Talk:1983: Doomsday

Before you start editing, please read the Editorial Guidelines.
 * Archive 1
 * Archive 2
 * Archive 3
 * Archive 4


 * Former Proposal Page 1

GENERAL DISCUSSION
The following is for general discussion to improve the TL that does not involve artiCle proposals.

WCRB TIMEKEEPERs COUNCIL - open for nominations
to all contributors, viewers, fans of thiis ATL:

As discussed recently, we are trying to further bring order into the 1983: Doomsday timeline and shorten the leash of this beast :)

I would therefore like to open nominations for the WCRB TIMEKEEPERs COUNCIL

I intend this to be the institution which has the right of the "last word" concerning contributions to this TL; especially regarding CANON. The TKC would NOT be a god-like council ruling in their will. It would be responsible for the established Editorial Guidelines to be followed and only decide after certain discussions being going on. So a Timekeeper would be the formal administrator of this Timeline

Further details could be described later, but do not have to be.--Xi&#39;Reney 22:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I am a fan of impair council numbers so no draw situations occur :) So i would favorize 3 or 5Timekeepers I repeat my earlier nominations:


 * Benkarnell,
 * Mitro
 * Xi'Reney, myself ;-).

And maybe Louisiannan in his sysop function as a kind of liason officer to the Ahwiki himself!

Open for nominations (remarks?).. to repeat:this might all sound very formal for a wikia creative site... but we are trying to maintain world order and a our world is really really large!!--Xi&#39;Reney 22:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also nominate ShutUpNavi for the 5th position. Mitro 22:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Time limit on proposals
According to the Guidelines an article/change becomes canon if no one objects to it in a month (30 days). But what if one or more people do object to it, but their objections are satisfied by changes? Does the article have to wait 30 days to become canon or if enough people are ok with it can it become canon earlier? Mitro 23:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, a month is like an eternity in Internet Time. The 30 day guideline is a holdover from Ill Bethisad (on which the policy is modeled).  It's mostly a courtesy to people who might not visit the site all the time.  Lately I've been very active, for example, but I can certainly imagine a time in the future when I'll be busy with other things for long stretches.  When that happens, I'll appreciate the long period to be able to say, "Hang on a minute" to proposals that are lying around.  It works well for IB, which has 75 contributors, most of whom are not entirely active.  I also like it because it fits with the informal one-month guideline we've used for keeping items on the "Recent Additions" and "Newshour" lists on this page.  There are definitely drawbacks, though: a cluttered proposal section, and a possible perception from newcomers that they have to jump through a series of hoops before participating fully.  So in the end, I'm not sure.  Benkarnell 15:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess my next question is, how many contributors does 1983: Doomsday have? Mitro 16:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * researching that. give me a bit of time


 * And you know what, some of those proposals are clearly OK. Maybe a courtesy "Anyone mind if we graduate these pages" first?Benkarnell 02:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Huh, I'm confused. Is this about all those new proposals I added?  I did that because Xi listed them as proposals on the main page and I was just trying to follow the new proposal process.  Mitro 02:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong place. How did that happen?  Moved.  Benkarnell
 * Um...ok. Well my bad I was just trying to follow the proposal process since said new articles were listed on the main page as proposals, sorry to cause any problems.  A couple I think should be discussed IMO but I will add your courtesy question.  Mitro 03:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * sorry Mitro and Ben, i must have been a bit too selfish... I had the idea of sorting the "New additions" on the front page into Proposals and Canon... and put it into force directly...but did not carefully enough research each article...I did not want to confuse you or disapprove your recent work.

If you want we leave this as it was. I would also be ok with this formally "graduating" to canon directly.


 * I just think as the content regarding the fate of the US is still in progress (Navajo, Utah, Midwest) we might mark the US content as proposal...the US is really a complicated issue as so many ideas, interests and preferences come together and have to be interwoven...

