Talk:1983: Doomsday

ABefore 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 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17
 * 18

Useful Resources:

A website showing potential nuclear strikes within the US can be found here. A map showing likely fallout patterns across the USA.

=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 Page 4

Canada & Delmarva Contact
I have a question concerning Canada and diplomatic relations, but I am unsure as to who to address it to. I am in the process of writing my section for Delmarva regarding diplomatic relations. My intention has been for Delmarva to make contact with Brazil during their 1989 expedition along the US East Coast, thus opening up political and trade relations with them and South America.

This in turn influences an age of exploration as their vessels begin reaching out and making contact. I had hoped for contact with Canada by 1990, especially because of how close the two areas are. However, when reading through the Canada article I note they don't "find" Delmarva until 1995 after visiting everyone else in the world. You mean some small group from Canada, separate from the fleet doesn't get curious and visit the area earlier? That does not make much sense.

Secondly, if I establish relations with S. America, Delmarvan representatives will be there in 1994 during the Canadian visit, so they couldn't just find Delmarva the following year anyway. I would like to suggest contact earlier between the two areas, so they already know and have contact. However, I would be okay with the "official fleet" not visiting until 1995. Who could I discuss this matter with. Thanks.--Fxgentleman 14:28, June 11, 2011 (UTC)

To start off, I'm the one who put that in the Canada article, and all things considered, am probably more or less its caretaker at this point. So, I suppose that it'd be me.

At any rate....

It's already been canon that Brazil didn't find anyone substantial for a very long time. Despite the Brazil article referring to "Canada," other articles indicate that none of their explorers made it even to the Outer Banks before outside contact was established by other means with these areas. The same goes for the "New York" line in the Brazil article, which actually violates a great deal of canon elsewhere..... guess I'll edit that part right now.

The Bermuda article refers to it establishing contact with Delmarva in 1990. At the same time, outside contact beyond that is only referred to as being really done in the 2000's. Thus, we need to assume that Delmarva itself only did so between those two dates.

Brazilian explorers only ran into the Outer Lands, Outer Banks, and Elizabeth City after 2000, in a few cases after others already had done so. To find Delmarva through exploration in 1989 but not these obvious ones is just not possible. Discussion about EC has indicated that the Outer Banks did indeed have some outside contact, despite their isolationism, between 1990 and 2000, but that it amounted to little. That's the "contact" the Canada article refers to.

The Canadian fleet simply went to the nearest source of contact, radio transmissions from the Azores, that they already had. From there, their path is logical. At that point in time, the Canadian government really only controlled the Maritime Islands and parts of the coastline, too, so they really weren't exploring too much. Remember, the main goal of the fleet was to re-open contact with the West Coast, not exploring, and along the way they reopened contact with others that they knew about due to contact with Portugal and the Celtic Alliance.

And, Canada establishes contact with the outside world, except the Celts, Nords, and Portuguese, in 1991. Everything north of southern North Carolina was unknown until this point, having been assumed destroyed, and it is only from there that anything is discovered about the North Atlantic. Going from that, Delmarva cannot be in contact with either Canada or anyone else at that time, since if that was the case, none of this would be true, and the Franklin would have went up the East Coast, which it did not do. The same goes for the Nimitz in 1993.

As to it not making sense, why on earth would Canadian vessels explore down a destroyed coastline, into what is another country, when they have the same type of thing at home that they need to deal with? And, knowing of other countries elsewhere, why would they go elsewhere, when they are of no use to them? Simply put, they wouldn't.

1995 is a very logical date, in light of what all other articles say. 1989 is not. Contact, by canon, is not possible with outside until at least 1994. I took all of this into account when I put the 1995 date in, and there is no reason at all for it not to stand.

Lordganon 02:06, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

LG, my apologies for taking so long to respond. Between my job and being out of town for several weeks in the Northwest, I have not had a chance to return to our discussion until now. In regards to the matter here is my thoughts. If you look at the US East Coast following the war, Delmarva is in the best position early on of any of the survivor nations to begin exploring the coast and embarking on trade exploration voyages. They have a number of small ports along with a fair number of vessels including some freighters and several coast guard cutters they could utilize. Now, I think it would be fair to say for the first five years, roughly 1983-1988, they concentrate on working on their own affairs. However, at some point, given their maritime resources as I mentioned, I find it implausible Delmarva would not try to launch sea explorations and instead do absolutely nothing for 12 years. Also consider this, Delmarva lacks energy deposits such as oil, coal, or natural gas that other areas have. Given the importance of fuel and other items of commerce it would be in their best interest to launch sea expeditions in the hope of locating other nations and establishing trade to obtain these. Given Delmarva's access to the coast and their maritime resources it would be logical for them to pursue this path than trying to carry out major land expeditions to old areas of the US. Logically, South America would be a destination for such expeditions given their resources of oil and gas.

Taking all I have said into consideration, I believe about 1989 Delmarva would be stable enough and desirous of seeing if other countries still exist and initiate trade voyages like the times of past. The arrival of Brazil about this time would nicely fit in. I raised the question of contact between the two nations to the writer of Brazil sometime ago and they had given me the okay to work it in as long as I could find a good anchorage spot for the aircraft carrier, which I think the Norfolk-Newport News roadstead would work fine for. My intention was to have the Brazilians go up the coast to NY as the article stated and miss Delmarva due to bad weather and by chance make contact on the way back. This would mark the beginning of close relationships between the two and help open inroads into SA for Delmarva. Even if this were to not happen, I am of the firm belief Delmarva would still initiate trade and exploration voyages south no later than 1990 due to contact with Bermuda and the reasons I already laid out towards the Caribbean and South America and have a presence there in time for the arrival of the Canada Navy.

As for Canada, it had just seemed plausible contact would have already been established, before 1995 most likely through contact by fishing boats at sea or radio even given it is just over something like 200+ miles to Canada. Heck, I could even see Delmarva sending an expedition there to explore. Your point is taken in regards to how the Canadians might view the condition of the East Coast post World War III, but given there were survivors in Maine and Vermont they would have made contact with before 1995, I can't help but believe they would have sent someone to explore the East Coast earlier rather than ignore it. However, you are handling Canada and as such, I can only suggest.

The thing to remember as I know you do, where as certain points will always remain canon or unchanged in this scenario, other parts are subject to changes depending on the development of other articles which did not exist at the time the original piece was written. This is something we have observed from time to time. I studied up on contacts between the various nations and noted gaps or unclear areas regarding contacts. I want to resolve this issue as it applies to Delmarva, but do it in a manner that is logical and makes sense along the lines I have laid out above. I look forward to your thoughts on the matter. --Fxgentleman 03:33, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

No worries Fx.

Canada only came into contact with Vermont and Aroostook in 1997. So, no reason to explore from there.

Canadian fishermen would not go south. The fishing there is overfished, and there wasn't much in the first place. They'd all go to the Grand Banks, like they have done for centuries.

Outside of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Canadian control of the coastline would not have come until the 1990s. One heck of a lot more than 200 miles.

Delmarvan radios were fried. Canadian ones were not, and they heard signals from the Azores. They have no reason at all to head south when they have signals from the east.

Delmarva would have had access to several off-shore test rigs at the time. They've all been abandoned, etc. since 1984, but several were producing at the time. That's in addition to the tankers that would have been in the region. And, why on earth would they have wasted the fuel? They've every reason to believe the outside world gone, including South America - and there is no point in using up your fuel like that in such an event.

Bermuda makes contact with Delmarva, after a fashion, in 1990. Yet, they know nothing of the outside world until much later. Thus, Delmarva cannot be in contact in 1990 with the outside world. And, that contact was short and would have encouraged nothing.

Canada has been in contact with parts of the outside world since 1986, though only by radio. Contact south of the Azores only came in 1991. As the articles say, and noted by myself, why would they waste effort on ruined coastline when they knew where others definitely were? Simply put, they would not.

As I said, the Brazil stuff was not possible and has been removed/edited to make it so it was. I don't know who put it in originally, but I'd like to know what on earth they were thinking. That was the one and only reference to such an event, and was and has been contradicted virtually everywhere else.

Given Delmarvan areas of control, it is 100% impossible to get to NYC without spotting them, going up the coast, bad weather or not. And the same thing applies to the other states I listed the first time, between Georgia and Delmarva, and up to NYC. And yet, they were not in contact with these areas until the late 1990s at best.

You exaggerate the extent of the shipping. Remember, any modern, or more modern, vessels would be fried. And, the vast majority are only short-range - with the ones that aren't using up so much fuel that they simply wouldn't do it with their limited supplies - when you need fishermen for food, you're not going to waste fuel on other things.

As stated, neither the Franklin nor the Nimitz went up the East Coast of North America, instead heading to Europe. If Delmarva had been known, they would not have done so without going there first. Yet, they obviously did not. That means that there was no contact with Delmarva at that time. And this is something long, long, held in canon. And it ain't changing. The contact dates here are all very clear.

Simple logic, Fx. Canon, long enshrined, and in many places, says it has to be after 1993, even though the Delmarva article did not exist at the time. I fully realize that you do not think it plausible, but this is how it must be - and, for the record, I don't agree with you that it is not plausible, either.

Thus, 1989 is impossible. And, as I said, 1995 very reasonable. But, either way, it has to be after' 1993 that Delmarva gets to be in contact with the outside world. Not before.

Lordganon 05:20, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Nordic Union Presidency
Mentioned this on the Nordic Union talk page, suppose I should ask here since it'll be more noticeable, and to follow things I've said in the past, lol.

Anyhoo, the NU presidency, which is elected for three year periods, is up at the end of the year. Currently, it is held by Halldór Ásgrímsson, of Iceland, since 2008. There's no limit on terms, but most of them only have served a single term, which is the usual for most international organizations.

Given recent developments, I'm thinking that a change would be in order, probably to a Finn.

Thoughts?

Lordganon 06:29, July 24, 2011 (UTC)

After hunting around, I believe that Sauli Niinistö of Finland would be a good choice for the new leader. Would that be all right? Lordganon 08:15, September 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * I like the idea of a Finn holding the presidency. Approve. Benkarnell 20:00, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

As noted, the presidency of Halldór Ásgrímsson has expired, and Sauli Niinistö has now replaced him. Can't believe I screwed it up in my notes that it started this January when it was actually in September, lol. Lordganon 08:49, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

King Andrew
I've collected known info on His Majesty into one article, Andrew Windsor (1983: Doomsday). It's not a proposal because it doesn't include any new information. Feel free to add anything I missed.Benkarnell 16:24, December 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * I hesitated on whether to include "Defender of the Faith" in his titles. What do we know about the Anglican Church in TTL? Does New Britain make it the state religion, and if so, does it follow Old Britain in placing the monarch at the head? Speaking of, what is Andrew's current relationship to the statelets and churches in Great Britain? Benkarnell 22:44, December 14, 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's still a fairly large amount of Anglicans atl. Can't quote figures or anything, mind, but with all the places that still refer to large Protestant populations that once were holding a lot of Anglicans, I suspect that they would still exist.

I'd assume that in NB he's still the head. It's still the state religion there, if you could call it that, though very altered, and with a few new splinter groups.

Cleveland has replaced it, and pretty well all Christian Churches, with the Church of Albion - Northumbria too, mind - which while similar is entirely different. It's also going to have the Queen as it's head.

In the Alliance, I'm sure that small numbers still exist, though the majority were folded into the Celtic Church.

Southern England's lost a ton of people to Atheism, though 20% are still Protestant. Given pre-DD numbers I expect that there are still some.

In Woodbridge, 70% of the 60% of the pop who are Christian are stated to belong to the Anglican Church.

The bishop for the area of Essex, and the diocese structure, easily survived DD in the capital of Essex. Can reasonably assume that it's ok here.

Got me on the rest.

I'd include it. At the very least he'd likely stay in charge of the NB one, officially.

Lordganon 08:44, December 15, 2011 (UTC)

League of Democracies
I am proposing an international organization for all of the nations' democracies in this timeline. John McCain (or anyone else if he didn't survive Doomsday) is very concerned that authoritarian nations' influence in the League of Nations has tried to prevent war against other authoritarian nations in terms of human rights (like Libyan Civil War in OTL) John decides to make this organization to deal with events like these so that authoritarian nations will not hinder progress of democracy. I think that most, if not all, of the world's democracies should take part in this organization. What do you think of the concept?

RandomWriterGuy 14:36, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that what the League of Nations for?

Plus it's unlikely McCain survived as he was elected to the House of Representatives in Jan 1983 and was likely in Washington DC when the nukes fell.--Smoggy80 17:41, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

RWG proposed more or less this exact same thing for New Union, and it was shot down there.

McCain is dead.

RWG, you may want to have a good look at the LoN page that smoggy linked to. There is not a single member which is not democratic.

Lordganon 18:09, January 3, 2012 (UTC)


 * Since McCain was the leader of the freshman class that year, and from far away Arizona, he probably had an apartment in DC. It is highly unlikely that he got out of midtown even with a 30-minute warning. If he had a place in the suburbs (having worked in DC before), chances increase a little, but not by much.


 * As for authoritarian vs. democracies, RWG has a point. The USSR and Cuba, just to name two, can not be called 'democratic' even if some communist states include "Democratic" in their name. Being a "people's republic" is not the same thing as being a "democracy" in the sense of the word that an American politician would accept. There are a number of nations that have parliaments, but also have absolute monarchs. These do not seem so much like "democracies" to the average observer. It is certainly true that socialist countries can be democratic, but communist countries and Islamic monarchies don't count as such. Democracies have the upper hand, but the veto power of the USSR alone has kept many budding democracies out due to the fact that they "claim" those governments.


 * Having said this, I agree that such an organization as supposed here would not work in this time line. SouthWriter 03:13, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

You may want to have another good look at the USSR - atl, it is democratic.

Cuba is an assumption, since it has no government section, but at the very least it has moderated from otl. On some level, it's going to be better.

There's no other communists anymore that are members at all. Nor "Democratic Republics."

The Islamic Monarchies still have democratic representation - they, while called absolute, are in fact between that and a constitutional monarchy. And only the Saudis and Oman fall into the category. The rest are either outright Republics, or Constitutional Monarchies. And, they are all members of the GSU, which is democratic.

There is no outright dictatorship of any kind that is an LoN member, unlike the UN otl. Thus, absolutely no need for something like this.

Lordganon 07:47, January 4, 2012 (UTC)


 * I admit I am not as read up on these articles as LG, but to call a the USSR "democratic" in this time line is playing word games. A one-party communist state that has an active propoganda machine with the "secret" police always around is not what the average observer would call a democracy.  According to the article: "The USSR, like Cuba, takes pride on being one of the few surviving post-Doomsday Communist states."


 * A communist state is the opposite of a democracy, whether or not they have "free elections" and a stated freedom of assembly (watched always by the police state).  Cuba in TTL is called a communist state, and as such, it's form of government might claim "democracy" but it also would fail the common sense definition.  A democracy has its authority in the people and the laws which the people's freely elected representatives put in place.  A communist state may have an elected leader, but things are 'state controlled,' meaning that there are few, if any, checks and balances.


 * In agreeing to disagree, I must point out that the theoretical American politician in the porposal would be driven by the American ideal, not what has become the accepted definition, in this time line at least, of a 'democracy.' Any state that has an authoritarian leader - even as the one Viginia gave up to become a member of the LoN - would not be considered a "true democracy."  I think that is where RWG is coming from.  I also point out that my remarks above deliberately mention the 'average' observer, not the policy wonk or even the historian.  I personally have long understood 'ideal' communism and 'pure' democracy as being the same thing.  But I also hold that the US is not, nor ever has been a "democracy" in the pure sense (in OTL).  Libertarian politicians in TTL may have accomplished such, but I don't think the USSR is even close to such.  SouthWriter 19:14, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

A secret police does not mean a state is not democratic. All it means is that the state is not a liberal democratic one.

Communism is not the opposite of democracy. Dictatorship is the opposite, and there's a big difference between that and communism. About the only communist states that were not dictatorships with a communist shell are the last couple years of the USSR, Nepal, a few states of India, and for a few years after having been elected, San Marino. They also form coalitions with socialists in several other places, like parts of Brazil, Cyprus, and South Africa. All of these were democratically elected, and are far closer to what Communism actually is than the best-known examples. Note, however, that I do abhor Communism and find the concept ridiculous.

Even if it's an idealized American version of democracy, that is, as you say, not the world standard now in place.

But, as you say, let us agree to disagree about the fine points, since we agree that the proposed concept cannot possibly ever work atl.

Lordganon 08:26, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

Theocracy in 1983: Doomsday
I was thinking for some of the countries in 1983 Doomsday would be theocratic (rule by religious law). We know Iran is one of the obvious. Is it possible that few of the new countries formed after Doomsday may be founded by religious people or some countries that did surivve Doomsday may undergo a religious coup?

I was thinking of some theocratic governments, including: So what do you think? RandomWriterGuy 22:39, January 3, 2012 (UTC)
 * Israel
 * Philippines
 * Every Muslim country in the Middle East
 * Nigeria
 * Ethiopia
 * Pakistan
 * Tibet

RWG, please actually look at these places. Not one of those nations is theocratic in any form. And do so before making more posts, as was asked of you with New Union, as well, please.

In this timeline, only Iran and Olmsted are theocratic. Tibet is the only other one even remotely close.

Lordganon 07:50, January 4, 2012 (UTC)

Graphics / Visualization /Cartography
Section Archives:Page 1 {C Be sure to update the map for every 10 new nations or major territorial changes

Maps
Couple months back it was pointed out that with the amount of detail in NA and Europe now in the timeline, having a labeled world map in those areas is almost impossible. Now, I haven't got a world map done yet, though maybe in the next couple weeks, but here's a up-to-date map of North America. Europe will be forthcoming.



Let me know if I missed something somewhere.

Lordganon 15:09, March 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * Amazing map LG! Mitro 15:18, March 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * Good map, though Pasco is a bit large and Hattiesburg is a bit small (its supposed to control down to the gulf. Also, unless International Falls/Ft. Frances has incorporated the counties/districts around them - "string of communities" - that looks a little large as well. Overall, though, with these adjustments are minor. SouthWriter 20:22, March 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * Excellent work! West Texas controls the El Paso region, and jointly administers the remainder of New Mexico with the Navajo Nation. Technically, all of the Texas republics (save Dos Laredos) jointly administer "unincorporated" Texas. By the way, Dos Laredos really only covers the OTL Laredo Texas and Laredo Mexico city borders; it doesn't go down to the Gulf.
 * Hattiesburg does go down officially to the Gulf. Louisiana covers the entire state.
 * There are a number of small yet-to-be-written-on communities in former North Carolina.
 * Isn't there another survivor state in Iowa? What about the northern Indiana survivor states?:
 * BrianD 20:35, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the size of Pasco is more or less correct given the cities and towns listed in the article as being under its control.

The Int. Falls article really isn't complete, but definitely makes in sound like it controls more than just those settlements.

I actually included everything on the latest version of the Texas maps I could find (as a side note, please make one of these besides that whole Texas map you have up right now that's easy to find, lol). Joint areas like that, which outside of the colored areas is largely in theory, aren't getting colored. I'll add the El Paso region, however.

I'm well aware of the communities mentioned in the NC article, but I did not include any of the unmade things anywhere, so they won't be either.

Hattiesburg will be edited.

Larado on the map actually doesn't go farther than the city. If you look smaller you'll find another state, your Rio Grande Republic, between it and the Gulf instead.

How on earth could Louisiana cover the whole state? That makes no sense given what the article says.

Nope, only Lincoln and the Quads in Iowa. And nothing in that area of Indiana. Those things, which the creator refused to make plausible, were obsoleted long ago, and I've no hope of Yank's Indiana thing going anywhere either.

Lordganon 11:38, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

Updated for Hatt~ and Texas. Expanded Louisiana a bit as well. Lordganon 11:48, March 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Just noticed an error. is missing from the map. Mitro 14:31, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

Oh, its there. Little Violet thing, west of the USA and southeast of Oregon. Lordganon 14:43, March 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, excellent, I have gone insane. That is the only logical explanation for how I missed that, haha. Mitro 14:50, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

My apologies, LG, regarding the Texas map. I will get to it no later than mid-week. As your map is covering areas that each nation controls in practice, Louisiana is accurate (it does claim the entire state, however). I didn't see Silver City, New Mexico on the map. --BrianD 20:51, March 26, 2011 (UTC)

Like with the NC article communities, there's no article for it at this time, so it's not on the map. I may do those type of communities later, but way I figure it, it will just confuse people. Lordganon 01:39, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

Re: Texas, I've started a map like you suggested. Before I upload it I want to review it, including possibly designating where the various survivor states surrounding Texas are. It should be much preferable to the "red Texas" map I have on the West Texas page! BrianD 06:40, March 27, 2011 (UTC)

No doubt, lol.

Map of Europe:



Lordganon 10:03, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

LG, once again, excellent work! May I ask which tools, software, et al you're using to make these maps?

BTW, I've uploaded my Texas map....which is not nearly as nice as these two! :) BrianD 17:53, March 28, 2011 (UTC)

GIMP. Just as good as Photoshop, but doesn't cost a dime. I'll update the map as per the new Texas map you did. Lordganon 01:33, March 29, 2011 (UTC)



Voila. A world map. As noted before, the detail needed to read all of the tiny names just isn't there. All are marked in some fashion, mind, though not always readable. Obvious that we need some sort of caption with links to Europe and North America maps under it as well. Much better map, I think. What about you guys?

Lordganon 20:16, April 8, 2011 (UTC)

Excellent map! Finally it's easier to tell what territory is taken. I was wondering if we wanted a blank map that we could use for maps showing statistics and international organizations, much like. It would greatly enhance the articles and provide quick reference for articles like the League of Nations. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 04:07, April 9, 2011 (UTC)



The map I used as the basis for this. Works perfectly for that type of thing, with the sub-boundaries and all.

About the only thing wrong with the map I made, to me, is that the areas considered uninhabitable for various reasons aren't marked except for the Dutch Wastelands and the Marianas. Meh.

Lordganon 04:30, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

Think I will do one of the major uninhabitable zones, lol. Sounds interesting, I think.

Something that has long bothered me is the lack of an updated India map. Now, that changes, lol.



Modern map. I'll be adding it to the appropriate pages, to go along with the 2009 map already on the India page.

Lordganon 15:31, April 9, 2011 (UTC)



This is more what I had in mind. It's a little messy, so I'll be fixing it up later. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 20:00, April 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * I assume this map shows the uninhabitable zones mentioned above. The problem is, the areas you show are just areas not yet dealt with. This is especially true with Africa, which has had no nuclear explosions. Maps that show "unihabitable zones" would have to be on a local level, marking places where bombs took out cities and surrounding dead areas. By now, very little land that received fallout blown in the winds is uninhabitable. SouthWriter 20:45, April 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * The grey part can be considered "uncontrolled," "lawless," "uninhabited," "unknown," or "unaddressed," according to the WCRB. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 20:53, April 9, 2011 (UTC)

Almost all of that is simply "unaddressed" by us, not the WCRB. Nor unknown. No need for a map like that, as zones that have been looked into by various powers covers the vast majority of that area you mark erroneously as "unknown." Lordganon 16:53, April 10, 2011 (UTC)

Gee, thanks for the constructive criticism… Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 18:02, April 10, 2011 (UTC)



Current Map of Africa.

Lordganon 14:24, April 26, 2011 (UTC)


 * Equatorial Guinea still exists, but it only controls the territory of Rio Muni on the mainland. Benkarnell 20:02, December 10, 2011 (UTC)



Current Map of South America.

Lordganon 16:58, June 5, 2011 (UTC)

Wiki/Timeline/Article Technicals
Section archives: Page 1

Culture / Society
Archives: Page 1 • Page 2;

Music Festivals
Sorry if this isn't the right place to mention this, but I got an idea for you Doomsday people: music festivals! I was having a quick read through to see if you had anything about music festivals but I couldn't really find anything; but music festivals are a fairly big cultural thing you guys seemed to have overlooked. VonGlusenburg 15:04, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to do up a proposal. I'm sure this kind of thing would have been pretty big early after doomsday as a way to keep morale up.Oerwinde 22:38, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

There's a couple of articles on musicians that I recall hint at this kind of thing. Start there when making the article. Lordganon 04:28, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

I can do a proposal but don't expect it to be brilliant, my knowledge on the whole Doomsday time line isn't that good, especially the finer details. But I'll look at those musicians articles to start from, thanks for the hint LG! --VonGlusenburg 16:15, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

I got a bit wrote down on a notepad here at home, but I was wondering what to call the article. I say this cause this isn't my time line & I would rather one of you guys give me a name to call it, so you don't have to bother about moving pages & renaming it in the future. Personally I was thinking of expanding the article to music in general as well, seeing there isn't a page for music, and having music festivals as a sub-section, along with a list of musical artist profile pages. So I ask: --VonGlusenburg 11:41, September 14, 2011 (UTC)
 * Should the music festival article be expanded to music in general?
 * If so, call the page: Music (1983: Doomsday)
 * If not, call the page: Music festivals (1983: Doomsday)

How about a "Music" article, with a "Festival" sub-section, and then the title of that sub-section is a link to a "Music Festivals" article? Lordganon 15:15, September 14, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I can do, proposals I'll try to get done for the end of the week, but I'm starting uni next week, so I will be rather distracted for a while after. Heck distracted now with stuff. But yeah, please bare with me. --VonGlusenburg (talk to Von!) 14:34, September 15, 2011 (UTC)

Miscellaneous discussion
Archives: Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3

Titanic Discovery in 2012?
Ladies and (mostly) gentlemen of 1983: Doomsday, I have a question; what would the possibility of an expedition for the Titanic in this world be?

I can provide you with some facts: the ship and equipment that found the Titanic in 1985 was based at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. The location of Woods Hole is directly north of Marthas Vineyard, and, therefore, part of Outer Lands (1983: Doomsday), an American survivor state, and would have survived Doomsday.

The at the time, WHOI had at three oceangoing ships available to them: the Atlantis II, Oceanus and Knorr. They all would have survived Doomsday: due to records, the Atlantis II had just arrived at Woods Hole from East Boston, MA, on September 10, and had just been outfitted with the crane to support the mini-submersible Alvin. The Oceanus was scheduled to sail on a scientific mission on September 26, but I would be pretty confident that this mission would be cancelled due to Doomsday occurring the day before. And the Knorr was out to sea from Recife, Brazil on a mission, and arrived in Abidjan, Cote d' Ivorie on September 30.

The Alvin, built and commissioned in 1964, was refitted with the capability to dive to the Titanic's depth in 1978, therefore is capable at the time of Doomsday (it explored the wreck in 1986, a year after it is found OTL). At the same time, the Argo, a towed camera sled that actually found the ship was only built in the earlier part of 1985, so would be unavailable. I believe that any equipment that may be used would have to be available before September 25, 1983. The Argo, however, was mostly made using camera's and materials that were commercially available at the time, so it can be built in the future.

It is much more difficult to figure out if persons that would be associated with finding the wreck, most notably Dr. Robert Ballard, survived Doomsday. However, it would be an almost 26 year difference between OTL and the present, and many of these men have since retired, and they could be replaced by other people.

Other Oceanographic exploration centers, such as the French IFREMER would most likely be either handicapped if not outright destroyed by Doomsday, due to the fact that, especially with IFREMER, their headquarters was located in Paris and their base of operations located in major French ports, some of which would be home to the French Navy, and most likely targeted. Even if the ships survived, they would still be leaderless, so they would have been de-facto disbanded on Doomsday.

As for the reasoning behind searching for the Titanic, I offer a few reasons: first, being the 100th anniversary of the sinking next year, it would have an impact on the history behind it. Second, I believe this would be a good excuse for a peaceful international mission devoted to science and exploration, perhaps sponsored by the League of Nations. Third, the condition of the wreck: though it would not have been damaged by explorers as it was OTL, the sad fact is that the Titanic is decaying, and may soon simply collapse and become nothing more than an iron deposit on the bottom of the ocean.

I know that the world of 1983:Doomsday is, frankly, a very downbeat and sad story. I believe that something like this expedition would be a good thing, if but to try to bring the world together through peace and science. It would be difficult, as the original explorers almost didn't find it either in 1985, and multiple attempts before hand all failed. But I ask that this ida be taken under consideration.

Thank you. Lieut. Tbguy1992: Profile; Talk 03:28, October 13, 2011 (UTC)

Probably the most important factors here are both the EMP, and the amount of time that has passed. While you are indeed correct about the Titantic, and indeed, the status of the search vessels at DD, I have to doubt that they would be at all functional. The EMP would have went thorough most of the systems on those things like a hot knife through butter. Even with what's left, age would likely finish the job. Even though the facility survived - and if my guesswork is correct, Ballard would have been there, or on the Knorr - there's really not much, in my mind they would be able to do.

You're right about the French. They'd be more or less entirely gone.

As you say, the Knorr would have lived. But.... by itself, with a reduced tech base, it's probably not going to be useful by this point.

And with regards to the Argo, that tech is more or less only now getting rebuilt atl.

All that being said, it's not a bad concept. But, it'd be more like a WCRB thing, and with newer equipment, from some combination of the ANZC and SAC. The older stuff is pretty unlikely to be useful, at best.

Lordganon 09:38, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

I should note, too, that a discovery in 2012 is pretty unrealistic. Maybe a project to find it being started, but not a discovery. Lordganon 10:03, October 14, 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, I was just wondering. The stories I heard about Titanic expeditions is that, although some were planned ahead of time, most are simply a method of "You have a boat available for a while? We'll take it then." It would be different ATL, I'm sure.


 * As for the boats at Woods Hole on Doomsday, their hulls would be intact, even if equipment has been disabled, and I'm sure the locals might try to use them for other purposes, like fishing or scouting. The Knorr would have been in the middle of the South Atlantic, so would have most likely not been effected by the EMP blast, and therefore still available with all its equipment, even if age will later basically disable it.


 * For finding the wreck, it would be a complete crap shoot. The wreck is only about 13 miles of what the Forth Officer calculated the sinking ship to be, so, if the folks that are sent to find the ship decide to look out further than what the record was, they may find it, may not. And since searches for the ship were carried out before Doomsday, from the late 1970's to early 1980's, they may be able to discount those areas and focus on unexplored areas. This is very much finding a needle in a very large, very watery haystack. I guess, if someone says I can, then I will do a random.org calculation to decide if they will find it or not, with a much more likely possibility of it not happening, or at least a much greater possibility they might toward the end of the expedition when the work through the search areas, much like the actual one in 1985.


