders; gives up western provinces several months later in treaty

1986-1988: Iranian backed Insurgency begins in captured territory; Iraq takes severe countermeasures to repress this

Late 1988-Early 1989: Kuwaiti Crisis; Gulf nations face down Iraq, GSU forms in December

Dec 1989-1990: Hussein and top leaders killed in nuke terror attack on Baghdad by Iranian terror squad; country disolves into civil war and officially breaks up into seperate nations, such as the Assyrian Republic. GSU steps in to stop fighting and mediate end; new Iran begins making moves to reaquire some of its lost lands

Again however, this is just food for consideration. Fxgentleman 02:07, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, these suggestions are definately something worth considering. As soon as I make the intended proposals, I'll turn your attention to them.--Vladivostok 14:18, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Bosnia
Jugoslavia was nuked? if not, obviously Jugoslavia would have collapsed. What about some nations that formed after Jugoslavia's collapse? like:


 * the Republic of Bosnia


 * Kingdom of Serbia


 * Kingdom of Kosovo (protectorate to Serbia)


 * People's Republic of Montenegro


 * People's Republic of Croatia


 * Union of Albania and Macedonia

Fedelede 22:50, March 25, 2010 (UTC)
 * There actually is an article on, but it is incomplete. Mitro 14:10, March 26, 2010 (UTC)

Caucasus, Aralian and Caspian Nations?
Wouldn't nations like Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Abkhasia, South Ossetia, Uzbekistan, Turmekistan, Kazakhstan, Kirguistan, Tajikistan, Chechnya, Nargono-Karabakh, etc. appear after the collapse of the original USSR? I know that the Aral is occupied by Aralia and indirectly Siberia, but the rest of the territories weren't nuked that I know of. Fedelede 23:14, March 25, 2010 (UTC)

Botswana
Thoughts please.Vegas adict 09:47, March 28, 2010 (UTC)

This is a survivor state that is based around pre-war northern botswana.Does anyone have issues with it?Vegas adict 19:07, March 28, 2010 (UTC)
 * See also . Mitro 14:31, March 30, 2010 (UTC)

Article created by Zack, currently blank. Mitro 14:30, March 30, 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)

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)

=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)