Talk:1983: Doomsday

Before you start editing, please read the Editorial Guidelines.

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

Former Proposals: | Page 1 | Page 2 | Page 3 | Page 4 | Page 5 | Page 6 | Page 7

=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

Greater Mancunia
since manchester is a Radioactive wasteland I have decided to relocateit to New Britain--Owen1983 01:40, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

I like your guts. You never give up on an idea. And since it is in Africa instead of England, I think this article could actually be possible. --Yankovic270 02:19, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * What exactly do you mean by relocate? Mitro 04:26, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Moving the the country to africa instead of england BTW thanks --Owen1983 20:38, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this idea is like the Republic of Lincoln. A simple change of locale, and it is a valuable part of canon. --Yankovic270 20:58, November 30, 2009 (UTC) i have relocated it --Owen1983 21:15, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yank how can you say this is a valuable addition to canon? Owen, it has already been established that only small part of the British population was able to get to Africa and form NB.  The population of Manchester wouldn't form a state within it.  Besides that article is already part of a seperate TL, you can't integrate into this one.  Mitro 21:32, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

Mat there is 2.4 milion people in New Britain theres 400 thounsand in Manchester so the article could work--Owen1983 21:53, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * Owen that doesn't make any sense. If you actually read the NB history you would see that most of the evacuation happened at the Isle of Wight.  Furthermore most of the population of NB is made up of people who were already there in the region.  Moving the population of Manchester there just doesn't make sense at all and was one of the reasons why the earlier version of NB were rejected.  Not only that but the idea of NB allowing this enclave to be created is purely implausible.
 * Finally, and this is most important, Mancunia has several times been rejected from canon. It is not a part of 1983: Doomsday, and moving it to NB doesn't make it anymore canon.

Mitro 22:02, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

Graphics / Visualization /Carthography
Section Archives: Page 1

New Map
I think whoever creates the maps for this timeline needs to get started on the new one, as there are a ton of newly confirmed nations to be added to the map. --Yankovic270 03:10, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think anyone would create the maps - as long as it fits with canon and it's approved by the community. I might want to try my hand at some mapmaking myself... --DarthEinstein 03:25, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * XiReney and Fero made the first few world maps. The latest one is mine, and since last June it's become very out of date.  Problem is that I was not following 1983DD for most of August and September, when the flury of activity really began.  I've been trying to read all the new pages from August or later, but just keeping up with current proposals is difficult... anyone is free to ad some or all of the new nations.  Or maybe it would be best to break down the labor?  North America is the worst offender; maybe I can upload a world map with just North America updated, and others can take it from there.  Benkarnell 16:39, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * I've actually already started a new map. I decided to build it from the ground up; that is, I'm getting the information from the individual articles instead of from previous world maps. I started with the Americas, and they're about half complete, and I haven't started on the Old World. --DarthEinstein 16:44, October 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, then. Ground up is probably best: I tried hard to keep it free of errors, but they crept in anyway.  Are you still going to include flags?  They have been sort of a tradition so far, but now there are many, many more of them.  Benkarnell
 * I'll try to put the flags in, but first I'm going to get all the borders. After the borders, then I'll get the names and flags. I also thought of creating maps for each continent simply by slicing up the world map, which we can put on the pages for each continent. --DarthEinstein 17:11, October 18, 2009 (UTC)

Hey Darth! What is the soonest time you can estimate the map being finished? --Yankovic270 21:13, October 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure; so far I've drawn the borders of most nations in North and South America, as well as the Alpine Confed, Celtic Alliance, and the small French nations. After I'm done the rest of Europe, I'll move south to Africa, then to Asia and Oceania. After that, I'll fill in the names and flags. So... there's still lots I have to do. By the way, if you notice any nations missing from the list, put it on. I'm using it as a referance to find all the countries. --DarthEinstein 21:31, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Could you post an image of the North American section on my talk page? I'm curious on how my nations look. By the way, Assiniboia has the borders of the old Red River colony. --Yankovic270 21:44, October 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said, I haven't put the names or flags in yet, but if you want me to get a partially finished version, that's fine. --DarthEinstein 02:17, October 20, 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say (as a comment after a long time), you might put it in a partially finished version when the names are done. Then we could decide if we insert the flags as well... But I would guess a separate map with flags would me optically more proper. I offer to do the "FLAG MAP Work as a first contribution after a long absence. --Xi&#39;Reney 17:55, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
 * Great to have you back! Also, here's a map update: I've drawn the borders for the North and South American and European countries, as well as the African ones except in South Africa, which has really confused me. After I'm done drawing borders in Asia and Oceania, I'll put the names in, and leave a space under each name for a flag. --DarthEinstein 19:50, October 22, 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I just did a whole lot of work on the map, and I think it's ready for people to see the first version. As you can see, the countries are not yet labeled. I'd like to hear any concerns over the borders of the countries first. If you've been following the TL you should be able to recognise most of the countries. The darker grey regions between the NAU and Utah, Utah and the Navajo Nation, and Aceh and Indonesia, represent condominion or contested territory. Any suggestions for the next version are appriciated. --DarthEinstein 23:14, October 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a little jarring to see so much of Africa, China, Europe, even the eastern U.S. in dark grey. That aside, the map looks good.--BrianD 23:18, October 23, 2009 (UTC)

I like the map as well but I have some issues. I may have relented on NAU Nebraska, but I respectfully want all of non-NAU Nebraska to be under Lincolnite control, that would give the Lincolnites both more territory and a border right next to the NAU. Plus the loosly-bound nation of Cave City, like the Okanogan to Victoria, is a potential site for future expansion of Virginia. That warrents, at least until official control is obtained, those dots of colour you see marking influence. --Yankovic270 02:19, October 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * Right; I haven't added any "influence dots" yet, so I'll do that for the next version. I'll expand Lincoln also, but keep in mind that the map I built this off of didn't have state borders, so it will be approximate. --DarthEinstein 02:25, October 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a problem with zones of influence. The map ought to represent definite borders for each country; in some areas (like India, Sikkim) these zones can literally change by the day, or a country can claim influence that it can't realistically maintain. The issue should be discussed, though.--BrianD 02:40, October 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point. The last map did not include claims for that very reason.  Now that we have dozens of new countries, we have to pick and choose what information to show.  This is really good!  It looks so clean, and the colors are easier to distinguish.  THe small changes I'd recommend:
 * Sikkim's independent government was overthrown a couple of weeks ago, IIRC.
 * I don't think that the North American UNion overlaps with Utah; that was an error on my map.
 * The NAU might more accurately be shown as three countries with a common color, like the Nordic countries. (I'm pretty sure that when I made the other map I hadn't actually read the NAU page.)
 * More of central Italy should be no-man's land. My map used diagonal stripes only because the Alpine and Sicilian colors were too hard to tell apart when I used dots.
 * But basically... wow! Benkarnell 03:24, October 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks about Sikkim, I did not hear about that. So it's part of the UIP now?
 * I'll fix the Utah-NAU border.
 * I'll separate the states for the NAU. While doing this, I tryed to decide what to do about Siberia. With the addition of Mongolia, Uyghuristan and Khazakhstan to it, I thought I might want a solid border like with the Nordic Union and, as you said, the NAU. But I thought they might be too centralized a state for that. What do you think?
 * I based Italy off of the page; for territory it said that they owned it up to Milan. I did think this was odd, and I guess you agree. So will they extend to, say, the ruins of Rome? Also, don't you think Sicily might be able to control the nearby Tunisia also?
 * Thanks for the help! --DarthEinstein 03:42, October 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm, that is odd about Sicily. I think the no-man's-land as I had described it was based on the previous map. Maybe Sicily only claims Italy up to Milan?  Or, Milan was the high-water-mark of their advance, but is not securely under their control?   And I know I have heard something about Sicily controling at least part of Tunisia.  As for the Siberian states, I'm not sure, since that's a family of articles that I also have not read yet.  (Sorry!)  Finally, can I suggest a darkish blue for the NAU?  Benkarnell 04:03, October 24, 2009 (UTC)

Okay here's the next update on the map. I haven't added names yet, but I have corrected a few things and added the dots representing influence. If there are any countries I've missed or made the borders wrong for a country let me know. --DarthEinstein 18:40, October 28, 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks good. A couple things I'm now noticing, and sorry for not seeing them before:

Benkarnell 22:05, October 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * Namibia's situation is still far from certain. Same iwth South Africa, actually, but at least this approximtes the countries we know are there.
 * The Yugoslav Union is smaller - I think it may have lost Slovenia & Dalmatia for unknown reasons.
 * Manitoba/ Assiniboia is small, but not _that_ small, I think.
 * I don't think Sicily would control all of Tunisia, on its exact original borders.