--Xi&#39;Reney 08:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, if nobody objects I'll graduate them (them being Bermuda and whatever others have clear consensus to de-proposalize). How about a separate Proposals archive: Talk:1983: Doomsday/Proposal Archive 1. We can put Proposal discussions in there until it gets full. Benkarnell 15:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The separate archive sounds like a great idea. Also if I may make another suggestion: for the graduation process how about having articles graduate if they 1) go for 30 days without any objections on the table or 2) a majority of the members of Xi’s proposed council approve of the articles. What do you think? Mitro 15:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I prefer something less formal like "clear consensus from all involved authors" - at this phase it's best to avoid giving people too much authority. By involved authors I mean that if it's a proposal that affects, say, the Netherlands, then VC deserves a chance to approve it.  Benkarnell

World Country Profiles
I dont know if this is the right place toi say that, but, I think ours articles must/should be more close to List of sovereign states in 1983, in real world wikipedia, especialy when we talk about not nuked countries, they can not just disapier --Fero 03:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Lots of them are there. Really, 99% of Africa remains totally "unexplored" for this TL.  Personally, I'd rather wait for someone who has real ideas develop them, than just put together lists of countries that might limit people later.  Benkarnell 03:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ben, its best to wait for someone to come along and work out their idea and then work it into the canon later then doing it half assed by someone who is not so knowledgeable. Mitro 03:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree as well. not naming any countries does leave the space for creativity open. If you mention something this limits the new possibilities automatically. So not mentioned only means: not yet written about.


 * This brings me to a point: There are a few countriy pages I already named but nothing apart the template is in it... Shall I simply delete them?

--Xi&#39;Reney 08:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Natural Disasters
I was just wondering whether anyone's thought about natural disasters that happened in OTL. Let's say that the nukes weren't powerful enough to cause anything to happen early or later, what happens with the natural disasters? --Gamb1993 21:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Weather type natural disasters are definitely different - the climate has been significantly affected. For geological natural disasters, I think there is a difference of opinion whether nuclear cataclysm would change them.  FWIW, I wrote blurbs on the Tongan volcano of last spring assuming it happened in 1983DD's world just as it did in ours.  Benkarnell 19:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So that means that big tsunami that happened a few years ago still did, right? Mitro 20:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know :-/. It would certainly be _easier_ if geology were the same - it would give the TL some familiar benchmarks, like the tsunami.  Group decision time!  Did Doomsday affect the Earth's geology?  Yes or no?  Benkarnell 20:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I took a geology class my freshmen year of college and never once did we ever discuss the effects of a full scale nuclear war on Earth’s geology. I find that now to be a major flaw in my college education.
 * Honestly I have no idea. The effect of a nuclear war on the Earth’s climate has been well studied/speculated, but I have found little info on geology.  If I can make an educated guess, I would say there is no effect and volcanic eruptions and such would happen on schedule.  Mitro 20:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

New bermudian Flag Poll
This poll is for everyone to vote on about the new flag of Bermuda. The choices are as follows (the pictures are on the main page.) The poll will be up until the 20th of June. New Flag of Bermuda Option One Option Two Option Three Option Four Option Five


 * Although I don't see a reason to remove the Union Jack at all. It's not like they're threatened with forcible inclusion into some resurgent British Empire. --Louisiannan 19:04, 15 June 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.

Unity League (1983: Doomsday)
I have to say that I'm really struggling to think of the Greeks and Turks getting all chummy because of the nuclear exchange -- I mean the whole Cyprus debacle was barely 10 years old when things went south. And it's not like the anger and hatred between the Greeks and Turks was something of the 20th century -- it's a long-standing, centuries (millenia?) old hatred between the two. --Louisiannan 14:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * But the governments have been coming together in the 20th century. Kemal Ataturk & Eleftherios Venizelos themselves strove for an alliance between the two nations. Things have changed since 1823, and a nuclear explosion showed the neccessity of working together.

Mr.Xeight 14:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Only since the late 90's, and more recently -- and Ataturk and Venizelos were prior to WWII -- and it seemed to me that things had soured since then. There has been a lot of international peer pressure for Turkey and Greece to "kiss and make up" -- peer pressure that wouldn't exist, IMHO*, with the world going up in flames.  Obviously this is my opinion, and should only be taken as such, but the sudden turn around of Greece and Turkey because of the nuclear war is a really tough stretch for my understanding of the situation -- it'd be like the Nazis turning around and saying to the Jews, "Oh, gosh.  Sorry!  Let us set you survivors up in palaces and make you cabinet ministers!" and Hitler marrying a jewess and raising jewish children -- it's just REALLY hard for me to accept.