 * As for ANZC and/or the SAC, who would I have to talk to to see if they would agree to something like this? Lieut. Tbguy1992: Profile; Talk 08:57, October 16, 2011 (UTC)

Tb, the damage would extend to all systems of the ones at Woods Hole. Literally, they will be rotting at their moorings.

As I said, the Knorr would have been entirely intact - it's just that with the passing of time, it would be more or less useless, anyways.

You're assuming that they would have records of the previous searches. For the most part, this wouldn't be the case. Only the ones in the Southern Hemisphere, and isolated parts of the north, would remain. Even at Woods Hole, most would be lost except in their heads. They will need to search areas again.

ANZC is Brian and Ben, SAC is Fed, Ven, Arstar, and Kenny, depending on the part of it.

Lordganon 17:27, October 16, 2011 (UTC)


 * Lordganon, I'm not a major Doomsday contributor... I've barely done anything to help out on it up to this point. I simply do not know what has all gone on and such, and, lets face it, there is just not enough time in the world to read everything associated with everything that has gone on, what with ideas thrown around and proposals and all that (over 10,000 messages alone just for the main page). I was simply asking what the possibility may be. I might have wasted my time with the research about the ships after Doomsday, as your saying they would be mostly useless but I mostly did it in case someone would ask.


 * I just had an idea, and was wondering it is at all possible that it may be possible for it to be carried out.


 * And another thing, to complete my newbishness, who is Brian, Ben, Fed and Kenny? I can guess by Ven you mean VENEZUELA, but you have gone over my head using abbreviations of people I rarely talk with. Lieut. Tbguy1992: Profile; Talk 00:35, October 17, 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, my apologies. I figured you'd have some idea as to the admin team, lol. Never mind, I suppose.

BrianD and Benkarnell are the ANZC guys, and then Fedelede, Ven, Detectivekenny, and especially Katholico, who I forgot about before, are the ones to talk to about SAC things.

But, it's not really something you need to talk with them about. Community thing overall, in my opinion, run by the WCRB.

As for the ships, there's one thing you missed: The ships themselves are useless, but in at least the one, the tech, in a more primitive form, probably has been fashioned by this point.

Lordganon 08:34, October 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright, I get the idea. So, though the three ships WHOI had would be useless by now (though still seaworthy in the aftermath, so might have been rigged for fishing? I dunno), but the technology they used would have been replicated by the present day ATL? Am I getting that right?


 * And, how exactly does the WCRB work? Do I just post an article? Or should I ask those that may be involved (like the SAC or ANZC) first? I just want to know before I do anything. Lieut. Tbguy1992: Profile; Talk 16:21, October 17, 2011 (UTC)

Doubtful. They'd have to have a massive amount of sails, etc. laying around for that, as well as masts. As for replicating the tech, it'd be from the Knorr, by and large - a combination of time and damage would mean most of the tech from the ones at WHOI would be useless, though I'm sure a small amount would still be recoverable.

Mostly, it just works by posting. Ask Brian and Kath about the Titantic, get their feel of things, and then power to you.

Lordganon 22:07, October 20, 2011 (UTC)

1990 FEMA Nuclear Attack Report
During the course of my research I ran across the following link http://www.ssrsi.org/Onsite/PDFbin/FEMA%20nuke%20annexa.pdf. It took me to an actual copy of the 1990 FEMA Nuclear Attack Planning Report. I don't know if anyone else had seen this, but I thought I would pass it along if you would like to read it for reference. --Fxgentleman 04:50, November 15, 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to work, Fx. Lordganon 06:38, November 17, 2011 (UTC)

Get your own copy by going to this link: Annexa.PDF. That will load the PDF for you to save and reference. It has a lot of statistics, the most significant being that which tells the psi of explosion over the population of the USA (page five). The maps of the states include the same hits that the maps we have been using have. It seems that our assumptions have more killed in the short run. There is no telling how many would die in the aftermath. SouthWriter 04:10, November 19, 2011 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say that, South. If you look at the later tables the numbers of people at "high-risk" and "very high-risk" and even "medium-risk" from direct effects are higher than the first set of tables.

Adding up those totals, we have 183,630,504 people in those categories. 58,478,645 more are in the "low-risk" category. The US population in 1990 was 248,709,873 or so according to wikipedia. Take away the medium and higher categories, and that leaves us with 65,079,369 people. Subtract the low-risk, and that leaves us with 6,600,724 people unaffected.

If you factor in that the attacks here are, more or less, a complete surprise, all of those groups will be suffering a great deal of casualties. Virtually all of the "very-high-risk," nearly all of the "high-risk" and much of the medium risk are dead, as are some of the low-risk. Factor in chaos and radiation and we're at our levels.

Lordganon 05:21, November 19, 2011 (UTC)

My apologies for the bad link. I ran across it during my recent research and downloaded a copy of the report. Something must have happened after I accessed it. I checked the link South listed and the end result was the same thing, so my thanks to him. I have ran across a great deal of interesting things the last month I hope to share with the rest of the writers if they are interested. --Fxgentleman 12:17, November 19, 2011 (UTC)


 * Fx, I look forward to your continued research.


 * LG, Taking the percentages of the 1990 report, 33% would be hit with more than 5 PSI. The charts use a population of 242,102,419 in 1985, but the population in 1980, according to the census, was 226,545,805. The population growth rate for the 1980's was just under 10%, so lets put the population in 1983 at an increase of 3% of 226 million, or up by 6.5 million to 233 million to start with. Of that, then, 77.7 million were hit the hardest, killing say 85% outright. That's 66 million dead. Then, the next group of the population, the Low and Medium (.5 to 2 PSI) make up 40% of the population. Of the total, this is 90.6 million people basically in the suburbs of the targeted cities, leaving about 50% dead from the attacks, or 45.3 miilion. That means about 111.3 million are killed outright in a population of 226.5 millon. The remaining population (with less than .5 psi) would be another 27% or about 61 million "unaffected." Let's say that 20% of that number, over all, die due to the riots and other violence within a few days of the attacks. That's 12.2 million more dead. That means by midweek, let's say, 123.5 million Americans have died, leaving about 103 million survivors (not the 20 million we now assume). If half of these die in the first year, there would be over 50 million left.


 * I did not take the time to check the figures that included the up to 10 psi with the previous chart, but from what I gather, the highest risk (158 million) affected amounts to about 64% of the population (or 150 million, 1983 estimate of 233 million). If we assume 95% of these are dead outright, then that leaves 7.5 million survivors (for how long, we don't know). Of the high risk (between 2 and 5 psi, we see another 4% affected, or 9.7 million. Lets say, just to be especially brutal, that 75% of these die within days -- that's 2.4 million survivors. Then we have the Medium risk areas comprising about 6% of the population (14.4 million). Of these, let's say a full 50% die, leaving 7.2 million more survivors. This means the survivors from in and around nuclear strikes would add up to around 19.3 million to add to the 56.3 million. That leaves a about 77.6 million survivors in all to fight over the resources left over. Even with blood baths everywhere - say a death rate of 50% - you'd have 38.8 million survivors left to meet the challenge of rebuilding.


 * Either way, our assumptions do not add up to those of these projections. We may have assumed right, and so far our populations based on known survivor states are sitting at below 30 million if I remember right, but the figures from the 'experts' seem to indicate we've been a bit hard on the US population. I would say that given what we have now, we can assume that there are quite a few independent city-states that have gone unnoticed or unaccounted for. None of any consequence, mind you, but just waiting for some editor to explore. 98.71.145.11 21:52, November 19, 2011 (UTC) (I had forgotten to log in -- SouthWrtier)

Makes no sense at all for them to have used such out of date figures, but I see that they did. Typical, lol. The 1985 figures given are more than good enough, since that means no arguing over the exact numbers.

The Very-high risk numbers are all dead. Maybe not all instantly, but the result is the same. These would be the residents of major cities large areas or their suburbs, those near bases, and those near the silos. 158.5 million gone.

You will be lucky to get a million out of the high-risk 10.1 million to survive. These would be secondary targets, by my guess.

You'd be about right on the mediums, I think. Another 7.5 million gone.

But, you avoid entirely the low-risk. "Low-risk" does not equal "unharmed." Remove 10 million here.

And, even all of that, that file is only the direct effects - i.e. the blast itself and the pressure waves. Fires, toxins, radiation, etc. are all not factored in. 50% would be an understatement - it would be closer to 75%.

That leaves something around 14,250,000 people.

Probably, the actual number lies between the two.

Now, in the former USA, according to the "Doomsday by US State" list, there is a total of around 34,674,178 people in the former USA. Admittedly, this list is not complete. Incomplete are:


 * States with small populations left that are blank: Arizona, Minnesota, New Jersey
 * States with almost no populations left that are blank: Connecticut, Rhode Island
 * Other states that are blank: Idaho, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Vermont, Virginia

That's probably another 10 million, if not more.

The population we have is more than fine. From 20 million - or something around there - we have more than doubled the population in 28 years. Very reasonable.

Lordganon 07:51, November 20, 2011 (UTC)

Okay, you win on that one, I guess. I ran the figures and with a death rate of between 50 and 75 percent (62.5 %) - rather high in my estimation, but the consensus seems to be against me - we come out with about 21 million. The total was a bit higher for the present known populations than I rememembered (I was the one that added them up to begin with!), so thank you for reminding us of the gaps in that chart. The mentioned blanks need attention, but an additional 10 million sounds about right. Besides, it doesn't look like too many folk are interesting in keeping this time line updated and/or expanded. Sad, for it is a very worthy project. SouthWriter 19:53, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Part of it at least has to be because doing it right requires a significant investment in time. Some of it because people simply lose interest. There's been an ebb and flow to this TL in regards to participation over the years; I do hope we're merely in a lull period.

Allow me to guess at population figures for some of the aforementioned states.

Rhode Island - zero

Arizona - 70,000 between Dinetah and the survivor town (towns?) located there

Connecticut - 20,000 or so, mainly in the Vermont-held western portion

BrianD 02:12, November 26, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, Brian. I think that we're just in a slow period. Over the last few months we've had a few spurts of activity, just hasn't really stuck. I'm sure it will get going again. Those of us still posting just need to keep on trucking, drawing attention by posting, and the newbies will come eventually. Arizona would run slightly less than that - the Navajo are based in former Utah, and do control parts of four states with their roughly 100k population. Prescott has about 20,000 or so, and we've pretty well wrote off everyone else in the state because of the desert. Something like 50k or so, probably. Rhode Island only survives in the form of Block Island, which is about a thousand people. More or less that for Connecticut.

Michigan has something like 750,000 or so today, mostly in Superior/the Upper Peninsula. Minnesota would be just over a hundred thousand, or so, by my guess. New Jersey, whatever the population of AC is plus a few thousand. Couple million in Vermont/New Hampshire. Something like a million each in most of the rest. Lordganon 01:35, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Secret Plan to Govern US in Event of Nuclear War
I recently ran across a story from 2004 in the Atlantic Monthly regarding a secret plan in effect during the Reagon administration to run the country in the event a nuclear war killed the president and vice president. Although I don't know if it affects this ATL scenario, it is worth reading. I double checked the link and it is good. http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2004/03/mann.htm Enjoy. --Fxgentleman 01:47, November 20, 2011 (UTC)

Well, apart from drills each year, the timing of which we cannot predict, it only seems to be activated during nuclear war. I really can't see it being an issue here, given that this was such a shocker.

Probably the biggest flaw I see with that plan is that barring a fluke by which the teams are randomly out on a drill at the time, a surprise nuclear attack is still going to take out such teams, or at the very least prevent them making their destination. The only ones that would at all make it would be the ones that go to the places where Reagan and Bush went, really. Which kinda defeats the purpose, lol.

Lordganon 04:59, November 20, 2011 (UTC)

This makes me wonder who else made it to Mount Weather/Greenbrier and to a proposal I've been brewing over for some time: the urban legend (in the DD world) of Spenatz agents shooting down incoming planes and helicopters carrying Congressmen, Senators, government officials attempting to flee D.C., and therefore only the President, the VP, their staffs and spouses, and some of the Cabinet survived. BrianD 05:44, November 20, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what you are saying Brian. Sometime ago I began reading newspapers from around the US covering the 9/24-27/1983 period to get a feel about who was where and if they could have survived. Been through the W.Post, NY Times, and all the papers availble through the online Newspaper Archives. I have not been able to get back up to the Library of Congress in sometime to continue my work, but I was able to pin down a number of celebrities but unfortunately not many politicians. I figure the DOD Secretary was likely lost since he was Beijing. That said it does beg the question if any top people such as Sec/State, Speaker/House, and S.Court Chief Justice could have been taken to those locales. I have been doing research on Joeseph Biden to see if he could have made it to Delmarva and based on my results plan to do something in the near future. The same for Al Haig and the SNU. The problem I find is that alot of the research to make such determinations can't always be found on the web and you literally have to go to the library to do the hard core research, time allowing. Someday, if I ever get the time (LOL) I will try to put up an article showing what I found so far.--Fxgentleman 20:34, November 20, 2011 (UTC)


 * An excellent article, and though I was not aware of it, I incorporated something of this idea in the 'rebirth' of the United States of America. Speaking of which, I really need to get back to that being that the November elections would put the Dakotas, Neonotia and the USAR on track to become "states" or at least territories. Anyway, I supposed the survival of at least part of congress in a proposed rewrite in trying to get Sunkist's Republic of Indiana (now Obsolete) article graduated. He pasted my suggested scenario directly from the talk page to the article but it didn't get much of a reaction from anyone but Arstar. Fx's research into the days newspaper archives is the best attempt I've seen to decide where congressmen and senators might have been on that Sunday evening. The would not have been in session, so most would have been in their DC area homes or apartments. They would have been on their own in escaping, though they may have known to get to Mt. Weather or the Greenbrier Hotel facility with Bush. I'd think at least the leadership of both houses would have evacuated with Bush (if they could be located quickly enough). It would be good if we could find out where they lived at the time. The Wikipedia article for the 98th Congress lists all the members, with links to their articles. The few that I looked into, though, gave no mention of where they may have been living in the DC area on DD.


 * Keep up the good work, Fx. SouthWriter 04:53, November 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, LG, the fact that they were ongoing each year, means that plans were being formulated in each simulation. Therefore, on the announcement of the incoming weapons, the teams would be dispatched immediately. The fact that the president and the vice president survived makes it a moot point, of course, but their survival is not determined by whether they happened to be in the two places designed for the survival of the government. If anything, the designated 'third team' may have actually headed to a 'safe place' and later contacted Reagan and or Bush. It has never been established who survived other than the top executives, but some of the top ranking members would have been 'spirited away' immediately. And for goodness sake, how wrong is it to "Laugh out loud" concerning a doomsday scenario. :-/


 * Brian, who started that DD urban legend? And where is it discussed? A disturbing scenario for sure. :-(
 * SouthWriter 05:05, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

The reason I established plausibility about Joe Biden was based on something I read a longtime ago. Biden lived in Delaware and commutted back and forth on Amtrak to DC every day. Given it was a Sunday and his home was not in the Dover area, I felt he would be there, survive, and escape with his family and head south. However, he did suffer a major health issue later on which could not as easily be fixed in this ATL that I will have to address. But as its been pointed out it is not normally that easy in deducing where the little fish were as it is for the bigger ones.--Fxgentleman 05:19, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

South, I can't source it at the moment but I have read articles alleging that Soviet agents likely would commit various acts of terrorism in any build-up to a conflict between the US and USSR. While I have seen that idea elsewhere, the idea of the Soviet agents blowing up planes and/or cars filled with Congressmen outside Mount Weather, Greenbrier or DC or wherever, as an urban legend lasting into the present day, is my own. BrianD 06:17, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

FX, I would look forward to such an article.

A question would be who would have gone to the Greenbrier and how they got there. The Greenbrier, as I understand it, would have been the destination for Congressin the event of an exchange, and even had a working replica of the House and Senate chambers. Another would be what happened to the House and Senate members after Bush left. BrianD 06:25, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

Not quite what I meant, South. I've no doubt that they would get told to leave, but.... in all of the chaos, and the sudden nature of things, I doubt that most, even the members of these "teams," would be able to get out. Those that do would simply not be able to reach their intended destination, in all likelihood. Without the equipment from the test runs, I'd also guess. I've no doubt that some would make it, but..... as I said, unless they were going to the places nearby, they likely wouldn't arrive. Not necessarily dead, but not at their destination, either. Most Congressional members that make it out would likely, as planned, head to Greenbrier. Not that many would, mind. Biden is probably the one member we can likely say for sure lived though it, though Fx is right about his health problems likely killing him anyways. Yes, I've read about the terrorist stuff, too. Definitely an urban legend that would exist.

Lordganon 02:05, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

What Can I Contribute To
Hello, I thought I would contribute to this timeline. What articles could I help on? RandomWriterGuy 07:26, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

You could always make a new one. GunsnadGlory 19:44, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

Info
In case someone wants to visualize the war itself and some of the aftermath, there are a few good period movies out there. For example, "The Day After", which dates from 1983, and the British piece, "Threads", from 1984. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2B7sdLPMfc for The Day After. Rickyrab 06:53, December 28, 2011 (UTC)

Regarding a Certain Micronation
This might sound a bit daft but I was discussing this timeline with someone and they asked what would have happened to Sealand, since Paddy Roy Bates seems like the sort of guy who'd have a better then average chance of surviving (lunatic strength and all that) and might possibly be the type to see Doomsday as an opportunity to expand his territory. I explained that there wasn't really any room to do so as pretty much the whole east coast has been claimed but they asked me to enquire about it anyway.Tessitore 16:48, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

Looking into this, I have to doubt their survival if they were to stay there. While I think they'd not get too radiated, food, fuel, etc. would be a big problem.

Nor can we actually know for sure where Bates, or his family, actually were at the time. They've lived in England for a very long time, off of their fort.

But, at most, he's got only a dozen men that would be there. The raiders and organized states on the mainland would eat them for lunch. I should note, too, that the mainland closest is part of Woodbridge.

At best, it could be part of Essex or Woodbridge. At worst, explorers find skeletons there.

Lordganon 07:30, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I sort of suspected as much. Oh well, time to go and disappoint someone.Tessitore 18:02, January 2, 2012 (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. To graduate an article, move to have the article graduated and if no one objects the article will be considered canon (see the for more information on this process).

Obsolete article resurrected by Arstar. Mitro 16:18, October 28, 2010 (UTC)

I have a question concerning this article, who currently is the caretaker? I ask because amongst my other work I have been studying up on Iceland out of curiosity and feel I could flesh this out more so it would be realistic. However, I don't wish to intrude on someone else's project. Thanks.--Fxgentleman 15:43, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe it is Arstar. I think if you ask though he would be willing to let you takeover. I do believe he is trying to shorten his list of proposals. Mitro 19:32, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I spoke with him and he gave me the okay to move forward.--Fxgentleman 03:45, November 12, 2010 (UTC)

Thought I'd leave this note here - that I left on its talk page quite some time ago - but the strike list on this article isn't plausible. Lordganon 07:56, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

This page has been sitting here for over a year, and I handed it over to Fx a while back. Is it at least stub suitable, or should it be obsolete? Arstar 07:31, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

No in both cases. There are major issues with it so we cannot graduate it in any form, yet, it is an article on an established nation, so we cannot mark it as obsolete. Lordganon 07:34, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

I am still working on the article and intend to complete it along with Greenland. The only issue I am aware of as of this date which was raised had to do with the strike zones I selected. The areas I selected would have been legitimate and logical military targets of a Soviet attack: NAS Keflavik, the Keflavik Airport, and the Distant Early Warning (DEW) radar stations located in Sangerdi and Hofn.

Although the Doomsday scenario does revolve around a Soviet attack based on the assumption they are under a sudden assault, there is nothing to indicate the Soviets would not have followed up with bombers in a secondary attack on targets. The DEW radar system was designed to detect such incoming bombers. This would make it a target by the USSR. Although this aspect of the war to the best of my knowledge has not been explored in any great way, it was established in the history of Victoria that coastal Canada came under attack by Soviet bombers and they were shot down.

The destruction of DEW radar stations in Greenland and Iceland coupled with the effects produced by the HANEs over the continental US would help to punch holes in the network and leave North America vulnerable to any bomber attacks from that direction. I can not explain why other writers never elaborated on the fate of DEW sites in the US, Canada, and the Faroe Islands. It may have been a simple oversight given how many areas there are to cover. The article on Alaska speaks to multiple attacks on the Aleutian Island chain against military targets. Although it did not specifically clarify the exact targets, there were DEW stations in the islands which almost certainly would have been among sites hit. --Fxgentleman 16:33, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

Except for the fact that not a single part of the DEW network was in range of the HANE blasts. By 2,500 miles, at least.

Not a single one of these sites was hit, anywhere. To hit a detection site after its job has been accomplished holds absolutely no point. We've never elaborated about the bombers because whether a site is hit by one or a ICBM doesn't really matter.

And the Alaska article is not referring to them, either. Why? Because those stations in the Aleuts had all been closed in 1969. What it would be referring to is Cold Bay Air Force Station, and likely Unalaska as well.

So, as stated: They were not hit, anywhere.

Lordganon 17:12, December 3, 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected regarding the stations in the Aleutians. The sources I read gave me the impression they were open in 1983. I went back and checked and you are correct. You are also correct that the DEW system ran across the northern border of Canada and Alaska. I was thinking of the Pine Tree Line and the Mid Canada Line which I mistakenly lumped in with the DEW network. It was these two that I was thinking of when I made a reference to the HANE since some of their stations would fall under the EMP line. So my error on those points.

However, could you elaborate further why you think DEW sites would not be hit?

The DEW radar stations were designed to detect bomber(s) with a certainty of at least 99.9% that by the time they crossed the line the bomber(s) location, track direction, and time of detection had been ascertained and transmitted to NORAD. Once the last of the bombers passed the line then yes, you would be correct that the station's purpose has thus been served and to strike it would be pointless because what it was created to detect has already gone through. The question I would have to ask is since the bombers would have to be launched from the USSR and pass over the Polar Cap to reach Canada and the US how long would they take to reach the radar line?

Lets hypothesize for a moment. We know the Soviets received the warning at about 3:40 GMT+3 and launched their ICBMs roughly five minutes later. Since I don't know how long it would take to scramble Soviet bombers lets say hypothetically the first bombers begin scrambling at the same point the missiles are being launched and are airborne roughly ten minutes later or 3:50 GMT+3. At this point we have different groups of bombers inbound. I suggested the radar sites in Iceland were hit at about 4:05 GMT+3. I do not know how long it takes a bomber to leave its base and reach the radar line. But I don't believe that all the bombers would have already reached and over flown the radar line by that time. So logically until that last bomber goes over their existence creates a viable threat to the effectiveness of the Soviet bombers. Thus an early attack on some or all the stations would be a reasonable action on the part of the Soviets. My suggestion is this, I can reduce the attacks to missiles carrying conventional explosive warheads given they are small targets. This would serve the purpose of neutralizing the target while leaving a insignificant footprint on the area. What do you think, I am open to thoughts?--Fxgentleman 00:58, December 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * I have always understood that this scenario was basically an accidental war fought long-distance by ICBMs and some SLBMs. If there had been scrambled bombers, they would have been sent out by both the USA and the USSR, and perhaps many NATO and some Warsaw Pact nations as well. All of this means planes in place to shoot down each other, and perhaps a few incoming ICBMs and SLBMs. The accidental war would have been over the Arals and Canada as Bombers met each other. We don't have this in any of our story lines. There is some of it, but not over the lower 48 states. The damage was done by the first strike almost exclusively, as I interpret it. There may have been waves, but as I understand it, it was mostly over in a few hours (except for border wars such as that in Alaska). Introducing bombers is too much for the time line as we have it to absorb, in my opinion. SouthWriter 05:24, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Having reviewed and considered South's comments I have gone ahead and removed any mention of the narrative regarding the DEW stations. I have to say though it is indeed very confusing from my point of view. I agree with South in that I always subscribed to the theory of how the war evolved, sudden rather than planned using just missiles in the US and Canada. The Victoria article when I read it a time ago had changed my thoughts regarding the whole business since we now had bombers flying in from Russia to attack. I just took it on faith it was simply another part of the story which had never been addressed. Under those conditions I felt DEW stations could not be ignored for the reasons I addressed earlier since they would just be to much of a threat for the Soviets to not strike. Hopefully, sometime in the future, another writer will take up the challenge of addressing the bomber aspect of what occured so we can square that part of the war. --Fxgentleman 06:39, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Basically, Fx, it's what you said in all of that: By the time the bombers arrive at the line, everything (for all purposes) is known. Their existence, and a lot of the details, would already be known by the destruction of any of them could occur. I figure there'd be a few minutes delay with the bomber launches, but it still stands. Destroying them, in this regard, really doesn't accomplish much of anything.

And, too, the radiation and EMP from such blasts would screw up any future waves a fair amount.

By the time the bombers get to anywhere that they can be harmed, the EMP and many ICBMs have gone off, crippling a lot of them. Same goes for their adversaries, and most people to whom the data would mean much of anything.

It's really a waste, at best. Largely, entirely ineffective. They know about them the entire time, so there is no point in destroying them.

As for Victoria.... really, those ones would have likely flown over the edges of the continent, and survived the EMP, etc. like that. To assume that the bombers would all fly straight is a little off, in my opinion.

Past that, as South said.

Lordganon 10:10, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

One of the things I learned during my recent research was in 1983 there was an active discussion on going about revamping the entire DEW radar line. I was surprised in my reading to find out how bad a shape the network was actually in, reports describing it as decrept. Soviet bombers could fly under 10k feet and avoid it. Apparently the Soviets had a far better and more effective network to stop US bombers. The Reagan administration was discussing as of 4/83 of spending $2 billion to revamp the entire network and trying to force Canada to cover part of the cost. This data was part of the reason my thoughts were finally swayed. Based on all these points, Soviet bombers would have had no real concerns. Nice to find out how well we were protected in 1983. --Fxgentleman 15:31, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

An obsolete article resurrected by myself. Its a brigand group made up of former fraternity guys who banded together shortly after Doomsday when chaos broke out across Central Illinois. Mitro 16:18, October 28, 2010 (UTC)


 * Defunct state, armed faction sans territory, something else? Benkarnell 23:06, October 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * More like what I am doing with the Chinks in Eureka. Just another group of survivors who became hard cases. Mitro 04:20, November 1, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello, I have a few ideas that in process that would help expand and grow the Illini Republic area. I may start contributing soon, I just need to finalize how I am going to approach the topic. I am open to discuss, contribute, collaborate, or critique.
 * Jroak 06:48, October 8, 2011 (UTC)

Considering our rules, the only thing you're doing is discussing. Lordganon 07:24, October 8, 2011 (UTC)

The history of the Illini Republic can be made in narrative form, with bits and pieces of documentation and documentaitonal clippings chronicalling post-Doomsday events. Based on the Doomsday history of Illinois, a timeline of events can be established chronicaling the evolution of a midwest unversity town into a land of lawlessness. I am approaching this from three lines of ATL historical narrative.

1. At the time of Doomsday, a senior undergraduate student at the University of Illinois, who is originally from Chicago, now finds himself in the role of a student, refugee, graduate student researcher, and later one of the last official administrators of the University. The role of the University during this time, its attempts to stay neutral, and an evacuation of "knowledge," both books and people, to Purdue University in West Lafayette, IN shortly before the local civil government collapsed in 1986.

2. An Illinois Central Gulf railroad engineer whose knowledge of the region's current and former rail routes allows for resource scavenging and for those who want out, a less vulnerable way to travel than staying on the main roads. With help from other surviving Champaign-Urbana (C-U for short) railroad workers, many of whom would have been incapacitated from the strike at Chanute AFB, if they had been on yard duty that night, prove valuable in this capacity. Air Force technicians who were in Champaign at the time also prove helpful to keeping basic machinery usable. But not everyone wants to play nice with this collective knowhow of knowledge.

3. Bulletins and minutes from post-Doomsday news spreads and campus meetings.

Premises (Still formulating details)

The C-U area would have been immensely affected by a strike at Chanute Air Force Base in Rantoul, IL. As a training base for aircraft, ICBM, and eletronics maintainance, its target value would to be deny repair and recovery. I'm going to life hard and say it received two hits in the 100Kt range.

Aside from flash and blast damage, if the winds were from the south, this would blow some of the short term fallout away from C-U. I'll deal with this detail when I find out what weather conditions were like that day.

Any college town (and rural area) for that matter will have more than its fair share of 20 year old vehicles. 1983 C-U will be no different. Vehicles that survived the EMP and can run are highly sought after. Unfortunately this will create some initial problems in post-Doomsday.

Refugees from Decatur would probably find it easier to come to C-U via I-72. Refugees from the Chicago area are few in number and start to die relatively quickly. Refugees from Indianapolis travel west on I-74. Those who settle in Danville have fare better than those in the C-U area.

Any thoughts? Jroak24.1.29.37 07:34, October 10, 2011 (UTC)

The majority of that is things that aren't possible, or are at best logic holes. The three points are not possible.

Past that....

Winds go east-northeast. Meaning that the area gets whacked with radiation from Springfield and Decatur.

Only blast, and likely bigger than that.

No fuel, no vehicles. Simple.

Only survivors from Decatur could get there, at all. And that's kinda doubtful

And you've missed the point of this. These are brigands in the ruins. With little to nothing to do with the previous inhabitants.

See previous statement, too.

Lordganon 07:57, October 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, JR, thank you for your interest. That you have done some work on getting this article - only a place holder for at least a year - on the road to realization is commendable. The proper protocol is to ask to 'adopt' the article, seeing that it has been dormant for so long. Mitro is no longer an active editor, but he does check his messages occasionally, so his permission should be easy to come by.


 * As for the scenario, make sure you read what Mitro wrote on the Eureka page and aim at getting to that point in much the same way as did the "Chinks." As Mitro wrote in February the Illini Republic was founded by "University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign fraternity and sorority members who banded together during the collapse of Urbana–Champaign." There is, therefore a link to the "previous inhabitants." However, the evacuation of Urbana-Champaign and the university may not have been as smooth as you see it.


 * The train and the cars would be available with only what fuel was in their tanks. Fuel out of storage facilities would be accessed only by mechanical pumps that would have to be manually operated - and then only if authorities could keep them out of the hands of bandits and such. That being said, the cars would be used sparingly, and possibly only by whatever emergency governments that arose. However, the evacuation by auto would have been possible in cars with a fair amount of fuel even with low efficiency, for the trip was only 90 miles.


 * Assuming for a moment that a locomotive with adequate fuel had been available, please remember that tracks may not have been clear everywhere. And without communications the engineer would not know of any blocked tracks. Exit during comparitively quiet times would have been possible, though.