Wow,this is exactly what I envisioned the USSR would have in terms of land.It's great,good job.--Vladivostok 19:37, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you missed . Also I know  is pretty small but is there any way you can make sure its identified on the map?  [EDIT] Never mind.  When I zoom on the map I see that you did mark it.  Mitro 20:33, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * Zanzibar will be labeled, though I know right now it's practically invisible from a zoomed out point of view. From what I read about Algeria, it is divided into city-states, and so I wasn't sure how to make any borders. I decided that once I got to the name-adding stage I would just write "Algerian city-states" in the region. And thanks about the USSR, I was unsure if that was accurate. Should the different republics be separated by black lines, though, like with the NAU and Nordic Union? Also I'll correct Tunisia, Assiniboia, and the Yugoslave Union. With regards to South Africa though, I understand that it is in a state of canonical flux or something, so maybe I should just keep those borders for now and it can be corrected later when it calms down. --DarthEinstein 22:28, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well,the Union isn't as decentralized as the NAU or the Nordic Union,I think keeping it this way,with the colorless borders in the middle would work fine.--Vladivostok 22:33, October 29, 2009 (UTC)

Once I find a decent map of BC, I'll actually mark New Caledonia/Prince George's borders, as they encompass a lot more than marked. --Oerwinde 20:10, October 31, 2009 (UTC)
 * Bc2010.png shows how BC will be divided next year, but also shows the borders of Prince George/New Caledonia. --Oerwinde 21:37, October 31, 2009 (UTC)



I respectfully wish that whoever is creating the new map use these borders for Assiniboia. It is an old map of the Red River Colony, another name given for it was Assiniboia. --Yankovic270 20:34, October 31, 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'll do that. --DarthEinstein 20:43, October 31, 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. Just a small note on North Germany, though it is not (yet?) included on the map in the article itself, the nation has recently expanded to the formerly Dutch province of Groningen, it might be nice if that were reflected on the map. --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 15:58, November 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * It is included, just very small. I'll be sure to make the change. --DarthEinstein 16:24, November 1, 2009 (UTC)

I think we recently agreed that Belize is smaller, mostly coastal, and that a lot of the inland territory was lost. I could be wrong. Benkarnell 14:07, November 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * I really think Assiniboia is too large. Mitro 15:04, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

It is not like I am claiming all of Canada between Vctoria and the Remainder Provinces. I don't think Assiniboia's claim is excessive. The only impact is Winnipeg, as they pretty much made the area around it just as much a no-man's-land as the area around Chernobyl. And they did not claim it all at once. Maybe they started with what is shown on the new map so far, and just recently reached these borders. --Yankovic270 15:27, November 3, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think my biggest problem is that you are basing this on a vague and old colonial map and not on any other evidence on how far the nation could extend its borders. Furthermore what about the Lakota?  They managed to take over most of North and South Dakota and yet that map makes it look like that never happened.  Mitro 15:37, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

Ok fine. get rid of the colonial map. But Assiniboia still controls at least a small chunk of North Dakota. You said that the Lakota took over most of the Dakotas. It is possible that there is a a small piece that is not in Aboriginal hands. --Yankovic270 15:43, November 3, 2009 (UTC) Umm,there have been some changes to the Kazakh article that were unavoidable,since the regions I picked would have been severely bombed. Here's a map detailing what the Siberians would control,bordered in black. The bombed regions are a closed zone in the USSR. That will be shown in more detail,once Hellerick makes a map showing this.--Vladivostok 20:48, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

Can someone give me a report on how the map is coming? Mind that Assiniboia needs to be enlarged and given at least a small piece of North Dakota. But Lets face it. The new map so far only gives the Lakota a small portion of the dakotas. It still is plausible that Assiniboia can get as much North Dakota as possible.And while the southern border of Assiniboia is in question, the Northern isn't. I'd like that border to follow the colonial map as much as possible. --Yankovic270 22:10, November 7, 2009 (UTC)

I've enlarged Assiniboia and I've added the new borders for Prince George. I think I'm going to go ahead and add the country names soon. Once that's done I'll upload it again. --DarthEinstein 00:34, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Simply put, I still want Assiniboia's borders to bear some resemblance to the map I had chosen. --Yankovic270 04:42, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, they will. --DarthEinstein 05:23, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * Again I ask, why should they? Your map is an old map of the colony, it has nothing to do with the present TL.  Mitro 15:17, November 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * Just because it's a map of an old colony doesn't mean it can't roughly coincide with this country. Yankovic just happened across a map which looked like what he wanted his country to look like. --DarthEinstein 17:01, November 19, 2009 (UTC)

The map shows the borders of the last incarnation of Assiniboia, the Red River Colony. Anyone who has even a basic knowledge of the history of the area would understand that this Assiniboia would mimic the borders of its predecessor as much as possible. Yankovic270 17:21, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would they micmic the borders of the old colony? The likely expansion of the place would be a sphere, not a the shape the map represents.  The old colony map represented a vague idea of the boundries of the colony not based on geography and other factors.  Mitro 18:08, November 19, 2009 (UTC)


 * Mitro, the borders follow a natural watershed; take another look at that map. I don't know hther a confederation of Manitoban towns would be able to, or have a need to, incorporate settlements from North Dakota, especially since the Dakotas were a region of heavy fighting in the late 80s.  (Or am I wrong?)  But the Red River Colony was not a "map coloring exercise" colony; it was indeed based on natural geography.  Yankovic, obviously that's too huge. Or were you joking?  Benkarnell 02:17, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

No I never joke when it comes to my nations. I only changed my idea because of how important the one complaining about it was in the wiki. Now that I have some support I hearby go back to my original idea. Except Assiniboia contains absolutely no former American territory. Yankovic270 02:30, November 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * As I look at the map again I can see that it did follow the natural geography. That being said it is still too large for the nation in question.
 * When did I become "important"? I don't even have full admin powers.  Sure I'm active but I'm not the boss of 1983: Doomsday or even this Wiki.  Hell I'm going to be gone for a month soon, but I'm sure you guys will survive without me.  Mitro 05:57, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

I allready promised I would abandon any claims to former American territory. Yankovic270 13:18, November 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * @Yankovic: please do not take criticism to personal here...even though I understand if it touches "your" nations...No one offended you in person. And changes are generally to be made out from discussions and consensus reached, not by decision of someone considered "important" (@ mitro: your long and always fruitful contributions earned you some reputation within this (and the WCRB),, nothign bad about it)...No one is the "god" or "omnipotent institution" of this Timeline, neither Mitro, Benkarnell, me (though a few times I was tempted to think that, I openly admit) or someone else. If I am called upon, I try to find a settlement and thats it basically. I give my comments, and if in a rare situation a decision is needed to be done, ok... but that´s it. --Xi&#39;Reney 21:00, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

just noticed that yugoslavia no longer exsists. --HAD 13:43, November 27, 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, just to get the ball rolling again, I've made some miscellaneous updates to the map. In no particular order:


 * Central America: I added the Yucatan and used dotted lines to represent the Chiapas sepratists. I had Guatemala occupy half of Belize, which I think is canon.  I added El Salvador and Honduras just to show that they exist.  I changed Costa Rica to reflect the current situation and had the Miskito rebels occupying less territory.  I showed Colombia's annexation of the Darien rain forest.
 * North America: Added Eastern exas, Spokane, Chumash, and Delmarva. I erased Soviet Alaska because it's apparently been nixed, but I kept ANZ-Alaska to around the same size, since I doubt they'd have contorl of the entire state.
 * South America: I added a tiny Vatican state around Rio. While I haven't been able to get a straight answer on whether the Vatican's been given sovreignty yet, it will soon. probably.
 * Europe: Got rid of Yugoslavia, added Venice.
 * Africa: I added more "no man's land" around the New Union states, since I doubt they'd be as big as they were previously (just my opinion). I got rid of the big version of DSWA but kept a little bubble in the general area, because (unfortunately IMO) it is canon that a state by that name exists.  I added a rump Orange Free State as well.
 * Southeast Asia / Oceania: I colored in a rump Malaysia based on the current proposal on Singapore (not canon, but seems likely to become so). I fixed some minor errors regarding the borders of East Timor and the location of Christmas Island.  I colored Solomon-Bougainville and Fiji as nations rather than no-man's-lands.
 * I also corrected the borders of Ethiopia, Czechoslovakia, and the USSR to conform to 1983 borders. I missed the Caucasus, so that's a mistake.  (For that matter, I also forgot all about Liberia/Monrovia until just now.)
 * All of these should be considered suggestions. I'm not trying to take over the map process, just make a couple minor changes myself rather than ust point out changes that I think should be made.  Benkarnell 14:41, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * The map is ok,but you seem to have forgotten about the Manchurian and Kazakh republics in the USSR. Alaska is gone,but that doesn't effect the rest of the map that Hellerick made--Vladivostok 14:57, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * I kno, I skipped that one on purpose because I wanted to leave that to someone more familiar with htose articles. Same with North America - I skipped a lot of the "new" nations because there are some articles that I just haven't read yet.  Benkarnell 15:27, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * What about all those survivor states mentioned on the WCRB report of the southeast US? Mitro 15:57, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * Those are the ones I mean. This version isn't supposed to e definitive.  It just shows a few things that I thought of while looking at it. Benkarnell
 * It's an excellent job. I'm sorry to comment that in my idea of the Rif Republic was situated some to east and in the area of Tangier-Ceuta sought to establish an international mandate similar to areas of the Suez and Panama canals and the Malta-Lampedusa corridor. Do you think good idea? Here I put my idea of how would Morocco [] --Tristanbreiker 19:02, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