 * But it's my opinion, and I guess you can disregard it. --Louisiannan 14:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No, we need to keep this as realistic as possible. What if we make this one of the most recent nations; formed on in the last 2-5 years? The provisional government of the Aegean Islands and the Turkish equivalent can stay together until recently. At least this way there can be an international community to pressure the 2 into peace. Mr.Xeight 15:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've mentioned this elsewhere, but both Turkey and Greece were NATO members. It's a relevant fact, anyhow.  There would probably be some high-level support for partnership, but the ethnic angst of the masses could very well make such good intentions impossible to carry out.  Benkarnell

wikipedia quote:The Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia are two UK-administered areas on the island of Cyprus that comprise the Sovereign Base Areas military bases of the United Kingdom. The bases were retained by the UK following the granting of independence and the eventual transition of Cyprus from a crown colony to an independent sovereign state. The United Kingdom demanded and succeeded in continuing to occupy a portion of Cyprus in the form of military bases because of the strategic location of Cyprus in the Mediterranean Sea in pursuit of UK interests. end of wikipedia quote that british strategis base in mediterranean sea was not nuked? i do not think sow and whit that atack cyprus is close almost dead to start any "imperial league--Fero 12:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think as we consider this proposal we must also consider this article First Gulf War (1983: Doomsday) which predates the Unity League and may have a significant effect on the history of the region. Mitro 03:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I finally figured it out. What if the surviving Greeks (who would flee to Cyprus and the rest of the Greek islands) and the Turks (who would go inland or to some Greek islands I'm sure) within the late '90s began sending colonists to bombed out Constantinople. There the two groups indepedently built up a settlement there. However as the 2000s rolled problems resulted from who officially has right to the city. Cyprus (who had flourished) sent neutral (the British and American survivors) to figure it out. Now what if the two governments, only shadows of their old selves decided to form a (it can be a looseone) federation. Now we have the Unity League. What if in the last 2 years nuclear survivor nations join this federation which offers free trade, aide to the people, military protection, etc. The capital can be Constantinople which by now with floods of refugees would I predict have around the same area & pop. as DC; 70 miles with half-a-million people. Seem reasonable?
 * Why would they recolonize a nuked city? Wouldn't increasing food production be a higger priority so any colonies built would be in rural areas?  Mitro 14:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Well we could build New Constantinople as an agrarian city chosen only out of certain nostalgia. Mr.Xeight 14:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Is the land in Thrace good farmland to begin with? I mean it might already be damaged due to the nuclear radiation that spread across the area.  In all honesty we should shy away from reoccupying destroyed cities.  Mitro 14:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I know the coastland of Bulgaria (which holds chunks of Thrace) is considered the breadbasket of East Europe; though radiation might stop that short. Would any of the Aegean Islands be a goodd place for the Federation to be born within? Mr.Xeight 14:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Transylvania (1983: Doomsday)
Alright just to let everyone know this is how I plan on doing this page.


 * 1) Since Romania is a Warsaw Pact nation the capital at Bucharest is hit along with the navel port of Constanţa. The country is also badly effected by near by nuclear explosions at the foreign cities of Sofia, Budapest, and Chişinău. Radioactive fallout is generally blown east, making things worse for most of Romania.
 * 2) Transylvania, Oltenia, and Banat are the only functioning regions left. Here Yugoslavia to the west acts as a buffer zone to the fallout as well as the Carpathian Mountains. Once Yugoslavia closes their borders the people here try and fortify themselves in the central Carpathians (i.e. where Transylvania proper is) with whatever military equipment is left.
 * 3) After survival is secured the country is left with an Authoritarian/Communist provisional government. With nearby Hungry destroyed the Hungarian population doubles from refugees leading to a population that is 40% Hungarian, 50% Romanian (with 10% other). This causes a wide degree of ethnic conflict, and a near civil war breaks out.
 * 4) However before things get too bad everyone realizes that the government is actually inciting the conflict, trying  to keep people divided, homogeneous, and dependent on the government to keep themselves in power. This severely backfires and leads the people to unite to defeat the Communists.
 * 5) The ethnic problems are finally solved (for the most part) after it is decided to make Transylvania a federal republic. Since almost all of Romania if left in or just outside Transylvania it is decided to rename the country after it, using old Transylvanian symbols again as well as promoting a shared Transylvanian history to help unite the Hungarian/Romanian population.
 * 6) Finally Transylvania comes into contact with the outside world via the western border with Yugoslavia (or Serbia, or what ever country we decide to have left there). It allies itself with this country, giving it access to supplies it needs to become first world again. Transylvania eventually joins (or tries to join) the L.O.N.