 * All that being said, the evacuation would only been nominally successful, given the picture that Mitro draws in his Eureka article. I would not encourage anything like the orderliness that you portray in your notes. SouthWriter 20:38, October 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a question here, but it seems a bit unlikely that the local government would survive so long as three years. The Japanese government nearly collapsed in WW II despite just two cities (Hiroshima and Nagaski) being nuked. Even then, it still had quite a bit of power, but it was an entire country. Here, most of the authorities would be shocked to the level of the refugees. As long as we are assuming that the air force base was nuked, army support would be very limited. I would estimate a local government collapse at a year at the most.
 * 98.14.126.83 01:16, November 21, 2011 (UTC)

List articles
Are there any objections? Arstar 01:53, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Article created by Arstar. Mitro 15:00, November 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * I plan on contributing to this page. Benkarnell 23:03, November 21, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take suggestions, and I know you asked me a while back to edit it but I'd rather see what your plans are before you edit it. Arstar 21:48, December 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take suggestions, and I know you asked me a while back to edit it but I'd rather see what your plans are before you edit it. Arstar 21:48, December 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * I've posted my general idea to . Benkarnell 17:54, February 3, 2011 (UTC)


 * What's going on here? I mean last I heard Ben was working on this, but it's been here for 13 months now. Would it be stub/canon/obsolete/as-it-is ready? Arstar 01:10, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

No to that question. Not even close.

Ben never got the permission he wanted, and he did go away for a while. His idea is more or less approved by all of us, however.

Lordganon 10:12, December 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * I finally wrote the bones of what I want. It's been a weird year, I guess? :-P It basically follows exactly what I posted in Talk. I can elaborate later, if the idea gets approved. Benkarnell 15:04, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

Looks good, Ben. Keep going. Lordganon 08:01, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

Article created by Yank. Mitro 16:42, November 22, 2010 (UTC)

Is this going anywhere? Lordganon 14:59, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

I'd be willing to allow someone to work the kinks out of it. I just have one request. I request that it is not to be annexed by another nation.

Yank 15:05, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

I suppose in light of that, and time passed, would there be objections to putting it up for adoption? Lordganon 05:13, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

Put up for adoption. Lordganon 11:44, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

Thought I'd leave a note here to say that this page has been adopted by a new user, Martin1983. Note, too, that he, despite the name, seems to have nothing to do with Owen. Lordganon 22:55, October 18, 2011 (UTC)

.....Or not. I undid all of that stuff he put in, as per policy. Lordganon 10:13, December 4, 2011 (UTC)


 * So...can we obsolete this? Mitro 19:48, December 23, 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's still up for adoption. So, no reason to do that, I'd think. Lordganon 01:07, December 24, 2011 (UTC)

This article has been up in the air for a year and a half. Just because it's up for adoption doesn't mean we should keep it. Unless Yank works on it in the next week I think we should obsolete it. Arstar 02:09, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Article created by Arstar. Mitro 15:00, November 11, 2010 (UTC)

Could someone rename the file "Gettysburg"? I'm having trouble renaming files at the moment. Arstar 22:26, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

Done.

Lordganon 22:30, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. If someone is interested in adopting this page, let me know. My only guidelines is that its going to be based in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania and is a recently reestablished city-state. Arstar 22:57, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking into making a state here for a while - but those conditions dont fly with my plans. A shame.

Irregardless, my research into the area shows that the radiation from strikes in Maryland and DC would have passed to either side, for the most part. The area would have been lightly irradiated, but by no means rendered uninhabitable by it.

Lordganon 23:21, November 17, 2010 (UTC)

...Which is why its recently resettled, but recently can mean a lot of things. Any reinhabitation happening after 1999 is my only request. Arstar 01:43, November 18, 2010 (UTC)

I more-so meant that there'd be no need to resettle it, as no one would have left originally.

No matter.

Lordganon 01:51, November 18, 2010 (UTC)

Anyone interested in adopting this article? --Zack 03:11, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

I know LG has shown interest in it, but I don't think he's gotten around to working on it so far. Arstar 22:30, December 25, 2010 (UTC)

Like I said before, my idea for this nation doesn't fit with your requirements/guidelines. Without those I'd gladly take a crack at it when I have time. Lordganon 13:58, December 26, 2010 (UTC)

My feelings on putting an article up for adoption before it becomes canon is that whoever adopts it can do whatever they want with it.Oerwinde 01:53, January 8, 2011 (UTC)

I want to adopt this article. Is there anything that I should take into consideration before making any changes? Godfrey Raphael 04:19, October 20, 2011 (UTC)

That basically nothing there is plausible at this time. Do as you wish. Lordganon 08:32, October 20, 2011 (UTC)

Article created by Smoggy. Mitro 03:34, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

So what is going on with this article, Smoggy? Lordganon 22:43, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

I did put it up for adoption, however the only person interested concerned me with their writing style, and i was warned by other users that it may be a bad idea to give it over to that editor. As far as I'm concerned its still up for adoption?--Smoggy80 18:14, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

Way I figure it, move parts of this to the other page, and turn this one into a redirect. Something I could do later this week. Lordganon 18:26, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

Article created by Arstar. Mitro 03:42, January 6, 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how I can make this work at the current moment as it was one of several dozen projects I started that aren't appropriate to the direction my projects took over the past year. Any objections to me making it obsolete? Arstar 01:12, December 4, 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It's good, just needs a little work. As with a lot of things you left, it's on my list of things to finish, and I'll get to it at some point. Lordganon 10:15, December 4, 2011 (UTC)T

I'm going to try to make this article work by starting it over from scratch. Arstar 01:51, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Article by Armachedes.

Lordganon 05:26, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

So, what are we doing with this? Armachedes, while having logged onto the wiki even today, hasn't posted since early February. Nor has the problems with the article been rectified at all. Thoughts, guys? Lordganon 22:44, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Deletion, if Armachedes does not respond.BrianD 03:33, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

I'm more of a mind do just open it for adoption, myself. It's a fairly good article, after all. Lordganon 05:29, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Would anyone object to that? Lordganon 00:58, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

I would. Honestly there's quite a few articles that you've up for adoption that are doomed to just sit there. Is it good enough to graduate, or obsolete? Arstar 02:37, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Seoul
It is a city proposal by me, PitaKang. PitaKang 01:24, February 17, 2011 (UTC)

I think it's ready. Any objections? PitaKang- (Talk|Contribs) 21:51, February 23, 2011 (UTC)

Same one as I've told you several times now with regards to the terrorists. Lordganon 05:08, February 24, 2011 (UTC)

So.... no more objections? PitaKang- (Talk|Contribs) 22:30, March 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * What does LG have to say? Mitro 03:05, March 17, 2011 (UTC)


 * He's fixed it, though sloppily. Lordganon 11:05, March 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you guys have any suggestions to make it better? PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 19:29, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

There's now a whole series of objections to this on its talk page. Lordganon 13:13, April 1, 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed those objections, so are there any more? PitaKang- (Talk | Contribs) 19:20, May 12, 2011 (UTC)

You have fixed one of those objectives, and smoggy just gave you a couple more. The article is still somewhat unrealistic in its wording and what it seems to say. You also still neglect to mention that the entire region is under military control, and that your presented view of the area is thus too... pleasant, I suppose, is a good word. 

Also, Desert was indeed correct about much of the article being things that should be on the Korea article. They should be removed to that location.

Lordganon 02:25, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

Is this page going to be amalgamated into the Korea page? as it doesn't really add anything that is not already on the Korea page (in fact in places it contradicts the Korea page)--Smoggy80 16:32, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Parts of it are going to have to be, but most of it would form the article still. Pita seems to have dropped off the face of the earth, however. Lordganon 16:59, July 22, 2011 (UTC)

Anyone have any objections to changing this to obsolete? Pita's dropped off the planet and i think everyone apart from Pita realises this should be part of the Korea article--Smoggy80 17:20, November 25, 2011 (UTC)

None. BrianD 02:07, November 26, 2011 (UTC)

Funny enough, I have to oppose making this obsolete. While as it stands this thing is not close to possible, and much of it would go instead on the Korea article, it is still on some level a valid article. Rather than obsolete it, how about we put it up for adoption instead? Lordganon 22:39, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

If the article is viable, then adoption is fine. BrianD 03:33, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Put it up for adoption. However can I add, that it should be reviewed for parts to be transfered to the Korea page before any more work occurs on it?--Smoggy80 18:11, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

I have now marked it as up for adoption. Lordganon 01:00, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

I started an article on the actives of the Former Beatles(Paul, Ringo,George) following the 1983 Doomsday Event. I hope to finish it soon. Is this an acceptable topic to write about? If not please let me know. (Jer1818)


 * I've moved this section from the archive page to this one. Let's see where the page goes, since for now it's just a recap of the OTL biographies up to 1983. Benkarnell 04:56, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * Welcome, Jer! I've made a few comments on the article's talk page. BrianD 06:49, March 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * I updated Paul's and Ringo's Postdoomsday activities...read them and let me know what you think Jer1818 22:16, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Issaquah-Snoqualmie
I made an article stub for a survivor community in the Cascades near where I live. The geography of the area forms a pretty protected valley in Issaquah (It's located between two mountains and home construction on those mountains had yet to begin in earnest in 1983 - they arrived as a result of the Microsoft boom. This also means that the population would be smaller than in OTL, since Issaquah's growth spurt didn't happen until this past decade.) There are a lot of highlands and whatnot in Issaquah proper to protect the city from the shockwaves 25 miles away in Seattle, although some radiation would probably occur there too.

Snoqualmie itself is located further up the mountains, near the town of North Bend. Don't worry, I'm not trying to turn North Bend into a massive empire like *cough* certain people did, but its protected up in the mountains and is far enough away from Seattle to suggest that it would have survived almost completely intact. I propose Issaquah-Snoqualmie as a minor conurbation of small communities stretching through the Snoqualmie pass from up in the mountains to the foothills. Pasco is pretty far from this area but likely enjoys healthy trade with Issaquah-Snoqualmie thanks to their outposts in central Washington (Ellensburg), as is established in canon. Again, to reiterate, I'm not trying to transform the Issaquah-North Bend corridor into a mighty Cascade empire - it would be a self-sufficient, hectic and maybe even wild-west style survivor town in most of the 1980's saddled with refugees from the Seattle/Bellevue area.

On the note of Victoria, I doubt that at least until the mid-2000's or even now, they would have bothered crossing an irradiated wasteland to get to Issaquah, even though the communities between Issaquah and Snoqualmie technically fall within their claimed territory.

Issaquah, culturally, was much more of a rural and exoburban city in the 1980's, even though today it's full of rich assholes (My personal bias. Fuck those guys.)

KingSweden 19:53, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

Well, looking at the much more zoomed in map on the Victoria History article itself I think it could work in some form. Issaquah is on the border line, and the other community is definitely outside of it. Though, that map is a little old, so.... Definitely could have lived through the blasts, etc. mind - radiation would have went to sea. Oer, thoughts? Lordganon 22:33, March 6, 2011 (UTC)

I've got no problems. Victoria is too busy with the Olympia and Aberdeen areas and bringing the newly aquired south into the fold, along with establishing a border with Astoria to worry about some small mountain towns.Oerwinde 09:54, March 29, 2011 (UTC)

So, what's the plan for this one, guys? King, are you planning on doing anything with it? Lordganon 22:45, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Article created by Detectivekenny. Mitro 17:24, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

Just so the community knows, I've renamed this to Pearl River Delta, which is going to be a general article for all the cities and towns in the area. Detectivekenny (Info; Talk) 05:22, May 8, 2011 (UTC)

What's going on for this article, ready for grad? Arstar 02:43, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Article created by Crimson. Mitro 17:25, March 10, 2011 (UTC)

So, where is this going, Crim? Lordganon 22:47, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Article by Sunkist. Mitro 19:42, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

So what are we doing with this? It's pretty obvious that Sun's more or less abandoned it. Should we obsolete it? Or what? Lordganon 22:48, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Anything done with it has to tie into Kentucky. I could adopt this, as part of my proposal to flesh out the DDTL state of Indiana. BrianD 03:33, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

That would work well, though I'd talk to Zack about it first. Lordganon 05:30, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Article by South. Mitro 19:42, March 17, 2011 (UTC)

I've worked on a few paragraphs. Let me know what you think. SouthWriter 01:46, July 20, 2011 (UTC)

South, you still working on this? BrianD 03:33, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Brian, since I am no good at creating fictional characters, would you mind adding to this article. You can use the characters that you created for me earlier. I can't get into the evil mindset the way you can. The article can be an extension of your fascinating one on Athens. It will make a great addition to the post DD history of the tri-state area. SouthWriter 04:13, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

This is an article by an ambitious and energetic young man going by the user name "God Bless the United States of America." We call him GB for short. He is very young and just learning the ropes, so let's all try to help him in this first attempt at a full article in 1983DD. This is a small isolated community on the coast of North Carolina. It needs help so as not to run all over what we know about Elizabeth City and the Outer Banks (OB being primarily "mine" so far). SouthWriter 14:07, March 24, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks South for getting the word out, well anyone can edit the article, I see it as a chance to be another collabertive article for the senior editors to join in to, and allow us young bloods to help. God Bless the United States of America 03:18, March 25, 2011 (UTC)

So what's going on with this article? Lordganon 22:50, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Is GB even around anymore?BrianD 03:33, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

LG inadvertantly 'scared' GB away soon at the end of August. He played a map game or two until mid-September, and then, I'm guessing, he went back to school. As for this article, I did some rewriting on it, and he invited everybody to edit as they wished. LG and I once had to save the article from unwanted changes by Outer Banks resident "Alexanders," but I guess the article is "mine" by defalt. What changes or additions do you guys suggest to get it moved to "stub" status? SouthWriter 04:32, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Far as I can remember, all it really needs is to be done to be graduated. For stub status, any history at all would likely make it good for that. Lordganon 05:31, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

The Ipswich Incident
Ongoing article. Semi-collaboration between Verence and I. Fegaxeyl 21:27, May 1, 2011 (UTC)

Feg, Verence, what's the story here? Lordganon 22:52, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Proposal by GB not previously put here. It's got..... major issues, but is indeed a start. Lordganon 11:18, May 18, 2011 (UTC)

Is GB still the owner of this article? I have read through it and would like to take it over and expand it based on research I have been doing and also bring it into line with what I am doing for Delmarva. If anyone can let me know, thanks.--Fxgentleman 13:24, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he is. And you are definitely the person who should take over and do the article. Lordganon 14:27, August 11, 2011 (UTC)

What's the progress on this article? FX, you still want to take it over?BrianD 03:33, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

By my best guess, he's doing some research and will get to it when he's ready. Lordganon 05:33, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Survivor state in former Slovakia, by Jnjaycpa. Here's hoping that it doesn't end up like all of his other proposals and he actually works on it. Lordganon 08:00, May 20, 2011 (UTC)

....I suppose I'm not shocked to see this, but since I posted that there has only been two days that it has been edited, and virtually all the problems and blankness remain. Yet, Jnjaycpa has been around. So, what should we do with this? It is somewhat valid, so I'm really not of a mind to make it obsolete. Maybe make if ofa? Lordganon 22:58, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

OFA works for me. It would be good to see Jay return to it and finish it out. BrianD 03:33, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

I have now marked it as open for adoption. Lordganon 01:01, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

I would like to request this article for adoption. Gatemonger 17:31, January 5, 2012 (UTC)

You don't need to ask if it has the banner. Power to you, Gate. Lordganon 01:41, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

Article by Feg and Vegas. Lordganon 11:32, June 21, 2011 (UTC)

It appears to be all finished now, so any objections to graduation?--Smoggy80 14:54, August 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * One thing I noticed: No casualties or losses mentioned or listed on the template. I think it needs to be fleshed out just a bit, but I don't know much about 'battle articles' (the only war I did was incorporated into the main article).


 * Before we graduate this one, and the one below it, I thought I'd point out the irony of the two being adjacent: The Invasion of Kent & Superman! :-)


 * SouthWriter 04:56, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. And, too, the invasion goes from 15th May, 2011 to 2nd June, 2011, but only May 15th-17th is written down. Not even any idea what the consequences/results are, either.

Basically, it is over, but there's no events listed right now. We could probably get away with stubbing it, but... I would really rather avoid that.

Lordganon 06:54, August 8, 2011 (UTC)

Well, since then Vegas has added a little to this, but it remains mostly the same. Feg, Vegas, what's happening with it? Lordganon 22:59, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Article by a new user for the Nordic Union member of Denmark. Currently, it is horribly formatted and filled with errors in general. Lordganon 05:00, July 16, 2011 (UTC)

Article by me about post-Doomsday Tanganyika. Caeruleus 20:35, July 26, 2011 (UTC)

This article is complete and ready for graduation, if there are no objections. Caeruleus 04:08, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Yes.

The idea that all of these states would have good relations with the Tanganyika remnant and join that organization makes no sense at all.

Same goes for the situation in most of these states. Have a good, hard, long look at where the economic power in the nation actually is, and where is actually poor: it's not how you show it, at all.

Lordganon 08:29, September 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * They have good relations with the Republic of Tanganyika for two reasons. First, they have to if they want access to their ports. With Mozambique having a civil war to the south and Kenya allying its export policy with that of Tanganyika's, if they want access to wider markets, they have to be nice to Tanganyika. Second, Tanganyika rejected its goal of reunification in 1990, which removed the immediate threat it presented to the newly indepedent states.


 * Tanganyika controls the ports, the commercial capital, most of the region's industry, and the only operational gold mine. At the very least, Tanganyika would be wealthiest because it could tax any exported through its territory. However, if you have evidence to the contrary, I would like to see it. Caeruleus 16:32, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you have a good long look at your EAC article. It specifically states that unifying the area is its long-term goal. So no, it has not rejected it.

Ports are overrated whenever you write something. Note the big lake in the northeast? The population around that lake is self-sustaining, and not dependent on the rest of the area or those ports at all. Largest inland fishery in the world. There is no economic pressure that can be done to them, for they have no need to export.

Operational Gold mine? No gold mines were operational at the time. Most only opened in the late 1990s, and the others went out of business by the 1950s. And they would all be in the breakaway states, too.

Commercial Capital means little - and that city would be where most deaths and refugees occur. With exports and imports gone or sharply reduced, the "commercial" aspect goes.

So does industry, which is almost non-existant. Especially since until recently, there was basically nothing in that direction. Most of the exports and agriculture are from the breakaway states. Those on the lake are going to have a higher GNP ratio than Tan~ itself. It's also dependent on them for food, which you failed to notice.

Who's got the economic power? In some regards, Tan~ has some but overall? Not them, by a long shot.

And all that avoids entirely the aspect of relations in general. These states revolted. And you are trying to make them have good relations. That is ridiculous. A few of them, sure. But all? That is just not possible. Each and every time a nation has broken up, especially by force, not all of the parts have been friendly. And yet, you have them all loving each other. That's impossible and makes no sense whatsoever.

Lordganon 02:04, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

Please read through the new updates. Any remaining objections? Caeruleus 03:17, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

A definite improvement, though you missed the point about economic power, and population.

The states on the lake are not dependent on the rest of the nation, in any real way. The population overall fails to include any real number of deaths or refugees.

Lordganon 06:30, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * The economic power portions have been revised. The poulation is fine. It's 10 million less than OTL, which is more than enough to count for the number of deaths and refugees. Caeruleus 07:20, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

No. Half the article reads like it is an article on the remnant, the other half reads like an article on the area. If it is overall, that may work as a population. But for the remnant, not in the least. By and large, it appears to be the remnant.

Lordganon 08:01, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * It's the total population of the entirety of Greater Tanganyika. Caeruleus 08:19, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Then you need to re-write the article. That is only about a quarter of what it actually says. Most of it is an article on The remnant. Lordganon 09:40, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * It progresses from talking about the remnant to the survivor states, while remaining somewhat focused on the remnant in the context of the other survivor states. After a certain point, "Tanganyika" stops referring to the remnant and begins referring to the region. I'll go through and change references to the region to Greater Tanganyika" in order to clarify that. Caeruleus 13:34, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Much better. Lordganon 19:18, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Article by me about Kenya. Caeruleus 19:55, July 27, 2011 (UTC)

This article is complete and ready for graduation, if there are no objections. Caeruleus 04:06, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Yes.

That this remains intact while most of Africa collapses, despite the major drought just after Doomsday, makes no sense. Earlier on, you had a couple of the provinces go. And yet, then you had them re-join. That is not plausible.

Lordganon 08:33, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

And, to add, there's several statements in it, such as "largest economy in East Africa" which are suspect, and probably not true at all. Lordganon 08:56, September 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * It's the largest economy in East Africa OTL and that would hold true here as well.


 * As for the drought, droughts don't necessarily cause a collapse of government. The only thing that is assured to happen is a higher death toll for the duration of the drought. During droughts, Kenya does need food aid, but it still produces enough to feed a majority of its population. At most, only a few million have ever needed food aid and, even without aid, the situation could still be handled by the government. Caeruleus 16:04, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Caer, you don't make statements like that. Ever. And, for the record, it is very likely that they are not the largest economy. With the reformation and such that occurred in Ethiopia, it is likely that it, Mozambique, or Madagascar hold the title anyways. Especially given the economic aspects relied on in Kenya, which would have collapsed the economy quickly.

You'll note that I did not say it collapsed. A dictatorship, with a coup attempt barely a year prior, in a multi-ethnic - very multi-ethnic - state with regional divisions. Otl, with massive relief getting sent to them, half of the herds died, and massive amounts of crops. More than half the country is drought-prone. The blasts are on record as warming the earth slightly, making it a touch worse. And, the drought ran from 1983 until 1985, too, throughout all of East Africa. To boot, after that period there was massive floods to make the effect even worse.

http://worldvisionnews.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/horn-of-africa-drought-map.png

and

http://writingtowellness.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/horn-of-africa-drought-map-29-july.jpg

While the two maps are from modern droughts, they show the at-risk areas well, in combination. That has long been the same. Think about it.

You have a few million starving people. And no food to give them. Did you know that the average person is only three meals away from civil disobedience? Do the math. Atl, they are going to have trouble feeding the army. Good luck keeping stability like that.

Collapse outright? Not likely. Remain whole? That's crazy.

Lordganon 05:03, September 13, 2011 (UTC)

I've made some changes. Any remaining objections? Caeruleus 03:18, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

A definite improvement. But you fail to actually take the droughts into effect, at all. Lordganon 06:31, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * There's not much to be said about the droughts other than that they happened and had some effects. Caeruleus 07:15, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Not what I mean. You do not go into details about its effects, and mention it in passing, for the most part. Not only that, but a population 2 million lower, only? A fair portion of the area is constantly fought over, a few massive droughts happened, along with general chaos, and only two million lower than otl? Not plausible in any fashion.

Lordganon 08:05, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * I made a minor adjustment to the population. Still, nothing really needs to really be elaborated on about the drought. It happened, there was a famine, and obviously some people died and/or suffered because of it, which contributed to political instability. What else would you like included? Caeruleus 08:54, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Better, but you've not gotten the point. You just mention it. It's like a non-event. That just does not work. Lordganon 09:42, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a drought. They happen. It wasn't some seismic event. What happened and what it did are pretty basic. Do you want me to include specific information about what areas were affected and death tolls and such? Caeruleus 13:38, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

A massive drought, causing many deaths and society-wide problems. And you just mention it. It's not a question of figures - though some sort of those is a must - but actually mentioning more than "it happened." Currently, you fail to do so. Lordganon 19:21, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Much better, but now you've made it sound like droughts never happen again. They will. Lordganon 21:57, October 6, 2011 (UTC)


 * How is it that there can be a blossoming of the Sahara in Egypt based on a proposed increase of rainfall by mere inches a year while insisting that the droughts and desertification in Kenya remain the same? I have been told that we cannot generally expect the weather to be predictable, but here, on the edge of the equatorial rainforest things remain the same!


 * There is no mention at all of this drought, or any since 1983 for that matter, on the Wikipedia page about Kenya. It should not be a requirement for such to be an article on this wiki either. I agree, droughts happen, and people cope. In the case of this drought, with no help from the USA in 1984, there would have been a few thousand more deaths - maybe even a million in the poorer regions. The people affected, though, are not those who would revolt after a few days. They live day by day any way, gladly receiving aid when it comes, coping in other ways when it doesn't.


 * Meanwhile, back in Nairobi, well away from the suffering, life goes on. The army might fight the neighbors who take advantage of the drought, but the government would at the same time reach out to the Indian Ocean community for aid (Malyasia, Indenesia, and Australia, especially) when the emergency of the famine developed.


 * This is a very good article, though it might be improved with mention of coping without US aid in the particular emergency. I am in favor of graduating it in spite of the lack of dealing with the drought. However, I would say more attention should be shown as to how the new connections with New Britain, Australia and New Zealand would come into play when droughts inevitably come. SouthWriter 18:18, October 22, 2011 (UTC)

South, the Sahara has almost nothing to do with the rainfall, and everything to do with redirecting the river partially.

Google "Kenya drought" and either "1983" or "1984." You'll find that there was a drought then that otl, effected 200,000 people greatly even with massive food imports. This drought is referred to as one of "the most severe resulting in loss of human life and livestock, heavy government expenditure to facilitate response and general high economic losses of unprecedented levels." Which, otl, was followed by massive flooding in 1985. These droughts, btw, hit the region every few years, and especially hard every ten years or so - in 1974, 1984, 1994, and 2004, otl. These hit the entire region. 50-75% of cattle died before food aid came otl - and here, it's not coming. There was severe food shortages, too. This drought has even been called the first in the last century by some. Food crops were 50%, in the case of corn, to 70%, in the case of wheat, lost to it in Kenya. This is a drought that killed three million people in the region. Millions in Kenya were dependent on food imports to survive. And here, there isn't any.

Ever hear the addage "The average person is three meals away from civil unrest?" Think about it. The death toll will be on a disturbing level in this case.

Again, no contact with the outside world during the drought. Nor could they help at all, anyways.

And, the climate changes - wetter, etc. - are unlikely to have much impact here overall. Changes otl aren't, so why would this? And, changes here are not happening in the first few years, either. so there's no impact form them.

So, I say again: The article mentions the drought in passing. Yet, this drought has such an impact, that it needs to actually be dealt with. Caer is failing entirely in that regard.

Lordganon 05:49, October 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * First, I did do a search for the 1984 drought, and it is seen as a border issue. The fact that the Wikipedia article does not even mention it should be taken as a hint that the Kenyans indeed adjust to these seasonal emergencies. In fact, the actions of President Moi, not the US government, are what mitigated the effects of the drought and accompanying famine. Since trade with the US had vanished in TTL, agreements with nations in the southern hemisphere would have been used instead. This response was touted as a model for famine relief. Far from causing conditions for revolt, the Kenyan government was able to mitigate the situation getting the population through.


 * I know this is counter to my suggestions above, for they were just suggestions lacking LG's superior investigative abilities. I would say that Caer should indeed mention the effort since it even if the Wikipedia article in our day did not. It enhances the article to point out the effectiveness of the Moi regime - no matter where it was able to get outside help. If nothing else, help would be available from surplus in Malaysia and Indonesia (sources of year-long exports to the US and other nations of the north pre-DD).


 * One more thing, the deaths in this drought measured two million in the region, not in Kenya. The losses to Kenya were only 200,000 in its northwestern sector. In a nation of 30,000,000 that is hardly a disaster that would topple a strong regime like the one in Kenya.


 * Long story short, I agree that the drought should be 'dealt with,' but not that it is essential in validating the article. The drought would not, in my opinion, have altered the history of Kenya in this time line any more than it would have int our time line. SouthWriter 20:24, October 23, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, South, it is not mentioned in the Kenya article because it was not an issue there otl. However, this is not otl.

They imported millions of tons of food. Millions. That is why they were barely effected otl. Not because the government or the people was able to adjust to anything. But because unlike their neighbors, they were able to import massive amounts of food. Which is not happening here.

You say that it was the actions of the President that "mitigated the effects of the drought and accompanying famine." While that is true, you also missed what he did. He imported food. Which, as established, is not happening.

Again: They have no contact with the outside world until after the drought is long over. At best, it will be 1986 before it is restored between this area and the SAC/ANZC to any degree. And the entire matter is long gone by then.

I said in the region three million died otl. Not in Kenya. Most of those were in Ethiopia, which got no imports, and only a small amount of aid. Here, atl, Kenya gets no food imports, or aid. The impact will be worse. Far, far, worse. Half of crops in the country failed, and a large majority of the herds died off, otl, with imports of food and aid. Go from there.

So, we have millions dying. Which is a heck of a lot worse than otl. And as such, the history is drastically altered.

Caer has failed to deal with the drought itself in any degree, and it needs to be rectified before graduation.

Lordganon 23:27, October 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * I am keeping this civil, not going into addressing either of you in second person. As mentioned above, I believe there would be communication and trade with Malaysia and maybe even Indonesia, neither of which would have been embroiled in the politics in Australia or South America (neither of which had formed new alliances to any degree in 1984). Unless we are going to assume that geosynchronous satellites directly above were out of commission (see discussion at bottom of this page) and regular cables across the Indian Ocean were disrupted by by the bombs that hit one city in western Australia, then there is no reason why arrangements could not be made with the governments around the Indian Ocean for at least adequate aid, if not in the amount of the US sent in our time line.


 * I see that Indonesia had early contact with Australia and Malaysia but not with the rest of the world (Africa and South America). Malaysia seems a bit more stable than Indonesia because of its smaller population but lost a third of its land to tiny Brunei. So perhaps they would not have been quite as inclined to help an African nation. But I can't see the lack of contact in that direction as a reason. It is enough to lay out options with no need to be dogmatic on these things. This is a community effort and no one editor - not even an administrator - should have the last word on how a small African nation might have fared with the absence of the US in time of crisis. --SouthWriter 03:11, October 24, 2011 (UTC)

Simple truth: as I have laid it out is the current fact. Not my opinion, or yours. You need to recognize that fact. You don't like it, fine. But as things stand, it is fact. You need to recognize that.

Past that....

To quote the ANZC history:

"Communications were restored with Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, and most of the Pacific island nations by Christmas of 1983"

Contact obvious

"....met with Indonesian President Suharto in February 1984...... He believed that Indonesia needed to move forward on the assumption that the Australia, New Zealand and Singapore markets would eventually bounce back to near pre-Doomsday levels"

Contact with Malaysia, Singapore, and Brunei

"In February, an unexpected radio message from North America came: the American President, Ronald Reagan, was alive, as was Vice President George Bush and several other staffers and cabinet members, and they were trying to find out who else was alive in this post-Doomsday world."