I want the same claim I had before. All of West AND East Viginia, the maryland panhandle, the first claim I had for Ohio on the Virginian Expansion section, and All of Kentucky in the Cumberland plateau area. I will not budge from that. --Yankovic270 19:27, December 6, 2009 (UTC)


 * Yank, it is becoming exhausting. Benkarnell 22:22, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

That is my claim for Virginia, and I will not repeat it again. That is the full extent of Virginia's territory, and I will not budge on every single inch of territory that I claimed for Virginia. I may have rolled over on Western Nebraska, but I will not here. With Nebraska, there was a dispute with the NAU, but there are no canonized nations in the Deep South region besides Kentucky, and the border with them has stabilized. But I agree. The sooner the final version of the new map is available, the better. And don't tell me you never had stubborn beliefs in anything Ben. --Yankovic270 00:16, December 7, 2009 (UTC)

New map of former USA and Canada:
i created a new map to paste in there all new norther america nation, because we know limit inter brasil-venezuela, but what is the fontier canada-superior? where is easter texas? delmarva and virgina are in the same place? Dineta have sea cost? who of them have contact to great mexican republic? i paste North American Union in blue, around whyomyn, add your country and upload a new version of that file, i was count 23 entities in former USA and Canada, where?--Fero 01:22, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

Assiniboia has most of Manitoba, except for the Hudson Bay coast. Virginia has a good chunk of Southeast Ohio, most of Virginia, all of West Virginia and all of Maryland not under Delmarva control. And Lincoln has all of Nebraska not under NAU control. --Yankovic270 01:32, November 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * okey, you can paint the map to we all read that easyly and clearly--Fero 02:24, November 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * look this, is relevant--Fero 02:53, November 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yankovic, after reading the discussion about Virginia's borders, I think the general consensus is that you're waaaaaaaay too optimistic, and Virginia as it stands would be hard pressed to control ONE of the three territories you say it's claimed - let alone all three. There's just too much population in that area for an easy assertion of control. Louisiannan 20:02, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

You can look at the map on the West Texas page for the borders of east and west Texas, relative to the former TTL (current OTL) state of Texas. If I can find a free equivalent of MS Paint for Mac OS X, I'll add Texas/Vermont/northern townships to the map.--BrianD 04:50, November 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * I've added Utah and adjusted borders. From the Utah article, we know also that there are City-States in Idaho that aren't part of the NAU or Deseret.  We also know that there is some sort of government centered around Spokane. Louisiannan 23:56, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but as I said on the discussion for the new Virginian flag, I have absolutely no artistic talent. The maps I created were with MS Paint, and Virginia's borders aren't exactly easy to plot. Yankovic270 00:08, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

New Virginian flag
Now that Virginia is officially starting to help the other survivors states in the South, they need a more politcally correct flag. Their current flag is offensive everywhere but the "Neo-Confederate" states. And no, I will not accept either Virginia or West Virginia's flags. Inspired by the little contest for the new flag for the NAU (and by the fact that I don't have an artistic bone in my body), I will take ideas for the new flag. Post your ideas either here or on my talk page, and I will judge them fairly.

PS: Owen1983, since you were disqualified for not being inivited, consider this an invitation.

Yankovic270 02:33, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Ok, here's my contribution. The blue field is the blue of the West Virginia and Virginia flag, the Cardinal is the state bird of both Virginias, Kentucky, and Ohio, and the stars represent the parts of each former state that are part of the republic. --Oerwinde 11:56, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

i like this flag. its unique.--HAD 12:21, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

We need at least two more flags for me to make a desision. HAD, why don't you make the flag you talked about in the Virginia talkpage. Yankovic270 12:44, November 24, 2009 (UTC)


 * Oerwinde, thats a very pretty flag. Benkarnell 15:33, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Until there are other actual choices, I will uses Oerwinde's flag. Yankovic270 00:21, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

i don't know how to crate flags. like i said, i like this falg. its cool. ho and bye the way, box containig info on North American Nations has'nt had the flag changerd.neither has THE WCP page been updated --HAD 10:22, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Nor do I. That is the whole point of this little contest. With only a single candidate, this contest isn't very much of a contest. For one thing, there needs to be other choices. I like Option 1, but where's Option 2, 3 or 4? --Yankovic270 20:18, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * Creating a flag is super easy if you have the right program. I just use photoshop and selection tools to piece together multiple images. I have friends who can fully paint things from scratch, what I've done with my flags is super basic stuff. Maybe I'll try to think up some other options or look at HAD's suggestion and make that. Any ideas? My first flag was trying to use a symbol of the area. I wanted something that symbolized the military but couldn't come up with anything, so I went with the state bird of 4 of the 5 states the republic had territory in.--Oerwinde 08:22, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

That's just it. If I had the right program. The only image-editing software I have on my computer is MS Paint, and somehow I doubt that is the right program. Evem I had a program I knew how to use, I have no idea on what to make the flag. --Yankovic270 12:43, November 26, 2009 (UTC) --Yankovic270 12:43, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

I followed a consideration from the community some time ago and I use INKSCAPE for the flags/maps I make... opensorce and for free... and if you have doubts? ...My then 9years old brother made the flags for Soloville, Kinshasa-Brazzaville with that program within 2 horus...:) and the I made with the program as well... really easy--Xi&#39;Reney 23:48, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I added HAD's suggestion of the Confederate national flag without the battle banner. Also, the modern confederate flag with reversed colors could represent a modern confederacy with the ideals of state rights, etc. Without the outdated ideals of the old confederacy.--Oerwinde 21:46, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Now that I think of it, all the options are good. The third flag makes me think of the Freedom Party flag in the Harry Turtledove Southern Victory series. --Yankovic270 22:55, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

I know I said I would choose, but I cannot. I will put it up for a vote. Anyone who likes any of the options message their choice (1,2,3). I will go out and say this: "None of the above" is not an option. If you don't like the options (and you can make flags), feel free to add your own choice. If the flags stay the same size as they are now, we can have a maximum of three other options. --Yankovic270 22:55, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

Wiki/Timeline/Article Technicals
Section archives: Page 1

Flle spelling standard
I think we should make some file spelling standard for uploaded files... it drives me crazy guessing names, or browsing through the galleries (not complete anyway...) sth. for flags, for maps, pictures etc. like 83DD_map_XYZ!"$·%%, 83DD_flag_xyzº12345, 83DD_photo_dasiud, 83DD_coa_ABCRUNFURSOMETHING... with 83DD btw the easiest abbreviation Ive seen so far. suggestion --Xi&#39;Reney 20:13, November 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * Another way to make your uploaded files easier to find and use is to categorize them so they aren't just floating out there in space. Flags, maps, and coats of arms have separate categories; portraits are categorized under "People", and I've started putting journalism-type photographs under "Media".  Benkarnell 12:19, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you ben but what Xi&#39;Reney suggested is a great idea a spelling standered would make files easier to find but i agree catagorising files would be a step in the right direction--Owen1983 22:41, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

Culture / Society
Archives: Page 1

Religion: Unification of Orthodox/Catholic Church ?
As much as I may be opposed to it, I still think it should be proposed...
 * With Orthodox Christianity and Roman Catholicism in tatters (Australia, Greece, New Zealand, Turkey being the strongest vestiges of Orthodoxy, South America being the strongest of Catholicism) the two religions might be more prompted to unite the Ancient Churches. Of course whoever is the caretaker of Catholicism might want to discuss it as obviously everyone here is going to have a different idea. Though there are still a great many matters that would need to be taken care of. Would the new South American pope even want to relinguish power to nothing more than "First Among Equals".

Mr.Xeight 02:57, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * How can Turkey have the strongest vestiges of Orthodoxy? What about all those people in Socialist Siberia?--Vladivostok 13:50, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Could someone shed some light on the proportionalities/basic principles in the Orhodoxy? Like numbers of followers in each country? And international hierarchy in between the Orthodox Church??