So do you think that is good/realistic enough?--ShutUpNavi 17:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I really don't see Yugolsavia survivng as a functional government that long after the DD. Add the healthy does of radiaition its getting from the west, the mass of refugees from its neighbors and the ethnic conflicts already in place and it just equals doom for that nation.  Mitro 17:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think Yugoslavia could have survived more easily than you said. First I know that the refugees would be the biggest problem at first, but if a puny country like Switzerland could survive by expelling/killing refugees I'm sure Yugoslavia could do the same. Again the Swiss survived the fallout as well, and Yugoslavia would probably receive even less thanks to it's position in the Balkans/East Europe.

Secondly nationalisms didn't really become a problem until the late 1980s. In fact Yugoslavia was quite unified until after the 1984 Olympics. Perhaps because of the disaster they never really rise up (after all it's a bad idea to try and secede or start an ethnic conflict with all those refugees and raiders around). Also perhaps the change causes Yugoslavia to remain communist and get better leadership. Anyways do you have any problem with my idea for Transylvania itself, or is it just Yugoslavia? If so we could always start a new Proposal page to argue about what happened to the Yugoslavs.--ShutUpNavi 20:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I’d have to disagree with your assessment of the stability of Yugoslavia. I think there is evidence to show that cracks were already beginning to appear by 1980.  The environmental, economic, and political ramifications of DD will only speed up the process.  You are right though that refugees might not be a problem once Yugoslavia closes their border, but I’m not sure if Yugoslavia’s geographic position would put it in a safer place then Switzerland.  Almost all of its neighbors were hit by blasts, plus the weather would carry fallout from Italy, Southern France, Portugal, and Spain.


 * As for Transylvania, I actually have no problem with the article outside mentions of Yugoslavia. I think I will start a discussion about the fate of the country since there are conflicting histories about the country (see the Unity League (1983: Doomsday).  Mitro 20:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Republic Of San Juan (1983: Doomsday)
I generally approve of this article; my only real concern is the flag. It just looks weird. Is it native to the islands or is it an original creation? Mitro 13:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Approved IMO! but another flag would be advantageous, as Mitro said. This is my attempt at a San Juan flag, the stars represent the islands. What do you think? Mitro 23:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The new flag with the stars almost forms our US' borders- in a very abstract, constellation sort of way. Mr.Xeight 01:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Climate (1983: Doomsday)
The following proposal actually appears on the article:

It is proposed the following for the Climate of 1983: Doomsday -- subject to review and ratification, at which point this article will be edited/modified to reflect consensus and otherwise encapsulate the atmosphere of the time.


 * 1) Nuclear Winter, though feared, did not occur.
 * 2) A restructuring of the atmospheric cells because of the war, causes monsoon type weather up to the horse latitudes -- the Polar cells and Ferrell Cells merging, and the Equatorial Hadley cells merging together, eliminating the doldrums.
 * 3) Increased rainfall in the affected regions result in the filling of endorheic basins, producing a new version of Lakes Lahontan, Bonneville, and other lakes throughout the world.
 * 4) The Caspian and Aral Seas are gradually restored due to the increasing wet weather.
 * 5) Changes in regions that would otherwise be deserts or lush.
 * 6) Examples: Deserts of Utah, Nevada, Arizona, etc. The Sahara and a resurgence of Lake Chad.
 * 7) Increasing glaciation in the mountains would offset the proposed rise in temperature, somewhat.
 * 8) Increasing glaciation and freshwater bodies (Lakes Eyre, Lahontan, Bonneville, etc.) would likely result in a lowering of the sea level (minimal) and possibly an increase in salinity (minimal).