"No one had been able to establish contact with anyone outside the Mount Weather or Greenbrier regions, and certainly not from Canada, Japan nor Western Europe."

"The one contact other than Australia the U.S. had been able to establish was with Mexican military south of Mexico City; they learned that Mexico had survived Doomsday and was not only functioning but was apparently taking American survivors from the southwest border states."

"Bush arrived in Canberra on Air Force Two on May 6 from Auckland, greeted personally by Hawke only to be told that the RAAF lost contact with Air Force One."

Contact with American Remnants, and Mexico

And, from the Vatican, we have already established, somewhat, that contact between Mexico and the rest of Latin America is up by sometime in 1984. And that contact throughout the south, is, on some level, restored enough by April of 1987 to have most of the Southern Cardinals attend a conclave. Probably, sometime in late 1985 at the latest for contact.

Contact with rest of the Southernmost Hemisphere

Note, too, that this applies to areas from Senegal south in western Africa, and Mozambique south in the east - though, this could be made further north n the east, and probably will be. But it remains: contact and trade are restored with East Africa in the latter half of 1984 at best.

And guess what? The drought has already done its damage by then.

Your "aid" has no effect. The deaths have already happened.

As stated, Caer needs to actually deal with this. He barely mentions it. Yet, it happened. The problem here is pretty big, and obvious.

Lordganon 05:40, October 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * LG, nothing you say is fact until it is established as fact by the community of this TL. That goes for you and everyone else. Also, keep in mind that the issue of communication is under review with a majority of editors so far leaning towards changing it. If it is decided to change it, all the passages you've quoted will be invalidated. Caeruleus 05:55, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

Me saying? What I have quoted is the current established fact. Until this article recognizes that or something else changes, there is no reason at all to graduate it.

And, as for the "review"? The info I quote invalidates the entire thing.

Lordganon 06:27, October 25, 2011 (UTC)


 * What LG has cited represents wide-spread utilization of communication in the southern hemisphere and even from the subtropical regions of the northern hemisphere. The communications from North America, though 'unexpected,' prove that they were operative via the communication satellites encircling the equator - one or two above Kenya, in fact. Furthermore, the fact that these particular incidents are mentioned only go to show the view point of the people involved (and the assumptions of the editors of the articles). Though the discussion is not in the "review" section, it does not mean that it is not an official process to which we need to pay serious attention.


 * The 'early warning systems' were well in place for the Kenyan government as the drought began with a failure of the "short rains" that began soon after DD (October - November, 1983). Since the government would be aware of the probable loss of the US and Europe via broadcast during the attacks if not after them, contingency plans would be made. Most of the yellow maize imported came from Thailand and the result of yellow maize being the main import caused those of means within the nation to ration other foodstuffs to compensate.


 * Without due consideration to the drought, though, the article does suffer from a loss of a good study in the alternatives the Kenyan government faced with a loss of both the US and European community. This is what this time line is all about. Though not directly affected by the nuclear war, the contacts that the Moi regime had were drastically reduced. And so, I agree that this article needs to include a paragraph of how the regime 'pulled this off' to remain stable. If that cannot be demonstrated, then the article needs to be revamped before graduation. SouthWriter 15:36, October 25, 2011 (UTC)

And now, we're off-topic. Sigh.....

Widespread? Contact in some form does not mean widespread, at all. The majority of this contact would be by ship, and minimal at best.

Actually South, they don't prove they were operative. Quite literally, there are only 4 places with any sort of contact in NA at that time - and that, with each other: Bush, Reagan, NORAD, and on a very low level the Wyoming remnant. Really, the word "unexpected" would much more so be due to their deaths having been expected. And those satellites would be unlikely - really, there are some EMP hardened sats up there, which both NORAD and the executives would have access on some degree to, though highly fractured by the EMP blasts and the ground/air bursts.

Bush and Reagan, having been airborne and in their EMP hardened planes, have functioning radios, at least to some degree. That's how they can be in contact. Between each other, it's pretty simple. Past that, the military satellites are still going to be functional at that point, at least to some degree. They would also have high-powered radios - though, their performance obviously hindered somewhat - along with, I'm sure, a few other toys we're not aware of.

NORAD is pretty obvious in itself, with the location, the story set up, and the radiation, etc. severely impacting things afterwards. But that is limited, too.

Got nothing for Wyoming, really. Where that is mentioned really needs something like "through NORAD" added to it, as it makes little sense otherwise. Proximity to NORAD, call it.

Really, those are quite reasonable. Contact between the four will be extremely sporadic, and static-filled, with little to no ability to reach beyond the continent. Sure, a few more sources may have heard them - but that means almost nothing, given codes, static, and that the further it gets, the more unintelligible it would be. That they talked to the ANZC at all through that atmosphere is a stretch, quite frankly.

Thailand. Something, as stated, only in contact with in mid to late 1984. And suffering somewhat in its own right.

No matter the plans put into place, you still have a massive food shortage. And no aid until it's more or less over, and even then in much smaller amounts than in otl. Millions will die.

As stated, my issue with this is that the drought gets a mention "in passing." Yet, it has so much more impact than that. Nor is it a "minor famine" like it says right now. It was more or less that otl - that it is going to be far worse here is a given. It's not so much the stability, in my mind, though that gets glanced over badly too, among other things that South has noted. As it stands, it's basically glanced over, being "swept under the rug," so to speak.

And that? We can definitely say is not right.

Lordganon 07:58, October 27, 2011 (UTC)

Article by an anon. Only a single sentence, absolutely nothing else. Lordganon 14:34, August 7, 2011 (UTC)

No progress since I added this one. Yet, it's definitely an article to keep. Would there be any objections to putting it up for adoption? Lordganon 23:14, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Put up for adoption. Lordganon 01:05, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

Article by GB, in the Channel Islands of California. Needs a ton of work, however. Lordganon 03:46, August 27, 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this needs a ton of work. GB has asked me to oversee the development of this article due to his needing to concentrate on school work. I read the talk page, and the San Nicolas Island article on Wikipedia. The concept is challenging, to say the least. GB's only request is that it remain loyal to the CRUSA and eventually becoming a part of the USA. It seems much too small to pass as a state, much less a 'nation,' so it is going to have to end up 'attached' to some part of a willing Californian nation-state that joins the USA. I'm open to suggestions. SouthWriter 01:46, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

Far as I know, the government at Placerville is the only one with any interest in the new USA, though that depends on how factions in the MSP play out. Lordganon 05:34, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. That's the "California" that matters anyway, as far as re-establishing a successor state goes. I have done some work on the article, bringing early contact with Mexico (via a plane out of Baja) and the rescue of about a hundred refugees stranded on uninhabitable Santa Barbara Island. It's going to take a lot of work just to make the island produce crops. Anyway, I am up way too late already. SouthWriter 05:47, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the name of the article to "Pacifica (1983: Doomsday)" and the 'long form' is now "United Islands of Pacifica." As a result of this article, I am creating another article which I am inserting below as a new proposal.

Avalon (1983: Doomsday)
This is an article I created to go along with Pacifica. The town becomes the name of the city-state that encompases the whole island known in our time line as "Santa Catalina Island." This city-state can stand alone if Pacifica fails to be canonized. SouthWriter 18:25, September 23, 2011 (UTC)

An article by myself. Caeruleus 19:12, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

This article is now complete and ready for graduation, if there are no objections. Caeruleus 06:34, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

It is still ridiculously impossible. Simply put, it is not plausible that a bunch of breakaway states would agree to this when the major power is the one they split from militarily and the eventual goal of the organization is integration.

That is not plausible, at all. Some, maybe. But all, and many for reasons that make no sense locally? Not plausible.

And, you have no authority at all to include Zanzibar in this at all.

Lordganon 08:27, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

And none of that changes with Kenya helping to "convince" them, either. Lordganon 08:30, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

The current goal of the organization is economic integration, which is desirable to all the states in the region. The coastal states want access to the resources of the inland states and the inland states need access to the ports of the coastal states for trade. The ultimate goal of political unification is far off and may never actually happen. Just because it's a stated goal does not mean that's the reason they joined or that they expect it to happen. Plus, the EAC is a regional embodiment of PanAfricanism, an ideology that is strong among the regional elite. Even if the organization is particularly popular, the political elite in several of these countries would push for membership, like with the OTL EAC and other regional supranational organizations in Africa. Caeruleus 16:18, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

Really? Pan-Africanism? Do you have any idea at all how inflated that concept is? It would seem not. And, for the record, the political elite in the area otl do not support the concept - that will remain true here.

No. The stated goal of it, as it says on the article itself is economic and political integration. Which is precisely why many of the little states will avoid it like the plague. Little nation-states, joining a political organization whose eventual stated goal is political integration with a nation that they revolted from - that just doesn't work. At all.

Even without that being the stated goal, that is just not plausible. A few of the remnants, maybe. But all of them? That doesn't work, at all. Have a good look at that type of thing, overall, and you'll find that many of them cannot stand each other. Either they hate the remnant of the nation they revolted from, or one another. End result is the same. Which you have failed to understand or include, at all.

As already established, the inland states have no need for the coast, and vice-versa.

Lordganon 05:36, September 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * I went through and made some changes. Any continued objections? Caeruleus 03:16, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Better, but you still fail to get the point about the states on the lakes - more so, Lake Victoria. They have little to no need for the coast, at all.

This also cannot graduate, sensibly, until the nations do.

Lordganon 06:32, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

I edited the portion about the importance of the ports. If there's nothing else, this will graduate when the other articles do. Caeruleus 08:54, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

No, you removed it. That does not change the fact that they do not need them in any form, and that the article entirely fails to get that concept. Lordganon 09:50, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * The article isn't about the ports of East Africa. Since including them as a reason for Tanganyika's economic superiority was overstated, nothing else needs to be said about them once that portion was removed. Caeruleus 13:40, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

You frequently use words like "inevitable." While the port sections were removed, the article still reads like that is the reason for joining. At the very least, no motive is given. It also still sounds like economic reasons are why things are happening, which as shown is not. the case. Lordganon 19:25, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * Economic reasons are why things are happening. Lowering trade barriers and increasing cooperation will result in accelerated economic growth in the region, regardless of whether or not the ports are particularly important. That's the principle reason most of these states are joining. There are other reasons, like security aid for Kagera and pro-reunification leanings for Ruvuma, but the economic advantages remain a major reason for membership. Caeruleus 18:46, October 6, 2011 (UTC)

You are not getting the point. It still reads like pressure is being applied, yet there is no pressure to apply. And, again, the use of words like "inevitable." Lordganon 01:21, October 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * The inevitable comment is made in specific reference to the future direction of the TFTA, not the EAC. Other than that, there are no references to pressure being applied. Caeruleus 03:26, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter what that word is in reference to, at all. You use other words that mean the same blasted thing throughout, as well. The whole thing reeks of it. Lordganon 06:43, October 7, 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what you're talking about. It doesn't reak of that, at all. Caeruleus 14:42, October 7, 2011 (UTC)

Oblivious, as usual, then. You are continually referring to future things in a definite manner that would be speculation. That doesn't fly. Lordganon 01:11, October 8, 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not. The only future things the article refers to are in the "Future Developments" section, which makes perfect sense. Other than that, I don't know what you're talking about. Caeruleus 22:33, October 8, 2011 (UTC)

Again, you're failing to get the point. You are referring to things as definite. Doesn't work, or make any sense, especially in the future developments section. Lordganon 07:20, October 9, 2011 (UTC)

An article by myself after the post-Doomsday Zimbabwe. Caeruleus 06:34, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

This article is now complete and ready for graduation. Any objections? Caeruleus 06:47, September 29, 2011 (UTC)

How on earth can an inland nation, more or less cut off from the outside world, especially one this poor, have any real increase in manufacturing abilities, or industry? Simply put, it won't. It would decrease. As in no fuel, or materials to make such things with.

You ignore entirely why the white population was leaving. And what would happen to them, being forced to stay.

That population is 100% unrealistic. Not only is that almost higher than the population of the entire country otl, but also ignores one simple fact: AIDS exists, and would be far worse.

Lordganon 08:22, September 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * Small scale growth in industry, through the replication of existing industry, is possible even in relative isolation, though Zimbabwe still had access to the outside world through Mozambique. While the basic technology wouldn't have advanced much, if at all, since Doomsday. They have access to native and neighboring supplies to expand existing industry. I will clarify that section.


 * Actually, the population is fairly accurate. The OTL population doesn't include refugees that reside outside the country, most of whom fled during the 2000s with the economic chaos in the country. I accounted for the death toll during the two civil wars, kept the White population, and factored in the lack of refugees. I will revisit the figures though.


 * White Zimbabweans left because they lamented their loss of political dominance and feared what could happen. While low-level racism and civil strife existed, the mass, state-driven discrimination they feared didn't occur until the late 1990s OTL with the land seizures, which didn't occur in North Zimbabwe. Being forced to stay, White Zimbabweans would contribute to the nation regardless because their own prosperity depends on the prosperity of the entire nation. I'll also clarify those passages though.


 * As for AIDS, the first case of AIDS in Zimbabwe was in 1985, after Doomsday. With the collapse of global trade and travel, the virus would spread much more slowly. I will investigate more about that first reported case and AIDS's expansion paterns. However, the AIDS epidemic wouldn't be much worse because even in OTL, the problem was largely ignored until the early 2000s and Zimbabwe's health care system collapsed in the mid-2000s. Caeruleus 13:24, September 29, 2011 (UTC)

First reported case. In a time that AIDS cases went unreported, and almost nothing was known about it. By the end of the 1980s, 10% of the population of Zimbabwe had it. I suggest you look into how long these things went unidentified. The first recorded case in Africa - in retrospect, mind, from persevered samples - was in 1959. It's believed that one may have happened in the late 50s, too. I'm sure you can guess how rare preserved samples are. Spread to NA in about 1970, and existed in West African ports at that time.

To think that it was not present in Zimbabwe in 1983 is very foolish on your part. And without campaigns in the area against it and methods - imported methods - to help prevent it, it's going to be as bad or worse.

Your population is horrifically out to lunch.

How on earth do you get the idea that they have contact outside their small area of Africa? Mozambique barely has any in 1987. And you think Zimbabwe has it in 1985? That's not possible. They would literally be lucky to maintain what they have. Expansion just isn't possible on any real level.

And you assume that the white population would be all right? And that there would be no refugees? You have a Civil War. Do the math.

The violence against the white population likely would not get so bad, true, but as I said, they were leaving for a reason. And you, for some reason, think that would just go away. Simply put, it won't. And it will get worse, too, in the aftermath of Doomsday - who do you think will be blamed for it, and will get it by extension?

The idea that they have outside contact in 1985 is not possible, at all. And you should know better than that.

Lordganon 23:19, September 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll look into AIDS and add something about it.


 * "...horrificially out to lunch." I've got to say that's definitely a new phrase for me. Care to explain what specific problem you have with the current population numbers rather than making blanket opposition statements with no detail that make no sense, even if they are rather humorous?


 * Zimbabwe had native industrial capacities before Doomsday and had become largely self-driven in terms of industrial growth due to the isolation of Rhodesia. While the technology used would not have progress significantly, physical expansion of existing industry is well within the realm of possibility.


 * I never said the White population was "all right." The article states that they remained within the nation and contributed to economic growth. There would be issues, but the White population would have no where to flee to and would be too small to mount any significant military or political resistance. Ultimately, they would acquiese like the remaining OTL White population in Zimbabwe. And just because Westerners caused Doomsday doesn't mean the White Zimbabwean population would face massive retribution for it, especially since Zimbabwe never got nuked.


 * Like you said, the current Mozambique article makes no sense. They lost contact with everyone, even their neighbors, when they weren't even nuked. While I wait for someone to fix the article, I will continue on the reasonable assumption that regional communication would be minimally affected and communication with other unaffected states, like Nigeria and the Gulf States, would be reignitiated shortly after Doomsday. Caeruleus 00:39, September 30, 2011 (UTC)

I never once said that Mozambique made no sense. How many times to I have to tell you to actually read things, and to not put words into my mouth? Jeez.

You really do fail to get the point. Contact between South America and the ANZC is barely functional in 1987. Nor is either in contact with the Gulf States at the time. And you're trying to say that this inland nation has contact with all of them, plus the Gulf States and Nigeria, in 1985, through a state fighting a massive Civil War? Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? That is not remotely plausible, whatsoever. So long as you say things like that, there is no way this can ever graduate.

You have almost an extra three million people in Zimbabwe than in otl. I've already given ample reason why that makes absolutely no sense, but I'll repeat myself: Racial tensions, Civil War, refugees, no medicine, AIDS. As stated, out to lunch.

Expansion of industry? Not happening. An increase in goods made in the home? Maybe. But Industry? Just not possible. You have no fuel but coal, remember. Or any real natural resources besides a little coal, some diamonds, and some agricultural products.

You have a Civil War, to some extent caused by problems stemming from DD, and you think the white population would be not blamed? And that they wouldn't get attacked, even without any blame? Get real. Both would happen. This is a country where they had only just finished a different Civil War in 1980, against whites. And you're saying that they would be contributing? They can still flee south to the Pretoria area, under the remnants of the SA government, or more likely, die. There is a reason why Mugabe was able to do all of the garbage he did otl. And atl, it is still there.

Lordganon 07:08, September 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * I moved back the date of contact/trade with the wider world. That was somewhat implausible. As for the population, you're still not understanding why it's so high. OTL Zimbabwe has a population 12.5 million plus 3.4 million refugees who aren't counted in the national population figures and largely fled after the economy began to collapse. That makes the total number of Zimbabweans about 15.9 million OTL. You also have the white Zimbabweans population, another 300,000 people, who never left the country. Neither the civil war, racial tensions, or HIV/AIDS would cause, even collectively, substantial declines in the population, which is why the population is what it is. I've accounted for everything and the population of North Zimbabwe will stand at 11.1 million.


 * White Zimbabweans are not going to just stop working or work. If Zimbabwe suffers, they suffer, so of course they're going to contribute. As part of the negiotiations with the former Rhodesian government, the early Mugabe government agreed to actively work to maintain racial stability, for the good of the country. Also, state-sponsored racial discrimination didn't begin until the late 1990s when the economy was already declining and most of the Whites had already left. The post-Doomsday Zimbabwean government would have an economic interest in maintaining racial stability because of the skills the White population possess. Additionally, Mugabe was assasinated in 1991, which weakened ZANU and the strong authority figure who was necessary to lead efforts similar to the OTL land grabs and subsequent rise in racial tensions.


 * As for industry, I've clarified what type of industrial expansion would occur, but some type of expansion is assured. Coal is the only fuel source you need for industry in the country and most of their industry is low-tech or labor-based, which doesn't require any technology that was not natively available. Pre-Doomsday Zimbabwe also had one of the best established industrial infrastructures on the continent, whihc would give them a strong base from which to expand. Keep in mind, the level of technology most of Zimbabwe's industry uses is still at the 1980s-level. The resources to physically build the factories and such would also be available, either natively or from their more stable neighbors. 128.135.100.102 21:03, October 4, 2011 (UTC)

Caer, I'm not a bloody idiot. I know about the refugees. You, however, are failing to get the point.

The population is too high. You have a few losses from fighting in a civil war. No refugees from fighting, no AIDS/HIV deaths, no racial tensions, and you're even adding medicines to blunt the impact that would not exist. None of that is possible or reasonable.

The drugs used to deal with that virus were developed in labs, or had the related effects discovered in labs. Largely, these were in nuked areas. At best, that tech will be at about a 1990 level. And, with a global cutoff in contact, its spread outside of Africa has been curtailed, drastically, which when combined with the destruction of cities, where most of those afflicted were, and the likely - rapid, too - fate of anyone surviving the blasts with it in the Northern Hemisphere. Simply put, outside of Africa below the Sahara it's not a major issue.

Those afflicted with it in this area are not going to last even as long as in otl. Deaths are going to be major. And given that the reasons for it spreading in this area in Africa are cultural in nature, there will be just as much problems with changing that as in otl. More hospitals and schools? Maybe a few, but thinking that a large number is possible, or would actually help to the extent you say is just not possible. The number is barely going down otl, with a ton of outside money and aid. Here, that's not happening. And, 1981 recognition of it? Ha.

The SA border guarded? That has no net effect on them leaving, really. They are still going to keep fleeing. And, after the start of the civil war, they are going to flee in droves. They are in a position of wealth. Guess what happens to those people in Civil Wars?

Yeah, Mugabe did say that. And you believe it? He only kept that around for aid. Once that started to slip, so did the policy. Think about it. Note, too I never said state-sponsored.

You also fail to think about a Civil War. Massive fighting, lots of military and civilian dead. But, a ton of refugees too. Those near the front are going to flee. Agricultural production - which goes down overall anyways, lack of fertilizer, etc. - will drop drastically. That is always the case in such a conflict.

Note, I said a little coal. Nor do you at all mention that the industry is virtually the same level as at DD. Expansion past that, not happening. Stability by modern times, somewhat possible.

The majority of this applies to the South as well.

Simply put, you are failing to take into account everything that impacts this area and the people. You have dropped the population by nearly a million, overall. Needs closer to two.

Lordganon 07:32, October 5, 2011 (UTC)


 * I will take another look at the population figures, but there won't be any major decrease in the population. The deaths from AIDS won't be that major. The issue was largely ignored until the late 1990s, even with the presence of medicine. Up until that point, the lack of drugs would neither hurt nor help the infected. Also, the total number of infected is about the same as OTL. The only difference is that South Zimbabwe has a higher infection rate while North Zimbabwe has a lower one.


 * White Zimbabweans are not going to flee to a collapsing South Africa where Whites are being slaughtered by Blacks and vice versa. The fact that there's a civil war has little to do with the White population. They are a non-factor in the war and the war actually would make their presence even more beneficial due to their technical skills. The racial tension would be an issue, but racial violence would only occur if the government allowed, even if they didn't sponsor it as you said. The government would have a vested interest in maintaining racial harmony, which even existed OTL despite the White flight.


 * Refugees will exist but they will be internally displaced persons (IDL). ZANU supporters in the south will flee north and ZAPU supporters in the north would flee south. The percentage of the population near the border is fairly small, in the few hundreds of thousands. Most of these would simply flee deeper into their respective countries. They wouldn't have any options to flee anywhere else anyway. Botswana is sealed, Mozambique and South Africa were in a state of civil war, and Zambia is too far away. Very few of the refugees would end up leaving the region.


 * Zimbabwe, before Doomsday, was agriculturally self-sufficient, including with regards to fertilizer due to the isolation of Rhodesia. Also, Zimbabwe produces enough coal to meet all its needs plus it has a hydroelectric power plant. Electricity would not be a problem for the country's industry. I will go into more detail about the state of the country's industry though. Caeruleus 08:54, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Ignored. And with medicine, many died. Here, little to no medicine. Easy math to do. Figures are double, minimum. Same goes for the infected. Without the contraceptive campaigns of otl by aid groups - note, too, that the locals will not do this on their own, culturally - it will be higher than otl.

Collapsing stopping them? Not likely. At all. And, that ignores the Pretoria state. You also failed entirely to understand the point of a civil war. Everyone is fighting, and chaos ensues in any areas with it, especially, and a bit everywhere. They can, and will, be targets. The racial equality stuff was a ploy to get aid. Nothing more. Here, they have no reason to do so except a slight economic reason. And how long will that last? Not long. Especially in a civil war. Seriously, actually look at what happens in those. While the government will likely try to stop them, and denounce them, there will be mobs, etc. Whites will die, and the rest will fear for their lives. They will not sit around. Simple. Many will flee.

Really? You think that will be all that happens, only internal refugees? There is a Civil War. A heck of a lot more will flee elsewhere, being unable to get to the area controlled by their factions and facing death, etc. by staying where they are. Doesn't really matter what the situation elsewhere is, much. The place where they are is bad. No matter what, elsewhere may be better. It's an easy choice, repeated through history. They will leave. Simple. Even the Civil War in Moz~ may be a better situation. Even if not, it beats being killed by your opponents.

Civilian death tolls along fronts are sky-high. But, you never even thought of that.

Isolation? I suggest that you have a better look into that. They were largely isolated. That is one heck of a difference. They were agriculturally self-sufficient, true, but in fertilizer? I doubt it. Everyone can produce some, true enough, but the South African Government was, in fact, still involved with the Rhodesians, and they got supplies from there. You are exaggerating their industry.

That Dam is on the border with Zambia. It may remain operational, true, but not for long. It's called the situation in Zambia, plus parts - or the lack thereof. The coal is in the "south", and the power plant? Not even under construction in 1983. So yeah. One heck of a problem.

As I said, the overall population needs to go down another million. And you need to look at what actually happens in Civil Wars, especially in Africa.

Lordganon 11:07, October 5, 2011 (UTC)

I've split up the Zimbabwe article into the two states, North and South Zimbabwe. Caeruleus 15:25, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

This article is an outgrowth of my ongoing work on Delmarva. Although I adopted the article on Norfolk Naval Base, I got to thinking there should a be a larger article looking at what happened to the entire region of Hampton Roads since it included a number of military sites besides the base. I will be updating the article on the base as well as adding to the ongoing work on Delmarva, New Jersey, and other peices. I have not been able to contribute for a while due to personal reasons, however I am trying to find the time to work once again. --Fxgentleman 05:28, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

Alsace-Lorraine
A proposal of a survivor state along old Franco-German border. Jnjaycpa 04:51, November 13, 2011 (UTC)

Not plausible. Between area strikes and states already in the area, it's just not possible for this to exist. Lordganon 07:20, November 13, 2011 (UTC)

Whats going on with this article then, is there any hope for it, or should we mark it obsolete? Arstar 01:49, January 8, 2012 (UTC)

Martinsson Crime Family
A proposal of a crime family in Sweden. Still updating and working on it, doing my research. But for now it looks good for me for being official. Doctor261 18:48, November 14, 2011 (UTC)

Moravia
An article for another survivor state in the former Czech Republic.

Yank 20:33, November 14, 2011 (UTC)

Latgalia
A proposal for an article on a Latgalian state in former Latvia.

Yank 20:33, November 14, 2011 (UTC)

Indiana
If it is alright, I'd like to develop Indiana somewhat. My proposal is this:

Kentucky controls the south, with Evansville, Bloomington, Madison, Corydon, Richmond, Tell City, Jasper, Paoli, Salem and Columbus being the largest and most important cities

There are two main governments in the north, both split in part due to the extreme localization of affairs that followed in the wake of Doomsday (as it did across the entire U.S.), and in part because of petty political differences.

The first is in the western half, with Lafayette being the capitol. Terre Haute is part of this arrangement. It considers itself the rightful successor to the state of Indiana.

The second is in the eastern half, governed from Muncie. It considers itself the rightful successor to the state of Indiana.

Relations between the two claimants are good, but for various reasons (travel, transportation, political bickering, raiders) a state-wide State of Indiana or Republic of Indiana is still not yet practical.

Indianapolis is a black zone, as are the northeastern cities of Gary and Michigan City.

Valparaiso is home of a clan of raiders (!) which cause problems for Lafayette and Muncie.

Kentucky, and by extension the East American Alliance, has good relations with both Indianas. So does the Toledo Confederation - not all that far from Muncie - and by extension the United Communities.

BrianD 18:12, November 26, 2011 (UTC)

See my comments on the Indiana talk page. Lordganon 22:32, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Another news history article from DD, this time about ABC, by Dscheibal. Lordganon 22:32, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

A proposal by Yank. Seems to be for some sort of state near the Apalachicola National Forest of Florida. Lordganon 22:32, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Hey Yank, this is my ancestral home. (I lived in Wewahitchca, Blountstown, Bristol AND Hosford. My mom and dad met in Port Saint Joe. What do you have in mind? According to sources in the area, that forrest would have been the safest place in the world to be living in the case of a nuclear war. I won't let just anthing pass on this one. I would really rather adopt it from you, but I am willing to hear what you have in mind. SouthWriter 19:19, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Deal. I have way too much stuff on my plate. The article is basically my riff on the idea behind New Montgomery. The living-in-a-forest part, not the rascist part.

Yank 19:25, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

I hereby officially adopt this proposal as my own. I will try to be wary of the "home town syndrome." SouthWriter 19:46, December 21, 2011 (UTC)

Another news history article from DD, about CNN this time. By Tbguy1992. Lordganon 22:32, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

A proposal for the sub-unit of Denmark and member of the Nordic Union, by Brad30977. Lordganon 22:32, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

A proposal for a small state in southern China based in Guangxi Province. By Scandinator. Lordganon 22:32, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

A proposal for a very small state in southern Kazakhstan. By Fedelede. Lordganon 22:32, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

A proposal about some recent disturbances in the capital of Cleveland. Seems to be a reflection of some sorts on the recent troubles in the UK. By Smoggy. Lordganon 22:32, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

An article relating to the work on Reading done by Godfrey Raphael. It's by him, as well. Lordganon 22:32, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Yank's proposal - it'd be with Fx and Caer as well, I figure - for the remnant state of the former Iraqi government. Lordganon 22:32, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

Another article by Godfrey Raphael. It's about a book atl - no relation to Obama's otl one - by someone from Reading. Really, in my opinion, should get a name change, and the PoD in the "book" should change from a reverse of the timeline's PoD. Lordganon 22:32, November 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually quite a clever idea, having Jon Gosselin seek his moment of fame without the big family and the TV show he had in our time line. Supposing the PoD as being Doomsday would be the obvious choice. It would mean Gosselin would have to assume the politics of Reagan would have succeeded in ending the cold war as we know it did. I'd change the officer's name to not reflect the then name of the American author and his wife, though. On the other hand, how much would a survivor in the US know about pre-Doomsday Russia? It would probably be just as good to assume an American point of view since apparently the real cause of the war does not seem to ever have been discerned. Americans know that they did not fire the first shots, but that's about it. Gosselin was a pre-teen in 1983, so most of what he would write in 2010 would be from research, not memory, concerning the days before the war. --SouthWriter 04:00, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

What I meant, more so, was that this is exactly what happened otl, or nearly so. While it would be possible to be what the PoD is in the "book," I just have to doubt it, you know? Lordganon 05:36, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

A proposal for a nation in the northeastern Congo. It's full of contradictory errors, with the biggest being whether it is an empire, or a republic. The proposal is by a new user, GunsnadGlory. Lordganon 22:32, November 27, 2011 (UTC)

I fixed most of the errors. are there any other major ones?