I would really welcome it if we treat the religious topics in a careful way (evolving them through rational discussion) as it is too simple to offend some readers/contributors with this issue !!--Xi&#39;Reney 20:49, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say it had a BIG population, only that there more Greeks who jumped ship from the Motherland and headed East. Northern Greece certianly doesn't, nor Thrace, nor Yugoslavia, they're all dead! And didn't the USSR surpress Orthodoxy anyway? Besides, are there even a lot of Orthodox Christians in the Russin Far East? I could just be stereotyping here, but I'm guessing the great percentage of the native Turkic Tribes of Siberia and the like are animists or shamanists? And of course you have to take into affect whether any Orthodox Christians in Siberia could even communicate with their Western brothers.
 * Xi, I can look it up. If all else fails, I can inquire to my priest, I'm sure he can direct me to an Inter-Orthodox website.
 * To answer about inter-Orthodox hierarchy, it's complicated... Let's use me for example. I'm a Greek Orthodox Christian under the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North & South America (now called "The Americas"). I can attend liturgy at an Antiochan, or Russian, or Ukrainian, or even an Oriental Orthodox (who are not in-communion with us.). I can even receive communion from any of the above churches (though receiving from an Oriental Orthodox church is frowned upon). That's about it. We're "expected" (a great deal of rules are unwritten and unofficial, they're more like guidelines you're expected to folow) to only get confession from our own subsect, meaning I can not receive confession from a Russian Orthodox priest. Unless there's a shortage in the area, priests from their respective sects give liturgy at their own church. I know of some saints who were Greek that became Patriarchs in Russia, but of course this was hundreds of years ago. There is an inter-Orthodox Group I know of, SCOBA (Standing Conference of the Canonical Orthodox Bishops in the Americas).
 * Doomsday might change all of this. For all we know the surviving Russian and Serbian monks who were forced to leave Mt. Athos might be able to hold liturgy in Greek churches now.

Mr.Xeight 23:29, November 18, 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone have any ideas at all? Is the caretaker of DD's Catholicism interested? Mr.Xeight 22:58, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

i have not had much thaught on catholism but but I agrre reunifications a logical step --Owen1983 00:25, November 22, 2009 (UTC)

You did not just say that...
 * You do know that there are other Christian religions out there besides Catholicism & Protestantism right? You do know that there Orthodox Christianity is the 2nd largest Christian religion? You have no idea how much that angers me to see so much ignorance in Western Europeans and Americans who choose not to look beyond their own life.
 * Do not come to my page and give me an apology, in-fact don't bother responding to this comment. Just be more informed next time you open your mouth to comment.

Mr.Xeight 00:35, November 22, 2009 (UTC)

As a Protestant, I feel like anything I have to say on this matter is limited at best. But I'm not inclined to believe that even a nuclear war would necessarily lead Roman Catholicism and the various branches of Orthodoxy to seek to become one Church. I am inclined to believe that adherents of Catholicism and Orthodoxy would continue to follow their own faiths.--BrianD 01:02, November 22, 2009 (UTC)

Owen 1983 is being his usual, irksome self again causing ditress for all. This time he created a page for the "Catholic Church", giving it only a completely made up timeline and a horrific stream of sickening typos.
 * Xi'Reney, have fun trying to discipline him; as if any attempts have been successful in the past. Hopefully this time he won't say I'm in cahoots with him trying to off one of DD's integral parts of the interworkings of the creative process.

Mr.Xeight 01:44, November 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * Xeight...agree, the Catholic Church thing is quite awfully made...though yet solved. if I should alone be trying to discipline this TL, the discussions and all around it...then I would have a new full-time job... which I would love to do indeed :) I think the wiki dynamic regarding corrections/discipline is quite reliable in this...even though I tend to believe that you will have a close view on his behaviour/contributions, out of personal motivation, won´t you?...--Xi&#39;Reney 20:27, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense that there would be a vestige of Eastern Orthodoxy in Turkey. After all, the religion was officially started in the city then known as Constantinople. --Yankovic270 21:32, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

And what about the Mormons? Or the Baptists, Lutherists, Anglicans and other Protestant sects? They did not vanish after DD. In fact, I think Utah might have made Mormonism their official religion. Yankovic270 21:49, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

Hey,really ist would be hard to unify the ortodxal and cathollics.I think that their may exist more different beliefs after Doomsday than before it. Despite that,i think we need an article for Ortodoxal Christianity,because there are still many in Greece,Siberia,and the survivors from Bulgaria,Serbia,Poland etc. --Zeifodd 12:47, November 29, 2009 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting thought, anyway. X8, did you have any concrete ideas regarding Catholic-Orthodox relations after DD? As an aside, did we even reach a consensus on whether the post-DD world was generally "more religious" or "less religious"?  Benkarnell 02:54, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * I doubt the Orthodox and Catholic churches would unite. Over the centuries the differences in teachings have gotten further and further apart due to the Catholic tendency to adapt Catholic teachings with societal advances, while the Orthodox church tends to try to keep to the original apostolic teachings. My opinion on the religiousness of the post DD world, I think depends on how heavily affected the region is. I think regions that were more or less unaffected might become less religious because of the whole "If there was a god how could he let this happen" type thing. Where more affected regions the survivors would likely have turned to religion either because they had nothing else or due to a view that god kept them safe through it all or something like that. Muslim nations would likely see the destruction of most of the Christian world as proof of Islam's truth, and would likely see a lot of new converts. Especially in Africa.--Oerwinde 08:19, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

Ben, to answer your question, I've always liked Oer's idea the best. It makes sense and that's what I've based my few writing regarding religion on. But yes, Oer, you're right they are quite different, something that I see all the time at my my predominantly-Catholic school. What I'd see the reuniting as a purely (how should I put this. I can't really think of the right word atm) act of friendship. They would be reunited on paper, their formerly individual churches would carry on as they always have. Who would be able to stop them? I'm sure contact and travel are nigh-impossible from country to country, imagine crossing the Atlantic to boot. So it's really only an act of "Our churches are in tatters, let's unite not because we want to but because we have to". Or at least that's how I'd see it. Mr.Xeight 23:46, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

I will try to outline my views on this matter. First, the differences between Catholicism, Orthodoxy and the Protestant churches is not confined to the question of the primacy of the papacy, there are also questions of dogma, which pose an insurmountable barrier to the union of the churches. Second, the lack of communication between regions of the world after the nuclear holocaust may frustrate the realization of the purpose of uniting the churches even in the event that it would raise. Third, the destruction of the ecclesiastical hierarchy of all Christian denominations, as well as seminars and church schools to the various religions lead to a phase of confusion, religious education seriously decay. Fourth, religiosity would be expressed with difficulties in a public way, not to say that is not published because it was the chase, but because the need would be difficult holding masses or religious events as we know them (migration, work forced, etc. ..) Fifth, most likely resurface millennial tendencies, according to which the DD. would indeed be the arrival of the third age of man and therefore the teachings and standards of the New Testament would have expired as well as the Old Testament for Christians. Heresies coming noww strongly. In conclusion. I do not think, in my opinion, it had a tendency to unity, but on the contrary, would produce a movement of fragmentation and church separate evolution so far known, they might even led to new churches and religions. It is true that there is a conclave in Rio de Janeiro, but it is possible for the survival of the Catholic Church in South America and other regions relatively well communicated outside these regions there is considerable room for speculation on this subject.--Tristanbreiker 18:46, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

Video Games
To make myself clear before there are any misunderstandings, this is not about the '83: DD timeline being turned into a video game. This is about the video games made in the timeline. For instance, I imagine a video game version of the Virginian propaganda film "Rebirth of a Nation". In it you play former President-General Thompson as he travels from Kentucky into West Virginia, and as he defeats the "evil" warlords. Any other ideas? --Yankovic270 00:46, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

The video game industry for this timeline looks bleak. North America was just getting into the video game crash of 1983 when DD happened. Nintendo might still be around as they are based out of Kyoto. However, thanks to Japans isolationist policy they are unlikely to spread out of their home market and save the video game industry like they did OTL. Thus I am wondering if video games would even exist as a popular form of entertainment 83DD TL. The one silver lining might be that Europe had a fairly robust computer game market at the time, so assuming there are a few video game developers left in the Euro-Atlantic fringe we might see a few computer games coming out every now and then, but nothing compared to what we see today.--ShutUpNavi 18:37, November 23, 2009 (UTC)
 * With no "silicon valley" personal computer tech is going to be way behind, and advances will be slower as well. I'd say we'll likely see OTL computer tech possibly around 2025. Unless we designate a new center of computer tech advancement. Possibly areas with good engineering schools that survived DD. Game consoles will likely not take off like they did OTL because of Japan's isolationism, although Japan might have a decent domestic video game business. PC gaming will likely be dominant outside of Japan, but with no Microsoft or Apple, PC's won't be as widely available either and will likely be mostly business tools. We might see some more advanced versions of those handheld football games and such from the 80s though.--Oerwinde 09:15, November 26, 2009 (UTC)
 * It could happen, depending on how technology develops TTL to get to an OTL 2000s level, and if Japan comes out of its isolationism and develops a video game industry. I actually would be surprised to see the Mattel handheld football equivalents in TTL 2009 anywhere outside the most developed nations of the southern hemisphere. Gaming, IMO, is largely board-based - it's much more likely people will be into Monopoly, or Risk, or for that matter the Rubik's cube than Donkey Kong. Perhaps, though, Japan can be persuaded that developing a gaming industry that goes beyond its borders will translate into $$$ for the nation?--BrianD 23:57, November 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * Having a near monopoly on electronic gaming, considering how huge it is OTL, in a world where people would likely welcome the escape it brings, would likely be a HUGE economic boost for Japan.--Oerwinde 08:21, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