French Foreign Legion (1983: Doomsday)
This article is very confusing. I'm not sure if even the nation's mentioned are a part of this TL. Still the article may be rewritten to better fit what info is known about France. Mitro 02:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Canada (1983: Doomsday)
Since I've been doing some work on this article I want to submit it to the proposal process. Also I'm recommending some changes from the established canon. First off since on a few pages it appears that Halifax was hit, I don't think Nova Scotia could survive as one of the Canada Remainder Provinces. I think the surviving provinces/territories out east would be Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and Baffin Island. I haven't made said changes yet because I wanted to run it past the group. Take a look and tell me what you think. Mitro 02:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * i think in the article of every nation, there we must write the legal list of cities or towns or military bases nuked, Canada (1983: Doomsday) is the best place to tell the word what was nuked in northernorther america, and there is where i see when i wan know that, not in the incomplete timeline our the incomplete nuked map (but i was added nuked cities of japan in that map! and you?--Fero 12:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I added the list of targets and made some other small changes. No map though since I’m not that good with them but if anyone else would like to try and tackle it I’d appreciate it. So is the article acceptable? Mitro 13:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There are some small issues being discussed, but I think the basic idea is sound. Benkarnell 20:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Most particularly, I would like commentary on this map:

My idea is that with the recent arrival of a LoN envoy in Monaco, France might be more inclined to move toward setting up a new capital, etc, in cooperation with the G.I.E. that currently resides in the South Pacific. What say ye? --Louisiannan 17:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Are the various shades for some nations stand for actually administered and claimed territory? Mitro 17:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Mitro, that's exactly it. The lighter color is the territory they claim to administer, gray territory is claimed by more than one, and the more rich color is actually held territory.  Louisiannan 22:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * wikipedia quote British Isles:There are about 136 permanently inhabited islands in the group, the largest two being Great Britain and Ireland.


 * Great Britain is to the east and covers 216,777 km2 (83,698 square miles), over half of the total landmass of the group.


 * Ireland is to the west and covers 84,406 km2 (32,589 square miles).

end of wikipedia quote and many people survival in that island and nation up in there, I think somebod, most that 1 million people must survival in the nuked France, not counting Monaco--Fero 18:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that a lot more than 1 million people will survive in France. While the population centers of Paris, Lyon and Marseille were hit, that would still leave approximately 25-30 million French to survive and fight it out from 1983 to today.  I'm betting the population would be in the 10-15 million range after all's said and done. --Louisiannan 18:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 10-15 million seems a lot. First are we sure those are the only cities/military bases likely to be hit? Second how urban is France, would it be urbanized enough that the indirect effects of a nuclear war would lead to even more deaths?  Not trying to rain on your parade, just concerned about the number of survivors.  Mitro 23:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * France has 30 million communes for its 60 million inhabitants, right now -- and I don't think the number of communes has changed since 1983 -- just the population. While much of France is urbanized, I know that the big centralizing of cities and agriculture saw an uptick in the late 20th century. If we based the nuclear strikes on the initial map proposed by whomever it was, then I think that an initial survivorship of 20 million is acceptable -- it would definitely wane, and the current population may just be reaching into the 10-15 million range after dipping lower.  That's my take on it. Louisiannan 14:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the map, it's well made and such small survivor communities forming small states are exactly how I envision the northern hemisphere to look like. Only thing that bothers me is that the Basque state stops precisely at what used to be the Spanish border. I don't think these newly arisen states would care where the pre-Doomsday borders where much, is there a reasoning behind the fact that the Franco-Spanish border is retained? --Karsten&#160;vK (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've subsequently changed that -- I just wasn't sure where was nuked in Spain before I drew up the map. I've made those adjustments at this point. --Louisiannan 19:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sports: International Olympic Committee (1983: Doomsday), Football/Soccer Clubs (1983: Doomsday), 2010 FIFA World Cup (1983: Doomsday)
With the World Cup articles somewhat popular, I've been thinking about other sports in the TL and came upon too barely formed ideas.