GunsnadGlory 00:37, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

There is only a history there at this time, and to be honest.... it's pretty bad overall. Lordganon 00:52, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

I can't get the nation infobox to work. could anyone help with that?

GunsnadGlory 22:48, December 6, 2011 (UTC)

Seriously, I need some ways to improve this. What are the biggest problems? Why isn't so and so feasible?

GunsnadGlory 20:37, December 20, 2011 (UTC)

Article Complete and Ready for graduation, unless there are any objections.

GunsnadGlory 19:35, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

It needs a lot of cleaning up. And, it really shouldn't have a fictional person as its base, quite frankly, either. Lordganon 19:40, January 3, 2012 (UTC)

Fictional person edited out. Anything else? GunsnadGlory 19:33, January 6, 2012 (UTC)

Maradikasa
A nation forming in the south of the former nation of Niger--Smoggy80 18:25, November 29, 2011 (UTC)

Offically founded on the 4th December 2011--Smoggy80 17:20, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

Second Yugoslav War
The war that me and Owner have been planning for a while. Will be ongoing for quite some time. Lordganon 08:50, December 5, 2011 (UTC)

Governors of Neonotia
This is a list of the governors incorporating what has been written so far on the Auburn and Neonotia pages. Please let me know if any of the selections are not proper. SouthWriter 05:44, December 12, 2011 (UTC)

New Livonian Order (1983: Doomsday)
Finally got around to using an idea I had a while ago. It's very much a work in progress and I'm still ironing out the details so any useful input would be appreciated.Tessitore 00:30, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

I've added quite a bit to the article, including a few things that I didn't have in mind when I started but later realised might be a good idea. At the moment the Order can be fairly accurately described as a cross between the New York Rangers and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_Military_Order_of_Malta Sovereign Military Order of Malta. ] Tessitore 22:01, December 19, 2011 (UTC)

Jamaica (1983: Doomsday)
I figured as big a nation/state as Jamaica is, it needed a page. Suggestions are welcome. --SouthWriter 22:48, December 18, 2011 (UTC)

Wait,is Jamaica independent from the ECF, or is this a member-state article? Just wondering, thanks. Arstar 02:51, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

....It says in the first sentence that it's part of the ECF. Lordganon 14:53, January 1, 2012 (UTC)

Kivu
A state by me on former eastern Zaire (South Kivu and Maniema to be more exact). Fed (talk) 17:00, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Barbados (1983: Doomsday)
Another East Caribbean Federation state. Regentage 18:53, December 22, 2011 (UTC)

Some expansion work involving Transylvania and Partium. Lordganon 02:55, December 26, 2011 (UTC)

A quick proposal by Yank that he more or less immediately put up for adoption. It's about the SWAPO group in Nambia, that took over most of that area post-DD. Lordganon 07:44, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

I'll take a crack at this. I've been interested in the Namibian area for some time. Godfrey Raphael 08:42, January 2, 2012 (UTC)

=CURRENT REVIEWS=

Review Archive

Sometimes articles are graduated into canon even though they contradict current canon or are so improbable that they are damaging to the timeline. If you feel an article should not be in canon, mark it with the   template and give your reasons why on the article's talk page and here. If consensus is that you are correct, the article will need to be changed in order to remain in canon. If it is changed the proposal template is removed once someone moves to graduate it back into canon. If the article is not changed in 30 days, the article will be mared as obsolete. If consensus is that you are wrong, however, the proposal template will be removed without having to change the article.

Celtic Church
Well, looking at the Vatican stuff, I've noticed some massive issues with this article too. Not a single thing that was taken up on the talk page of the article has been done, nor does it really make much sense overall. Kinda getting the feeling that I should go over all of Mjdoch's articles and have a close look at any of the religion stuff that was written for plausibility, lol. Lordganon 13:58, May 13, 2011 (UTC)

I thought it unusual that the Celtic Church would be the one and only church in Celtic Alliance, but it was Mjdoch's article and figured that Ireland was one place where such things might work out differently post-nuclear war than in most of the Western world. That said, I second your idea of reviewing the religion-related portions of Mjdoch's articles. I'd prefer we stay as close to his ideas as possible, but that does not preclude revisions for plausibility, whether it be on a minor scale or a major scale. BrianD 16:59, May 19, 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, another project for me to look into, lol. Of course, as little as possible would be changed.

The idea of the Church itself is indeed plausible - it's kinda like the Anglican Church, given what all this says about it. But the idea that the Catholic Church would become part of this thing entirely is a touch ridiculous - some, maybe even many, yes, but not all. And, that is ignoring the extremely valid points that are on its talk page as well.

Lordganon 08:08, May 20, 2011 (UTC)

The biggest concern for me, besides keeping Lahbas's work largely intact, would be to clarify the reason behind the Celtic Church: the government only wanted to deal with one official organization, not hundreds claiming to represent Christianity (especially with the Protestant/Catholic divisions in northern Ireland, and lesser so in Scotland). That actually makes sense to me, as does the government's recognition that not everyone will choose to align themselves with the official state church.

It kind of makes sense to me that initially the various churches might join together, given that the Alliance didn't really know of survivors outside its borders for years. Once it became known that South America had survived largely intact, and that the successor to Rome had established itself in Rio, the issue of Roman Catholicism within the Alliance would have to be raised. Perhaps there is still a Celtic Church today, alongside Roman Catholic parishes, Orthodox churches and however many Protestant churches and denoms would have established themselves in the country.

Since Arstar is caretaker of Celtic Alliance, what does he think about this? BrianD 05:20, May 23, 2011 (UTC)

Well, there really isn't a religion section to the CA article besides a link to this, and it's more of an independent article than anything. To me, that means it's only part-ways under his caretakership. And, on that note, as per his request, I'm watching his articles anyways, so the net result is that it'll just get changed. He's been on once in the last couple months, so I kinda doubt we'll hear from him anyways.

To a certain extent, that's my opinion on the article as well, though I'd make it more so one primary official organization, instead of two. Even with the government behind it, I find it highly doubtful that more tha half the population would go along with this. After re-connecting with the Pope, what you describe is my opinion too.

Lordganon 08:04, May 23, 2011 (UTC)


 * Here again I think we're seeing the effects of changing assumptions. When the CA pages were written it was assumed that the people of Ireland had every reason to believe they were the last people on Earth - or close to it. In that context, the merging of the major churches is more understandable. Benkarnell 15:15, June 10, 2011 (UTC)
 * That more or less sums up what I've been working on doing with regards to the article. Will make a touch more sense in many regards like that. Lordganon 18:28, June 10, 2011 (UTC)

Gathering Order
I do not want to cause a ruckus, since this concept is one of the most entrenched in the time line, but a few things need to be changed to make this article, and mention of it, to be more believable.

First, the date is given as 1984 in some places and 1985 in others. This needs to be standardized.

Second, in light of the fact that the United States is only a member of NATO, it is not proper or even possible for the ANZUS authorities, lead by US (APA) president Bush, to call for the return of all NATO vehicles. Seeing that only US and British vehicles end up being listed, I would think that even the call of British ships would be subject to New Britain's approval. Only US ships (and any ANZUS craft) would be under the recall. The way "and NATO" is added in this article and others seems to indicate every European ship that has survived must leave the Mediterranean and North Atlantic and the beck and call of ANZUS. This is ludicrous, and totally implausible. SouthWriter 06:05, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Articles I find seem to have it more or less split between 1984 and 1985.

From what I can tell, all of the original dates are from 1984 - have a look at the history of the ANZS Commonwealth, Timeline, and Gathering Order articles - but Xi accidentally put it on the timeline under 1985, where it even referred to it as 1984 until it was changed by an anon without checking anywhere else a year later, lol - and no one noticed it after that. That'd be where the error comes from. No biggy, really. 1984 makes more sense, even. Though, I think there's a few references to the flight of Reagan - I know of at least one with Hawaii - that have the flight as 1985, which would need fixing, too - the problem, likely originates from the same place.

As for the NATO stuff.....

In most of Europe, I suspect that the signal would be mostly unintelligible. It's more something meant for the Pacific, and the Indian/South Atlantic Oceans. Any Allied ships would mostly tag along simply for safety and some orders. And, for instance, the British ships we know went, later on, to New Britain when contact was made, so they can leave when ready. The Order's not permanent, just a message of command, and/or safety.

Though, I agree it needs to be reworded, for sure.

Lordganon 06:53, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

=FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES= Archive 1, Archive 2

''This subsection is for decisive and vital issues concerning the 1983: Doomsday Timeline. Due to the complexity level we have reached with 1983: Doomsday now, each of these issues might have world-spanning consequences that affect dozens of articles. Please treat this section with the necessary respect and do not place discussions that do not belong here.''

Communication in the Post Doomsday World
I have a question that has been distressing me for sometime and I would like to put it out to all the major contributing writers, especially the long time writers, including those who just read rather than contribute at this stage. I say this because I would like the perspective on the subject from writers who contributed early on (Mitro, South, Ben, Yank etc.) and shaped this scenario, as well those who have been around for a year (LG, Caerelus, etc.). Because of how important I view this topic, this is why I am placing my question to the group here under fundamental issues versus elsewhere.

For those of us who actually remember 1983 (self included) it was not like our present 2011 in which everyone is connected. As much as we may like to think we were advanced technologically, we were not really in comparison to now. Communication (and I am not referring to mass media like TV) was primarily limited to telephone, radio, and computer. It had to go through the atmosphere, ground lines, or be bounced off satellites. Satellites were used for a variety of purposes at the time much like now, but primarily for military defense, communications (such as cable TV, which was still in its infancy in many ways), and weather. The only way a USN ship could communicate with the US from say the Indian Ocean, would be to bounce a signal off an orbiting satellite than have it received by a ground station.

On Doomsday, we know the continental US along with chunks of Canada and Mexico got fried with EMPs when the Soviets detonated a nuke in the atmosphere silencing much of, but not all, communications. Thus someone in the MSP would not have a clue what was happening in Vermont, or someone in Delmarva what was occurring in Texas. The same goes for a chunk of the USSR. Now, the question to be asked is what happened elsewhere? We know for a fact a nuke, small or large going off, can still put the whammy on technology close by as well as some distance away. So places like Europe and Asia, primarily China, would see massive disruption, but nothing like the USSR/US unless nukes went off in the atmosphere high enough to cause widespread damage everywhere.

So, where am I going with this? The premise of this scenario has been the world sat around and figuratively sucked its thumb in a dark closet for many years, with A not knowing what B was doing until some brave souls decided to hop in boats and go poking around. I can buy this for some regions of the Earth, like those which got blasted to kingdom come (i.e. continental US). However, this makes zero sense for everyone else. Why? Satellites. We know at the time there had been anti-satellite weapon technology experiments for sometime by the US and USSR. Based on my research, it appears to have been limited in what existed and could actually work as of 1983. Now, it is possible that some satellites could have been taken out. But, there has never been any evidence of this in this scenario. In the Soyuz piece, the cosmonauts saw detonations on Earth, but to my knowledge (unless I missed something here) nothing in the atmosphere. So, in likelihood most satellites were still there to use, as long as you had the equipment.

So places like Australia, Africa, the Middle East, India, Indonesia, and South America to name a few, should have been able to reestablish communications a lot faster and get a very good idea of what was happening. Even places like Hawaii, Alaska, and Puerto Rico, should have been able to establish some kind of contact, and I am not talking militarily given many such places were hit. I can not conceivably see why what US ships and submarines which were still around could not have contacted each other in some way unless their tech was fried. These geographical areas I have just discussed should have been able to establish communication within weeks at the latest and coordinate rescue and aid if possible. In addition to this, what about undersea cables? They would have connected many areas and a place like Hawaii (given it had no atmospheric bursts) should have been able to talk with say Australia or Africa with South America. Heck, what about those areas of Maritime Canada which escaped getting fried by EMPs speaking with Iceland, Greenland, and say Scandinavia?

I know there are some writers who will say, Fx "what is written is written and should never, ever under any circumstances be touched, let alone adjusted or tweaked." However, with respect, I have always tried to root my writing in reality, which is what drew me to being a contributor given how that has been a cornerstone of this project most of, but not all of the time. I am not saying rip up the floorboards and tear down the walls, but consider putting in some support beams and laying fiber optic cables as one might do to an old house. I have been kind of quiet on areas which bothered me because they ran counter to what logic, my research, or common sense told me. This subject has been bugging me for some time. As such, this is why I am hoping to hear feedback from all writers, both old and new. Thank you for the time and my apologies for the lengthy verbiage. --Fxgentleman 06:27, October 9, 2011 (UTC)

For starters, the guys in space are only at DD over one area of the globe. They aren't going to see even a majority of the blasts. Nor are upper atmospheric detonations going to look much different, if at all, than the other strikes. And if a satellite gets whacked, in amongst the staring at nukes going off, would they notice? Not likely. And, there's a least two detonations, big ones in the atmosphere, making mass EMP. Who's to say there's not more? To say otherwise, really, is kinda silly, as between missile defenses, technical issues, aiming problems, and other such things, it can and will occur.

Sure, some satellites may get taken out by by weapons, though that's doubtful at best. But you're not thinking it through, either. The EMP detonations over the USSR and USA would fry any satellites over those continents, likely in a larger radius than the area effected on the ground. The other blasts generate more of it, though over smaller areas. Radio waves are going to be disrupted to some degree for years by all of this, combined with the particles thrown into the air. And how on earth can they tell where they are? No one left has any way of doing it that'd be operable for years - and by that point, the sats would be too old to function or have gone down. Plumes from the strikes, too, will damage and/or bring down others, to some extent.

Furthermore, the control centers for these satellites, along with the info of how to get into contact/control with them, were all destroyed. I'm well aware there is a couple left, but besides the ones in Australia, they're not doing anyone anything. And the ones there are very limited.

So, basically, the satellites that remain are almost entirely useless. The few left, and in range of control bases, are only in contact with the Aussies, who have no reasons to believe that, outside of the Southern Hemisphere, anything is left. And contact on some level is restored in that area by 1987, which you've missed entirely in all of this. And that basically includes all of those areas listed but Northern Africa and the Middle East. Even PR, Hawaii, and Alaska are included there - and for the two states, it'd be reasonable to assume destruction too. Overall, these places would end up barely communicating for a number of years - lack of fuel, remember, and barely satellites to use at all. Heck, most satellites need to be adjusted and moved pretty often - and they can't really do that.

US Vessels do not have infinite radio range, and need to use the aforementioned fried/damaged satellites to get very far. Same goes for the rest of the world navies. Most of these US vessels were destroyed in strikes. The survivors of those blasts would suffer immense damage, including fried systems for the most part, as, simply put, no EMP protection is perfect. Some of them - as has long been the case - will receive the special order - heck, most surviving ones would - but they could not communicate back. Most of these will not make it anywhere - fuel, and damage, plainly put. Subs are slightly better off, but not by that much. Other navies are slightly better off, but that brings us to another matter: lack of fuel. Either way, not any net help.

And, I know from past experience that radios, even government ones, can't go between continents on their own on any practical level. So there's no aid there, either.

Cables until the late 1980s underwater were not very reliable, and broke at lot, as they continue to do even today. Today, there's more than 50 breaks in the cables in the Atlantic alone every year, despite burying the cables starting in 1980 or so. Note that the burying, while helping with the breaks, mostly helped deal with faults in the lines developing, causing a change from 3.7 per 1,000 km per year from 1959 to 1979 to 0.44 faults per 1,000 km per year after 1985.

To quote wikipedia about breaks: "Cables can be broken by fishing trawlers, anchors, earthquakes, turbidity currents and even shark bites. Based on surveying breaks in the Atlantic Ocean and the Caribbean Sea, it was found that between 1959 and 1996 less than 9% were due to natural events."

The nukes going off, EMP, debris, waves, and everything else happening, would fry them and break them up. A few may survive, but not for long. I give them a month, at most. And before you say it, EMP and nukes kills the repair ships and their supplies of both fuel, in general things, and cables. Basically, by the time things dissipate enough to talk and it comes onto the agenda, no cables at all. And for the record, there's no real cables between NA and Greenland until much later - ice, y'know? Most cables, too are anchored in major centers, which got clobbered. So, not only are we talking about extensive, and in the long-term fatal (proverbially) cable damage, but the land access points are mostly toast. Even ignoring all that, you're missing, that the cables are useless if there's either no one on the other end, or it's missing entirely.

I think that kills off most, if not all, of your arguments. Past that, what's written is written. Everything is already rooted in reality. Maybe not your version, but that's your issue, not ours. Things may be slightly illogical, but still very plausible. You need to accept that.

Lordganon 08:15, October 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree with Fxgentleman, to an extent. The level of the communication breakdown post-Doomsday is overstated. To address your counterpoints LG, your understanding of nuclear weapons and EMPs is somewhat inaccurate. Any EMP blasts over the USA and USSR would have no affect on orbital satellites. They're simply too far up and the main reason the EMP is so strong is because of the Earth's atmosphere and magnetic field, which is nonexistent and much weaker in space, respectively. Plus, most of the key global communication satellites are in geosynchronous orbit, which is thousands of miles beyond the Earth's atmosphere. You are correct that radio waves would be disrupted by the super-charged ionsphere, but that would last for months at most, not years. Also, while the satellite control centers would have mostly been destroyed, most of a satellite's communication operations are automatic. As long as it remains in the proper orbit, it will continue to function. But after a number of months to years, the unattended satellites will lose their orbit and become useless. However, satellites owned by the USSR, Australia/New Zealand, or the Nordic states could remain in operation for a prolonged period of time.


 * The idea that nations "have no reasons to believe that, outside of the Southern Hemisphere, anything is left" is just wrong. Everyone knows who is aiming at who and who would be nuked. More importantly, all nations have contingency of government (CoG) plans that most nations assumed would be successful in a post-nuclear age. (Btw, this is a fact that, with the exception of the USA and USSR, is largely ignored in the timeline overall.) In the immeidate months after Doomsday, remnants of these governments would still exist and attempts to maintain communication with them by nations in the Southern Hemisphere would occur. Also, it is widely stated throughout this timeline that even nations in totally unaffected regions, such as Africa, thought that most of the world was wiped out and lost communication with all other regions, which wouldn't occur.


 * You are correct that the underwater cable systems have a lot of maintenance issues, however, most of these are critical issues. Most of the breaks either threaten the long-term viability of the cable or decrease its data flow. Rarely are the cables severed completely. Also, non-natural malefactors, such as fishing trawlers, would decrease rapidly after Doomsday, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere. Most naval vessels, particularly in 1983, were operated by nations in the Northern Hemisphere. These types of cable-damaging events would drop to near zero in the Northern Hemisphere and decrease in the Southern Hemisphere, prolonging the lives of the cables. Cables with endpoints in northern hemispheric cities would be essentially useless at that point, but undersea cables don't depend on a single endpoint. The rest of the cable would continue to function, though it would have lower bandwidth and lower expected lifespan. The long-term viablity of these cables would certainly be threatened, but the ANZC, NU, and later the SAC would all have the capability to repair at least some of these cables. Also, the EMPs would have no affect on the cables themselves, only on the electrical systems at their anchoring points.


 * Most of the above issues affected primarily the Northern Hemisphere, which has more pressing issues as we all know. The Southern Hemisphere wouldn't have most of these problems. Immediately after Doomsday, their radios would be working, their cables would be intact and operational, and their governments would still be stable. For at least the first year after Doomsday, nations in the Southern Hemisphere would be able to communicate with other nations in the Southern Hemisphere without any major problems. After the first year, the number of satellites being lost and continually unrepaired damage to undersea cables could cause significant communications problems, but not enough to completely sever communication.


 * Finally, we are all forgetting more primitive means of communication. Many of the surviving nations have various types of ships at their disposal. Undersea telegraph lines are still there, even if they're rarely used. Many of these ships have intercontenital travel ability. If a nation, such as Austrailia, really wanted to talk to Brazil and had no other way to do it, they could just send a ship. It would be slow and arduous, but it would work. And it doesn't take 4 years for them to figure out how to do that. Even if everything else failed, within 3 months some basic level of commication. It may not be enough to do anything significant with, but it'd be enough to maintain contact and allow low levels of trade. Caeruleus 07:58, October 12, 2011 (UTC)

Caer, you amaze me sometimes. And not in a good way. I swear, every time you comment on something you read half or less of what is posted.

No, I'm afraid you are horribly wrong. EMP is effected by atmosphere and magnetic field, true enough - but that has nothing to do with strength. True, mind, the magnetic field is mainly what causes the pulse and spreads it, but that is not relevant here, as the earth's magnetic field goes thousands of kilometers beyond the earth's atmosphere. A few hundred miles up, or even a couple thousand, does nothing to it that matters in the least. And with no atmosphere to hinder the range, it is even bigger than the ground burst.

What the blasts generate is an EMP sphere - technically, mind, as the bottom half is cut off by the earth - of a large size. One that gets bigger as you go further up. The ones in our little scenario are a minimum of 2 over the US at 120 or so miles each, and one over the Urals at about 300 miles. Add to that smaller ones by the ground and air strikes. And, we can figure it likely that at least one nuke went off early up there. Won't even try to locate it, but to assume that all ICBMs made it to the bottom half of their trajectory is ludicrous.

Both of these heights are well into low earth orbit. Any satellites up over either North America or Asia in such an orbit are instantly fried. Any in medium orbits are going to get it too, more likely than not. Given orbits, and that heights vary on them too, that is not an exact science, but true enough for our means. Various High Orbit and Geosynchronous Orbit satellites at the Perigee of their orbits will get it, too. A massive number will die instantly, and many other damaged.

The effects of the EMP and the blasts - that is, the radio issues - will effect the satellites too. Between their signals being hindered, leftover interference, debris from varied sources, and a lack of control from the ground, more will die. The spots where the EMP went off, too, will have similar effects on the satellites to the radio on the ground, messing with satellites surviving on those orbits.

Automatic? I don't know where the heck you get that from, but that's only half-true, at best. They still needed to be routed, aimed, and have their control rockets touched every so often. Those may be automatically done by computers, but you fail to get the point there: Computers are programmed.

As stated, the only real space contact facility surviving is in Australia. A country, which if you'd have bothered to look, had no satellites at the time. The Nordic Nations have none until the late 1980s otl, and the Soviet ground facilities are gone or inoperable. The Aussies can only call on what they have access to, or know the orbit of. They aren't a real control center, so they won't have much of either. Almost all satellites are thus no operational to them. The SAC nations are even worse off in that department.

Thus, the satellites are useless. The few still operational and in a contact position to the control center cannot be controlled by them. To even be located would take weeks. By that point, it is irreversible. They will be up and usable for a few months, and not much longer.

Excuse me? You are honestly saying that people knew where things would go off? And who would be aiming at who? To a certain extent, maybe. But overall? To say that is foolish, at best, and idiocy at its worst. There are places hit here that the people did not expect in the least. Do the math, Caer.

Actually, CoG is not ignored, at all. You've just failed to read, again. Past that, you honestly think that CoG would always work, and that it would always be followed? That's crazy. Nukes go off, fallout happens, fighting occurs, and you make that assumption? Sheesh. We've established that communications are out, too, so while they may try, they ain't getting contact.

I assume you missed the word "not" and meant "most of these are not critical issues," with regards to the cables. And you're wrong. The reason why we don't notice them getting severed is because there's so many of the blasted things. The EMP hits electronics, where it fries circuits and wires. Note that word - "wires." In North America, among other places, when the EMP hits the one end - either from the continental EMP or localized from the blasts - not only is the control station gone, but the EMP will get into the cables and damage them.

You also miss something entirely. Nuclear weapons, when they go off, generate earthquakes, and waves of pressure too. Not the largest ever, but they do. Now, see that earthquakes damage the cables? Between the seismic waves, shock waves, and the waves of water, there is going to be massive cable damage. I think that you can figure from there out yourself.

Cables do usually have one endpoint. They go from one side, to the other. Usually, without a connection between, too. All cables without an endpoint by this point are useless.

The SAC has no ability to repair cables. NU vessels would be more or less gone - their primary base is the nuked city of Bergen. And the ANZC ones are needed to maintain things there. And, fuel supplies, as well as cable supplies, drop drastically. Within a year, at most, the cables will cease to function.

Where has it said that the ANZC and SAC were not in some sort of long-range contact in 1984? Nowhere. But you've failed to notice that at all. Trade, and any meaningful contact is out, but some sort of intermittent line will exist.

Actually, the radio interference is global. And besides that, most countries are having unrest if not collapsing outright. Which, again, you've failed to notice. If they are having those problems, why on earth would they be that interested in outside? Simply put, they would not be. and you need to learn to remember that.

And undersea telegraph lines? Those are the cables already mentioned. That has been the case for most of a century by 1983.

As for a ship, we've already established that they had some sort of long-range communications, and a fuel shortage. Why on earth would they send a ship? Quick answer: They wouldn't. They have their own problems at home - goes for both parties - and have no reason to do so. The cables and satellites going out past early 1984 makes it go to ship only, resulting in the situation observed until the 1990s. It's very plausible and what would happen.

Lordganon 18:16, October 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * You seriously need to do more research on EMPs and geomagnetic fields. The magnetic field has a major effect on the strength and direction of EMPs. EMPs in the northern hemisphere, for example, are significantly stronger than those closer to the equator because of the different geomagnetic effects in the two regions. You are correct about the size of the Earth's magentic field, but that is irrelevant. Magnetic fields don't go outward. They flow to the north or south. Once you get past the atmosphere, the EMP would begin to follow the magnetic field lines. It would cease to go outward further into space and would begin to spread out along the Earth's magnetic field, diluting its effects and limiting its range. Even if these EMPs could get to satellites in medium and geosynchronous orbit, the distance between those satellites and the initial blast would be so great that the effects of the EMP would be diluted to a point where the effect would be minimal at best.


 * As for a satellite's automatic functions, I was referring to their communications functions, as I stated, not their navigation functions.


 * And don't overapply my point about knowing who would be nuked. Everyone would know Europe, North America, China, and the USSR would be gone. No one would expect Thailand, for example, to get nuked. Are there some states that were unexpectedly attacked? Of course. But no nation would think that the vast majority of the South was directly affected by Doomsday.


 * EMPs don't just affect electronics in general. They specifically affect circuitry and electrical transformers, neither of which is contained in the cable. They're only contained in the transfer and end points. Several endpoints of these cables would be directly destroyed by nuclear weapons, but the rest of the cable would be fine. Even if they EMP could affect it, they are deep underwater, which would act as additional shielding to any EMP thereby neutralizing the effect. Also, you are just plain wrong on one thing. Undersea cables don't have one end point. For example, the cable in West Africa has an endpoint in every West African nation with a coastline. Even if one endpoint is destroyed, the rest would continued to operate at a lower bandwidth capacity.


 * If these nations can be in some sort of long range contact by 1984, there's no reason trade wouldn't also restart. The Gulf states, for example, depend on oil and gas exports for their economic well-being and were unaffected by Doomsday. They also possess many oil freighters that would be capable to making a trip to anywhere in South America, Africa, Asia, or Oceania. You don't need instant, long-distance communciation to maintain trade. You just need two ports.


 * Even if the cables and satellites all broke down by 1984, radio interference from the blasts would end by late 1984 at the lastest, which would reenable radio communication. Nations can address multiple issues at once too. Many nations, such as Venezuela or Mexico for example, would not be suffering major fuel shortages thanks to native oil supplies and regional refining capacity. These nations, if no one else, would send out ships to reignite trade and regain communication with distant states. Caeruleus 19:50, October 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * forgive me I am relitivley new this ATL but I now there was a so with EMP people would post letters to communicate or use somthing like the pony express Martin1983 20:14, October 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * FX, I've finished reading through this section. I want to sleep on it, and read through it again before commenting on the issue. I do wonder if we should accept the TL as is, and work from there. That, or reboot the thing completely. That said, I am not against revising canon to make it more plausible - LG's done so with Superior, I've done so with Texas, and many others have done so with their own articles. The only other thing I'll say at this point is that this needs to be talked out, and all of the ramifications thought through, before we make any kind of decision regarding changing history. BrianD 03:06, October 13, 2011 (UTC)

No Caer, you are the one that needs to research EMP. You've once again shown that you know almost nothing about it.

EMP itself is not effected by latitude. Other aspects of a nuke going off are, true enough, but the EMP on the ground? Not at all.

Look at a model of the earth's magnetic fields. Seriously, Caer. The fields do go out in a lot more than just north/south. That is indeed the primary direction of travel, but it is a hell of a lot more than that.

Spreading out along the lines of the field, and in it in general, is going outward into space. Where do you think the field is? Australia? Sheesh.

The first EMP Wave, E1, composed of electrons knocked out of the atmosphere by gamma radiation, is primarily what hits the planet. It also "splashes" somewhat upwards. That's one thing. Won't do much damage, but it does have a small impact.

The second, E2, is more or less harmless. Basically, it will hurt anything already damaged by E1, but not much more.

The third and final EMP wave, E3, is the worst, upstairs at least. It literally screws around, temporarily, with the Earth's magnetic field in the area of the EMP. Even more damage on the ground, killing anything already damaged. In space, it's even worse. And goes farther into space than low earth orbit, may I add. 5%-20% (depending on height/size of the blast) of satellites caught in this distortion are rendered useless immediately. All of the others get damaged, and will cease to work within a year - fried/damaged equipment, solar panels going out, etc.

And, these effects do travel beyond the area of the blast. Diluted, of course, but they do. They will hurt the satellites they hit, in minuscule ways, shortening their lifespans a tiny bit, making them "touchy," etc.

But that's not the worst of it. You see, it is the radiation that is the real killer. I glossed that over before, hoping I wouldn't have to go into it. But, as usual, you're making me go on a long and winded explanation, rather than doing one little bit of research yourself.

Obviously, there is a range up there around the blast where things are going to be incinerated, or nearly so. Probably, not going to catch a satellite, but they might.

Now, all satellites are designed to take background radiation. There's a lot of it up there. But, the radiation from a bomb? Far exceeds that. Quite literally, anything in low earth orbit with line of sight of the blast is going to get fried by it. Depending on how new they are, and how degraded their defenses are, you're going to see them go out over the next couple of months, mostly in the first week. This radiation will also get, to a minor extent, into medium earth orbit, along with on the narrow parts of their orbits, the ones further out too. Won't knock them out nearly as fast, but it will hurt their lifespans. And all of these effects increase dramatically when the number of blasts, or the height of said blasts, increases.

And then there's the protons and neutrons sent flying about. These too hurt things, in a similar manner to the radiation.

Now, line of sight? Quite literally, each of these blasts has a line of sight about half the planet, in theory. Of course, with distance it will still get weaker, but it is still there. Damage at long distances will remain minor, but still hurt.