Miscellaneous discussion
Archives: Page 1

Automobile production
i was reading thru the Republic of Superior (1983: Doomsday) article I noticed Macknaw Moters And I would like to create an article becuse i can see Rolls Royce been established in New Britain perhaps Saab in the Nordic Union and Mercades BMW Mesedes in Nueues Deutschland any ideas--Owen1983 17:26, November 26, 2009 (UTC)--Owen1983 17:32, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

Civilian automobiles in Virginia, if there are still being produced, would be patterned after the WWII-era military Jeep,or the German Kubelwagen (effectively the German Jeep. Either of these or, like the Thompson tank, a fusion of the two. --Yankovic270 17:38, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

FIAT factory is big and older in Argentina (real world), and i think wolsvages too in Brazil--Fero 17:43, November 26, 2009 (UTC) Fiat company outside Italy--Fero 18:09, November 26, 2009 (UTC)

I really find it hard to believe that anywhere outside of the southern hemisphere is producing running automobiles. My estimation of Utah (hardly hit and mostly civilized) and France (Heavy hit and hardly civilized) they are both reverted to horse and buggy, if that, aside the military, and even then, they're in a pickle to get replacement parts. Louisiannan

I think a proirity would be buildig factories and mas producing pre doomsday modals propebly powered by metahane becuse oil is not thet accessible but i thing agricural needs would be a priority--Owen1983 22:52, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

Eve if the Virginians are producing automobiles, I think the situation would revert to the time before Henry Ford and the assembly line. That, of course, would mean that the automobile in Virginia, despite its plain, militaristic design, would once again be a luxury only afforded by the VIPs of Virginian society. That means government officials, Generals of the Virginian Army, and the CEOs of the newly formed privately owned (though publically traded) companies. Yankovic270 20:39, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

Goodbye for now
Well guys another semester at law school is nearing its end, which means I have law school finals to study for. My entire grade is based on these tests so you can probably understand how important these next few weeks will be for me. Sadly I will be disappearing from the Wiki beginning today. I might drop by just to see what has been written recently, but I won’t be editing much if at all. My last final is on the 18th, but I plan to get stinking drunk that day so I probably won’t make my triumphant return until the weekend. So happy editing to everyone and I will see you again soon. Mitro 19:09, December 1, 2009 (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.

French Foreign Legion
From French Guyana I started working on this article...removed the obsolete and put it to work in progress/Stub I will focus on the detachment in Guyana... if our France experts would like to take care of some parts of Mainland Legion remains (if there are any??)...welcome--Xi&#39;Reney 22:19, November 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not much of a France expert but I do know the 13th Foreign Legion Demi-Brigade was stationed in Djibouti during DD. Mitro 22:57, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

I'm creating a page on CANZ Armed Forces.--MC Prank 15:25, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

India articles
I added information on Khalistan and Operation Red Blood which was blank before that. Any ratification problem --MC Prank 15:25, November 19, 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you link to the page? Benkarnell 05:56, November 21, 2009 (UTC)

http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/India_(1983:_Doomsday), here. --MC Prank 07:21, November 21, 2009 (UTC)
 * See also Republic of Khalistan (1983: Doomsday) and . Mitro 03:22, November 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * For Red Blood, why did India attack Arunachal Pradesh first? Wouldn't it make sense to first go after areas that are adjacent to UIP lands? Come to think of it, I thought the UIP was a pretty decentralized body for getting the different areas to agree with each other. How is it finding so much military success all of a sudden?  One success (Sikkim) seems OK.  But this step-by-step reconquest seems to be flying by awfully easily.  Benkarnell 02:58, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

It is easier to conquer Arunachal Pradesh as it borders the UIP from both sides, that is, if you have seen the map. Yeah, I realised my mistake. Now I'll Limit Red Blood to just Arunachal Pradesh and The current UIP members form a federal country. First, it stabilizes over a course of time and then goes on to re-claiming the break-away states. You were right this success was just too easy considering UIP just a provisional body. --MC Prank 16:26, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

LON Authority for Space Operations
To bring forward the issue of spaceflight (and in a larger frame more global themes in 1983: Doomsday) i propose the canonization of the LoN - Authority for Spatial Operations, situated in Kourou and established by the TSAR treaty in January 2009. Aiming at coordinating and supervising spacfaring and realted activities worldwide in the signing and ratifiying states.

A frame I worked out now, some details are needed (site for ANZC launch site... etc. I already tried to refer to what I found in other articles, but not sure if got everything. Harmonizing with League of Nations and other pages will be done if approved.

Thanks for your help and comments.--Xi&#39;Reney 19:01, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Before Doomsday the US was a major force in Space exploration but with the US gome the only two countries that have the recourses ar the SSS and ANZC and theres another thing how are these governmants going to justify a space program when people in meny parts ofthe world have medievel living standerds --Owen1983 19:07, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * You know what Owen, this is one of the few times I have to agree with you. Space exploration in all likelihood will be a low priority even among the first world nations.  Mitro 19:15, November 16, 2009 (UTC)


 * My intention is definitely not bringing any moon mission into DD. Any ambitious space program Would sound like Science fiction. I am mainly thinking about practical focus, e.g. satellite starts for reestablishing communications and/or meteorological/reconaissance purposes, maybe a GPS-like system in a timeframe roughly 2009...more economical than rebuilding vast terrestrial infrastructure once you get a functioning rocket system back to work. --Xi&#39;Reney 22:03, November 16, 2009 (UTC)


 * This is true, we take satellites so much for granted nowadays that we forget just how much the Space Race has benefited society. If you can just get a satellite up there, it is much easier to use it to communicate, instead of building miles and miles of land lines.  nd then there are the public safety benefits that come from being able to see hurricanes and the like when they're still out in the middle of the ocean.  Benkarnell 23:40, November 16, 2009 (UTC)
 * Satelites make sense, my concern though was for more ambitios space exploration designs I have been seeing pop up on certain articles. One proposal suggested that an American survivor state could make it back to the moon sometimes in the 2010s.  Mitro 00:13, November 17, 2009 (UTC)


 * Where is that page? Benkarnell 00:52, November 17, 2009 (UTC)
 * It was on the proposal, but Riley has removed it but has kept the space exploration which still seems unlikely IMO for such a nation.  Mitro 03:11, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

I could see Virginia starting a space program. Considering what kind of nation Virginia is, the space prgram could have started as an unexpected side effect of missile research. --Yankovic270 03:21, November 17, 2009 (UTC)

War in the Mediterranean!
Discussion moved to Talk:Second Sicily War (1983: Doomsday). Benkarnell 19:56, October 13, 2009 (UTC)

Discussion moved to. It had just gotten really, really long, and we seemed to be arriving at a consensus anyway. I'm planning on writing an article in the next couple of days, but they're going to be very busy. If someone else wants to write it based on our discussion, I won't mind. Benkarnell 15:51, November 14, 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion has stalled, and frankly I'm probably not going to get to writing this article anytime soon. Benkarnell 17:04, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

Delmarva
In addition to my ongoing work on the Middle East, I have created a survivor nation on the former US East Coast, Delmarva. http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Delmarva_(1983:_Doomsday) I have already opened a discussion page and laid out some of my thoughts. Since this is still a work in progress, I welcome your feedback and suggestions. Thanks.--Fxgentleman 03:28, November 13, 2009 (UTC)

Tennessee/Blue Ridge
Proposal pages for the Morristown and Asheville areas I referred to in the 2009 WCRB report on the southern U.S. I wrote up. http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Tennessee_%281983:_Doomsday%29 http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Blue_Ridge_%281983:_Doomsday%29 --BrianD 00:30, November 16, 2009 (UTC)