The first I found while scrolling through the News page. Apparently some editor suggested the first Olympic games since DD would happen in 2010 at Auckland. Now whether that it would take so long for that to happen I will leave to you, but I did create a International Olympic Committee (1983: Doomsday), which was at the time a red link on the news page.

Second is this article: Football/Soccer Clubs (1983: Doomsday). This was made by whoever made that incredibly implausible Mancunia nation, but I think it might still be salvaged. It could be a list of football/soccer clubs from across the world.

As for the 2010 World Cup, I guess the main question is would it be held in the Celtic Alliance and who is playing?Mitro 23:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Federation of the British (1983: Doomsday), Rhodesia (1983: Doomsday), Raleizia (1983: Doomsday), New Britannia (1983: Doomsday) and
How about a successor state to the UK, set up as a British homeland underground.
 * Underground? Underground from what?  The Celtic Alliance?  Mitro 20:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Literally underground? A semi-discussion started up at .  I'm not sure which is a higher priority for Mumby: an Anglo state in Africa or a UK survivors' state (since a UK survivors' state in Africa - at least, one on the scale that he wants - seems to be ixnayed).  Either way, I think that, , and  should be considered provisional pages/proposals for now.  Benkarnell 20:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree. --Louisiannan 21:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree as well, also if it meant literally underground how would this technology come about? I mean the thought of moving 98% of the population by boat was mildly out there but this is bigger. Unless if you mean sort of underground bunkers around the country that somehow keep in contact, but even this is still a stretch to me, just my opinion though. --Gamb1993 21:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I added to South Africa articles into this discussion because they seem to be linked. Actually there were (are) plans to get the Royal Family out of Britain in case of a nuclear war. I have not read them myself, but I have seem vague mentions of them in other works. So the idea of some of the Royal Family surviving and making it to a new refuge is probably plausible. Still the large amount of people who apparently went with them seems highly implausible and seems eerily similar to SM Stirling's The Peshawar Lancers. No matter what all three of these articles need to be consolidated. I realize that to some it appears that African nations have a habit of changing their names but the current setup seems unlikely. Mitro 01:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I added the actual South Africa page to this section, since Bob wrote it to harmonize with his other pages. Benkarnell
 * I never wrote the South Africa page.It was just there when I came across it.Bob 12:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I’m sorry but the UK article is completely implausible. Do you know how many years it would take to dig the tunnels and make them able to support human habitation when there wasn’t a NUCLEAR war? With the radiation poisoning, starvation, disease and brigands roaming the countryside the only idea the surviving British had was to dig underground bunkers? No this article should not be canon as it is. Mitro 14:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Republic of Saguenay
AS per the suggestion I made a few months back, here is a proposal fot the unrecognised Republic of Saguenay.--Marcpasquin 17:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Federation of the British (1983: Doomsday)
A survivor kingdom of the British. Recently created from many republics and city states. All of these small states lived underground to escape the radiation. The inhabitants tend to be weak and stunted due to lack of nutrition. Now they have begun to come out of their old hidey holes and look out on the world they left behind and to make it a better place.
 * I bring up the above question/concern -- how did the British manage to dig these hidey holes to be able to survive in the first place? --Louisiannan 21:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I especially want to know how they managed to dig deep enough to fit 15 MILLION people. Also both Thatcher and Brown would be most likely in London in 1983, meaning both are more likely to be dead then running a British survivor nation.  Mumby/Bob, there has to be a more logical successor state to Britain, why not just have some members of the government/royal family survive on the Isle of Wight (of course now I’m stealing from Stirling)?  Mitro 21:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC

Can’t argue with what everyone else said. The things stated on this page are beyond what any modern country could technologically achieve, let alone a post nuclear war Britain could do. Plus this goes against the theme set up in this timeline about the world being a lawless and deprived place. That can’t happen if there are tens of millions of people living happily in one of the most nuked countries in the world. This has goot to go.--ShutUpNavi 15:01, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Second British Raj
How about a British empire based in Nepal?
 * Why would it be in Nepal? Mitro 12:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why a British Empire? If just before DD we had lost most of the Empire why would we want it back after? The British aren't tyrants, we'd just want peace I expect. But if anything I think this'd need to be forced upon the Indians, and I don't think the military would be able to do that. --Gamb1993 12:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)