Now, there's one other main effect. Around the earth, there's radiation belts. This is the radiation previously mentioned that satellites need to armed against. Well, nukes going off in the atmosphere make their own, deadlier ones, though smaller. Any satellites entering these will not die right away, but will suffer damage. These areas will be concentrated near the blasts, but won't stay there. Not only will they do this, but these are also a big part of why radio waves are largely out.

Note, too, that these effects are strongest when the bombs are going off between 150-600 km above the surface - and all of the EMP strikes fall into this range. As would any that go off mistakingly, or otherwise, which is outside of this entire thing, but needs to be remembered. The effects are also most strongly felt in surveillance and intelligence satellites - the cameras, etc. on them attract particles more than other satellites would. Note, too, that there are likely some hardened satellites up there - i.e. the one connected to Air Force One, and the Mountain - but these are much more stationary and are of very limited use.

These fields, in addition to the damage, will also hinder if not prevent entirely communications with them. Even if they are out of range of the radiation, it will still mostly be blocked.

Communication functions, while in some instances automatic, are still very much controlled. Adjustments are always needed, angles have to change, etc. You still have to connect to the blasted things, too.

There's also one more thing about EMP. Remember all of the strikes? Not only is dust and debris thrown up, interfering with the radio waves and the weather, but EMP and radiation are thrown up into the atmosphere and beyond too. Quite literally, each strike will momentarily have a EMP spot in lower space. This will likely take out a satellite somewhere. More importantly, it will leave small radiation patches, like the EMP blasts, in space itself. Same effects, just smaller.

Did I once say that they would expect the South to be? No. You're the one that said, and I quote this, "Everyone knows who is aiming at who and who would be nuked." Yet you just admitted that this is not the case. Fact is, they lost most lines of contact right away, and the rest were damaged. It takes time. simple as that.

Again, no. These are cables that carry phone and radio-like signals. You don't seem to have any sort of idea about that, but let me spell it out: those are electrical signals. EMP goes along electrical conduits, which is what these cables are. Now, resistance - tougher on these cables, but still won't stop it instantly - will fry lengths of cable from the control centers. Simple as that. Won't go cross-ocean or anything, but it will happen. Note, too, that the EMP hits before the nukes.

End points. Note, that word: "END." Each cable has two of them, one at either end. What you're talking about are, depending on the cable and its layout, are either connecting points - where it passes through one control center and heads onwards to another - or landing points, which are like the African sites you're describing.

Yes, there is. Virtually all of these nations has shortages, unrest, strikes.... the list goes on. Trade is the last thing on their minds. The Gulf States, unaffected? True, most did not get hit or suffer fallout, but you are completely missing the economic impact, and chaos in general. Add to that that they have no idea where is still intact, beyond a few things found out in the journey of the King of Jordan back home - and he never went south of Thailand. Simply put, with no real idea of what's out there, there's no real reason to bother. Even what they find out from the King won't help them - the areas where his party stopped, and the situation in Bangkok when they left, were, simply put, in chaos, at best, and they were even attacked by raiders. And they would send out tankers into that? That would be crazy on many levels. The same principle applies elsewhere. Add into that rebellions, domestic oil supplies, and the war being fought in the North Pacific, and no one's trading on any real level at first.

Really Caer? You think they will be sending out ships? To somewhere that they are barely in contact with, when they have their own problems? Mexico, for instance, is facing a massive number of refugees, nuclear damage to some of its own cities on the border, minor does of fallout, and rebellions in the Yucatan. Venezuela is busy with its own ambitions in Guyana. To that end, they need their own supplies for their own uses. Yes, a few ships will likely go. But by and large? They won't. Similar situations abound everywhere.

Nor are ships any real communication, for obvious reasons - their limits are massive. And I know for a fact that most small radios are useless over long distances. By late 1984, the cables are going to be largely inoperable - they can try to fix, and would do so, but that only goes so far without a large stockpile, which they do not have. Most satellites are going to be out, or at least damaged. The damaged ones are not going to be very useful. and, once again, the Aussies have control over the only major control center left. And a fat lot of good it does them. Fyi, most satellites don't even manage to stay up/in position for more than a couple years. There are exceptions, true, but they are not in the majority. And we're talking about damaged ones here - even the outer satellites are a bit effected - so that decay rate is going to be much faster.

Oh, and Fx? Not once did I call your post "implausible" or "ridiculous" in any way. Thank so so much for insulting me by putting words in my mouth.

And for the record, the EMP Satellite data? Most of it, past the more technical side, is based off wikipedia. And common sense.

The rest? A report done by a large lists of scholars and government defense contractors for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency last year. Based off of their own simulations, and info gathered during their, and to an extent Soviet as well, atmospheric tests, along with scientific experiments.

http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA531197&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

Lordganon 14:23, October 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * LG, you have not demonstrated that communication in the Southern Hemisphere, the point of the discussion, really, is disrupted by a few high altitude EMP blasts. You have not given any figures as to how far the upward E3 pulses effect the nearby magnetic field. How long would the temporary flux of the magnetic field last, and would it reach past the equator in any way since it originates at around 40 degrees north (America) and 60 degrees north (Russia)?


 * The maps available to us on wikipedia actually do show a difference in strength of the EMP as it goes out at an angle through the atmosphere. Just like sunlight (itself electromagnetic radiation) the strength is reduced as it goes through the atmosphere. Simply put, it has further to go through the medium. The sections of the earth directly below the bomb are going to be affected worse than those further out, as would be expected. Below is a map of the two blasts with comparitive EMP damage on the nations below it.


 * [[File:EMP_over_America.png]]


 * I chose to leave it full size so everyone could see the details without their glasses. :-)


 * Anyway, for those of us with US survivor states, we can see how our articles might be tweaked as far as the degree of disruption in electronics my the EMP. As the magnetic field gets closer to the pole, it is stronger, explaining the 'smile' and even the 'nose' on the pattern.

SouthWriter 21:29, October 13, 2011 (UTC)

Satellites

I totally agree any satellite caught beneath either the American EMP Zone (AEZ) or the Soviet EMP Zone (SEZ) on Doomsday would have been destroyed. No question there. I would also agree if one was close, say 50 miles above, it could be lost as well. However, I noted in my review we stated the detonations for the AEZ were 120 miles up and 300 miles up for the SEZ. With that information in hand, I looked at average orbits. Based on tables I reviewed, I came up with the following information: 100-300 miles, spy, navigation, and ham satellites; 300-600 miles, weather and photo satellites; 600-1200 miles spy, military communication, ham satellites; 3000-6000 science satellites; 6000-12000 navigation satellites; 22,300 stationary communication, broadcast, and weather satellites; and lastly 250-50,000 early warning, Molniya broadcast, communication, spy, and ham satellites. Of course some of these items, like Hamsat, did not exist in 1983.

Based on the results of the high altitude tests of the 1960s, we know an artificial radiation belt would likely be created and any satellite traveling through one would be damaged or destroyed. Although, it is difficult to say exactly what scale the damage would be given the differences between satellites in orbit in 1962 versus 1983. The ones in 1983 might be hardened a tad better but not impervious. The question now arises where would these belts exist? My impression is they would be localized where the detonation occurred and at the height of the blasts. So we would see one over North America at 120 miles up and one over the central USSR at 300 miles up. I can not find anything to categorically show it would cover the entire globe. So any satellite unlucky enough to traverse through either belt would be damaged. I am not clear what the actual life span of the belts would be but my impression is they would likely be around until at least 1990. The same goes for any radioactive debris left over from the attack.

Despite my research, I encountered a difficult time finding out exactly how many satellites were in Earth orbit. Based on one report I read, there were about 150 satellites at the 22,300 mile geo-synchronous orbit, most over the US, Europe, and Asia. I would imagine other nations had at least one, so it would be interesting if we could find out. However, some 60 were supposed to be defunct. So I applaud the success of South in what he has uncovered thus far. So understandably, knowing if the orbit of any of these would pass through the belts or close enough to the detonation sites would determine their fates.

The question has also been discussed about degradation. We know for a fact satellite orbits do decay over time unless adjusted, eventually entering the atmosphere and burning up. Also a decaying orbit could take one into the aforementioned radiation belts. Furthermore, given their design, satellites are prone to damage from collisions unless someone is monitoring them to correct their orbits. So if the majority of satellites are from affected regions like the US, there is no one to watch over them. Thus most would be on their own operating on automatic systems until fate steps in or someone takes control.

Another question came up regarding ground stations. If I understand their purpose, they are important for communicating with space craft or astronomical radio sources. So the loss of such sites in the US and Russia would be significant in that regard. However, if you were not performing either function, like Australia did with the Soyuz, I cannot see how a nation not having one could prevent communication with an orbiting satellite, say one which is for communications. If you expand the definition to include those stations who monitor satellites as I mentioned earlier, then yes their existence is critical in maintaining the satellite.

Lastly, I would like to address the issue about satellite communication. A satellite that's designed to be used for communications carries a radio repeater, a radio receiver, plus a transmitter that re-transmits everything the receiver hears. So in order to communicate you would need the ability to transmit from an attenna or dish to the satellite and have someone on the other end to receive it and vice versa. As an example, say the US embassy in Riyadh had a satellite dish on its roof in 1983 (I don't know if it did) and the ability to transmit. Thus it stands to reason it shoud be able to communicate with the US Embassy in say, hypotheicially Canberra if they have the same set-up. The same goes for news organizations. For example a CBS reporter filing a story in say New Delhi would transmit his story via satelitte to the HQ in NYC. So the same place in India should be able to receive and send signals. The point I am making is you don't need a fancy ground station to do this. As long as you have a functioning communications satellite and sources able to transmit and receive, someone in Brazil should be able to hypotheically talk with South Africa as an example.

Communication would last as long as the satellite is functioning. Once damaged or the orbit decays, there would be nothing anyone could do on Earth to fix it. How long they could last is a question I can't answer, maybe 1984 or longer. Eventually they would all fadeout for the most part. I do not see anyone sucessfully putting one into orbit until the timeframes already established elsewhere in DD articles. It requires stability and a good infrastructure which not everyone would have for awhile.

Undersea Cables

Much was made regarding this subject. I fully agree cables would be subject to the vacarious whims of their environment much like satellites. And like satellites, unless someone is there to fix and maintain them over time, they would cease to be useful. I would imagine cables might be a better option for communication in this world for awhile. They would be cheaper and easier to lay versus building, launching, and maintaining a satellite. However, in the short term nations would be able to use undersea cables to contact each other, likely by phone or telegraph following the war. Would the detonations affect cables, yes, only some. As pointed out if receving stations on both ends are knocked out then they would be of no use even if undamaged. Also, I have read cables could conduct electromagnetic radiation. This would be limitted to areas which were hit, such as the US, and not everywhere. I have been looking for maps of cable routes circa 1983. I have found them for the Pacfic, Africa, and the Middle East showing quite a few cable lines. Unfortunately I can not find any for the Atlantic as of yet. I erred earlier in stating a cable was connected to Greenland in 1983, which was an honest mistake on my part, although there is one today. The best map I can find thus far, which is as of 1991, shows cables running from Canada and the the US to Iceland, England, Ireland, and the European continent. Although I am not a hundred percent sure, it appears at least one or more cables originated in Newfoundland outside the AEZ with destinations to Icleand and Ireland. So is it probable all cable connections would have been lost between North America and Europe, my answer would be maybe, maybe not depending on more research. My final point though is this, enough functioning cables would have existed following Doomsday to allow communication between certain regions.

Communication and Contact

Finally, I would like to address the question regarding communication. So I ask you to indulge me for a moment, by putting what has been established on the shelf for now and keeping an open mind. If we accept the theory there was basically a complete breakdown of communication following the war to the point where nations can't talk or know what is going on next door, logic dictates the following would have to occur: all satellites would have to cease operation or be unavailable, with nobody having the ability to communicate with one; all telephone networks must crash not allowing for international or domestic calling; all telegraphs must stop functioning; all undersea communications cables must fail; and no one can properly communicate by radio. Given our scenario as to the scope of the war, there is no weight to support this happening. Clearly severe disruptions will occur in affected zones, however the world is not going to shut down. Crippled yes to some extent, but not shut down. Areas like ANZAC, Africa, South America, Indonesia, India, and the Middle East should be able to communicate with one another, at least in the short term. It is not logical all methods to do so would fail.

Much has been said about residual electromagnetic radiation in the atmosphere playing havoc with radios and communication. There is no disagreement nuclear explosions do disrupt radio and radar. However, I am very unclear as to how long. I have read different papers and books saying hours to days, to maybe a few weeks. I have not seen anything which says years. So I am up in the air regarding this point. However, sources tend to point to the disruptions being localized to impact areas, like North America, Western Europe, Central Asia, etc., not globally. Much of the electromagnetic radiation would be would be directed towards the Earth and absorbed not really residing in the atmosphere except for that released by high altitude blasts. The disruption, for as long as it lasts, would take the form of static, messages fading in and out, or messages being misdirected. Of course, even if the disturbances lasted hypothetically a month, with most transmitting equipment destroyed it would be a moot point unless you have equipment in shielded bunkers or faraday cages for example.

Even if this did happen somehow, the belief everyone would sit around and not move for several years is highly questionable. Australia is an excellent example. The nation derives over 40% of its oil from Middle Eastern sources and usually has reserves for about a month or so. With the exception of the loss of three cities, it is a functioning nation. As such, it would need energy to run it. So, rather than sitting around energy starved and rationing, they would send a ship or plane across to the Middle East or even Indonesia to find out what was happening and inquire about securing energy or other needs via trade. Is it improbable some nations would go isolationist, no. I also don't argue countries in dire straits like Mexico would be more focused on internal concerns than sending out contact feelers, such as a ship, but I could see them calling for help from other countries in they were overwhelmed and in need of assistance. The hunker down attitude would be more likely to be see in the crippled zones. However, even there refugees are moving about in some respect seeking info and help. But once things stabilized, it would not be surprising to see fledgling nations sending patrols, working planes, or boats, to explore the surrounding region and make contact. It is only natural for people to want to reach out and communicate, to feel connected.

Having said all of this, I am advocating we keep a rational and open mind regarding the subject. We have said time and again we believe in the plausible and wanting to make this project something we are proud of contributing to. We have had discussions in the past and been willing to make changes as warranted to address areas which were highly questionable given changes over time to the site. I honestly believe we can find a compromise to the problem through discussion and debate like we always do. I don't claim to have all the answers. I just believe it is an area we need to address. Thanks for your time.--Fxgentleman 05:18, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

That's one heck of a lot of post, lol. Guess I know know what I'm doing all day tomorrow: Reading through it all and replying. Sigh.....

Lordganon 09:43, October 14, 2011 (UTC)

I said earlier that I would have a response to Fx. I want to postpone that until I've had a chance to read his very long response, and LG's reply to that. My opinion obviously will be informed largely by the discussion here, as I don't claim to be nearly as knowledgable as Fx, LG or Caer; one factor I want to keep in mind is how this affects the timeline. Will this be another clarification of history, or might this lead to a soft or hard reboot of the TL? BrianD 05:29, October 15, 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Not as bad as I thought by the size of the edits, lol.

So, two sections here. One to South, one to Fx.

@South

The majority of your statement can be answered by the quoted link. Note, too, that the warhead sizes used in the examples pales in comparison to those used here.

But, since you couldn't be bothered to have done that, I now have to fill in some blanks.

I was not joking when I said that the effects of these blasts, even with atmosphere taken into account, would cover most of half the planet. Note, too, that all of the blasts in question actually occur outside of the atmosphere. Figure 11.1, page 72 of the document. For the most part, this is largely radiation, but the effects are pretty obvious, both from the documents and what I previously stated. Anything in this range is going to be damaged in some regard, at minimum.

Figure V.18, Page 40, gives an example of the extent of the E-3 bubble. Note, however, that it is from a far smaller blast than in question here, so it will be larger in all directions. As for how long the distortion lasts, the document I list later in this says a minute or so. Anything in this bubble region is toast. The wave resulting from this will hit more or less the same areas as the E1 wave, and likely more. The figure, V.16, on page 38, also goes into this. The damage goes much, much, further than just low-orbit.

In short, however, these effects are going to go over the equator, especially in the western hemisphere.

Even ignoring that, you have the radiation bands left over. High-altitude blasts, in addition to the EMP, also have the effect of both pumping the Van Allen belt with electrons, and creating new, temporary, ones of their own. All of which will remain for years. (see later document, and parts of the previous one) To a small extent, the same can be observed on a tiny scale by the EMP forced up through the atmosphere by blasts inside it, though those will not last long by comparison. Anything that touches any of this - primarily, in low-earth orbit, but not confined to it by any means - has a life expectancy of weeks, at most. The Inner belt will get the full force of this, and the Outer belt, while not near as bad, will get it too. And this, while strongest as you get nearer the blasts, will impact at least a third of the belts for each strike(s). The created ones will be pretty well confined to LEO and maybe the lower ranges of MEO.

South, I have said previously that the atmosphere does add resistance. You've said nothing with that that I did not already do in some form.

Note, as well, in the previous document what happens to satellite life expectancy when they get the radiation blast. It plummets in LEO, and is lowered across the board.

As for the bit about the survivor states, all it does is make a few elements - namely, a few military forces - a bit more plausible and better-equiped.

Here, as well, is the overall testimony the creator of that wikipedia map gave to congress, without pictures, etc., which are said to be in some "appendix." Others are also testifying.

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/security/has197010.000/has197010_1.HTM

This document also states that a likely warhead size for the ones over the USA being 10MT or so in size, far larger than the vast majority of examples in these files. Expect a similar size, minimum, in the one over the Urals - likely, though, it is larger, given there is a single one. In other words, effects from any examples given are going to be amplified by a fair margin.

--- LG, Oct 15, 2011


 * First, I apologize for cutting into your running commentary, but it makes it a little easier for me. Anyway, I thank you for your research. Unfortunately, I was not able to access the pdf document. I was not as diligent as Fx in doing additional searches. Therefore, all I did was present what I had without comment. I still hold, though, that the southern hemisphere would be able to communicate even with a devistated north. SouthWriter 14:30, October 15, 2011 (UTC)

@Fx

A lot of the last section applies to you, too.

It's not just beneath. Virtually any sats that cross the afflicted regions up to a couple thousand km are going to be damaged. The image of the E3 distortion - which I gather is much smaller in size than 10MT - shows that far up. Here, it'll be more.

You are correct that they will remain largely in those areas. However, they will not be confined to that location, and especially not that altitude. Movement will occur - there's a lot of variation in where such belts are daily - and they will extend for hundreds, if not a couple thousand, km. As for a time length, 1990 seems to be a conservative estimate. The Natural belts, too, are more or less global.

Pretty well any satellite that records anything is far more likely to be immediately, or eventually, afflicted, too. Spy, Weather, Science, etc. Any satellites that are older would join them. Have a look around at how long these lower - LEO/MEO - ones normally last. Wikipedia has a nice list of Soviet launches that can be used for comparable - most are down otl within six months. Logical, I assume, for the US/Other sats to be similar.

And, yet, all of that ignores the atmospheric factors. Remember the fires, and the blasts themselves? And the Global cooling/warming? All of that, in addition to raising hell globally with radio, is going to have the same impact on communications with satellites. Taking a similar occurrence - Krakatoa - into account, this will be a factor for years.

Pretty much any satellite that passes over, and especially in, one of the blast-afflicted areas is going to get damaged. Even those at geo-synchronous orbit are going to get hurt, though it will be minimal due to distance.

Degradation's more or less been covered. In the first document I quoted, there's some very nice tables about the subject. Stations that monitor satellites are also really not any help to contacting satellites - they're supposed to just keep tabs on where they are.

The Australia complex is actually a communicating station with spacecraft. Satellites - not Aussie ones, but still - have been launched from there, or are controlled, even. After DD, it is probably the only spot on earth actually capable of communicating with satellites - not with others via the satellites, but the machines themselves - that is left.

As for the Space Station, you have to remember that it also has people on board. It can do things that the satellites can't.

Remember all the interference will greatly hinder any communications. Not only do you have issues with regards as to where a signal might be received, but all the aforementioned issues with the atmosphere, etc. to take into account.

Based on the quoted files, most LEO satellites - besides a few of the newer ones, and anything hardened along with those in the extreme southernmost orbits - will likely go down by mid-1984. Pretty much all of what's left will either be inaccessible, or down, within a couple more years. Anything higher will have its survival greatly reduced as well, between the nuclear effects and the lack of control.

Remember, Fx, that the effects of the EMP are going to extend outside of their radius - Power lines, for instance, will carry the current beyond it in many instances. During one Atmospheric test done in the USSR, 1000 miles of one power line was rendered inoperable, well outside of the EMP radius. While not hit directly, Newfoundland is still going to have some effects that will hurt cables there.

Then, too, as I said to Caer, you have all of the little quakes from the bombs. Earthquakes, between the tremors and undersea slides, cause a lot of damage to them too. Some years ago, for instance, there was a small earthquake off the coast of Newfoundland that caused a slide which took out most of the cables originating there. While all of the nukes going off here would, for the most part, only cause small ones, it's the shear quantity. There will be breaks from it. And, too, you have the blasts on the fleets, which will also make problems. Not only that, but blast waves from strikes on coastal cities - some of which will go off in their harbors, some not - will travel a ways, hurting the cables even more. The things are just so blasted fragile, really.

The problems from the ground/air attacks, and the continental EMP, will trickle down the globe. For the first bit, you're going to have some problems in the south, no question. For the large part, by mid-1984, that will mitigate itself. A situation, Fx, if you'd read more, you'd know is already the case. The Vatican and ANZC history articles, as a case in point. But by this time, most of the hemisphere is already in some sort of chaos, so the point is largely moot.

By March of 1984, iffy long-range communication has been established between the future ANZC and Mexico. By year's end, this is extended to the SAC, which is more in touch with itself and the Caribbean, as well as Western Africa - what's left of it, after the breakdown in order. Most of Asia from Pakistan eastwards, and Southern Africa, along the coasts, as well is in some form of contact. By the end of 1988, this would likely be extended, in some form, to the Gulf States.

Fx, the extent of the distortion in both size and time is very much an unknown. Every article I've ever found has mentioned their numbers, but that so much is unknown that they really have no idea. Nor is any of their guesses, really, for an event on this scale. In most of the Northern Hemisphere, it'll be months, minimum, and probably a few years. Days to Weeks in the South, excepting a few islands, much of Yemen, and parts of Australia. The Yemen strikes also, combined with others in the area, cast a pall on things in the region and hinder communications there.

Australia is on record as receiving those supplies, in some form, from Indonesia, by the end of 1983. Add to that that 30-40, minimum, of their population is more or less gone, and their oil needs are met. They would still ration a bit, but overall it's not an issue at all. I've already covered the rest of that paragraph.

I think that just about covers it.

Past that, Fx and South, I did also say one thing you've missed: That there is going to be misfires, malfunctions, etc. in orbit of ICBMs. Nothing is perfect, and we're talking about the silos, which are big targets, so they will have EMP, Fires, etc. around them at some point. Add to that that Satellites up there, of which there's a tiny chance may be in the way, (minuscule, I know, but not 100% impossible) and missile defenses from the ground, which despite being, honestly, almost useless here, could set off something.

This would vary. First, I know we've made notes in the past about things in the south that were not hit, but were potential targets. As of now, we've gone with them not getting hit. Nor am I in any way arguing that they should be. Rather, we could have one of them be targeted, and the missile simply go off prematurely in LEO. Won't be near as big as the purposeful ones, but the effect does spread that way. Would have to be over the ocean somewhere, but it's not impossible. Have it be off-course, or something like that, too, maybe. Maybe north of New Zealand, potential aiming for an NZ strike. No matter the aiming, it's not impossible. Heck, given all of the strikes that were off - likely for this reason - it's not that far out of this world. This would, in any form, apply the damages, on a lesser scale, in the south too.

Alternatively, as a second option, we could set off something further out in space. Much the same idea - basically, however, in this case the effect is that rather than going off prematurely in that manner, it just shoots off into space. Way I figure it, given that we know airbursts are possible, meaning that there's some sort of timing mechanism, just have the sucker go off when the programmed distance has been reached. That far out there, as you see in the first source I noted, the effects from LEO, while having many of them harmless, are going to have the same net effect on the GSO satellites, and impact the lower ones to varying degrees too.

Neither option - both unneeded, in my opinion - changes much of anything other than a line on the EMP page. But that should solve all of these little "problems."

For more info, overall, on EMP:

http://www.dakotavoice.com/2010/12/emp-death-of-america-in-the-blink-of-an-eye?wpmp_tp=2&wpmp_switcher=desktop

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/11/EMP-Attacks-What-the-US-Must-Do-Now

Lastly, to Brian's little note: No need to even consider either of those options. Most of Fx's problem with this was already fixed by you and me - or at least started to be - months ago with the Vatican and ANZC history articles. He's just not noticed, by and large. Any reboot, be it hard or soft, is pretty much crazy by this point.

Lordganon 07:53, October 15, 2011 (UTC)

Satellites Launched from 1980 - 1983

 * Also, I have compiled a list of satellites launched from Jan 1, 1980 to Sept. 22, 1983, that are still in the same orbits today. I was not able, so far, to determine how long each was operative, but what I read has them with at least a five year life span. This is especially true with the geosynchronous satellites since they have very little 'drag' at their extreme distance. I will paste the list below as a subpoint to this one so that it can be copied and/or removed more easily if need me.

I wanted to take some time to expand in greater detail regarding my earlier thoughts on the subject of communication in the post Doomsday world. I realize I may be restating some points already raised.

Cosmos 1150 (Sovet: Polar, mid Atlantic & Indian Oceans) 1980.01.14 alt. 640 miles

OPS 6393 US:Geosync equatorial over Brazil 1980.01.18

Cosmos 1151 (USSR: Polar, mid-Pacific, Euro-African) 1980.01.23 303 miles

Cosmos 1153 (Sovet: Polar, South America & Indian Oceans) 1980.01.25 630 miles

OPS 5117 (Navstar 5) US: Mid Orbit 12,650 miles 1980.02.09

Raduga 6 USSR: Geosync over Singapore 1980.02.20

Anyame 2 Japan: Equatorial high orbit 18,845 miles 1980.02.22

Cosmos 1168 Soviet: low orbit 630 miles 1980.03.17

OPS 5118 (Navestar 6) Mid orbit 11,912 miles 1980.04.26

GORIZONT 4 USSR: Geosync over Gulf of Guinea (Equator) 1980.06.19

MOLNIYA 3-13 USSR: Low orbit 2000 miles 1980.07.18

METEOR 2-6 USSR: Low orbit 540 miles 1980.09.09

GOES 4 US: Geosync equatorial mid-Pacific 1980.09.09

RADUGA 7 USSR: Geosync over Equador 1980.10.05

FLTSATCOM 4 US: Geosync 1980.10.30

SBS-1 US: Geosync equatorial Pacific ocean 1980.11.15

INTELSAT 502 ITSO: Geosync equatorial between Hawaii and Austrailia 1980.12.06

EKRAN 6 USSR: Geosync over Indian Ocean 1980.12.26

{C}Cosmos 1200 series USSR: Low orbit 650 miles

MOLNIYA 1-49 USSR: Highly eliptical, Apogees twice daily over northern hemisphere (37,565.6 km), perigees in south at 1,925 km. 1981.01.30

KIKU 3 Japan: Tropical orbit Low -to high orbit 320-15000 km. 1981.02.11

ESIAFI 1 (COMSTAR 4) US: Geosync over Indian Ocean 1981.02.21

RADUGA 8 USSR: Geosync at "0,0" 1981.03.18

METEOR 2-7 USSR: low polar orbit 530 miles 1981.05.14

NOVA 1 US: low polar orbit 740 miles 1981.05.15

GOES 5 US: Geosync over Amazon basin 1981.22.81

INTELSAT 501 ITSO: Geosync over Singapore 1981.05.23

EKRAN 7 USSR: Geosync Arabian Sea 1981.06.26

METEOR PRIRODA USSR: low polar orbit 1981.07.10

RADUGA 9 USSR: Geosync over Singapore 1981.07.30

DYNAMICS EXPLORER 1 US: Very Eliptical polar (467 - 18,200 km) 1981.08.03

FLTSATCOM 5 US: Geosync over Kenya 1981.08.06

INTERCOSMOS 22 USSR: low polar orbit 496 miles 1981.08.07

HIMAWARI 2 Japan: Geosync between Hawaii and Australia (equator) 1981.08.10

Cosmos 1300 series

AUREOLE 3 France: low polar orbit (400-1400 km) 1981.09.21

RADUGA 10 USSR: Geosync over Indian Ocean ("0,90") 1981.10.09

SATCOM 3R US: Geosync at "0,0" 1981.11.20

INTELSAT 503 ITSO: Geosync over Indian Ocean 0981.12.15

MARECS A ESA: Geosync over Mid-Pacific 1981.12.20

CAT 4 ESA: High elipse equatorial (250 - 27,500 km) 1981.12.20

MOLNIYA 1-52 USSR: High elipse (1781 - 38,555 km) 1981.12.23

SATCOM 4 US: Geosync over Indian Ocean 1982.01.16

EKRAN 8 USSR: Geosync equatorial East Pacific (near 0,-90) 1982.02.05

WESTAR 4 US: Geosync over Singapore 1982.02.26

MOLNIYA 1-53 USSR: highly eliptical (1300 - 39,000 km) 1982.02.26

INTELSAT 504 ITSO: Geosync between Hawaii and Austrailia 1982.03.05

GORIZONT 5 USSR: Geosync near "0,0" 1982.03.15

METEOR 2-8 USSR: low polar orbit 580 miles 1982.03.25

INSAT 1A India: Geosync over Singapore 1982.04.10

LANDSAT 4 US: Low polar orbit 350 miles 1982.07.16

ANIK D1 (TELESAT 6) Canada: Geosync south of Hawaii (equator) 620 miles 1982.09.03

KIKU 4 (ETS 3) Japan: low orbit (semi-tropical) 1982.09.03

Cosmos 1400 series

EKRAN 9 USSR: Geosync over Arabian Ocean (E. Africa) 1982.09.16

INTELSAT 505 ITSO: Geosync over Indian Ocean 1982.09.28

GORIZONT 6 USSR: Geosync at equator south of Hawaii 1982.10.20

ANIK C3 (TELESAT-5) Canada: Geosync south of Hawaii 1982.11.11

SBS 3 US: Geosync Equator East Pacific 1982.11.11

RADUGA 11 USSR: Geosync over Kenya 1982.11.26

METEOR 2-9 USSR: low polar orbit 500 miles 1982.12.14

OPS 9845 (DMSP 5D-2 F6) US: low polar orbit 500 miles 1982.12.21

SL-8 R/B USSR: Low polar orbit 1000 miles 1983.01.19

IRAS US/joint int: low polar orbit 570 miles 1983.01.26

SAKURA 2A (CS-2A) Japan: Geosync over Indonesia 1983.02.04

SL-3 R/B USSR: low polar orbit 355 miles 1983.02.16

MOLNIYA 3-20 USSR: high eliptic orbit (2,000 - 38,000 km) 1983.03.11

EKRAN 10 USSR: Geosync over Micronesia 1983.03.12

SL-6 R/B(2) USSR: high eliptic orbit (2480 - 38,600 km) 1983.03.11

MOLNIYA 1-56 USSR: high eliptic orbit (2800 - 38,200 km) 1983.03.16

{C}NOAA 8 US: low polar orbit 500 miles 1983.03.28

TDRS 1 US: Geosync just north of Australia 1983.04.04

RADUGA 12 USSR: Geosync at 0,0 1983.04.08

SATCOM 1R US: Geosync over Indian Ocean 1983.04.11

GOES 6 US: Geosync near 0,-90 1983.04.28

INTELSAT 506 ITSO: Geosync over Indian Ocean 1983.05.19

EUTELSAT 1-F1 (ECS 1) EUTE: Geosync over Arabian Sea 1983.06.16

OSCAR 10 Germany: high eliptic order (equatorial) (4000 - 35,000 km) 1983.06.16

NAHUEL I2 (ANIK C2) Argintina: Geosync over Brazil 1983.06.18

PALAPA B1 Indonesia: Geosync at 0,0 1983.06.18

HILAT US: Low Polar orbit 480 miles 1983.06.27

GALAXY 1 US: Geosync just north of Australia 1983.06.28

OPS 9794 (NAVSTAR 8) US: Mid-altitude orbit 12,900 miles 1983.07.14

ARABSAT 1DR (TELSTAR 3A) AB: Geosync at 0,0 1983.07.28

SAKURA 2B (CS-2B) Japan: Geosync South of Hawaii 1983.08.05

RADUGA 13 USSR: Geosync over Brazil 1983.08.25

INSAT 1B India: Geosync over Samalia 1983.08.30

SATCOM 2R US: Geosync over East Pacific 1983.09.08

GALAXY 2 US: Geosync over Brazil 1983.09.22 -

Please note that there are scores of Geosyncrhonous satellites over the equator, most of them communication satellites. They are at 0,0; 0,90; 0,-90; and 0,180; as well as points in between. The Indian Ocean and the South Pacific have many Geosync satellites overhead. Several such satelites are over, or very near, South America. These would about 22,000 miles above and at least 2500 miles south (diagonally, that's about 22,140 miles).