New British elections
British elections coming up! Bob 20:23, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * See 2009 Realm of New Britain General Election (1983: Doomsday) for the article in question. Mitro 03:09, November 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't the Anglo-Africans just continue parties popular among them, such as the Progressive Federal Party, instead of copying British parties for no apparent reason? --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 14:04, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * We've already noted that British people from the UK came to New Britain. Many of these people would have been politicians, with a collapsing government and civil disorder, when an existing stable party community arrives, it only makes sense that they would take root and stabilise political aggravations. Bob 13:09, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh sure, that make sense. It's the Anglo-Africans I'm talking about however. Why would they conform to a model identical to the one previously used in Britain and forget everything about their own political history? Especially given the fact that they form the majority of the population, that just doesn't make sense to me. Also, given the fact that South Africa used a system of proportional representation and I've never heard of any country that moved from a proportional system to a district system as rigid as the British one (correct me if I'm wrong on this though), my estimate is New Britain would definitely have more than just two to three political parties. You may even want to spice things up by adding an ethnic Xhosan party, openly supportive of KwaXhosa. --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 14:38, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing is I've put in alot of information into the table but it doesn't come up. Can anyone help? Bob 11:34, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

There would be a large Xhosa population, given NB's location. But Karsten, a couple things: South Africa's state collapsed and there was a lot of population displacement, so it's plausible that NB wouldn't resemble South Africa too closely. Though since most people would be used to a PR government, I would expect them to keep that. Benkarnell 18:23, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

I think kertens got a good point a political parties should reflect the ethnic diversity in NB --Owen1983 18:46, December 6, 2009 (UTC)

Growing National Liberalist party in New Britain. Bob 20:23, November 18, 2009 (UTC)
 * Is Charles York a real person? Benkarnell 15:54, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * No. He has been born within the scope of the timeline. He is is his mid twenties. Bob 21:45, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Iowa
I Have created this artical here http://althistory.wikia.com/wiki/Republc_of_Iowa_%281983_Doomsday%29%29 what do people thin I Know Yankovic expressed interest in thi article
 * It seems to have been deleted. Benkarnell 15:59, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * No its still here: Republic of Iowa (1983: Doomsday). Mitro 16:04, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh. Well no, that's no good.  Nothing beyond village-sized republics and settlements in Iowa, I think.  There is too much QSS material on Iowa's neighbors (Superior/Wisconsin, Lincoln, the NAU, etc) that presume a mostly empty Iowa.  Benkarnell


 * This is something that I have proposed over the years, largely as an object of amusement. Basically, family members and relatives of those people who have edited the Alt-Hist forum, as long as they were in a location that would enable their survival, are added into this list of "Honorary Citizens", since they are among the few REAL COMMON people we know would live after Doomsday. These people would be listed under the name of the editor. Bascially included would be there names, their location on Doomsday, their current residence (or at death), and if the editor desires a brief biography on that person, mainly aimed at explaining Post-Doomsday Survival. Currently, I myself do not know of anyone who would have survived (most of my family is based in Massachusetts), but I am pretty sure the case is different for others. Lahbas 02:25, November 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * I like this idea! It continues to push the limits of "creepy Internet behavior", of course, since we're no longer dealing with local politicians who, while very obscure, are nevertheless public figures.  These are going to be 100% private people, so we have to be extremely careful when adding to this page.  I'm personally planning on misspelling or altering the names of anyone I add (which is what I do with my own name on the Internet).  Benkarnell 02:30, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

Can we include what we could imagine their occupation after Doomsday? I have an Uncle in Kelowna, and I imagine him to be the Okanogan ambassador to Victoria. And I made my Grandfather the first Prime Minister of Assiniboia. --Yankovic270 02:45, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

I think its a reat idea as long as there kosha with it but its a bad idea to use there rel names--Owen1983 19:12, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

This is a great idea. I agree we shouldn't use real names unless we get permission from whoever we are writing about. I would also like it if editors from this TL could add in themselves. I am sure some of us could have interesting stories of survival to tell.--ShutUpNavi 19:45, November 23, 2009 (UTC)


 * Basically I agree, just do not get to euphoric to get people you know, your family or even yourself promoted to sth. important if you have no plausible story!!!

This bares some sort of spoil risk. This is a wiki, no personal "I Rule the World" story place!!! I can see some of you guys becoming some brave alt-history writers :)!! Me myself...probably dead, being only 4 months old...and in Western Germany close to British forces Bases nin Westphalia...--Xi&#39;Reney 20:03, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

I guess it pays to be born in rural Manitoba. Did you survive Mitro? How about you Darth? --Yankovic270 21:17, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

No, neither me nor my family is alive in this TL, save possibly my great grandmother in St. John's. --DarthEinstein 22:52, November 23, 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much my entire family was on Vancouver Island. Extended family as well. Except great grandparents who were in the White Rock/Tsawwassen area which was on the very outer fringe of affected area of the Vancouver bomb, so its possible they survived. So I'm doing rather well. Likely working in a factory or on a farm in Comox Valley, Dad likely still fixing cars.--Oerwinde 10:38, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

My whole family lives in very rural Lincolnshire, so who knows whats happened to me Bob 11:15, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Article on Soviet Alaska created by Vlad. Mitro 03:10, November 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to be annoying and stubborn, but. As I was re-reading the Authority for Space Operations page, I was reminded of another reason to at least be careful before we reject this page: the idea of a Soviet Alaska - and of some sort of Soviet-ANZUS conflict - has been embedded in the TL for some time.  It's not quite as bad as the Panama issue, but it's still significant.  I'm not sure how many pages we would have to look over and change if we now decide that there are not, and never have been, any Soviets in Alaska.  Benkarnell 17:01, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that you're fighting for the article to stay,I really am and I would be too, it's just that I can't come up with such a solid reason to still have it as canon.--Vladivostok 19:21, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd really rather not think of it that way. This canon issue, really, is what bothered me from the time that Alaska's existence was most recently questioned.  We started having proposals and canon for a reason.  We, as writers, were tired of not knowing what was "real" within the universe of 1983DD.  With a system of canon/QSS, you can be assured that what is written down is a "fact", and write freely based on that assurance.  It's like a pile of bricks, where every new item rests on what came before it.  When we start bringing long-established facts into question, like Panama and now Alaska, it's like reaching into the pile and pulling out a brick that's 4 or 5 rows down.  It doesn't affect just that one item, it also will move the ones resting on top of it.  The details of the Alaskan Autonomous Oblast or Territory or what-have-you were not fleshed out until very recently, but the existence of a Soviet Alaska, and of some kind of ate 80s/early 90s conflict over it, have been part of the body of knowledge for a long time.  The August world map includes it. (Yes, I know I also had a couple of non-canonical bits on that map, especially South Africa.  But the Alaskan situation was not mine; it was based on material that had already been discussed and accepted.)  I'll repeat that I have no idea how many pages that bit of information is currently affecting.  Definitely the George Bush article, for one.  But we are going to make a /lot/ of unpleasant work for ourselves if we get in the habit of debating and changing stuff that we agreed on already.  Benkarnell 19:55, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with you Ben. When I came here I was working with previously established data and this removing of Alaska from canon was somewhat surprising to me. But now I seriously have doubts in the plausibility of Alaska. Back when Alaska and Socialist Siberia were made, more than half the articles we have just didn't exist. And Alaska wasn't really an issue, since there were no articles covering the area, except the ones established, it was regarded as the best option. But now, after fleshing out Siberia and the surrounding area, people started to take notice at a few of the flaws associated with the article. And so it had to be changed. I'm not saying we should just go and rewrite everything,I'm just saying that we should try to work out some of the inconsistencies from past articles, as well as be watchful of new articles.--Vladivostok 20:59, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

Article created by Owen. Has potential to be a general article that can be inserted into the main template. Needs a lot of work though. Mitro 03:14, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Article by Smoggy. Proposal was on hiatus but is back as a proposal. Mitro 03:17, November 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * I still like it - just enough medieval flair to be interesting, but within the bounds of reason as well. I still would like more explanation of just how and why the two kids' falling-in-love will lead to outright unification.  Whose idea it was, what steps are being taken, etc.  But since Smoggy contributes sporadically, I support graduating the article and allowing her to make changes to it knowing that it's already canon. Any objections? Benkarnell 18:05, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * Its like the Castille-Aragon unification. The two heirs marry, so when they ascend to the thrones of their respective kingdoms, the two rulers united by marriage jointly rule both nations. Their first born would then be the heir to the thrones of both nations, uniting the crowns under a single ruler. Thats how the crowns would be united, but being constitutional monarchies it would likely take treaties and such to officially unite the kingdoms. With the Celtic Alliance's claim on the area, as well as New Britain's(though they aren't likely to make good on that claim unless the British Imperial party pushes for it), uniting the nations makes defensive and political sense.--Oerwinde 20:30, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

its becuase the crown prince of Notyhumbra George Domanic Percy is dating Princess zara who is Queen Anne's daughter--Owen1983 17:45, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

Article created by Lahbas. Mitro 03:20, November 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * Since this describes an organization that is just a proposal in-universe, I think it falls within Lahbas' area of creative control, as creator of Superior. Now I don't think that an organization like this has much chance of becoming reality, unless major changes are made to assure potential members that it is not a threat to their independence. Benkarnell 18:10, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm... I must say I have my doubts on the plausibility of such an organisation. With so much unclaimed and unoccupied land around in North America, and therefore a multitude of chances to expand, an International Relations system that is about as anarchic as can get, and nations not being all that interdependent, I don't see what the incentive for these nations would be to cooperate, and I would say they certainly wouldn't do it on a scale as large as this. I think this organisation is overly idealistic when it comes to the specific circumstances of this timeline. --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 20:03, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as graduating ht article is concerned, it doesn't have to work, it just has to be a thing that Superior would propose. I think that's fine.  Benkarnell 23:28, November 25, 2009 (UTC)


 * Formally youre right ben...defining this as being a Superior proposal would allow graduation, indeed. But I hesitate to give an ok if this is not described more in detail...First, we have war going on in Saguenay... and explain me which presidant ( and population) would than euphorize about any "Bring back the US, and integrate all NOrth America into it?-proposal--Xi&#39;Reney 00:27, November 28, 2009 (UTC)00:19, November 28, 2009 (UTC)

So far, I consider this LUAS reminding me too much of the OAS (Organisation of American States) which are present in quite a few TLs around here...and I really agree to KArsten that this is a scale of thinking which is much to idealistic..If you as a Superian or Superior?,or Superiorian? ow are the folks called there??:) have to think about getting trough the next day wit a war goin on quite clos... ow much would you really care about any LUAS like organisation? --Xi&#39;Reney 23:39, November 26, 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, like some games it has gone through developmental hell, and as I have explained the Congress has rejected, or rather simply remained apathetic to the whole proposal. In the end, its success dependes on the outcome of the War in Qubec, if for that matter it is supported by the Congress. Lahbas 00:22, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

I am in the midst of creating a more local form of this alliance. The Dixie Alliance, that of couse only features the Southern United States. Since most of the citystates in the South have but a paragraph describing them on the talkpage, It would encompass most of the South.They would restore (one at a time) the infastructure of these citystates with military speed. When it comes to rascist sates like the neo-Confederates or the Black states, the Virginian leaders follow a creed of Teddy Rosevelt. "Speak softly and carry a big stick". They would first attempt to reason with the diplomatically, and if that fails send a couple Thompson tanks as a show of force. Yankovic270 21:13, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

I have a reputation of been a free thinker here I think the idea is a non starter butmaking it a proplosal By RS will insure graduation but if the conditions are right this will become possible--Owen1983 21:26, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

Superior military articles
See: Republic of Superior Air Force (1983: Doomsday), Republic of Superior Army (1983: Doomsday) and Republic of Superior Navy (1983: Doomsday). There have been some objections regarding the size of the Superior military and the number of vehicles they command. Mitro 03:24, November 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * I think they're fine now that Lahbas clarified that those numbers represent the reserves (defined as most able-bodied adults) and not active personnel. Benkarnell 17:03, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah but there are still the issues involving the number of planes and ships Superior operates. Mitro 18:50, November 30, 2009 (UTC)

the plane numbers have been explained in the Republic of Superior Air Force (1983: Doomsday) talk page --Owen1983 22:41, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
 * Owen haven't you noticed the number of people on that talk page who believe that explanation is too optimistic/implausible? Mitro 03:37, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Canon nation that is finally being fleshed out by Brian. Mitro 03:26, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Article created by Yank. Mitro 03:27, November 24, 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. New Jersey, as always, got the worst of it, lying as it does in the middle of several major metropolitan areas.  It looks like Yank hasn't developed it, anyway.  But based on the infobox, it looks like it was part of the "ethnic Americans re-create Old World culture" craze, something that's been rejected overall.  Benkarnell 18:01, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

It is because they are lead by a group of the American Mafia, many of which came from Italy. Sicily specifically. It isen't implausible that some of these mobsters have fond memories of home. --Yankovic270 18:18, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * If anybody survived in NJ, organized crime bosses would likely be the ones running things soon afterward. But they'd be the bosses of a hardscrabble shantytown, nothing like the rulers of a modern nation-state.  They'd probably use barter (or an economy of "you eat what we say you eat"), not some newfangled "lira" currency.  And like all simple societies, theirs would probably be fluid, mobile, and impermanent.  I could see the mafia guys running their shantytown for a few years after DD, but after that things would probably change as they ran out of bullets and their mechanical devices stopped working and people came and went from the area in search of a land that could yield more food.  Rembember, Yank - this is post-apocalyptic fiction. The whole point is that society collapses and we have to start over from a primitive state.  It's the same reason, by the way, that Virginia can't be the mechanized modern state that you've been trying to describe.  In the affected areas, people are only concerned with food and security, and they have to get both without relying on modern technology.  Benkarnell 18:52, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

Hey Yank, I thought of this today. A full-fledged state anywhere in New Jersey is unlikely - no resources or infrastructure to support that kind of development - but we've had very little detailed work on the seminomadic "clans" now said to inhabit most of North America. Why not a clan led by former New Jersey mafia? After all, the mafia already have "clans". And their family hierarchy is exactly the sort of informal social structure that would survive an Apocalyptic event even while civil government fell apart. So whaddya say? A bilingual Italian-English nomadic clan centered on New Jersey. You could even call them Clan Trenton. Benkarnell 02:50, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

I then want my ex-mafia nomads to eventually find a place to settle down and start a small nationstate. Where should that be? --Yankovic270 03:18, November 27, 2009 (UTC)

Article created by Brian. Mitro 03:28, November 24, 2009 (UTC)

Article created by Riley. Mitro 04:49, November 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * I like it. Benkarnell 16:13, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

Article created by Zeifodd. Zeifodd

I checked it out and the country was hit by one nuke so with a bit of work I would think this would deserve graduation--Owen1983 22:19, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it hard to believe that Bulgaria would only get hit by one nuke. Other Soviet client states were hit by several (like East Germany and ) and I can't think of a good reason why Bulgaria would avoid similar multi-strikes.  Also what does this mean: "Bulgaria somehow survived the doomsday for a week but after a mistake a bomb has falled in Blagoevgrad in the doomsnight."  It seems to suggest that Bulgaria was not actually attacked until a week after Doomsday which doesn't make any sense.  Mitro 15:25, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

It definitely needs work, and I agree that being hit by one nuke only is unlikely. I suggest that there are about four to eight targets, one of them being the capital. The other targets would be other important cities and strategically important locations, major ports, etc. I don't know much about Bulgaria so I can't give exact cities. --DarthEinstein 16:59, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

OK,you are right,there is information that a nuke has hitted Sofia: "Bulgaria somehow survived the doomsday for a week but after a mistake a bomb has falled in Blagoevgrad in the doomsnight." yeah this is weird maybe i wanted to :"Bulgarians have been hit by 5 nukes in the Doomsday.The capital and 4 other big towns were destroyed and abot 2.5 mln have died.Other 3 mln were hitted by the radiation,the other 1 mln have tried to evacuate in Greece,Africa or Turkey." So it's very possible that 500 000 people have survived(from 7.5 mln) and big part of tham want to come back if it's possible. Thanks and commen --Zeifodd 18:50, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Zeif, but your article is still not entirely realistic. First of all, any surviving peasants would have now way of getting to Greece, Turkey, and especially not Africa. They could never get past the nuclear Hell that is Northern Greece. Going west to Serbia, not exactly better. Any survivors would be relegated to their original areas. Sorry, but I doubt any sort of organize government can exist in the Balkans; the only reason Greece survived is because of the islands and the south.
 * Sorry if some of my sentences are scattered-brained. My Mom has Greek Christmas songs blasting, and I mean quite literally too-loud to hear yourself think.