 * I hope this helps a little. SouthWriter 21:29, October 13, 2011 (UTC)

Probably the thing I notice most on this list is the amount of "polar-type" orbits. Given what we already know about the effect of the EMP blasts, we can safely assume that these guys are pretty much toast, excepting pretty much the 1000 mile one, within a couple months. But even that one won't last too long, I figure, given that it would be going through the edges of one of the two "dead zones" nearly every orbit, at least once. And that a lot would be in range when the things went off, too, or within an hour of it.

Couple of the others pass through, or nearby, these areas too, especially the ones with elliptical - and highly elliptical ones especially - orbits. Not that any contact with those ones is easy normally, by and large, either. The HE ones, for instance, need special powered antennas, and pass through the belts disturbingly often.

Lordganon 08:10, October 15, 2011 (UTC)


 * Given the study done by the experts, I will agree on the scenario in the northern hemisphere. The polar orbits would indeed go in the dead zones at least twice a day, moving a little around the earth each pass. The highly eliptical ones, though, are mostly in the high end (20,000 miles or so) in the north (being communication satellites for Russia mostly). As such, they would probably avoid the radiation and debris left by the bombs.


 * Again, thanks for your research. SouthWriter 14:30, October 15, 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't be quite so quick to say that one, South.

Depending on the exact path of the orbit - I assume that not all of the satellites on the Molniya orbit are on the same orbit path - they would still come close enough to the earth, at least a few of them, to knock them down. But, I figure that all of them will get it every couple orbits, minimum - and more likely, given that it would make more sense to have them cross over the USSR each time, it's going to be a problem every time.

More telling, however.... Well, to quote wikipedia:

"Disadvantages are that as opposed to a spacecraft in a geostationary orbit the ground station needs a steerable antenna to track the spacecraft and that the spacecraft will pass the Van Allen belt 4 times per day."

Basically, you need special equipment to use them, and their situation will be just as bad. The Van Allen belts, while not as bad as the artificial "belts" according to the sourcework above, still get supercharged, at least locally, from it. Going to hurt, though not as bad. We're still looking at their loss, probably by the decade's end, with great problems for years before that.

Lordganon 14:12, October 17, 2011 (UTC)

First off, I'd like to say that I am new to this ATL, and I find it to be a fun mental exercise to ponder the what-ifs. In the end, it'll be a mix of the rationally-plausible and the fun-yet-inplausable story elements. If only Hollywood went to such efforts to validate scientific and technical plausibility in their plot lines :-)

Leaving aside the satellite issue, I would like to comment on the subtle difference between the impact of EMP on the wires vs electronics. From what I have read - I am not an electrical engineer, so I will defer to someone who is - the wires act as antenae that collect and transmit the EMP, which then fries the electronics (and sometimes the tightly-wound wiring in motors - like those Soviet diesel generators during their 1960s atomic testing). The powerline itself does not fry, but electrical equipment connected to them get fried. I believe that it all comes to the ability to dissipate heat produced by the EMP-induced surge in the circuit.

Getting back to the communication issue in the early months after DD, one could assme that sporatic contact could have been made between southern hemisphere governments by a variety of means - aircraft, ships, radio, etc. - but that they had their hands full getting their nations stabilized. Think of Neville Shute's "On The Beach" novel, where Australia was in radio contact with Brazil and South Africa, but otherwise focussed on their own concerns.

On a related note, I found the following about EMP and military equipment, http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/1988/CM2.htm : current decreases, which results in increased susceptibility to EMP. Vacuum-tube equipment, inductors, tube transmitters and receivers, low current relays and switches are less susceptible. Equipment designed for high voltage use such as motors, transformers, radars, relays, lamps and circuit breakers are not susceptible.''
 * ''Most susceptible to EMP are those components with low voltage and current requirements such as solid state devices, integrated circuits, semi conductor devices, digital computers, digital circuitry, alarm systems and electronic sensors. Generally, as the size of the device decreases, its ability to absorb voltage and
 * ''Most susceptible to EMP are those components with low voltage and current requirements such as solid state devices, integrated circuits, semi conductor devices, digital computers, digital circuitry, alarm systems and electronic sensors. Generally, as the size of the device decreases, its ability to absorb voltage and


 * Another necessary variable to consider is the collection of EMP energy. Collectors may be cables, wires, antennas, pipe, conduit, metal structures, railroad tracks - anything that acts as an electrical conductor (8:5-4-5-8). The amount of EMP energy collected depends on the electrical properties, size, and shape of the material comprising the collector. EMP energy may be transferred from the collector to the equipment directly by a physical connection or indirectly through induction
 * Thebaron88 16:28, November 5, 2011 (UTC)

First off, let me say that quoting that book is not a good way to get people to take you seriously around here. It's ASB on a disturbing level.

As I said to more or less the same post on the London article, you're missing a great deal of information.

The majority of mechanical systems produced or extensively after the - my research indicates the early to mid 1960s - are full of electrical components. Starters in vehicles, for instance. All of these suffer damage, at best, when hit by EMP.

And you are wrong about wires. They suffer burnout from the current just as bad as the equipment, in many cases. Electrical surges fry wiring all the time, and the EMP is just a massive surge, really. During both Soviet and American testing this proved the case when power lines in Hawaii were extensively damaged, and in Central Asia when hundreds of miles of lines were fried - well beyond the EMP range, too, as the surge traveled before eventually petering out.

As said elsewhere, "high-voltage" devices are actually susceptible. In fact, just as much as anything else. That report is... - lacking? - compared to other research. Electrical surges running through those things will fry them, in some form, or at the very least damage them. Most of the collectors - how "pipes" would be one is beyond me - would be effected similar to the electronics.

Lordganon 04:33, November 7, 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - it is tricky trying to differentiate between "current" EMP studies (like this one http://www.empcommission.org/docs/empc_exec_rpt.pdf) and ones that were relevant to the early 1980s. We are more vulnerable today than 1983, not just with the proliferation of tech in everything we use, but the fragile state of the current electricity grid today in our ATL (aging equipment running at or near peak transmission capacities more often than the 1980s - the whole infrastructure gap issue). That one report I found was dated 1988, so I figured that its conclusions may have reflected "the 1980s" better.

What would be helpful to folks interested in contributing would be some kind of simple "Guide" that would outline roughly what EMP damage is repairable (over short, medium, and long term - with limited tools on hand) and what is hopelessly irreparable for common types of equipment (e.g., rotary phones, engine starter motors, standby diesel generators, "unplugged" or battery-powered radios, transistors & microchips sitting on a shelf, etc.) This Guide would vary geographically as well based on strength of EMP, and would also outline rough percentages of equipment damaged (but repairable) vs irreparably destroyed in the areas.

As for pipes, back in the "old days", I knew some people who would attach a wire to their hot water radiator heaters to improve the signal received on their radios or TVs.

Thebaron88 20:04, November 8, 2011 (UTC)

I can see how you might think a report from the 1980s would be better, but.... the relevance of newer reports to the 1980s doesn't change, really. It's more a question of getting access to things from the Soviets, and thins getting declassified. Add to that more research, etc. since then too. The newer reports are far better in all of those regards. The grid, imo, was pretty bad in the 1980s too.

Without a tech base of some sort, repairing EMP damage like that is more or less impossible. Some of the more basic stuff, given enough time, might be fixable, but you need both the materials and knowledge to do so. Most places, this is not going to be the case. Basic radios, really, are about the only thing likely to get fixed, and even then, their range is almost nothing and the repairs would be years, at best, coming.

As for strength of the EMP, South posted a map somewheres higher up on this page showing some of that. But, that only helps the tech somewhat - basically, instead of all the wires burned out in something, only 2/3rds are.

More than 90% of equipment is entirely toast. Either too damaged, or it has things that just cannot be fixed/replaced that are gone. The remainder could probably be fixed, given time and a tech base - but, as stated, that will not exist for virtually anyone in much of the world here.

There's really no need for a guide.

As for the pipes, they would not improve the signals themselves - likely, any "improvement" is just a trick by the brain into thinking that the case. But, it may make the wires stay still better, which would help it. But the pipe itself would do nothing.

Lordganon 03:22, November 9, 2011 (UTC)

Problem Regarding USS aircraft carrier Nimitz
As I recently mentioned, I am still doing research into the communications question before posting my final analysis. As it happens, my research often leads me to explore another path I had not originally planned. In doing so I discovered a problem regarding a subject which appears in a number of articles. According to the listing, the USN aircraft carrier Nimitz and her battle group survived World War III and wandered about the world before learning of the Gathering Order, showing up in Australia two years and three months after Doomsday with other NATO ships. Unfortunately, it could not have occurred. I ran across an article dated 9/16/1983 concerning the murder of two sailors from the Nimitz. The article went on to say the Nimitz was in dry dock in Norfolk, VA undergoing an overhaul. Although I will confess a limited knowledge regarding some aspects of warships, I do not see anyway the ship could have escaped.

So I decided to track down how many US carriers were in operation in 9/1983 and where they were located. There were thirteen carriers at the time. As of 9/25/1983, this was the status of the ships as I have been able to dig up:

Carriers in Action

°USS Eisenhower stationed with MNF fleet off Beirut

°USS Ranger in Western Pacific following cruise off Nicaragua, left Caribbean 8-12 arrived western Pacific before heading to Arabian Sea where it arrived October 3

°USS Independence was stationed in Caribbean

°USS Carl Vinson was scheduled to arrive at Sasebo, Japan along with the US missile cruiser Texas and the USN missile frigate Sides

°USS Enterprise somewhere on west coast, ended run April 1983; likely in port

°USS Kitty Hawk likely off US Pacific coast; homeport was San Diego

°USS John Kennedy likely in Indian Ocean at time; OTL directed to Beirut in October 1983 following MNF attack

Carriers out of action

°USS America was under repair in Norfolk Naval Base from July to October 1983

°USS Nimitz under repair in Norfolk

°USS Forrestal under major renovations at Philadelphia Navy Yard which began January 1983 and lasted 28 months

°USS Midway under renovation in Japan

°USS Constellation under repair at Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, Bremerton, WA; entered January 1983 scheduled for 13 months.

°USS Saratoga under repair for massive work to its leaky boilers at base in Mayport, FL; expected to be done sometime in Oct 1983

°USS Coral Sea arrived in Norfolk Naval Air Base on Sep 16 for repairs; expected to last until spring 1984

With this information in hand, I considered who might be the best choice for survival and to replace the Nimitz and I believe it would be the Carl Vinson. It had been launched in October 1982 and was on an around the world trip with the Sides and Texas, eventually scheduled to arrive on the US west coast. There does not seem to be any indication it was traveling with a larger force. I considered what they might hypothetically do having survived an attack unharmed. I believe they might try for Sasebo, since that was their destination, and after finding destruction go silent and head for the nearest port of perceived safety. That could be Subic Bay or Australia. However, I would roll the dice and say they would head for Hawaii, arriving sometime after Thanksgiving 1983. Even zig zagging to watch for subs, I don't believe it would take them months to get there. It would also make little sense for them to wander around the Pacific running low on supplies and fuel (at least the Texas and Sides). They could hypothetically provide what assistance they could to the islands until the gathering order takes place in May 1984, at which time they head to Australia. As for the NATO ships making their way around S. America, it is still feasible they could do so on their own without a US carrier. Nonetheless these are my own suggestions. As the Nimitz appears in a number of articles (I did research/review each one), this would be a major change and one I would believe all writers would wish to discuss and reach a consensus before proceeding. I will be updating my pieces on Norfolk in the near future to reflect the carriers which were there and lost in the attack.

One final note to this. I did discover there was another carrier, the USS Lexington at the time. However, it was 40 years old, had only a crew of 1500, and was only used to train pilots because its deck could not handle any of the modern fighter planes in use at the time. It operated out of Pensacola NAS and was scheduled to be in Mobile on 10-2-1983. There is no evidence I can find it traveled with a fleet. Given its age and not possessing any nuclear weapons, it is feasible it could have been missed. I am looking at the possibility of doing an article where it is damaged by the EMP in the Gulf of Mexico, survives, and eventually links up with the US Atlantic Remnant. I would be interested in the thoughts of the writer responsible for that article as to what they think. Thanks. --Fxgentleman 04:31, November 15, 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's good to see proof of where it was. I had suspected that, though hadn't really tried to find any proof, either. No way it can escape.

The Vinson would definitely be the best. Not only is it in the best spot, but it's movements would have been a bit of an oddity, so it escaping attack would make a small amount of sense.

There is no need whatsoever to add any of that Hawaii stuff. Or to give it any activities at all. That screws with articles, among other things.

It's actually a minor change - literally, it's just changing "Nimitz" to "Carl Vinson." To consider that difficult is a little silly, to be honest.

Agreed, no reason to hit the Lex. However, the carrier is likely within range of one of the base blasts. Barring that, its electronics are useless, and its fuel limited - why would it be full for coastal training voyages? Wouldn't be. So, it's either gone, or entirely inoperable. If anyone has it, it would be Cuba or Mexico. Not the Remnant.

Lordganon 06:54, November 17, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I listed the issue here since it affected a number of articles, which my understanding has always been constituted a major issue. Anyway….you are only partially correct regarding changes. Where as some changes require minor edits, the entire back-story of the ship will have to be rewritten when the Nimitz is dropped and the Carl Vinson, if everyone agrees to its choice, is substituted. I will be upfront in saying the entire back-story for the Nimitz always felt rather dubious and unlikely for several reasons. That aside however, the basing for that story was that the ship was in the Atlantic and its "journey" was the result of that. The Vinson is already in the Pacific as of 9/25/1983 and it makes little sense for it to go to the Atlantic. Thus, among other things, it never meets up with NATO ships.

As to Hawaii, albeit a suggestion, I was surprised why you were quick to discount it. I realize you are aware of this, but there is something to keep in mind. These are ships of the US Navy with crews sworn to aid and protect the American people and as far as everyone knows it is a state of war. Although they might head out to a friendly nation such as the Philippines or Australia for supplies, or to regroup, they would want to see what they could do to help the American people. Being this is the Pacific, they would have the choice of Hawaii, Alaska, Guam, or American Samoa to name a few American states and territories. Also they have the advantage of having working aircraft they could dispatch once underway to perform long range reconnaissance. This could tell them what to avoid. But given HI is the location of the US Pacific Fleet and an important site, it seems logical they would try and reach it. An over flight of a plane would clearly show the state of affairs and that people are alive. They would understandably take evasive action for protection, but I just don't see them turning their backs on the US and fleeing to a foreign nation and not trying to help their own citizens if they can. This is why it is worth consideration. However, as I said, this is a matter for the whole group to discuss and decide. So in the end I will defer to what the group says. All I can do is put forward a logical analysis on the subject.

In writing this, something else occurred to me which is food for thought. What happened to the ships in Pearl Harbor? I would wager a guess some might have escaped to safety before the island was leveled. So where did they go? Did they run away or stick around to help? I reread the HI article and can't find any mention of this. This is all food for thought. As a thought though, it might be worth it to run the questions regarding the Vinson and ships in Pearl Harbor by whoever is handling the HI article and get their imput, don't you agree? I would be curious to hear their thoughts. Thanks. --Fxgentleman 01:39, November 20, 2011 (UTC)

I hate to see the Nimitz written out, since it's been part of DD lore for so long. But I can't disagree with LG nor FX, and I agree with both on the Vinson.

Regarding Hawaii: I can't speak for Benkarnell, but I tend to think if FX's proposal regarding the Vinson had been canon at the time he wrote Hawaii, he would have had the Vinson go to Hawaii at some point. I can't say that for certain, and if at all possible I'd like to hear from Ben in this discussion.

Regarding Pearl Harbor: without consulting with Ben, I would say for certain that whatever was docked there on Doomsday would have gotten away as fast as they could, assuming the ships were staffed enough to do so. I alluded to that in the Associated Press article. The assumption, going by present canon, is either no ship made it out in time or some did but were lost in the aftermath.

You'd need to find out which ships were in harbor at the time, if they were sufficiently staffed to attempt an escape, and if any of them would be fast enough to escape the explosion. IF you came up with a ship, or ships, then you could consider the ramifications regarding the Hawaii survivor government, the Vinson, the Gathering Order, etc. BrianD 05:41, November 20, 2011 (UTC)

Did I once say it wasn't a big issue? Seriously, Fx.

There is no need to GIVE the Vinson a backstory, since the Nimitz doesn't have one right now. The "story" as it stands right now works. There are many reasons why it wouldn't go anywhere, which I need to encourage you to think about. And, fyi, NATO ships are not confined to the Atlantic.

Discount? All I said was that it was unneeded. And, why would they go to an area that they could easily assume to be destroyed?

Pearl Harbor was hit by multiple strikes. Not only that, but to have Soviet subs somewhere offshore would make sense, and they'd go after any escapees. Probably the only real comparison would be the attack on Pearl Harbor. Not perfect, but it does give us some insight. The few ships there that got underway took at least an hour to do so, largely. While that would be faster here, it's still an issue. Add to that that a lot of these vessels are not going to be fully crewed, and that depending on the number in the harbor, there may even be an issue with some of them having to wait for others to leave before they can. Again, not perfect, but a clue.

Add to that too that such ships, if they survive, are probably going to be damaged, and may not make it anywheres too.

Lordganon 06:26, November 20, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, there is something of a back story concerning the Nimitz located in the article on the ANZS Commonwealth. Although it was never fully fleshed out by the original writer it talked about the Nimitz being in the Atlantic, learning of the Gathering Order, leading a group of NATO ships from the Atlantic around Cape Horn, running into an Argentinean sub, and eventually arriving in Australia in December 1985. That is what I was referencing. Obviously, the Vinson, if it was selected to replace the Nimitz, would change all that for obvious reasons. Thus a new story.

As to NATO ships, I haven't clue what you are referencing since I never said nor implied there are no NATO ships in the Pacific, which of course there would be, likely US, British, and French. If you are referencing my comment about not meeting NATO ships, I was specifically referring to the part about the Nimitz meeting up with and leading NATO ships from the Atlantic to the Pacific in response to the Gathering Order.

As to the rest of my observations, I stand by my earlier comments.

As to my analysis regarding the Vinson and Hawaii, If you truly believe it to be flawed I would welcome a friendly and honest debate on the subject. I look forward to seeing your detailed analysis and explanation as to why you think my suggestion is not conceivable. I will weigh and consider your analysis. I ask though you consider and answer the facts I laid out earlier.

Oh…keep in mind one thing, they would not know for certain Hawaii was destroyed. Once they were into the Pacific, long range aerial reconnaissance over places like it or Guam could confirm what was or not destroyed in the fighting without getting close. That would be the logical thing I would presume the commander of the group to do.

Fxgentleman 20:46, November 20, 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that article changes nothing. As stated, you only need to change a few names, and a couple of numbers. The story holds up.

To quote you:

"The Vinson is already in the Pacific as of 9/25/1983 and it makes little sense for it to go to the Atlantic. Thus, among other things, it never meets up with NATO ships."

You did say it. Seriously, Fx.

As stated: "There is no need whatsoever to add any of that Hawaii stuff. Or to give it any activities at all. That screws with articles, among other things."

Your proposed content is irrelevant. I stand by my statement.

Distance Between Honolulu and Nagasaki is 7134.63 kilometers (4433.25 miles) {C}{C {C}Distance between Japan to Guam: 2616.62 km = 1625.89 miles {C}{C {C}Distance between Hawaii to Guam: 6368.37 km = 3957.12 miles

Even with extra tanks, carrier planes are limited to a range of a lot less than that. With the carrier group either being in the Sea of Japan - or more likely, the East China Sea - at best Guam is what they manage to find. Barring that, maybe they see what began in Japan. Either way, the result would not be pleasant, and Hawaii is entirely out of the question. And Guam - and Okinawa, which they could also see with about the same difficulty - is very gone. Knowing that, the chaos seen near the mainland, and reports they would get on their own otherwise, it would be foolish to think that Hawaii, with all of its bases, would not be toast, at least mostly. They would go to the first safe place that they would have the fuel to reach - by my guess, either the American Northern Marianas or somewhere in Micronesia, also under American control at the time. Either one has them appear in the current timeframe and helping Americans. You need to remember that the USA has a lot more territory, especially before the mid-1980s, than just the states themselves.

Lordganon 02:36, November 21, 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, this is giving me a headache. Yes, I did make the statement and never denied it. Nonetheless, you took the sentence out of context. If you read the whole paragraph, which I know you did, I was talking about the scenario written for the Nimitz which involved it meeting up with NATO ships in the Atlantic. I can not imagine how anyone would presume I was saying there were no NATO ships in the Pacific. As to the back story I mentioned, I find myself surprised at what you are saying. If I take you literally at what you are saying, your suggestion is to simply fill in the Vinson where the Nimitz is mentioned and leave it at that?? So the Vinson will sail through the Pacific, go to the Atlantic, wander around, gather up ships, and come to Australia?? If that is what you are saying, I am so shocked I simply don't know what to say in response.

Having read your analysis for HI I understand the argument. I will not disagree with what you are saying. My suggestion was once the ship arrived at a certain point in the Pacific where it could safely send out reconnaissance and recover them they would do so. I am also aware of what territories the US has in the Pacific and considered that. However, I still feel, being US Navy, they would not turn their backs on the American people and would try to find out what had happened and if they could help. Yes fuel might be an issue for the support ships, but given the carrier is nuclear powered, I think they could do it. I still don't believe they would not try. However, given it is not either of our decisions to make alone, we will have to agree to disagree on the subject. I will go along with what Brian and Ben decide. All I ask, is the article which is eventually written for Vinson, is logical, plausible, and makes sense. Heck I will even help with it if anyone wants.

In closing, though, let me take a moment to clarify something LG. I am not on a mission to change canon and I have tried very hard to adhere to it like most writers. When I bring up a subject which I know could affect canon, I do so with great thought and analysis. Based on the discussions we have engaged in the last months, it is fairly clear to me you don't like things which may challenge canon or require changes. More than often that seems to be the bottom line of your argument, don't change it, its canon or since canon says so, it can't be. I respect your adherence to this policy as one of the editors. However, as a historian, I would imagine you have learned the same thing I have from studying history for over forty years, as new data arises you should not discount it because it challenges established theory but you should consider it and make adoptions if needed. Basically, have an open mind. The gist I have gotten since I started contributing over two years back is that when certain things were originally written they may have been done so without research. The writers have been willing to admit this and that the scenario needs to be adjusted from time to time to bring it into the realm of logic and plausibility. Thus to that end we have honest and logical debates, not just trying to shut the other writer down. I fully understand I am one writer and everyone is not always going to agree with me. I do hope they show me respect and consideration like I show everyone else and listen with an open mind.

Since this discussion has reached a point where it is just consuming our respective time and not achieving anything, I think it best for us to simply agree we disagree on some points and let it go. Lets just wait for Ben and Brian's thoughts on the subject and whether everyone is okay with the Vinson being substituted and we can take it from there and see what develops. Thanks and good night. --Fxgentleman 05:32, November 21, 2011 (UTC)

No, it was not taken out of context. Not in the least. What you said was that because they were in the Pacific, they would not meet up with NATO ships. Don't try to change your words after the fact. I don't care what you claim you intended, as that is not what you said. Not in the least.

Use your head. To quote my statement: "As stated, you only need to change a few names, and a couple of numbers." Read carefully. Does that say we just change the Carrier names? No. It does not. The article is very plausible except for a few small changes. If you bother to look at it beyond what you want others to do, you'd see that.

No, you've not considered the territories in the Western Pacific, at all, for you ignored entirely the hundreds of islands between points A and B. Which are populated by American People. To rely on your "feeling" about them being US Navy is weak, at best, too. They would go there and help the people there, but to say they would try for more is not plausible, because of their resources.

Excuse me? If you contributed more often, you'd have noticed the large number of canon changes I've done of that nature, with community backing. To say that I "...don't like things which may challenge canon or require changes." is slander. It just seems that way to you because I can, and do, argue with evidence to back me up that your arguments for changing it are wrong, and you don't like that. It being canon does play a role in any defense, but for you to say to me that "More than often that seems to be the bottom line of your argument, don't change it, its canon or since canon says so, it can't be" is wrong, disturbingly so. Only a fool would use that as a sole argument. And, you'll note that I agreed that the Nimitz needs to be changed, and even that the Vinson is the one is should be changed to.

My mind is open. Again, slander on your part. You only make such a comment because you don't like what I'm saying. Theories change over the years, true, but a study of history - especially, Historiography - tells you that this is due to bias and changes in the environment around those who write it. Often, in large amounts. One of the main jobs of a student of history is to see through that and interpret it as best as is possible. You don't discount new data, or old data, because it challenges theory or differs from it. You examine it while correcting for its bias and use it in your interpretations. You, while taking the new data, are discounting the old. Which is so wrong that it is not even amusing.

I find it amusing that you throw the "forty" and "two" years at me, like you think that it means anything. Some news: It doesn't.

Lordganon 09:44, November 21, 2011 (UTC)

I honestly had hoped the discussion would end with my comments yesterday evening. I am sorry you think I am being dishonest or deceptive or whatever nefarious things you are subscribing to me. However, that is not the case.

You are welcome to think whatever you desire about me, however incorrect. You don't know me that well, although I have tried to convey it in what I have written to you in the past.

I contribute so little in terms of number of edits, because I don't constantly edit other writer's articles. I have always had a policy to not do so. I usually do my research and then post my own peice as a whole or nearly a whole article. Thus it does not reflect volume versus times I have been here and made changes. If you knew the amount of time I have given to my research and writing here you would not made that conclusion.

I am not in here as often because of the demands of my job, which is time consuming. In dealing with you, I feel like I am walking on eggshells. You have said things to me which I found insulting. I have been hesitant to say much because I knew you were going to explode as you did above if I criticized you in any little fashion. Since you feel I have slighted you there is nothing I can do to change your mind.

I will ask some of the other editors in they are willing to moderate our disagreement at this point to see if a resolution can't be reached.Fxgentleman 10:50, November 21, 2011 (UTC)

Really? You insult me that much and expect me to not comment and call you on it? Are you nuts?

I've no doubt of the time you spend in the background. Yet, at the same time, you accuse me of things that are so untrue that it actually disturbs me, which if you paid attention you'd know.

Eggshells? Explode? Slighted? Excuse me? I have proven time and time again that I have no problems dealing with people, though I admit I do get annoyed when they fail to get the point. Nor have I insulted you, ever. But if you feel I have, then I apologize, as I have never intended to do so.

Yet, you have insulted me. Several times in that paragraph did you do so. There is a fine line between Criticism, and Insulting - and you crossed it, and then went miles beyond. To say that you have slighted me is an understatement.

Lordganon 14:44, November 21, 2011 (UTC)


 * First off, I must say that LG is a creative writer and an expert researcher. I have reviewed every article created by LG and a common thread is a penchant for discord and war. He has specialized in regional nations around the Black Sea, particularly in what is Greece and the Balkans. The stories read about the same, though there are different flavors. Overall they are predictable and plausible.
 * I have likewise reviewed every article by Fx, and have found his American articles the finest works of research anywhere on the 1983DD wiki, and probably the best on the whole alternative history wiki for that matter. His research, though not that of a history graduate student, reflects insight in to not only history but human nature. Though incomplete, his earlier articles on the Mid-East show careful consideration of the situation in the area (though I do have some questions, having finally read the articles fully).
 * I have laid out the above so that the participants in the above discussion can tell that I am attempting a fair assessment of the original concerns laid out by Fx. That being said, I will address the discussion. On my talk page, LG claims that Fx got 'nasty' first. Let us look at the facts, noting the date stamps. SW


 * LG: It's actually a minor change - literally, it's just changing "Nimitz" to "Carl Vinson." To consider that difficult is a little silly, to be honest. 06:54, November 17


 * Fx: Actually, I listed the issue here since it affected a number of articles, which my understanding has always been constituted a major issue. 01:39, November 20


 * LG: Did I once say it wasn't a big issue? Seriously, Fx. 06:26, November 20


 * LG: Actually, that article changes nothing. As stated, you only need to change a few names, and a couple of numbers. The story holds up.