Mr.Xeight 22:56, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

Yes.I see your point,but it is possible for people to escape,not many,might be 10000 but even if they hadn't,there is a huge number of bulgarian emigrants because of the communist government and even today in OTL they are millions.Really,may be the emigrants would prefer stay at safe in South America or Africa,but a little number of them is probable to try to get back their own land or something near it. But the radiation...is a problem.First they are in the western part of Balkans,so the only bombs have fallen in Bulgaria,Greece and Romania.They are less than 9 and it's still possible to make a little society.But really it can be very hard and dangerous to live there,so may be no more than 15-20 thousand people would come back at first.Would be that OK?Leave a shout --Zeifodd 14:47, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

Article created by Brian. User:BrianD

An article I created concerning already established facts on the Siberian space program.--Vladivostok 20:56, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

and
I've added information regarding the leaders of the USSR, basically just the information already established, with a couple of plans for future articles thrown in the mix. I intend to add some visuals, not today, but it is coming.--Vladivostok 17:43, December 4, 2009 (UTC)
 * Any objections to these articles becoming canon?--Vladivostok 21:37, December 5, 2009 (UTC)

=FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES= Archive 1

''This subsection is placed to focus on things covering decisive, vital issues concerning the consistency of 1983: Doomsday as a whole and the Timeline specifically. PLease treat this section with the necessary respect and place things not belonging here below !! Comments of non-registered users will not be tolerated in this Talk section! This TL is not without flaws, and especially in the first time (me myself) a lot of things were inserted out of curiosity or not spending much time on repercussions. And due to the complexity level we have reached with 1983: Doomsday now each of these flaws might have world-spanning consequences... I will focus on identifying and eliminating those flaws/inconsistencies to strengthen the basis of the TL and prevent repercussions on the excellent contents written at all fronts. This of course in the established manner of consensus and discussions! I bring this up as a consequence of the "Canal discussion" further below with the intention keeping an eye on above mentioned things.'' Objections? --Xi&#39;Reney 22:14, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

Population table, in World Country profiles
i think add population numbers in the countries table is good, how many you are is a basic data, not in a exactly number but talk about millons, 33.000.000 or 2.000.000, is not the same, with that our world will be sow more realist, i think. List of countries by past and future population, wikipedia--Fero 20:11, November 20, 2009 (UTC)
 * Population of south american countries added to the World Country profiles, almost the same that real world + inmigration --Fero 02:00, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

Timeline update
We have expanded the history of this world by a lot these last few months. New nations created by editors have given us a better understanding about what is happening in different parts of the globe. The problem is the itself omits a lot of important material from these articles. Now I am not saying we copy and paste the history sections of these articles into the TL, but I think that we do need to update the Timeline to better reflect the new histories that have been written. Mitro 15:58, November 25, 2009 (UTC)

your right mat since the tl was created a lot of new countries have come in to being and the timeline needs updating --Owen1983 21:49, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * Well,if the articles give specific dates or years that should be included. Naturally,there should be no copy-pasting. I can put the specific years of the articles I created if that helps.--Vladivostok 13:54, November 29, 2009 (UTC)

Artice proposals
the one area this OTL could inprove is speeding up article promotions im not sayin articles are premoted imediatly but what I think shoul be happening and is not is is we need to discuss article promotions becuse are current system of tagging them as proposals and dumping them leaves editors to the OTL confused i think reforming thre way we treat articles would be a good step --Owen1983 21:59, November 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the proposal system needs to be changed. The process is clearly stated in the .  If editors are confused they are not reading the guidelines then.  The procedure has been successful in catching many implausible ideas before they can be integrated into the TL.  Mitro 15:29, November 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Owen. I proposed the British Imperial party and British gerneral election weeks ago and still nobodys got anything to say about it. Bob 13:44, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * The proposal system prevents users from adding articles that conflict with established canon or are just plain implausible (such as a German refugee state in Mecca or a French Iowa). If the only downside is that some article remain proposals for a long time while others don't I find that acceptable.  Also Bob, no offense, but you did very little work on the articles after their initial creation and never once actually made any move to request any objections before graduation.  It is no ones job to graduate articles, there is some initiative that needs to be taken by the creators.  Mitro 15:53, November 30, 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mitro - this system has a long track record (as in, DECADE-LONG) and it works well. It prevents excesses that we know Jingoism and Wankerism tend to lead to.  Louisiannan

Were is louisenan
were is Louis I haven't seen him round here --Owen1983 17:48, December 1, 2009 (UTC)
 * Look at the topic directly above this one. He responded to a topic you created yesterday.  Mitro 17:50, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

thanks mat --Owen1983 18:10, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

New Timeline Proposal
I had an idea. This timeline is truely fantastic. This is due to the creativity and imagination of the people who made this timeline. Yet it isn't too mentalist because it is bound by common sense. So I request the assisstance of you chaps for a timeline I made up a few months back. Its called Fifth Anglo-American War and I hope you have a look so it can be equally excellent. And also left to my own devices I'm going to make a bish of it. Bob 21:54, December 1, 2009 (UTC)

Geopolitics and related issues
The geopolitics article needs some serious revising, as well as future plans of friction and conflict. Since I was planing on doing articles for Guatemala and Haiti, I thought of making the Caribbean a major hot-spot of international political conflict. We already have the SAC on one side, communist nations on the other, and the ANZC is never far behind. I don't know which side the East Caribbean Federation will turn to, but my guess is the ANZC. I also think that the Pakistan invasion of Afghanistan and the Siberian intervention will also cause the SAC to have a more aggressive stance towards the USSR. I'd like other editors to say where they think the current situation will lead, escalation or will the blocs back down?--Vladivostok 16:57, December 2, 2009 (UTC)


 * What happened in Afghanistan? I totally missed that one.
 * Central America and the Caribbean are definitely starting to look very interesting for the geopolitician! One of the most interesting things to me is how the ANZC sort of missed the boat when it came time to find satellites in the region.  Siberia definitely wasted no time in forging (and sometimes re-forging) ties with leftist states there, and the SAC probably considers the whole place its natural backyard.  Since we know nothing about Honduras and El Salvador, and the South American nations have no real satellites in the area so far, I think it would malke sense to give pro-SAC governments to both countries.
 * The East Caribbean Federation is an interesting case. It's kind of a regional bloc unto itself.  We know Haiti is economically dependent upon it, and we also know the Dutch Antillean political scene is more-or-less divided between pro-ECF and pro-South America factions - so it's got influence over some of its smaller neighbors.  But the ECF is definitely no match for South America, or for the Siberia-Cuba-Nicaragua bloc once it starts flexing its muscles.  So it seems natural to cooperate with the ANZC, even apart from their shared English language and culture.
 * The Panama Canal will shape what we know about the region. XiReney and I thought we had consensus that the canal remains intact today, but Lahbas has objected, and he raises some good points... It's critical because if there is no Canal, the ANZC has basically no access to the Caribbean and will not play a role as, for example, a patron state of the ECF.  There's also the French Island super-state to consider, which has a potential role to play as a neutral power in the Caribbean alongside Guyane and Costa Rica.  Without a Canal, the French Caribbean islands have no real way to contact French Polynesia, or New Caledonia beyond it.
 * The French Island state was one of the big reasons I (and presumably XiReney) were so uncomfortable about changing the canon that the canal was spared a nuclear attack. XiReney will probably tell you that the French Island idea was written back when the entire timeline was short on details, but the fact remains that it's a very early piece of canon, and I'd rather do what we can to keep it.  Benkarnell 18:23, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * Afghanistan has become a battleground( what a shocker,right?), and pro-Pakistan and pro-USSR forces are fighting for dominance there. And since Pakistan is an ally of the SAC, I think it can serve as an interesting story development. I'm not really familiar with the French islands, I don't know what role they would play, other than mediators. I planned for Haiti to be the focal point of bickering between the blocs. Socialists, SAC and the EFC or ANZC all fighting for dominance. I figured Guatemala was already socialist,because the Yucatan Republic article kind of says so. Fero said something along the lines of the Dominican Republic also being socialist,but that was reverted and frankly, that would be a bit much. I think the Caribbean could be more of a battle between the EFC, SAC and the USSR,since the ANZC doesn't really have firm allies in the region. The Pacific seems more likely a place to have the ANZC totally dominate regional politics.--Vladivostok 21:16, December 2, 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah,and concerning the Canal, I saw the discussion a few days ago. Could their have been an indirect attack? That would damage the Canal severely,but could their have been an effort to repair it before the Benjamin Franklin went on its world tour?--Vladivostok 21:20, December 2, 2009 (UTC)


 * here is the population and area of [Lesser Antilles] (a shorth easy table in spanish) an you can see trehe is not sow many people, and remember Venezuela 30.000.000 in south and Puerto rico in north 3.000.000, Lesser Antilles nations are weak, they can be move to every body to every where, by military or demography or monetary power, "Resistance is futile", i think they have a oportunity off independece if there come a survivar military ship of USA/France/UK in september 1983, ¿every USA military ship is CANZ now? i think september-november1983 was unhead and USS Independence;) can port in there. One of this is a bless in that time List of aircraft carriers of the United States Navy --Fero 00:57, December 3, 2009 (UTC)
 * So,if I understood correctly Fero, there is a chance that American military equipment and vehicles managed to get into the hands of island nations in the Caribbean? Well, it is plausible, but I do think Puerto Rico and perhaps any surviving U.S. Army personnel in Panama would get the majority of the military hardware. Unfortunately, the Puerto Rico article is a stub. I could see Puerto Rico, Mexico and the Dominican Republic forming some kind of alliance to counter the influence of other major powers. Do you have any plans for these articles Fero?--Vladivostok 16:08, December 3, 2009 (UTC)

Virginia is probbably enthusiastically attempting to get its Dixie Alliance to at least Regional Power status. The Virginians are to send expeditions throughout the Southern United States, signing alliances with any survivor states they come across. Yankovic270 16:58, December 3, 2009 (UTC)