 * To quote you:


 * "The Vinson is already in the Pacific as of 9/25/1983 and it makes little sense for it to go to the Atlantic. Thus, among other things, it never meets up with NATO ships."


 * You did say it. Seriously, Fx.


 * As stated: "There is no need whatsoever to add any of that Hawaii stuff. Or to give it any activities at all. That screws with articles, among other things."


 * Your proposed content is irrelevant. I stand by my statement.

02:36, November 21


 * Fx: Frankly, this is giving me a headache. Yes, I did make the statement and never denied it. Nonetheless, you took the sentence out of context. If you read the whole paragraph, which I know you did, I was talking about the scenario written for the Nimitz which involved it meeting up with NATO ships in the Atlantic. I can not imagine how anyone would presume I was saying there were no NATO ships in the Pacific. As to the back story I mentioned, I find myself surprised at what you are saying. If I take you literally at what you are saying, your suggestion is to simply fill in the Vinson where the Nimitz is mentioned and leave it at that?? So the Vinson will sail through the Pacific, go to the Atlantic, wander around, gather up ships, and come to Australia?? If that is what you are saying, I am so shocked I simply don't know what to say in response. 05:32, November 21


 * LG: No, it was not taken out of context. Not in the least. What you said was that because they were in the Pacific, they would not meet up with NATO ships. Don't try to change your words after the fact. I don't care what you claim you intended, as that is not what you said. Not in the least.


 * Use your head. To quote my statement: "As stated, you only need to change a few names, and a couple of numbers." Read carefully. Does that say we just change the Carrier names? No. It does not. The article is very plausible except for a few small changes. If you bother to look at it beyond what you want others to do, you'd see that.


 * The rhetoric began to get personal when LG considered the concerns "a little silly" and after a defense by Fx he questioned Fx's concerns saying "seriously" twice with an implied question mark. And then, LG ends with the charge that the concerns are "irreverent."
 * Fx began to lose patience, but remained calm, stating only that he could not understand how - or why - LG would come to the conclusions he did about what was written. LG questions the intentions by pointing out that he also says 'and a few numbers,' so the changes can still be small but not as small. Then he accuses Fx of misleading others as to his intentions. I have to conclude that it was indeed LG that changed the discussion into an argument.
 * I fail to see anywhere that Fx insulted LG in anyway, but I have been accused of the same crime for pages on end. I am sorry in advance if anything I have written tonight is taken to be an insult. SW


 * LG:No, you've not considered the territories in the Western Pacific, at all, for you ignored entirely the hundreds of islands between points A and B. Which are populated by American People. To rely on your "feeling" about them being US Navy is weak, at best, too. They would go there and help the people there, but to say they would try for more is not plausible, because of their resources. 09:44, November 21


 * What was point A? Fx says he considered the other islands, so why not believe him? His argument is that Hawaii would be where most Americans would be, and that a nuclear carrier would head there first. Guam may have been closer, but Hawaii would be a big concern and probably on the ports of call anyway since the ship was headed towards the west coast of the US.


 * Why should one's 'feeling' about the nature of the US Navy be 'weak'? Of course the Navy personell would seek to give aid to their countrymen. And they would most likely attempt communication for additional help up until the time of the call to regroup in Australia. To assume that they would leave American soil 'because of their resources' being low is an insult to the US Navy.


 * Midway Islands had around 400 people in 1983 in the process of being completely unmanned (13 people left in 1990). Wake Island had less than 300 people in 1983 (same process, down to 7 in 1990). Micronesia is far to the south and probably would have been assumed uneffected at the time of the attacks. At the first notice of an impending attack, a ship at sea would head to where it was needed most - in this case, Hawaii. The suggestion that the port of call in Japan would come first has merit as well, but Hawaii would be next on the list.


 * Fx: Based on the discussions we have engaged in the last months, it is fairly clear to me you don't like things which may challenge canon or require changes. More than often that seems to be the bottom line of your argument, don't change it, its canon or since canon says so, it can't be. I respect your adherence to this policy as one of the editors. However, as a historian, I would imagine you have learned the same thing I have from studying history for over forty years, as new data arises you should not discount it because it challenges established theory but you should consider it and make adoptions if needed. Basically, have an open mind. 05:32, November 21


 * LG: To say that I "...don't like things which may challenge canon or require changes." is slander. It just seems that way to you because I can, and do, argue with evidence to back me up that your arguments for changing it are wrong, and you don't like that. ... for you to say to me that "More than often that seems to be the bottom line of your argument, don't change it, its canon or since canon says so, it can't be" is wrong, disturbingly so. ...
 * My mind is open. Again, slander on your part. You only make such a comment because you don't like what I'm saying. .. a study of history - especially, Historiography - tells you that this is due to bias and changes in the environment around those who write it. Often, in large amounts. One of the main jobs of a student of history is to see through that and interpret it as best as is possible. ... You, while taking the new data, are discounting the old. Which is so wrong that it is not even amusing.
 * I find it amusing that you throw the "forty" and "two" years at me, like you think that it means anything. Some news: It doesn't. 09:44, November 21


 * Fx was wrong in assuming LG's motives, but LG gives the appearance that he is always right, which is indeed a fault on his part. Facts can and do get used to bolster arguments on both sides, and there is always going to be room for differences in opinion as to what might happen in an alternate reality.
 * LG is wrong in using such inflammatory language ("disturbing" and "not even amusing"), for it does nothing to help the argument, they are an attack on the character of the other party while defending a perceived attack by that party.
 * LG accuses Fx of "discounting old [data]" which has been demonstrated to be wrong. This is what should be done in an attempt to present a plausible scenario. It is not only wrong to continue to use such incorrect data, but completely at cross purposes with the proposed plausibility.
 * The fact that Fx has been studying history for longer than LG has been alive, and that he has been a contributor to select articles of his own choosing for longer at least six months longer on this wiki, does indeed mean something. Fx and I (SW) have lived the history that LG has spent four years studying, and by LG's own admission, his expertise is not even in American history much less modern history, which is what this present discussion is all about.


 * Finally, my 'decision' in mediation. I am sorry to have put Fx and LG, and any others who have been reading this, through the above points to get to the 'bottom line.' My counsel is to take the Nimitz out of the role of leading the fleet out of the Atlantic, having whatever vessels that made the trip around Africa go there on there own. And as for the Lexington, there is just as much of a reason for it to end up with the USAR as with Cuba (the enemy) or even Mexico (further away). If it survived, it could have made its way to Jamaica, which was home to American survivors and an ally to the Remnant. As stated in that article, much of the Caribbean fleet would not have abandoned the area.
 * As for the original destination of the Vinson, I'd say Fx's suggestion is a good one. As for how much they could have done in the few months before the Gathering Order, I'd think it would be enough to change the Hawaii article at least a little bit. That is under discussion with Ben and Brian, at is not up to the dictates of any other editor, be he Brass or not.
 * Again I am sorry this was longer than the brief statement I had originally planned. I hope this finds everyone well. It is late here in EST, so I am posting this from my text editor and going to bed. SouthWriter 06:41, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

Fx has accused me numerous times in the last couple days of things that are not true. That is insult, and slander. And these are over things that you, South, should know for a fact are not true.

So Fx is allowed to be exasperated, and others are not? He has failed several times in all of this to get what I have said. Think about that for a second, and what result it has. And then when he has caused me exasperation, and I express that, you call it a personal attack? Are you kidding me? I have not said a single thing that was insulting or personal towards him. Yet he cannot say the same thing.

Not only that, but in all of that you took several things entirely out of context. And then you precede to ignore or miss his response. Heck, most of his responses that you quote are not even in response to what you have them next to on here.

As the person who did the Superior and Vatican rewrites - and little others along the way - I can definitely say that changing words is easy. I was unaware of the ship article at that time - which should be pretty obvious. Notice how after that I do not refer to carrier names anymore, but it is changed to "a few names, and a couple of numbers?" Fx failed to notice it, but that is saying that more names than just the carrier ones need changing. Think about that. And I'm not supposed to be annoyed at that?

I do not consider it necessary in the least to add anything about it going to Hawaii. That is why it is irrelevant. That should be pretty obvious by my statements. Notice how I never once said that it was not plausible on some level?

And then Fx said that I took that sentence out of context. Not true. The entire post in which he said that, with the line in question bolded:


 * Actually, I listed the issue here since it affected a number of articles, which my understanding has always been constituted a major issue. Anyway….you are only partially correct regarding changes. Where as some changes require minor edits, the entire back-story of the ship will have to be rewritten when the Nimitz is dropped and the Carl Vinson, if everyone agrees to its choice, is substituted. I will be upfront in saying the entire back-story for the Nimitz always felt rather dubious and unlikely for several reasons. That aside however, the basing for that story was that the ship was in the Atlantic and its "journey" was the result of that. The Vinson is already in the Pacific as of 9/25/1983 and it makes little sense for it to go to the Atlantic. Thus, among other things, it never meets up with NATO ships.


 * As to Hawaii, albeit a suggestion, I was surprised why you were quick to discount it. I realize you are aware of this, but there is something to keep in mind. These are ships of the US Navy with crews sworn to aid and protect the American people and as far as everyone knows it is a state of war. Although they might head out to a friendly nation such as the Philippines or Australia for supplies, or to regroup, they would want to see what they could do to help the American people. Being this is the Pacific, they would have the choice of Hawaii, Alaska, Guam, or American Samoa to name a few American states and territories. Also they have the advantage of having working aircraft they could dispatch once underway to perform long range reconnaissance. This could tell them what to avoid. But given HI is the location of the US Pacific Fleet and an important site, it seems logical they would try and reach it. An over flight of a plane would clearly show the state of affairs and that people are alive. They would understandably take evasive action for protection, but I just don't see them turning their backs on the US and fleeing to a foreign nation and not trying to help their own citizens if they can. This is why it is worth consideration. However, as I said, this is a matter for the whole group to discuss and decide. So in the end I will defer to what the group says. All I can do is put forward a logical analysis on the subject.


 * In writing this, something else occurred to me which is food for thought. What happened to the ships in Pearl Harbor? I would wager a guess some might have escaped to safety before the island was leveled. So where did they go? Did they run away or stick around to help? I reread the HI article and can't find any mention of this. This is all food for thought. As a thought though, it might be worth it to run the questions regarding the Vinson and ships in Pearl Harbor by whoever is handling the HI article and get their imput, don't you agree? I would be curious to hear their thoughts. Thanks. --Fxgentleman 01:39, November 20, 2011 (UTC)

That explicitly states that the Vinson does not meet up with any NATO ships by virtue of being in the Pacific. Not, as he claims, the Nimitz.

And then there is this:


 * Frankly, this is giving me a headache. Yes, I did make the statement and never denied it. Nonetheless, you took the sentence out of context. If you read the whole paragraph, which I know you did, I was talking about the scenario written for the Nimitz which involved it meeting up with NATO ships in the Atlantic. I can not imagine how anyone would presume I was saying there were no NATO ships in the Pacific. As to the back story I mentioned, I find myself surprised at what you are saying. If I take you literally at what you are saying, your suggestion is to simply fill in the Vinson where the Nimitz is mentioned and leave it at that?? So the Vinson will sail through the Pacific, go to the Atlantic, wander around, gather up ships, and come to Australia?? If that is what you are saying, I am so shocked I simply don't know what to say in response. --Fxgentleman 05:32, November 21, 2011 (UTC)

Almost all of that paragraph is him calling me an idiot because he failed to understand something. Pretty obviously, may I add.

Fx did not remain calm, in the least. It all still is a very small and minor change, which he is making into something far, far, larger than it needs to be. The use of the word "Seriously" is an expression of extreme exasperation with Fx for entirely failing to get it. And even Fx got why I considered it "irrelevant."

Nor did I, in the least, accuse him of, as you so eloquently said, "misleading others as to his intentions." Nor have I started anything.

I cannot believe you missed how he insulted me.

To quote him:

"Based on the discussions we have engaged in the last months, it is fairly clear to me you don't like things which may challenge canon or require changes"

"More than often that seems to be the bottom line of your argument, don't change it, its canon or since canon says so, it can't be."

"Basically, have an open mind." (note that this is saying I do not have one.)

Not one of those things is true. Not only that, but the entire paragraph it came from is disturbingly condescending. Add to that the earlier one where he called me an idiot. All of that is highly insulting. Note, too, that I did tell you how you were being insulting, South, after you failed to notice.

'''Nor do I take any of your post here as insulting. And if you take this response as such, I apologize in advance.'''

Point A being the starting location of the carrier, and Point B being Hawaii. I had thought that obvious, but I can see how someone could not notice that. As I said, Hawaii is a major target, and it is perfectly logical to assume, since they would hear nothing out of that location, it entirely destroyed. In that context, they would help the American territories between Points A, and B. Namely, the rest of the Marianas and Micronesia. I don't believe Fx when he says that he considered them for that reason.

Weak - as in a weak argument.' They would go to the nearest American soil - Micronesia and the Marianas - to aid their countrymen there. Why on earth would they try for something, without any outside help, in which they run out of resources and thus help no one? Simple answer is that they would not, and would go to the area that they could help. They are not leaving American soil, at all, but going to more of it in the Marianas and Micronesia. I never once mentioned Wake or Midway.

To assume that they, after going to Japan - which makes a ton of sense, really - would just up and go to Hawaii - with which they have no contact and can only assume to be destroyed - and abandon American territory west of there makes no sense.

I am not always right, and have told you this many times. Hell, there's a few points in all of this - namely, the ship article - where it is pretty blasted obvious that this is the case, and I acknowledged it. Why do you never see that? Sigh.....

In refusing to acknowledge or understand my statement (Read: "As stated, you only need to change a few names, and a couple of numbers.") Fx is refusing the old data, which for me to find quite disturbing is entirely justifiable. While this is probably unintentional on his part, it is still disturbing to me.

As with Fx, you seek to bring your age into this. And his time on this wiki. None of that makes you in any form better than me, which is what Fx, however intentional it was, implied - and which you use against me on occasion as well, South. Notice how I never brag about my education? Think about that. Heck, I can only think of one occasion where I have even mentioned it beyond my user page, and that had to do with a newbie on a completely different spot a month or two ago when myself and others were called into question on our knowledge.

Furthermore, I know more about American History than you imply: virtually every school year (and in my case, year of university) has it been taught to me, along with every other Alberta student. It is not my expertise, true enough, but I have learned down here that I know far more than most of the American population. So, quit assuming. And the same applies to Modern History, btw.

A remainder: None of this is meant to be insulting, and I apologize in advance if anyone finds it that way, since I'm sure someone will feel as such, though that is far from the intent.

Anyhoo....

As I said with the Lexington earlier - which no one had much issue with, btw - it was a simple training vessel. There'd be no reason for it to have much fuel on board, and given its task, would probably not have been far out form, if it had even left, one of the ports, which would mean its death in fire. Really, unless it was about to leave port, the only fuel it would probably have in quantity on board would be aviation fuel. And we can all say that is not going to be useful quite readily. When I said Mexico or Cuba, it was meant to be more so that it drifted there, or they used the tiny amount of fuel to get there.

As for the Vinson, as noted earlier, I consider that without signals from Hawaii, it would go to its original destination, and shortly thereafter leave for the nearest other territory - which would be in the direction of Guam, and thus the Marianas. From there, it going to Micronesia - again, to protect and aid Americans - makes sense. And there, by my guess where its escorts start running low on fuel, would be where it stays until it hears the Order. The submarine gets changed to (probably) Indonesian, the sub attack site changed to the north of New Guinea, the hit vessel to the USS Hides, and the destination probably in Papua. Beyond that, there is the obvious ship name, the ship number, its motto/nickname, production dates, the stuff about strike group 11, and the location of where it finds out/who it finds out from about the Order. The Italian and German ships would likely need removal too, along with lessening the number of vessels. Maybe include a Japanese one or two to replace the German/Italian ones.

As stated, that is a small, and very simple, change to make. That is, and has been all along, my goal. To change things as little as possible, which is what we are supposed to do when having such issues as this - to to rewrite everything. No need to change other articles - maybe add something to Micronesia later on, since it mentions nothing between 1983 and 1987, but even that is not necessary - or to rewrite Hawaii in its entirety, and indeed, the situation in the entire Pacific, as Fx proposes we do.

Lordganon 11:49, November 22, 2011 (UTC)

I'll read through the discussion again, and add my final thoughts here sometime this evening (I promise!). At first glance on the discussion, I do tend to agree with LG on the idea that the TL should be tweaked more than overhauled. I definitely agree that the Vinson should replace the Nimitz. BrianD 19:16, November 23, 2011 (UTC)

Hi Brian, I am glad you had the chance to review the discussion. I am good with whatever the final decision of the group is.

I wanted to take a moment though to address one aspect of the discussion that I am afraid may have caused confusion among the writers without my being aware of it. I realized this after reading recent comments by South. It will take me a bit to explain, so I apologize upfront for the lengthy verbiage. When I ran the word Nimitz through the wiki search engine I found what I believe everyone else did. Some small mentions here and there which would require only minor changes. I did find though two things of interest, the first was the piece on the timeline page about the Nimitz in Papeete. Nothing much to speak of. The second though was an article titled ANZS Commonwealth, which was what the Nimitz was renamed when it joined the ANZAC Navy. The link to the article is: {C}{C {C}http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/ANZS_Commonwealth_(1983:_Doomsday)

The article was written in 2009 by Xi'Reney. I believe he was trying to flesh out a history for the Nimitz but he must have never gotten back to it, so it is only partially written. I had read the article on an earlier occasion when I was trying catch up on my reading. There were no tags to say it was an obsolete page so I believed it to be a legitimate article and part of established timeline history due to its age. Part of it matched against the Nimitz piece in the timeline regarding Papeete. The back-story, as I have been calling it was basically as follows: The Nimitz and her carrier escort were in the Atlantic Ocean and survived the war. They remained there doing what is unclear, likely hiding. In October 85 the task force is in Nigeria trying to get supplies when it learns of the Gathering Order. At some point a number of NATO ships joined the Nimitz and the flotilla sailed around Cape Horn where they tangled with an Argentine sub before arriving in Papeete in November followed by Australia in December.

Given I thought this was established history, I knew if my suggestion of the Vinson was accepted by the group, it would change. Thus my concern about this being a major change. If it had not been for this one article I would have concurred with everyone's later feelings about changes being minor. It changed certain aspects such as an American carrier not being in the Atlantic to lead the flotilla to Papeete and our new choice already being in the Pacific at least two years ahead of when the Nimitz arrived.

Having digested everything which has been discussed, especially as I said South's thoughts of last night, I now realize the possibility exists, and again I don't know if I am right or wrong on this, that nobody may have been aware of what I was talking about or why I was concerned. That is why I wanted to take the time to lay this all out to the writers as I have and if my belief is correct apologize for any confusion. All this said, I see two choices. We can mark the Commonwealth page as obsolete and create a new one for the Vinson; or simply revamp the old page to reflect the change for the Vinson, since it seems to me it will be the choice to replace the Nimitz. Whatever the choice is, I would like to ask if I can be allowed to do the article. I have already done a lot of research on the Vinson and have the data available on my computer, which would save time in preparing an article versus another writer having to dig it up. If everyone is okay with me doing this, all you would need to do is give me the basic facts you want the story to follow (where it goes, etc) and I will adhere to them in putting something together for review and consideration by the group. Thank you for the time and again my apologies for the lengthy explanation.--Fxgentleman 01:04, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

Damn, I have a headache reading thru this thing :)

Again, I tend to agree with LG. Soviet subs near Hawaii would have to be a concern.

FX, you are welcome to write a proposal, at least as far as I am concerned. {C}{C {C}One final word: the personal animosity that seems to have sprung up between LG and FX is most unfortunate. The very nature of this Internet based forum can lead to misunderstandings. --BrianD 05:25, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

How long do you believe the submarine threat would be a real issue? Since the Gathering Order instructed ships to congregate in Hawaii among locations would the zone still present an active threat as of that time or would it have abated by then. I know in the book Warday, about a nuclear war in 1983, they still have rogue Soviet subs running around five years after the war presenting a threat and needing to be neutralized by other nations. Just curious.--Fxgentleman 10:51, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

It would have had to abated by then. I can't imagine the government ordering ships to a site where they are sitting ducks. It does raise the question of how the threat of rogue subs, ships, etc. was dealt with. BrianD 17:01, November 24, 2011 (UTC)

Wow. That was pretty condescending, Fx. The only confusion was because you failed to get something. To change small details in the Commonwealth article, as I have said all along, is a minor change. And now you're apologizing for confusion you think that you caused? You should be apologizing for going off like that because you got confused over something I tried to get you to understand for days. The only misunderstanding here was yours. Changing a few details on a single page is a minor re-write - opposed to editing Hawaii and other articles as well, like you propose, which is a major one.

I am dead-set, given what you have said and what your ideas here have entailed - i.e. major canon changes - against letting you do any re-writing, at all.

As with allied ships, Soviet Subs would first try to get to their own ports/bases, and after that, allied ones. Past that, they would find somewhere safe to stay. Five years is a stretch, but they would indeed be a threat for quite some time afterwards.

Lordganon 04:46, November 28, 2011 (UTC)


 * First, LG, your perception of Fx are totally skewed. He has attempted to be a gentlemen while you have acted personally offended that he suspects that more than name changes might be needed. And finally, when he offers to use his research to rewrite the Commonwealth article around the Vinson rather than the Nimitz, you call it "condescending"! To whom is he condescending? He has done the work, and he admits that nothing like your feared "major canon changes" are in view, so why be "dead-set against" the re-write?


 * Other than that, any changes to Hawaii were only ideas offered to the editors in charge there. I still think that the Vinson would have gone to it's next port of call as a point of duty in time of war. But if it goes there, and if even if it changes that article away from the political coupe by the union leadership there, it is not as if that will change world history in TTL that much. And that is a decision best made by Brian and Ben, not you, Fx, or me. It was just as suggestion.


 * I guess, that being said, it is clear that I am with Brian and Fx on this one. The Commonwealth article will need to get the Vinson in place to come down to Australia because it is there that it becomes the flag ship of the whole fleet. It will be a rewrite of the paragraph that mentions the Nimitz and the NATO ships. Any mention of Hawaii will only be added after Ben and Brian have made any changes to Hawaii. If those changes aren't made, then obviously they will not be a part of the back story of the Vinson. SouthWriter 05:26, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Excuse me? That whole last long post he made was condescending. He blamed everything on us being "confused" by what he was saying when that is obviously not the case. He has not been a gentleman, in the least.

His "offer" was not condescending. Though, thanks for putting words into my mouth again. What was condescending was the rest of it.

He has proposed major canon changes, and did not once say that he would not do any. Nor have I expressed any "fear." Quit trying to put words in my mouth, I am absolutely sick of it.

Actually, if you change the history of Hawaii in that manner, you change other Pacific articles with it. And that snowballs.

Thank you, however, for the last paragraph.

Lordganon 05:46, November 28, 2011 (UTC)

Having been away for the last several days I have had a chance catch up to date regarding the discussion. So am I correct that it is okay with everyone to begin working on a revision of the Commonwealth article? If so, I was thinking it might be best to put a proposed tag on the article and perhaps list it under current review on the discussion page as such until it is finally approved. I can do this unless an editor thinks it is more appropriate for them to do so. If I should have any questions to how to take the story, should I post them on the article's discussion page for feedback? I am sure I will have a few.

Also, I just want to say I am more than glad to offer my assistance with any rewrites regarding this or any other matter within the DD scenario if the editors truly feel my contribution and knowledge can be of benefit. I normally don't offer to assist simply because it is often too difficult for me to commit my time due to the demands of my work, where as I can work at my own pace on my articles. Also I have never been comfortable with altering articles which are not my own, which is why I rarely edit as well. Please just let me know in the future on my discussion page if you need me to help out with something. --Fxgentleman 01:09, December 1, 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not all right with everyone. I don't know who should do it - Brian, I'm thinking the task falls to you - but not you, Fx.

Lordganon 06:52, December 1, 2011 (UTC)

No problem with me what so ever. My offer still stands to write it if the final decision of the entire group is to proceed. I will continue work on my own articles. Thanks for the information.--Fxgentleman 10:35, December 1, 2011 (UTC)

Nice to know that I got volunteered for this particular task :)

That isn't a problem, particularly if it helps keep the peace. I will need to clearly understand the timeline of the revision, which as I understand it is: One additional thought: not to put additional work on FX :) but I wonder if one of the French aircraft carriers, like the Clemenceau or the Foch, could be substituted for the Nimitz? The only thing I've been able to find is that the Foch and Clemenceau rotated in and out of Lebanon at the time.
 * USS Vinson somewhere in the Pacific when the exchange occurs
 * It travels to Okinawa to determine the extent of the destruction at the US base there, and on Japan in general
 * The Vinson then travels to Micronesia to confirm what they believe to be the situation in Guam, and determine the situation in the Northern Mariana Islands as well as give any aid it can to the people there
 * Having established contact with the NMI territorial government, the Vinson makes its way to Hawaii, eventually making contact with the Hilo city government on the Big Island around between Thanksgiving and Christmas.
 * Sometime afterwards, the Vinson establishes contact with the Australian Navy and with Mount Weather (perhaps through Mexico). The Vinson establishes a temporary base in Pohakuola, until the Gathering Order on June 1 1984.
 * The French frigate would lead the NATO Atlantic ships to Australia.

Thoughts? Brian. December 1, 2011 {C}{C}Thanks Brian, it looks great to me. However, any thoughts on NATO being called on by ANZUS to give up its fleet (see review above)? I can see some of the allies volunteering to help in the gathering of the US Atlantic fleet, but the remnants of the NATO fleet apart from the US ships are not under the authority of ANZUS. SouthWriter 05:03, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

My research indicates that it was the Foch that was off Lebanon in late 1983. Fx's article - on the Lebanon Peacekeeping Patrol - shows this as well, as has the Foch heavily damaged. It won't be going anywhere.

That means that the Clemenceau was in Toulon. While not currently on the list, to assume that the main French port wouldn't be hit is really not something we can do. Obviously, the French strike list is poor at this time, and we're still working on it, and that is definitely one we can't leave off.

We have no timeline set up. Hawaii is your discretion, and Ben's, but there is absolutely no need for it. Besides, to change that article like that means that we have to change in some form more of the articles in the area, which is something which we do not want. It also negates the idea of the carrier entirely, in that the Gathering Order is what gets it to the ANZC and its survival surprises everyone.

The ship as en route between Hong Kong and the US Naval Headquarters near Nagasaki (side note - we need to change the Nagasaki strike to this spot, as that was obviously the intent, yet to hit Nagasaki leaves the base 100% intact), so it would have been somewhere - it started wargames a couple days after DD otl, so to take into account port arrival, etc. - in the East China Sea, south of the Korean island of Jeju-do.

A French frigate is highly unlikely. At most, you're going to have one or two French naval vessels attached to it, but even that is a bit of a stretch. More likely, it is a freighter of some sort from the Solomons or Papua (or Micronesia, depending where it is at the time) that tells them, if they do not - more likely, given their location - get the signal themselves in some form.

In my mind, they'd spend their time aiding the islanders, likely ending up in the Marshalls doing disaster relief - the areas near Kwaj/on Kwajalein Atoll got clobbered badly in the strikes and waves - and find out about things there.

Lordganon 05:27, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

South, as I said above, the NATO vessels were free to go onwards from the ANZC and canon already states that they did so. The British ones, for example - the only ones we can definitely say would have been in that region - went on to New Britain eventually. Lordganon 05:30, December 2, 2011 (UTC)

Then should the sequence, more or less, be: BrianD 07:00, December 4, 2011 (UTC)
 * The Vinson is in the East China Sea south of Jeju-do when the exchange occurs
 * It journeys on to Japan, trying to determine as much as possible the extent of damage. The U.S. base near Nagasaki is confirmed destroyed, as are Okinawa and Tokyo (Nagasaki is in ruins).
 * The Vinson then heads towards the nearest U.S. territory: Micronesia. Guam is confirmed destroyed; things are chaotic in the Northern Marianas. Contact is made with the Marshall Islands. At this point it's known that World War III has occurred, although details are at this point very sketchy. The situation in the Marianas deteriorates so badly that the Vinson opts to leave for safer harbor in the Marshalls (but not before taking on some NMI residents).
 * There, the Vinson docks at Majuro Atoll (Majuro being the capital), and does disaster relief as you describe.
 * At some point, radio signals from Australian and New Zealand naval ships (the ANZC has not come into existence at this time) reach the Vinson; this is where they hear of the Gathering Order. The Vinson's CO orders the ship to Australia, but not before making sure it leaves the Marshalls in as good of a situation as it can, and making sure Allied Forces return there as soon as possible. The Vinson's arrival in Australia is a complete surprise, and welcomed.

TTL's reason why Doomsday happened
Now maybe I just haven't seen this anywhere, but what is the actual reason why Doomsday happened? According to people in the timeline I mean. We certainly do know what happened, but did anyone report the real story within the timeline?--Vladivostok 17:48, December 10, 2011 (UTC)

I've always assumed that only a few Soviets, at best, would truly know the exact cause.

That the whole thing was a mistake would have been known pretty fast after it was discovered I'd think, though that would have been heard by almost no one. I expect someone still alive in the USSR would know at least this much, and most people globally would know it. This'd be the reason why most people connected globally on some level would know.

But the exact cause.... well, those in the know of it exactly would be more than likely dead in strikes on bases, or Soviet Silos.

Lordganon 08:00, December 11, 2011 (UTC)

So the exact cause dies with the people in the Soviet bunkers, while it is generally known to have been a mistake by the majority of Earth by now. So the Soviet's are to blame one way or the other. That much I figured would happen, but we didn't really explore the chance of anyone being tried for the attacks. I know that would be almost impossible but I think that a growing global community would try and have some closure regarding the matter, maybe even form some sort of international tribunal.--Vladivostok 08:16, December 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * That would be an interesting movement, though I don't think they would ever find success. Anyone still alive who could be found to have some guilt in the matter would not be surrendered by the Soviets/American successors. Benkarnell 14:06, December 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * And the same would apply for any other state that could have any blame. I could maybe see a few people calling for it, but it'd be far better to have it over and done with, something which the majority would likely agree with. Lordganon 14:22, December 11, 2011 (UTC)